[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4310-4319]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAW ACT OF 2014

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
511, I call up the bill (H.R. 3973) to amend section 530D of title 28, 
United States Code, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 511, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 113-42, is adopted. The bill, as amended, is considered 
read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3973

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Faithful Execution of the 
     Law Act of 2014''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 530D OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES 
                   CODE.

       Section 530D(a)(1)(A) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or any other Federal officer'' before 
     ``establishes or implements a formal or informal policy''; 
     and
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``on the grounds that such 
     provision is unconstitutional'' and inserting ``and state the 
     grounds for such policy''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed 
in part B of House Report 113-378, if offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) or his designee, which shall be considered 
read, and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3973, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I now yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the 
distinguished chairman of the full Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, article II, section 3 of the United 
States Constitution declares that the President ``shall take care that 
the laws be faithfully executed.''
  However, President Obama has failed on many occasions to enforce acts 
of Congress that he disagrees with for policy reasons and has stretched 
his regulatory authority to put in place policies that Congress has 
refused to enact.
  Although President Obama is not the first President to stretch his 
powers beyond their constitutional limits, Executive overreach has 
accelerated at an alarming rate under his administration.
  To help prevent Executive overreach and require greater disclosure 
when it occurs, the gentleman from Florida, Representative DeSantis, 
introduced H.R. 3973, the Faithful Execution of the Law Act.
  I want to thank Representative DeSantis for introducing this 
commonsense legislation to ensure that there is greater transparency 
and disclosure regarding the executive branch's enforcement of Federal 
law.
  The Justice Department is currently required by law to report to 
Congress whenever it decides to adopt a policy to refrain from 
enforcing a Federal law on the grounds that the law in question is 
unconstitutional.
  The Faithful Execution of the Law Act strengthens this provision by 
requiring the Attorney General to report to Congress whenever a Federal 
official establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to 
refrain from enforcing a Federal law and the reason for the 
nonenforcement, regardless of whether it is being done on 
constitutional or policy grounds.
  As Professor Jonathan Turley observed regarding this legislation in 
testimony before the Judiciary Committee:

       It is hard to see the argument against such disclosures. 
     Too often, Congress has only been informed of major changes 
     by leaks to the media.

  Congress should not have to rely on media leaks and other unofficial 
sources to find out that the executive branch has decided not to 
enforce Federal laws.
  Congress cannot possibly know the extent of executive branch 
nonenforcement of the laws without mandatory disclosure of all 
nonenforcement policies by the person who should be fully aware of such 
policies, namely, the Attorney General, the Nation's chief law 
enforcement officer.

[[Page 4311]]

  Passage of H.R. 3973 is essential if Congress is going to play an 
active role in overseeing that the separation of powers between the 
branches is maintained and that the President is faithfully executing 
the laws.
  I thank the gentleman from Arizona, the chairman of the subcommittee, 
for yielding me this time, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, more of the same. As with our consideration of the 
``ENFORCE Act,'' H.R. 4138, I must note the lack of deliberative 
process pertaining to consideration of this bill.
  The gentleman from South Carolina spoke eloquently on the other bill 
and talked about the need for process--the importance of process. 
Process can be important, but process was not important on this bill.
  It wasn't important in the other bill. Like that other bill, the 
Judiciary Committee failed to hold a single legislative hearing.
  The process is you have a hearing. People come in and talk--experts--
then you have a markup. You first start at the subcommittee. The 
subcommittee has a hearing, and they have a markup, and then you have a 
hearing and a markup in the full committee.
  This one, not a hearing in the subcommittee, not a markup in the 
subcommittee, not a hearing in the committee; simply, all of a sudden--
presto--markup, process nixed. That is how we came up with the last 
bill and this bill.
  When coupled with the fact that my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle provided only the minimum notice regarding this bill, it is 
hard to believe that this is a serious attempt to legislate because it 
tramples on the legislative process, the rights of the minority to have 
notice, the rights of the public to have notice, and the right to have 
a hearing with experts testifying.
  Unfortunately, the end product evidences what happens when you don't 
follow regular order, which is due process, notice, and a hearing. We 
do the same thing here.
  Here are just a few of the problems with this bill: H.R. 3973 would 
impose burdensome and wasteful requirements on the Justice Department 
to the detriment of its law enforcement functions. They would probably 
have to hire new personnel and increase the debt, which, of course, the 
other side always talks about being passed on to the next generation.
  Section 530D of title 28 of the United States Code already requires 
the Attorney General to report to Congress any instance in which the 
Attorney General or any Justice Department official establishes or 
implements a formal or informal policy against enforcing, applying, or 
administering a provision of Federal law on the grounds that such 
provision is unconstitutional, and there are 94 U.S. attorneys and a 
whole bunch of agency heads and a whole bunch of cabinet members and 
folks.
  Current law, therefore, allows an administration to refuse to enforce 
a law in the extremely limited circumstance where law is deemed 
unconstitutional. No other reason is sufficient.
  H.R. 3973 fails to define exactly which individuals in the Federal 
Government would qualify as a ``Federal officer.'' There is nowhere in 
the USCA that I have seen--and we have researched it--where this 
Congress has defined a Federal officer, and yet we are instructing 
Federal officers.

