[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7087-H7100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1645
   AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE LITIGATION FOR ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call 
up the resolution (H. Res. 676) providing for authority to initiate 
litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch 
officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the 
United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the 
amendment recommended by the Committee on Rules printed in the 
resolution is adopted, and the resolution, as amended, is considered 
read.
  The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:

                              H. Res. 676

       Resolved, That the Speaker is authorized to initiate or 
     intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the House 
     of Representatives in a Federal court of competent 
     jurisdiction to seek any appropriate relief regarding the 
     failure of the President, the head of any department or 
     agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive 
     branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official's 
     duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States 
     with respect to implementation of any provision of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or 
     subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by 
     such provision, or any other related provision of law, 
     including a failure to implement any such provision.
       Sec. 2.  The Speaker shall notify the House of 
     Representatives of a decision to initiate or intervene in any 
     civil action pursuant to this resolution.
       Sec. 3. (a) The Office [The Office] of the General Counsel 
     of the House of Representatives, at the direction of the 
     Speaker, shall represent the House in any civil action 
     initiated, or in which the House intervenes, pursuant to this 
     resolution, and may employ the services of outside counsel 
     and other experts for this purpose.
       (b) The chair of the Committee on House Administration 
     shall cause to be printed in the Congressional Record a 
     statement setting forth the aggregate amounts expended by the 
     Office of General Counsel on outside counsel and other 
     experts pursuant to subsection (a) on a quarterly basis. Such 
     statement shall be submitted for printing not more than 30 
     days after the expiration of each such period.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on the consideration of H. Res. 676.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?

[[Page H7088]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to discuss the unwarranted, ongoing shift of power in 
favor of the executive branch.
  Under President Obama, the executive branch has increasingly gone 
beyond the constraints of the Constitution. In fact, in a number of 
instances, the President's actions have gone beyond his article II 
powers to enforce the law and have infringed upon the article I powers 
of Congress to write the law.
  We are here today because, at the beginning of this Congress, every 
Member of this body took an oath of office in which we swore to 
``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' At the 
beginning of each Presidential term, the President takes an oath to 
``faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States 
and . . . to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the 
Constitution of the United States.'' While these oaths are slightly 
different, the object of both oaths is the same. The President and 
Members of Congress have an obligation to follow and defend the 
Constitution.
  The text of the Constitution that we have sworn to defend provides 
separate powers for each branch of the Federal Government. Article I 
puts the power to legislate--that is, to write the law--in the hands of 
Congress. Article II, on the other hand, requires that the President 
``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The difference is 
important. The Founders knew that giving one branch the power to both 
write and execute the law would be a direct threat to the liberties of 
the American people. They separated these powers between the branches 
in order to ensure that no one particular person, whether it be the 
President or a Member of Congress, could trample upon the rights of the 
people.
  My fear is that our Nation is currently facing the exact threat that 
the Constitution is designed to avoid. Branches of government have 
always attempted to exert their influence on the other branches, but 
the President has gone too far. Rather than faithfully executing the 
law as the Constitution requires, I believe that the President has 
selectively enforced the law in some instances, ignored the law in 
other instances and, in a few cases, unilaterally attempted to change 
the law altogether.
  These actions have tilted the power away from the legislature and 
toward the Executive. They have also undermined the rule of law, which 
provides the predictability necessary to govern a functioning and fair 
society. By and large, this country is founded upon the rule of law, 
and this tilts that balance. By circumventing Congress, the President's 
actions have marginalized the role that the American people play in 
creating the laws that govern them. Specifically, the President has 
waived work requirements for welfare recipients, unilaterally changed 
immigration laws, released the Gitmo Five without properly notifying 
Congress, which is the law, and ignored the statutory requirements of 
the Affordable Care Act.
  We have chosen to bring this legislation forth today to sue the 
President over his selective implementation of the Affordable Care Act 
because it is the option most likely to clear the legal hurdles 
necessary to succeed and to restore the balance between the branches 
intended by the Founders. This administration has effectively rewritten 
the law without following the constitutional process.
  When the executive branch goes beyond the constraints of the 
Constitution and infringes upon the powers of the legislative branch, 
it is important that the remaining branch of government--the 
judiciary--play its role in rebalancing this important separation of 
powers. After all, the constitutional limits on government power are 
meaningless unless judges engage with the Constitution and enforce 
those limits.
  My friends in the minority do not seem to believe that the judiciary 
is up to its role in rebalancing the separation of powers. I disagree. 
Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, Members of the minority argued that 
this lawsuit is frivolous and a waste of time. They argued that if this 
litigation were to go forward that it would lead to countless lawsuits 
between the branches of government.
  What my friends in the minority might fail to tell you--but I will 
today on the floor--is that they were for suing the President before 
they were against it. Eight years ago, in 2006, some Members of the 
minority, including the ranking member of the Rules Committee--the 
gentlewoman from New York--were plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by 
congressional Democrats against then sitting President George W. Bush.
  That is right. Eight years ago, my friends across the aisle filed a 
lawsuit against the President, brought by Members of one half of the 
Congress. The Democratic ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan, who is also a plaintiff, argued that he was 
alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of government and by 
a President who shrugged about the law. After consulting with some of 
the foremost constitutional experts in the Nation, he said he had 
determined that there was one group of people who was injured by the 
President's lack of respect for checks and balances--the House of 
Representatives.
  I want to echo one line that he argued at the time regarding the 
separation of powers:

       If a President does not need one House of Congress to pass 
     the law, what is next?

  Perhaps this makes sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial from The Huffington 
Post, on April 26, 2006, by the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Michigan. It is entitled, ``Taking the 
President to Court,'' in which he made a compelling argument as to why 
Members of the House could, in fact, have standing to sue the 
President.

               [From The Huffington Post, July 30, 2014]

                     Taking the President to Court

       As some of you may be aware, according to the President and 
     Congressional Republicans, a bill does not have to pass both 
     the Senate and the House to become a law. Forget your sixth 
     grade civics lesson, forget the book they give you when you 
     visit Congress--``How Our Laws Are Made,'' and forget 
     Schoolhouse Rock. These are checks and balances, Republican-
     style.
       As the Washington Post reported last month, as the 
     Republican budget bill struggled to make its way through 
     Congress at the end of last year and beginning of this year 
     (the bill cuts critical programs such as student loans and 
     Medicaid funding), the House and Senate passed different 
     versions of it. House Republicans did not want to make 
     Republicans in marginal districts vote on the bill again, so 
     they simply certified that the Senate bill was the same as 
     the House bill and sent it to the President. The President, 
     despite warnings that the bill did not represent the 
     consensus of the House and Senate, simply shrugged and signed 
     the bill anyway. Now, the Administration is implementing it 
     as though it was the law of the land.
       Several public interest groups have sought to stop some 
     parts of the bill from being implemented, under the theory 
     that the bill is unconstitutional. However, getting into the 
     weeds a bit, they have lacked the ability to stop the entire 
     bill. To seek this recourse, the person bringing the suit 
     must have what is called ``standing,'' that is they must show 
     they were injured or deprived of some right. Because the 
     budget bill covers so many areas of the law, it is difficult 
     for one person to show they were harmed by the entire bill. 
     Thus, many of these groups have only sought to stop part of 
     it.
       After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional 
     experts in the nation, I determined that one group of people 
     are injured by the entire bill: Members of the House. We were 
     deprived of our right to vote on a bill that is now being 
     treated as the law of the land.
       So, I am going to court. With many of my Democratic 
     Colleagues (list appended at the bottom of this diary), I 
     plan to file suit tomorrow in federal district court in 
     Detroit against the President, members of the Cabinet and 
     other federal officers seeking to have a simple truth 
     confirmed: a bill not passed by the House and Senate is not a 
     law, even if the President signs it. As such, the Budget bill 
     cannot be treated as the law of the land.
       As many of you know, I have become increasingly alarmed at 
     the erosion of our constitutional form of government. Whether 
     through the Patriot Act, the Presidents Secret Domestic 
     Spying program, or election irregularities and 
     disenfranchisement, our fundamental freedoms are being taken 
     away. Nothing to me is more stark than this, however. If a 
     President does not need one House of Congress to pass a law, 
     what's next?
       The following is a list of co-plaintiffs on this lawsuit. I 
     would note that I did not invite every Member of the House to 
     join in the suit, and I am certain many, many more Members 
     would have joined if asked. However, this was not possible 
     for various arcane legal reasons.
       The other plaintiffs include Rep. John Dingell, Ranking 
     Member on the Energy and

[[Page H7089]]

