Authorizing the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record a section-by-section analysis of the resolution as well as a July 21, 2014, memorandum prepared by the Office of the Parliamentarian for the Over-Criminalization Task Force of the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. Res. 5

Adopting Rules for the 114th Congress

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Resolved Clause.

This section provides that the Rules of the 113th Congress

are the Rules of the 114th Congress, except with the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and

orders contained in sections 3, 4, and 5.

Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.

Disclosure of Foreign Payments to Witnesses. Subsection

(a)(1) requires, to the greatest extent practicable,

nongovernmental witnesses to disclose payments or contracts

to the witness or an organization they represent originating

from foreign governments received in the current and

preceding two calendar years, to the extent that such

information is relevant to the subject matter of, and the

witness' representational capacity at, that hearing.

While failure to comply fully with this requirement would

not give rise to a point of order against the witness

testifying, it could result in an objection to including the

witness's written testimony in the hearing record in the

absence of such disclosure.

Jurisdictional Changes. Subsection (a)(2) adds language to

the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdictional statement

with respect to the criminalization of conduct.

The Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction over criminal

penalties and criminal law enforcement would remain

unchanged. That is, the committee would maintain its existing

jurisdiction over measures that create or repeal a crime, and

over measures that alter criminal penalties with regard to

crimes already existing in law.

The rules change is intended to cover measures that alter

the elements of a crime so as to criminalize new conduct and,

in so doing, trigger an existing criminal penalty. This rules

change is not intended to cover measures that merely supply

the regulatory framework or address the regulatory

underpinnings of the overall enforcement scheme. Past

measures proposing merely to adjust the elements of such a

crime--as opposed to adjusting the penalty for commission of

the crime--have been out of the jurisdictional reach of the

Committee on the Judiciary. Even though such measures have

left the criminal penalty unchanged, they have nonetheless

subjected new conduct to that criminal penalty. In other

words, new conduct was criminalized. If the relatively rare

practice of criminalizing new conduct within the framework of

existing penalties is left unchecked, it calls into question

the efficacy of the Committee on the Judiciary's

jurisdictional statement in providing a comprehensive look at

criminal penalties and criminal law enforcement. Hence, a

rule X statement of ``criminalization'' is the most

appropriate way to address this circumstance.

The jurisdiction of other committees over the elements of a

crime--particularly in the context of a regulatory scheme and

outside of title 18, United States Code--would remain the

same, except that it potentially would be shared with the

Committee on the Judiciary in some instances. In that

respect, it is similar to the criminalization of new conduct

accompanied by a new criminal penalty; this change is to

ensure that it is the act of criminalizing conduct, and not

just the penalties themselves, that gives rise to a

jurisdictional interest by the Committee on the Judiciary.

This rules change is not intended to alter existing

jurisdiction over any enforcement scheme that falls outside

of the ambit of criminal law enforcement. Rather, it is to

confirm that the creation of a new crime subject to criminal

law enforcement is what gives rise to the Committee on the

Judiciary's interest, and not merely the establishment or

modification of the penalty.

For instance, the change is intended to address a situation

analogous to H.R. 2492 of the 112th Congress, which addressed

attendance at animal fighting events through amendments to

the Animal Welfare Act--compiled in title 7 of the United

States Code--and to title 18. That measure was referred to

both the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on the

Judiciary. Portions of that measure were later included in

H.R. 2642 of the 113th Congress and addressed a type of

animal fighting to be covered by the Animal Welfare Act, but

did not amend the existing criminal penalty in the Animal

Welfare Act and did not touch title 18. As a result, the

Committee on the Judiciary did not receive a referral of that

measure.

Committees with jurisdiction over a regulatory statute will

continue to exercise that jurisdiction, and the interest of

the Committee on the Judiciary will extend to the creation of

a new crime without a change to an existing penalty only to

the same extent it would to creation of a new crime with an

accompanying penalty prior to the 114th Congress.

The subsection adds language to the Committee on

Appropriations' jurisdictional statement with respect to

certain loan obligations and new loan guarantees with a

textual reference to section 504(b) of the Congressional

Budget Act.

Clarifying the Jurisdiction of the Committee on House

Administration. Subsection (a)(3) clarifies the Committee on

House Administration's jurisdiction over the Chief

Administrative Officer.

Committee Activity Reports. Subsection (a)(4) reduces the

frequency of committee activity reports from two times per

Congress to one time per Congress.

Dissenting Views. Subsection (a)(5) codifies current

practice by updating the rule regarding supplemental,

minority, or additional views to include ``dissenting''

views.

Consolidating Requirements for Written Rules. Subsection

(a)(6) requires committees to include in their written rules

pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule XI certain audio and

visual coverage rules described in clause 4(f) of rule XI and

formerly required by such clause.

Conforming Committee and House Broadcasting Standards.

Subsection (a)(7) conforms the language in clause 4(b) of

rule XI with clause 2(c) of rule V to ensure consistent

application of broadcasting standards.

Eliminating the Point of Order Against Considering

Appropriations Measures without Printed Hearings. Subsection

(a)(8) eliminates the point of order against the

consideration of appropriations measures without printed

hearings. This information is largely available through

archived broadcasts, testimony, and other documents available

on the Appropriations Committee's website and the public

hearings themselves.

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Subsection

(a)(9) increases the size of the committee to 22 members,

with not more than 13 from the same party.

Committee on Ethics. Subsection (a)(10) prohibits the

Committee on Ethics from taking action that would deny a

person any rights or protections provided under the

Constitution of the United States of America.

Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. Subsection (b) updates the

authorization for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to

conform to current practice and codifies a separate order of

the 113th Congress.

Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Incorporate

Macroeconomic Scoring. Subsection (c) requires the

Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation,

to the extent practicable, to incorporate the macroeconomic

effects of ``major legislation'' into the official cost

estimates used for enforcing the budget resolution and other

rules of the House. The subsection requires, to the extent

practicable, a qualitative assessment of the long-term

budgetary and macroeconomic effects of ``major legislation'',

which is defined to cover legislation that causes a gross

budgetary effect in any fiscal year covered by the budget

resolution that is equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of

the projected GDP for that year. This subsection also allows

the chair of the Committee on the Budget, or in the case of

revenue legislation the House member serving as the Chair or

Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to designate

``major legislation'' for purposes of this rule.

