[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7-H28]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RULES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 5

       Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of 
     the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, including applicable 
     provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted 
     rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Thirteenth 
     Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, with 
     amendments to the standing rules as provided in section 2, 
     and with other orders as provided in sections 3, 4, and 5.

     SEC. 2. CHANGES TO THE STANDING RULES.

       (a) Committees.--
       (1) Disclosure of foreign payments to witnesses.--Amend 
     clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI to read as follows:
       ``(5)(A) Each committee shall, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, require witnesses who appear before it to submit 
     in advance written statements of proposed testimony and to 
     limit their initial presentations to the committee to brief 
     summaries thereof.
       ``(B) In the case of a witness appearing in a 
     nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of proposed 
     testimony shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure 
     of any Federal grants or contracts, or contracts or payments 
     originating with a foreign government, received during the 
     current calendar year or either of the two previous calendar 
     years by the witness or by an entity represented by the 
     witness and related to the subject matter of the hearing.
       ``(C) The disclosure referred to in subdivision (B) shall 
     include--
       ``(i) the amount and source of each Federal grant (or 
     subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) 
     related to the subject matter of the hearing; and
       ``(ii) the amount and country of origin of any payment or 
     contract related to the subject matter of the hearing 
     originating with a foreign government.
       ``(D) Such statements, with appropriate redactions to 
     protect the privacy or security of the witness, shall be made 
     publicly available in electronic form not later than one day 
     after the witness appears.''.
       (2) Jurisdictional changes.--
       (A) Committee on the judiciary.--In clause 1(l)(7) of rule 
     X, insert before the period ``and criminalization''.
       (B) Committee on appropriations.--In clause 1(b) of rule X, 
     add the following:
       ``(5) Bills and joint resolutions that provide new budget 
     authority, limitation on the use of funds, or other authority 
     relating to new direct loan obligations and new loan 
     guarantee commitments referencing section 504(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.''.
       (3) Clarifying the jurisdiction of the committee on house 
     administration.--
       (A) Clause 4(d)(1)(A) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``for the'' and inserting ``for the Chief Administrative 
     Officer and the''.
       (B) Clause 4(a) of rule II is amended by striking ``the 
     oversight'' and inserting ``the policy direction and 
     oversight''.
       (4) Committee activity reports.--In clause 1(d) of rule 
     XI--
       (A) in subparagraph (1), insert ``odd-numbered'' after 
     ``each'';
       (B) in subparagraph (2)(A), strike ``applicable period'' 
     and insert ``Congress'';
       (C) in subparagraph (2)(B), strike ``in the case of the 
     first such report in each Congress,''; and
       (D) in subparagraph (3), strike ``a regular session of 
     Congress, or after December 15'' and insert ``the last 
     regular session of a Congress, or after December 15 of an 
     even-numbered year''.
       (5) Dissenting views.--In the standing rules, strike 
     ``supplemental, minority, or additional'' each place it 
     appears and insert (in each instance) ``supplemental, 
     minority, additional, or dissenting''.
       (6) Consolidating requirements for written rules.--
       (A) In clause 2(a)(1) of rule XI--
       (i) in subdivision (B) after the semicolon, strike ``and'';
       (ii) in subdivision (C), strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''; and
       (iii) add the following new subdivision:
       ``(D) shall include provisions to govern the implementation 
     of clause 4 as provided in paragraph (f) of such clause.''.
       (B) In clause 4(f) of rule XI, strike ``Each committee 
     shall adopt written rules to govern its implementation of 
     this clause. Such rules shall contain provisions to the 
     following effect'' and insert ``Written rules adopted by each 
     committee pursuant to clause 2(a)(1)(D) shall contain 
     provisions to the following effect''.
       (7) Conforming committee and house broadcast standards.--In 
     clause 4(b) of rule XI, strike ``used, or made available for 
     use, as partisan political campaign material to promote or 
     oppose the candidacy of any person for elective public 
     office'' and insert ``used for any partisan political 
     campaign purpose or be made available for such use''.
       (8) Eliminating the point of order against considering 
     appropriations measures without printed hearings.--In clause 
     4 of rule XIII, strike paragraph (c).
       (9) Permanent select committee on intelligence.--In clause 
     11(a)(1) of rule X, strike ``20'' and insert ``22'' and 
     strike ``12'' and insert ``13''.
       (10) Committee on ethics.--Clause 3 of rule XI of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(s) The committee may not take any action that would deny 
     any person any right or protection provided under the 
     Constitution of the United States.''.
       (b) Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.--Amend clause 8 of 
     rule II to read as follows:
       ``8.(a) There is established an Office of General Counsel 
     for the purpose of providing legal assistance and 
     representation to the House. Legal assistance and 
     representation shall be provided without regard to political 
     affiliation. The Speaker shall appoint and set the annual 
     rate of pay for employees of the Office of General Counsel. 
     The Office of General Counsel shall function pursuant to the 
     direction of the Speaker, who shall consult with the 
     Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.
       ``(b) There is established a Bipartisan Legal Advisory 
     Group composed of the Speaker and the majority and minority 
     leaderships. Unless otherwise provided by the House, the 
     Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group speaks for, and articulates 
     the institutional position of, the House in all litigation 
     matters.''.
       (c) Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Incorporate 
     Macroeconomic Effects.--
       (1) Amend rule XIII by adding the following:

     ``Estimates of major legislation

       ``8.(a) An estimate provided by the Congressional Budget 
     Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 for any major legislation shall, to the extent 
     practicable, incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in 
     economic output, employment, capital stock, and other 
     macroeconomic variables resulting from such legislation.
       ``(b) An estimate provided by the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     under section 201(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     for any major legislation shall, to the extent practicable, 
     incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in economic 
     output,

[[Page H8]]

     employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables 
     resulting from such legislation.
       ``(c) An estimate referred to in this clause shall, to the 
     extent practicable, include--
       ``(1) a qualitative assessment of the budgetary effects 
     (including macroeconomic variables described in paragraphs 
     (a) and (b)) of such legislation in the 20-fiscal year period 
     beginning after the last fiscal year of the most recently 
     agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget that set forth 
     appropriate levels required by section 301 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       ``(2) an identification of the critical assumptions and the 
     source of data underlying that estimate.
       ``(d) As used in this clause--
       ``(1) the term `major legislation' means any bill or joint 
     resolution--
       ``(A) for which an estimate is required to be prepared 
     pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 and that causes a gross budgetary effect (before 
     incorporating macroeconomic effects) in any fiscal year over 
     the years of the most recently agreed to concurrent 
     resolution on the budget equal to or greater than 0.25 
     percent of the current projected gross domestic product of 
     the United States for that fiscal year; or
       ``(B) designated as such by the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget for all direct spending legislation other than 
     revenue legislation or the Member who is chair or vice chair, 
     as applicable, of the Joint Committee on Taxation for revenue 
     legislation; and
       ``(2) the term `budgetary effects' means changes in 
     revenues, outlays, and deficits.''.
       (2) Amend clause 3(h) of rule XIII--
       (A) by striking ``(1)'', by striking ``(A)'' and inserting 
     ``(1)'', and by striking ``(B)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (2).
       (d) Providing for Reconvening Authority for the House of 
     Representatives.--In clause 12 of rule I, add the following:
       ``(e) During any recess or adjournment of not more than 
     three days, if in the opinion of the Speaker the public 
     interest so warrants, then the Speaker, after consultation 
     with the Minority Leader, may reconvene the House at a time 
     other than that previously appointed, within the limits of 
     clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, and 
     notify Members accordingly.
       ``(f) The Speaker may name a designee for purposes of 
     paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).''.
       (e) Providing Conference Committees With Time to Reach 
     Agreement.--In clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII, strike ``20'' and 
     insert ``45'' and strike ``10'' and insert ``25''.
       (f) Contents of Committee Reports Showing Changes to 
     Existing Law.--Clause 3(e)(1) of rule XIII is amended by 
     striking ``accompanying document--'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``accompanying document--
       ``(A) the entire text of each section of a statute that is 
     proposed to be repealed or amended; and
       ``(B) a comparative print of each amendment to a section of 
     a statute that the bill or joint resolution proposes to make, 
     showing by appropriate typographical devices the omissions 
     and insertions proposed.''.
       (g) Mandatory Ethics Training for New Members.--Clause 
     3(a)(6)(B)(i) of rule XI is amended by striking ``new officer 
     or employee'' and inserting ``new Member, Delegate, Resident 
     Commissioner, officer, or employee''.
       (h) Technical and Conforming Changes.--
       (1) Updating references to the joint committee on 
     taxation.--
       (A) In clause 3(h) of rule XIII, strike ``Joint Committee 
     on Internal Revenue Taxation'' each place it appears and 
     insert (in each instance) ``Joint Committee on Taxation''; 
     and
       (B) In clause 11(a) of rule XXII, strike ``Joint Committee 
     on Internal Revenue Taxation'' and insert ``Joint Committee 
     on Taxation''.
       (2) Updating cross-references.--
       (A) In clause 2(i)(2) of rule II, strike ``31b-5'' and 
     insert ``5128''.
       (B) In clause 3 of rule XXVI, strike ``pursuant to clause 
     1'' and insert ``by August 1 of each year''.

     SEC. 3. SEPARATE ORDERS.