     Commerce Committee; Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Ranking Member on 
     the Ways and Means Committee; Rep. George Miller, Ranking 
     Member on the Education and Workforce Committee; Rep. James 
     L. Oberstar, Ranking Member on the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee; Rep. Barney Frank, Ranking Member 
     on the Financial Services Committee; Rep. Collin C. Peterson, 
     Ranking Member on the Agriculture Committee; Rep. Bennie 
     Thompson, Ranking Member on the Homeland Security Committee; 
     Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member on the Rules 
     Committee; Rep. Fortney ``Pete'' Stark, Ranking Member on the 
     Ways and Means Health Subcommittee; Rep. Sherrod Brown, 
     Representing Ohio's 13th District.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the litigation considered by this 
resolution is a lot different and is a lot stronger than litigation 
filed by my friends on the other side against a previous President. The 
majority of these lawsuits was brought by a small group of legislators 
or individual Members. Today, the House as an institution will vote to 
authorize the suit, which gives this case, I believe, a far better 
chance in court than previous attempts.
  My friends in the minority at the Rules Committee yesterday claimed 
that this is all about politics, but the Republican members of this 
committee repeatedly insisted that we disagreed. The issue is not about 
partisan politics. It is not about Republicans and Democrats. This 
lawsuit is about the legislative branch's standing up for the laws that 
have been passed and signed into law by the legislative branch and 
signed by the Executive of this great Nation. Republicans are motivated 
to stand up for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the 
rule of law.
  Any person who believes in our system of government should be worried 
about the President's executive overreach. This President, as well as 
future Presidents--from either party--must not be allowed to ignore the 
Constitution and to circumvent Congress.
  Both Republicans and Democrats have stood up for the legislative 
branch in the past. In fact, there have been 44 lawsuits filed in the 
last 75 years in which legislators sought standing in Federal court. Of 
the 41 filed by plaintiffs from a single party, nearly 70 percent were 
brought by Democrats, representing the body.
  I submit for the Record an editorial by Kimberley Strassel, from The 
Wall Street Journal, dated July 17, 2014, that further explains why the 
Democrats were suing the President before they were against it, and I 
call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for 
Congress and to defend our Constitution against the executive branch.

                [From The Potomac Watch, July 17, 2014]

                   The Boehner-Bashers' Track Record

                       (By Kimberley A. Strassel)

       In the tiny House Rules Committee room in Congress on 
     Wednesday, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter let roll her 
     grievances against House Republicans' lawsuit against Barack 
     Obama. It took a lot of coffee.
       The suit, which sues the president for unilaterally 
     changing a core provision of ObamaCare, is a ``political 
     stunt,'' declared Ms. Slaughter. Republicans have ``timed'' 
     it to ``peak . . . right as the midterm elections are 
     happening,'' said the ranking Rules member. Having failed to 
     stop ObamaCare, they have chosen to ``run to the judicial 
     branch.'' And, she lectured, a ``lawsuit against the 
     president brought by half of the Congress'' is ``certainly'' 
     not the ``correct way to resolve'' a ``political dispute.'' 
     As for the legal merits, well! Ms. Slaughter feted her 
     witness, lawyer Walter Dellinger, praising his work on Raines 
     v. Byrd , a 1997 case in which the Supreme Court found 
     members of Congress do not have automatic standing to sue. 
     The courts, she insisted, had no business settling such 
     disputes. A lawsuit against the president, she declared, ``is 
     preposterous.''
       About the only thing Ms. Slaughter didn't do in five hours 
     was offer House Speaker John Boehner her litigation notes. 
     For it seems to have slipped Ms. Slaughter's mind--and the 
     press's attention--that a mere eight years ago she was a 
     plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats 
     against George W. Bush. The year was 2006, just as Democrats 
     were, uh, peaking in their campaign to take back the House.
       Democrats were sore that they'd lost a fight over a budget 
     bill that made cuts to Medicaid and student loans. They 
     dredged up a technical mistake--a tiny difference between the 
     House and Senate version of the bill. Michigan Democrat John 
     Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, 
     decided to (how did Ms. Slaughter put it?) file a lawsuit 
     against the president brought by half of the Congress. He was 
     joined as a plaintiff by nearly every other then-ranking 
     Democratic member and titan in the House--Charles Rangel, 
     John Dingell, George Miller, Collin Peterson, Bennie 
     Thompson, Barney Frank, Pete Stark, James Oberstar and Ms. 
     Slaughter herself.
       In an April 2006 Huffington Post piece titled ``Taking the 
     President to Court,'' Mr. Conyers explained that he was 
     ``alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of 
     government,'' and by a president who ``shrugged'' about ``the 
     law.'' After ``consulting with some of the foremost 
     constitutional experts in the nation,'' he had determined 
     that there was ``one group of people'' who were ``injured'' 
     by Mr. Bush's lack of respect for ``checks and balances'': 
     Congress. So he was ``going''--or as Ms. Slaughter might put 
     it, ``running''--''to court.''
       The plaintiffs--including Ms. Slaughter--meanwhile filed 
     briefs explaining why Raines v. Byrd (her Dellinger special) 
     should be no bar to granting them standing. They chided the 
     defendants for omitting ``any mention'' of Coleman v. Miller, 
     a 1939 case in which the Supreme Court did grant standing to 
     members of a legislature to sue. By Wednesday, it was Ms. 
     Slaughter who was omitting any mention that any such decision 
     ever existed.
       Then again, there was so much that escaped Democrats' minds 
     at that hearing. Not one of those present, for instance, 
     recalled that only two years ago, four of their House 
     colleagues filed suit against Vice President Joe Biden (in 
     his capacity as head of the Senate) challenging as 
     unconstitutional the filibuster. Or that Democratic 
     legislators also filed lawsuits claiming standing in 2011, 
     and in 2007, and in 2006, and in 2002 and in 2001 and . . . 
     It was left to Florida International University law professor 
     Elizabeth Price Foley, another witness, to remind Democrats 
     that in fact no fewer than 44 lawsuits in which legislators 
     sought standing had been filed in federal court since Coleman 
     v. Miller. Of the 41 filed by plaintiffs with unified 
     political affiliation, nearly 70 percent were brought by 
     Democrats. At least 20 of those came since 2000. The GOP 
     might thank Ms. Slaughter for the idea.
       Save one crucial difference. It was also left to Ms. Foley 
     to explain that the reason most of these prior cases had 
     failed is because most were, in fact--again, in Ms. 
     Slaughter's words--''political stunts.'' The majority, 
     including the Slaughter case, were brought by ad hoc groups 
     of legislators, sore over a lost political battle, 
     complaining to courts. The judiciary wasn't much impressed.
       By contrast--and by far the more notable aspect of the five 
     long hours of the hearing--is the care the Boehner team is 
     putting into its own suit. While Democrats used Wednesday to 
     score political points, Republicans used it to grill their 
     expert witnesses on case law and constitutional questions. 
     Mr. Boehner's decisions to have the House as a whole vote to 
     authorize the suit, and to narrowly tailor it around a 
     specific presidential transgression (and one that no private 
     litigant would ever have standing to protest), are designed 
     to make this a far different and better breed of a court 
     case.
       It's precisely because Democrats know how good a point 
     Republicans have about Obama unilateralism that they are 
     already working to dismiss the suit as ``political.'' And to 
     do that, Ms. Slaughter must have us forget that up until, oh, 
     two weeks ago, Democrats were all about asking the courts to 
     vindicate Congress's prerogatives. How times change.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, through this lawsuit, the United States 
House of Representatives will take a critical and crucial step in 
reining in the President and in defending the Constitution so that it 
will endure for yet another generation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, across the country, conservative thinkers and legal 
scholars are discrediting this lawsuit against the President. They are 
exposing it for what it is: a political stunt timed to peak in November 
as Americans are heading to the polls for the midterm elections.
  For example, Harvard Law Professor and Former Assistant Attorney 
General under President George W. Bush Jack Goldsmith wrote: ``the 
lawsuit will almost certainly fail, and should fail for lack of 
congressional standing.''
  Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice 
Roberts and Justice Thomas, wrote that the Framers of the Constitution 
emphatically rejected a ``system in which Congress and the Executive 
can pop immediately into court, in their institutional capacity, 
whenever the President . . . implements a law in a manner that is not 
to Congress' liking.''
  Conservative writer and former Justice Department official Andrew C. 
McCarthy wrote recently that this lawsuit is ``a classic case of 
assuming the pose of meaningful action while in reality doing 
nothing.''
  Heavens to Betsy, how much more do we have to hear that this is not 
going to work?
  A recent poll by CNN found that 57 percent of Americans oppose the 
lawsuit. Yes, the majority of the American

