[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 119 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6940-H6947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Williams). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries)

[[Page H6941]]

is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and my privilege to 
coanchor today's CBC Special Order, along with my good friend and 
distinguished colleague from the Silver State, Representative Steven 
Horsford.
  Every Monday when Congress is in session, we have an opportunity to 
speak directly to the American people for 60 minutes, the so-called CBC 
Hour of Power, where we get a chance to discuss an issue of relevance 
to this great country.
  Today, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are here to talk 
about halting the GOP march toward impeachment. We are going to address 
the troubling fact that the GOP appears to want to move forward this 
week with a lawsuit challenging the President's authority.
  Now, I think most legal scholars will come to the conclusion that the 
House GOP lawsuit is baseless, it is frivolous, it is without merit. 
But the American people should pay attention to what is going to take 
place this week because the lawsuit is part of a continuing effort to 
delegitimize the President of the United States of America.
  Now, I recognize, unfortunately, that there are some folks in this 
Chamber who believe that the President exceeded his authority on 
January 20, 2009, when he took the oath of office. And they have 
continued to accuse him of Presidential lawlessness ever since.
  So during this Special Order hour, we are going to discuss the 
alleged lawlessness that has taken place, and I think we will be able 
to dismiss these allegations as nothing more than political broadsides 
leveled against a President who was elected by the people of this great 
country and reelected by the people of this great country.
  And then we are also going to deal with the fact that there are so 
many other things that we, as a Congress, could be doing other than 
wasting taxpayer money related to a lawsuit that is sure to be thrown 
out of court. It is going to be thrown out because there is no 
congressional standing to sue the President. The Supreme Court has said 
this over and over again. There must be a particularized injury in 
order for one to get standing in Federal court, and Members of Congress 
lack it. That is what the Supreme Court has concluded.
  There is also the issue of the political question doctrine: disputes 
between the two branches of government, the executive branch and the 
congressional legislative branch, are not to be resolved by the article 
III courts. They are to be resolved by the normal governmental 
processes put in place by our Constitution.
  We are joined today by the distinguished chair of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, who has been a tremendous leader of our CBC over the 
113th Congress. It is now my honor to yield to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge.
  Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very, very much for yielding. I, again, want to 
thank my colleagues Congressmen Jeffries and Horsford for, again, 
leading the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour on an issue 
that should never have made it to this House floor. We shouldn't even 
have to consider halting the Republican leadership's irreverent and 
irresponsible march toward impeachment of the President of the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, since his election, the Republican leadership has shown 
nothing short of outright disrespect and disdain for the current 
President of the United States. In an effort to prevent the President 
from getting anything done during his first term or his second, the 
Republican leadership has completely ignored the democratic process. 
They prefer the obstruction and destruction of our Federal Government 
over working towards what is best for the American people.
  Now Speaker Boehner and the Republicans are posed to waste millions 
of taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit arguing against something they asked 
him to do. They are claiming to take issue with the President because 
he instructed the delay of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate.
  If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans wanted to do 
away with that provision, not to mention the entire ACA. The President 
delayed the employer mandate from taking effect for 1 year in an effort 
to hear and act on Republicans' more reasonable concerns. And now they 
are trying to punish him for it. This makes absolutely no sense. 
Instead of focusing on the many issues facing our Nation, the 
Republican leadership is choosing to pull another political stunt that 
wastes our time and our tax dollars.
  Through consistent obstruction, dysfunction, and a steadfast 
unwillingness to serve the American people, the Republican leadership 
continues to abuse their power while they demean and disgrace this 
House. When will they recognize that by attempting to damage the 
President's leadership and his legacy, they are only hurting the people 
that we are all sworn to serve?

                              {time}  1930

  When will they wake up and realize that this job is not about 
political gamesmanship? It is about doing the work we are asked to do 
by our constituents, and that work is to propose and pass legislation 
that creates opportunity for the American people, not to distract them 
with the silliness that Republicans have stirred up since day one of 
this administration.
  Their inaction and petty behavior has caused this to be the least 
productive Congress in the history of this Nation. The President should 
sue the Congress for not doing their job. Mr. Speaker, the American 
people deserve so much more than Republican leadership has given them. 
It is time to stop these ridiculous games and get to work on the real 
and serious business of this House.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished chairlady of the CBC. The 
people of America deserve a Congress that does the business of the 
people and that deals with real issues that impact working families, 
the middle class, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, and the 
afflicted.
  Instead, we get an agenda from the majority in the House of 
Representatives that is all about delay, destruction, and 
delegitimization of the President of the United States of America. This 
is a frivolous lawsuit that lacks any basis in law or in fact, and we 
need to get beyond the political gamesmanship and get back to doing the 
business of the people.
  I am pleased that we have been joined by the gentlewoman from the 
Badger State, Representative Gwen Moore, a distinguished member of the 
Budget Committee. I am honored to serve with her, a champion for 
working families, the poor, and the middle class.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, Representative Jeffries. I was 
wondering if I could ask you some questions. You certainly are an 
officer of the court, you are an attorney, and so I wanted to ask you 
to expand a little bit on your contention that constitutional experts 
and legal scholars have commented that the lawsuit will fail for the 
lack of standing, that there is no injury here that anyone could point 
to, and to explain that to me a little bit more.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Chief Justice Rehnquist, in an opinion in 1997, Raines 
v. Byrd, made the point that individual Members of Congress do not have 
standing to bring lawsuits in court if they cannot point to a 
particularized or personal injury, which the GOP in this case will not 
be able to do because the injury that is being claimed relates to 
policy disputes, such as the ACA and the employer mandate, such as 
DACA, and such as the welfare work requirements. These are broad policy 
disputes, not particularized injuries.
  The Court went on to point out that, if one of the Members of 
Congress were to retire tomorrow, he would no longer have a general 
claim. The claim would be possessed by his successor instead.
  The claimed injury--referring to policy disputes--attaches to the 
Member's seat, a seat which the Member holds as trustee for his 
constituents, not as a prerogative of personal power. In other words, 
there is no standing for Members of Congress to bring a lawsuit against 
the President in the context of a policy dispute.