This subsection also repeals the existing provision in

clause 3(h)(2) of rule XIII that requires a macroeconomic

impact analysis of revenue legislation, which is superseded

by the new rule.

Providing for Reconvening Authority for the House of

Representatives. Subsection (d) allows the Speaker, after

consultation with the Minority Leader, to reconvene the House

during an adjournment of three days or less, at a time

other than previously appointed. This codifies separate

orders from the 112th and 113th Congresses.

Providing Conference Committees with Time to Reach

Agreement. Subsection (e) modifies clause 7(c)(1) of rule

XXII by providing conference committees 45 calendar days and

25 legislative days after the formation of a conference to

reach agreements before additional motions to instruct

managers may be offered.

Contents of Committee Reports Showing Changes to Existing

Law. Subsection (f) requires that a Ramseyer print to show

the entire text of amended or repealed sections of a statute

along with the proposed changes.

Mandatory Ethics Training for New Members. Subsection (g)

requires that new Members of

the House, in addition to employees, complete ethics

training.

Technical and Conforming Changes. Subsection (h)(1)

conforms the standing rules to reflect the name in statute of

the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). Subsection (h)(2)

updates an outdated statutory citation and removes a

reference inadvertently left in place at the start of the

113th Congress, which is no longer necessary due to the

enactment of the STOCK Act.

Section 3. Separate Orders.

Independent Payment Advisory Board. Subsection (a)

eliminates provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act

that limit the ability of the House to determine the method

of consideration for a recommendation from the Independent

Payment Advisory Board or to repeal the provision in its

entirety.

Staff Deposition Authority for Certain Committees.

Subsection (b) provides the Committees on Energy and

Commerce, Financial Services, Science, Space, and Technology,

and Ways and Means deposition authority to be conducted by a

member or committee counsel during the first session of the

114th Congress. Depositions taken under this authority shall

be subject to regulations issued by the chair of the

Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional Record.

Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials

Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the

United States. Subsection (c) clarifies the procedures of the

House upon receipt of Article V memorials from the States by

directing the Clerk to make each memorial, designated by the

chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, electronically

available and organized by State of origin and year of

receipt.

In carrying out section 3(c) of House Resolution 5, it is

expected that the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary

will be solely charged with determining whether a memorial

purports to be an application of the legislature of a state

calling for a constitutional convention. The Clerk's role

will be entirely administrative. The chair of the Committee

on the Judiciary will only designate memorials from state

legislatures (and not petitions from individuals or other

parties) as it is only state legislatures that are

contemplated under Article V of the Constitution.

In submitting the memorials to the Clerk, the chair of the

Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter

with each memorial indicating it has been designated under

section 3(c) of House Resolution 5. The Clerk will make

publicly available the memorial and the transmission letter

from the chair. Ancillary documentation from the state or

other parties is not expected to be publicized.

The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary is also

permitted to designate memorials from earlier Congresses to

be made publicly available under the same procedure.

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

Subsection (d) carries forward the prohibition from the 112th

and 113th Congresses against consideration of a general

appropriation bill that does not include a ``spending

reduction'' account, the contents of which is a recitation of

the amount by which, through the amendment process, the House

has reduced spending in other portions of the bill and

indicated that such savings should be counted towards

spending reduction. It provides that other amendments that

propose to increase spending in accounts in a general

appropriations bill must include an offset of equal or

greater value.

Budget Matters. Subsection (e)(1) provides that titles III,

IV, and VI, of House Concurrent Resolution 25 (113th

Congress), as well as the allocations, aggregates, and

appropriate levels contained in the chair of the Committee on

the Budget's statement submitted in the Congressional Record

on April 29, 2014, as adjusted, will continue to have force

and effect until a budget resolution for fiscal year 2015 is

adopted. This subsection also provides that the chair of the

Committee on the Budget may revise allocations, aggregates,

and appropriate levels for measures maintaining the Highway

Trust Fund, provided such a measure does not increase the

deficit over the 11-year window and revise allocations,

aggregates, and appropriate levels to take into account

updated CBO baselines.

Subsection (e)(2) carries forward from the 113th Congress

the requirement that prevents the Committee of the Whole from

rising to report a bill to the House that exceeds an

applicable allocation of new budget authority under section

302(b) (Appropriations subcommittee allocations) as estimated

by the Budget Committee and creates a point of order.

Continuing Litigation Authorities. Subsection (1) addresses

continuing litigation in which the House is a party.

Paragraph (1) authorizes the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform, through the House Office of General

Counsel, to continue litigation to enforce a subpoena against

the Attorney General related to the ``Fast and Furious''

investigation. This lawsuit was authorized by H. Res. 706

(112th Congress). It also authorizes the chair of the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (when

elected) to take certain actions necessary to continue the

litigation. Paragraph (2) authorizes the House to act as

the successor in interest with respect to ongoing civil

actions regarding the implementation of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit was

authorized by H. Res. 676 (113th Congress). The subsection

also carries forward the authorities provided by H. Res.

676 (113th Congress) to remain in effect in the 114th

Congress. Paragraph (3) authorizes Michael W. Sheehy to

provide testimony in an ongoing criminal action in

accordance with authorizations from the Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence in the 112th and 113th

Congresses.

Duplication of Federal Programs. Subsection (g) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the authorization of a

committee chair to request that the Government Accountability

Office perform a duplication analysis of any bill or joint

resolution referred to that committee. The subsection also

requires committee reports to include a statement on whether

any provision of the measure establishes or reauthorizes a

program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of

another Federal program. This order has been modified to

allow for a statement that no program is being established or

reauthorized for purposes of complying with the order.

Estimates of Direct Spending. Subsection (h) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the prohibition of

consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, or

any proposed amendment to or conference report thereon,

unless it includes specified information and estimates

related to direct spending, including means-tested direct

spending and nonmeans-tested direct spending. The subsection

also requires the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

publish a description in the Congressional Record of covered

programs

Disclosure of Directed Rulemakings. Subsection (i) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the requirement that

committee reports on bills or joint resolutions are to

include an estimate of the number of directed rule makings

required by the measure. The subsection defines ``directed

rule making'' to include those rule makings specifically

directed to be completed by a provision in the legislation,

but does not include a grant of discretionary rule making

authority.