                              {time}  1715

  Now, the courts might have had some gibberish, but this Congress 
never did.
  As a result of this oversight, the Attorney General would have to 
review enforcement decisions by hundreds--if not thousands--of 
individuals who work in the executive branch and may qualify as 
officers in order to determine whether their decisions trigger the 
requirements in this bill. This burden would drain already limited 
resources in the Justice Department for its law enforcement 
responsibilities, which is its charge.
  The majority's real purpose of H.R. 3973 is to prevent the 
President's implementation of duly enacted legislative initiatives that 
they oppose and to stymie the President's discretion in enforcement of 
those laws.
  Allowing flexibility in the implementation of a new program, even 
where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual nor 
a constitutional violation. And it has happened with administration to 
administration to administration.
  Such flexibility is inherent in the President's duty to ``take care'' 
that he ``faithfully'' execute the laws. And the exercise of 
enforcement discretion is a traditional power of the Executive.
  Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the 
exercise of such discretion is a function of the President's powers 
under the Take Care Clause, and this was reiterated by the Court as 
recently as 2012 in Arizona v. United States. This is particularly true 
if the bill's proponents intend to reach decisions like the deferred 
action on removing DREAMers from the country. That decision was a 
routine exercise of enforcement discretion, but H.R. 3973 would require 
the Attorney General to report on every such routine decision to 
Congress. You can't enforce every law to the fullest, and prosecutors 
and people make decisions on which are the most important and which are 
prioritized.
  Professor Christopher Schroeder, the minority witness on the 
Judiciary Committee, noted that the number of such enforcement 
decisions is simply too numerous to count.
  Given the foregoing, I must reiterate that this process is a waste of 
our time, especially when there are other far more pressing concerns to 
address.
  How many times have we had people call us and tell us that they need 
unemployment compensation, that they don't have money to buy goods, to 
buy food for their child, to buy food for themselves, or to provide 
shelter? And yet unemployment insurance has lapsed.
  How many times do we have people say they want to work and get a job, 
but we haven't passed an infrastructure bill. That is usually a 
bipartisan measure. For years, it has been bipartisan. Mr. Bill Young 
worked well on these bills getting things done. We don't have 
infrastructure bills to keep us going and deliver goods and services 
and put people to work.
  How many times have people come up and talked to us about their 
concerns about health care, when we could be maybe coming together and 
finding ways to make health care even more affordable? The Affordable 
Care Act was a beginning, giving a lot of people health care they 
otherwise didn't have. In my district, the differential between African 
American women and White women in morbidity on breast cancer is the 
greatest it is in the country. And throughout the country, African 
American women are more likely to die of breast cancer than Caucasian.
  Why is that?
  It is not in their genes. No, Madam Speaker, it is not in their 
genes. It is because they have not had access to insurance and health 
facilities to get mammograms, to get checkups, and to get treated. They 
don't have the ability to get to those health centers which have been 
funded through the Affordable Care Act, more and more community health 
centers because of the Affordable Care Act, and to get insurance, which 
they are getting insurance. But in the past they haven't gotten it, 
their morbidity rate is greater, and they have died. Sometimes it is 
because they don't have transportation to get to the doctors, and that 
is because of our limited resources that we put in funding mass 
transit.
  So in so many areas which we have neglected and should be dealing 
with now on health care issues, on the environment, on immigration, 
taking people out from the shadows and putting them to work legally 
where they pay taxes and where young people brought here with their 
parents made great grades in school, could go to college and stay here, 
participate and fulfill their dream and fulfill their potential, work 
hard and play by the rules, we are not doing that.
  Instead of using this limited legislative time we have got, this is 
yet another opportunity to bash immigrants or to rail against giving 
health insurance to those who would otherwise be

[[Page 4312]]

without it. We should be addressing these broken systems that we have 
on immigration, helping struggling homeowners and students buried in 
debt and fighting discrimination among many other challenges facing our 
great Nation, allowing people every opportunity to vote rather than 
taking voting opportunities away from them at every opportunity 
possible. That is the antithesis of America, trying to deny people the 
opportunity to vote under the veil of identity.
  We are doing a disservice to the American people in choosing to spend 
our time on these issues which are issues that are not going to pass 
the Senate and see the light of day--and we know it--instead of trying 
to come together and work with each other. I have reached out to 
Members on the other side and said: Why don't we find common ground and 
pass something? They kind of look at me and say: I get my orders, too. 
Unfortunately, the orders aren't working for the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I now yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I begin by just pointing out, contrary to the gentleman's assertion, 
the term ``Federal officer'' is mentioned 238 times in the Federal 
Code, and the Dictionary Act defines ``officer.'' It includes any 
person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office.
  Contrary to some of the other discussions, this bill is focused on 
trying to make sure that we faithfully enforce the laws and that we 
understand when the laws are perhaps being not enforced for persons 
suggesting that they are unconstitutional or otherwise.
  So, Madam Speaker, it is inherent, I suppose, in the nature of 
Washington, D.C., politics that, at a certain point, all of the back-
and-forth discussion eventually turns into white noise, and the 
continual debating, reporting, and blaming is so commonplace that many 
Americans tune it out entirely.
  And just as the partisanship in Washington causes so many to tune out 
the substance of the debate, so do we also become accustomed sometimes 
to hearing lofty rhetoric and allusions to our Founding Fathers. But 
tonight, I pray that we can all truly listen anew to the men whose 
ideas so revolutionized the world because the challenges we now face 
were not unforeseen, Madam Speaker.
  James Madison, in Federalist Paper 48, expressed his concern that 
eventually the mere rule of law might not be enough to restrain those 
who really had a mind to abuse the power of their office. He said:

       Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the 
     boundaries of these departments, in the Constitution of the 
     government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against 
     the encroaching spirit of power? But experience assures us, 
     that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly 
     overrated; and that some more adequate defense is 
     indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more 
     powerful, members of the government.

  When Madison originally published this paper in 1788, he did so using 
the title, ``These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to 
Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other.''
  Mr. Madison expressed these concerns only 12 years after America had 
declared its independence. And I would submit that in the intervening 
226 years, these abuses have spiraled out of control.
  I would urge Americans to ask themselves: Has this administration 
moved our Nation back toward the noble dream imagined by men like James 
Madison when all laws were equally enforced and all people are equal 
under those laws, or has this administration worsened the trend Madison 
detected so early on?
  President Obama infamously said on this very floor, Madam Speaker:

       We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in 
     order to make sure that we are providing Americans the kind 
     of help they need. I have got a pen, and I have got a phone. 
     And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take 
     executive actions and administrative actions that move the 
     ball forward.

  To this I would humbly respond, Madam Speaker, no, he can't, not if 
what he is doing is abrogating the Constitution of the United States. 
That is exactly the sort of overreach Madison warned us about, and it 
is exactly what we are referencing when we talk about an Imperial 
Presidency.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we are dealing with a President who has 
admitted he would prefer to be unconfined by constitutional 
limitations. He specifically said:

       Wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation, 
     that is what I am going to do.