[[Page H6942]]

  Ms. MOORE. Well, thank you so much for that clarification, Mr. 
Jeffries. So this doesn't pass a constitutional test, it doesn't pass a 
legal test, and it doesn't even pass the laugh test because I can tell 
you, for folks who have pursued repeal of the Affordable Care Act for 
over 50 times, not wanting to implement the employer mandate, to turn 
around and say, we have been injured because the President delayed it, 
does not pass the laugh test.
  I tell you I have been elected to and served as a public servant 
since 1988, and I can tell you that Republicans have continuously 
chastised Democrats for their frivolous lawsuits.
  Republicans have continuously claimed that people who have been 
injured by products--consumer products--should have a cap on their 
claims, and yet, this frivolous lawsuit will cost hundreds of millions 
of dollars. So, while it may not have any standing, Mr. Jeffries, it 
certainly will cost hundreds of millions of dollars before that ruling 
will be made.
  As a matter of fact, in this do-nothing Congress, we have, in fact, 
wasted money. It is not only that we wasted time; we are wasting money. 
Some examples of what we have done so far: we have spent $79 million so 
far in over 50 attacks on the Affordable Care Act; we have even shut 
the government down for 24 billion--that is billion with a B--dollars. 
So how much is it going to cost us, once again, to promote this 
frivolous lawsuit?
  We are in session--this is the last week of Congress--and are we 
going to talk about helping young people with unaffordable interest 
rates on student loans? No. Are we going to talk about extending and 
reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank to help manufacturers that are in 
my district? No.
  Are we going to talk about providing unemployment compensation for 
people who are suffering with no income through no fault of their own 
because of the economy? No. Are we going to talk about raising the 
minimum wage? Are we going to talk about reauthorizing terrorism risk 
insurance? No.
  Are we going to talk about whether or not we will provide moneys to 
humanely and adequately discuss the crises on the borders of our 
country, the influx of children escaping violence in their home 
country? No. No. No. We are going to sue the President of the United 
States. This does not pass the legal test, the constitutional test, and 
it does not pass the laugh test.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
for her very eloquent and sharp observations with respect to the lack 
of merit to the GOP lawsuit that they are going to proceed with this 
week.
  We now have also been joined by the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California, Representative Barbara Lee, another distinguished member of 
the Budget Committee, someone who is a voice for the voiceless, a 
champion for the poor, and a fighter for the district that she 
represents in Congress.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank you, Congressman Jeffries, first 
of all, for your kind words and also for your continued leadership on 
this issue and so many other issues and especially in helping us, once 
again, beat the drum on behalf of the American people to make sure that 
people know exactly what the Republican Tea Party members are engaged 
in, in this body, so thank you very much to you and Congressman 
Horsford for this.