       (a) Independent Payment Advisory Board.--Section 1899A(d) 
     of the Social Security Act shall not apply in the One Hundred 
     Fourteenth Congress.
       (b) Staff Deposition Authority for Certain Committees.--
       (1) During the first session of the One Hundred Fourteenth 
     Congress, the chair of a committee designated in paragraph 
     (3), upon consultation with the ranking minority member of 
     such committee, may order the taking of depositions, 
     including pursuant to subpoena, by a member or counsel of 
     such committee.
       (2) Depositions taken under the authority prescribed in 
     this subsection shall be subject to regulations issued by the 
     chair of the Committee on Rules and printed in the 
     Congressional Record.
       (3) The committees referred to in paragraph (1) are as 
     follows: the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee 
     on Financial Services, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology, and the Committee on Ways and Means.
       (c) Providing for Transparency With Respect to Memorials 
     Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the 
     United States.--With respect to any memorial presented under 
     clause 3 of rule XII purporting to be an application of the 
     legislature of a State calling for a convention for proposing 
     amendments to the Constitution of the United States pursuant 
     to Article V, or a rescission of any such prior application--
       (1) the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary shall, in 
     the case of such a memorial presented in the One Hundred 
     Fourteenth Congress, and may, in the case of such a memorial 
     presented prior to the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, 
     designate any such memorial for public availability by the 
     Clerk; and
       (2) the Clerk shall make such memorials as are designated 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) publicly available in electronic 
     form, organized by State of origin and year of receipt.
       (d) Spending Reduction Amendments In Appropriations 
     Bills.--
       (1) During the reading of a general appropriation bill for 
     amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union, it shall be in order to consider en bloc 
     amendments proposing only to transfer appropriations from an 
     object or objects in the bill to a spending reduction 
     account. When considered en bloc under this paragraph, such 
     amendments may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
     amendment (following disposition of any points of order 
     against such portions) and are not subject to a demand for 
     division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole.
       (2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), it shall not be in 
     order to consider an amendment to a spending reduction 
     account in the House or in the Committee of the Whole House 
     on the state of the Union.
       (3) It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a 
     general appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget 
     authority in the bill (unless considered en bloc with another 
     amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater 
     decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of 
     rule XXI).
       (4) A point of order under clause 2(b) of rule XXI shall 
     not apply to a spending reduction account.
       (5) A general appropriation bill may not be considered in 
     the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
     unless it includes a spending reduction account as the last 
     section of the bill. An order to report a general 
     appropriation bill to the House shall constitute authority 
     for the chair of the Committee on Appropriations to add such 
     a section to the bill or modify the figure contained therein.
       (6) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``spending 
     reduction account'' means an account in a general 
     appropriation bill that bears that caption and contains only 
     a recitation of the amount by which an applicable allocation 
     of new budget authority under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of new 
     budget authority proposed by the bill.
       (e) Budget Matters.--
       (1)(A) During the first session of the One Hundred 
     Fourteenth Congress, pending the adoption of a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2015--
       (i) the provisions of titles III, IV, and VI of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 25, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, as 
     adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the 
     House as though Congress has adopted such concurrent 
     resolution;
       (ii) the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels as contained in the statement of the chair of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives in 
     the Congressional Record of April 29, 2014, as adjusted in 
     the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, shall be considered for 
     all purposes in the House to be the allocations, aggregates, 
     and other appropriate levels under titles III and IV of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974;
       (iii) all references in titles IV and VI of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 25, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, to 
     a fiscal year shall be considered for all purposes in the 
     House to be references to the succeeding fiscal year; and
       (iv) all references in titles IV and VI of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 25, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, to 
     allocations, aggregates, or other appropriate levels in 
     ``this concurrent resolution'' (or, in the case of section 
     408 of such concurrent resolution, ``this resolution'') shall 
     be considered for all purposes in the House to be references 
     to the allocations, aggregates, or other appropriate levels 
     contained in the statement of the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House of Representatives printed in the 
     Congressional Record of April 29, 2014, as adjusted in the 
     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress.
       (B) The chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels 
     provided for in subparagraph (A)(ii) for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure maintains the solvency of the 
     Highway Trust Fund, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2015 
     through 2025.
       (C) The chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels 
     provided for in subparagraph (A)(ii) to take into account the 
     most recent baseline published by the Congressional Budget 
     Office.
       (2)(A) During the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, except 
     as provided in subparagraph (C), a motion that the Committee 
     of the Whole rise and report a bill to the House shall not be 
     in order if the bill, as amended,

[[Page H9]]

     exceeds an applicable allocation of new budget authority 
     under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     as estimated by the Committee on the Budget.
       (B) If a point of order under subparagraph (A) is 
     sustained, the Chair shall put the question: ``Shall the 
     Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted notwithstanding 
     that the bill exceeds its allocation of new budget authority 
     under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974?''. Such question shall be debatable for 10 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by a proponent of the question 
     and an opponent but shall be decided without intervening 
     motion.
       (C) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply--
       (i) to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI; or
       (ii) after disposition of a question under subparagraph (B) 
     on a given bill.
       (D) If a question under subparagraph (B) is decided in the 
     negative, no further amendment shall be in order except--
       (i) one proper amendment, which shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole; and
       (ii) pro forma amendments, if offered by the chair or 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
     their designees, for the purpose of debate.
       (f) Continuing Litigation Authorities.--
       (1) Oversight and government reform and the office of 
     general counsel.--
       (A) The House authorizes--
       (i) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress to act as the successor in 
     interest to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress and the One Hundred 
     Twelfth Congress with respect to the civil action Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform, United States House of 
     Representatives v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., in his official 
     capacity as Attorney General of the United States, filed by 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the One 
     Hundred Twelfth Congress pursuant to House Resolution 706; 
     and
       (ii) the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform (when elected), on behalf of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform, and the Office of General 
     Counsel to take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure 
     continuation of such civil action, including amending the 
     complaint as circumstances may warrant.
       (B) The House authorizes the chair of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform (when elected), on behalf of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and until 
     such committee has adopted rules pursuant to clause 2(a) of 
     rule XI, to issue subpoenas related to the investigation into 
     the United States Department of Justice operation known as 
     ``Fast and Furious'' and related matters.
       (C) The House authorizes the chair of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform (when elected), on behalf of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the 
     Office of General Counsel to petition to join as a party to 
     the civil action referenced in paragraph (1) any individual 
     subpoenaed by the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress or the One 
     Hundred Twelfth Congress as part of its investigation into 
     the United States Department of Justice operation known as 
     ``Fast and Furious'' and related matters who failed to comply 
     with such subpoena, or any successor to such individual.
       (D) The House authorizes the chair of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform (when elected), on behalf of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the 
     Office of General Counsel, at the authorization of the 
     Speaker after consultation with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory 
     Group, to initiate judicial proceedings concerning the 
     enforcement of subpoenas issued to such individuals.
       (2) The house of representatives and the office of general 
     counsel.--
       (A) The House of Representatives of the One Hundred 
     Fourteenth Congress is authorized to act as the successor in 
     interest to the House of Representatives of the One Hundred 
     Thirteenth Congress with respect to the civil action United 
     States House of Representatives v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, in 
     her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States 
     Department of Health and Human Services, et al., filed by the 
     House of Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth 
     Congress pursuant to House Resolution 676; and
       (B) The House authorizes the Speaker, on behalf of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Office of General Counsel 
     to take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure 
     continuation of such civil action, including amending the 
     complaint as circumstances may warrant.
       (C) The authorities provided by House Resolution 676 of the 
     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress remain in full force and 
     effect in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.
       (3) Authority to provide testimony.--The House authorizes 
     Michael W. Sheehy to provide testimony in the criminal action 
     United States v. Jeffrey Sterling in accordance with the 
     authorizations provided to Mr. Sheehy by the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the One Hundred Thirteenth 
     Congress and the One Hundred Twelfth Congress.
       (g) Duplication of Federal Programs.--
       (1) The chair of a committee may request that the 
     Government Accountability Office perform a duplication 
     analysis of any bill or joint resolution referred to that 
     committee. Any such analysis shall assess whether, and the 
     extent to which, the bill or joint resolution creates a new 
     Federal program, office, or initiative that duplicates or 
     overlaps with any existing Federal program, office, or 
     initiative.
       (2) The report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 
     that establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal 
     Government shall include a statement, as though under clause 
     3(c) of rule XIII, indicating whether any such program is 
     known to be duplicative of another such program. The 
     statement shall at a minimum explain whether--
       (A) any such program was included in any report from the 
     Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
     section 21 of Public Law 111-139; or
       (B) the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 
     published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act 
     (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 98-169), 
     identified other programs related to the program established 
     or reauthorized by the measure.
       (h) Estimates of Direct Spending.--
       (1) It shall not be in order to consider any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, or amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, unless it contains a separate heading 
     entitled ``Direct Spending'', which shall include a category 
     for ``Means-Tested Direct Spending'' and a category for 
     ``Nonmeans-Tested Direct Spending'' and sets forth--
       (A) the average rate of growth for each category in the 
     total amount of outlays during the 10-year period preceding 
     the budget year;
       (B) estimates for each such category under current law for 
     the period covered by the concurrent resolution; and
       (C) information on proposed reforms in such categories.
       (2) Before the consideration of a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget by the Committee on the Budget for a fiscal year, 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget shall submit for 
     printing in the Congressional Record a description of 
     programs which shall be considered means-tested direct 
     spending and nonmeans-tested direct spending for purposes of 
     this subsection.
       (i) Disclosure of Directed Rulemakings.--
       (1) The report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 
     shall include a statement, as though under clause 3(c) of 
     rule XIII, estimating the number of directed rule makings 
     required by the measure.
       (2) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ``directed 
     rule making'' means a specific rule making within the meaning 
     of section 551 of title 5, United States Code, specifically 
     directed to be completed by a provision in the measure, but 
     does not include a grant of discretionary rule making 
     authority.
       (j) Subcommittees.--Notwithstanding clause 5(d) of rule X, 
     during the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress--
       (1) the Committee on Agriculture may have not more than six 
     subcommittees;
       (2) the Committee on Armed Services may have not more than 
     seven subcommittees;
       (3) the Committee on Foreign Affairs may have not more than 
     seven subcommittees; and
       (4) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may 
     have not more than six subcommittees.
       (k) Exercise Facilities for Former Members.--During the One 
     Hundred Fourteenth Congress--
       (1) The House of Representatives may not provide access to 
     any exercise facility which is made available exclusively to 
     Members and former Members, officers and former officers of 
     the House of Representatives, and their spouses to any former 
     Member, former officer, or spouse who is a lobbyist 
     registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or any 
     successor statute or agent of a foreign principal as defined 
     in clause 5 of rule XXV. For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``Member'' includes a Delegate or Resident Commissioner 
     to the Congress.
       (2) The Committee on House Administration shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this subsection.
       (l) Numbering of Bills.--In the One Hundred Fourteenth 
     Congress, the first 10 numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 
     10) shall be reserved for assignment by the Speaker and the 
     second 10 numbers for bills (H.R. 11 through H.R. 20) shall 
     be reserved for assignment by the Minority Leader.
       (m) Inclusion of Citations for Proposed Repeals and 
     Amendments.--To the maximum extent practicable and consistent 
     with established drafting conventions, an instruction in a 
     bill or joint resolution proposing to repeal or amend any law 
     or part thereof not contained in a codified title of the 
     United States Code shall include, in parentheses immediately 
     following the designation of the matter proposed to be 
     repealed or amended, the applicable United States Code 
     citation (which may be a note in the United States Code), or, 
     if no such citation is available, an appropriate alternative 
     citation to the applicable law or part.