[[Page H7090]]

people recognize it for what it is: political theater. They recognize 
this lawsuit is not only a distraction from the real problems that 
plague our Nation, but that it is designed to appease radical 
Republicans clamoring for impeachment.
  The Rules Committee, of which I am ranking member, was the only 
committee to consider this lawsuit. Under regular order, the House 
Administration Committee would have also held hearings and a markup 
because they are the ``money'' committee that handles the House's 
internal accounts, but they were not given the chance to do so.
  Over the past 3 weeks, the Rules Committee heard testimony from 
constitutional scholars who debated the merits of the lawsuit and 
offered several amendments. The minority on our committee offered 
nearly a dozen amendments aimed at bringing some transparency and 
accountability to this process, and they were all voted down along 
party lines.
  Democrats offered an amendment that would have required that this 
political stunt be funded from the Benghazi Select Committee's budget, 
another political stunt. After the 14 investigations of the Benghazi 
tragedy, they have allocated $3.3 million to continue to chase after a 
nonexistent scandal.
  We offered an amendment that would have ensured that any law firms 
contracted for this lawsuit were not also lobbyists trying to influence 
us at the same time that they represented us in court, a clear conflict 
of interest.
  We even offered an amendment that would have required disclosure of 
which programs and budgets in the Federal budget will be reduced to pay 
for the lawsuit. Would the funds come from the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, the House Armed Services Committee? We don't know, because 
the majority has refused to tell us.
  Before they vote today, Members of this House deserve to know exactly 
which legislative branch functions will be curtailed to pay for this 
folly. Otherwise, how can we cast an informed vote?
  We focused our amendments on cost because of how important cost is. 
It is not, as has been stated here, an imaginary concern. Republicans 
have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in this month alone passing 
over $700 billion, with a B, of unpaid-for tax extenders on this House 
floor. Republicans took $24 billion out of the economy when they shut 
down the government to deny health care to millions. And, according to 
CBS News, the majority has wasted over $79 million on the more than 50 
votes for the House floor to dismantle, to undermine, and to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Where in the world does it stop?
  When Republicans defended the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act 
and employed outside counsel in a similar lawsuit--with the fate that 
we believe this will have--they cost the American taxpayers $2.3 
million. We learned later that their lawyers charged $520 an hour--an 
hour, and at that rate, they would have been paid $1 million a year for 
a 40-hour workweek.
  So what will this lawsuit cost, Mr. Speaker? That is what we want to 
know. The minority requested this information. The majority replied: 
``A lawsuit is a small price to pay.''
  We could be spending money on our crumbling infrastructure, investing 
in our education system, making it easier for our children to go to 
college, even building some high-speed rail--we are about the only 
country left in the world that doesn't have any--or addressing climate 
change. We just had a terrible flood in my district and next door, 
where they have lost sewer systems, water systems. We could be doing so 
many other things than simply throwing this money away.
  The idea of fiscal responsibility, of fiscal tightness, absolutely is 
decimated in just what I have said already at this time, the money 
wasted here, with nothing for it, when the needs are so great and the 
population cries out for relief. But instead of investing in our 
country, the majority insists on bringing a lawsuit that, if it is 
successful, will do the opposite of everything they have been trying to 
accomplish since 2010.
  Yes, after years of rallying against the Affordable Care Act, not one 
of them would vote for it as it passed the House, voting to derail it, 
working against it--pay attention here--they are suing the President 
for not implementing it fast enough. And if that makes no sense to you, 
you are not alone. We don't understand it either.
  Not only is this logic upside-down and inside out, it is directly 
against the feelings of members of their own party. A recent poll from 
the Commonwealth Fund found that 77 percent of people were pleased with 
their new coverage. Republicans themselves have a 74 percent 
satisfaction rate with the new plans that they have bought.
  Now before us, we have a lawsuit that has been ridiculed and railed 
against by conservative thinkers and progressives alike. It is a 
deplorable waste of taxpayer funds and would go against everything the 
Republicans have been working for for 4 years. The Republicans that I 
worked with in this Congress when I first came here would not even 
think of this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, for his leadership on this issue.
  Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under 
a law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning 
democracy. We in the House of Representatives who face reelection every 
2 years under the Constitution are perhaps reminded of that more often 
than others. And while there is at least one political branch willing 
to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means of 
which we can successfully avail ourselves.

  When the President fails to perform his constitutional duty that he 
take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the Congress has 
appropriations and other powers over the President. But none of those 
powers can be exercised if a Senate controlled by the President's own 
political party refuses to exercise them. Nor would the exercise of 
those powers solve the problem at hand, because they would not actually 
require the President to faithfully execute the laws.
  And, of course, the most powerful and always available means of 
solving the problem at hand is to vote out of office supporters of the 
President's abuses of power. In the meantime, however, the need to 
pursue the establishment of clear principles of political 
accountability is of the essence.
  Earlier this year, I joined with Representative Gowdy to introduce 
H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act, to put a procedure in place for 
Congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for 
failure to faithfully execute the laws. But while that legislation 
passed the House with bipartisan support, the Senate has failed to even 
consider it, so today we consider a resolution to authorize litigation 
by the House to restore political accountability and enforce the rule 
of law.
  Although the case law on standing may be murky, one thing is 
absolutely clear: the Supreme Court has never closed the door to the 
standing of the House as an institution.
  As President Lincoln said: ``Let reverence for the laws be . . . 
enforced in courts of justice.''
  It is the courts' duty, too, to uphold reverence for the law, and it 
is the specific duty of the courts to call fouls when the lines of 
constitutional authority under the separation of powers established by 
the Constitution have been breached.
  A lawsuit by the House of Representatives would grant no additional 
powers to the judicial branch over legislation. Indeed, what a statute 
says or doesn't say would remain unaffected. But it would be the 
appropriate task of the Federal courts to determine whether or not, 
whatever a statute says, a President can ignore or alter it under the 
Constitution.
  The stakes of inaction are high. The lawsuit will challenge the 
President's failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come 
to bear his name in the popular mind and was largely drafted in the 
White House. What provisions of ObamaCare have been enforced have not 
proved popular, and

[[Page H7091]]

what provisions the President has refused to enforce have been delayed 
until after the next Federal elections.
  How convenient for the President, yet how devastating to 
accountability in our Republic.
  Imagine the future if this new unconstitutional power of the 
President is left to stand. Presidents today and in the future would be 
able to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick 
and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore. 
The current President has even created entirely new categories of 
businesses to apply his unilaterally imposed exemptions.
  In that future, if a bill the President signed into law was later 
considered to be bad policy and potentially harmful to the President's 
political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy 
into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more 
politically opportune time, if at all. No longer would Presidential 
candidates running for reelection have to stand on their records, 
because their records could be edited at will.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 
minute.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Sign one bill into law, enforce another version of it 
in practice. Rinse and repeat until the accumulation of power in the 
Presidency is complete.
  We should all support this resolution today, as it aims to unite two-
thirds of the Federal Government in delivering a simple message: 
Congress writes the laws and the President enforces them. Our own 
constitutionally required oath to support the Constitution of the 
United States requires no less.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I 
rise in opposition to the bill that is before us.
  It is somewhat ironic that the Republicans want to sue the President 
for not enforcing a law that they want to repeal. How ironic. But it 
is, frankly, a demonstration of their frustration that they have been 
unable politically to attain the objective that they seek. They 
therefore repair to the wasting of time by this Congress and the 
wasting of the taxpayers' money on a hypocritical and partisan attack 
against the President, one that is meant to distract from the pressing 
issues of the day, like fixing our broken immigration system, raising 
the minimum wage, or restoring emergency unemployment insurance for 
those seeking jobs.
  While the majority of Americans oppose this lawsuit gimmick, House 
Republicans continue to move ahead with it instead of acting on those 
policies and other critical legislation which the majority of the 
American public do support: Make It In America jobs bills, Export-
Import Bank reauthorization, terrorism risk insurance, Voting Rights 
Amendment Act, continuing resolutions and appropriations bills. All of 
these the American people want to see us do.
  But in polls, they show they don't want us to be doing this. They 
think it is frivolous. They think it is without merit. They think it 
should not be done.
  All the bills that I referenced they think ought to be done. How sad 
it is that we come here and do things the American public thinks are a 
waste of time while not doing things Americans think are very 
important.
  I tell my friend from Texas, and he is my friend, none other than 
Justice Antonin Scalia has made the point that the judiciary 
traditionally does not hear cases of political disagreement between the 
other two branches.