  Also, I just want to say to Congresswoman Fudge, our chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, I want to thank her for her diligent work 
as chair and especially in her continuing efforts to fight against the 
extreme ideology that deters us from the real work our constituents 
sent us here to do.
  Once again, we are calling now tonight on Congress to get back to 
work putting Americans back to work. Rather than working together to 
create jobs, my Republican colleagues are pursuing a completely 
baseless lawsuit against President Obama at the expense of the American 
taxpayer. Mind you, never before has a sitting President been sued--not 
once.
  This lawsuit is nothing more than a political ploy designed for those 
who really want impeachment without cost. These Tea Party Republicans 
are driving the Republican Party to become so extreme and too 
conservative for the American people.
  To provide just one example, instead of voting on bipartisan 
immigration reform that would keep our families together, grow our 
economy, and enhance national security, the House has voted more than 
50 times to repeal real health care reform that provides 54 million 
people with vital preventive health services like cancer screening.
  We were sent here to Washington to help enhance the quality of life 
for the American people, not to engage in these lawsuits against the 
President for no reason.
  We were sent to Washington to make America a better place, to create 
jobs, to grow the economy, to lift up the most vulnerable, and to build 
ladders of opportunity for the 46.5 million Americans, including 6 
million children living in poverty today.
  This lawsuit is another example of the unfounded, wasteful, and 
really unconscionable attacks on our President, who was twice elected 
by the American people. It does nothing to help the American people.
  I tell you it is really troubling to see the extremists in the 
Republican Party marching down a path that is not based on fact, but, 
again, it is really nothing more than a political sideshow aimed at 
building its base, but it is a serious effort, I must say.
  Remember when President Obama, Congressman Jeffries, when he was 
first elected, Senator Mitch McConnell said that their goal was to make 
President Obama a one-term President?
  Well, they didn't accomplish their goal, so now, they are trying 
something else, and really, it is quite shameful, and the fact is that 
it is being funded with taxpayer dollars. This is nothing short than a 
violation of our constituents' trust. It is exactly like $2.3 million 
spent to preserve discrimination during the DOMA case.
  There is no constitutional or judicial precedent to adjudicate 
political disputes in the courts. We are ready, willing, and able to 
have a serious conversation about creating opportunities in the middle 
class for people who are fighting and aspiring to become part of the 
middle class, who are living on the edges and on the margins.
  We are ready, we have been fighting for this, and we want to have 
some consensus with the Republicans, so we can move forward on this, 
rather than filing lawsuits to detract from the real work that the 
Republicans, once again, refuse to do.
  Every day, I hear from my constituents about their real struggles. 
Too many of our constituents are looking for work. Too many are working 
full time, and they are still living on the edge in poverty. One in 
five American children still lives in poverty.
  Too many people in my district and throughout the country face real 
challenges, challenges that Republicans continue to ignore while 
pursuing an ideologically motivated lawsuit.
  It is about time we put these political ploys aside and get back to 
work. We need to stop this politically motivated, extreme, and 
disturbing march toward impeachment because that is where this is 
going, and hopefully, the public understands that, and we need to end 
the lawsuit. Instead, we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform 
and fix the broken system that is tearing families apart.
  Also, we have got to pass the Voting Rights Act and protect the 
voting rights of all Americans. We need to put workers back to work and 
raise the minimum wage. We need to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on 
lawsuits and roll up our sleeves and get back to work. I believe that 
the American people are going to see right through this.
  So I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressmen 
Horsford and Jeffries for giving us the chance to really pull back the 
veil on what is really taking place with regard to this lawsuit.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California. 
In the 113th Congress, we have had sequestration, $85 billion in 
randomly spread-out cuts across our budget impacting the American 
economy. We have had a government shutdown that was unnecessary, 
unreasonable, and reckless; it cost us $24 billion in lost economic 
productivity.
  We have had a flirtation with the debt ceiling threatening the full 
faith and credit of the United States of

[[Page H6943]]

America. Now, we have got a frivolous lawsuit against the President of 
the United States, and it leads me to ask the question: Is there such a 
thing as a four-ring circus?
  Let me now yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Representative 
Robin Kelly, my good friend and colleague from the freshman class, and 
a distinguished champion for her district.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Thank you, Congressman Jeffries, and I want to 
thank Congressman Horsford and the Congressional Black Caucus for this 
very, very important special hour.
  It is absolutely ridiculous what Speaker Boehner and his party want 
to do. It is a waste of time, as many of us have said, a waste of time, 
a waste of taxpayers' money, and it looks like nothing but a sideshow.
  There are so many things we should be working on, things like 
immigration reform, pay equality, helping to stop the gun violence in 
our urban areas, and unemployment insurance that people so desperately 
need.
  Again, Speaker Boehner has shown that he does not pay attention to 
what the public wants and cares about. Ninety percent of the public 
thinks we should expand background checks.
  Seventy-four percent of NRA members think we should expand background 
checks, but he is not bringing that bill to the floor, but he is going 
to bring this bill to the floor when there is not even the public 
appetite for a lawsuit.

