Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce the ``Tax Code Termination Act,'' legislation that will abolish the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2019, and call on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system by July of the same year.

There is no denying that our current tax system has spiraled out of control. Americans devote countless hours each year to comply with the tax code and it is very clear we need tax simplification. Today's tax code is unfair, discourages savings and investment, and is impossibly complex. Businesses and families need relief from uncertainty and the burdensome task of complying with the tax code. However, the problem is Congress won't act

on fundamental tax reform unless it is compelled to do so. The Tax Code Termination Act will finally force Congress to debate and address fundamental tax reform.

Once the Tax Code Termination Act becomes law, today's oppressive tax code would survive for only four more years, at which time it would expire and be replaced with a new tax code that will be determined by Congress, the President, and the American people. The Tax Code Termination Act will allow us, as a nation, to collectively decide what the new tax system should look like. Having a date-certain to end the current tax code will force the issue to the top of the national agenda, where it will remain until Congress finishes writing the new tax law.

This legislation has gained wide support in past Congresses and had 122 bipartisan cosponsors in the 113th Congress. In fact, similar legislation has already been passed twice by the House of Representatives, first in 1998 and then in 2000.

Although many questions remain about the best way to reform our tax system, if Congress is forced to address the issue we can create a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today. Congress won't reach a consensus on such a contentious issue unless it is forced to do so. The Tax Code Termination Act will force Congress to finally debate and address fundamental tax reform.

America's future partially depends on overcoming the impairment that is our current tax code. There is a widespread consensus that the current system is broken, and keeping it is not in America's best interest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and end the broken tax system that exists today and provide a tax code that the American people deserve.

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.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 1474) to amend the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 to repeal a special rule for the State of Alaska, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 770, I call up the bill (H.R. 5759) to establish a rule of construction clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain forms of immigration relief, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5759.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Yoho's important bill, the Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act of 2014.

President Obama has just announced one of the biggest constitutional power grabs ever by a President. He has declared unilaterally that, by his own estimation, more than 4 million unlawful immigrants will be free from the legal consequences of their lawless actions.

Not only that, he will, in addition, bestow upon them gifts such as work authorization and other immigration benefits. This despite the fact that President Obama has stated, over 20 times in the past, that he does not have the constitutional power to take such steps on his own and has repeatedly stated, ``I'm not a king.''

Pursuant to article I, section 8, of the Constitution, only Congress has the power to write immigration laws. Our Founding Fathers established this separation of powers to prevent tyranny. As James Madison wrote:

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value

or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons

of liberty than that . . . the accumulation of all powers

legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,

whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-

appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very

definition of tyranny.

President Obama is, in effect, rewriting our immigration laws by granting deferred action to more than 4 million unlawful aliens.

Pursuant to article II, section 3, of the Constitution, the President is required to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed''; yet President Obama is refusing to enforce our immigration laws for these millions of unlawful aliens.

President Obama justifies his actions by claiming that his administration is merely exercising the power of prosecutorial discretion; yet as Clinton administration INS Commissioner Doris Meissner told her agency, ``Exercising prosecutorial discretion does not lessen the INS' commitment to enforce the immigration laws to the best of our ability.''

While previous Presidents have provided immigration relief to groups of aliens, usually their actions were based on emergencies in foreign countries, thereby relying upon the broad constitutional power given to a President to conduct foreign affairs.

Without any such foreign crisis and in granting deferred action to a totally unprecedented number of aliens, President Obama has clearly exceeded his constitutional authority.

I commend Mr. Yoho for introducing his bill, which undoes the damage to our constitutional system that President Obama's actions are causing. The bill reaffirms the constitutional principles that only Congress has the power to write immigration laws and that the President must enforce those laws.

Mr. Yoho's bill prevents President Obama or any future President from exempting or deferring the removal of categories of unlawful aliens, except to the extent that the President is relying on his constitutional powers over foreign affairs or utilizing exceptions provided for in the bill for exceptional humanitarian and law enforcement circumstances.

