[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]]
____________________