Count the Crimes to Cut Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2159) to direct the Attorney General of the United States to submit to the Congress a report on Federal criminal offenses, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for joining with me in this effort. I thank the minority leader for his past work on this bill, as well, from his position on the Judiciary Committee, like the gentlewoman from Georgia.

We may come at these things from slightly different perspectives on different issues that come before us, but we are bound and joined together here in wanting some commonsense, good government to make sure that we know what we are dealing with, with respect to criminal laws. For decades, the American people, Congress, and corners of the Federal Government have tried to grasp a reliable estimate of how many criminal laws exist either in statute or in regulation.

In the 1980s, the Department of Justice tried to count the number of Federal criminal laws that reside within the code and estimated there are ``about 3,000 criminal offenses.'' The American Bar Association, in the 1990s, said it was much higher than 3,000 but couldn't figure out the number. In 2019, the U.S. Code was estimated to have 5,199 Federal crimes, but again, that was uncertain.

In other words, the Department of Justice, the American Bar Association, and organizations within our government are guessing.

Now, to be clear, there are estimated to be thousands of criminal offenses, many buried in regulatory codes. For context, there are an estimated 300,000 Federal regulations that carry criminal offenses that could put an American citizen in prison.

We can debate the merits, and we would debate the merits no doubt among the Members of this body, of any particular statute that criminalizes a certain act or any particular regulation that comes with criminal penalties associated with an action. It might be something that involves OSHA. It might be something that involves environmental regulations. It might be something else.

There are thousands upon thousands of regulations and statutes, and the American people often have no idea that they might be in violation of something that would come with a penalty that might include jail time or sufficient fines, and so forth, and they potentially could become a felon.

This bill is pretty simple. It just directs the Federal Government and the executive branch to count the crimes, to come up with a list of the crimes that exist, put those in order, and make sure that we know what offenses are attached to those so that we can go through this and make decisions as to whether or not these crimes are duplicative, whether they might be contradictory, and whether maybe they go too far or not far enough.

We feel like the people's House, for sure--Congress in its Article I function--ought to know how many crimes there are and what penalties are associated with those crimes so that the American people can know this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for her comments.

Mr. Speaker, I would just add, in agreement with her, that, as I said before, this simply says that the Attorney General should provide to us, the people's House and this Congress, a list of all Federal crimes in statute and regulation, along with pertinent information such as potential criminal penalty, the mens rea requirement for the offense, and the DOJ prosecutorial history of the statute.

I think this is the bare minimum that we should have as a body to ensure that we are protecting due process and the rights of the American people while ensuring that we have an ordered society.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have a whole lot more to add. I associate myself with the remarks of all of my colleagues who have spoken on this matter. I would only add that I think it is important to note that this legislation is supported by the Due Process Institute, R Street, Right on Crime, as well as the National District Attorneys Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which I think tells you what is going on here in that everybody would like to have some clarity and some transparency so we can have a commonsense understanding of our criminal laws, the extent to which they impact--as the gentleman from Maryland, I think, wisely noted--our civil liberties, and the extent to which we are made aware of what actions we take might be criminalized.

Mr. Speaker, I note as James Madison said in Federalist No. 62 on the fundamental principles of representative government and the importance of accessible and understandable laws: ``It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.''

That is precisely the situation we find ourselves in, and we should fix it. We may have again, as I said before, some disagreements as to what should be criminalized or not. Previous Congresses have decided to criminalize some action that today we might take a second look at.

I do believe that we need to know and have the debate, and then be able to allow the subcommittee on which my Judiciary Committee colleagues serve, be able to review these, have open debate, and then make some decisions.

Maybe some of these should be sunsetted. Maybe some should be aligned. Maybe there are penalties that are out of whack. Maybe there are things that should be done to have greater notice for the American people.