The bill prevents President Obama or any future President from considering such aliens to be lawfully present in the United States and thus ineligible for the rights and privileges available to lawfully present aliens.

It prevents President Obama or any future President from granting work authorization to such aliens.

Finally, the bill takes effect as if enacted on November 20, 2014, thus nullifying the President's recent executive actions. I, again, urge my colleagues to vote for this necessary bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to clarify a couple of things.

First of all, it is not true that the House of Representatives has not acted to fix our broken immigration system. First of all, last summer, we passed two bills, one from the Appropriations Committee and one under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, that did just that, that provided resources to secure our borders to stop the surge of illegal immigrants coming into our country and make sure that the similarly unconstitutional DACA program that the President implemented earlier was frozen and could not proceed further. So, to me, that is simply not true.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds to say that the fact of the matter is that when you talk about taxes, there is no requirement in the President's executive order that anyone who qualifies as an unlawful alien must get this administrative legalization to pay back taxes. There is none.

They have to pay taxes moving forward, but one of the benefits is they qualify for the earned income tax credit. So this could cost the taxpayers of the country even more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would point out that the Supreme Court decision in Heckler v. Chaney in no way justifies the claim that the President of the United States has this authority to issue this enormous order.

Nor do we have a situation where it could justifiably be

found that the agency has consciously and expressly adopted a

general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an

abdication of its statutory responsibilities.

That is what has happened here. The President has abdicated his statutory responsibilities in enforcing the law and changed the law, and that is why it cannot be upheld.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to me to see former President Ronald Reagan, especially here in the House Chamber. I, in fact, voted for President Reagan twice and was proud to support him.

One of the things that I remember most about President Reagan was that great debate with his opponent in one of the Presidential debates in which he said, ``There he goes again,'' pointing out when his opponent said something inaccurate about him.

Well, there they go again because what we have today is something that is very, very different than what President Reagan did. President Reagan signed a law--a bill passed by the Congress and signed it into law, and then he found some things that he didn't think were correct, so he then took action.

In today's Washington Post, which I would cite for the gentleman from Illinois, its headline, The Washington Post editorial today, ``An action without precedent,'' so when he cites President Reagan as a precedent here, The Washington Post clearly refutes that by pointing out how small that was and how it was done in response to a specific, identifiable concern about legislation that had been passed. Guess what? The Congress then subsequently fixed it as well.

That is not what is occurring here today, and as The Washington Post notes, it is plain that the White House's numbers--the 1.5 million claim--are indefensible, and it is similarly plain that the scale of Mr. Obama's move goes far beyond anything his predecessors attempted and without legislation that had been passed to found it upon.

No, this is power grab of enormous proportion. It is unconstitutional. It is clearly what he said he was going to do when he came to this body.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

When he came to this body almost 3 years ago with his list of things that he wanted done, he said, ``If you don't do it, I will.'' On that occasion, some Members on that side of the aisle stood up and applauded.

Guess what? Since then, in health care reform, in the environment, in enforcement of our drug laws and in a whole host of other things, that is exactly what he has done, and he said he was going to do it. He said, ``I have my pen and my phone, and I will do it myself.''

Well, in this case, he has, on more than 20 occasions, said he did not have the authority to do it. Now, the folks on the other side of the aisle are saying, ``Oh, he didn't change the law.''

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

He didn't have the authority to change the law, but guess what? When he signed the order, here is what he said:

What you are not paying attention to is that I just took

action to change the law.

To change the law. Article I of the Constitution says the law is only changed by the United States Congress. Article III says the President shall faithfully execute the law. His actions are unconstitutional and they are unprecedented.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining, and so I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been said repeatedly that we need to do immigration reform, and I certainly don't disagree with that, but the United States Constitution says that immigration reform must be done by the United States Congress, and the President doesn't say, nor does the Constitution say, ``Hey, if the Congress doesn't do it or doesn't do it the way I like it, then I get the opportunity to do it myself.'' That is not what the Constitution says. It says the President shall faithfully execute the laws.

