[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13380-13381]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               INSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION IS UNPRECEDENTED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I spent 
30 years in a courtroom, one-half of those as a judge, including 2 
years on the North Carolina Supreme Court. I have taken particular 
interest in House Resolution 676, and I have spent considerable time 
researching the standing of the House to initiate litigation against a 
President or Department heads or Federal agencies to seek ``appropriate 
relief for failure to act in a manner consistent with the duties of the 
executive branch.''
  Never before, Mr. Speaker, in the history of the Congress, has there 
been ``institutional litigation'' between two coequal branches of 
government--never. There have been prior cases involving individual 
Members of Congress who have alleged that their vote had been nullified 
by Presidential action, but none of them succeeded.
  This bill will clearly authorize institutional litigation between the 
legislative and executive branches--unprecedented, Mr. Speaker.
  The Republicans have chosen to proceed with a one-Chamber resolution. 
The Affordable Care Act, I remind you, was a two-Chamber enactment. The 
House, as an institution, as a subset of the Congress, Mr. Speaker, 
cannot by itself enforce a legislative enactment. It must be bicameral.
  This misguided and politically motivated resolution will establish a 
precedent that is unknown in our jurisprudence. It is an abuse of power 
on the part of House Republicans.
  If this bill passes and this Republican-controlled House initiates a 
lawsuit without Senate authorization, it will threaten the separation 
of powers principle and the checks and balances that we have long 
cherished in our country.
  I ask my colleagues: Do you want the judiciary to become the arbiter 
of disputes between the Congress and the President? Do you really want 
to cede to the courts the authority to resolve disputes between the 
branches?
  If you set this precedent, then, in the future, the House or the 
Senate, acting alone, could simply allege a constitutional violation 
against the President and get its day in court.
  Well, what happens if a President is unhappy with the House or with 
the Senate? Could she just allege a constitutional violation and have 
the courts settle the dispute? If this precedent is established, will 
the House be able to sue the Senate or the Senate sue the House? Where 
does this end?
  I call on my Republican friends to talk to objective legal scholars 
and read the literature and prior court decisions, protect the 
integrity of our Federal system, and reject this resolution.
  Finally, I ask the proponents of this legislation to tell me two 
things:
  Tell me, what relief are you asking the court to impose? I suppose 
your answer would be, well, we want the court

[[Page 13381]]

to tell President Obama that he lacked authority to extend the employer 
mandate.
  Why are you upset about that? I thought you didn't like the employer 
mandate.
  Well, tell me, how do you plan to pay for this frivolous litigation? 
Under this resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House will have 
unbridled discretion to pay legal costs and expert costs. I did not 
know that the House of Representatives has the authority to pass a bill 
that will require unbudgeted spending that will add to the deficit that 
you constantly bemoan. How much will this litigation cost the 
taxpayers?
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day in this House. I know what you 
are doing, and the American people know what you are doing. You are 
using this legislation in your constant effort to discredit President 
Obama and set the stage for a despicable impeachment proceeding should 
you hold the majority in the House and gain the majority in the Senate.
  Shame on House Republicans. Shame on you for this type of politics.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that 
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in 
the second person.

                          ____________________