                              {time}  1715

  In fact, in United States v. Windsor, Justice Scalia said, a ``system 
in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into court, in 
their institutional capacity, whenever the President implements a law 
in a manner that is not to Congress' liking.'' Scalia felt that was not 
justified.
  We believe this legislation is not justified. We further believe that 
the American people do not believe this legislation is justified. We do 
believe that the base of the Republican Party that tried to defeat 
President Obama in 2012, voted against him in 2008, and disagreed with 
him on the issues thinks this is what is available to them.
  It is wrong. It is a waste of time. It is a waste of money. It is a 
distraction from the issues that are so important to our people. This 
lawsuit is nothing more than a partisan bill to rally the Republican 
base, and for some, it doesn't go far enough.
  Under President Clinton, Republicans' playbook was shut down and then 
impeach. Under President Obama, Republicans said that if the Affordable 
Care Act were not repealed--not that they would sue him. They said they 
would shut down the government if they didn't get their way. They 
didn't get their way, and they shut down the government.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. They threatened to shut down the government, and they shut 
down the government. And the American people said, that is not what we 
want done.
  Again, they come to this floor because they cannot achieve, through 
their political process, the ends they seek. They have voted over 50 
times to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act. They do not want 
it implemented. Now they want to sue the President because he is not 
implementing it fully, and now they are suing and refusing to say that 
impeachment is off the table.
  In fact, their newly elected whip, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise) declined the opportunity to rule out impeachment on four 
separate occasions last weekend.
  My friends, instead of wasting time and money on the lawsuit and what 
might follow, Congress ought to do what our constituents sent us here 
to do: create jobs, grow the middle class, invest in an economy where 
all of our people can work hard, and make it in America.
  Reject this waste of time. Vote ``no'' on this unjustified, 
impractical, losing proposition for the suit against the President of 
the United States.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we just heard a lot of revisionist 
history.
  But I will answer the question. And the answer is that years back, we 
did impeach William Jefferson Clinton because he lied to an FBI agent. 
He lied to a Federal grand jury, and he violated a Federal law, which 
was a felony. Oh, by the way, that led to impeachment for a felony 
while in office, a sitting President.
  In this instance, the President of the United States is not 
faithfully executing the laws of the country, and that is an entirely 
different process. So for the gentleman to suggest that this is going 
to lead to that is simply not true.
  I will tell you that William Jefferson Clinton violated the Federal 
law as a felony, and we believe our President, now Barack Obama, is not 
faithfully executing the laws. And anybody could figure that out who 
serves as a Member of Congress.
  I would now like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Foreign Affairs, Homeland 
Security, and Natural Resources Committees.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my 
colleague from Maryland who just spoke that, in my humble opinion, 
Harry Reid shut down the government.
  Mr. Speaker, let me explain for everybody watching at home across 
America what the separation of powers doctrine means. I know this is 
obvious for most Americans because we study it in school. But since our 
constitutional scholar President doesn't seem to get it, it apparently 
needs to be explained again.
  Our Constitution says that we, the legislative branch--this branch--
we write the laws. The President executes the laws. And the courts 
settle any dispute we may have. Got it? We write the laws. The 
President executes the laws. The court settles the disputes.
  Our Constitution does not say that the President gets to write his 
own laws. Our Founders knew that was a bad idea. They had seen kings 
wield that kind of power, and they knew they didn't want that for the 
new Nation. They understood that too much power in the hands of any one 
person or any one group of people would inevitably lead to tyranny.

[[Page H7092]]

  As Christian men of the day, they understood that since the Garden of 
Eden, man is fallen, and that fallen men, once they have a taste of 
power, they will always lust for more. They knew that ``Power corrupts; 
absolute power corrupts absolutely.''
  So in their understanding of fallen man, the remedy was a system of 
checks and balances, and clearly delineated, but separate, powers 
divided among three equal branches of government. We write the laws. 
The President executes them. It should be simple, right?
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the President has failed us in 
two directions. He has failed to execute the laws we have written, and 
he has rewritten the laws on his own. I believe that is a breach of his 
oath of office to uphold the laws.
  So we are gathered here, as the first branch, the legislative branch, 
the branch that is closest to the people, to seek the judicial branch's 
help in reining in the power of an out-of-control executive branch, 
plain and simple. We are here specifically to bring legal action 
against the President of the United States to stop him from 
unilaterally rewriting the so-called Affordable Care Act.
  By the way, that is really a misnomer. There is nothing 
``affordable'' about the Affordable Care Act, and the American people 
know it. But really, that is a discussion for another day.
  From the individual mandate to the business mandate to the waivers 
for Big Labor to the HHS regulations that were struck down by the 
Supreme Court, to the decision just last week to exempt the U.S. 
territories--how many people is that, 4 million people?--exempt 4 
million more people from the law known as ObamaCare with just the 
action of the President's pen, time and time and time again, we have 
seen this President rewrite the law.
  But rewriting ObamaCare isn't only one of the ways this President has 
abused his power. Look at the mess on the southern border right now, a 
mess of the President's own making, thanks to his decision not to 
enforce the immigration law and his attempt to attempt to rewrite that 
law through a failed DACA regulation and so-called ``prosecutorial 
discretion.'' Last week, I sent the President 21 tweets which laid out 
the things that he could do to stop this mess at the border that are 
within the law, within his purview. And still, he continues to operate 
outside the law.
  And it is not just the border and ObamaCare. It is DOMA and the NLRB 
and an out-of-control EPA trying to backdoor cap-and-trade legislation, 
a regulatory war on coal, and the waters of the United States--
regulation after regulation, administrative action after action with no 
basis in real, actual bona fide law that this body has passed. This 
administration has chosen repeatedly to flout laws or to try to rewrite 
laws without going through the legislative process that our Founders 
set up for us.

  The Constitution, they are laying all over the place. Get a copy. 
Look at it. Understand the separation of powers.
  This Congress must use every power at our disposal to restore balance 
to our government and uphold the rule of law. We have voted repeatedly 
to use the power of the purse to cut off funding for unconstitutional 
activities within this administration. We have voted repeatedly, Mr. 
Speaker, to overturn bad regulations. We passed the ENFORCE Act, the 
REINS Act, and I have cosponsored numerous other efforts that repair 
our broken system of checks and balances in order to stop the 
overreaches of this administration. We must act today, and we must 
continue to act until this administration and this President relent and 
get it right.
  I support this resolution to take this President to court.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Let's take this President to court 
because I believe we need to take whatever steps are necessary and in 
our power to rein in this administration and hold them accountable to 
the United States Constitution and citizens of the United States of 
America.
  The Founding Fathers gave us this recourse to restore the balance of 
power and uphold the rule of law. That is why this is so important for 
the legislative branch to reassert our authority, to make the law so he 
can enforce the law.
  May God continue to bless this body. May God continue to bless the 
men and women that serve this country. And may God continue to bless 
the United States of America.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, as the former chairman of the 
House Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong opposition to House 
Resolution 676, which would authorize the Speaker to file suit against 
the President of the United States for failing to enforce the 
Affordable Care Act, which has been attacked more than 51 times 
unsuccessfully in the House.
  Now, why do I oppose this seriously flawed measure? One, the fact 
that it addresses a nonexistent problem. Two, it violates 
constitutional requirements and fundamental separation of power 
principles. And three, it diverts Congress from focusing on truly 
critical matters that require prompt legislative responses.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter received 
only today signed by eight constitutional law scholars explaining the 
reasons why a lawsuit filed pursuant to H. Res. 676 is likely to fail.

                                                    July 30, 2014.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner, We write as law professors who 
     specialize in constitutional law and federal courts to 
     express our view that the members of the House of 
     Representatives lack the ability to sue the President of the 
     United States in federal court for his alleged failure to 
     enforce a federal statute, even if an Act of Congress were to 
     authorize such a suit and especially without such legislative 
     authorization. Never in American history has such a suit been 
     allowed. In fact, in many cases, the United States Supreme 
     Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit have held that members of Congress lack 
     standing to sue in federal court. An entire House of Congress 
     is in no stronger a position to sue. Moreover, this is 
     exactly the type of political dispute which courts have found 
     to pose a non-justiciable political question and that should 
     be resolved in the political process rather than by judges.
       In Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), members of Congress 
     sued to challenge the constitutionality of the line-item 
     veto. The Court dismissed the case for lack of standing and 
     said that the members of Congress ``have alleged no injury to 
     themselves as individuals, the institutional injury they 
     allege is wholly abstract and widely dispersed, and their 
     attempt to litigate this dispute at this time and in this 
     form is contrary to historical experience . . . . We 
     therefore hold that these individual members of Congress do 
     not have a sufficient `personal stake' in this dispute and 
     have not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to have 
     established Article III standing.''
       After Raines v. Byrd, it is clear that legislators have 
     standing only if they allege either that they have been 
     singled out for specially unfavorable treatment as opposed to 
     other members of their bodies or that their votes have been 
     denied or nullified. This is consistent with a large body of 
     lower court precedent, primarily from the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, that 
     requires a showing of nullification of a vote as a 
     prerequisite for standing. The Court of Appeals has stated 
     that a member of Congress has standing only if ``the alleged 
     diminution in congressional influence . . . amount[s] to a 
     disenfranchisement, a complete nullification or withdrawal of 
     a voting opportunity.'' Goldwater v. Carter, 617 F.2d 697, 
     702 (D.C. Cir. 1979), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 
     444 U.S. 996 (1979); see also Harrington v. Bush, 553 F.2d 
     190, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
       It is just for this reason that the House of 
     Representatives as a body, like its members individually, 
     lacks standing to sue. The claim that the President has not 
     fully enforced provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or 
     other laws, does not amount to a ``disenfranchisement, a 
     complete nullification, or withdrawal of a voting 
     opportunity.'' Congress retains countless mechanisms to 
     ensure enforcement of a law, ranging from use of its spending 
     power to assigning the task to an independent agency.
       On many occasions throughout American history, the Supreme 
     Court has seen the need for the federal judiciary to stay out 
     of disputes between the elected branches of government. That 
     is exactly the lesson that the proposed lawsuit would ignore. 
     Thus the suit likely would be dismissed both for want of 
     standing and because it poses a non-justiciable political 
     question. As Justice Scalia pointed out years ago, courts 
     frequently fail