[[Page H10]]

       (n) Broadening Availability of Legislative Documents in 
     Machine Readable Formats.--The Committee on House 
     Administration, the Clerk, and other officers and officials 
     of the House shall continue efforts to broaden the 
     availability of legislative documents in machine readable 
     formats in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress in furtherance 
     of the institutional priority of improving public 
     availability and use of legislative information produced by 
     the House and its committees.
       (o) Temporary Designation.--Pending the designation of a 
     location by the Committee on House Administration pursuant to 
     clause 3 of rule XXIX, documents may be made publicly 
     available in electronic form at an electronic document 
     repository operated by the Clerk.
       (p) Congressional Member Organization Transparency 
     Reform.--
       (1) Payment of salaries and expenses through account of 
     organization.--A Member of the House of Representatives and 
     an eligible Congressional Member Organization may enter into 
     an agreement under which--
       (A) an employee of the Member's office may carry out 
     official and representational duties of the Member by 
     assignment to the Organization; and
       (B) to the extent that the employee carries out such duties 
     under the agreement, the Member shall transfer the portion of 
     the Members' Representation Allowance of the Member which 
     would otherwise be used for the salary and related expenses 
     of the employee to a dedicated account in the House of 
     Representatives which is administered by the Organization, in 
     accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Committee 
     on House Administration under paragraph (2).
       (2) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration 
     (hereafter referred to as the ``Committee'') shall promulgate 
     regulations as follows:
       (A) Use of mra.--Pursuant to the authority of section 
     101(d) of the House of Representatives Administrative Reform 
     Technical Corrections Act (2 U.S.C. 5341(d)), the Committee 
     shall prescribe regulations to provide that an eligible 
     Congressional Member Organization may use the amounts 
     transferred to the Organization's dedicated account under 
     paragraph (1)(B) for the same purposes for which a Member of 
     the House of Representatives may use the Members' 
     Representational Allowance, except that the Organization may 
     not use such amounts for franked mail, official travel, or 
     leases of space or vehicles.
       (B) Maintenance of limitations on number of shared 
     employees.--Pursuant to the authority of section 104(d) of 
     the House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 
     Corrections Act (2 U.S.C. 5321(d)), the Committee shall 
     prescribe regulations to provide that an employee of the 
     office of a Member of the House of Representatives who is 
     covered by an agreement entered into under paragraph (1) 
     between the Member and an eligible Congressional Member 
     Organization shall be considered a shared employee of the 
     Member's office and the Organization for purposes of such 
     section, and shall include in such regulations appropriate 
     accounting standards to ensure that a Member of the House of 
     Representatives who enters into an agreement with such an 
     Organization under paragraph (1) does not employ more 
     employees than the Member is authorized to employ under such 
     section.
       (C) Participation in student loan repayment program.--
     Pursuant to the authority of section 105(b) of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003 (2 U.S.C. 
     4536(b)), relating to the student loan repayment program for 
     employees of the House, the Committee shall promulgate 
     regulations to provide that, in the case of an employee who 
     is covered by an agreement entered into under paragraph (1) 
     between a Member of the House of Representatives and an 
     eligible Congressional Member Organization and who 
     participates in such program while carrying out duties under 
     the agreement--
       (i) any funds made available for making payments under the 
     program with respect to the employee shall be transferred to 
     the Organization's dedicated account under paragraph (1)(B); 
     and
       (ii) the Organization shall use the funds to repay a 
     student loan taken out by the employee, under the same terms 
     and conditions which would apply under the program if the 
     Organization were the employing office of the employee.
       (D) Access to house services.--The Committee shall 
     prescribe regulations to ensure that an eligible 
     Congressional Member Organization has appropriate access to 
     services of the House.
       (E) Other regulations.--The Committee shall promulgate such 
     other regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (3) Eligible congressional member organization defined.--In 
     this subsection, the term ``eligible Congressional Member 
     Organization'' means, with respect to the One Hundred 
     Fourteenth Congress, an organization meeting each of the 
     following requirements:
       (A) The organization is registered as a Congressional 
     Member Organization with the Committee on House 
     Administration.
       (B) The organization designates a single Member of the 
     House of Representatives to be responsible for the 
     administration of the organization, including the 
     administration of the account administered under paragraph 
     (1)(B), and includes the identification of such Member with 
     the statement of organization that the organization files and 
     maintains with the Committee on House Administration.
       (C) At least 3 employees of the House are assigned to work 
     for the organization.
       (D) During the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, at least 30 
     Members of the House of Representatives used a portion of the 
     Members' Representational Allowance of the Member for the 
     salary and related expenses of an employee who was a shared 
     employee of the Member's office and the organization.
       (E) The organization files a statement with the Committee 
     on House Administration and the Chief Administrative Officer 
     of the House of Representatives certifying that it will 
     administer an account in accordance with paragraph (1)(B).
       (q) Social Security Solvency.--
       (1) Point of order.--During the One Hundred Fourteenth 
     Congress, it shall not be in order to consider a bill or 
     joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that reduces the actuarial balance by at 
     least .01 percent of the present value of future taxable 
     payroll of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund established under section 201(a) of the Social Security 
     Act for the 75-year period utilized in the most recent annual 
     report of the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 
     201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a measure 
     that would improve the actuarial balance of the combined 
     balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for the 
     75-year period utilized in the most recent annual report of 
     the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 4. COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND HOUSE OFFICES.

       (a) Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 
     Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.--House Resolution 567, One 
     Hundred Thirteenth Congress, shall apply in the same manner 
     as such resolution applied in the One Hundred Thirteenth 
     Congress, except that notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2)(A) of 
     rule XI, the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 
     2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi may adopt a rule or motion 
     permitting members of the select committee to question a 
     witness for ten minutes until such time as each member of the 
     select committee who so desires has had an opportunity to 
     question such witness.
       (b) House Democracy Partnership.--House Resolution 24, One 
     Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in the One Hundred 
     Fourteenth Congress in the same manner as such resolution 
     applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress except that the 
     commission concerned shall be known as the House Democracy 
     Partnership.
       (c) Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.--Sections 1 through 
     7 of House Resolution 1451, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall 
     apply in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress in the same 
     manner as such provisions applied in the One Hundred Tenth 
     Congress, except that--
       (1) the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission may, in addition 
     to collaborating closely with other professional staff 
     members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, collaborate 
     closely with professional staff members of other relevant 
     committees; and
       (2) the resources of the Committee on Foreign Affairs which 
     the Commission may use shall include all resources which the 
     Committee is authorized to obtain from other offices of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (d) Office of Congressional Ethics.--Section 1 of House 
     Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in 
     the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress in the same manner as 
     such provision applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
     except that--
       (1) the Office of Congressional Ethics shall be treated as 
     a standing committee of the House for purposes of section 
     202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 72a(i));
       (2) references to the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct shall be construed as references to the Committee on 
     Ethics;
       (3) the second sentence of section 1(b)(6)(A) shall not 
     apply;
       (4) members subject to section 1(b)(6)(B) may be 
     reappointed for a second additional term;
       (5) any individual who is the subject of a preliminary 
     review or second-phase review by the board shall be informed 
     of the right to be represented by counsel and invoking that 
     right should not be held negatively against them; and
       (6) the Office may not take any action that would deny any 
     person any right or protection provided under the 
     Constitution of the United States.

     SEC. 5. ORDER OF BUSINESS.

       The Speaker may recognize a Member for the reading of the 
     Constitution on any legislative day through January 16, 2015.

  Mr. McCARTHY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                            Motion to Refer

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion that is at the 
desk.

[[Page H11]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Norton moves to refer the resolution to a select 
     committee of five members, to be appointed by the Speaker, 
     not more than three of whom shall be from the same political 
     party, with instructions not to report back the same until it 
     has conducted a full and complete study of, and made a 
     determination on, whether there is any reason to deny 
     Delegates voting rights in the Committee of the Whole House 
     on the state of the Union in light of the decision of the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     in Michel v. Anderson (14 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) 
     upholding the constitutionality of such voting rights, and 
     the inclusion of such voting rights in the Rules for the 
     103rd, 110th and 111th Congresses.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to table at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to table.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McCarthy moves to lay on the table the motion to refer.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 160, not voting 43, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 3]

                               YEAS--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--160

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Moore
     Moulton
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Babin
     Bishop (UT)
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Crawford
     Farr
     Fleischmann
     Granger
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Honda
     Loudermilk
     Murphy (FL)
     Nugent
     Pascrell
     Sewell (AL)
     Sinema
     Stutzman
     Trott
     Watson Coleman


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2015, on page H11, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--43 Babin Bishop (UT) Carney Carter (GA) Carter (TX) 
Cartwright Cicilline Costa Crawford Crowley Engel Farr Fleischmann 
Gowdy Granger Grijalva Grothman Higgins Honda Loudermilk Lowey 
Maloney Carolyn Maloney, Sean Meeks Meng Murphy (FL) Nadler Nolan 
Nugent Nunnelee Pascrell Price (NC) Rangel Sewell (AL) Sinema 
Stutzman Tonko Trott VelaAE1zquez Waters, Maxine Watson 
Coleman Welch Young (AK)
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: NOT VOTING--21 
Babin Bishop (UT) Carney Carter (GA) Cartwright Crawford Farr 
Fleischmann Granger Grijalva Grothman Honda Loudermilk Murphy (FL) 
Nugent Pascrell Sewell (AL) Sinema Stutzman Trott Watson Coleman


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                              {time}  1507

  Mr. RATCLIFFE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, I was detained 
in meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, because of inclement 
weather and two grounded flights, I was unable to vote during rollcall 
2--Electing the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I would have 
proudly voted for Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California for Speaker 
of the House of Representatives.
  I was also unable to vote during rollcall vote 3--Motion to Table. 
Had I been present, I would have voted against the Motion to Table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. McCarthy) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the hour to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted 
to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but I

[[Page H12]]

also want to thank Chairman Sessions for the hard work he has done in 
putting the rules package together today.
  Today, the House will adopt these rules to govern the 114th Congress 
and dictate how this House will function over the next 2 years. As you 
will hear over the course of this debate, they are a recommitment by 
the Republican majority to govern transparently.
  The rules ensure that both Members and the public have a chance to 
read bills before they come up for a vote, institute more accurate 
accounting for the economic effect of legislation, and restore the 
constitutional balance of power between the legislative and executive 
branches.
  With these rules in place, the House can now proceed in tackling the 
challenges facing America today and pass legislation that creates jobs, 
grows the economy, and promotes freedom for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rules package.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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

[[Page H13]]

     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

[[Page H14]]

     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.
                                  ____

                                    Office of the Parliamentarian,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                   Washington, DC.