                              {time}  1945

  Many Americans, quite frankly, don't feel the President has abused 
his power. Because we don't listen and we do things like this, it is no 
wonder only 8 percent of the public thinks that Congress is doing a 
good job.
  From day one, there has been a great disrespect for this President 
like no other in history. Some of my colleagues are shocked that he won 
the first time and can't seem to get over that he won again the second 
time. Well, we need to get over it, and you need to get over it because 
there are so many issues we can be working on. We should be trying to 
improve the quality of life of our constituents, our country, and, 
frankly, of the world.
  As a freshman, this is not what I came to Congress to vote on. I came 
to Congress, like I assume most of us did, to make a difference, to 
have a public agenda and not a personal agenda and not an attacking 
agenda, and an agenda where, even though we disagree, we still show 
respect for each other.
  So I again applaud you, Congressman, for holding this Special Order. 
This is extremely important. I hope the public is truly paying 
attention because this is shameful and, as I said in the beginning, 
ridiculous.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Let me now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). 
Although he does not have on one of his signature ties, he is the 
informal chair of the ``bowtie caucus'' and someone who has been a 
champion for the district he represents in New Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues, the gentleman from Nevada 
and the gentleman from New York who have done an outstanding job of 
managing these Special Orders, I would just like to thank them for the 
opportunity to come out and speak on this matter, this issue, this 
frivolous issue of where we find our Nation, a lack of respect for a 
man who won an election, as we have had elections throughout this 
Nation's history.
  But we come to a point in history now where there is something wrong 
with this President. Something about him is illegitimate. Something 
about him just isn't right. Something about him has Members of this 
institution disrespecting him on a daily basis. He is the President of 
the United States of America, the greatest Nation in the world, the 
most powerful man in the world, and deserves the respect that we have 
given every other President that has held that office.
  While millions of Americans are still out of work, my Republican 
colleagues are wasting time and money again. This time it is on a 
partisan lawsuit waged against the President and talk of impeachment. 
These actions are frivolous and shameful, and they pander to the most 
extreme wing of the Republican Party.
  Every serious constitutional scholar sees the Republican lawsuit 
against the President for what it is: a desperate political stunt. And 
they have tried many times, as it was stated by colleagues prior to me, 
50 times trying to repeal the law of the Nation, the Affordable Care 
Act--50 times. They will not stop at anything in order to have this 
President defeated and look as if he is a failure.
  When has that been our history in this Nation? When has it come to 
that? This great democracy that we have has been a battle over ideas 
and a coming together in a bipartisan manner. You are over here, I am 
over there, but we come together on common issues to come to what is in 
the best interest of all Americans.
  Why should a President have to have Members of this body or the 
Senate stand in front of him and say that ``I can't even stand to look 
at you.''
  Where? Where in this Nation, the home of the free, the land of the 
brave, we hold these truths to be self-evident. Are they self-evident 
these days? Are they? The humanitarian issue we have at our border, I 
remember somewhere it saying, ``give us your tired, your poor, your 
huddled masses.'' Now we say, ``Stop the bus at the border and go 
back.''
  Where is this Nation going? It is a sad time in this country that we 
find ourselves at this point: Okay. This didn't work. We couldn't get 
him on that. His birth certificate, he showed up with that. Okay. 
Scratch that. I know what. Let's repeal the Affordable Care Act. Try 50 
times. Okay. That didn't work. Hey, I have a new one. Let's just sue 
him.
  Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, just because Republicans disagree 
with the President's policies or political persuasion doesn't give them 
the right to sue him. Even the Nation's most conservative Supreme Court 
Justices have said that the Congress cannot sue the President in these 
circumstances. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are out of work, 
including nearly 300,000 people in my home State of New Jersey. Instead 
of working together to create jobs, New Jerseyans are learning that the 
Republicans are at it again, wasting taxpayer time and money on 
frivolous lawsuits.
  My constituents are outraged. But just because Republicans won't do 
their job, the President and Democrats in Congress will. I can remember 
prior to coming to Congress President Obama extending his hand on 
numerous occasions to work with the Congress, to work with the other 
side of the aisle, and he was just rebuffed.
  Now that he says he will use executive privilege, executive order, 
now there is a problem once again. If you can't work with them, then he 
is going to have to go it alone and do what he has to do to make sure 
that this Nation has the things, the laws, to be, to continue to be the 
great Nation that it is. Democrats have a real jobs plan, the Make It 
In America plan, to put America back to work, to bring jobs back to our 
shores, to build roads and bridges, to create a better education 
system, and to lead the world in innovation.
  My bill, the Green Jobs Act, is part of that plan and will expand 
access to capital for small businesses to create good-paying jobs in 
low-income communities.
  We are ready to work. We are ready to work with this President. I 
think it is high time that our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle say: Okay. We tried everything. There is one more thing to try--
working with this President to move this Nation forward.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne) for those very poignant observations.
  I think, as you have pointed out, we are in a divided government 
context, and we understand there are going to be policy disagreements, 
but the objective should be to work toward finding common ground to 
improve the lives of those we were sent here to Washington to 
represent. Instead, we are in the midst of a campaign to continue to 
try to delegitimize the President.
  It is over. The battle has been lost. The President was elected in 
2008. He was reelected in 2012. It is time to put aside the political 
gamesmanship and figure out where we might be able to find common 
ground to advance an agenda that makes sense for the American people.

[[Page H6944]]

  We said earlier that this lawsuit was a frivolous one, and I quoted 
Chief Justice Rehnquist, a leading conservative former Supreme Court 
Justice, as it relates to his position with respect to congressional 
standing. I now want to quote another Justice of the Supreme Court who 
said in an opinion he wrote just last year, United States v. Windsor:

       Our Constitution rejects a system in which Congress and the 
     Executive can pop immediately into court whenever the 
     President implements a law in a manner that is not to 
     Congress' liking.