Subcommittees. Subsection (j) waives clause 5(d) of rule X

to allow the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs

up to seven subcommittees and the Committees on

Transportation and Infrastructure and Agriculture up to six

subcommittees. Other than the inclusion of the Committee on

Agriculture, this is similar to provisions carried in the

rules package during the last several Congresses.

Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (k)

continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility

that is made available exclusively to Members, former

Members, officers, and former officers of the House and their

spouses to any former member, former officer, or spouse who

is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of

1995.

Numbering of Bills. Subsection (1) reserves the first 10

numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) for assignment by

the Speaker and the second 10 numbers (H.R. 11 through H.R.

20) for assignment by the Minority Leader.

Inclusion of U.S. Code Citations. Subsection (m) adds, to

the maximum extent practicable, a requirement for parallel

citations for amendatory instructions to Public Laws and

Statutes at Large that are not classified in the U.S. Code.

Broadening Availability of Legislative Documents in Machine

Readable Formats. Subsection (n) instructs the appropriate

officers and committees to continue to advance government

transparency by taking further steps to publish documents of

the House in machine-readable formats.

Temporary Designation. Subsection (o) designates a

temporary location for documents to be made publicly

available pending the official designation by the Committee

on House Administration under clause 3 of rule XXIX.

Congressional Member Organization Transparency Reform.

Subsection (p) allows participating Members to enter into

agreements with eligible Congressional Member Organizations

for the purpose of payment of salaries and expenses. The

subsection requires the Committee on House Administration to

promulgate regulations, consistent with current law, to carry

out this subsection.

Social Security Solvency. Subsection (q) creates a point of

order against legislation that would reduce the actuarial

balance of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust

Fund, but provides an exemption to the point of order if a

measure improves the overall financial health of the combined

Social Security Trust Funds. This subsection would protect

the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund from

diversion of its funds to finance a broken Disability

Insurance system.

Section 4. Committees, Commissions, and House Offices.

Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012

Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. Subsection (a) carries forward

the select committee as authorized by H. Res. 567 (113th

Congress) as it existed at the end of the 113th Congress.

Additionally, the subsection provides the select committee

authority to adopt a rule or motion allowing for a ten-minute

rule for the questioning of witnesses.

House Democracy Partnership. Subsection (b) reauthorizes

the House Democracy Assistance Commission, now known as the

House Democracy Partnership.

Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Subsection (c)

reauthorizes the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

Office of Congressional Ethics. Subsection (d) reauthorizes

the Office of Congressional

Ethics (OCE) for the 114th Congress and clarifies that term

limits do not apply to members of the OCE. The subsection

reaffirms that a person subject to a review by the Office of

Congressional Ethics has a right to be represented by

counsel, and establishes that invoking such right is not to

be held as a presumption of guilt. The subsection also

prohibits the Office of Congressional Ethics from taking

action that would deny a person any rights or protections

provided under the Constitution of the United States of

America.

Section 5. Additional Order of Business.

Reading of the Constitution. This section allows the

Speaker to recognize Members for the reading of the

Constitution on any legislative day through January 16, 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I, too, want to welcome the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, as we begin another session in this new year. I am delighted to know that the Rules Committee will be ready and available to handle the pieces of legislation that the gentlewoman spoke of in terms of helping the American people to understand what Congress' role is in working with the President to help with policies that will get this country back to work.

Mr. Speaker, just a year ago, we recognized as we came back to Washington that we were at a GDP growth of a negative GDP. We had to fight out of these terrible, terrible tax increases and the things that are occurring to our economy.

The American people found new footing this year because it was the Republican majority who gave new meaning and life to ``we are going to make this place, meaning Washington, D.C., and government, smaller and make things bigger and better for people back home.''

We have now lived through what has become a reality with Republican policies on energy, for a competitive marketplace for there to be alternative fuels that are available that have dominated the marketplaces and put other countries on their heels and have given an advantage to American drivers who are here, families who are trying to make a go of it. The price of gasoline at the pump has dropped.

We still have much to do. As we know of the first year that President Obama was in office, food prices began doubling, energy prices began doubling. Republicans now are giving the American people a sense that we can manage our country better, so that they cannot only have a job and keep a job, but that they can take care of their families.

We are going to aim this year on a lot of things; but today, we are here for the rules package that will enable the opportunities for all of our Members to know what the rules are and to become engaged.

Four years ago, Mr. Speaker, we pledged to the American people that Speaker Boehner, through the rules of this House and our package that we would have, would allow Members from both sides of the aisle to engage in robust debate under an open process.

I am proud to announce that in following through with that promise, which is what we have done, we now have a new, larger group of Republicans because of the hard work we have done and have sold to the American people about effectively managing their affairs in Washington,

Mr. Speaker, there they go again, more tax increases, bigger government, the Democrat party. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, Republicans are going to use a doctor to get the budget done this time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the young chairman from the Budget Committee.

I do have one additional speaker, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Overall, this package demonstrates Republicans' commitment to an open process from Members on both sides of the aisle on the issues of the day that need to be debated, on legislation that will make a difference in the lives of the American people.

We have heard from the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee and the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I believe this is a great package.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad and deeply troubling day for this House of Representatives. The Republican leadership of this body is asking us to take the unprecedented and unjustified step of holding a sitting Attorney General in contempt of Congress.

They are doing so based on a completely partisan ``investigation.''

This is a witch hunt, pure and simple, Mr. Speaker, and it has no place in this House. Eric Holder is a good and decent and honorable public servant. He has reinvigorated the Justice Department, especially on efforts to stop partisan voter suppression across the country.

I find it interesting that the Republican leadership has scheduled this nonsense for the floor today when it is certain to be buried under the avalanche of news and reaction to the Supreme Court's health care decision and the highway bill and the student loan bill and everything else. Is it possible that the Republican leadership doesn't really want the American people seeing what the House is doing today? Why else would they feel the need to rush this to the floor a mere week after the House Oversight Committee voted along strictly partisan lines to adopt the Republican contempt citation?

Let me say at the outset that there are certain things that all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree on. We all agree that the death of Agent Terry was a terrible tragedy. We all agree that the ATF field office's embrace of gunwalking--which began under the Bush administration, by the way--was a terrible idea. We all agree that the ATF should not have sent an erroneous letter to Senator Grassley in 2011. But the contempt resolution before us doesn't have anything to do with any of that.

