[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY AND 
 THE COMMITTEES ON AGRICULTURE, ENERGY AND COMMERCE, AND WAYS AND MEANS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 6, 2015

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following memoranda of 
understanding.

                      Memorandum of Understanding

       On January 6, 2015, the House agreed to H. Res. 5, 
     establishing the rules of the House for the 114th Congress. 
     Section 2(a)(2)(A) of H. Res. 5 contained a provision adding 
     `` criminalization'' to the jurisdictional statement of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       The Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
     Agriculture jointly acknowledge as the authoritative source 
     of legislative history concerning section 2(a)(2)(A) of H. 
     Res. 5 the description printed in the Congressional Record 
     and submitted by Rules Committee Chair Pete Sessions.
       By this memorandum, the committees record their further 
     mutual understandings by providing the following example, 
     which will supplement the statement cited above.
       In general, this change is not intended to cover measures 
     that make changes to a regulatory or revenue collection 
     scheme without making changes to the specific conduct that 
     triggers a criminal penalty that is part of the enforcement 
     regime.
       For instance, where a statute prohibits unauthorized 
     movement of certain prohibited plants or animals without the 
     proper permit and imposes a criminal sanction for a violation 
     of the permit, a measure which simply makes changes to the 
     permitting process would not fall within the scope of this 
     rules change, even in the case where a criminal penalty 
     applies broadly to the statute in question. It is the conduct 
     of moving the prohibited item, not the permitting process, 
     which gives rise to the Committee on the Judiciary's 
     jurisdictional interest.
       This example is intended to be merely illustrative rather 
     than exclusive or exhaustive. Nothing in this memorandum 
     precludes a further agreement between the committees with 
     regard to the implementation of this provision.
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                Chair, Committee on the Judiciary.
                                               K. Michael Conaway,
     Chair, Committee on Agriculture.
                                  ____


                      Memorandum of Understanding

       On January 6, 2015, the House agreed to H. Res. 5, 
     establishing the rules of the House for the 114th Congress. 
     Section 2(a)(2)(A) of H. Res. 5 contained a provision adding 
     `` criminalization'' to the jurisdictional statement of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       The Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce jointly acknowledge as the authoritative source 
     of legislative history concerning section 2(a)(2)(A) of H. 
     Res. 5 the description printed in the Congressional Record 
     and submitted by Rules Committee Chair Pete Sessions.
       By this memorandum, the committees record their further 
     mutual understandings by providing the following examples, 
     which will supplement the statement cited above.
       In general, this change is not intended to cover measures 
     that make changes to a regulatory or revenue collection 
     scheme without making changes to the specific conduct that 
     triggers a criminal penalty that is part of the enforcement 
     regime.
       For instance, where there is a regulatory statute that 
     prohibits discharge of a pollutant without a permit or in a 
     manner inconsistent with that permit and which imposes a 
     criminal sanction for a violation thereof, and a measure adds 
     another substance to the list of pollutants, that would not 
     fall within the scope of this change. It is the conduct of 
     discharging the pollutant, not the identification of the 
     pollutant, which gives rise to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary's jurisdictional interest.
       This example is intended to be merely illustrative rather 
     than exclusive or exhaustive. Nothing in this memorandum 
     precludes a further agreement between the committees with 
     regard to the implementation of this provision.
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                Chair, Committee on the Judiciary.
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chair, Committee on Energy and Commerce.
                                  ____


                      Memorandum of Understanding

       On January 6, 2015, the House agreed to H. Res. 5, 
     establishing the rules of the House for the 114th Congress. 
     Section 2(a)(2)(A) of H. Res. 5 contained a provision adding 
     ``criminalization'' to the jurisdictional statement of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       The Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways 
     and Means jointly acknowledge as the authoritative source of 
     legislative history concerning section 2(a)(2)(A) of H. Res. 
     5 the description printed in the Congressional Record and 
     submitted by Rules Committee Chair Pete Sessions.
       By this memorandum, the committees record their further 
     mutual understandings by providing the following example, 
     which will supplement the statement cited above.
       In general, this change is not intended to cover measures 
     that make changes to a regulatory or revenue collection 
     scheme without making changes to the specific conduct that 
     triggers a criminal penalty that is part of the enforcement 
     regime.
       For instance, where a statute prohibits evasion of taxes or 
     tariffs, and imposes a criminal sanction for a violation 
     thereof, a modification of, repeal of, or addition to a 
     substantive provision that is used to determine taxes (and, 
     if applicable, interest) or tariffs owed would not fall 
     within the scope of this rules change because it would not by 
     itself address a specific element relating to its criminal 
     enforcement. It is the conduct of evading taxes or tariffs, 
     not the imposition or calculation of the tax or tariff 
     itself, which gives rise to the Committee on the Judiciary's 
     jurisdictional interest.
       This example is intended to be merely illustrative rather 
     than exclusive or exhaustive. Nothing in this memorandum 
     precludes a further agreement between the committees with 
     regard to the implementation of this provision.
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                Chair, Committee on the Judiciary.
                                                        Paul Ryan,
     Chair, Committee on Ways and Means.

                          ____________________