  That was an opinion, and that wasn't written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 
That wasn't an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, although I have 
great respect for those two Justices from the great State of New York. 
Those words were written by Anton Scalia, one of the most conservative 
Justices in the history of the Supreme Court. You can't just pop into 
court because you have a policy disagreement with the President.
  And so I think we have dealt with the issue of the frivolous nature 
of this lawsuit, the fact that we are wasting the time and the treasure 
of the American people on a political joyride that will ultimately 
crash and burn in an article III court. In the meantime, we are 
neglecting our constitutional responsibilities here in the House of 
Representatives to actually deal with issues that impact the American 
people. And to touch upon what some of those issues could be, let me 
now yield to the coanchor of this CBC Special Order, the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Horsford).
  Mr. HORSFORD. Let me thank my good friend and the coanchor for this 
hour, the gentleman from the Empire State, Mr. Jeffries.
  Every time we have the opportunity to come to this floor, it is a 
humbling experience. And to all of my colleagues, led by our chair, the 
Honorable Representative from the State of Ohio, the chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, Marcia Fudge, thank you for your leadership 
and for demanding that we have an opportunity to be heard in this very 
important Special Order hour. I want to thank all of my colleagues who 
have come here tonight.
  Tonight, at some level, my heart is heavy because, as many of my 
colleagues have expressed tonight, we came to Congress to get things 
done on behalf of the American people and the constituents that we 
serve.
  We understand, as Congressman Jeffries just indicated, that this is a 
divided government. As the minority, we have to work within this 
honorable institution to try to advance the issues that we feel are 
important, but what we do not believe is that the majority should be 
able to unilaterally obstruct a governmental process that is the 
foundation of our democracy as a nation.

                              {time}  2000

  So tonight, this is a very important discussion because later this 
week, if the Speaker and the majority House Republicans have their way, 
they will do for the first time in history something that has never 
been done, which is to sue the American President because they don't 
agree with him.
  This lawsuit, the Speaker Boehner-House Republican lawsuit against 
the President, has been characterized by many. USA Today's editorial 
board said ``it was a political sideshow.'' At a time when the American 
people are urging us to act on a number of important and serious and 
time-pressing matters, you, Mr. Speaker, and House Republicans are 
sacrificing precious taxpayer resources and time when we could be 
tackling a number of important issues that the American public want us 
to tackle.
  Now, I just held a telephone town hall last week in my district. I 
had over 4,000 people on this telephone town hall. My district covers 
52,000 square miles. It is a diverse district. Not everybody agrees 
with the President or his positions. But not one person on that call 
asked me to support you, Mr. Speaker, or the House Republicans in suing 
the President. In fact, many of them said, how is it that you have the 
authority to unilaterally act to obstruct this process and to deny the 
important issues that so many of us would like to have come before this 
body for an up or down vote? We understand that we are in the minority 
and we may not win, but in this democracy, the minority deserves to be 
heard.
  Now, unfortunately, this body is about to take a 5-week recess. My 
constituents don't really understand how, after we have really 
accomplished very little, we can now take a ``recess,'' and the thing 
that you want to act on this week is to sue the President. Well, that 
shouldn't be. We shouldn't be going on recess, we shouldn't be wasting 
taxpayer money or time on frivolous, baseless lawsuits, because we have 
plenty of work to do.
  So my question, Mr. Speaker, is: Whose side are you on? Are you on 
the side of the majority of Americans who want us to jump-start the 
middle class, to maybe pass the Make It in America job creation agenda, 
or the infrastructure bills that are so desperately needed? Whose side 
are you on, Mr. Speaker, when Americans have demanded a raise so that 
they can have their wages keep up with the cost of living? Whose side 
are you on, Mr. Speaker, when you have already denied the extension of 
unemployment insurance benefits for over 3.5 million Americans since 
last December--33,800 Nevadans who are struggling, at no fault of their 
own, who need a bridge just to stay afloat? Whose side are you on? Are 
we going to honor our veterans and fix a broken VA system? Are we going 
to pass the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that our 
most sacred Democrat right, our right to vote, is protected?
  I know you want to recess so you can run home and have elections, but 
people need to vote, and we need to make sure that that right to vote 
is protected. So we need to pass and reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. 
Why can't we bring that bill up this week, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker, whose side are you on when, overwhelmingly, the American 
public has asked us to pass comprehensive immigration reform, to secure 
our border, to actually put the necessary resources on the border, and 
to make sure that no other children are torn away from their mothers 
and their fathers?
  So while House Democrats are working on these important issues, and 
many, many others, the American people just simply don't understand how 
it is that this week, of all weeks, the majority would decide in this 
House to spend precious time and resources suing the American President 
for the first time in history.
  Instead of doing any of this, House Republicans are focused once 
again on partisan stunts that contribute nothing to the well-being of 
our Nation. Voting to sue the President is an insult to the hardworking 
American families who need this Congress to act, act on something, on 
anything, and to let us have an up-or-down vote.
  Now, this lawsuit undermines what little remaining respect this House 
has left. So as new Members, we are pleading: give us our Congress 
back, let us work with our colleagues who want to work with us. There 
are Republicans who support some of these bills, but the leadership, 
the Speaker, and the House Republican leadership, won't let them. That 
is the truth.
  Now, my colleague has talked about the fact that there is very little 
constitutional basis for this lawsuit. Let me just add a couple to 
those remarks. Constitutional law experts have weighed in. Laurence 
Tribe of Harvard University Law School described the lawsuit as a 
``wholly meritless attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal 
judiciary.''
  Charles Tiefer of the University of Baltimore Law School called the 
lawsuit an ``embarrassing loser.''
  The whole process leading up to this lawsuit has been tainted by 
partisan tactics as well. Just last week, Ranking Member Representative 
Louise Slaughter and other members of the Rules Committee introduced 11 
amendments during markup of this baseless, unnecessary lawsuit against 
the President, and their only request was to allow more transparency 
and accountability if this were to go forward on how much money is 
being spent--taxpayer money, by the way--in funding this lawsuit.
  So whose side are you on, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about fiscal 
responsibility and you won't even disclose or allow the rules of this 
vote to have a level of transparency or accountability?