Now, the gentleman from New York, in talking about the impact of the President's executive action here says, ``Oh, the people who are here illegally and are taking jobs, they are taking jobs that Americans don't want.''

Well, maybe there is some truth to that, maybe some of them are not, but the fact of the matter is the President has unilaterally taken an executive order that would give every single one of the 4 million to 5 million undocumented people in the United States who take jobs, to take any job in the country they want to, as good a job, as high-paying a job as they want.

So, yes, we need to do immigration reform. The American people want us to do immigration reform, but they want us to start with enforcement first.

Instead, what the President has done, he has taken the law into his own hands. That is the real issue in this case and the real matter before the Congress and the real import of this legislation. It is not about where you are on immigration reform; it is about where you are on protecting the United States Constitution. Because this President's actions are unprecedented; this President's actions are beyond the pale; this President's actions are unconstitutional.

This legislation offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho) stops that. That is why every Member of the House should support this good legislation and make sure that we preserve what we are sworn under an oath to preserve, and that is the Constitution of the United States.

Ladies and gentlemen, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order, and I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), also the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador) for the contribution he made to the language that is in this important bill to stop the President's unilateral action that is unconstitutional.

The gentleman offering the motion to recommit should note that the bill takes effect as if enacted on November 20, 2014. It nullifies the President's unlawful, unconstitutional executive order. It does not change all immigration law that provides already considerable statutory protection for our members of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families. It protects victims of domestic violence who successfully petition for relief; and Cuban nationals, as has been noted during the debate here, are already protected under the law, and this bill in no way, shape, or form harms any of those protections under the law.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and support the underlying legislation, which is needed to stop the unconstitutional actions of the President of the United States in writing an executive order that is unprecedented in its scope.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5421) to amend title 11 of the United States Code in order to facilitate the resolution of an insolvent financial institution in bankruptcy, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5421, currently under consideration.

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

Today, we take an important step toward preventing the taxpayer- funded bailouts that characterized the 2008 financial crisis. The legislation before us, the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act, enhances the Bankruptcy Code to facilitate the resolution of a failing financial institution through the bankruptcy process. In doing so, this will help to ensure that private creditors, not taxpayers, bear the losses related to a failing financial institution.

The Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act is the culmination of years of review and research by the Judiciary Committee; other committees; and experts from the financial, regulatory, legal, and academic communities who helped to examine how best to prevent another financial crisis from occurring

and avert the use of taxpayer moneys to bail out failing firms.

The Judiciary Committee has participated in and promoted this review with the aim of examining whether the bankruptcy laws could be improved to enhance the prospects of resolving a financial institution through the bankruptcy process.

During the course of two oversight hearings this Congress, the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law received testimony that the Bankruptcy Code could be improved to better facilitate a resolution of a financial firm and that an amendment to chapter 11 to provide for a specialized subchapter would be the most efficient approach to that goal.

Following these hearings, the committee worked in a bipartisan fashion to draft legislation that built on this record and integrated witnesses' and leading experts' recommendations. These efforts culminated in a discussion draft of the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014, which was the subject of a legislative hearing on July 15, 2014. All witnesses at the hearing testified that, subject to a few modifications, the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act should be enacted into law.

In connection with the July 15 hearing, the committee circulated the draft legislation to a number of interested parties, including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, the National Bankruptcy Conference, and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.

The committee again, in a bipartisan fashion, received, reviewed, and incorporated multiple comments submitted by these and other parties. The bill was introduced and approved by the committee by voice vote on September 10 of this year.

The bill on the floor today is a reflection of the careful, deliberate, thorough, and bipartisan process the bill received and is the product of a diverse range of views from a variety of interested parties.

The Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act makes several improvements to the Bankruptcy Code in order to enhance the prospect of an efficient resolution of a financial firm through the bankruptcy process. The bill allows for a speedy transfer of the operating assets of a financial firm over the course of a weekend.

This quick transfer allows the financial firm to continue operating in the normal course, which preserves the value of the enterprise for the firm's creditors without having a significant impact on the firm's employees, suppliers, and customers.

The bill also requires an expedited judicial review by judges designated in advance and selected by the chief justice for their experience, expertise, and willingness to preside over these complex cases; furthermore, the legislation provides for key input from the financial institution's regulators during the process.

The Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act is a bipartisan, balanced approach that increases transparency and predictability in the resolution of a financial firm.

I am pleased that the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, joined in introducing this important legislation, and I want to thank him and his staff for working hand in hand with us during the development of this bill.

I also would like to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law, Mr. Bachus, for introducing the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act.

It is no mistake that the former chairman of the Financial Services Committee is the lead sponsor of this legislation. Mr. Bachus has been a longstanding champion of the bankruptcy process, and that was reflected in the multiple subcommittee hearings he chaired on this issue.

This legislation is a tribute to his many years dedicated to financial services and bankruptcy issues, and he will be sorely missed next Congress. I wish him all the best during the next chapter of his life.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding the time and the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings, for moving this legislation forward. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona as well for his support and indicate to him that the intention is to continue to use this land for a child care center, but in order to improve the child care center, they need to be able to get financing that is not available with the encumbrance that exists right now.

Mr. Speaker, for over 25 years, a little over 3 acres of land and its associated buildings, previously wholly held by the Federal Government, have been maintained by Rockingham County and the Plains Area Daycare Center in my congressional district.

In 1989, the Federal Government deeded these 3 acres of land to Rockingham County, but prior to this official declaration, Rockingham County had already been maintaining the lands around the facility. The land and building had been used as a garage and maintenance facility for the National Forest Service. However, it was no longer being utilized, and the county was doing upkeep on the land.

The land transfer in 1989 allowed this land to be used for public purposes. The county decided that the nonprofit Plains Area Daycare Center in Broadway, Virginia, which provides child care on a sliding scale and helps many families who otherwise could not afford child care, would benefit from the use of the old garage. Public Law 101-479 allowed the deed to be changed from public use for the particular use of the child care center.

Donations by the community, totaling $75,000, turned the garage building into a nursery, daycare, and afterschool care facility. Additionally, the creation of the daycare center provided for the creation of a playground that the center supports and is open for public use. To be clear, the center and the playground are the sole reason that this previously abandoned government land is being used by the community.

Unfortunately, because of the narrow way Public Law 101-479 was drafted, any extension or maintenance of the physical structures has required approval by the Department of the Interior. In 1998, the county had to obtain permission from the Department to add an addition that was funded through pledges and a county loan, resulting in another $125,000 worth of improvements by the community.

The building is, once again, in need of repairs, forcing the county to seek approval from the Department of the Interior for repairs. Further, because of the terms of the deed, the daycare center has been unable to get a loan to complete the needed renovations.

I have been pleased to visit the Plains Area Daycare Center on many occasions. The center is committed to providing high-quality child care on a sliding scale. The center is also committed to making sure children have the skills necessary to enter and thrive in school through early childhood education programs. The investments this center is making in the community are immeasurable. Since opening in 1991, the center has always been at capacity, and it is the only facility of its kind in the community. By passing this legislation and allowing Rockingham County and, in return, the Plains Area Daycare Center more authority over the land, it will ensure that more children and more of the community will be served by this land.

Mr. Speaker, my legislation today is a simple formality. For 25 years, the land has been deeded to Rockingham County but with restriction. It is clear the Federal Government no longer has a vested interest in the land. This property is being used by the county and the community to help those in need. My legislation removes the restrictions on the land to ensure this community investment can continue to thrive.