                               Memorandum

     To: Over-Criminalization Task Force of the Committee on the 
         Judiciary.
     From: Office of the Parliamentarian.
     Date: July 21, 2014.

       The Over-Criminalization Task Force of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary is tasked with assessing the current federal 
     criminal statutes and making recommendations for 
     improvements. One of its areas of study is legislative 
     jurisdiction in the House over proposals addressing Federal 
     criminal law. This memo provides guidance on the rules of the 
     House and precedents in this area.


 Rule X--the jurisdictional statement of the Committee on the Judiciary

       The Parliamentarian, acting as the Speaker's agent, refers 
     bills and other matters upon their introduction to committees 
     pursuant to the jurisdiction of each committee as defined by 
     rule X, taking into account any relevant precedents. Rule XII 
     guides the Speaker in the type and timing of a referral.
       The jurisdiction of each of the 20 standing committees of 
     the House is set out in rule X of the rules of the House. The 
     jurisdictional statement of the Committee on the Judiciary is 
     found in clause 1(l) of rule X. The referral of measures on 
     the subject of criminalization is based on clause 1(l)(1) 
     addressing, ``The judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil 
     and criminal,'' and clause 1(l)(7), addressing ``Criminal law 
     enforcement.''
       The jurisdictional statement regarding ``The judiciary and 
     judicial proceedings, civil and criminal'' has been in place 
     since the creation of the Committee on the Judiciary in 1813. 
     That statement has been interpreted to apply to matters 
     ``touching judicial proceedings.'' Hinds, vol. 4, sec. 4054.
       The jurisdictional statement regarding ``Criminal law 
     enforcement'' was added in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(a)(2), 
     H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005). This statement has been interpreted 
     by the Office of the Parliamentarian as a codification of the 
     committee's existing de facto jurisdiction over legislation 
     addressing law enforcement powers, consistent with the 
     absence of legislative history supplying any other meaning 
     (Cong. Rec. Jan 4, 2005). This area of the committee's 
     jurisdiction is often manifested in * * *


                           Referral Patterns

       The issue presented by indirect criminalization can be 
     found in examples spanning many different subject matters. 
     One illustration is in the referrals of the Lacey Act, a 
     frequently amended statute that regulates the trafficking of 
     fish, wildlife, and plants. The Lacey Act is compiled in both 
     title 16 and title 18 of the United States Code. In the case 
     of H.R. 3049 of the 109th Congress (regulating the 
     trafficking in Asian carp), the bill amended 18 U.S.C. 42 and 
     addressed criminalization. Accordingly, it was referred to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary. In contrast, H.R. 1497 of the 
     110th Congress (regulating plants harvested outside the 
     United States) amended various regulatory sections of the 
     Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 that have been compiled in title 
     16 of the United States Code. The bill extended the Lacey 
     Act's coverage to plants harvested outside the United States 
     and any address of criminalization was indirect. Accordingly, 
     it was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
       A more recent example is found in the animal welfare area. 
     H.R. 2492 of the 112th Congress 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. The bill was referred to both the Committee 
     on Agriculture and the Committee on the Judiciary. Parts of 
     the contents of this bill were later included in a larger 
     measure in the 113th Congress--H.R. 2642, the Federal 
     Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 (section 
     11311). The provision 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. The Parliamentarian advised that a 
     referral to the Committee on the Judiciary was not consistent 
     with past precedent.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

                              {time}  1515

  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

[[Page H15]]

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.

                           HARRY A. BLACKMUN

  Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Remarks to the 
 Philadelphia Bar Association ``Celebration of the Bicentennial of the 
                            Bill of Rights''


                             Nov. 22, 1991

            Transcript Available in the Library of Congress

       So there you are. Does it bother you that, in this 
     Bicentennial year, the Bill of Rights which we regard almost 
     as Holy Writ in our national consciousness, was forged in the 
     crucible of disagreement and contest and tempered by the 
     Founders' diverse estimates of political reaction? It should 
     not bother us, I submit, for that is the very stuff from 
     which strong constitutions emerge--the lessons derived from 
     past adversities, from hardening experiences with our fellows 
     and with those who would govern us, and, from the fervent 
     desire to avoid, as Santayana warned us, the necessity of 
     living history over again. Our Constitution and Bill of 
     Rights are of our own making. They are the product of hard 
     bargaining, not the divine gift of a visionary presence.
       My final observation is of a different and lighter touch. A 
     great poet, one whom T.S. Eliot once called ``the greatest 
     poet of our times * * * certainly the greatest in this 
     language, and so far as I am able to judge, in any 
     language,'' wrote two things that have intrigued me.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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. SESSIONS. 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, 
D.C.
  Republicans have put forth all sorts of reforms, not just in the 
House of Representatives--more transparency, more opportunities for 
debate--but the opportunity for the American people to see that what we 
are trying to do is to give the American people a chance to debate and 
to vote and to move forward legislative ideas, not just about jobs and 
not just about a better economy and not just about more freedom and not 
just about trying to take care of energy, but also to protect the men 
and women who protect this country. The 114th Congress is going to 
present also an opportunity, I think, for all of us to up our game, to 
work together.
  The House and the Senate because they are in Republican control--
instead of things being roadblocked and set aside and stacked up--over 
300 bills, Mr. Speaker, this past term on which we are waiting for 
Senatorial action--can work together to enact legislation. We can talk 
with the American people. We can fashion transparency in bills for 
accountability, something that the American people want and need.
  It also represents an opportunity for us to jump-start our economy. 
We are here to serve people back home. We are here to make things 
better for people back home, not to give away our country, but to make 
it stronger, a chance to empower people in their communities to make 
their own decisions and, hopefully, reap the rewards that come from 
that.
  Many times, it is not just about the creation of a job, but really of 
sustaining these families who are trying to work and make things happen 
and make more decisions about themselves and their futures.
  To begin that process today, as we open the House for the 114th 
Congress, we have a rules package. As we begin, I want to say let's not 
forget why we are here. We are here because those from our individual 
congressional districts sent us here--mine, the 32nd Congressional 
District of Texas, sent me here to accomplish things on their behalf--
to make life better for them, to create better opportunities for people 
today, and a better America in the future, so that we are able to 
extend our lead among other nations with, I believe, American ingenuity 
and opportunity--American exceptionalism, as we say it in Dallas, 
Texas, Mr. Speaker, American exceptional power.
  Whether it is leading in the United States military or providing 
leadership for freedom, that is what we are best at, and we have this 
privilege by serving in this body.
  We must also be held accountable, I believe, to the Constitution. We 
have, all of us today, raised our hands to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States. It doesn't mean certain parts of 
that Constitution; it means the Constitution.
  By our being here today, we are, once again, reaffirming that in this 
rules package--the support to the Constitution, that basis of power, 
that is so important in that we understand the House, the Senate, the 
Presidency but, most of all, the power that lies with people, the rules 
package helps us to achieve these goals.
  H. Res. 5 is a continuation of the House Republicans' efforts to 
streamline processes, to increase transparency, and to improve 
accountability. Specifically, it preserves the important reforms that 
were made in the previous two Congresses. It also adds a few perfecting 
amendments and orders to help further advance our twin goal of 
transparency and openness for all of the Members of this body. I would 
like to take a few minutes, if I can, to highlight some of the key 
parts of this rules package, Mr. Speaker.

  First, it builds upon the fiscal restraint imposed upon the Federal 
Government by House Republicans in the

[[Page H16]]

last two Congresses. We have seen in the last 4 years that the American 
economy is able to grow when the government shrinks and when less 
taxpayer money is used to support the government, more freedom and 
opportunity. We should have a smaller government and a larger free 
enterprise system. That is a goal. ``Limited government'' means 
unlimited opportunity for people back home.
  In 2011, the Federal Government was spending 24 percent of our GDP, 
and the economy was suffering. Thanks to the leadership of House 
Republicans, the Federal Government's spending is now down. In fact, 
the Federal Government now spends 19.9 percent of our GDP, which is 
nearly 5 percent less than just 4 years ago.
  This has come through fiscal restraint. This has come through making 
sure that we spoke to the American people about government that was 
getting too big, costing too much money, and had too much power. The 
American people understood that because the government was getting in 
the way, not playing its role of making life better for people but, 
rather, getting in the way and making onerous decisions on our economy, 
on people's jobs, and, perhaps worst of all, on stifling families and 
the American Dream.
  In turn, we are finally now seeing, as a result of these 5 years in 
which we have held government spending--it has decreased from 24 
percent of GDP to 19.9 percent--an economic growth rate that the 
American people, I think, want and deserve.
  Are we where we want to be? Absolutely not. What is the approximate 
level? We need a GDP growth of 4 percent. We need a GDP growth not just 
in Dallas, Texas, but all over this country where we have people who in 
their homes, in their cities, and in their regions are able to take 
care of themselves, to sustain their economies, and to take care of 
their infrastructures in a responsible way.
  This Congress, Republicans are going to provide for fiscal discipline 
that restrains spending and gets the government out of the way. Getting 
government out of the way means you take money away from it which does 
one of two things: it leaves more money back home for people, or it 
simply gives people more opportunity to invest in the marketplace to 
grow jobs.
  This rules package will ensure that Congress has the necessary budget 
enforcement tools in place to continue our work that will help create 
jobs and grow the economy.
  We have a brandnew Budget chairman. He is one of the finest members 
of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price). 
Mr. Price has been not only a professional at his job as a physician 
where he healed people, but he came to Washington to do the same for 
us.
  His ascension to be the chairman of the Budget Committee will offer 
this country and, I believe, more specifically, this body a 
reevaluation of the important attributes of having a good economy 
through better budgeting and ways that we can restrain the Federal 
Government from unwanted and unnecessary spending to that which is done 
for the American people that makes sense. Tom Price will become a 
household name, and he will earn the accolades that he will get from 
his chairmanship.
  Second, the rules package includes a commonsense requirement for 
Congress when we consider legislation that will have a larger impact on 
our economy. In short, the House is going to require the Congressional 
Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide 
nonpartisan macroeconomic analyses for legislation that costs .25 
percent of projected GDP.
  What does this mean? This means that, now, we are going to be able to 
recognize on percentage basis points how close is the impact of our 
decisions that we make and to project them out to where we are able to 
actually know what the impact will be of the legislation that we pass 
in order to create more jobs.
  It is meant to err on the side of people and the free enterprise 
system, as opposed to stymieing what would end up going to them and 
erring on the side of growing this government.

