Expressing opposition to the European Commission interpretive notice regarding labeling Israeli products and goods manufactured in the West Bank and other areas, as such actions undermine efforts to achieve a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

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 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.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this package and his work throughout this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually surprised--well, I am not surprised. I thought we might actually go a day without having the kind of hyperbole that we have grown used to from the other side of the aisle.

I want to speak to the issue of macroeconomic analysis as the incoming chair of the Budget Committee. The other side has said this is a gamble, that we are gambling that the projections are going to be correct. Mr. Speaker, this is craziness. That is not so. In fact, all economic projections--static, dynamic--all of them have a level of uncertainty.

We have heard that it is ``stacking the deck'' or that it is ``cooking the books'' in favor of tax cuts. Nonsense. Nonsense. It doesn't game the system at all. All we are trying to do is make certain that Members of Congress have more information upon which to be able to make decisions. That is the kind of commonsense things that our folks back home want.

Scoring, which is what we are talking about here, the Congressional Budget Office works hard to try to determine what the effect is of the kind of policies that we adopt around here. They will tell you right now that now it is inaccurate. Now it is inaccurate. What we are trying to do is simply say that if a piece of legislation is going to have a large effect on the economy, that we include that effect in the official estimate.

So if you think a bill is going to help or hurt the economy--help or hurt the economy--then they ought to tell us. They ought to let us know how many more jobs are going to be created, what kind of tax revenue up or down is going to occur. Is it going to harm jobs? The people who prepare our cost estimates, I tell you, they are the best in the business, and they have been working on this issue for years.

Mr. Speaker, this may come as some surprise to our friends on the other side, but they already do this kind of analysis. They already do the macroeconomic analysis. It is just that we don't include it in our cost estimate because of the rules. And we should. That is why we are offering this change today.

We don't predetermine the outcome. We simply make it so that the Congressional Budget Office is allowed, the scorekeepers are allowed, to have a more realistic score. It has come as no surprise, talking to economists from around the country over the past couple of weeks, over the past couple of months, and to a person they say economic scoring, the effects of legislation that we pass, it is an inaccurate science. It is hard to do. But what we want to do is to make certain that they have greater opportunity to get that scoring correct, to give us the kind of information so we can make wiser decisions.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about cooking the books or gaming the system. This is about trying to do the hard work of the American people, trying to get the policies that we adopt here in this Congress correct so that we can get the American people back to work and get this economy thriving again.

I commend the gentleman from Texas for the work that he has done and urge adoption of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, in this resolution, we are establishing a new requirement in clause 8 of Rule XIII that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) incorporate into the official cost estimates required under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Budget Act) the macroeconomic effects of ``major legislation.'' Because this rule builds on the existing requirement for cost estimates, it does not apply to appropriations legislation.

By including an analysis of how major legislation will affect the economy, this rule provides the House with a more comprehensive estimate than can be produced using only the traditional, conventional scoring methods which implicitly assume that legislation has no effect on the broader economy. In particular, this analysis is required to include the budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, the capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting from major legislation. In addition, this rule requires a qualitative assessment of the long-term budgetary and macroeconomic effects of major legislation.

Major legislation is defined as legislation causing an increase or decrease in revenues, outlays, or deficits in any fiscal year covered by the budget resolution equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the projected gross domestic product for that year. In applying the 0.25 percent threshold, CBO and JCT are required to look at the gross budgetary effects of the legislation. In carrying out this requirement, the intent is that CBO and JCT review provisions in the bill that have a significant effect. Thus, the test is whether any provision in the legislation has a budgetary effect larger than the threshold, or if the absolute value of the sum of the provisions exceeds the threshold, rather than whether the legislation as a whole has such an effect when all of the provisions are netted out.

Alternately, for legislation that may not have a large fiscal effect, but would still have significant economic impacts, the new rule empowers the House to designate ``major legislation.'' For all legislation other than purely revenue legislation, the rule authorizes the chair of the Budget Committee to designate ``major legislation.'' For purely revenue legislation (i.e., legislation that contains only provisions described in section 201(f) of the Budget Act), the rule authorizes the House Member serving as the chair or vice chair of JCT, to designate ``major legislation'' for purposes of this rule.

The rule carefully preserves the existing division of labor between CBO and JCT, which requires close collaboration between these two non- partisan institutions. When major legislation involves both revenue and non-revenue provisions, CBO and JCT will need to work together to produce a single, integrated cost estimate for the legislation drawing on each agency's institutional responsibilities.

The rule requires enhanced transparency around these budgetary estimates. Both CBO and JCT, as applicable, must provide together with their estimates a description of the critical assumptions and the source data underlying such estimates. It is important that CBO and JCT make this information available so that the public, academic, and other experts have an opportunity to review the analysis and pursue possible improvements in the methodologies used to develop these estimates. Distributional analyses of proposed tax changes that JCT provides as background information is another area where estimates could be improved by incorporating macroeconomic effects into these analyses.