I come together in good faith with my colleagues across the aisle and hope that my colleagues in the Chamber will support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for her comments. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his kind remarks, the gentleman from Maryland, all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and my friend from Arizona. I also thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Jordan. I thank the ranking member from Maryland who we have already engaged with, and all of my colleagues who worked on this in the Judiciary Committee.

This is not a long or major piece of legislation. I tend to think that speaks well of it. I think the shorter the bill, the better.

I do believe that this is an important step, but I do want to remind my colleagues it is just a step. I would hope that we would get swift action out of the executive branch in following this

legislation if we are to get it through the Senate and get it signed so we can make an understanding of what is happening with respect to our criminal laws and regulations, and then act on it, as a Congress, in a bipartisan fashion. Again, we will have reasoned debate over some of the matters, but let's act on it. Let's do some things.

I agree with the gentleman that we need to revisit Article I. I introduced that during the first Trump administration the first time, and then we had it, obviously, during the Biden administration. I want to revisit that. It is critically important.

I hope that the AUMF repeal for 2002 that was in the NDAA in the Senate will be allowed to stay in the NDAA as it is coming back over to the House. We shouldn't have a 23-year-old authorization for the use of military force continuing to be under use. I hope that we in the House will reclaim those portions of congressional authority.

I think this is an important step. It is critically important for due process. I hope my colleagues in the Chamber will support it, and I urge its swift passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Roy for working with me. This is a true representation of good government and what it looks like for bipartisanship, and I hope we are able to do more of this going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the sake of an effective criminal justice system. The laws within our criminal code, as has been expressed before, have become outdated and a highway to overcriminalization. We have so many unlawful acts within our criminal code that we don't even know how many criminal laws there are.

That is why we need to pass the Count the Crimes to Cut Act of 2025,

which would mandate the creation of a comprehensive inventory, as we have expressed, of all Federal criminal, statutory, and regulatory offenses.

I am really proud to co-lead this commonsense and, as I said before, bipartisan solution that will help us address the pressing issue of overcriminalization, a troubling result of unchecked growth of our Federal criminal law.

For too long, new Federal crimes have been created without a full understanding of what criminal laws already exist. Six years ago, policy organizations estimated that we have over 5,000 Federal crimes, many of which, as we have stated before, are redundant, overly broad, or better left to the States, or are so obscure that the public has no practical way of knowing that they even exist. In some cases, these laws are so vague that even a reasonable person would struggle to understand what conduct is prohibited.

This massive and unorganized body of Federal criminal law puts well- intentioned, law-abiding citizens definitely at risk. Legal scholars suggest that everyday Americans may unknowingly violate multiple Federal crimes without ever being made aware of it. Yet, we cannot meaningfully address the consequences of this bloated system until we fully understand the scope of the problem.

Over the last few decades, the number of Federal criminal offenses has dramatically increased to more than 5,000, and that figure doesn't even account for the countless additional crimes created by Federal regulations. Despite several previous attempts to determine the number of criminal offenses that are currently on the books, the fact is, we still don't know.

The Count the Crimes to Cut Act, which I am very proud to cosponsor, is a necessary first step toward comprehensive, data-driven reform that truly works.

By finally establishing a complete inventory of these offenses, we can effectively evaluate how they are enforced, understand the intent requirements associated with each one of these laws, and determine where reforms to mens rea standards are necessary. We will also be able to identify redundant or outdated laws that serve no public safety purpose at all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this very reasonable bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), our constitutional scholar and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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

Mr. Speaker, we cannot have effective reform of Federal criminal laws without first passing and implementing the Count the Crimes to Cut Act. This bill is not about simply making lists. It is about creating the tools that we need for precise data-driven reform.

With concrete data, we can determine exactly which reforms are needed, remove speculation from the process, and avoid unintentional, unnecessary mistakes that could arise from a sweeping one-size-fits-all approach.

Might I say, in the era that we are in right now, there seems to be a lot of mistrust within our communities with law enforcement. We need to be building those relationships, building community, and I think this piece of legislation helps to really expedite that kind of community- driven policing and helps to make sure that people feel safe and secure in their communities.