                              {time}  1530

  This means that the House will take time to analyze how legislation 
that we consider will really impact the American economy to where we 
can project what it will be as a result of including billions of 
dollars back into the economy for economic growth and development on 
the side of the free enterprise system.
  This is going to allow us to measure the impact of legislation, it is 
going to help us to use some commonsense projections on how our ideas 
are going to help the bottom line.
  Gosh knows we have been through 4 years where we saw high taxes, high 
spending, Big Government that caused America to fall not only in 
relative power to the rest of the world, but it placed on the American 
people disillusionment, unemployment, high taxation, people who could 
not pay their bills, a loss of their own identity within their own 
systems.
  Unemployment up to 23 million people unemployed and underemployed; we 
have now turned that corner. We will continue to turn that corner and 
extrapolate out how we want to get to all sectors of our economy to 
have a better shot at jobs in their hometown, in their region, and ones 
that they can keep, not have and then lose again.
  It is these current opportunities that lie right before us, and the 
gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman, the chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, Mr. Ryan, are perfectly suited for selling to this 
body and the American people why we believe that we have got to look at 
and change the way we authorize bills.
  So under one method, which would be called static scoring, which is 
what we have, we assume that major legislation does not change economic 
behavior. They just plug a new number in, and then we assume nothing 
really happens.
  But in fact we know when you raise taxes, you lower the opportunity 
for people not only to create more economic benefit, but you take that 
incentive away.
  Our friends, the Democrats, would leave you to believe that taxation 
is a zero sum game, that when rates go up, revenues always come that 
way, and aren't we for making sure that we balance our budget?
  Well, let me tell you what? It didn't work that way. We were spending 
hundreds of billions of dollars more. Instead of an economy that was 
working, we were paying unemployment compensation--people not to be 
employed, people to be at home, a terrible cost not only to humanity 
but also to our Treasury.
  We need people to go to work, and encouraging them to do this through 
our Tax Code means that people can have the dignity of work, the 
opportunity to make their life better, and perhaps more importantly, a 
chance for America to grow its GDP.
  We have examples over and over that we have seen about how taxation 
legislation affects behavior, and certainly in my home State of Texas, 
I remember in the 1980s and the early 1990s, when revenue was at a 
premium for the Democrats who ran our House and Senate in Texas, and of 
course they wanted to raise more revenue, and they were always looking 
for ways to raise revenue.
  I remember them looking when I was just out of high school at 
personalized license plates, and they looked at how much money came in 
for personalized license plates. I want to say it was $30 for the 
plates. They needed more revenue, so they just doubled that amount of 
money that it would cost, knowing they would get twice as much revenue.
  But it didn't work that way, Mr. Speaker. Not surprisingly, fewer 
Texans bought more license plates. But to the Democrats, it was a 
simple matter under static scoring of just saying they wanted more 
money, and they were going to increase the rates. It doesn't happen 
that way because the American people or citizens understand they would 
no longer buy something at a different rate.
  The same thing is true of tax rates, Mr. Speaker. We have the exact 
same problem, where people who are working and working hard, when you 
take away their money, there is less money that they can put into the 
economy to grow another job, to give somebody a chance at a new job.
  These are the things we are going to be looking at, how we can 
maximize through the effort of Dr. Price, through the effort of Paul 
Ryan, the Ways and Means Committee, the Budget Committee to bring the 
leading edge

[[Page H17]]

ideas instead of saying, no, it is really a zero sum game. If you want 
to do something, you have to really raise taxes; you can't give money 
back to people because, oh my gosh, the Federal Government would be in 
trouble. Well, we are not.
  It would change from unemployment compensation to people working, and 
Republicans believe in work. We believe in empowering communities and 
people standing a chance to go from unemployment and welfare to a 
chance to have a job. We are going to get this done.
  Let me be clear. Republicans are not arguing that tax cuts always pay 
for themselves. They don't. But instead we are acknowledging that when 
it is done right, when you study what you are doing, you can make an 
effort to have a tax cut to grow the economy. I believe Republicans 
understand that the American economy and Americans are better off when 
they keep more of their paychecks.
  Lastly, this rules package defends the House's constitutional role in 
our system of checks and balances by providing for continuation of 
legal actions against the executive branch. It will allow the House to 
pursue its lawsuits and to enforce subpoenas, for instance, in the Fast 
and Furious investigation, where we have seen guns that were sold by 
the United States Government and put into hands of very dangerous 
people all around our world, including in Mexico and other places, only 
to find they come back and appear where they were involved in murders 
in the United States. It is a lawless action that was taken by our 
Department of Justice. It is wrong, and we are going to continue 
pursuing this.
  So it means that we are going to look at those things that this 
Federal Government is doing that we believe are unconstitutional and 
should change also. We also believe in a lawsuit against the executive 
branch regarding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. In 
short, this package makes it perfectly clear that our constitutional 
order still matters, and it is Congress' job to write the law and for 
the President to faithfully execute it. We are not going to stand by 
and watch this President go and write laws and to execute them down the 
block. We are going to make sure we do it the way the Constitution 
spoke about.
  Certainly we know that IPAB, which is a part of the President's 
package, where he has this group of people that have unlimited power to 
make decisions over health care, over people as opposed to a physician, 
we are going to limit that authority. We believe we are within the 
right in doing this because the American people want and need a health 
care system that works, not one that we cannot afford and we cannot 
find a doctor, and where the government and a bureaucrat make decisions 
as opposed to a physician and a patient.
  Regardless of what one thinks about ObamaCare, all Members of 
Congress should be united to preserve and protect the role of the House 
of Representatives and our ability to make the laws on behalf of people 
and work with the President in that.
  Finally, the package is going to allow the Speaker to recognize 
Members for the reading of the Constitution on any legislative day 
through January 16, 2015. I believe it is vital. We saw this several 
years ago, Mr. Speaker, where we came down to the floor of the House 
and took turns at reading the Constitution. It is a vital part of our 
history. It is important that we understand it serves this great Nation 
that separates us from so many other countries, the rule of law and 
constitutional guidance.

  This rules package that I have outlined will better enable the House 
to perform our duties. It will help us with our obligations, our 
integrity, and transparency and accountability, and it is going to help 
us to make sure that we work well together with each other.
  Our friends, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, elected 
Members of this body, I am very proud to say that this resolution 
represents so many great things. I think it is a balanced package, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. 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.

[[Page H18]]

  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.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely astounding that within minutes--
minutes--of our being sworn in, our Republican colleagues want to pass 
a rule that will stack the deck in favor of trying to give another big 
tax cut not to the middle class, but to millionaires, the folks at the 
very top. That is what their budget does.
  What is equally astounding is that this economic theory of trickle-
down economics crashed and burned in the real world between 2001 and 
2008. Our Republican colleague says that if you give millionaires these 
tax cuts, they are going to spend them, and a little bit will trickle 
down to the middle class and people who aspire to the middle class and 
boost everybody up.
  That is not what happened. What happened? Sure, the folks who got the 
tax cuts at the top, they did better. Nobody else did. In fact, real 
wages went down. What went up? The deficit--and everybody has to pay 
for that deficit.
  Now, I heard the Speaker this morning say he wanted to deal with the 
issue of wage stagnation. That is what we should be focused on. We 
shouldn't be talking about tax cuts for the wealthy and a trickle-down 
theory. We should try to build this economy from the middle class out 
and from the bottom up.
  I am glad the Speaker said that because we are going to give him an 
opportunity to vote for something that will address wage stagnation. I 
am going to offer a motion at the end of this debate. It is called the 
CEO-Employee Paycheck Fairness Act, and it addresses this issue.
  If you look back in the 1960s and 1970s, when workers were working 
hard, they got paid more, but beginning around 1979, they kept working 
hard, productivity kept going up, but their wages got flat. What 
happened during the same time? CEOs took care of themselves. Their pay 
started to go up and up and up. It used to be about 20 times that of 
the average worker.
  In other words, the CEO and the folks at the top got about 20 times 
what they were paying their employees, but as you can see, it has now 
shot up so that CEOs and the top guys get paid about 300 times what 
their workers are getting paid.
  We have a simple proposition: that corporations should not be able to 
deduct the bonuses and compensation for their CEOs and other executives 
over $1 million unless they are giving their employees a fair shake, a 
fair wage. Right? Why should the taxpayers be subsidizing that?
  Between 2007 and 2010, they took about $66 billion, thereabouts, in 
deductions for bonuses for performance pay when they were sometimes 
laying off employees and cutting their paychecks, so we say: ``Hey, 
okay, pay yourselves what you want, but if you want the taxpayers to 
allow you to deduct your bonuses and performance pay, for goodness' 
sakes, you had better be giving your employees a fair shake.''
  Over time, that would close that gap in worker productivity and wages 
and do what the Speaker said he wanted to do this morning, which is 
deal with wage stagnation. Let's help the workers, not just the CEOs. 
Let's vote for the CEO-Employee Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, there they go again, more tax increases, 
bigger government, the Democrat party. I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) to respond to that.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Actually, what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is 
a Republican plan that actually cuts the top rate for folks at the top 
from 39 percent to 25 percent.
  The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has said that will actually leave 
the middle class family--typical family--paying another $2,000, so that 
you can give the folks at the very top another tax break.
  When you increase the deficit, guess who pays the bill? Everybody, 
all the taxpayers do. So you give a tax break to the folks at the top, 
increase the deficit, and everybody else is left to pay the bill. That 
is not the right way to go. Vote for this motion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who has been successful 
already about inversions.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican rule 
package and to the previous question. If we defeat that question, Ms. 
Slaughter will offer an amendment to end corporate desertion.
  Over the last decade, we have seen nearly 50 American companies try 
to avoid taxes by moving their mailboxes overseas, but they leave their 
operations here, effectively renouncing their U.S. citizenship in order 
to dodge taxes.
  These companies benefit from American education, research and 
development incentives, and infrastructure, all taxpayer supported, but 
when their own tax bill arrives, they hide overseas and are no longer 
American corporations.
  They even have the temerity--and this is legal under the law today, 
and it shouldn't be--they have the temerity then to apply for Federal 
contracts, but they deny their U.S. citizenship when it comes to paying 
their taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, what this amendment would do is make sure that they pay 
their fair share. The extra revenue goes to the highway trust fund. 
That trust fund runs out of money in May if we do not act. Anyone who 
has driven a car lately knows how badly our roads need investment.
  Our highways are crumbling beneath our wheels, 65 percent of our 
major roads are in less than good condition, and one-quarter of our 
bridges require repair or improvements. The backlog of projects grows 
longer by the day.
  At a time when globalization is gathering pace, this state of affairs 
puts America's competitiveness in jeopardy.