[[Page H7093]]

     to review actions or inaction by the Executive when a 
     decision involves ``a sensitive and inherently discretionary 
     judgment call, . . . the sort of decision that has 
     traditionally been nonreviewable, . . . [and decisions for 
     which] review would have disruptive practical consequences.'' 
     Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 608 (1988) (Scalia, J., 
     dissenting). The question presented here poses the very 
     essence of what the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 
     186, 217 (1962), said is a political question because of 
     ``the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy 
     determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; 
     or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent 
     resolution without expressing lack of the respect due 
     coordinate branches of government.'' The idea of a judge 
     telling a President how to exercise his discretion in 
     enforcing a law cuts at the heart of separation of powers and 
     thus presents a question non-justiciable in the courts.
       Under long-standing practice and precedents, disputes, such 
     as this one between members of the House of Representatives 
     and the President, must be worked out in the political 
     process, not the courts.
       Disclaimer: institutional affiliations are for 
     identification purposes only.

     Erwin Chemerinsky,
       Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law;
     Janet Cooper Alexander,
       Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law, Stanford Law School;
     Peter Edelman,
       Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center;
     Lawrence Lessig,
       Roy L. Furman Professor of Law, Harvard Law School;
     Burt Neuborne,
       Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties, New York 
     University Law School;
     Kermit Roosevelt,
       Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School;
     Suzanna Sherry,
       Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law, Vanderbilt 
     University Law School;
     Charles Tiefer,
       Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law.

  Mr. CONYERS. To begin with, H. Res. 676 seeks to solve a nonexistent 
problem because the President has, in fact, fully met his obligations 
to fully execute the laws.
  Allowing flexibility in the implementation of a major new program, 
even where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual 
nor a constitutional violation.
  Indeed, in the case of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate, 
the administration acted pursuant to statutory authorization granted to 
it by Congress.
  Section 7805(a) of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the Treasury 
Secretary to issue any rules necessary for the enforcement of the Code, 
including the provisions that enforce the employer mandate.
  Exercising discretion in implementing a law is the reality of 
administering sometimes complex programs and is inherent in the 
President's duty to ``take care'' that he ``faithfully'' execute laws.
  This has been especially true with respect to the Affordable Care 
Act. The President's decision to extend certain compliance dates to 
help phase-in the Act is not a novel tactic.
  Yet, even though not a single court has ever concluded that 
reasonable delay in implementing a complex law constitutes a violation 
of the Take Care Clause, the Majority insists there is a constitutional 
crisis.
  In addition, a suit initiated under H. Res. 676 would itself be 
unconstitutional and would violate separation of powers principles.
  This is because such a lawsuit would essentially allow federal courts 
to second-guess decisions by the Executive Branch in how it chooses to 
implement a policy.
  The federal judiciary, under the political question doctrine, avoids 
answering such questions precisely because a court is not appropriate 
forum to resolve issues of complex policy.
  Additionally, it is highly unlikely that Congress could satisfy the 
standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution that must be 
met in order to enforce the Take Care Clause.
  To meet those requirements, a plaintiff--under the Supreme Court's 
1997 decision in Raines v. Byrd--must show, among other things, that it 
suffered a concrete and particularized injury.
  Injury amounting only to an alleged violation of a right to have the 
Government act in accordance with law--which is what this resolution 
contemplates--is not judicially cognizable for Article III standing 
purposes.
  This is in stark contrast to cases where Congress has sought to 
protect a fundamental power, like its subpoena authority.
  In subpoena enforcement cases, courts have found standing for one 
House of Congress to sue because a specific legislative prerogative was 
at stake, constituting a sufficiently concrete injury to Congress to 
confer Article III standing.
  Article III's standing requirements enforce the Constitution's 
separation-of-powers principles. Congress cannot simply legislate away 
these constitutional standing requirements.
  Finally, H. Res. 676 is obviously just pure political theater that 
distracts the public from the fact that this Republican-controlled 
House has failed to address a whole host of critical issues.
  These include immigration reform, extending unemployment insurance, 
enhancing environmental protections, ensuring worker safety, and 
helping those who are financially struggling.
  Coincidentally, H. Res. 676 shares a number with H.R. 676, the 
``Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,'' which I introduced in 
February of 2013.
  H.R. 676 would create a publicly-financed, privately-delivered health 
care system that would greatly improve and expand the already existing 
Medicare program.
  My legislation would ensure that all Americans have access, 
guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective 
health care services regardless of their employment, income or health 
care status.
  Instead of discussing this and other critical matters, today we 
continue to waste precious resources on a patently unconstitutional 
measure that would authorize a lawsuit destined to fail.
  We owe it to the American people to address real, not imaginary, 
challenges facing our Nation, including enhancing health care for all 
Americans.
  I would also note that the litigation referred to by the gentleman 
from Texas that I was involved in eight years ago involved a situation 
where the House and Senate passed different versions of the same budget 
bill that was signed by the President. That was brought in our 
individual capacity as Members, not the House as a whole, and did not 
involve the use of additional taxpayer funds. The resolution before us 
today is of course an entirely different matter.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. 
Res. 676, a resolution to authorize the House of Representatives to 
initiate litigation against the President, or any executive branch 
employee, for failure to act in accordance with their duties. 
Specifically, this resolution deals with the President's failure to 
implement the employer mandate required by his own signature law, the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  While the scope of the litigation authorized is narrow, it is 
symbolic of a much larger problem--the President's continued refusal to 
faithfully execute the law, choosing, instead, to usurp Congress' 
exclusive constitutional right to legislate.
  Simply because Congress chooses not to be the President's rubberstamp 
does not bestow upon him the power to circumvent the law. Conversely, 
when the President decides enforcement of a law might be politically 
perilous, he can't simply choose to ignore it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about party politics. This is about the 
proper role of government, as defined by our Founders. The Federal 
Government was intentionally designed with three branches, each with 
their own separate powers and the ability to serve as a check and 
balance on the other two. Yet, the President--as a former 
constitutional law professor--refuses to recognize his proper role, 
defying the law and unilaterally enacting policies, or ignoring the 
law, at will.
  I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as a Member of 
this institution, and I have taken that oath seriously every single 
day.

                              {time}  1730

  Unfortunately, I believe the President's actions undermine the very 
same oath that he has twice taken, so I urge my colleagues to join me 
in this step to uphold the law and protect the balance of power by 
supporting the resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

[[Page H7094]]