I thank Congressman Roy for his leadership on this legislation, which will help eliminate duplicative laws and allow us to better serve and focus on the true threats to public safety, which are always a top priority of mine.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this long overdue piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan measure that really puts common sense and accountability first. I thank my colleagues for their support on this piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has turned the criminal code into a labyrinth, a maze so bloated and disorganized that not even the DOJ can tell you how many Federal crimes exist.

That is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 2159, the Count the Crimes to Cut Act, led by my friend, Chip Roy from Texas, Representative McBath, who is the ranking member on our Subcommittee of Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, and supported by Members of both parties who understand that freedom collapses when the law becomes unknowable.

This bill is co-led by staunch conservatives like Representative Roy and myself and our colleagues, who occasionally think differently than us, Mrs. McBath and Mr. Cohen. We disagree on a lot in this Chamber, but we should all agree that Americans should know what conduct is criminal before they are punished for it.

The Count the Crimes to Cut Act forces the DOJ to produce a complete list of every Federal criminal statute with the specific legal elements, the authorized penalties, and the number of prosecutions for each offense over the last 15 years.

Right now, we literally cannot tell the American people how many Federal crimes exist. I called the Congressional Research Service several years ago because I was interested in this. They said we have no idea.

Estimates range from 4,000 statutes to hundreds of thousands of criminalized regulations, but no one actually knows because Washington has never bothered to count them. This is the very definition of overcriminalization: vague laws, hidden laws, duplicative laws, and regulatory crimes that nobody could reasonably expect an ordinary citizen to find or understand.

The Federal code has grown so bloated that a person can unknowingly violate a regulation they have never heard of and the government can still throw the book at them.

Even former Harvard University Professor Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average American commits three felonies a day without even knowing it.

Dr. Silverglate clearly wasn't referring to violent felonies like murder or felonies like money laundering or fraud, but instead to those vague, hidden, duplicative and sometimes downright silly laws.

I have other pending legislation; the End Endless Criminal Statutes Act to repeal 10 unnecessary criminal offenses such as selling or possessing colored oleomargarine or colored margarine unless they are packaged and labeled or served in a triangular shape. That is far from the only silly law still on the books.

It is illegal to use a falconry bird in a movie that isn't about falconry, to sell runny ketchup, or to leave the country with too many nickels in your pockets.

Here is the deal: We just have too many laws and too many crimes. When the Federal Criminal Code becomes a weapon instead of a guide, it is always the most vulnerable, the poor, the small business owners, the persons who don't have a legal team on retainer who gets crushed first.

Overcriminalization is one of the most destructive features of the modern Federal leviathan. We cannot restore liberty, shrink government, or protect due process unless we first expose the scope of the problem and that is what this bill attempts to do.

I am so pleased to be a sponsor, but I am proud to associate with my cosponsors, Mr. Roy, Mrs. McBath, Mr. Cohen, and others.

This is very simple, Mr. Speaker: If you believe in liberty, you vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2159. If you believe the government should be accountable to the people, you vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2159. If you believe that Americans deserve to know the laws that can put them behind bars, you vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2159. It is bipartisan, common sense, and long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Count the Crimes to Cut Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. McBath for yielding, Mr. Roy for his leadership on this, and Mr. Biggs for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation. The Founders thought that Federal law would be strictly limited in two different ways: one, according to the subject matter; and two, according to number.

The subject matter of Federal criminal law requires that the conduct being proscribed be tethered to a particular Federal jurisdictional nexus, like interference with Federal interstate commerce or assault on a Federal officer in doing his or her duty, or seditious conspiracy against the Union, which is why the vast majority of crimes are prosecuted at the local level like assault, murder, armed robbery, theft, and so on.

Federal law would also be limited, the Founders thought, according to number because the Federal criminal laws would be organized around certain

specific principles forbidding criminal conduct that is clearly harmful to everyone. As my colleagues have said, what we have seen is the endless proliferation of criminal offenses, some of them statutory, some of them regulatory, oftentimes in a kind of political reaction to a particular event that might have been criminal already under a more general category.