[[Page H19]]

According to the World Economic Forum, the United States has slipped 
from 7th to 18th in the quality of our roadways. Replenishing the 
highway trust fund will reverse this trend, unleash economic growth, 
and create thousands of good jobs that cannot be sent overseas.
  If we want business to invest in this Nation, we must be prepared to 
do the same. Instead of lining the pockets of corporate deserters, we 
should be revitalizing our roadways. That is the path to a better, 
stronger, and more sustainable economy. This amendment puts us back on 
the right track.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democratic 
leader.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I spent the holidays with family 
and friends reflecting on the blessings of the past year. There were 
many.
  Since 2009, the stock market has soared another 10,000 points. In 
2009, our budget deficit stood at $1.4 trillion. Today, according to 
current projections, we have sliced that deficit to $514 billion, and 
we have created 10 million new jobs, the longest stretch of private 
sector job growth in American history.

  When I left home yesterday, I left my wife with a full tank of gas, 
and I did so paying less than $2 per gallon. It was the first time I 
have been able to do that in 5 years. We have achieved much progress 
over the past several years. Now, we must get about the work of making 
sure that progress is shared by all.
  Mr. Speaker, in a few moments, we will cast some substantive votes. 
These votes will literally set the rules of the game for the next 2 
years. They will be a very clear reflection of our respective parties' 
priorities.
  While Republicans' rules changes seem to rig the game in favor of the 
wealthy, Democrats will immediately force a vote on job creation, 
bigger paychecks for working families, and American competitiveness and 
economic growth.
  Democrats want to put people to work building roads and bridges that 
will connect our economy in the 21st century. We will ensure that every 
American shares in our Nation's prosperity by taking away corporate tax 
deductions for millionaire executive compensation unless their 
employees get a raise as well.
  It is simple, Mr. Speaker. House Republicans' first priority in the 
114th Congress is stacking the deck for those with the highest incomes 
and for voodoo, trickle-down economics. House Democrats' first priority 
is to put Americans in a better place by creating jobs, standing up for 
working families, and growing the economy for all. The contrast could 
not be more stark.
  Mr. Speaker, House Democrats' numbers may be smaller in the 114th, 
but we are stronger in our unity and resolve to grow and strengthen 
middle income Americans. Today, with our votes on the new rules, Mr. 
Speaker, we will be demonstrating our support for hardworking American 
families.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should simply take this time to say to my 
colleagues: welcome back, happy new year, and I missed you.
  Technically, we are considering, debating, and voting on the 
Republican majority's ``rules package,'' but that is sort of a 
misnomer. The word ``rules,'' as most of us understand it, means a set 
of procedures that someone is required to follow, but if my Republican 
friends have demonstrated anything over the past few years, it is that 
they have absolutely no intention of following the rules of the House. 
They routinely waive, ignore, or break the rules of this House whenever 
it is convenient or politically expedient for them to do so.
  The gentleman from Texas says the Speaker of the House promised the 
most open Congress in history. I hate to remind him that the 
Republicans presided over the most closed Congress in history during 
the 113th Congress.
  Let me just mention a couple of the most egregious provisions in this 
package before us today. First, my Republican friends believe we should 
adopt the voodoo economics of so-called dynamic scoring. Under this 
fairy tale, they would have us believe that tax cuts for the very 
wealthy don't increase the deficit. Never mind that time after time 
after time in our history, those tax cuts for the rich have caused an 
explosion in our deficit. This rules package would have us believe that 
up is down and left is right.
  Second, this package would allow committee staff from the Ways and 
Means Committee, Financial Services, Energy and Commerce, and the 
Science Committee to take depositions under oath. Currently, only the 
Oversight Committee has that authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I served as a staff member in this House for the late 
Congressman Joe Moakley. Our staff members are dedicated public 
servants who work incredibly hard, but this provision, quite frankly, 
goes too far.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to be spending our time on rebuilding our aging 
infrastructure and increasing workers' paychecks rather than making it 
easier to conduct more political witch hunts, which the American people 
are fed up with.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to serve on the Rules Committee, and that 
word ``rules'' used to mean something. My hope is that in this 
Congress, enough of my Republican colleagues will demonstrate the 
political courage to make it mean something again.
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, to those who have wondered, what would be 
the top priority of this Republican-controlled Congress? What would 
they do on day one? Well, now we know. It is deception, what some could 
even rightly call tax fraud, since this amounts to deliberate 
misrepresentation of tax data.
  Republicans are admitting right here on day one that they don't know 
how to balance the budget. When the budget numbers will not add up, 
when the arithmetic just doesn't work for them, they change the numbers 
with magical new math. Where the books won't balance with the numbers 
that you have got, Republicans say, ``Use the numbers you would like to 
have.''
  All their previous talk about budget discipline and balancing budgets 
was really about trying to dismantle Democratic efforts to provide an 
opportunity ladder up for all Americans, to assure dignity in 
retirement, and to protect families from the risk of illness--that 
ladder of security and protection that many Republicans were never for 
in the first place.
  Now, to free themselves from the hard work of responsible, balanced 
budgets, Republicans are compelling the House for the first time in 
American history to rely upon something they call ``dynamic scoring''--
That is just a euphemism for whimsy, speculation, and wishful 
thinking--the thin veneer for a failed political ideology.
  One leading Republican expert, former Senate budget staff director 
Bill Hoagland, has said that instead of this scoring gimmick that they 
are using today, he would ``rather [they] just simply belly up to the 
bar'' and ``admit up front that they can't lower rates without adding 
to the deficit.''

                              {time}  1600

  Today's actions remind me of a riddle some attribute to President 
Abraham Lincoln: ``How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a 
leg? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.''
  And calling a budget ``balanced'' when it doesn't have adequate 
revenue does not make it so.
  Passing a budget requires hard work. Republicans would rather use a 
sleight of hand than offer a helping hand from all to get the job done. 
Vote no.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in fact, Republicans are going to use a 
doctor to get the budget done this time.

[[Page H20]]

  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the 
young chairman from the Budget Committee.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chairman of the Democratic 
Caucus.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  It is time to get to work. Americans don't care who won or lost in 
the election. They just want us to get our work done. They want us to 
work together to solve the problems that they see every day. They want 
us to boost job growth, and they want us to build an economy that works 
for all Americans, not just the privileged few.
  The rules of the road that should guide this Congress should be built 
on the foundation that has increased opportunities for American 
families over the last few years--nearly 11 million new jobs, 57 
consecutive months of job growth, the longest streak in our country's 
history. There are 10 million more Americans with health insurance, 
which means more security for those Americans. The deficit has been cut 
by two-thirds since 2009.
  What is the one piece of the puzzle that we now need to work on? In 
that span of time since we have seen things go better; the economy has 
grown 12 percent; corporate profits have grown by 46 percent, and the 
stock market by 92 percent. What hasn't grown? The paycheck that the 
average American gets day in and day out for working to do all those 
things to make it possible for the stock market and corporations to 
succeed. So it is time for us to focus on the middle of America that 
works hard every month and gets a paycheck but doesn't see that 
paycheck grow.
  This rules package requires Congress to use fuzzy math, so-called 
dynamic scoring, to make it easier to give massive tax breaks to 
special interests and the wealthy. Is that what the middle class wants? 
No.
  Republicans have also added a midnight change to this rules package 
that rigs the rules against 59 million Americans who currently receive 
Social Security and to the 160 million Americans who are working today 
to get Social Security in the future and don't know if Social Security 
will be there based on these rules. That is not what Americans in the 
middle want.
  Congress should be in the business of making life better, not worse, 
for everyday Americans. So let's establish rules of the road for this 
Congress that let us build on the economic progress of nearly 11 
million new Americans going back to work, 57 months straight of job 
growth.
  What we don't need are rules of the road for this House that give a 
green light to reckless legislating that favors special interests and 
the privileged few at the expense of the middle class and America's 
Social Security.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, what was said by the Budget Committee 
chairman is not correct. This is not about more information. This is a 
requirement that these official cost estimates really be part of the 
enforcement of the budget resolution. So what this is, in a few words: 
Republicans today are extending their embrace of voodoo economics by 
wrapping their arms around voodoo score keeping. Again, it is not about 
more information. It is being able to cook the books to implement their 
long-held discredited notion that tax cuts pay for themselves.
  I think the former Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration 
official Bruce Bartlett said it best:

       It is not about honest revenue estimating. It is about 
     using smoke and mirrors to institutionalize Republican 
     ideology in the budget process.