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in strong 
opposition to this resolution that would propose to have the House sue 
the President of the United States.
  With only a few hours left before Congress adjourns for the August 
district work period, we have a full plate of responsibilities left 
unfinished. When I go back home to my district, I highly doubt that 
many constituents will be running up to me to thank me for Congress 
passing a resolution to sue the President of the United States.
  I know what I will hear instead: Why hasn't the House passed 
comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken immigration system? 
Why hasn't Congress raised the minimum wage so people who work full 
time don't remain in poverty? Why haven't we renewed emergency 
unemployment insurance for more than 3\1/2\ million Americans, 
including nearly 300,000 veterans?
  The only answer I will be able to give them is that Republican 
leadership in the House cares more about scoring political points 
against this President than they do about helping America's middle 
class families.
  This is a question of priorities. The American people sent us here to 
respond to the pressing needs that face our Nation. It should be a 
given that we would use our time to focus on the most important issues. 
Instead, we waste time on suing the President of the United States 
while failing to address commonsense measures to ensure economic 
security for every American.
  Not only does this resolution reflect a very different set of 
priorities from the majority of Americans, we are yet again wasting 
millions in taxpayer dollars, just like the $3 million wasted in 
defending the indefensible and unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act 
and billions of dollars wasted by shutting down the government to try 
to take away Americans' health care benefits.
  It is unconscionable that when this do-nothing Republican Congress 
finally decided to do something, it is suing the President for doing 
his job when they refuse to do theirs. I wish I could say that this was 
politics at its worst, but I have heard too many in the Republican 
majority raise the specter of impeachment not to know better.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this time- and taxpayer money-
wasting resolution and urge Republicans in the majority to join 
Democrats and address the serious challenges facing our Nation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the 
House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I also 
want to thank the whole House for its work to address the American 
peoples' concerns about jobs and our economy. All told, we have sent 
the Senate now more than 40 jobs bills, almost all of them in a 
bipartisan way.
  From the first day of this Congress, I have said our focus would be 
on jobs, and it has been, but also on that first day, you may recall 
that I addressed the House about the importance of our oath of office. 
I noted that it is the same oath we all take, that it makes no mention 
of party, it makes no mention of faction or agenda. The oath only 
refers to the Constitution and our obligation to defend it.
  Mr. Speaker, I said that with moments like this in mind. I said that 
knowing there would be times when we would have to do things we didn't 
come here to do, we didn't plan to do, and things that require us to 
consider interests greater than our own interests.
  I have to think this is why, on several occasions, members of the 
minority party have taken a similar step. In 2011, some of them filed 
litigation against the Vice President. They took similar steps in 2006, 
2002, 2001, and so forth.
  Because this isn't about Republicans and Democrats--it is about 
defending the Constitution that we swore an oath to uphold and acting 
decisively when it may be compromised.
  No Member of this body needs to be reminded of what the Constitution 
states about the President's obligation to faithfully execute the laws 
of our Nation. No Member needs to be reminded of the bonds of trust 
that have been frayed, of the damage that has already been done to our 
economy and to our people.
  Are you willing to let any President choose what laws to execute and 
what laws to change? Are you willing to let anyone tear apart what our 
Founders have built? Think not only about the specifics of the oath you 
took, but think about how you took it: as one body, standing together.
  That is all I am asking you to do today, to act as one institution 
defending the Constitution on behalf of the people that we serve.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Well, Republicans today are choosing lawsuits over 
legislating. They are choosing to sue the President rather than 
pursuing legislation to support American families.
  There is no shortage of legislation awaiting action: immigration 
reform, a bipartisan Senate bill held up by the Speaker who has just 
spoken; unemployment insurance, a bipartisan Senate bill has never 
gotten a vote in this House held up by this Speaker; the employment 
nondiscrimination bill, the Senate bill not brought up here and held up 
by the Speaker; paycheck fairness, not brought up; a minimum wage bill, 
not brought up; Ex-Im, caught in controversy within the Republican 
conference; a highway bill, another patch, the inability of House 
Republicans to face up to the need for a long-term highway bill; and a 
voting rights reform bill sponsored by a senior Republican, held up by 
the Speaker of this House and the conference of the Republicans.
  The Republicans in this House are suing the President because they 
conjure up that the President did not adopt what Republicans argue is 
the correct implementation of a law they have tried 50 times to 
destroy. It is the House Republicans who should be sued, if that were 
possible, for their abdication of their responsibilities to the people 
of this Nation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, my favorite piece of art in 
this Capitol is a picture in the rotunda of our Founding Fathers 
gathered together to sign the Declaration of Independence, a document 
that they knew, when they signed it, they were signing their own death 
warrant if they were caught and tried for treason. They felt that 
strongly that they wanted to escape the bonds of a monarch and pursue 
freedom.
  Our forefathers fought a Revolution against the greatest military 
power on Earth to escape the bonds of a monarchy. At the end of that 
bloody Revolution, the last thing they wanted was another king. They 
wanted freedom.
  To protect that precious freedom, they designed a government of, by, 
and for the people based on a separation of powers. The legislative 
branch makes the laws; the executive branch enforces laws.
  President Obama has decided that he is not bound by the separation of 
powers. He has bragged that if Congress will not accept his priorities, 
he has a pen and a phone, and he will make the laws himself.
  He may have a pen, but the people have the Constitution left us by 
our forefathers. Our forefathers recognized that one man who can both 
make the laws and enforce the laws is a king, not a President. Thomas 
Jefferson once said that freedom does not disappear all at once, but is 
eroded imperceptibly day by day.
  The prosperity of our great country sprang from our freedom. Our form 
of government set forth in the Constitution by our forefathers has 
protected that very fragile freedom for 200 years.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle worry about the price of a 
lawsuit to protect our freedom. Our forefathers paid dearly for that 
freedom. Many gave all they had, even their lives.
  Our freedom is in peril, my friends. We cannot stand by and watch the 
President shred our Constitution. I stand in support of H. Res. 676.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The 
constitutional question raised by this

[[Page H7095]]

measure is whether the House has standing to sue the President over 
what is, in essence, a policy difference. ``Standing'' is a 
constitutionally-defined status and requires that the plaintiff, among 
other things, demonstrate a legally recognizable injury. In the case of 
a suit between branches of government, the House would also have to 
show that there is no other remedy.
  On both of these counts, this lawsuit fails. The House cannot speak 
for the Senate, which doesn't agree with its position, and therefore 
cannot represent the legislative branch. Even if it could, neither body 
has suffered a recognizable injury merely because some Members of the 
Congress do not like how the President has interpreted a law passed by 
a different Congress.
  Moreover, this Congress has a remedy if it doesn't like the way that 
the President has implemented the Affordable Care Act: it can change 
the law. That would be a far better approach, one more consistent with 
our separation of powers than this expensive and ill-conceived lawsuit.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to reject this effort.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker does not have a good record when 
it comes to wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits. When the 
Justice Department concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act could not 
be defended in court, the House wasted $2.3 million trying to defend 
the indefensible and lost in the Supreme Court.
  Now, the Speaker wants to waste more of the taxpayers' money on a 
meritless lawsuit against the President for not ``taking care that the 
law be faithfully executed.''
  What did the President do? In implementing the Affordable Care Act, 
which the Republican-led House has voted to repeal 50 times, he 
postponed implementation of one provision by a year, a provision the 
Republicans and the House opposed.
  Now, they want to waste money to go to court to say the President had 
no power to postpone this provision for a year, although no one opposed 
President Bush when he postponed implementation of a provision of the 
Medicare drug act for a year.
  It is well-settled that it is within the discretion of Presidents in 
implementing a law to postpone implementation of part of it in order to 
get it done right, but this leads to another absurdity of the case. 
Let's assume the Republicans get the House to go into court and somehow 
overcome the standing question--which they will not. What is the remedy 
they will seek?
  By the time it got to court, the provision in question will have 
already been implemented, so the Republicans want to waste $5 million 
or $6 million in taxpayers' money to go into court and say, Judge, 
please order the President to implement what he has already 
implemented. Totally ridiculous.
  So what have we got? We have a Congress that has passed no highway 
bill, no minimum wage bill, no unemployment extension bill, no pay 
equity for women bill, no action on campaign finance reform, no action 
to reduce the burdens of student loans, no action to make sure that 
women continue to have access to contraceptive services despite the 
Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, no action on all the emergencies 
that face the American people, but we are going to waste money and time 
on a meritless lawsuit that will go nowhere, but will simply serve the 
single function of diverting attention from all the real problems the 
House Republicans want to continue to ignore.
  This is not a proper use of the taxpayers' money. More wasted money 
for political purposes. For shame.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time remains 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman very much, and I rise to 
oppose H. Res. 676, which is seeking an unconstitutional right to sue 
the President for doing his duty and following the law.
  The underbelly of this resolution would, in essence, put fire in the 
hearts and minds of Americans when we find out that this legislation is 
to undermine the President and any of his officers and employees from 
doing their jobs.

                              {time}  1745

  This is a failed attempt to impeach the President. I am willing to 
say that word because the President has been following the law. The law 
passed, and it gives him discretion to interpret the Affordable Care 
Act to make it best work for the American people. As has been stated, 
if you want to change the law, go to the floor of the House. But in 
actuality, this resolution smacks against the Constitution which says 
there are three equal branches of government. Therefore, the Executive 
has the right to perform his duties.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is, in fact, a 
veiled attempt for impeachment, and it undermines the law that allows 
the President to do his job. It is a historical fact that President 
Bush pushed this Nation into a war that had little to do with 
apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President 
Bush because as an Executive, he had his authority. President Obama has 
the authority.
  I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to, in 
essence, provide the opportunity for us to do valid things for the 
American people--improve the minimum wage, paycheck fairness--and stop 
undermining the authority as indicated in the Constitution that gives 
equal authority to the three branches of government.
  We can pass laws. We have the ability to pass laws, and citizens have 
the right to go into court on their independent standing. The courts 
have often said that the Congress has no standing. The House of 
Representatives has no independent standing, as evidenced by many cases 
that we have already taken to court and determined that Congress has no 
standing.
  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.
  That dictates on how you gain standing, and I would say 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 be redressed by the relief requested from the court.
  Let me be very clear. We in Congress can make no argument that the 
President has injured us. We can make no independent argument of that, 
and so I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution and do not accept 
a veiled attempt at impeachment when our President is doing his duty 
and following the law under the Constitution of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H. Res. 676, providing 
for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or 
other Executive Branch officials inconsistent with their duties under 
the constitution of the United States.
  We could be doing some very important legislation to help the 
American people from Texas to the tip of Maine, like Comprehensive 
Immigration Reform, the Appropriations Border Supplemental, 
comprehensive tax reform, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization, or 
the Voting Rights Act, yet my Republican colleagues insist on wasting 
valuable time.
  The Congressional Black Caucus did a Special Order earlier this week 
entitled: the GOP's March Towards Impeachment, and that is where we 
appear to be headed.
  But first let me make a distinction between impeachment and a lawsuit 
initiated by the House, qua House of Representatives, via H. Res. 676.
  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

