[House Report 119-346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-346
=======================================================================
COUNT THE CRIMES TO CUT ACT
----------------
October 17, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
----------------
Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2159]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2159) to direct the Attorney General of the United
States to submit to the Congress a report on Federal criminal
offenses, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that
the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 3
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 3
Hearings......................................................... 6
Committee Consideration.......................................... 7
Committee Votes.................................................. 7
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 7
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects.......................... 8
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 8
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 8
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 8
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 8
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 8
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 9
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all that follows after the enacting clause and
insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Count the Crimes to Cut Act''.
SEC. 2. REPORT ON FEDERAL CRIMINAL OFFENSES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``criminal regulatory offense'' means a Federal
regulation that is enforceable by a criminal penalty; and
(2) the term ``criminal statutory offense'' means a criminal
offense under a Federal statute.
(b) Report on Criminal Statutory Offenses.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report,
which shall include--
(1) a list of all criminal statutory offenses, including a
list of the elements for each criminal statutory offense; and
(2) for each criminal statutory offense listed under
paragraph (1)--
(A) the potential criminal penalty for the criminal
statutory offense;
(B) the number of prosecutions for the criminal
statutory offense brought by the Department of Justice
each year for the 15-year period preceding the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(C) the mens rea requirement for the criminal
statutory offense.
(c) Report on Criminal Regulatory Offenses.--
(1) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the head of each Federal agency
described in paragraph (2) shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives a report, which shall include--
(A) a list of all criminal regulatory offenses
enforceable by the agency; and
(B) for each criminal regulatory offense listed under
subparagraph (A)--
(i) the potential criminal penalty for a
violation of the criminal regulatory offense;
(ii) the number of violations of the criminal
regulatory offense referred to the Department
of Justice for prosecution in each of the years
during the 15-year period preceding the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(iii) the mens rea requirement for the
criminal regulatory offense.
(2) Agencies described.--The Federal agencies described in
this paragraph are the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Education, the
Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the
Interior, the Department of Labor, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Farm Credit
Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Election
Commission, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Federal
Maritime Commission, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor
Relations Board, the National Transportation Safety Board, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission, the Office of Compliance, the Postal
Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business
Administration, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the
Office of Government Ethics.
(d) Index.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act--
(1) the Attorney General shall establish a publically
accessible index of each criminal statutory offense listed in
the report required under subsection (b) and make the index
available and freely accessible on the website of the
Department of Justice; and
(2) the head of each agency described in subsection (c)(2)
shall establish a publically accessible index of each criminal
regulatory offense listed in the report required under
subsection (c)(1) and make the index available and freely
accessible on the website of the agency.
(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to require or authorize appropriations.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 2159, the Count the Crimes to Cut Act of 2025,
introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), directs the Attorney
General to submit a report to Congress detailing all federal
criminal offenses, the potential criminal penalty, the mens rea
requirements for the offense, and the Department of Justice's
(DOJ) prosecutorial history of the offense. Additionally, the
bill requires federal agencies to provide Congress with a list
of criminal regulatory offenses along with the potential
criminal penalty, the mens rea requirements for the offense,
and the number of violations of the regulatory offense referred
to the DOJ for prosecution. The bill further requires the
Attorney General and the head of each federal agency to
establish a publicly accessible index of each criminal
statutory and regulatory offense.
Background and Need for the Legislation
In the United States, the belief in an equitable rule of
law sharply contrasts with the reality of overcriminalization--
which refers to the excessive proliferation of federal laws
that can easily ensnare otherwise law-abiding individuals.\1\
In recent decades, the growth of federal criminal law--and
thereby overcriminalization--has continued to escalate due to
the out-of-control administrative state and lawmakers
overreacting to perceived societal deficiencies.\2\ Congress
has also failed to regularly examine the Code and to update or
repeal unnecessary criminal laws. For example, 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 336, enacted in 1948, makes it illegal to write a check
for any amount less than one dollar.\3\ Harvard University
professor Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average
American unknowingly commits three felonies per day as a result
of overcriminalization, an estimate that does not take into
account misdemeanors or civil violations.\4\ In some instances,
federal criminal laws are so obscure or vague that even law
enforcement and federal agencies are unaware of them.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, https://
www.nacdl.org/getattachment/b94337b3-b808-4d34-ad58-77d498669169/
fedcrimlaw2.pdf, (last visited on Apr. 11, 2025).