[[Page H6945]]

  Let me just highlight a few of the amendments that these Democrats 
proposed:
  Requiring the House general counsel to disclose how much has been 
spent on the lawsuit each week;
  Prohibiting the hiring of any law firms or consultants who lobby 
Congress, because if they lobby Congress for a living, Congress 
shouldn't also be paying them on the side;
  Prohibiting the hiring of any law firm or consultants who lobby on 
the Affordable Care Act implementation, or who have any financial stake 
in implementation of the Affordable Care Act;
  Requiring disclosure of all contracts with lawyers and consultants 10 
days before they are approved, requiring disclosure of where taxpayer 
money paying for this frivolous lawsuit is coming from, and which 
programs and offices' budgets are being reduced to pay for it.
  These were the commonsense amendments that House Democrats on the 
Rules Committee proposed, and on a party line vote 7-4, the House 
majority, the Republicans, denied these commonsense transparency and 
accountability measures to be included.
  So what is the rush? It shows that the Rules Committee Republicans 
are not serious. They are not serious about making this a transparent 
process because they know it is nothing more than a waste of time and 
money. This is a stunt, but it is a stunt that has a price, and the 
American public deserves to know just how much this is going to cost.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his 
observations and for pointing out the many issues that we in the House 
of Representatives could be addressing this week to deal with quality 
of life concerns of the American people, but instead we have been 
forced to come to the floor of the House of Representatives this 
evening to talk about this frivolous lawsuit that, if the majority gets 
its way, will be authorized later on this week.

  I also want to point out that there is this troubling undercurrent 
that has also taken shape in the House of Representatives and amongst 
the conservative entertainment complex related to the allegedly 
unlawful actions of the President in what many of us view as a ``march 
toward impeachment.''
  Now, some are going to say: Well, this is a Democratic conspiracy to 
rile up certain parts of the country, that is why we are raising the 
impeachment question. No, let's just go to the Record.
  The distinguished gentleman from the 17th Congressional District in 
Texas at a town hall meeting in September of 2013:

       I look at the President, I think he's violated the 
     Constitution, I think he's violated the law. I think he's 
     abused his power, but at the end of the day you have to say 
     if the House decides to impeach him, if the House had an 
     impeachment vote, it would probably impeach the President.

  Those are not my words. Those are the words of the gentleman from the 
17th Congressional District of this House.
  The distinguished gentleman from the Third Congressional District in 
Utah:

       This is an administration embroiled in a scandal that they 
     created.

  I am not clear what the scandal is that is being referenced.

       It's a coverup. I'm not saying impeachment is the end game, 
     but it's a possibility, especially if they keep doing little 
     to help us learn more.

  I can go on and on, but you have got the distinguished gentleman from 
Iowa:
  ``From my standpoint, if the President''--referencing executive 
actions--``we need to bring impeachment hearings immediately before the 
House of Representatives.''
  These aren't our words. These are the words of people elected to the 
113th Congress.
  So that is why we are here to have a conversation with the American 
people. Do you think this is the issue that we should be debating and 
discussing as we are still trying to revive large segments of our 
economy, still struggling to recover from the aftermath of the Great 
Recession?
  Now, this last statement from a member of the impeachment caucus here 
in the House of Representatives, the Congressman from Iowa, he 
referenced ``executive actions.''
  Let's have a discussion about executive actions. This chart 
illustrates that President Obama actually has been a President in 
modern history who has been conservative in his approach with respect 
to executive actions. Upon entering his sixth year in office, President 
Obama issued 167 executive orders. As the chart illustrates, at this 
very same point, George W. Bush had issued 198 executive orders.
  Where was the outrage when George Bush was engaging in his orgy of 
executive orders? Where was the outrage? Where was the outrage when 
President Ronald Reagan issued 381 executive orders, a pace that there 
is no way President Obama can match? It is just not clear to me where 
this is all coming from.
  Let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada and/or 
the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for any parting 
observations.
  Mr. HORSFORD. May I inquire to the Speaker how much time we have 
left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 8 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. HORSFORD. To the gentleman from New York, as you indicated, this 
frivolous lawsuit really should not be entirely surprising, and we 
should not underestimate the lengths that the House Republicans are 
willing to take against this President.
  This week, it is a vote to sue. After the recess that we shouldn't be 
taking, maybe it is impeachment proceedings, so this is a very serious 
issue and one that I wish every Member of this body will take seriously 
because what the Speaker and the House Republicans are asking us to do 
is a direct affront to our constituents who elected us to do a job.
  Republicans can disagree with the President. That is not shocking, 
nor is it inappropriate. There are plenty of differences that divide 
many of us here in Washington--many of them, needlessly so--but 
Republican opposition during this Presidency has hit historic levels.
  Many of my colleagues this evening have talked about the obstruction 
that has occurred from the very day this President was being sworn in 
by those in the majority in this body who have attempted to block him.
  I believe in an America that still can do good things and big things. 
I believe in an America that honors its institutions and respects them. 
I believe in the institutions of these offices, even when I may not 
agree with the person who holds that position, but what I cannot do is 
stand by as a Member of Congress, someone who is here to serve the 
700,000 people from my district who elected me, and to allow the 
Speaker and House Republicans to tear down this institution. It is too 
honorable.
  The work we are supposed to be doing is too great. It is significant 
to the lives of the people who are counting on us to do something that 
is important to their lives.
  So, again, I ask, Mr. Speaker: Whose side are you on? Because there 
is nothing in this lawsuit that is going to create a job, educate a 
child, help a small business owner, address the issues of health care 
in this country, fix what is broken with immigration; there is nothing 
this week that you or the House Republicans are doing with this 
baseless lawsuit that is going to solve a problem.
  In fact, it is going to create new problems--constitutional 
problems--and it is going to create a debt that this institution and 
future generations will have to cover.
  So we are here, raising our voices against what we believe to be an 
affront to the integrity of this body as a whole and to bring a focus 
back to the issues the American people so desperately want this 
Congress to work on.
  So we are here tonight. We will be here working and willing to work. 
We are willing to cancel our recess to stay here and do the American 
public's business because that is what they expect us to do.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman for those 
observations.
  Under the House majority, the agenda has constituted the following: 
delay, destroy, defund, and delegitimize.
  We just want to tackle issues relevant to the American people. Let's 
tackle the fact that America needs a raise. Let's tackle equal pay for 
equal