  Madam Speaker, they say that to be forewarned is to be forearmed. 
This President has not been shy about his intentions to go beyond the 
Constitution when he is inclined. Under this administration, the IRS 
has become a political tool used against those who oppose the 
President's policies. The Justice Department has adopted a policy of 
selective law enforcement, essentially rewriting the law by only 
enforcing the ones they prefer. The Senate's role in the appointment 
process has been ignored outright, with the administration making so-
called recess appointments, even though the Senate was not in recess.
  The legislative branch has been deemed little more than an 
inconvenient hurdle, with legislation like the DREAM Act and ObamaCare 
being either imposed via fiat or grossly and repeatedly modified 
without the input, consent, or action on the part of Congress.
  We have seen the unconstitutional seizure of reporters' phone 
records, reported spying even on Members of Congress, and attempting to 
force small businesses to disclose their political affiliations before 
being considered for Federal contracts. At what point, Madam Speaker, 
do we say enough is enough?
  I would remind all of us of the pleading words of Daniel Webster to 
all Americans when he said:

       Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution, and to the 
     Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster, 
     and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen 
     again. So hold on to the Constitution, for if the American 
     Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout 
     the world.

  Madam Speaker, the Faithful Execution of the Law Act is one very 
important step in the right direction. This bill will help prevent 
executive overreach and require greater disclosure when it does occur.
  I want to thank Congressman DeSantis for bringing this legislation 
forward. I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his steadfast 
leadership on bringing this administration's executive overreach to 
light, and I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Before I yield to Ms. Lofgren, I would just like to 
comment a couple of things.
  Without disrespect to our Founding Fathers--I revere them all alike--
but Mr. Franks was talking about President Madison and the noble 
experiment and asked the rhetorical question, all people were equal 
under the law--except for African Americans who were slaves, people who 
couldn't pay a poll tax, and women. So let's get away from this 
homogenized perspective of the way the world was and try to get to the 
way the world should be.
  Daniel Webster has a quote up there, by bringing forth all of our 
resources, develop our resources and our land and its institutions, so 
that while we are here, we, in our day and our generation, may not 
perform something worthy to be remembered.
  Well, we are not doing that today. And the references to the IRS have 
been debunked. They were equally applied to people who used 
organizations, 501(c)(4)s, beyond their original purpose. It was not 
anything political. And that goes to show the basic nature of this, 
because it is another attack on the President of the United States.
  The President said: whenever I can take action without legislation. 
When he can take it without legislation, when he is permitted.
  With that, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, either this bill does nothing because it 
is

[[Page 4313]]

vague or it does something that is a serious problem. In the committee 
report for this bill, it specifically calls out as something that is 
wrong the DREAM Act, apparently suggesting that the DREAMers should be 
deported.
  Now, I don't believe that what happened with the DREAMers, the 
deferred action, was beyond the President's authority. And I have this 
letter here that was sent in 1999 signed by the late Henry Hyde and two 
Republicans who went on to chair the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith and 
Mr. Sensenbrenner, urging then-President Clinton to do the same thing 
that President Obama has now done, which is to come up with actual 
standards that are then applied. So I don't think that this bill should 
change that.
  But let's say it does. Let's say that we would have to report each 
time a DREAMer applies for deferred action. I think what we are talking 
about is that 500,000 or so DREAMers, their names and addresses, would 
have to be reported in to the Congress. Is that really what we want to 
do, to have all those kids be reported in to the Congress?
  Let's talk about another thing mentioned in the earlier bill, 
specifically on page 14 in the committee report, the so-called point 3, 
unlawful extension of parole in place. What the President did--as prior 
Presidents have done--is to parole the immediate family, the husbands 
and wives, of American soldiers who are in immigration trouble.

                              {time}  1730

  The reason for that, and the military asked us to do that, the last 
thing you want, you have a soldier in Afghanistan dodging bullets, you 
don't want that soldier worrying about what is going to happen to his 
wife, the visa got lost and she is facing deportation, and so parole in 
place was used.
  Now, we believe, and I mentioned, there is a specific statutory 
authority for that, section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, but apparently the majority believes it is unlawful. 
So what would this bill mean? I guess that all of the wives and 
husbands who are not deported, and I guess their little children, their 
names and addresses should be reported in to the Congress. So we have a 
little list here of people who are Americans in every way but their 
papers, whose husbands are off fighting for our country, but we are 
going to create a list of them. I think they are going to feel exposed 
and at risk.
  If the bill does anything, it does something very dangerous and 
wrong. We should not vote for this. I oppose it. I oppose the 
deportation of the DREAMers, as the majority has asked be done in these 
two bills, and I hope my colleagues vote against it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I have to tell you, listening to the other side, I 
don't know what world they are living in. We didn't have a hearing on 
the bill? I testified at the hearing; I don't think I made that up, I 
think that happened.
  The idea that we are going to be reporting people's names and phone 
numbers for this bill--no. The Attorney General will go and say we have 
established a policy not to enforce ObamaCare mandates, for example. We 
have a situation now where these policies are illegal under the law. So 
if you actually looked up the law, they would be illegal, but the 
executive branch has taken the position that we are not going to 
enforce that for a couple of years, so there is a divergence between 
the law on the books and the law in action, and those are the types of 
instances, policy decisions not to enforce that will be done. That 
ultimately is what we are talking about here.
  Some people want different policy outcomes one way or another, but 
the important part of this is we are talking about power and we are 
talking about authority. So in some of these instances, I don't agree 
with those ObamaCare mandates; I would like to get them off the books, 
and so policywise I agree with that, but as a matter of authority, the 
President cannot simply suspend that law that was enacted. That 
ultimately is what we are talking about, clarity and how the government 
is operating.
  Ultimately, the power resides with the American people, not with 
Members of Congress or with the President. The people own power under 
the Constitution, and then we exercise that authority consistent with 
the power that they have delegated to us. We have the authority under 
article I of the Constitution to legislate, and we have the exclusive 
authority to legislate.
  The President has the duty to take care that the laws are faithfully 
executed. He does not have authority delegated him to amend, suspend, 
or change duly enacted laws, and this is a fundamental principle of our 
constitutional system, that there are separated powers and checks and 
balances.
  George Washington, in his farewell address, admonished the Nation 
that to preserve these checks must be as necessary as to institute 
them.
  The problem that I keep running into is, if I don't know what the 
limiting principle in some of these things is, if you can suspend the 
ObamaCare insurance mandate and you can suspend the business mandate 
and you can suspend the individual mandate, can a Republican President 
come in and just suspend the whole shebang? If not, why not? What is 
the difference?
  Make no mistake about it, when there is a Republican President, there 
is going to be pressure on that President to suspend provisions of law 
that those voters who elected that individual don't like. If we start 
going back and forth where one side enforces what they like and the 
other side enforces what they like, then you don't really have a 
legislative body passing laws. We are essentially passing suggestions, 
and then it is ultimately the Executive who determines what will be 
enforced and what will not be enforced. That is not a road, I think, we 
want to go down.
  The good thing about this bill is it is just saying put your cards on 
the table. If you are going to not enforce certain provisions of law, 
then report it to Congress and let us know about that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  So put your cards on the table. We should not in Congress have to 
rely on a leak to the press or find a blog post or look in some 
footnote in some unrelated Federal rule to know whether some of these 
things are being suspended, and the American people deserve to know 
whether or not their laws are being enforced.
  So at the end of the day, this is really a transparency provision. It 
has worked with, in terms of the constitutional questions--Attorneys 
General Gonzalez, Mukasey, and Holder have reported to the Congress 
when the Federal Government has adopted policies of nonenforcement due 
to constitutional concerns.
  So this says if you are going to take the position that as a matter 
of policy you are not going to enforce clear mandates in law, then 
provide that to us, offer your justification so we can evaluate it.
  Ultimately, I think it is now just common parlance in the press here 
that a lot of these ObamaCare delays are done to help Democrats in the 
midterm elections, that maybe they won't lose as many seats if you can 
do that. Well, this is stuff that I think the American people need to 
know. That is a completely unacceptable reason to suspend laws.
  So ultimately, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  The only way it could potentially be burdensome is if their people 
throughout the bureaucracy are instituting nonenforcement policies left 
and right. The average Federal official does not have the authority to 
decide to institute a policy of nonenforcement. They may be able to 
institute discretion on a case-by-case basis. I was a prosecutor, I 
couldn't just decide not to enforce drug laws anymore, so some of this 
stuff is a red herring.
  I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I thank the 
chairman of