  Mr. Speaker, that is what this is all about.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague if he has 
any remaining speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I do have one additional speaker, and then I will 
close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I 
thank her for her wonderful work on behalf of the American people as 
the ranking member on the Rules Committee for such a long time and in 
such a very strong way.
  My colleagues, I congratulate you and your families on your swearing 
in today. We had a lovely ceremony earlier. Eventually it became that, 
after we knew the outcome of the vote. But it is clear that the 
election at the polls in November demonstrated that the American people 
are hopeful that this new Congress can work together to grow our 
economy and, in turn, grow paychecks for American workers. Honoring 
that trust, House Democrats today are putting forward a legislative 
package to increase paychecks for working families and put Americans 
back to work building the roads and bridges our country needs, paid for 
by keeping our tax dollars here at home. I

[[Page H21]]

talked about this a little bit earlier when I introduced the Speaker.
  What we are proposing, sadly, is in sharp contrast to what the 
Republicans have in this rule. The first vote that the Republicans are 
asking this Congress to take in the new Congress will be to advance 
additional tax cuts for the wealthy and special interests. When they 
talk about dynamic scoring--when they talk about dynamic scoring--it is 
a very bad deal for middle-income families in our country.
  In sharp contrast to them, we will bring forth the Stop Corporate 
Expatriation and Invest in America's Infrastructure Act, which prevents 
U.S. corporations from renouncing their citizenship in order 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.
  Every chance any of us gets, we have to make that point. I don't see 
anything partisan about it. And many Republicans have voted in this 
manner in the past. So this was supposed to be something where we have 
common ground.
  House Democrats will also put forth the CEO-Employee Pay Fairness 
Act, and that is legislation to ensure that workers share in the fruit 
of their productivity, denying CEOs the ability to claim tax deductions 
on income over $1 million unless they give their employees a well-
deserved raise.
  The American people are owed an open and transparent debate on these 
issues. Today, with this rules package, Republicans are shutting down 
debate for Democrats and Republicans. With their extending of the 
amount of time it takes for Members to put forth a motion to instruct, 
they are shutting down debate. They are rejecting transparency and 
openness. That is what the American people want: transparency and 
openness.
  In all that we do in Congress, we must keep the hopes, dreams, and 
aspirations of the American people in the forefront. We must be 
committed to do this is a bipartisan way, an open and transparent way. 
This bill today rejects that.
  Now what I want to say, and we all have been reading our Christmas 
cards and all the rest, but one of the ones that I want to share with 
you which is irrelevant to our discussion today is from my friend Jack 
Trout. What he said in ``A Seasonal Greeting for the Times'':

       To borrow a Biblical reference, the money changers have 
     taken over the temple.
       What is behind all of this is a concerted effort by wealthy 
     companies and people to protect the status quo and their 
     vested interests. The result is the sad fact that the middle 
     class gets squeezed while the rich get richer. This squeeze 
     is why the consumer-led economy has been so slow to rebound 
     after the financial crisis.
       What people fail to realize is the simple fact that the 
     middle class are the real job creators in America. They 
     generate demand, which, in turn, builds markets. The middle 
     class put ``merry'' into Merry Christmas.

  I mention this because the fact is that it is true that when the 
consumer economy, which is what we are, is alive and well and thriving, 
they spend money, inject demand in the economy, create jobs, and our 
economic recovery is accelerated.
  Dynamic scoring, suppressing debate, and some of the other things 
contained in this rule are contrary to that and antagonistic to the 
financial stability of the middle class. So I hope that our 
colleagues--and there are so many reasons to go through. But what means 
the most to America's working families is their financial stability. On 
that subject alone, were it not even for other things in this bill 
which we could talk about all day that should be rejected, but just 
because it, again, has a negative impact on the growth of our economy 
when it comes to supporting the financial stability of the middle class 
we should vote ``no'' on this.
  The Democrats offer a sharp contrast. The motion that will be made to 
call the previous question is one that calls for us to talk about 
building the infrastructure of America. The motion to commit that will 
be put forth by Mr. Van Hollen is one that is fair in terms of pay to 
our workers.
  So for many reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote 
``no.'' This isn't what was talked about in terms of ideals and values 
this morning. This is about putting the squeeze on the middle class, 
doing it in a nontransparent way, and doing it under the rules of the 
House. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York, the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all of my colleagues on our swearing in. 
I just hope that it doesn't trigger 2 years of swearing at. It really 
does not have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. Democrats in this House will 
work with the majority to find commonsense solutions to ease the 
squeeze, to support paycheck growth for the middle class.
  What better middle ground than the middle class, Mr. Speaker. The 
problem with this rules package is it is stacked against the middle 
class, it is stacked against tax cuts for the middle class, it is 
stacked against paycheck growth for the middle class.
  In contrast, Mr. Speaker, here is what House Democrats are proposing. 
It is very simple.
  Number one, bigger paychecks for the middle class. Under the current 
rules that the majority supports, Mr. Speaker, a CEO can get a million-
dollar bonus and deduct that million dollars from taxes. That shifts 
that tax burden to an underpaid worker for that CEO. Now, how is that 
fair? How is that fair? It is not.
  It is bad enough that middle class workers' paychecks are squeezed, 
but sticking the middle class worker with a bill for the CEO's taxes as 
a result of that million dollar bonus is unconscionable. We have a 
better way, a better contrast, something that will grow paychecks for 
the middle class.
  Second, under the rules, in the stacked deck that the majority 
supports, a big corporation can ship jobs overseas. With those jobs 
overseas go bigger bridges, better roads, better airports, and faster 
airplanes. Meanwhile, in my district on Long Island, Mr. Speaker, the 
average middle class worker has to drive through potholes, has longer 
delays, slower trains, antiquated transportation systems, and delayed 
airplanes because all of the infrastructure is being built abroad.
  It is bad enough that corporations are given incentives to ship jobs 
overseas. It is unconscionable that under these rules those 
corporations are able to build infrastructure in those foreign places 
while America decays.
  Under our contrast, Mr. Speaker, we will invest in America, we will 
rebuild America, we will create new jobs in America, improving our 
infrastructure.
  It is bad enough to be underpaid, Mr. Speaker, but to be underpaid 
and have to drive through potholes, that is even worse.
  Mr. Speaker, on this first day of this new Congress until the very 
last day of this new Congress, the American people are going to want to 
know whose side we are on. With these two votes we clearly demonstrate 
and clearly establish who is on whose side.
  I urge my colleagues in this majority on this first day to establish 
for the American people whose backs they have: the special interests, 
tax deductions for million-dollar bonuses, foreign corporations; or 
rebuilding America and rebuilding American jobs.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. 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

[[Page H22]]

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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H23]]

  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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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. TOM PRICE of Georgia. 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.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 5 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. STOP CORPORATE EXPATRIATION AND INVEST IN AMERICA'S 
     INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2015.
       Not later than January 31, 2015, the Speaker shall, 
     pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House 
     resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
     of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting of the 
     text specified in section 8 of this resolution, to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rules relating to 
     inverted corporations and to transfer the resulting revenues 
     to the Highway Trust Fund. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 8 of this 
     resolution.

[[Page H24]]

       Sec. 8. The text referred to in section 6 is as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Corporate Expatriation 
     and Invest in America's Infrastructure Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO RULES RELATING TO INVERTED 
                   CORPORATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 7874 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Inverted Corporations Treated as Domestic 
     Corporations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(4), a 
     foreign corporation shall be treated for purposes of this 
     title as a domestic corporation if--
       ``(A) such corporation would be a surrogate foreign 
     corporation if subsection (a)(2) were applied by substituting 
     `80 percent' for `60 percent', or
       ``(B) such corporation is an inverted domestic corporation.
       ``(2) Inverted domestic corporation.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, a foreign corporation shall be treated as an 
     inverted domestic corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a 
     series of related transactions)--
       ``(A) the entity completes after May 8, 2014, the direct or 
     indirect acquisition of--
       ``(i) substantially all of the properties held directly or 
     indirectly by a domestic corporation, or
       ``(ii) substantially all of the assets of, or substantially 
     all of the properties constituting a trade or business of, a 
     domestic partnership, and
       ``(B) after the acquisition, either--
       ``(i) more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value) 
     of the entity is held--

       ``(I) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic 
     corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic 
     corporation, or
       ``(II) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic 
     partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits 
     interest in the domestic partnership, or

       ``(ii) the management and control of the expanded 
     affiliated group which includes the entity occurs, directly 
     or indirectly, primarily within the United States, and such 
     expanded affiliated group has significant domestic business 
     activities.
       ``(3) Exception for corporations with substantial business 
     activities in foreign country of organization.--A foreign 
     corporation described in paragraph (2) shall not be treated 
     as an inverted domestic corporation if after the acquisition 
     the expanded affiliated group which includes the entity has 
     substantial business activities in the foreign country in 
     which or under the law of which the entity is created or 
     organized when compared to the total business activities of 
     such expanded affiliated group. For purposes of subsection 
     (a)(2)(B)(iii) and the preceding sentence, the term 
     `substantial business activities' shall have the meaning 
     given such term under regulations in effect on May 8, 2014, 
     except that the Secretary may issue regulations increasing 
     the threshold percent in any of the tests under such 
     regulations for determining if business activities constitute 
     substantial business activities for purposes of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(4) Management and control.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(ii)--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     regulations for purposes of determining cases in which the 
     management and control of an expanded affiliated group is to 
     be treated as occurring, directly or indirectly, primarily 
     within the United States. The regulations prescribed under 
     the preceding sentence shall apply to periods after May 8, 
     2014.
       ``(B) Executive officers and senior management.--Such 
     regulations shall provide that the management and control of 
     an expanded affiliated group shall be treated as occurring, 
     directly or indirectly, primarily within the United States if 
     substantially all of the executive officers and senior 
     management of the expanded affiliated group who exercise day-
     to-day responsibility for making decisions involving 
     strategic, financial, and operational policies of the 
     expanded affiliated group are based or primarily located 
     within the United States. Individuals who in fact exercise 
     such day-to-day responsibilities shall be treated as 
     executive officers and senior management regardless of their 
     title.
       ``(5) Significant domestic business activities.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (2)(B)(ii), an expanded affiliated 
     group has significant domestic business activities if at 
     least 25 percent of--
       ``(A) the employees of the group are based in the United 
     States,
       ``(B) the employee compensation incurred by the group is 
     incurred with respect to employees based in the United 
     States,
       ``(C) the assets of the group are located in the United 
     States, or
       ``(D) the income of the group is derived in the United 
     States,

     determined in the same manner as such determinations are made 
     for purposes of determining substantial business activities 
     under regulations referred to in paragraph (3) as in effect 
     on May 8, 2014, but applied by treating all references in 
     such regulations to `foreign country' and `relevant foreign 
     country' as references to `the United States'. The Secretary 
     may issue regulations decreasing the threshold percent in any 
     of the tests under such regulations for determining if 
     business activities constitute significant domestic business 
     activities for purposes of this paragraph.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Clause (i) of section 7874(a)(2)(B) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``after March 4, 2003,'' and inserting 
     ``after March 4, 2003, and before May 9, 2014,''.
       (2) Subsection (c) of section 7874 of such Code is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii)'' and inserting 
     ``subsections (a)(2)(B)(ii) and (b)(2)(B)(i)'', and
       (ii) by inserting ``or (b)(2)(A)'' after ``(a)(2)(B)(i)'' 
     in subparagraph (B),
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or (b)(2)(B)(i), as 
     the case may be,'' after ``(a)(2)(B)(ii)'',
       (C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``subsection 
     (a)(2)(B)(ii)'' and inserting ``subsections (a)(2)(B)(ii) and 
     (b)(2)(B)(i)'', and
       (D) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``or inverted domestic 
     corporation, as the case may be,'' after ``surrogate foreign 
     corporation''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after May 8, 2014.