I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5162 so that the necessary upgrades may be made to the child care center and so that the community can be better served.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia, the Honorable Dave Brat, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the newest Member of the House of Representatives from Virginia, Dr. Dave Brat of Glen Allen, Virginia, to this Chamber.

Dave is joining this body as a new Member representing the Seventh District of Virginia. Over the past year, he has talked with his friends and neighbors about the challenges facing our Nation and what Congress can do to help grow our economy and help the private sector create jobs.

Dave is uniquely positioned to work on issues related to American jobs and the economy. With an undergraduate degree in business administration and a Ph.D. in economics, his background in economic policy will help this body deal with the most pressing issues of the day.

For the past 18 years, Dave has been a faculty member at Randolph- Macon College where he served as the chair of the department of economics. Dave is also a strong family man and, with his wife, Laura, has two children.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome Dave to the United States House of Representatives. Joining us today are our fellow Members of the Virginia delegation who welcome you and look forward to working with you.

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his welcoming remarks.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is just a real honor to be here tonight to tell my friend, Howard Coble, how much he means to me and how much I am going to miss him here in the House of Representatives.

He has not only been an outstanding leader on the House Judiciary Committee--and by the way, I hope the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) will compile all those wonderful photographs and put them in some kind of a binder so that--a book maybe, so that all of us can see and enjoy all those historic caricatures that have been created in Howard's honor over these many years--but not only has he been a great member of the House Judiciary Committee, he has been a close personal friend of mine for more than 20 years.

In addition to serving with him on the committee, he is somebody who is always turning to others, taking an interest in them. He has an uncanny ability to remember the mascots for virtually any high school or college that someone attended and his ability to always ask others how they are feeling.

With respect to this last point, he has defused more than a few difficult conversations by asking people, ``How is your back feeling?'' Inevitably, especially if someone is older, they begin to talk about back problems and forget what they were so exercised about.

He is also a great tennis player. For nearly 20 years, I have had the honor of playing tennis with him very early on Wednesday mornings. Howard isn't known for moving around the court really fast, but the thing about him is he always was there where you hit the ball, and he always put it back just exactly where he wanted it to go, an amazing accomplishment. So Howard, thank you very much for that.

I want to tell one story in conjunction with a field hearing that took place in Nashville--Howard is a great fan of bluegrass music and country music in general--a field hearing that took place in Nashville when the Fairness in Music Licensing bill was under consideration in the late 1990s, a meeting was arranged with Garth Brooks.

Howard, who was serving as the then-subcommittee chairman, was a lifelong fan of bluegrass and traditional country music. He didn't really know who Brooks was and was far more interested in arranging a meeting with Grandpa Jones from the Grand Ole Opry, but he knows who he is now. In fact, Garth is making a comeback; and, Howard, you will enjoy many, many more opportunities to enjoy the music that you love.

He would always ask me how things were in the Star City, which is my hometown of Roanoke, Virginia, and took an interest in me and what I was doing.

On the committee, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, where he serves now and has served on a number of occasions in the past, he stood very strong for the rights, the private property rights of people who are creators of music and motion pictures and great products that they seek patents on and so on.

His work will serve for a long time in the future to protect that great American incentive to create and create jobs. His work has created many jobs for many Americans.

He is a true son of the Sixth District of North Carolina. I am from the Sixth District of Virginia, but in his case, he is a lifelong son of the Sixth District, having been born in Greensboro, educated in the Sixth District, and been a county attorney and an assistant U.S. attorney. He has been a revenuer with the North Carolina Department of Revenue.

What I didn't know was that his first 6 years in his professional life, he was a claims adjuster for the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. So here, in the closing days of his service, I am still learning new things about my friend, Howard Coble.