\2\Tim Lynch, Overcriminalization, Cato Institute (2017), https://
www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-
8th-edition-2017/17-overcriminalization#the-
consequences-of-overcriminalization.
\3\18 U.S.C. Sec. 336.
\4\Wendy McElroy, Decriminalize the Average Man, Mises Institute
(Oct. 12, 2011), https://mises.org/mises-daily/decriminalize-average-
man.
\5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 40 years, the quantity of federal criminal
law has increased exponentially while also straying from its
traditional purpose.\6\ Federal criminal law historically
focused on malum in se--acts that are inherently wrong, such as
murder.\7\ However, recent decades have seen an increase in
criminal laws focusing on malum prohibitum--conduct that is
prohibited by law but is not itself inherently wrong or
evil.\8\ This overcriminalization has led to a significant
increase in violations of law, which correlates with a rise in
the incarceration of nonviolent offenders.\9\ Additionally, the
enforcement of victimless and regulatory crimes as the result
of overcriminalization has strained the relationship between
citizens and the government, ultimately undermining public
trust in law enforcement.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Overcriminalization, The Heritage Foundation, https://
www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/heritage-explains/
overcriminalization, (last visited on Apr. 11, 2025).
\7\See id.
\8\See generally, id.
\9\Tim Lynch, Overcriminalization, Cato Institute (2017), https://
www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-
8th-edition-2017/17-overcriminalization#the-
consequences-of-overcriminalization.
\10\National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, https://
www.nacdl.org/getattachment/b94337b3-b808-4d34-ad58-77d498669169/
fedcrimlaw2.pdf, (last visited on May 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Past Attempts to Count Federal Criminal Laws
Neither Congress nor the DOJ know how many federal criminal
laws exist, either in statute or regulation. Over the past 50
years, several groups have attempted to count them but have
largely failed. The following is a list of those attempts:
In the 1980s, the DOJ tried to count the
number of federal criminal laws within the U.S. Code
and estimated that there are ``about 3,000 criminal
offenses.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Gary Fields and John R. Emshwiller, Many Failed Efforts to
Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws, Wall St. J. (Jul. 23, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, the American Bar Association
attempted to count the number of criminal offenses and
said that it was likely higher than 3,000 but said that
to complete the task with accuracy ``is likely to prove
futile and inaccurate.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early 2000s, retired professor Dr.
John Baker from Louisiana State University estimated
that the U.S. Code contained more than 4,000 criminal
offenses.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Baker attempted to update his numbers in
2008 and concluded that the U.S. Code contained at
least 4,450 federal crimes.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2019, the Heritage Foundation and
Mercatus Center estimated that the U.S. Code contained
more than 5,199 federal crimes.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overcriminalization
The rapid growth of federal criminal laws has resulted in a
complex and confusing legal framework.\16\ These statutes
frequently lead to redundancy and legal confusion that
complicates the judicial process rather than clarifying it.\17\
According to a report by the American Bar Association's
Criminal Justice Section (ABACJS), the expansion of federal
criminal law into areas traditionally governed by state
authorities is largely driven by political responses to
publicized events rather than genuine law-enforcement
necessities.\18\ Despite the significant increase in federal
criminal laws, 95 percent of criminal cases are prosecuted at
the state level, further highlighting the unnecessary expansion
of federal criminal and regulatory codes.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\John Kiriakou, Congress has created an average of 50 new crimes
per year for the past decade, Institute for Policy Studies (Dec. 16,
2015).
\17\National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, https://
www.nacdl.org/getattachment/b94337b3-b808-4d34-ad58-77d498669169/
fedcrimlaw2.pdf, (last visited on Apr. 11, 2025).