The Department of Justice has provided thousands and thousands of documents about gunwalking. The Attorney General has testified nine times. The Department has provided over 1,000 pages of documents about the letter sent to Senator Grassley. So this isn't about getting to the truth; this is about politics. It is about politics. This is about the Republicans refusing to take ``yes'' for an answer. This is about doing whatever it takes to attack the Obama administration no matter the issue, no matter the cost.

During the committee's ``investigation,'' the Republican majority refused all Democratic requests for witnesses and hearings, as well as requests to interview any Bush administration appointees. All of them were denied.

The Republicans refused Democratic requests to hold a hearing with Ken Melson, the head of ATF. You know, if you're actually interested in learning about an ATF operation, don't you think you would want to talk to the leadership of the ATF?

Republicans refused Democratic requests to hold a hearing with former Attorney General Mukasey, who was briefed on botched ATF operations in 2007. If you're actually interested in learning about these botched operations, wouldn't you want to talk to the man who was briefed about them?

I would hope that we would all agree that we should never take a step like finding a sitting Attorney General in contempt lightly, and that we should only do so based on accurate information. But Ranking Member Cummings and his staff have found, in a very short time, 100 concerns, omissions, and inaccuracies in the committee report that is the foundation of this contempt resolution--100 inaccuracies and omissions and concerns. Sadly, instead of getting answers to those questions, this has been rushed to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect us to address the issues that matter most to them--issues like jobs and the economy and education and health care--but the Republican majority refuses to listen. Instead, they bring this

resolution to the floor, and then they wonder why Congress is so unpopular.

What troubles me most, perhaps, is that under this Republican majority, everything has to be a fight--everything. Everything has to be a confrontation, everything has to be a showdown. And I get the politics. I understand this is an election year. But this goes way, way too far. It is just wrong.

I wish the Speaker of the House would have intervened here and kept this off the floor. By moving forward today on this resolution, we diminish the House of Representatives. This is not a happy day for this institution.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying resolutions, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may consume before I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, the last time Congress dealt with a contempt resolution was in the case of Joshua Bolton and Harriet Miers. The period of time between when the committee voted out the resolution and before there was floor action was 6 months. The reason why there was time taken was to make sure that we got it right.

This is less than a week. And I'm going to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that the minority staff has compiled a list of 100 inaccuracies--100 inaccuracies in the report that was the basis for this contempt resolution--100--and they're rushing it to the floor. So don't tell me this is not about politics. Don't tell me this is not a witch hunt. It is exactly what it is.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend from Florida (Mr. Nugent) talked about obstructionism, and I want to say a couple of words about that because I think this whole process has obstructed justice.

During the committee's 16-month investigation, the committee refused all Democratic requests for witnesses and hearings, which is unprecedented. For instance, the committee refused to hold a public hearing with Ken Melson, the head of ATF, the agency responsible for this operation, after he told committee investigators privately that he never informed senior department officials about gunwalking because he was unaware of it.

The committee also refused a hearing, or even a private meeting, with former Attorney General Mukasey, who was briefed on botched efforts to coordinate interdictions with Mexico in 2007, and was informed directly that these efforts would be expanded during his tenure; refused the opportunity to have the Attorney General as a witness.

Mr. Speaker, this partisanship was demonstrated by the committee's vote along strictly partisan lines to hold the Attorney General in contempt and to vote along strictly partisan lines on every amendment. This is about politics. This is not about the truth. This is not about justice. This is about politics, and that is why this is such a sad day for this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friend that this gunwalking program started under President Bush. And that's just the way it is.

I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentlelady that if she is interested in why the United States pursued this gunwalking program, she should talk to the Attorney General under the Bush administration, Attorney General Mukasey, when this thing started 5 years ago.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats have asked that he be called before the committee, the request has been denied. She wants to know why this is political? The request for every single witness that the Democrats asked to be brought before the committee was denied, the request for every single witness.

That is unprecedented in this House in any committee, the fact that the Democrats have been locked out of having any of their witnesses come forward. This is not about gunwalking. This is not about finding the terrible truth about what happened to Agent Terry. This is about politics, plain and simple; and it diminishes this House.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida (Mr. Nugent) mentioned the issue of gun ownership as related to the witnesses that the Democrats wanted to have appear before the committee. How inviting the head of the ATF, which is responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, or inviting the former Attorney General, who was briefed on gunwalking and knew about it, how that has anything to do with gun ownership--what that has to do with, Mr. Speaker, is getting to the truth.

The minority has submitted a request for witnesses in writing and even requested for a--which I guess they have the right to do--a day of minority witnesses, which they were told they would not be granted that day in a timely fashion.

This is about politics. This, by all measures, is about politics. Again, the fact that we are doing this today, I think, diminishes the House of Representatives.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we need to deal with facts in this debate because this is an important matter.

The gentleman just talked about these hearings, these meetings with the head of the ATF. The reality was that a year ago Republican staff met with the head of the ATF on July 3 without notifying Democratic staff. Democratic staff were invited to come on July 4. There were no public hearings, and no Members were there.

Again, I'm not sure what the problem is with having the head of the ATF come before the committee so the American people can hear what the truth is and what the facts are. I don't know why that's such a big deal. But to suggest that this was a bipartisan effort is just outright false.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if this is about openness, then why does the committee have secret meetings where they lock Democrats out? If this is about openness, then why won't they let any Democratic witnesses appear before the committee?

And since there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not Democrats actually formally requested witnesses, I will insert into the Record a letter to the Honorable Darrell Issa on October 28, on November 4, and on February 2, requesting witnesses, including the former Attorney General Mukasey and Mr. Melson, the head of the ATF.

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 28, 2011.

Hon. Darrell E. Issa,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: As I have stated repeatedly, I believe

Operation Fast and Furious was a terrible mistake with tragic

consequences. As I have also stated, I support a fair and

responsible investigation that follows the facts where they

lead, rather than drawing conclusions before evidence is

gathered or ignoring information that does not fit into a

preconceived narrative.

On several occasions over the past month, you have called

on Attorney General Eric Holder to appear before the House

Judiciary Committee to answer questions about when he first

became aware of the controversial tactics used in Operation

Fast and Furious. The Attorney General has now agreed to

testify before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8,

2011, when you will have another opportunity to question him

directly.

With respect to our own Committee's investigation, I do not

believe it will be viewed as legitimate or credible--and I do

not believe the public record will be complete--without

public testimony from Kenneth Melson, who served as the

Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

Explosives (ATF).