This legislation will allow us to get on top of the problem. It will direct the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies to compile a comprehensive report describing every Federal statutory and regulatory criminal offense carrying penalties. These have grown substantially over the last four decades, despite several previous attempts by the Office of Legal Policy at DOJ, the American Bar Association, and several scholars to determine exactly how many Federal offenses there are.

There is simply not a single comprehensive accounting of Federal criminal offenses to be found anywhere in the Federal Government, and that is a pretty remarkable statement in itself.

Through the bipartisan Count the Crimes to Cut Act of 2025, Congress and the people will finally get an inventory of all Federal statutory and regulatory criminal offenses. Thanks to this bill, we will know the specific elements of each offense, the potential criminal penalties, the mens rea requirement, and the number of prosecutions that have taken place each year for the preceding 15 years for every listed offense.

Now, what is the danger of having too many criminal offenses? Some people might just say, let's let sleeping dogs lie. What is the problem with having proliferation of offenses that may be opaque, inscrutable, obscure, and duplicative? One danger is the citizen doesn't know what kind of conduct and behavior is actually expected of him or her. That leaves the citizen in a state of confusion and potential anxiety.

The other major danger is that an unscrupulous executive will use this nearly endless arsenal of criminal offenses to target political foes or vulnerable communities. In a free society, anything that is not specifically prohibited is allowed to you. That is what it means to live in a free society. In an authoritarian society, anything that is not specifically allowed to the population is considered prohibited and a danger to the government.

Mr. Speaker, the proliferation of endless criminal offenses moves us down that spectrum from being a free society much closer to an authoritarian society. We all have a right to know exactly what the criminal law entails at the Federal level.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 4429, the Developing and Empowering our Aspiring Leaders Act, or DEAL Act, which is a critical bill to support innovation, entrepreneurship, and capital formation.

The venture capital industry provides vital funding for early-stage startups at points in their life cycle when they are generally deemed to be too risky for traditional bank financing or for raising money on the public market. This basically means that if we are going to have a growing and innovative economy, then we have to have a healthy venture capital sector.

Historically, venture capital earns investor returns and frees up more capital to recycle in other companies by selling their mature portfolio companies to strategic investors or taking them public on public markets.

For a variety of reasons, including public company reporting obligations, economic uncertainty, and the rise of private equity, U.S. companies today are staying private much longer, which has reduced the opportunities for venture capital firms to recycle their investment dollars.

Some venture capital firms have sought to create new liquidity options through secondary acquisitions and investments in other VC funds. This is what Congresswoman Wagner was referring to, but that option right now is constrained by provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 that limit venture capital funds' ability to invest in these so- called fund of funds to only 20 percent of their commitments.

That rule was very well-intentioned when passed, and the intent was to ensure that VC firms remained focused on direct investments in early-stage startups. However, it was crafted for a very different financial market than we have today.

I would also note that that constraint is irrelevant to the larger, more well-known VC funds who have the resources to shoulder the compliance burdens associated with registering with the SEC as registered investment advisers. They can already do this, but they are the big ones. They are the ones based in San Francisco and New York. That option isn't available for these emerging regional fund managers located in the middle of the country. Many of those funds increasingly depend on that fund-of-funds model.

What the DEAL Act does is just provides greater flexibility to those smaller VC funds while still ensuring that investors are protected and that fund managers continue to prioritize direct funding in small businesses. It does this by revising the existing rules to raise the cap from 20 percent in fund of funds up to 49 percent but still requiring that the majority of their investments are directly in portfolio companies.

In other words, the DEAL Act supports growth in the startup economy and ensures that capital reaches the communities and innovators who need it most.

I thank my fellow Midwesterner and friend, Congresswoman Wagner, for her leadership on this. I am proud to lead this important legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.