\18\Id.
\19\Overcriminalization, The Heritage Foundation, https://
www.heritage.org/crime-and-
justice/heritage-explains/overcriminalization, (last visited on Apr.
11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ABACJS has called for a more judicious approach to
crafting federal criminal legislation and regulations.\20\
Specifically, ABACJS has recommended that Congress prioritize
legislation for crimes that necessitate federal oversight due
to their interstate or international nature, ensuring that
federal resources enhance rather than supplant state law
enforcement.\21\ This strategy would maintain the crucial
balance of power between state and federal jurisdictions,
preserving the effectiveness of state-level crime control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, https://
www.nacdl.org/getattachment/b94337b3-b8084d34-ad5877d498669169/
fedcrimlaw2.pdf, (last visited on Apr. 11, 2025).
\21\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the proliferation of vague and sometimes
petty regulations--such as disallowing ``a pet to make any
noise in a national park that scares a wild animal''\22\--
exemplifies the excessive reach of federal lawmaking.\23\ These
regulations often penalize individuals for actions that lack
genuine criminal intent.\24\ This complexity makes it
practically impossible for ordinary citizens to be fully aware
of the legal boundaries, undermining the legal principle that
ignorance of the law is no excuse.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\36 CFR Sec. 2.15(4).
\23\Overcriminalization, The Heritage Foundation, https://
www.heritage.org/crime-and-
justice/heritage-explains/overcriminalization, (last visited on Apr.
11, 2025).
\24\Id.
\25\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Crimes
The origin of regulatory crimes can be traced back to the
Industrial Revolution, with scholars generally pointing to the
unsafe working conditions that came with the progress of
American corporations and the advancement of technology.\26\
The unsafe conditions and workplace incidents served as a
catalyst for Congress to start enabling the creation of what
would become known as regulatory crimes.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Paul Larkin, Regulatory Crimes and the Mistake of Law Defense,
The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/
report/regulatory-crimes-and-the-mistake-law-defense#_ftn33.
\27\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in the 19th century, Congress began enacting
certain regulatory crimes under the guise of ``public welfare
offenses.''\28\ These crimes were originally crafted to protect
the public from the potentially dangerous consequences of
industrialization, such as the violation of health and safety
regulations.\29\ Congress empowered federal agencies to further
define regulatory infractions as criminal violations.\30\
However, this led to the line between regulatory violations and
criminal laws becoming blurred because agencies used their
authority to put criminal sanctions behind administrative
regulations.\31\ Many ordinances do not have mens rea
requirements. Therefore, these ordinances make it a violation
of law regardless of whether someone intended to break the law
in question.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Id.
\29\Id.
\30\Id.
\31\Id.
\32\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, Congress wrote and passed a slew of strict
liability crimes in which a defendant was not required to
possess the mens rea typically required to establish guilt of a
crime.\33\ This resulted in both federal agencies and Congress
using regulatory crimes as another tool to penalize arguably
innocent citizens, resulting in the deprivation of liberty and
the loss of rights such as the right to vote or own a
firearm.\34\ In other words, a low-level infraction, such as an
agency's regulation of the distribution of food stamps,
constitutes a crime.\35\ One law professor described the
proliferation of regulatory crimes as ``staggering'' to the
degree that these crimes are now like ``grains of sand on the
beach.''\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\Id.
\34\John Malcolm, Criminal Law and the Administrative State: The
Problem with Criminal Regulations, The Heritage Foundation, https://
www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/
criminal-law-and-the-administrative-state-the-problem-criminal-
regulations.
\35\Paul Larkin, Regulatory Crimes and the Mistake of Law Defense,
The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/
report/regulatory-crimes-and-the-mistake-law-defense#_ftn33.
