[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]]
____________________