[[Page H7096]]

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.
  A 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.
  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 be 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. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from New York for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a waste of time and money. We are 
sent to Congress to make progress on behalf of the people of this 
Nation, yet House Republicans spend all of their time and energy 
fighting this President. Why?
  The Republicans need to jump off the bandwagon of political attacks 
and come together to jump-start the economy. While Americans were 
unemployed, they did nothing to put them back to work. When people were 
losing their homes, they did little to protect them from foreclosure. 
While hunger and poverty are on the rise in this country, they have 
hardly mentioned the disappearing middle class.
  From his first day in office, Republicans in the House, in this 
House, have never supported this President. Every olive branch he has 
extended was broken.
  But today, Mr. Speaker, they have reached a low, a very low point. 
This resolution to sue the President just goes a little too far. It is 
a shame and a disgrace that we are here debating the suing of the 
President. The American people deserve better. We can do better. We can 
do much better.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to have the raw 
courage--nothing but courage--to oppose this insulting and offensive 
resolution. It has no place on this floor. Let us get back to the work 
that we were elected to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members to speak 
within the time yielded to those Members.
  The gentlewoman from New York has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page H7097]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. With the gentlewoman having 5\1/2\ minutes left, I will 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time.
  I find it interesting that this is all about President Obama engaging 
in an executive overreach. Look at the statistics. During President 
Obama's first term and comparing him to prior Presidents, President 
Bush issued 173 executive orders, President Clinton 200, President 
Reagan 213, and President Obama only 147. And during this part of 
President Obama's second term, he has thus far issued only 36 executive 
orders, while President Bush, during his second term, issued 116; 
Clinton, 164; and Reagan, 168. So I ask you, based on the statistics, 
is that overreach? No, it is underreach. It is underreach.
  Mitch McConnell said upon President Obama's inauguration the job was 
to see that this man wasn't reelected. Now the job seems to be to see 
that the attack on the President can be such that the Republicans take 
the Senate and hopefully set the stage for 2016 of the Presidency. This 
unquestionably is impeachment lite. It is an attempt to put the 
President in a situation in a lawsuit that, if successful, which I find 
hard to believe, would be the foundation for impeachment.
  This President has done nothing that is impeachable, nothing that 
merits this type of action, nothing that merits this type of 
disrespect. He should be respected as our President and supported, and 
we should work to create jobs, pass an infrastructure bill, pass a 
minimum wage bill, and extend unemployment insurance.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member 
of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  There are plenty of places in the Affordable Care Act where it is 
full of drafting errors and stuff that, quite frankly, just wasn't 
quite ready for prime time, but, Mr. Speaker, there is no ambiguity 
over this issue.
  When the President delayed the institution of the employer mandate on 
July 2, 2013, it couldn't have been clearer. Let me give you an 
example. The effective date for the individual mandate as written in 
law, and this is for the individual mandate:

       The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable 
     years ending after December 31, 2013.

  Pretty clear. ``Shall apply.'' Seems straightforward.
  The effective date for the employer mandate, section 1514 of the law, 
effective date:

       The amendments made by this section shall apply to months 
     beginning after December 31, 2013.

  It really does seem straightforward. There is no ambiguity there. I 
would just ask the question: Is there a list of laws that must be 
followed and those that may or may not be followed depending upon 
whatever the will of the President is that day?
  I would remind my colleagues the words of Abraham Lincoln:

       The best way to end a bad law is to enforce it strictly.

  We should do the same.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we in this body are called upon to represent the wishes 
of the American people. The last national election, President Obama was 
reelected by the American people by an overwhelming majority. What we 
find today are the people who opposed his reelection, the people who 
for years now have been wishing upon him failure, are attempting to do 
with this lawsuit what they could not do at the polling places.
  Rather than address the problems of the American people, repair our 
crumbling infrastructure, getting affordability for our young people to 
attend colleges and universities and other postsecondary education, 
here we are trying to find a way to discover some peg upon which to 
hang an impeachment resolution. That is what this is all about.
  I would hope that we would hurry up and return dignity to this body 
and stop these charades that are inflaming the American people in a way 
that they are undeserving of.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentlewoman 
that I have no additional speakers except myself to close, so I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to bring to a close this sorry spectacle of 
legislative malpractice. It really saddens me to think that we have 
arrived at this point in this legislative year when we are about to go 
home for 5 weeks of legislative work in the district when we should be 
here on the floor taking care of the very many issues that people have 
talked about all day.
  But most importantly, this lawsuit goes against everything that the 
majority has been working for for the last 4 years. They have tried 
over 50 times, spending $79 million, to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 
And no one, frankly, listening to this is now going to believe that 
there is this great change of heart and they are so broken up that it 
wasn't implemented in time and by the book that you are going to try to 
sue the President of the United States. I don't think even to kids 
watching Sesame Street that would make any sense. In fact, the 
strongest arguments about it really come from the majority's own party. 
It is sadly a partisan political election year stunt, and it has no 
place in this House.
  As I said earlier today, when I first came here, the bipartisanship 
was so wonderful and strong that the New York delegation, all of us, 
stood together on issue after issue. I miss that terribly and long for 
it to come back.
  In the meantime, I ask my colleagues to vote against this disgraceful 
resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, our system of government is in a bad place when one 
branch of government is compelled to sue another branch of government 
for failing to play its proper constitutional role. We shouldn't be in 
that situation, but we are. The President should have fulfilled his 
oath to faithfully execute the laws as written by Congress and signed 
by this President. Unfortunately, this lawsuit is necessary because the 
President has not implemented the law as passed and chose to pick and 
choose how he would have the law affect the American citizens.
  This resolution will help guarantee that the legislation passed by 
Congress and signed by the President is faithfully executed according 
to the rule of law and not according to the whim of one person, that 
being the President of the United States. Also, no President should be 
allowed to pick and choose which laws matter and which ones do not.
  It is unfortunate that some Members of Congress believe this body 
should be irrelevant. It is unfortunate that they believe any President 
should be able to enforce the law or not enforce the law as that 
President chooses.
  The American people elect their Member of Congress. They live under 
the laws that are written. They make their plans and follow through 
based upon what the laws are, and they live under these rules of law, 
and they need to be able to count on them. When Members of Congress 
believe the laws that we pass no longer matter, they are also saying 
that the beliefs of the American people do not matter.

                              {time}  1800

  When we allow the President to singlehandedly determine what the law 
is, the Constitution, our separation of powers, and the American people 
become irrelevant. That is why the President's system of unilateral 
governance cannot stand. It must be stopped. Even if it takes a lawsuit 
to do so, that is what we think the Federal judiciary is there to do: 
to resolve differences based upon the law. If the President's goal was 
to goad the House into defending the Constitution and the role of the

[[Page H7098]]

government, he certainly had succeeded when he said: Why not just sue 
me?
  Our Constitution must be defended and the role of the American people 
in the lawmaking process must be understood and guaranteed. This 
resolution is an important step in doing that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I submit an exchange of letters between 
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Candice Miller, and 
myself regarding the Committee on House Administration's jurisdictional 
interests in this resolution as well as Chairman Miller's desire to 
waive House Administration's consideration of H. Res. 676. These 
letters were also included in House Report 113- 561, which was filed on 
July 28, 2014.
                                                    July 24, 2014.
     Hon. Pete Sessions;
     Chairman, The Committee on Rules,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sessions: On July 24, 2014, the Committee on 
     Rules ordered reported H. Res. 676, a resolution providing 
     for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the 
     President or other executive branch officials inconsistent 
     with their duties under the Constitution of the United 
     States. As you know, the Committee on House Administration 
     was granted an additional referral upon the bill's 
     introduction pursuant to the Committee's jurisdiction under 
     rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives over the 
     allowance and expenses of administrative officers of the 
     House.
       Because of your willingness to consult with my committee 
     regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill 
     by the Committee on House Administration. By agreeing to 
     waive its consideration of the bill, the Committee on House 
     Administration does not waive its jurisdiction over H. Res. 
     676.
       I request that you include this letter and your response as 
     part of your committee's report on the bill and the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation 
     on the House floor.
  Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                Candice S. Miller,
                                            Chairman, Committee on
     House Administration.
                                  ____

                                                    July 24, 2014.
     Hon. Candice S. Miller
     Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Miller: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H. Res. 676, resolution providing for authority to initiate 
     litigation for actions by the President or other executive 
     branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the 
     Constitution of the United States, which the Committee on 
     Rules ordered reported on July 24, 2014.
       I acknowledge your committee's jurisdictional interest in 
     this legislation and appreciate your cooperation in moving 
     the bill to the House floor expeditiously. I agree that your 
     decision to forego further action on the bill will not 
     prejudice the Committee on House Administration with respect 
     to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar 
     legislation.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response in 
     the Committee's report on the bill and the Congressional 
     Record when the House considers the legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Pete Sessions,
                               Chairman, House Committee on Rules.