A hearing with Mr. Melson would help the Committee and the

American people better understand what mistakes were made in

Operation Fast and Furious, how these tactics originated, who

did and did not authorize them. and what steps are being

taken to ensure that they are not used again.

Our staffs have already conducted transcribed interviews

with Mr. Melson and the

former Deputy Director of ATF, William Hoover. During those

interviews, these officials expressed serious concerns about

the controversial tactics employed by the Phoenix Field

Division of ATF as part of this operation. They also raised

concerns about the manner in which the Department of Justice

responded to congressional inquiries.

Both officials also stated that they had not been aware of

the controversial tactics being used in Operation Fast and

Furious, had not authorized those tactics, and had not

informed anyone at the Department of Justice headquarters

about them. They stated that Operation Fast and Furious

originated within the Phoenix Field Division, and that ATF

headquarters failed to properly supervise it.

Since the Attorney General has now agreed to appear before

Congress in December, I believe Members also deserve an

opportunity to question Mr. Melson directly, especially since

he headed the agency responsible for Operation Fast and

Furious. My staff has been in touch with Mr. Melson's

attorney, who reports that Mr. Melson would be pleased to

cooperate with the Committee.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Elijah E. Cummings,

Ranking Member.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from Florida how many more speakers he has, because we have no more speakers on this side but myself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there isn't a single person in this House who doesn't honor the service of Agent Terry. There isn't a single person in this House who does not want justice for Agent Terry's family--and the truth. There isn't a single person in this House, I believe, who doesn't want to get to the bottom of how gunwalking started and how these operations were so terribly botched.

But every single attempt for an evenhanded investigation has been thwarted by the Republican majority. There has not been an evenhanded investigation. Every single witness that the Democrats requested to be called before the committee was refused. Every single witness. It's unprecedented.

Let me say that Eric Holder is a good and decent and honorable man. He's doing an excellent job as Attorney General. He does not deserve this. And this institution does not deserve this.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Do you really want to go down this road? This is a race to the bottom. This is a witch hunt. This is politics, pure and simple. It diminishes this House of Representatives. We are better than this.

Does everything have to be a confrontation? Does everything have to be in your face?

Now, you want to maintain your majority. I get it. You want to win elections. That's understandable. But at what cost? Do we really need to drag the House of Representatives down this road?

This is a stain on this House of Representatives. We should not be here today. We should be talking about jobs and putting people back to work and about making sure student loans don't double. But instead, we are doing this.

This is so political and so blatantly partisan that I think the American people are sickened by this. And as a number of people have said, You want to know why the approval rating is so low? Watch the videotape of this debate here today. We should be doing the peoples' business.

This is not the peoples' business. This is not about getting to the truth in the case of Agent Terry. This is a political maneuver to go after this administration. And this has, unfortunately, become a trend and a pattern in this Congress. We need to find a way to solve our problems without always having these big confrontations.

So I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, don't go down this road. We urged the Speaker of the House yesterday to pull this from the floor. This is wrong. Please defeat this rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 708 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying resolution it brings to the House floor.

The rule provides for consideration of two contempt of Congress charges laid against Attorney General Eric Holder. You're going to hear a lot of folks say how historic today is. That ``historic-ness'' is why the rule provides for debate and separate votes on both contempt charges. The rule also provides for a motion to refer the criminal contempt charges, if offered by Mr. Dingell, as well as motions to recommit both resolutions.

I don't assume to put words in his mouth, but I'm sure and I'm willing to bet that Mr. McGovern is sitting over there getting ready to tell me it's not enough time. I'm not going to disagree.

But as we all know, before we leave Friday evening to go to work in our districts, we have a lot to get done here. We need to reauthorize our Nation's highway and infrastructure systems. We need to save college students and recent graduates from student loan interest rates that are 2 days away from doubling. We need to move forward with the open amendment process and finish considering the appropriations bill to fund our transportation and housing programs. It's a lot to get done in 2 days. And, frankly, if we didn't put a time limit on today's contempt debate, we could spend days on end talking about nothing but this one issue.

But beyond all of that--beyond floor schedules and expiring authorizations, we're left with this truth: Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot on December 14, 2010, and died of those injuries the next day. His family has been looking for answers about what led up to and caused his death for over a year and a half. If we can do anything to answer those questions, then we cannot and should not do anything to make them wait any longer--not another month, not another day, not another hour. Today, the House of Representatives is going to do what we can to get those answers for the Terry family.

Thanks to whistleblowers at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Members of Congress were alerted to the fact that Agent Terry was killed by guns--AK-47 assault rifles, specifically--that our government allowed to walk into Mexico. When confronted with these claims, the Justice Department denied the whistleblowers' claims. What we now know all too well is just how right the whistleblowers were. However, it took the Department of Justice 10 months after their first denial, almost a year after Border Patrol Agent Terry's death, to formally retract their denial about the reckless program that contributed to the deaths of Agent Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens.

You know, I was a cop for almost 40 years and a sheriff for the last 10. As the head of a law enforcement agency, you have two options when you make a mistake: you can hope it doesn't come out, and if it does, you go into lockdown and deny, deny, deny; or you can get out in front of it, admit you made a mistake, tell the American people you're going to investigate, and then do everything you can to make sure that this never happens again.

As sheriff, I found it was my moral imperative to always admit when we'd been wrong, hold folks accountable, and make my agency better so we wouldn't make the same mistake twice. It's the responsible thing to do, and it takes away any sting of the possibility of a coverup.

That's not what DOJ did. They've gone the other route--hide, deny, and stonewall.

They sent a letter with false information to Congress, the institution that's constitutionally mandated with government oversight, and it took them 10 months to retract that statement. It appears that in those 10 months between lying and admitting the truth, members of DOJ and the ATF colluded to intentionally cover up what happened. What we're trying to figure out is if there really was a coverup, and we need the information to determine the facts.

Yesterday at the Rules Committee, a couple of people mentioned President Nixon and Watergate. And I agree, this is like the Watergate scandal. But President Nixon didn't leave office because of the scandal itself; he was forced to resign because of the coverup.

I said it last night and I'm willing to bet, Attorney General Holder didn't know all the specifics about what was happening with Fast and Furious, but when the facts started coming to light and congressional investigators started looking for answers, he repeatedly kept us from getting information we need. And that has kept the Terry family from getting the closure they need.