[[Page 4314]]

the full committee for offering this bill. I urge my colleagues to 
support it
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that Federal 
officer may be mentioned many times in the code, but not defined; not 
defined.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, if you look at the actual statute that is 
being proposed here, it says the report shall be made by any Federal 
officer, undefined, establishes or implements these policies, to 
refrain.
  I would note, and it was hardly a secret when the deferred action 
program was started, it was a memorandum on June 15, 2012. It was made 
available to the committee and to Congress, and it points out on page 2 
that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion will be made on an 
individual basis for those who fit within the category. So I think if 
this means anything, and it may not because it is vague, it means that 
each time an individual receives the benefit of that prosecutorial 
discretion on a case-by-case basis, they would have to be reported to 
the Congress.
  Now, what information would be reported? I don't know; presumably the 
name or the case file or the phone number. There are many John Smiths 
in that group of kids, so I presume that you would need more than just 
the name, perhaps an address or other identifier. The point is, we are 
creating a little list here. It is a little list that I think will feel 
very dangerous to those who are identified, and unwarranted by those 
whose hearts are very touched by DREAM Act kids who were brought here 
as children. As the principles released by the Republican leadership 
pointed out, these are young people who committed no offense, whose 
only country is the United States; and but for pay-for, they would be 
Americans. I don't think it is something that we should do, to have 
their names released, to deport them, to turn our backs on them, as 
this bill would do.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I would just point out that 
this bill does not anticipate the appropriateness of one law or 
another, just the inappropriateness of ignoring the law in general.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  We talk about this country as a country of law, and transparency gets 
thrown around, as does accountability, all the time, yet we fail. We 
come up short time and time again.
  The current administration has made multiple attempts to bypass its 
article II duties and instead assumed the article I legislative powers 
reserved for Congress. The numerous changes to the Affordable Care Act 
and the implementation of a one-size-fits-all prosecutorial discretion 
policy are just a few examples of the Executive's failure to faithfully 
execute existing Federal laws.
  Under current law, the Attorney General must report to Congress 
whenever a Department of Justice official implements a policy to 
enforce a Federal law. H.R. 3973, the Faithful Execution of the Law 
Act, simply extends that requirement to apply to all Federal officials. 
This is a commonsense bill that will bring transparency to the current 
and future administrations' execution of the law.
  By requiring these reports to Congress, the American people will get 
clarity on which laws are not being executed and assurance that these 
decisions are correctly made. This will also bring healthy debate and 
an opportunity for the Executive to tell Congress why a law is changed, 
in what fashion it is changed, and why it is necessary. For that 
reason, I would think the administration would welcome this 
legislation. However, the administration has stated that this bill 
would overburden the Attorney General because he would have to know 
every law in every Federal agency. Madam Speaker, who else but the 
chief legal officer of the United States is better equipped to argue 
over whether or not to change existing law?
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may disagree with the 
motivation for bringing this bill forward, but they cannot deny that it 
sets precedent to help both Democrat and Republican Congresses to keep 
future administrations in check. I ask my colleagues to imagine a 
Republican President not enforcing the law that they support, and 
remind them that it is easy to overlook a violation of process when one 
agrees with the substance.
  There could come a day when you, like us today, will not be able to 
overlook a similar violation of the process. The beauty of our 
Constitution is that it has no subjective bias or political preference, 
but rather, it applies equally and without agenda.
  I thank my good friend from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and the chairman 
for introducing this straightforward but necessary piece of 
legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this bill to keep the rule of law and to protect our 
constitutional Republic.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I 
rise today in opposition to a bill that perhaps could more 
appropriately be called the ``Failure to Execute Our Legislative 
Responsibilities Act.''
  This bill is a legislative solution in search of a problem. There is 
no evidence, there is no basis, there is no record to rationally 
conclude that the President of the United States has breached his 
obligations under the law in a manner that is inconsistent with the 
Constitution.
  Now I recognize, Madam Speaker, that there are some individuals in 
this town who believe that the President of the United States broke the 
law in January of 2009 when he first took the oath of office, but there 
is no room for hyperbole or hypocrisy or hysteria in the legislative 
process.
  This matter is another diversion from the business of the American 
people that we actually should be doing. We stand here again today 
wasting the time and the treasure of the American people. We should be 
dealing with comprehensive immigration reform, but House Republicans 
are blocking it. We should be increasing the minimum wage, but House 
Republicans are blocking it. We should be extending unemployment 
insurance, but House Republicans are blocking it. This bill is a 
distraction.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and let's get back to doing the 
business of the American people.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, when I rise today, it is 
amazing that I have actually come to the floor and heard said it is a 
waste of time, it is problematic talking about the very structure of 
our government, the very structure that was formed, and how we interact 
with each other. I just don't get it. I never thought I would come to 
the floor of the House and actually hear those words actually uttered.