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today on the House Floor, 
the Republican leadership is taking a dangerous and unprecedented 
action by bringing up H. Res 676, a bill to move forward with a lawsuit 
against President Barack Obama.
  Beyond a doubt, the move to sue the President is yet another example 
of the failed leadership of the Republican Party. If the Republicans 
had acted on critical issues to move our country forward instead of 
wasting time and taxpayer money by taking over 50 senseless votes to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act or shutting down the Federal government, 
the President would not have needed to use Executive authority in the 
first place.
  With fewer than 150 bills enacted into law to date, the 113th 
Congress is on course to be the least productive in our nation's 
history. Undeniably, this Republican led Congress is the worst, and 
least productive, in our nation's history.
  Instead of spending time passing partisan bills that attack working 
Americans, weaken environmental protections and retreat on education 
and job training opportunities, this Congress should be working to 
create jobs and strengthen the middle class, not wasting taxpayer 
dollars on yet another political stunt.
  Congress should instead be focusing on the issues that matter: 
creating jobs, fixing our broken immigration system, restoring 
unemployment insurance for 3 million Americans, and raising the minimum 
wage to help workers and their families to have access to 
opportunities. Along with my Democratic colleagues, I strongly urge 
House Republicans to work with Democrats to help create jobs and 
opportunities for the American people, not engage in political tricks.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
unprecedented Republican plan to sue the President of the United 
States.
  At a time when Congress should be focusing on strengthening the 
middle class and expanding opportunities for all Americans, our 
Republican colleagues in the House accuse the President of 
unconstitutionally abusing his executive power by delaying the 
requirement in the Affordable Care Act that larger companies provide 
health insurance to their employees.
  At a time when student debt exceeds credit card debt in our country, 
when mothers are the primary breadwinner yet receive unequal pay, and 
when job creation is stagnating, our Republican colleagues have 
proposed a baseless, shameful lawsuit that further erodes the public's 
confidence in the United States Congress and a functioning American 
democracy.
  The lawsuit is fundamentally flawed in several ways:
  First, Republicans argue that the President acted outside of his 
authority with respect to implementing the ACA.
  Claims that the President is ignoring the law are unmerited. Records 
show that the President is using the same flexibility that presidents 
of both parties have long utilized to phase in new programs and 
policies and ensure that statutes are implemented in workable, sensible 
ways, minimizing disruption to individuals, families and businesses.
  Everything we do in Congress bears the mark of humanity. No law is 
perfect and occasionally, presidents must make reasonable, short-term 
accommodations to reality.
  Second, the courts are not the appropriate place to work out 
political disagreements between one half of one House of Congress and 
the Administration.
  The Affordable Care Act was passed by the House and the Senate and 
signed into law by the President. I understand that many House 
Republicans hate the law; they've made that abundantly clear in the 
more than 50 times they have voted to repeal it.
  After unsuccessfully attempting to repeal the law through regular 
order, House Republicans, grasping at straws, have opted to give away 
the mighty powers of the legislative branch to the judicial branch. If 
Congress starts relying on judges to check executive power, instead of 
the tools the Constitution grants us, this body will transfer enormous 
authority to the judicial branch.
  And to add insult to injury, the entire cost of this political 
misadventure will be paid for by the taxpayers.
  Repeated attempts to maintain regular order regarding cost 
transparency have been rebuffed.
  Ranking Member Slaughter of the Rules Committee sent a letter to 
Chairman Sessions, asking for a cost estimate of the lawsuit. No useful 
information has been provided.
  Ranking Member Brady of the House Administration Committee sent a 
letter to Speaker Boehner asking for regular order and transparency 
with the use of taxpayer money. No useful information has been 
provided.
  Amendment after amendment was offered by the Minority Members of the 
Rules Committee to provide transparency to the expenditures which would 
come out of legislative branch funds. All were voted down on party 
lines.
  This lawsuit is further proof of House Republicans' contempt and 
disregard for the priorities of the American people--an effort to 
pander to the most extreme, rightwing voters at taxpayer expense and 
our nation's well-being.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 
676. This legislation, which authorizes a lawsuit that the Republican 
Party plans to bring against President Obama, is a waste of time and a 
waste of money.
  Congress has two days before the August recess and instead of 
bringing up unemployment insurance, the Bring Jobs Home Act, the Fair 
Minimum Wage Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Bank on Students 
Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, 
universal pre-K legislation reauthorization of the America COMPETES 
Act, reauthorization of the Export Import Bank reauthorization of the 
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, legislation addressing global climate 
change, legislation to fund the federal government after September 30th 
of this year, gun control, comprehensive immigration reform, or any 
number of other issues that have stalled in the House since the 
Republicans took control in 2010, this is what the Republican majority 
has chosen to pass.
  The proposed lawsuit has dubious legal standing and no evident merit 
at all. Every administration has used the executive authority delegated 
to it by the Constitution and by the Congress, in the implementation 
and execution of our nation's laws. In fact, Supreme

[[Page H7099]]

Court Justice Antonin Scalia said ``The framers of the Constitution 
emphatically rejected a system in which Congress and the Executive can 
pop immediately into court, in their institutional capacity, whenever 
the President . . . implements a law in a manner that is not to 
Congress's liking.''
  I hope that the American people will see this action for what it is--
a stunt--an attempt to placate a radical wing of the Republican Party. 
The majority should be embarrassed to use Congressional time for this 
rather than for real, pressing issues.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 3.5 
million Americans who have lost their unemployment benefits over the 
past seven months and the one million Dreamers whose aspirations 
continue to be tragically denied and in strong opposition to the 
Majority's endless parade of political stunts, now best highlighted by 
the present legislation, H. Res. 676, a resolution giving one chamber 
of Congress the authority to sue the President.
  As the American people's elected representatives, we have a duty to 
debate and vote on pressing legislation, such as long-term unemployment 
insurance and comprehensive immigration reform.
  Instead, the Majority is wasting the American people's time and 
precious tax dollars on this political stunt that will inevitably fail. 
Any first-year law student would be able to tell the Majority that our 
chamber would lack standing before any court under the U.S. 
Constitution because there's simply no injury.
  Just nine days ago, Judge William Griesbach agreed, dismissing a suit 
brought before the Eastern District Court of Wisconsin by Senator Ron 
Johnson against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management over its 
implementation of the Affordable Care Act because the Senator lacked 
standing.
  To quote Judge Griesbach, ``Under our constitutional design, in the 
absence of a concrete injury to a party that can be redressed by the 
courts, disputes between the executive and legislative branches over 
the exercise of their respective powers are to be resolved through the 
political process, not by decisions issued by federal judges.''
  One of our nation's most noted jurists, Supreme Court Justice Antonin 
Scalia agrees. He wrote last year in his opinion in United States v. 
Windsor, regarding the dangers of resolving a political question before 
a court, that the framers of the Constitution unequivocally rejected a 
``system in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into 
court, in their institutional capacity, whenever the President . . . 
implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress's liking.''
  Our Constitution provides the Executive wide discretion in the 
implementation of federal law. In 2006, then-President George W. Bush 
extended the deadline and waived penalties for certain seniors who 
failed to sign up in time for the new Medicare prescription drug 
program.
  At that time, or in the following year when control of this chamber 
changed hands, neither Democrats nor Republicans contemplated suing 
President Bush over his use of executive discretion.
  If the Majority is dissatisfied with current federal law, it should 
use its authority granted under Article I to amend it.
  Otherwise, the Majority should do what every elected official under 
our present government has done since 1788--go before the American 
people and openly debate the merits of their agenda--which today 
includes the unashamed denial of millions of Americans essential 
unemployment benefits or the million young persons raise in our country 
the opportunity to become Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution, as amended.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 201, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 468]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--201

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Garrett
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     DesJarlais
     Foster
     Hanabusa
     Nunnelee
     Pompeo
     Sires

                              {time}  1828

  Mr. GUTHRIE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 468 had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

[[Page H7100]]



                          ____________________