Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to express my gratitude to Ted Edlich of Roanoke, Virginia, for his 40-year commitment and service to Total Action for Progress (TAP). For Ted, this year brings to a close four decades at the helm of TAP. His tremendous career has been dedicated to this organization and the goal of serving others in need. It has been a highlight of my service as the U.S. Representative for Virginia's Sixth District to have worked with Ted to help preserve the community action mission set out by the organization's founder, Cabell Brand. Through Ted's hard work, he has helped to transform TAP into a trusted place that the men, women, and children in poverty in the Roanoke Valley can turn to in their hours of need. As TAP's Executive Director, Ted has been determined to not allow them to be forgotten and he has succeeded by providing methods of care that are a model for similar organizations around America that provide a hand up to a better life. In life, we are called on to adhere to the Golden Rule, which Ted clearly took to heart thanks in part to his roots in the ministry. The Roanoke Valley is forever thankful that Ted followed a calling. TAP's umbrella is a wide one--from the Food Bank to the Child Health Investment Partnership, from This Valley Works to the Dumas Center, from Head Start and the Terrace Apartments to Virginia CARES and Project Discovery. The commitment of everyone who has worked with Ted under that sheltering umbrella is very evident, thanks in part to his leadership in constructing a path to a brighter future for so many people. As Ted closes this chapter at TAP, he can be certain that the steadfastness he has demonstrated has prepared those following in his footsteps to continue carrying out the organization's mission. I wish to express my deepest appreciation to Ted Edlich for sharing so much of himself with those fortunate to have been able to work beside him and for all of his work on behalf of those in the Roanoke Valley.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce the ``Tax Code Termination Act,'' legislation that will abolish the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2019, and call on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system by July of the same year. There is no denying that our current tax system has spiraled out of control. Americans devote countless hours each year to comply with the tax code and it is very clear we need tax simplification. Today's tax code is unfair, discourages savings and investment, and is impossibly complex. Businesses and families need relief from uncertainty and the burdensome task of complying with the tax code. However, the problem is Congress won't act on fundamental tax reform unless it is compelled to do so. The Tax Code Termination Act will finally force Congress to debate and address fundamental tax reform. Once the Tax Code Termination Act becomes law, today's oppressive tax code would survive for only four more years, at which time it would expire and be replaced with a new tax code that will be determined by Congress, the President, and the American people. The Tax Code Termination Act will allow us, as a nation, to collectively decide what the new tax system should look like. Having a date-certain to end the current tax code will force the issue to the top of the national agenda, where it will remain until Congress finishes writing the new tax law. This legislation has gained wide support in past Congresses and had 122 bipartisan cosponsors in the 113th Congress. In fact, similar legislation has already been passed twice by the House of Representatives, first in 1998 and then in 2000. Although many questions remain about the best way to reform our tax system, if Congress is forced to address the issue we can create a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today. Congress won't reach a consensus on such a contentious issue unless it is forced to do so. The Tax Code Termination Act will force Congress to finally debate and address fundamental tax reform. America's future partially depends on overcoming the impairment that is our current tax code. There is a widespread consensus that the current system is broken, and keeping it is not in America's best interest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and end the broken tax system that exists today and provide a tax code that the American people deserve.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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 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.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to clarify a couple of things. First of all, it is not true that the House of Representatives has not acted to fix our broken immigration system. First of all, last summer, we passed two bills, one from the Appropriations Committee and one under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, that did just that, that provided resources to secure our borders to stop the surge of illegal immigrants coming into our country and make sure that the similarly unconstitutional DACA program that the President implemented earlier was frozen and could not proceed further. So, to me, that is simply not true.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), also the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador) for the contribution he made to the language that is in this important bill to stop the President's unilateral action that is unconstitutional. The gentleman offering the motion to recommit should note that the bill takes effect as if enacted on November 20, 2014. It nullifies the President's unlawful, unconstitutional executive order. It does not change all immigration law that provides already considerable statutory protection for our members of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families. It protects victims of domestic violence who successfully petition for relief; and Cuban nationals, as has been noted during the debate here, are already protected under the law, and this bill in no way, shape, or form harms any of those protections under the law. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and support the underlying legislation, which is needed to stop the unconstitutional actions of the President of the United States in writing an executive order that is unprecedented in its scope. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it has been said repeatedly that we need to do immigration reform, and I certainly don't disagree with that, but the United States Constitution says that immigration reform must be done by the United States Congress, and the President doesn't say, nor does the Constitution say, ``Hey, if the Congress doesn't do it or doesn't do it the way I like it, then I get the opportunity to do it myself.'' That is not what the Constitution says. It says the President shall faithfully execute the laws. Now, the gentleman from New York, in talking about the impact of the President's executive action here says, ``Oh, the people who are here illegally and are taking jobs, they are taking jobs that Americans don't want.'' Well, maybe there is some truth to that, maybe some of them are not, but the fact of the matter is the President has unilaterally taken an executive order that would give every single one of the 4 million to 5 million undocumented people in the United States who take jobs, to take any job in the country they want to, as good a job, as high-paying a job as they want. So, yes, we need to do immigration reform. The American people want us to do immigration reform, but they want us to start with enforcement first. Instead, what the President has done, he has taken the law into his own hands. That is the real issue in this case and the real matter before the Congress and the real import of this legislation. It is not about where you are on immigration reform; it is about where you are on protecting the United States Constitution. Because this President's actions are unprecedented; this President's actions are beyond the pale; this President's actions are unconstitutional. This legislation offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho) stops that. That is why every Member of the House should support this good legislation and make sure that we preserve what we are sworn under an oath to preserve, and that is the Constitution of the United States. Ladies and gentlemen, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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