                              {time}  1745

  And I do remind my friends from across the aisle that there was that 
nirvana just a few years ago, and I do it every time because we talk 
about immigration reform in which there is basically control of 
everything, and you just chose not to act on it.
  So let's move past the point when we can look at what we are doing 
here today, and that is looking at a law that actually goes back to the 
understanding of why we are here.
  Every time I go home and every time I am up here, I get calls, I get 
notes, saying: Why is there the ability to change the law?
  It is not prosecutorial discretion. It is saying: there is a black 
letter date, I am changing it, I don't like it.
  That is wrong. When you are looking at discretion, it is not an issue 
of do I want to do it or not; it is an issue of what does the law say?
  People back home could care less about Washingtonspeak. They could 
care less about what goes inside the beltway. They care about their 
lives, and they care about a government that

[[Page 4315]]

they read about in textbooks that said here is how a bill becomes a law 
and here is how it works. We even had a little jingle about it on 
Schoolhouse Rock.
  But we decided to move away from that. In fact, if the Republicans 
were not here talking about this, you would not have heard about some 
of these things because they are buried in many places--the very things 
that we talking about here, but the American people, especially in my 
district, want us to do more. They want us to say: reaffirm your 
article I responsibilities.
  Now, the interesting thing here is we have had testimony, yes, in 
committee talking about this issue. The gentleman in which we disagree 
on policy, Mr. Turley, has said you may not like it, and I like some of 
what has been done, but this is not the way to do it.
  It goes back to just really an understanding of what undermines 
Congress. We talk about our approval rating, we talk about our lack, 
but we don't do what we are supposed to do because we are not holding 
article I responsibility and accounting transparency from an executive 
who blatantly disobeys it.
  So what do we need to do? We have got to reassert that article I 
authority. It is not only in bills like this and also the one we just 
passed, but it is also looking at our article I responsibility with 
budgeting. It is our article I responsibility to say we have got to 
come to an agreement and say this is the law and the executive has to 
enforce that law.
  This is something that we can--and my good friend from Tennessee, we 
disagree on a lot of things--but we can agree on one thing today. We 
can work together on this because I remember, when you all was back 
watching on C-SPAN just a few years ago, the same outrage. Why would 
the President make signing statements?
  In fact, we talk about Imperial Presidency. I remember the first time 
Imperial Presidency came up. It happened to be from the ranking member 
of our committee, Mr. Conyers, when he wrote about the Imperial 
Presidency of Bush.
  So let's take the hyperbole out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. So the question that comes to mind is: Why 
are we here?
  It is because of the folks that I see every day that want to say: 
Congress doesn't do anything, the President does whatever he wants to 
do, why is Congress not doing anything?
  We are doing something. These bills that we are passing today move 
forward and say we are asserting our responsibility and our role.
  But this is what breaks my heart, really frankly, is that this should 
be bipartisan. This should be something we come down here and both 
agree on. It should be bipartisan that we should work together.
  For me, this is not an issue of who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania. 
That is irrelevant to me. What is important to me is this institution 
that was set up to make laws, to execute laws, and to judge the 
constitutionality of laws. That is the way our system was set up.
  It has changed through the years. If the Attorney General or the 
administration feels that there is a law that is wrong or 
unconstitutional, then the process is to come back to Congress and say 
here is our ideas, and you come to the elected representatives of the 
people.
  You don't continue to just say I don't like it, I am not going to 
enforce it; and for many of these, to say this is just simply 
prosecutorial discretion is an affront to the American people.
  The reason we are here today is Congress is asserting itself and 
asserting its role, and for the Ninth District of Georgia, that is why 
they sent me, is to do what Congress is supposed to do, but also hold 
the administration accountable for what they are supposed to do because 
back home they don't get it.
  They remember I am just a bill, just an ordinary bill. That is the 
way it was supposed to work.
  It is time we start rewriting the textbooks. It is time to get back 
to transparency and faithfully executing the law.
  With that, I ask for support of this bill.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to respond a little bit to what was said, and it 
was said in a previous discussion by my friend from South Carolina 
about why Congress is in such disrepute. He was thinking, if we pass 
this bill, people will think better of us.
  I would submit the reason Congress is in such disrepute is because 
the GOP shut down the government. People don't know about how you make 
a bill, per se, but they know they want their government opened. When 
they come to Washington, they want to go to different places. The GOP 
shut down the government for 17 days, and that is wrong.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California 
(Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would just like to note that, in 2010, 
the House of Representatives did pass the DREAM Act. Eight Republicans 
voted against it. It was killed by Republicans in the Senate, but we 
did our best to pass the DREAM Act.
  In fact, it did pass this House, and I still have the gavel that 
Speaker Pelosi used while presiding over that measure displayed proudly 
in my office.
  I think, also, as we discuss matters, we can help undercut confidence 
in our system of government. Yes, we are fans of article I because we 
are in the Congress, but article II has its role as well.
  I think it is important to note that the Supreme Court itself has, as 
recently as last year, noted--and that is in the Arizona case--that 
Federal immigration officials have broad discretion, including 
``whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all'' as part of their 
authority under the Constitution.
  Further, we have delegated to the President by statute, 6 U.S. Code 
202, for the administration using its article II authority to establish 
the national immigration enforcement policies and priorities, which is 
what the President did.
  So let's not instill anxiety and confusion among our constituents by 
somehow saying, when the President uses the authority that we have 
granted to him that the Supreme Court has noted he has, that somehow 
that is improper. It is not.
  I would say further, on the merits of the case, this is not just 
random authority, as the gentleman from Arizona suggested earlier. It 
is the majority who specifically mentions the DREAM Act on page 2 of 
their report--of the committee report, as being problematic and a 
reason for this legislation.
  It was the majority report, not me, who suggested that. I think it is 
very mistaken and wrong on a policy matter, wrong on a legal matter, 
and wrong constitutionally.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chair of 
the Constitution Subcommittee, for yielding to me.
  I rise in support of this act. I am a little bit astonished by some 
of the debate and the dialogue that has taken place here throughout 
this day, especially on the topic matter that is Executive overreach.
  We have had extensive hearings in the Judiciary Committee. It should 
be clear to all that, when the liberal constitutional professors are 
concerned about our country, a tipping point in our Constitution, it is 
time for maybe a little bit more of an open dialogue here and I think 
more of an objective dialogue.
  I would bring to your attention, Madam Speaker, some language that 
was in The Wall Street Journal today. It was in support of the Faithful 
Execution of the Law Act and then the reporting act that we are talking 
about.
  It is a perfect example of why this bill is necessary in a report in 
The Wall Street Journal. It says, in today's issue, describing yet 
another ObamaCare delay that flies in the face of the statutory text:


[[Page 4316]]

       This latest political reconstruction has received zero 
     media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department 
     didn't think the details were worth discussing in a 
     conference call, press materials, or fact sheet. Instead, the 
     mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was 
     meant to preserve some health plans that don't comply with 
     ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources 
     only noticed the change this week.

  Madam Speaker, this is not the way Congress should be informed of the 
President's failure to faithfully execute the law or his utter defiance 
of the law or his executive endeavor to amend the law outside the 
bounds of his article II constraints.
  Madam Speaker, when the President or any other Federal official 
adopts a policy of failing to enforce a law or refusing to enforce a 
law, it should immediately inform Congress in writing, so the duly 
elected representatives of the American people can respond 
appropriately.
  To have to find out in a newspaper article or find out on a Web site 
or, worse yet, in one of the earlier unconstitutional overreach efforts 
of the President to amend the ObamaCare law, we found out on a third-
tier U.S. Treasury Web site.
  Now, what of 316 million Americans responsible to know what the law 
says and do our best to comply with it can be cruising around on a 
third-tier U.S. Department of Treasury Web site, to see if the 
President has gotten up that morning or gone to bed late the night 
before, maybe a little bleary-eyed, and issued some kind of an order 
that there is going to be another change in ObamaCare?
  ObamaCare, it has his name on it, Madam Speaker, the President's 
name, ObamaCare on the top and his signature on the bottom.
  We had a constitutional review meeting this morning with 
constitutional scholars, and I said: Is it 31 times that the President 
has, by the stroke of his pen or the word of his mouth, amended 
ObamaCare?
  They corrected me. They said: no, it is 38 times.
  I don't have that list. I hope I get that list because I would like 
to examine some of them that I am missing, but the President of the 
United States has no authority to amend ObamaCare.
  Yes, there is executive discretion on the implementation of it, but 
the starkest violation of the Constitution and the starkest amendment 
to ObamaCare is the one that people agreed with, and it is this: that 
the President announced that he was going to delay ObamaCare, the 
employer mandate, for an extra year when the bill itself says the 
implementation of the employer mandate shall commence in each month 
after December of 2013.
  Now, I don't know how the gentlelady from California's dialogue gets 
around that very, very strict language that was written into ObamaCare. 
It doesn't say if the President changes his mind; it doesn't say if 
Democrats are vulnerable. It says shall commence in each month after 
December of 2013; yet the President decided he would just simply delay 
that for a year. Now, there are, what, 30 or 37--pick your number--
different times the President has done this?
  I remember criticism from last summer when I was asked by the press 
and the public and the demand from people on the other side of the 
aisle, ObamaCare is the law of the land, so we are obligated to fund it 
through the appropriations process.
  That was a big debate here on the floor of this House. I said, then, 
we don't know what the law is because the President has so stirred the 
pot with his executive orders, his executive pen, his cell phone, his 
ink pen, or his press conferences, that no one today knows what 
ObamaCare is or says.
  Even if we think we knew, we would have to be a contemporary scholar 
of the bill, and we couldn't go to bed tonight thinking we knew what it 
would be tomorrow morning because it is likely to change again. That is 
what is going on, simply, with just ObamaCare.
  By the way, I would add conscience protection, when we were assured--
and it was to be written into the bill--that the conscience protection 
would be there for those folks who had a concern.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Tennessee has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman.
  I want to make a point. The President even amended ObamaCare by press 
conference, which is completely outrageous.
  Not to get to the immigration components of this, there is nothing in 
this that deports anyone. The things that we did with my amendment 
addressing the DACA language are also the President's overreach; and by 
the way, the prosecutorial discretion says on an individual basis only 
seven times in that order, but it creates entire classes of people--
four classes of people--encompassing hundreds of thousands of people.
  You can't describe hundreds of thousands of people of being 
individuals. They are groups created unconstitutionally by the 
President.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to set the record straight before we get too much 
revisionist history here. Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the 
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, said that 
President Obama liked the law so much--the Affordable Care Act--that he 
had it named for himself. Today, my friend from Iowa said they put his 
name on it.

                              {time}  1800

  Well, he didn't define ``they.'' It wasn't us. It's the Affordable 
Care Act, Patient Protection Act. It was the opponents of the bill, 
them, that started calling it ``ObamaCare,'' thinking that would be a 
pejorative, and they have gotten so used to it, they think we did it. 
Take credit for what you do, but forgive them, for maybe they don't 
know what they do.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this burdensome 
and unnecessary piece of legislation.
  We all know this is a message bill, a one-House bill that is not 
going anywhere in the Senate and is intended only as political 
propaganda against the President. It is a sham, and we all know it. In 
fact, we have come to expect it.
  Never mind that there are real problems facing the American people 
that we can and should be working on, like raising the minimum wage, 
reforming our broken immigration system, creating jobs, extending 
unemployment insurance.
  I guess it's not enough for my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to ignore America's real problems. They have to waste time on 
invented problems that don't really exist.
  That brings us to the bill before us today. This bill would require 
the Attorney General to report to Congress any instance when any 
Federal officer establishes a policy to refrain from enforcing, 
applying, or administering any Federal law, as well as to state the 
grounds underlying such a nonenforcement policy.
  It expands the current law, which requires the Attorney General to 
report instances when he determines not to enforce the law because he 
believes that law to be unconstitutional. This new burdensome mandate 
would not only result in confusion and drain already-limited law 
enforcement resources, but would present separation-of-powers concerns 
as to its constitutionality.
  The bill would require the Attorney General to oversee every single 
Federal officer, every U.S. attorney, every deputy U.S. attorney, every 
agent of any Federal agency, thousands of people, and would require him 
to determine in every instance when they prioritize enforcement of some 
classes of cases over others whether such exercises of discretion 
constitute a ``policy'' of nonenforcement. What a complete mess.