[[Page H6946]]

work. Let's tackle infrastructure funding. Let's tackle our broken 
immigration system. Let's tackle the fact that we have got a gun 
violence problem in America.
  Let's address the fact that the Supreme Court invalidated portions of 
section 5 of the historic Voting Rights Act. Let's stop the political 
gamesmanship.
  In the remaining time that we have, let me yield to a championed 
distinguished member of the Homeland Security Committee, as well as the 
Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, 
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to thank the gentleman from New York.
  I just want to take a moment to compliment both Mr. Horsford and Mr. 
Jeffries for this Special Order, among others. I could not imagine, as 
we end this session, to have a more important statement to the American 
people. We want to work, and in a few days, we will be voting on an 
action to sue the President of the United States.
  Let me refer you to Justice Antonin Scalia, who has said in United 
States v. Windsor:

       Our Constitution rejects a system in which Congress and the 
     executive can pop immediately into court whenever the 
     President implements a law in a manner that is not to 
     Congress' liking.

  Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that while some European 
countries allow one branch of government to sue another, that is 
obviously not the regime that our Constitution establishes.
  Our Constitution contemplates a more restricted role for article III 
courts. In fact, our Constitution clearly states the separation of the 
three branches of the government: the judiciary, the legislature, and, 
of course, the executive branch of government. That is the way it is 
supposed to be structured.
  Now, we come and find ourselves with the legislature trying to step 
into leading the executive. The President has made it very clear. What 
has he done wrong?
  We just heard the Speaker of the House tell the President with 
respect to the unaccompanied children: you can handle it. Well, 
frankly, I would make the argument that you are right. There are 
executive powers, and so the basis upon which this lawsuit is about to 
be projected, to me, evidences that we have lost our way.
  As my colleagues have said as I was walking onto the floor, we still 
have the extension of unemployment insurance, the raising of minimum 
wage, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and the fixing of 
the veterans health system, which I hope that we will be able to do 
this week. If not, we should stay here and fix it for our veterans.
  The Constitution is clear, and I want to say those branches of 
government again: the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches 
are separate. Scholars and conservative jurists have indicated that 
there is no reason for us to jump into court on the responsibilities of 
each particular branch.
  Mr. Speaker, I would make the argument that this week is going to be 
3 days of wasted time, and I know that there are people who disagree 
with the Affordable Care Act, immigration reform, the unaccompanied 
children--not one of those issues is attributable to the malfeasance of 
the President of the United States.
  I don't know whether this is a substitute for impeachment, but I 
would make the argument that the President has committed nothing equal 
to impeachment, and this second class citizenship of a lawsuit 
certainly is inappropriate.
  I believe the American people are much more interested in making sure 
that we follow what is good for them: creating jobs, protecting 
children, providing for education, and, Mr. Speaker, ending wars and 
fighting for what is right.
  This is not the way the people of the United States value their 
principles to be misused. The executive, judiciary, and legislature are 
three separate branches. We are expected to do our separate duties.
  I would, again, ask that we adhere to the Constitution by respecting 
these three separate branches of government. Let's do our job and 
provide for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk briefly about the GOP's march 
towards impeachment. But first let me make a distinction between 
impeachment and a lawsuit initiated by the House, qua House of 
Representatives.
  Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states: The 
President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, 
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, 
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
  In any impeachment inquiry, the Members of this branch of government 
must confront some preliminary questions to determine whether an 
impeachment is appropriate in a given situation.
  The first of these questions is whether the individual whose conduct 
is under scrutiny falls within the category of President, Vice 
President, or ``civil Officers of the United States'' such that he is 
vulnerable to impeachment.
  One facet of this question in some cases is whether the resignation 
of the individual under scrutiny forecloses further impeachment 
proceedings against him.
  A second preliminary question is whether the conduct involved 
constitutes ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.''
  Now Mr. Speaker, whether we get to this point where we are actually 
considering impeachment of the President is a question that only the 
GOP Majority can answer. It appears that we are heading in that 
direction--even in the face of doubt from numerous experts as to 
whether the effort will succeed or not.
  Indeed, it is a matter of historical fact that President Bush pushed 
this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending the 
terrorists of September 11, 2001; and weapons of mass destruction, 
``WMD's'' have yet to be found.
  House Democrats refused to impeach President Bush.
  Let me state that again: ``House Democrats refused to impeach 
President George W. Bush.''
  Now I wish to turn to the resolution which the GOP Majority intends 
to put before this body in a last-ditch effort to stir their base 
before November.
  Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger testified before the Rules 
Committee two weeks ago and had this to say about the potential 
lawsuit:

       The House of Representatives lacks authority to bring such 
     a suit. Because neither the Speaker nor even the House of 
     Representatives has a legal concrete, particular and personal 
     stake in the outcome of the proposed lawsuits, federal courts 
     would have no authority to entertain such actions.
       Passage of the proposed resolution does nothing to change 
     that. If federal judges were to undertake to entertain suits 
     brought by the legislature against the President or other 
     federal officers for failing to administer statutes as the 
     House desires, the result would be an unprecedented 
     aggrandizement of the political power of the judiciary.
       Such a radical liberalization of the role of unelected 
     judges in matters previously entrusted to the elected 
     branches of government should be rejected.

  My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to 
force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the 
president from exceeding his constitutional authority,
  But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of 
executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the 
president's powers under the Constitution.
  The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements, 
derived from the case or controversy provision in Article III, and 
prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be 
modified by Congress.
  The constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have 
suffered a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete 
and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the 
defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by the relief requested 
from the court.


                      Constitutional Requirements

  To satisfy the constitutional standing requirements in Article III, 
the Supreme Court imposes three requirements.
  The plaintiff must first allege a personal injury-in-fact, which is 
actual or imminent, concrete, and particularized.
  Second, the injury must be ``fairly traceable to the defendant's 
allegedly unlawful conduct, and'' third, the injury must be ``likely to 
be redressed by the requested relief.''


                        Prudential Requirements

  In addition to the constitutional questions posed by the doctrine of 
standing, federal courts also follow a well-developed set of prudential 
principles that are relevant to a standing inquiry.
  Similar to the constitutional requirements, these limits are 
``founded in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of 
the courts in a democratic society,'' but are judicially created.

[[Page H6947]]

  Unlike their constitutional counterparts, prudential standing 
requirements ``can be modified or abrogated by Congress.''
  If separation-of-powers principles require anything, it is that each 
branch must respect its constitutional role.
  When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a 
federal law, the other branches must abide by the decision.
  The Executive Branch's ability to fulfill its obligation to comply 
with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by 
Congress pursuant to this bill as my amendment to H.R. 4138, the 
ENFORCE ACT made clear.
  And Mr. Speaker, a basic respect for separation of powers should 
inform any discussion of a lawsuit from both a Constitutional 
standpoint and a purely pragmatic one.
  In our Constitutional Democracy, taking care that the laws are 
executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion.
  And it is a well-settled principle that our Constitution imposes 
restrictions on Congress' legislative authority, so that the faithful 
execution of the Laws may present occasions where the President 
declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law, or delays such 
enforcement, because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law 
of the land.
  This resolution, like the bill we considered in the Judiciary 
Committee on which I serve and before this body, the H.R. 4138, The 
ENFORCE Act, has problems with standing, separation of powers, and 
allows broad powers of discretion incompatible with notions of due 
process.
  The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit 
seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to 
faithfully execute the law.
  These are critical problems. First, Congress is unlikely to be able 
to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, which the Supreme 
Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally 
injured by the challenged conduct.
  In the wide array of circumstances incident and related to the 
Affordable Care Act in which the resolution would authorize a House of 
Congress to sue the president, that House would not have suffered any 
personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing 
requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of any 
legislator's votes.
  Second, the resolution violates separation of powers principles by 
inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left 
to the other branches to decided.
  And Mr. Speaker, I thought the Supreme Court had put this notion to 
rest as far back as Baker v. Carr, a case that hails from 1962. Baker 
stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate 
political questions--and that it is impossible to decide such questions 
without intruding on the ability of agencies to do their job.
  Third, the resolution makes one House of Congress a general 
enforcement body able to direct the entire field of administrative 
action by bringing cases whenever such House deems a President's action 
to constitute a policy of non-enforcement.
  This bill attempts to use the notion of separation of powers to 
justify an unprecedented effort to ensure that the laws are enforced by 
the president--and I say one of the least creative ideas I have seen in 
some time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to deliberate before we are at a 
bridge too far.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________