Attorney General Holder is responsible for his agency, but he has essentially given his top leadership a free pass.

Mr. Speaker, a law enforcement officer who was employed by the United States Federal Government is dead. Somebody knows what happened to result in his death, and the Justice Department and now President Obama are refusing to release that information to Congress, to the American public, and to Agent Terry's family.

This institution has a duty to oversee the executive branch and to find out what happened. The answers are there. Attorney General Holder knows the answers are there because he's the one who has the documents that contain the answers we're looking for. He's the gatekeeper here, and if he won't give us the information this institution needs to do our duty, our constitutional duty, then we will use every legal and constitutional tool that we have to get to it.

I've heard some people say this is all about politics. In my heart, it's just the opposite. It couldn't be further from the truth. These contempt charges aren't about politics. They aren't about Attorney General Holder, President Obama, or anything else but this: a man died serving his country, and we have a right to know what the Federal Government's hand was in that.

It's clear this country somehow played a role in his death. We need to root it out, find the cause, and make sure this never, ever happens again. These votes today aren't about politics; they are about answers that, at the very least, this country owes Agent Terry and his family.

President Obama promised his would be the most open administration in history. When discussing executive privilege in the past, Attorney General Holder has made it clear that the DOJ won't invoke the State secrets privilege to conceal ``violations of the law'' or ``administrative error,'' avoid ``embarrassment,'' or to ``prevent or delay the release of information.''

Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened so far with Fast and Furious. It is for this reason why the House today sees no other choice other than to charge Attorney General Eric Holder with both civil and criminal contempt of Congress charges.

I'm going to support both of these resolutions, Mr. Speaker, not because it's the political thing to do, not because it's the easy thing to do, but because it's the right thing to do.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts made a statement. This is about a contempt citation because the Attorney General has not provided all the information the committee has asked for. Out of 140,000 pages--by his own testimony in front of Judiciary-- he's given a little over 7,000 pages. That's not reaching out and doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), a fellow Rules Committee member.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

You know, it's amazing that my friends forget about history because they referenced history in 2008 as related to House Resolution 979 and House Resolution 980. And you know what they did?

They passed a rule and said it's hereby adopted. You never even had discussion on the House floor like we're going to do today. Never had debate on the House floor. They just passed it in the Rules Committee and said, guess what, it's hereby adopted.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield another 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former law enforcement officer who lost her husband in the line of duty, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it very clear that the House rules of article XI talk about, specifically, j(1) as it relates to the rights of the minority. But you have to ask for that. A majority of the minority has to ask for it. It has to be focused on the issue at hand. They were talking about issues as it related to, I guess, gun ownership, and that was not germane to that issue.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time remains.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

We have no more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is about Agent Terry, who gave his life for this country. This is about what this government has done not to expose the truth but to block the truth. This is about calling on the Attorney General to follow the Constitution. It's about us following article I of the Constitution in regards to our ability to have oversight.

I hear this stuff about witch hunt and about politics and it gets me sick, because I will tell you this: as a former law enforcement officer, we should be more worried about what lousy policies that Attorney General Holder has covered up that caused the death of one of our own in protecting this country. That's what this is all about. This is about holding people accountable.

I hear a lot of things down here. But the rule of law, when I was subpoenaed as a sheriff, we complied with the subpoena. I understand that the Attorney General feels that he's above the law in regards to the subpoena, and I understand the President's come in to protect him.

But we talk about this body and what the American people think. How about we do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, and we move forward and do the right thing in regards to all the Attorney General has to do is comply with the subpoena. By saying that he's bent over backwards, I would suggest to you that under 8,000 pages of documents out of 140,000 is not bending over backwards.

This is about our constitutional responsibility to provide oversight. This is about our constitutional responsibility to make sure that the Federal Government stays on track, that these executive branch decisions that are made don't put more Americans at risk.

Nobody seems to care about the 200-plus Mexican nationals that have been killed. Obviously, Mexico cares because they want to indict those that were responsible for coming up with this failed idea.

This is about Congress doing its constitutional responsibility, holding hearings to find out what happened. And when the Federal Government or branches of the Federal Government stand in the way and obstruct, that's not the right thing to do. My friends on the other side of the aisle should be more concerned that the Attorney General has said to the Congress: Guess what, you don't matter.

Congress does matter. Congress has a constitutional responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to do just that, to have oversight over the executive branch, and the subpoena is a tool to allow us to do that. And, unfortunately, this Attorney General feels he doesn't have to comply. I beg to differ.

I think the American people--but more than that, the family of Officer Terry--deserve to know what transpired and what the end of this is. And I think that we should be protecting those law enforcement officers that are out there today. In the United States of America, they are going to be facing these same guns that were walked during Fast and Furious. If you read the transcripts, hundreds--hundreds--of guns walked. Some have been recovered in the United States. And, unfortunately, some have been recovered in Mexico and have led to deaths in Mexico. One has to wonder how many of those guns are going to lead to deaths here in America.

You know, when I raised my hand, along with everybody else, it was to support and defend the Constitution. When I raised my hand as a sheriff, it was to support and defend the Constitution. And when Officer Terry raised his hand, it was to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.

We owe it to all of our law enforcement officers--Federal law enforcement officers, in particular--on this issue, to make sure that they're protected. And to all of our local law enforcement officers who are going to be the first line of defense on the streets of our cities and counties, they have a right to know what this Attorney General's office and the leadership has done, not giving people a free pass because it is expedient to do and because we really don't want to hear what the absolute facts are. Let's just push the facts aside.

Those on the other side of the aisle really don't want to talk about the facts. They want to talk about it is a witch hunt or it's politics.

The facts are clear. Officer Terry is dead. Officer Terry died because weapons were allowed to walk from the United States under the nose of the ATF and under the nose of the Attorney General's office through an OCDETF case. Those are the facts.

I would suggest that we should find out how did that come to pass. And then in regards to what was transpired and sent to Congress and Members of Congress about the fact that it didn't really occur, and then 10 months later, Oh, by the way, you know that memo we sent, it wasn't correct; we did, in fact, allow guns to walk.

We put law enforcement officers of the United States of America at risk because this Federal Government had a botched idea and a bad idea.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the time, and if I could just take a minute to wish everybody a great new session. It is good to be back. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to set a new course for this Congress, though, with the record of the past Congresses, we know we have a lot of work to do.