[[Page 4317]]

Millions of decisions every year. Talk about your bureaucratic 
nightmare, not to mention your waste of taxpayers' dollars.
  What is even worse is this bill is a thoroughly flawed solution in 
search of an imaginary problem. Over the course of two oversight 
hearings on the topic, the bill's supporters have failed to identify a 
single example of the President really failing to ``faithfully 
execute'' the law.
  It is clear that they have confused constitutional violations with 
the President's legitimate exercise of enforcement discretion, which is 
not only well within his authority, but is in fact required by the 
Constitution's Take Care Clause.
  Whether it be increasing the minimum wage with Federal contractors, 
which he is allowed to do; allowing the DREAMers to stay in the country 
by deferred deportation orders, for which there is much precedent; or 
even delaying implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable 
Care Act, all of these actions are well within the President's legal 
authority. Of course the President has the authority to set guidelines 
for Federal contractors or to prioritize immigration enforcement 
dollars away from deporting children. Even when it comes to delaying 
deadlines of provisions in the Affordable Care Act, his goal was not to 
undermine the law. It was the exact opposite--to ensure that the law 
continues to work well for the millions of Americans who are benefiting 
from it: the children under age 26 who can remain on their parents' 
policies, those with preexisting conditions who can get insurance, 
women and seniors benefiting from increased preventive care services, 
of course the millions of previously uninsured who now have health 
insurance.
  So, Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will be content with their 
message bill based on half-truths, completely unworkable technically, 
and completely without any benefit to the millions of Americans who 
want more from Congress than silly messages.
  Americans want results. They want higher wages, a better immigration 
system, and affordable health care. I guess the Republicans are content 
to have them wait and to try to entertain them with silly nonsense. It 
is really sad. I hope we can get down to dealing with serious issues in 
this Congress.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I heard my friend from Tennessee talk 
about revisionist history, and yet he has also talked about the 
Republicans shutting down the government.
  So that we get this accurate, the truth is this body here proposed 
and passed three different compromises. One was going to suspend 
ObamaCare for a year. The Senate would not even take that up; they 
wanted a shutdown. Then we sent down a bill we passed from here that 
would actually just suspend the individual mandate--that the President 
has done unconstitutionally and unilaterally for Big Business. Then 
when that didn't work, we passed a bill that said: Look, here's our 
conferees; you appoint yours; we will have a deal worked out by 
morning. Harry Reid wanted the Congress and all of the Federal 
Government shut down, and so he did nothing.
  So, we know who shut things down, but I want to read a quote:

       These last few years we have seen an unacceptable abuse of 
     power at home. We've paid a heavy price by having a President 
     whose priority is expanding his own power. The Constitution 
     is treated like a nuisance.

  Barack Obama said that, and he could not be more right as to 
classification of his own conduct.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman is 
prepared to close.
  Mr. COHEN. Yes, I am.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to say that while this legislation and the previous 
legislation is going nowhere, we should be dealing with the issues that 
face the American people, the serious issue of jobs and the environment 
and global warming and immigration reform and drug reform and freedom 
and liberty and justice and the American way.
  I admire the Speaker. She is a fine woman and does a great job and 
has done a good job presiding today. And many of the Republicans, even 
though I don't agree with them, I think they are nice people, and most 
people here try to do the right thing. Unfortunately, some of the 
policies that they have I think put the country in a wrong direction, 
but they are basically nice people.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of 
the time.
  I would say, Madam Speaker, in spite of the many unrelated issues 
that my friends on the left have brought up to bear on this bill, this 
bill is about the rule of law. Madam Speaker, I would remind all of us 
that the rule of law is what we had that little unpleasant discussion 
with England about so many years ago. After that we wrote a 
Constitution, and every person in this body swore to defend that 
Constitution, and that is what we are trying to do here.
  If we now, as legislators in the United States Congress, are willing 
to stand idly by and let the President of the United States arrogate 
legislative power unto himself and dismiss the Constitution, then we 
would be obligated, Madam Speaker, to apologize for our oaths and 
dismiss the dream of human freedom and step back and board this place 
up and go home.
  I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that some of us are not 
prepared and willing to do that. And so to that end, to the end that we 
can uphold the rule of law, I would encourage my colleagues to pass 
this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3973, 
The Faithful Execution of the Law Act of 2014.
  One of the areas in which the Executive Branch should be least 
hamstrung is in its ability to respond to imminent threats to national 
security or public safety and the Jackson Lee Amendment prevents the 
President from being shackled by Congressional litigation from 
protecting America.
  A fundamental role of government is to ensure citizens' physical 
security.
  While government should not be given unfettered power in the name of 
security, neither should we allow a lawsuit by Congress to hamper the 
President in responding to imminent threats.
  H.R. 3973 expands upon preexisting reporting requirements.
  Already, Madam Speaker, under 28 U.S.C. Section 53013(a)(1)(A), the 
Attorney General is required to report to Congress whenever any officer 
of the Department of Justice (including the Attorney General himself) 
``establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain'' 
from (i) enforcing any federal statute, rule, or regulation on the 
grounds that the provision is unconstitutional, or (ii) enforcing or 
complying with a final decision of any court that interprets or applies 
the Constitution or a statute, rule, or regulation.
  H.R. 3973 would expand 530D(a)(1)(A) in three respects.
  First, it would require the Attorney General to report on 
nonenforcement policies adopted by federal officers outside of the 
Department of Justice.
  Second, it would extend reporting requirements to all nonenforcement 
policies, regardless of their rationale.
  Third, it would require the Attorney General to specify the grounds 
for declining to enforce any federal statute, rule, or regulation in 
his report to Congress.
  To summarize Madam Speaker, the U.S. Code would look like the 
following:

       (a) Report.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall submit to the 
     Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney 
     General or any officer of the Department of Justice or any 
     other Federal officer--
       (A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy 
     to refrain--
       (i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any 
     provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, 
     policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or 
     administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney 
     General or such officer and state the grounds for such policy 
     on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional; . . .