     SEC. 3. TRANSFERS TO HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 9503(f) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraph (5) as 
     paragraph (6) and by inserting after paragraph (4) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Additional appropriations to trust fund.--Out of 
     money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there is 
     hereby appropriated--
       ``(A) $26,852,000,000 to the Highway Account (as defined in 
     subsection (e)(5)(B)) in the Highway Trust Fund, and
       ``(B) $6,713,000,000 to the Mass Transit Account in the 
     Highway Trust Fund.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.


[[Page H25]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 168, not voting 26, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 4]

                               YEAS--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--168

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cleaver
     Huffman
     Knight
     Lieu (CA)
     Mooney (WV)
     Payne


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2015, on page H25, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--26 CaAE1rdenas Carney Carter (TX) Cleaver Costa 
Crowley Engel Higgins Huffman Knight Lieu (CA) Lowey Maloney, 
Carolyn Maloney, Sean Meeks Meng Mooney (WV) Nadler Nolan Nunnelee 
Payne Rangel Tonko VelaAE1zquez Waters, Maxine Young 
(AK)
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: NOT VOTING--8 
CaAE1rdenas Carney Carter (TX) Cleaver Costa Crowley 
Engel Higgins Huffman Knight Lieu (CA) Lowey Maloney, Carolyn 
Maloney, Sean Meeks Meng Mooney (WV) Nadler Nolan Nunnelee Payne 
Rangel Tonko VelaAE1zquez Waters, Maxine Young (AK)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                      Swearing in of Members-Elect

  The SPEAKER (during the vote). While Members are coming in to record 
their votes, it is the intention of the Chair to administer the oath of 
office to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), and the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Messrs. Gowdy, Welch, Cicilline, Price of North Carolina, and Cooper 
appeared at the bar of the House, and the Speaker administered the oath 
of office to them as follows:

       Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and 
     defend the Constitution of the United States against all 
     enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith 
     and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation 
     freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; 
     and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of 
     the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.

  The SPEAKER. Congratulations. You are now Members of the 114th 
Congress.

                              {time}  1652

  Ms. MOORE and Ms. CLARKE of New York changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 4, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Van Hollen moves that the resolution (H. Res. 5) be 
     committed to a select committee composed of the Majority 
     Leader and the Minority Leader with instructions to report it 
     forthwith back to the House with the following amendment:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. CEO-EMPLOYEE PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015.
       Not later than January 31, 2015, the Speaker shall, 
     pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House 
     resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
     of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting of the 
     text specified in section 8 of this resolution, to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the denial of 
     deduction for certain excessive employee remuneration. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 8 of this 
     resolution.
       Sec. 8. The text referred to in section 6 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``CEO-Employee Paycheck 
     Fairness Act of 2015''.

[[Page H26]]

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN 
                   EXCESSIVE EMPLOYEE REMUNERATION.

       (a) Expanded Application of Deduction Denial if Pay 
     Fairness Requirement Not Met.--Section 162(m) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Special rule in case of companies not meeting pay 
     fairness requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a publicly held 
     corporation which does not meet the pay fairness requirement 
     of subparagraph (B) for the taxable year--
       ``(i) no deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for 
     applicable employee remuneration with respect to any employee 
     to the extent that the amount of such remuneration for the 
     taxable year with respect to such employee exceeds 
     $1,000,000, and
       ``(ii) paragraph (4) shall be applied without regard to 
     subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) thereof.

     For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `employee' 
     includes any officer or director of the taxpayer and any 
     former officer, director, or employee of the taxpayer.
       ``(B) Pay fairness requirement.--The pay fairness 
     requirement of this subparagraph is satisfied if--
       ``(i)(I) the average compensation paid by the taxpayer to 
     or for all applicable United States employees for the taxable 
     year, exceeds
       ``(II) the inflation and productivity growth adjusted 
     average of such compensation for the preceding taxable year, 
     and
       ``(ii) the aggregate compensation paid by the employer to 
     or for all applicable United States employees for the taxable 
     year is not less than the aggregate of such compensation for 
     the preceding taxable year.
       ``(C) Applicable united states employee.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `applicable United States employee' 
     means, with respect to any taxable year, any employee--
       ``(i) whose services with respect to the employer are 
     substantially all performed within the United States, and
       ``(ii) whose compensation from the employer for the taxable 
     year does not exceed the dollar amount in effect under 
     section 414(q)(1)(B)(i) with respect to the calendar year in 
     which such taxable year begins.
       ``(D) Inflation and productivity growth adjusted average.--
     The inflation and productivity growth adjusted average of 
     compensation under subparagraph (B)(i)(II) for any taxable 
     year shall be determined by multiplying--
       ``(i) the average of the compensation paid by the taxpayer 
     to or for all applicable United States employees for the 
     taxable year, by
       ``(ii) the sum of the cost-of-living adjustment and the 
     productivity adjustment for the taxable year.
       ``(E) Cost-of-living adjustment.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (D)(ii), the cost-of-living adjustment for any 
     taxable year shall be the cost-of-living adjustment 
     determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in 
     which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting 
     `the second preceding calendar year' for `calendar year 1992' 
     in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(F) Productivity adjustment.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (D)(ii)--
       ``(i) In general.--The productivity adjustment for the 
     taxable year shall be an amount (expressed as a percentage) 
     equal to the average annual increase in the business 
     productivity index for the period beginning with calendar 
     year 2000 and ending with the calendar year preceding the 
     calendar year in which the taxable year begins.
       ``(ii) Business productivity index.--The term `business 
     productivity index' means the nonfarm business productivity 
     index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as adjusted 
     by the Secretary to account for depreciation.
       ``(G) Compensation.--For purposes of this subparagraph, the 
     term `compensation' means, with respect to any employee, the 
     sum of--
       ``(i) the employee's wages on which the tax under section 
     3101(b) is imposed, plus
       ``(ii) any amount described in paragraph (9), (11), (12), 
     or (14) of section 6051(a) with respect to the employee.
       ``(H) Aggregation rules.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     paragraph (5)(B)(iii) shall apply for purposes of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(I) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this paragraph, including adjustments to the pay fairness 
     requirements of subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) to prevent avoidance of this paragraph through 
     changes in the composition of the taxpayer's workforce, and
       ``(ii) to account for significant, non-tax-motivated 
     changes in the size and composition of the taxpayer's 
     workforce (including mergers, spinoffs, or changes in the 
     occupational composition of a taxpayer's workforce).''.
       (b) Modification of Definition of Covered Employees.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 162(m) of such 
     Code is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``as of the close of 
     the taxable year, such employee is the chief executive 
     officer of the taxpayer or'' and inserting ``such employee is 
     the chief executive officer or the chief financial officer of 
     the taxpayer at any time during the taxable year, or was'',
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``(other than the chief 
     executive officer)'' and inserting ``(other than any 
     individual described in subparagraph (A))'', and
       (C) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by 
     striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) was a covered employee of the taxpayer (or any 
     predecessor) for any preceding taxable year beginning after 
     December 31, 2014.''.
       (2) Technical amendment.--Section 162(m)(3)(B) of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``4 highest'' and inserting ``3 
     highest''.
       (c) Applicable Employee Remuneration Paid to Beneficiaries, 
     etc.--Paragraph (4) of section 162(m) of such Code is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(H) Special rule for remuneration paid to beneficiaries, 
     etc.--Remuneration shall not fail to be applicable employee 
     remuneration merely because it is includible in the income 
     of, or paid to, a person other than the covered employee, 
     including after the death of the covered employee.''.
       (d) Expansion of Applicable Employer To Include Non-Listed 
     Public Companies.--Paragraph (2) of section 162(m) of such 
     Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Publicly held corporation.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `publicly held corporation' means any 
     corporation which is an issuer (as defined in section 3 of 
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)--
       ``(A) that has a class of securities registered under 
     section 12 of such Act, or
       ``(B) that is required to file reports under section 15(d) 
     of such Act.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2014.

  Mr. SESSIONS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to commit be considered as read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to commit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 168, 
nays 243, not voting 22, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 5]

                               YEAS--168

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost

[[Page H27]]


     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--4

     McKinley
     Mooney (WV)
     Pitts
     Sanchez, Loretta


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2015, on page H27, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--22 Carter (TX) Costa Crowley Engel Higgins Lowey Maloney, 
Carolyn Maloney, Sean McKinley Meeks Meng Mooney WV) Nadler Nolan 
Nunnelee Pitts Rangel Sanchez, Loretta Tonko 
VelaAE1zquez Waters, Maxine Young (AK)
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: NOT VOTING--4 
Carter (TX) Costa Crowley Engel Higgins Lowey Maloney, Carolyn 
Maloney, Sean McKinley Meeks Meng Mooney (WV) Nadler Nolan 
Nunnelee Pitts Rangel Sanchez, Loretta Tonko 
VelaAE1zquez Waters, Maxine Young (AK)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                              {time}  1714

  Messrs. GOHMERT, ASHFORD, and PALMER changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. TAKANO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 172, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 26, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 6]

                               YEAS--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--172

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Mulvaney
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Capps
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Duffy
     Larson (CT)
     Mooney (WV)
     Pitts
     Watson Coleman


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 6, 2015, on page H27, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--26 Capps Carter (TX) Costa Crowley DeLauro Deutch Duffy 
Engel Higgins Larson (CT) Lowey Maloney, Carolyn Maloney, Sean 
Meeks Meng Mooney (WV) Nadler Nolan Nunnelee Pitts Rangel Tonko 
VelaAE1zquez Waters, Maxine Watson Coleman Young (AK)
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: NOT VOTING--8 
Capps Carter (TX) Costa Crowley DeLauro Deutch Duffy Engel Higgins 
Larson (CT) Lowey Maloney, Carolyn Maloney, Sean Meeks Meng Mooney 
(WV) Nadler Nolan Nunnelee Pitts Rangel Tonko 
VelaAE1zquez Waters, Maxine Watson Coleman Young (AK)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                              {time}  1730

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I 
missed rollcall vote No. 6 regarding the ``The Rules Package for the 
114th Congress'' (H. Res. 5). Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 6, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 6, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page H28]]



                          ____________________