During their tenure, the majority has careened from crisis to crisis, sued the President for doing his job, brought the House to new heights of dysfunction and closed debate with the most closed rules in a single Congress in our Nation's history, chased nonexistent scandals in Benghazi and at the IRS, and, since 2011, had this House vote more than 50 times to take health care away from their own constituents.

This legacy of dysfunction, of partisanship and prioritizing political games over the public policy has dealt the American people a bad hand. By governing this House in such a haphazard way, the majority has closed down the process and shut out the American people.

Sadly, the majority is poised to double down on their partisanship and even reinvent the mathematics of public policy. By using what is called ``dynamic scoring'' to pretend that tax cuts pay for themselves, Republicans will require the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Taxation Committee to use math that Bruce Bartlett, an economic adviser for both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, called ``smoke and mirrors.'' This new math cooks the books in favor of the majority to pretend that the tax cut bills are revenue neutral.

Time and time again, the falsehoods of dynamic scoring have come to light. The first President Bush even called this tactic ``voodoo economics.'' But even so, the House Republicans want to change the rules and inject their partisan ideology into even the mathematics which underlies our Nation's public policy.

Rising above partisanship, the House Democrats will propose today two measures that would do immeasurable good for the American people.

First, giving average Americans the paychecks that they deserve, our commonsense legislation would deny CEOs the ability to claim tax deductions on incomes over $1 million unless their own employees get a well-deserved raise first. This would ensure that average workers share in the fruit of the Nation's productivity, not just the millionaires and the billionaires. Today, as our Tax Code stands, CEOs get a break and their workers are left out. The CEOs get the money, the deduction on taxes, and we get the bill to pay for that deduction. It is destroying the middle class.

Second, Democrats will bring forward the Stop Corporate Expatriation and Invest in America's Infrastructure Act, which prevents U.S. corporations from renouncing their citizenship to dodge paying their fair share of taxes. It is time to stop rewarding companies that move overseas and, instead, use those dollars to create good-paying jobs here at home and rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure.

By closing this loophole and ending the so-called tax inversions, we would raise an estimated $33.6 billion to invest in our roads, railways, and bridges which are falling apart all over the country.

Last fall, I stood by a 100-year-old bridge in Bushnell's Basin that fell into such disrepair that firefighters stopped using it for fear the bridge could not bear the weight of the engines. It endangered the safety of the people they were expected to serve.

In my home State of New York, 40 percent of the bridges have been rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, which is even worse. I wonder what the number is for the United States.

This is an unconscionable state of affairs. Repairing the Nation's highways and bridges is now, literally, life or death. We can do it with the Democrat proposals. We can, and we must.

These are the types of bills that we hope to be bringing to the floor in this session of Congress. We will debate them and ultimately pass them. That is what Congress is about, not a legislative branch that silences half of this Nation by bypassing the committee process and bringing to Rules emergency bills that silence the Representatives of half of the people in the United States.

It is my fervent hope that the new Congress will bring about an era of

willingness to tackle the big problems facing our Nation, a renewed call for true bipartisanship, and a culture of enlivened debate, and I promise that our side will be a willing partner.

In describing how the Bill of Rights came to be, former Supreme Court Justice, the late Harry Blackmun, said that the Founding Fathers survived a ``crucible of disagreement'' to give us a more perfect Union. Forging through that crucible is not only good for the legislative branch, but good for the Nation.

Truly, it is the debate that makes us stronger, and time and time again, debate in the House has been stalled, strangling policies and solutions that could have benefited the Nation. Sadly, this is the legacy of the last Congress.

I would like to insert the text of Justice Blackmun's speech into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, the past does not dictate the future. We can right our path forward. We may be able to prioritize that the American people will win over politics; and, today, we have the opportunity to do that with the beginning of this, the 114th Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished returning ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) to respond to that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who has been successful already about inversions.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished returning ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The legacy of the 113th Congress shows us a broken institution: broken by partisanship and recalcitrance.

I urge my colleagues to change course in the 114th Congress, to encourage openness, transparency, and true bipartisanship. If we can achieve this, we will come together.

If we defeat the previous question, I will move to amend the resolution to bring up the Stop Corporate Expatriation and Invest in America's Infrastructure Act of 2015 to stop giving up American citizenship to avoid paying taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this House rules package has a number of other provisions with which we have serious concerns. Most significantly, the rules change relating to Social Security. Late last night, the Republican rules package was revised to include a major new provision that will likely force Social Security benefit cuts. The new rule would prevent the House from considering legislation to prevent a scheduled 20 percent cut to Social Security benefits for 11 million disabled workers and their families (by creating a point of order against legislation that reallocates FICA taxes between the Social Security Trust Funds, which have a current overall balance of $2.8 trillion), unless the legislation also includes Social Security benefit cuts or tax increases. Without any substantive debate and out of public view, the rule would prevent the House from even considering a mechanism endorsed by more than 50 advocacy groups and which Congress has used 11 times in the past to address shortfalls in one of the trust funds.

H. Res. 5 also extends staff deposition authority to four more committees (Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Science, and Ways and Means). We are deeply concerned that these new authorities will be used to launch politically motivated attacks on the Affordable Care Act, Environmental Protection Agency actions, the implementation of Dodd-Frank financial industry reform, and IRS regulations.

Democrats are disappointed that House Republicans have decided to continue their politically-motivated lawsuit against the President over implementation of the Affordable Care Act and their partisan investigations into ``Fast and Furious'' and the attack in Benghazi, Libya. Extensions of those authorities also appear in H. Res. 5.

H. Res. 5's changes to the motion to instruct also concern us deeply. Under current rules, motions to instruct conferees can be offered 25 legislative days and 10 calendar days after conference committees have been appointed. H. Res. 5 lengthens these periods, so that motions to instruct would be privileged 45 calendar days and 25 legislative days after the conference is appointed. This is clearly an attempt to weaken the Minority's ability to participate in the conference committee process in the future.

Changes to the authorizing language of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group have the potential to make it politically easier for the Majority to file additional lawsuits against the President, and this possibility disturbs us given the events surrounding the filing of the ACA-related lawsuit last Congress.

H. Res. 5 contains a number of other provisions, some of which raise concerns and some of which appear to be innocuous. For example, small changes to the jurisdiction of certain committees, an increase in the size of the Intelligence Committee, an allowance for extra subcommittees on the Agriculture, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees, and allowing the Speaker to reconvene the House at a time other than previously appointed after consultation with the Minority Leader, among others.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rules package for the 114th Congress.