Howard, thank you very much for not only being my friend and a great colleague to all of us here in the House, but for being a great American. Thank you, and God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, celebrating their 50th anniversary this year, Friendship Industries, Inc. in Harrisonburg, Virginia has served the Commonwealth of Virginia well by offering employment and training opportunities for individuals with disabilities. With a vision of providing ``work opportunities to ensure immediate and full employment for all persons with disabilities'' who come to them for assistance, Friendship Industries has fostered a community that seeks to value all individuals, regardless of the challenges they may face.

Friendship Industries, founded in 1964, became one of the first social enterprises in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. What first began as the Linville-Edom Sheltered Workshop for post-high school aged males has grown and flourished into a manufacturing company that has earned both private and public contracts. Through all this growth and change, Friendship Industries has retained its social mission of developing and maintaining employment and training opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

I applaud Friendship Industries for its contributions to our community. For 50 years now, the business has provided work opportunities for individuals living with disabilities, embracing the sentiment that ``work offers community and belonging.'' It is an honorable goal to extend community and belonging to all people, and it is my great pleasure to congratulate them and celebrate the work they've done to achieve that goal.

Friendship Industries, Inc. will commemorate their 50th anniversary on October 7, 2014. I am pleased to recognize them here today in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I very much appreciate his leadership on this issue.

In every State across this country, and most certainly in the Commonwealth of Virginia, there are folks still looking for good full- time jobs and businesses who want to hire them but can't for fear of government imposed regulations that increase expenses.

The administration's tax, regulate, and spend response to this problem hasn't worked, and it is incumbent upon us to enact necessary reforms to restore the American economy.

The legislation we consider today includes many provisions to combat excessive regulations that have already been passed by the House of Representatives and await action in the Senate, which has been moribund in dealing with a whole host of issues that are sitting over there on the majority leader's desk, including provisions to restore the 40-hour workweek, to permanently ban taxation of Internet access, to prevent secret settlement deals between Federal bureaucrats and pro-regulatory plaintiffs in lawsuits, to require bureaucrats to consider the cost of regulations to small businesses, to require agencies to adopt the least costly method of implementing the law, and to require Federal agencies to submit major regulations to Congress for approval. We know these provisions will help spur our economy and create jobs.

America's labor force participation rate has essentially remained stagnant for the past several months and job creation and economic growth continue to fall short of what is needed to produce a real and durable recovery in our country. It is imperative that we again take action to pass these commonsense reforms, return discouraged workers to full-time jobs, and restore America to prosperity.

I urge the Senate to stop stalling and to join us in this effort.

I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.

Energy is vital to every aspect of American life. Working families, retirees, and businesses large and small are all dependent upon reliable and affordable energy.

An unwelcome increase in the electric bill leaves many families no other option but to cut elsewhere. For businesses, higher energy costs mean less money to invest in jobs or expansion. As business costs increase, so does the price of goods down the line, triggering a chain reaction felt throughout the economy.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration's policies are contributing to the rise in energy costs by discouraging exploration of domestic resources, imposing additional regulatory hurdles on energy creation, and attempting to bypass Congress to implement economically devastating policies like cap-and-trade.

Today, Congress reminds the Obama administration about what they seem to have forgotten--that America's economy is intrinsically linked to affordable energy.

This bill encourages us to expand energy production. I am particularly pleased that it includes provisions I have worked on for a long time to move forward, a lease sale off the Virginia coast.

This sale will provide necessary energy resources for our Nation, while providing a significant boost to the economy of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It also includes other important provisions, like the Judiciary-approved RAPID Act, which cuts through the government red tape impeding development of our resources.

Today's bill helps to ensure that America is an energy leader, utilizing our resources to strengthen the reliability and affordability of energy for American consumers.

We must encourage more legislation like the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act, adopting policies that seek to rebuild our economy and create more jobs.

I urge all Members to vote for this legislation that ensures our energy security while boosting our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on this issue and managing this bill, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership and introduction of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the bills on the floor this evening represent our ongoing effort to get to the bottom of the IRS' targeting effort of innocent American citizens on the basis of their political beliefs and to ensure that such malfeasance never happens again.

