[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7046-H7047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FUTILITY OF LITIGATING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) for 5 minutes.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, with just 1 day before the recess and many
pending issues before us, the majority has focused on one issue and one
issue alone: suing the President of the United States for essentially
doing what they seem incapable of.
The lawsuit focuses solely on a small part of the ACA, one that
Republicans themselves wanted to roll back. I am going to list my
objections to this monumental waste of time on this poster.
First is standing. The S is for standing because the Speaker is
trying to sue the President, and he does not have standing. He must
show that there is some concrete harm to him that goes beyond the
general interest in seeing the law enforced.
In fact, he should listen to conservative legal minds like Justices
Roberts, Scalia, and Rehnquist, all of whom have expressed skepticism
about a court granting standing to the House to sue the President.
It is absurd to think that the House of Representatives, as an
institution, has been harmed by President Obama's attempting in good
faith to implement the ACA. I understand their feelings might be hurt,
but acting out only gets them negative attention, and the Americans
agree that this is a waste of time.
The next reason that I object is the taxpayer waste of money. The
last time the Republicans sued the President, it was over the
implementation of DOMA, which went nowhere and cost the taxpayers $2.3
million. Like this previous fruitless lawsuit, this will bounce around
the courts for years, making rich lawyers rich. That is the only jobs
program the Republicans will have passed in Congress this year.
The next reason I object to it is that it is useless. Just what are
the Republicans trying to accomplish with this circus? It is certainly
not governing. As of June 30, this Congress has only enacted 125 bills
into law--the lowest number of any Congress in history since 1973, when
they started keeping data.
Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say, well, it
is all about the Senate, but in five previously divided Congresses
before this one, the average number of bills enacted at the same time
period was 254--almost twice as many.
The next reason I object to this lawsuit is P, political stunt aimed
at appeasing the fringe elements in the Republican Party that want to
impeach the President. The same people calling for this lawsuit shut
down the government last fall because they wanted to delay the
Affordable Care Act, and it cost us over $24 billion. Now, they are
suing the President over the fact that he did something they wanted him
to do in the first place.
The only other group of people I know who scream that they want
something and then throw a tantrum when they get it are toddlers.
The next reason I object to this lawsuit is that it is inconsistent.
It is inconsistent because when George Bush
[[Page H7047]]
was proposing the prescription drug benefit and we were trying to
implement that, he asked to have it delayed for 1 year--and guess what?
The Republicans didn't object then.
Then the final reason that I object to this lawsuit is because it is
a distraction. The Republicans are trying to distract Americans from
the fact they have ruled over a do-nothing Congress.
While we are frittering away our last few days in session in this
pointless and childish exercise, we are not creating jobs, fixing
immigration, renewing the Export-Import Bank, doing tax reform, or even
completing a full appropriations process.
Words fail me in describing the petulance of the other side. This
toddler is more adult than some of my colleagues. She has figured it
out. I suppose I will have to let her express her feelings.
____________________