  Again, Madam Speaker, an area in which the Executive Branch should be 
least hamstrung is in its ability to respond to imminent

[[Page 4318]]

threats to national security or public safety, which is the amendment I 
would have offered in the Rules Committee last night.
  A fundamental role of government is to ensure citizens' physical 
security.
  While government should not be given unfettered power in the name of 
security, neither should we allow a lawsuit by Congress to hamper the 
President in responding to important matters of state.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this Bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Section 2, and the amendments made by section 2, shall take 
     effect only beginning on the date that the Attorney General 
     finds that sufficient amounts have been appropriated to cover 
     the costs of additional reports that the Attorney General is 
     required to submit by reason of such amendments, including 
     costs to Federal agencies and to Congress.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 511, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, if my colleagues who are offering this 
bill believe that it is a good idea, they should agree with my 
amendment. We will see.
  My amendment is very simple. It just says that if the voluminous 
number of reports that may be generated by this bill are so burdensome 
that they shut down and interfere and gnarl up the instrument of 
government, then it would be legitimate for the Executive to waive the 
reporting requirements provided in the bill if sufficient funds are not 
available to generate the increased volume. It makes simple sense to do 
so.
  My colleagues say they want transparency. They also say all the time 
that they want to cut red tape, that they want to cut extra reports, 
that they want to get government out of the way. Their bill is getting 
government in the way, for sure. If they are sincere about their desire 
for less government, then I am certain that they would be willing to 
put in a provision by which we would waive reporting requirements 
provided in the bill if sufficient funds were not available to deal 
with all of these reports that they are generating.
  But do you know what?
  It may just be, Madam Speaker, that, given that we had a 16-day 
shutdown and given that we just saw the Oversight Committee chairman 
cut off the mike and given that we have just seen sequestration and the 
cutting off of government, maybe, right now, what we are seeing is an 
effort to just bog down government--snarl it, wrap it up, get it 
twisted up--so that it doesn't really function. Whether you are 
shutting down or are cutting off or are bogging down, it is all 
interfering with the American people's government and its ability to 
serve them.
  I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on my amendment because my amendment 
makes sense given that the general theme around here has been less 
government, particularly not unfunded mandates and things like that. We 
certainly are not sending an appropriation along that is compliant with 
this bill. We are certainly not sending money along and extra staff to 
be able to generate the reports that would come about as a result of 
this bill.
  It just seems to me that it would be fair for the Executive to say 
that that is not a constitutionally implicated provision for which we 
are using our discretion to either formally or not formally enforce; 
therefore, we don't need to write a report but for this amendment. Yet, 
since we don't have the money and since, I am sure, that my friends on 
the Republican side wouldn't want to bog down government, they should 
just be able to waive the requirement if there are not sufficient funds 
to comply.
  I want to point out, Madam Speaker, that this particular bill would 
have the effect of burdening government unless we do have some 
provision for the Executive to escape it given its overburdening 
nature. This particular bill would be an undue burden.
  I also think it is important to point out--I think it is very 
important for everyone listening to this debate to know, Madam 
Speaker--that existing law already requires the Department of Justice 
to submit a report to Congress when it determines that nonenforcement 
is recommended because the law is unconstitutional. So, when we need a 
report, the law already requires that we would get one; but informal? 
Think about the way this bill is written. It would require a Federal 
agency to issue a report even in the case of informal nonenforcement.
  Does that mean that if somebody decides not to charge out a case that 
one has to write a report on it? Does that mean that if EPA officials 
cannot get down to every single polluter because they are dealing with 
the big ones that they have got to write a report about it? Does that 
mean that the FBI cannot prioritize the dangerousness of crimes and go 
after the most dangerous people and work with local law enforcement to 
deal with the other ones?
  This is a ridiculous piece of legislation being offered. It would 
generate all types of burdens, and in order to meet and comply with it, 
it would require all types of expenses and extra staff. Since my 
Republican friends and I agree that it would not be a good idea to just 
push unfunded mandates on the government, I am sure that I will be able 
to get a lot of votes from both sides of the aisle that would allow the 
executive branch to waive reporting requirements.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. You said you would definitely get a whole bunch of folks 
on both sides of the aisle?
  Mr. ELLISON. In reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee. I am sure we will get plenty of people on both sides.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I would oppose the amendment, 
as it would explicitly grant the Attorney General the unilateral power 
to negate the entire bill based on his own subjective determination of 
what constitutes ``sufficient'' appropriations.
  This amendment would shield from accountability the President, the 
Attorney General, and any other Federal employee from the duty to take 
care that the laws are faithfully executed.
  Madam Speaker, we know that this bill will not cost the taxpayers any 
money, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. As 
stated in their official view submitted, CBO estimates:
  Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues.
  CBO estimates that implementation of the bill would not have a 
significant effect on the budget because such reporting costs are small 
and subject already to the availability of appropriated funds.
  So, Madam Speaker, why does this amendment grant the Attorney General 
the unilateral authority to conclude otherwise?
  Well, Madam Speaker, the Attorney General works for the President, 
and when given the opportunity to immunize the President from 
accountability, what does one think the Attorney General would do? It 
is logical to assume he would shield the President from accountability.
  The base bill is specifically designed to hold the President 
accountable. This amendment, on the other hand, would allow his own 
Attorney General to shield the President from accountability, thereby 
gutting the bill, and so this amendment should be roundly defeated.
  Madam Speaker, we have had significant debate here, but it is 
important to

[[Page 4319]]

remind ourselves what it really is all about. The rule of law is truly 
the only context in which human freedom on Earth can exist. It is 
incumbent upon those of us who have taken an oath to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States to protect that rule of law here 
tonight. This is the intention of this bill. This is the deep 
commitment that should be on the part of all of us.
  With that, I hope my colleagues would defeat this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 
3973 is postponed.

                          ____________________