As I have stated repeatedly over the past year, it is imperative that we find out who ordered the targeting, when the targeting was ordered, and why.

I commend my colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform and Ways and Means Committees for their tireless pursuit of justice for the American people.

The Judiciary Committee has been an active partner in this effort. On May 15, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder promised me and Judiciary Committee members that he would conduct a fair, impartial investigation of the IRS targeting matter.

The Attorney General made his famous pledge that:

This will not be about parties . . . this will not be about

ideological persuasions . . . and anyone who has broken the

law will be held accountable.

Unfortunately, that appears to be where the administration's commitment to pursuing this investigation ended. On May 7, 2014, following a year of no apparent progress in the investigation, the House passed H. Res. 565, calling on the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

That resolution, which laid out in detail the case for a special counsel, passed by a bipartisan vote of 250-168. Significantly, 26 Democrats joined in calling on the Attorney General of the United States to appoint an independent special counsel.

Since H. Res. 565 passed the House, other events have bolstered the already solid case for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate this matter. Incredibly, on June 13, the IRS announced that it had ``lost'' an untold number of emails belonging to Lois Lerner which were sought by congressional investigators. The ``lost'' emails covered the period between January 1, 2009, and April 2011, a period when the IRS' targeting of conservative groups was occurring regularly. How convenient.

Not 2 weeks ago, the IRS announced that it had also lost emails from five other employees involved in congressional investigations, including two agents in the supposedly ``rogue'' Cincinnati office. Again, how convenient.

On July 30, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the need for a special counsel to probe the IRS matter.

At that hearing, we heard testimony that the Justice Department had demonstrated it ``can no longer fairly and justly oversee'' any further investigations into the ongoing IRS targeting scandal and the ``only opportunity for justice'' lies with an independent special counsel.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to work with congressional investigators to ensure we all know the full story behind the IRS' targeting of conservative groups. Their attempt to pull the wool over the American peoples' eyes speaks volumes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of our ongoing efforts to uncover the truth and ensure accountability for the IRS' targeting of conservative groups. I commend my colleagues for bringing these important bills to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for them.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5108, the ``USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program Act,'' would make a law school clinic certification pilot program at the USPTO available to all law schools that provide an IP clinic program. I want to thank Rep. Jeffries and Rep. Chabot and all the co-sponsors for putting forth this legislation.

Law school clinic programs provide practical hands on experience to law students, preparing them for the real world, and provide individuals and small business with an avenue for legal representation they may otherwise be unable to afford.

I expect that as the USPTO implements this program that they will continue to maintain rigorous standards, to ensure that these clinic programs meet the highest requirements and that the students participating meet the standard educational and professional criteria for practice before the office.

These IP law clinics are an essential part of law school and they are an important way for schools to help innovators and small businesses and start-ups in their local communities. I think this is a good bill and I support its passage.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act. In Virginia and the larger Chesapeake Bay watershed we have already seen the Environmental Protection Agency micromanaging state and local water decisions. The EPA's Waters of the U.S. rule expands the regulatory over-reach we have seen in the Bay watershed to the entire United States while imposing even more harmful regulations on even more small streams, creeks, manmade ponds, and nearby wetlands under the agency's control.

Congress intended the states and federal government to implement the Clean Water Act as a federal-state partnership where the states and federal government act as co-regulators. This rule is just another example of EPA forgetting the Clean Water Act's goal of cooperative federalism. The EPA cannot re-write the Clean Water Act and expand their jurisdiction at a whim. Only Congress can grant that authority. Today's vote is an important step to rein in the EPA and protect the farmers, landowners, and local economies that stand to be harmed by this rule.

I urge passage of this important legislation. Protecting America's waterways is critical, but what we need are commonsense policies that will protect water quality without limiting economic growth and unfairly over-regulating local agricultural producers and economies-- not more power grabs by the EPA.