The preparation of cost estimates incorporating macroeconomic effects is frequently more complex and requires more time than the preparation of conventional cost estimates. Committees should therefore build in additional time to allow for the completion of the cost estimate. Both CBO and JCT should strive to promptly produce the estimates required by this rule. To the extent it is not practicable for CBO and JCT to produce the required estimates, the rule provides an accommodation in this instance. Two possible circumstances may arise when it is not feasible to produce the required analysis. First, committees and the House may be operating under tight deadlines and it is not possible for CBO or JCT to complete the analysis prior to the legislation's consideration. Second, while CBO and JCT have developed a great deal of expertise and experience in producing these analyses, there may be situations where it is not possible for CBO and JCT to produce the required analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to many of the representations that Mr. Sessions made with reference to our economy, but we can all agree that our most important responsibilities as Members of Congress is to grow this economy, create the kinds of jobs that Americans need so that they can succeed and support themselves and their families.

I want to speak about a couple of things in this rules package. Traditionally, Democrats will vote against and Republicans will vote for because traditionally this is a partisan vote. I urge the Rules Committee chairman to adopt a couple of changes which I thought would make this rules package a better one.

First, I ask the House to move to ban discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. We provide in our rules that you cannot discriminate against people based upon race, nationality, gender, and other arbitrary distinctions. We should have added this as we have in so many of our laws. Currently there are no protections for a congressional staffer fired or refused promotion simply for LGBT status. I regret that the Rules Committee was unprepared to offer such a protection to our employees.

Secondly, since Republicans assumed the majority in 2011, Delegates from the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands as well as the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico have been denied the opportunity to vote in the Committee of the Whole. They can vote in committees, and the Committee of the Whole is of course a committee of the House. It is not a final arbiter.

When I was majority leader, I offered that amendment in the rules. It passed. My Republican friends took it to court, and the court said that it was sustainable and sustained it. This effectively, unfortunately, denies representation to nearly 5 million Americans, Americans, one of whom is on the Republican side of the aisle from American Samoa. So this is a bipartisan concern that I have. Unfortunately, this rules package put forward by the Republican majority does not include either change.

In addition, this rules package does not live up to the responsible governing the American people expect and deserve from Congress. Mr. Sessions spent a long time talking about scoring, static scoring versus dynamic scoring.

Dynamic scoring I would suggest to the American people is a gamble. It is a gamble that your projection is correct. If your projection is not correct, as it has so often been, then you end up putting the deficit even higher because you bet on the come.

The more conservative policy, I would suggest, would be to get the money first and then decide how you are going to apply it. Don't gamble on the fact that you are going to get the money, which is what dynamic scoring is. The gentleman admitted--he did not argue--that cutting taxes always paid for themselves. In fact, Alan Greenspan said exactly that in the last decade.

What it means is the Republicans will be able to hide the true cost of tax cuts behind a debunked mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not. This provision will allow them to explode the deficit as they did the last time they were in charge.

The last time the budget was balanced was not under the Bush administration when you had a Republican Congress, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. It was when Bill Clinton was President of the United States. For 4 years we had a balanced budget.

It also threatens to politicize the Congressional Budget Office, which has maintained its role as impartial and nonpartisan arbiter on budget scoring for four decades, which makes us be honest, which is what the American public expects. Rely on the figures that are not political figures but are independent analytical figures on which we can rely.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rules package. It can be a better package; it should be. And if it is defeated, we can adopt a better, more fair package.

Mr. Speaker, we are at the start of a new Congress, and we have an opportunity to right two wrongs in the rules of this House.

I wrote to the Chairman of the Rules last month asking that two changes be made in today's rules package.

First, I asked that the House move to ban discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees.

Currently, there are no protections for a Congressional staffer fired or refused a promotion simply for LGBT status.

Second, since Republicans assumed the majority in 2011, delegates from the District of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, have been denied the opportunity to vote in the Committee of the Whole House.

This effectively denies representation to nearly 5 million Americans.

Unfortunately, this rules package, put forward by the Republican majority, does not include either change.

In addition, this rules package does not live up to the responsible governing the American people expect and deserve from their Congress.

First, it includes something called ``Dynamic Scoring.''

What it means is that Republicans will be able to hide the true cost of tax cuts behind a debunked mantra that ``tax cuts pay for themselves.''

They do not--and this provision will allow them to explode the deficit, as they did the last time they were in charge.

It also threatens to politicize the Congressional Budget Office, which has maintained its role as impartial and nonpartisan arbiter on budget scoring for four decades.

The rules package also extends the Benghazi select committee, placing conspiracy theories above fact.

At least three committees--two led by Republicans--exhaustively investigated the Benghazi tragedy.

Everything has been reviewed; a million dollars in taxpayer money last year were wasted.

And, furthermore, these rules would limit the ability of Congress to reallocate resources between Social Security trust funds, making it more difficult to prevent automatic cuts to Social Security disability insurance.

We can do better--and should do better--in this House for the 114th Congress.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rules package, and I call on Chairman Sessions and his Republican colleagues to work in a bipartisan way with Democrats to enact rules that enhance the work of this House, protect LGBT employees, include all of the voices in our democracy, and set guidelines that facilitate greater cooperation, not more partisan gridlock.