\36\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only are these regulations numerous, but most Americans
are restricted from accessing them. Professor Patrick
McLaughlin of the George Mason University Mercatus Center has
noted that these regulations often sit behind paywalls with
hefty price tags that leave most of these rules and regulations
inaccessible to most of the American public.\37\ In his
research, Professor McLaughlin found and cataloged over 5,000
sets of standards incorporated by reference within the National
Institute for Standards and Technology.\38\ He found 2,269 were
behind paywalls.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Patrick McLaughlin, Roll Over, Hammurabi: Federal Regulations
Are Hidden behind Paywalls National Review (Jul. 12, 2023), https://
www.nationalreview.com/2023/07/roll-over-hammurabi-federal-regulations-
are-hidden-behind-paywalls/.
\38\Id.
\39\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2159, the Count the Crimes to Cut Act of 2025, is a
prudent and necessary step toward restoring clarity,
accountability, and proportionality in the federal criminal
justice system. By requiring a comprehensive inventory of
federal criminal laws and regulatory offenses, the bill
provides lawmakers, agencies, and the public with the
transparency needed to assess the scope and structure of
federal criminal enforcement. It lays a vital foundation for
evidence-based reform, supports the constitutional principle of
fair notice, and empowers Congress to conduct meaningful
oversight of how criminal laws are created and applied. Without
changing any existing statutes, H.R. 2159 equips policymakers
with the tools to ensure that criminal law is both just and
appropriately tailored to protect the public interest.
Hearings
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII,
the following hearings were used to develop H. R. 2159:
``Criminalizing America: The Growth of Federal Offenses and
Regulatory Overreach'' a hearing held on May 27, 2025, before
the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance
of the Committee on the Judiciary. The Subcommittee heard
testimony from the following witnesses:
Brett Tolman, Executive Director, Right on
Crime;
Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro
Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washington
University Law School;
GianCarlo Canaparo, Senior Legal Fellow,
Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies,
Heritage Foundation; and
Michael Fox, Legal Fellow, Project on
Criminal Justice, CATO Institute.
The hearing examined the impact and implications of the
continuous expansion and complexity of the federal criminal
code and regulatory regime.
Committee Consideration
On June 10, 2025, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 2159, favorably reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by voice vote, a
quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
Committee states that no recorded votes were taken during
consideration of H.R. 2159.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The Committee has
requested but not received from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill
contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such
estimate and statement to be printed in the Congressional
Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant
to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not
made available to the Committee in time for the filing of this
report. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such estimate
to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its receipt by
the Committee.
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(d)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of H.R. 2159 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
House rule XIII, H.R. 2159 would direct the Attorney General to
submit a report to Congress detailing all federal criminal
offenses, the potential criminal penalty, the mens rea
requirements for the offense, and the DOJ's prosecutorial
history of the offense. Additionally, the bill requires federal
agencies to provide Congress with a list of criminal regulatory
offenses along with the potential criminal penalty, themens rea
requirements for the offense, and the number of violations of the
regulatory offense referred to the DOJ for prosecution. The bill
further requires the Attorney General and the head of each federal
agency to establish a publicly accessible index of each criminal
statutory and regulatory offense.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 2159
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget office pursuant to section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman
of the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
1).
Section-by-Section Analysis
Sec. 1: Short title
This section sets forth the short title of the bill as the
``Count the Crimes to Cut Act.''
Sec. 2: Report on federal criminal offenses
This section requires the Attorney General to submit a
report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees containing
all federal criminal statutory offenses. This section also
requires the Attorney General to report the potential criminal
penalty for each statutory crime, the mens rea requirements for
the crime, as well as the number of Department of Justice (DOJ)
prosecutions for each crime in the past fifteen years. This
section further requires the Attorney General to establish a
publicly accessible index of each criminal statutory offense
within two years of the enactment of the bill.
This section also requires the head of each federal agency
specified in the section to submit a report to the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees containing all criminal regulatory
offenses enforceable by the agency. It also requires each
federal agency to report the potential criminal penalty for
each regulatory crime, the mens rea requirements for the
regulatory crime, and the number of regulatory offenses
referred to the DOJ for prosecution in the past fifteen years.
This section further requires the head of each federal agency
to establish a publicly accessible index of each criminal
regulatory offense on the agency's website within two years of
the enactment of the bill.
[all]