Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4138.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws, the Congress with writing the laws, and the judiciary with interpreting them. The Obama administration, however, has ignored the Constitution's carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extraconstitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement. This raw assertion of authority goes well beyond the executive power granted to the President and specifically violates the Constitution's command that the President is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Mr. Chairman, from ObamaCare to welfare and education reform to our Nation's drug enforcement laws and other areas of the law, President Obama has been picking and choosing which laws to enforce. In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that ``I refuse to take 'no' for an answer'' and that ``where Congress won't act, I will.'' Throughout the Obama Presidency, we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn't get his way, but the Constitution does not confer upon the President the executive authority to disregard the separation of powers and rewrite acts of Congress based on his policy preferences. It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the President must faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. We cannot continue to allow the President to ignore the constitutional limits on executive power. The President's far-reaching claims of executive power, if left unchecked, will vest this and future Presidents with broad domestic policy authority that the Constitution does not grant. As prominent law professor, Jonathan Turley, who testified that he voted for President Obama, warned in testimony before the Judiciary Committee: The problem with what the President is doing is that he is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He is becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid, that is, the concentration of power in a single branch. That is why I join with Representative Gowdy and Chairman Issa to introduce H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act. This legislation puts a procedure in place to permit the House or the Senate to authorize lawsuits against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute the laws. The courts have held that lawsuits alleging institutional injuries must be brought by the injured institution itself, and H.R. 4138 is solidly in line with those judicial precedents. In addition, because it is an act of Congress, the ENFORCE the Law Act can apply special court procedural rules to significantly increase the speed at which cases challenging the President's failure to faithfully execute are considered by the courts. These provisions are critical to ensure the President cannot simply stall a lawsuit until his term is up. In addition, these provisions are similar to those that were in the Line Item Veto Act. Litigation challenging the constitutionality of the line item veto proceeded through the district court and was decided by the Supreme Court within 7 months of being filed. The ENFORCE the Law Act will help overcome the hostility the courts have shown toward deciding disputes between the political branches in the past. The Constitution's Framers did not expect the judiciary to sit on the sidelines and watch as one branch aggrandized its own powers and exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution; rather, the Constitution gives the Federal courts very broad jurisdiction to hear ``all cases . . . arising under this Constitution and the laws of the United States.'' However, over time, the courts have read their own powers much more narrowly, refusing to exercise a vital check over unconstitutional action by the executive branch. When the courts refuse to step in and umpire these disputes, they cede the field to this and future Presidents. The separation of powers is not strengthened by the refusal of the judicial branch to referee the division of power between the branches. As then-Senator Obama observed in 2008: One of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power of other branches. And I think the Chief Justice has been a little bit too willing and eager to give an administration, whether its mine or George Bush's, more power than I think the Constitution originally intended. The ENFORCE the Law Act will help ensure that, when Congress brings a lawsuit against the administration for its refusal to enforce the laws, the courts take up the cases and decide it expeditiously. This legislation is a good first step toward ending this crisis and restoring balance to our system of government. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my distinct pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), another chief cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that this legislation does two things: one, it expedites any court consideration of lawsuits brought under this legislation; two, it recognizes the distinction between constitutional standing and other standing that has been court created. It says that that standing can be waived. That does not in any way determine what a court's ruling might be or even what its ruling would be on the standing of a particular lawsuit brought, but it strengthens the hand of the Congress--any Congress--and under the control of any leadership to determine whether or not to bring lawsuits. At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a leader of the House and a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind those here that during the time that the other party was in the majority, they sued the Bush administration to enforce a subpoena related to Harriet Miers. All we are trying to do is that, when you do that, we make it very clear that there will be an expedited process. We have sued to get documents for the Fast and Furious matter. That is more than 4 years old. So we are only trying to make this process of holding up the powers of the House work better. At this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to respond to my good friend and the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Conyers, regarding his comment about lawsuits brought with regard to a subpoena when the Democrats were in the majority. I also want to point out, and I will ask at the appropriate time that the first page, since it is voluminous, and only the first page of each of four lawsuits that were brought by the gentleman from Michigan against three separate Presidents, Ronald W. Reagan, George W. Bush, and interestingly, Barack Obama, be inserted into the Record. I would only point out that this legislation simply--when there is consensus, as there was not in those cases because only a few other Members joined the gentleman, but when there is consensus in an entire body, the House or the Senate votes to bring a lawsuit, that this would do two things. It would expedite that process, so we don't have it drag on for years and years like the Fast and Furious case has been dragging on, and it would also make sure that only the standing issues that are in the United States Constitution would be a bar to bringing the lawsuit, and not court-administered, court-created standing issues. So I urge my colleagues again to support the legislation. [From LexisNexis] John Conyers, Member, United States House of Representatives, et al., Appellants v. RONALD WILSON REAGAN, individually, and as President of the United States, et al. No. 84-5171 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 765 F.2d 1124; 246 U.S. App. D.C. 371; 1985 U.S. App. Lexis 30754 January 18, 1985, Argued June 28, 1985 Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D. C. Civil Action No. 83-3430) Counsel: Margaret A. Burnham, a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Michael D. Ratner, Frank E. Deale, John W. Garland, and William Genego, were on the brief, for Appellants. John M. Rogers, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom, Richard K. Willard, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Joseph E. DiGenova, United States Attorney, and Leonard Schaitman, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for Appellees. Theodore M. Lieverman, Ira J. Katz, and Alan Dranitzke, were on the brief for Amici Curiae National Lawyers Guild, et al., urging reversal. Daniel J. Popco and Paul D. Kamenar, were on the brief for Amici Curiae U.S. Senators Strom Thurmond, et al., urging affirmance. Judges: Tamm, Wald, and Bork, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Tamm. Opinion by: Tamm. Opinion: [*1125] Tamm, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the dismissal, 578 F. Supp. 324, of a suit brought by eleven members of the United States House of Representatives challenging [**2] as unconstitutional the military invasion of Grenada in October of 1983. Because the actions complained of have long since ended, we dismiss the appeal as moot. I. Background A. The Invasion of Grenada On October 25, 1983, United States military forces invaded the island nation of Grenada. At the time of the invasion, the political situation in Grenada was unstable: Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and other government officials had been assassinated on October 19, political power had been seized by a newly established Revolutionary Military Council under the leadership of Army Commander General Hudson Austin, and a 24-hour curfew had been declared. President Reagan stated that he [*1126] ordered the invasion to protect innocent lives, including approximately 1,000 Americans living in Grenada, to prevent further chaos and to assist in restoring law and order and government institutions to Grenada.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, we have only one closing speaker remaining, so if the gentleman is prepared to close, we will close right after.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This House has passed close to 200 bills that are piled up in the United States Senate that create jobs, that promote domestic energy production, that reform our out-of-control Federal regulatory process in this country, but it is also well worth taking our time to protect this institution's prerogatives and the people. Here in the people's House, we represent the interests of the people of this country, and to uphold the powers, the article I powers of the House, is vitally important. The Constitution provides that ``all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'' Yet, the current administration has unilaterally sought to rewrite the law, not by working with the people's elected representatives, but through: blog posts like this one, which removes penalties for employers who would otherwise be required to provide insurance coverage for their employees; regulatory ``fact sheets'' like this one, which creates an entirely new category of businesses and exempts them from their responsibility under the law; letters such as this one, which acknowledges that people are having their health insurance terminated under ObamaCare, in violation of the President's promise that ``if you like your health care plan, you can keep it,'' and then claims to suspend the law's insurance requirement to a date uncertain. This one letter alone suspends the application of eight key provisions of ObamaCare, namely, those requiring fair health insurance premiums, guaranteeing the availability of coverage, guaranteeing renewable coverage, prohibiting exclusions for preexisting conditions, prohibiting discrimination based on health status and others. Why is this being done? To delay the terrible consequences of ObamaCare until after the next election. As this headline from The Hill newspaper announced just last week: ``New ObamaCare delay to help midterm Dems: Move will avoid cancelation wave before Election Day.'' These actions are not supported by the United States Constitution. It is time for Congress and the judiciary to act. This bill would empower the Congress and the judiciary to remind the President that ours is a system of government consisting of three separate, coequal branches, not one-branch control of our government. Support the ENFORCE the Law Act, and restore the constitutional basis for the American system of government and the rule of law. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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. 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. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will support the adoption of this amendment. This amendment basically codifies, at least as far as the House of Representatives is concerned, requirements that already exist regarding reporting the costs of congressional litigation. When the House engages in litigation, the costs of that litigation are already reported to the House Appropriations Committee and the Committee on House Administration. This amendment merely expands these existing reporting requirements to include the Government Accountability Office. Had the gentleman from Rhode Island prefiled this amendment during Judiciary Committee consideration of the bill, we may have been able to consider it during markup. However, without notice of the amendment, we were not able to determine at markup whether the amendment implicated any attorney-client privilege concerns. We are now satisfied, given existing reporting requirements, that this amendment does not present a privilege problem. For these reasons, I support the adoption of this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do so. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and just say for the reasons already cited, this is a very harmful amendment. It would gut the bill. For that reason, I oppose it and urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, as it would gut the bill. Read the text of the amendment. The amendment would explicitly prohibit the bill from affecting the executive branch's compliance with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws. But that is exactly the point of the base bill. The base bill encourages the courts to decide constitutional issues relating to the Constitution's separation of powers between the branches of government. We would of course expect the President to obey those decisions from the courts, yet this amendment would grant the President the authority to defy those very court decisions by making sure that the President did not have to be, quote, affected by them. This amendment only adds insult to injury. It would take a bill designed to encourage the Federal courts to engage in the constitutional issues of the day and amend it to explicitly allow the President to defy the decisions of those courts. There is no reason to exempt court decisions from the bill's coverage. The base bill allows Congress to bring lawsuits if the President fails to faithfully execute the laws. The President is obligated to follow Federal court decisions to the same extent he must follow Federal statutes, treaty obligations, and, of course, the Constitution itself. Rather than furthering the bill's goal of enforcing the Take Care Clause, the amendment would create an enormous loophole in the bill's coverage, and so I must urge my colleagues to reject this gutting amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.