I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to thank you, Chairman Sessions, the Speaker's Office, and the other committee chairmen for working with me to hone and clarify the Judiciary Committee's criminal law jurisdiction.

For many years, the House rules have given the Judiciary Committee jurisdiction over, among other things, the judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal, and criminal law enforcement. The Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over criminal law dates back to the creation of the committee in 1813.

In recent years, however, we have become aware of an anomaly in the referral pattern that occasionally prevents the Judiciary Committee from obtaining a referral when a bill criminalizes

new conduct without actually addressing the penalty portion of the criminal law. In other words, while the Judiciary Committee would have had jurisdiction over the underlying statute when it was enacted, it is sometimes unable to assert jurisdiction when the statute is amended in such a way as to criminalize new conduct. The result is that new criminal offenses are being created without being considered by the lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee, which is the committee best situated to provide valuable expertise in drafting and resolving potential conflicts with existing criminal law.

Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee created a bipartisan Over- Criminalization Task Force with the goal of examining the problems associated with a bloated, disorganized, and often redundant collection of Federal criminal offenses. The Congressional Research Service recently reported to us that there are nearly 5,000 Federal criminal laws on the books. Unfortunately, Congress continues to add to this number at a rate of roughly 50 new crimes per year.

One of the recurring themes from both the witnesses who appeared before the task force as well as the members of the task force is that it is crucial that the Judiciary Committee have the opportunity to review all new Federal criminal laws.

Throughout its existence, this bipartisan task force endeavored to closely examine the problems posed by overcriminalization and over- Federalization, and to identify potential solutions to combat the regrettable circumstances that inevitably arise from the tangled web of Federal criminal provisions. Examples of similarly-situated defendants convicted of the same conduct under different statutes with different penalties, or individuals convicted of offenses without proof of any level of criminal intent, have been detailed in our hearings and are far too commonplace.

The rules package today clarifies the committee's jurisdiction over criminal matters by adding one word--``criminalization''--to our existing jurisdiction over criminal law. By making this change, the Judiciary Committee will have a new jurisdictional interest only in those relatively rare instances that a bill criminalizes new conduct by amending a statute that is attached to a criminal penalty without amending the penalty itself. In this instance, the Judiciary Committee will look to work with the other committee on ensuring that the new conduct is worthy of criminalization and that the attached criminal penalties are appropriately drafted.

The Judiciary Committee is not looking to insert itself into the regulatory schemes under the jurisdiction of other committees. However, to the extent that another committee chooses to use the criminal justice system to enforce the regulation under its jurisdiction, we would like to be involved so that we may ask the important question together as to whether particular conduct should be criminalized.

In conclusion, I believe this small clarification of the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction will allow us to address many of the problems associated with the tangled web of Federal criminal laws.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Sessions and his staff for working very closely with us on this issue and express my strong support.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this rules package.

I rise today in support of the Rules package for the 114th Congress.

I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to thank Chairman Sessions, the Speaker's office, and the other Committee Chairmen for working with me to hone and clarify the Judiciary Committee's criminal law jurisdiction.

For many years, the House Rules have given the Judiciary Committee jurisdiction over, among other things, ``the judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal,'' and ``criminal law enforcement.'' The Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over criminal law dates back to the creation of the committee in 1813.

Typically, the Judiciary Committee either receives a referral upon introduction or has the opportunity to seek a sequential referral when a bill creates a new criminal law or criminal penalties. This allows us to ensure that a criminal provision is properly drafted, or eliminated if it is unnecessary.

In recent years, however, we have become aware of an anomaly in the referral pattern that occasionally prevents the Judiciary Committee from obtaining a referral when a bill criminalizes new conduct without actually addressing the penalty portion of the criminal law. In other words, while the Judiciary Committee would have had jurisdiction over the underlying statute when it was enacted, it is sometimes unable to assert jurisdiction when the statute is amended in such a way as to criminalize new conduct. The result is that new criminal offenses are being created without being considered by the lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee, which is the Committee best situated to provide valuable expertise in drafting and resolving potential conflicts with existing criminal law.

Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee created a bipartisan Over- Criminalization Task Force with the goal of examining the problems associated with a bloated, disorganized and often redundant collection of federal criminal offenses. The Congressional Research Service recently reported to us that there are nearly 5,000 federal criminal laws on the books. And, unfortunately, Congress continues to add to this number at a rate of roughly 50 new crimes per year.

One of the recurring themes from both the witnesses who appeared before the task force, as well as the Members of the task force, is that it is crucial that the Judiciary Committee have the opportunity to review all new federal criminal laws.

Our Members and staff have the longstanding expertise to ensure that criminal laws are appropriately drafted, that they fit with the overall federal criminal law scheme, that they are appropriate in force relative to other criminal laws, and finally, that the new criminal law is even necessary.

Throughout its existence, this bi-partisan task force endeavored to closely examine the problems posed by over-criminalization and over- federalization, and to identify potential solutions to combat the regrettable circumstances that inevitably arise from the tangled web of federal criminal provisions. Examples of similarly-situated defendants convicted of the same conduct under different statutes with different penalties, or individuals convicted of offenses without proof of any level of criminal intent, have been detailed in our hearings and are far too commonplace.

The Rules package today clarifies the Committee's jurisdiction over criminal matters by adding the word ``criminalization'' to our existing jurisdiction over criminal law. By making this change, the Judiciary Committee will have a new jurisdictional interest only in those relatively rare instances that a bill criminalizes new conduct by amending a statute that is attached to a criminal penalty without amending the penalty itself. In this instance, the Judiciary Committee will look to work with the other committee on ensuring that the new conduct is worthy of criminalization and that the attached criminal penalties are appropriately drafted.

The Judiciary Committee is not looking to insert itself into the regulatory schemes under the jurisdiction of other committees. However, to the extent that another committee chooses to use the criminal justice system to enforce the regulation under its jurisdiction, we would like to be involved so that we may ask the important question together as to whether particular conduct should be criminalized.

In conclusion, I believe this small clarification to the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction will allow us to address many of the problems associated with the tangled web of federal criminal laws.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Sessions for working with me on this issue, and express my strong support for this Rules package.