Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the fact that only Democrats are speaking of impeachment. Just today, The Hill newspaper announced that a most respected and admired member of the Republican Conference said of the lawsuit, spearheaded by John Boehner: Theater is a show. Why not impeach instead of wasting $1 million to $2 million of the taxpayers' money? If you are serious about that, use what the Founders of the Constitution gave us. He was referring to impeachment. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I will place into the Record an exchange of letters between myself and Chairman Sessions and between Ranking Member Brady and Chairwoman Miller of the House Administration Committee. This exchange of letters catalogs our repeated requests for an estimate of the projected cost of this partisan enterprise and the identification of accounts that will be cut to pay for it. As you will note, the responses to our letter provide no information about the cost estimate and no indication from where the funds will come. House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC, July 14, 2014. Hon. John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Boehner: Within the draft resolution to initiate a lawsuit against the President, we learned that you intend to seek authorization to ``employ the services of outside counsel and other experts.'' Such authority clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration, and as such, I am writing to express my expectation that Republicans will be open and transparent about the use of taxpayer money in pursuing this highly dubious and partisan lawsuit. As evidenced by House Republicans' conduct in the $2.3 million failed effort to defend the discriminatory and unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, strong bipartisan oversight is clearly necessary in any plan to hire outside counsel. The Republican majority must not be permitted to use taxpayer dollars as a slush fund to award a no-bid contract to high-priced, politically connected Republican lawyers without any transparency or accountability to the House or the American people. Our opposition to the deeply partisan basis of your lawsuit in no way diminishes the need for normal oversight of the terms of any contract signed by Republican Leadership obligating the House to pay millions of dollars to private attorneys. Therefore, I expect you will honor regular order through my committee, even with this highly irregular lawsuit. The American people deserve to know how and where their tax dollars are being spent, and House Administration Committee Democrats insist on regular consultation and transparency in the selection criteria and process, cost, and lobbying connections of any counsel or experts hired in the name of the House. Sincerely, Robert Brady, Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if people are supposed to think that this is really a genuine concern by the House of Representatives and not a partisan gimmick, then why didn't the majority consult with Democrats or the Senate beforehand and say: We want to do this on behalf of Congress. Will you talk with us about participating? That idea of joint participation is long gone from here, and I regret to say that. But that didn't happen. It was cooked up in some meeting where we probably discussed how to win back the Senate, or whether to impeach the President, or how the campaign fundraising is going and so forth. You are not fooling anyone. This is about politics and the elections, and you know it and I know it and, polling shows it, all the people in the country know it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to ask: Why did the majority shut off all amendments to this resolution? And more importantly, why have they even blocked a traditional motion to recommit? That is something that we generally always give to the minority on both sides of the aisle, a motion to recommit. Now, I think the reason is--you know, being somewhat cynical, and I will admit to that after what we have been through here--but the cynic would say that they don't want us to have a motion to recommit because our side might bring up a motion, which it would be our privilege to do, that might put the Republican Members on record on impeachment. Now, I don't know that. We got no answer as to why we were not given the privilege of a motion to recommit. But there is one thing we do know. We know that this lawsuit is going to cost unknown millions and will be an unconscionable waste. We know that that cost is going to come out of programs that have already suffered grievous cuts over the last few years and on which people oftentimes depend for their very lives. We know that it is pretty partisan because the Democrats were never consulted at any point on this issue, and we know that it is flawed because experts have told us that there is no way in the world that the House of Representatives has any standing on this issue and that a good Federal judge will send it back to us almost immediately. We know it is a distraction, and we know that what it distracts us from are the serious, serious issues that all of us hear about every day from our own constituencies. Do you think anybody ever calls me up and says: Why don't we impeach the President or go after the President because it is raining today and it surely is his fault? No, we don't hear that. I hear about, I am having a hard time getting a new job. I need help to pay for my child's education. I hear a lot of times, my daughter's unemployment benefits have run out. She is facing eviction. I don't know what I am going to do. I hear from people who talk about the children who have come to this country--many of them unaccompanied, by themselves--in an absolute inhumane wave of human suffering that we need to pay some attention to. I know that out there today, we have had floods in my part of the country in upstate New York that have devastated entire water projects and sewer projects, and something needs to be done. But we won't do that. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question and please vote ``no'' on the rule. This is one of the most important issues that we have ever faced during our time in Congress. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, across the country, conservative thinkers and legal scholars are discrediting this lawsuit against the President. They are exposing it for what it is: a political stunt timed to peak in November as Americans are heading to the polls for the midterm elections. For example, Harvard Law Professor and Former Assistant Attorney General under President George W. Bush Jack Goldsmith wrote: ``the lawsuit will almost certainly fail, and should fail for lack of congressional standing.'' Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, wrote that the Framers of the Constitution emphatically rejected a ``system in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into court, in their institutional capacity, whenever the President . . . implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress' liking.'' Conservative writer and former Justice Department official Andrew C. McCarthy wrote recently that this lawsuit is ``a classic case of assuming the pose of meaningful action while in reality doing nothing.'' Heavens to Betsy, how much more do we have to hear that this is not going to work? A recent poll by CNN found that 57 percent of Americans oppose the lawsuit. Yes, the majority of the American people recognize it for what it is: political theater. They recognize this lawsuit is not only a distraction from the real problems that plague our Nation, but that it is designed to appease radical Republicans clamoring for impeachment. The Rules Committee, of which I am ranking member, was the only committee to consider this lawsuit. Under regular order, the House Administration Committee would have also held hearings and a markup because they are the ``money'' committee that handles the House's internal accounts, but they were not given the chance to do so. Over the past 3 weeks, the Rules Committee heard testimony from constitutional scholars who debated the merits of the lawsuit and offered several amendments. The minority on our committee offered nearly a dozen amendments aimed at bringing some transparency and accountability to this process, and they were all voted down along party lines. Democrats offered an amendment that would have required that this political stunt be funded from the Benghazi Select Committee's budget, another political stunt. After the 14 investigations of the Benghazi tragedy, they have allocated $3.3 million to continue to chase after a nonexistent scandal. We offered an amendment that would have ensured that any law firms contracted for this lawsuit were not also lobbyists trying to influence us at the same time that they represented us in court, a clear conflict of interest. We even offered an amendment that would have required disclosure of which programs and budgets in the Federal budget will be reduced to pay for the lawsuit. Would the funds come from the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the House Armed Services Committee? We don't know, because the majority has refused to tell us. Before they vote today, Members of this House deserve to know exactly which legislative branch functions will be curtailed to pay for this folly. Otherwise, how can we cast an informed vote? We focused our amendments on cost because of how important cost is. It is not, as has been stated here, an imaginary concern. Republicans have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in this month alone passing over $700 billion, with a B, of unpaid-for tax extenders on this House floor. Republicans took $24 billion out of the economy when they shut down the government to deny health care to millions. And, according to CBS News, the majority has wasted over $79 million on the more than 50 votes for the House floor to dismantle, to undermine, and to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Where in the world does it stop? When Republicans defended the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and employed outside counsel in a similar lawsuit--with the fate that we believe this will have--they cost the American taxpayers $2.3 million. We learned later that their lawyers charged $520 an hour--an hour, and at that rate, they would have been paid $1 million a year for a 40-hour workweek. So what will this lawsuit cost, Mr. Speaker? That is what we want to know. The minority requested this information. The majority replied: ``A lawsuit is a small price to pay.'' We could be spending money on our crumbling infrastructure, investing in our education system, making it easier for our children to go to college, even building some high-speed rail--we are about the only country left in the world that doesn't have any--or addressing climate change. We just had a terrible flood in my district and next door, where they have lost sewer systems, water systems. We could be doing so many other things than simply throwing this money away. The idea of fiscal responsibility, of fiscal tightness, absolutely is decimated in just what I have said already at this time, the money wasted here, with nothing for it, when the needs are so great and the population cries out for relief. But instead of investing in our country, the majority insists on bringing a lawsuit that, if it is successful, will do the opposite of everything they have been trying to accomplish since 2010. Yes, after years of rallying against the Affordable Care Act, not one of them would vote for it as it passed the House, voting to derail it, working against it--pay attention here--they are suing the President for not implementing it fast enough. And if that makes no sense to you, you are not alone. We don't understand it either. Not only is this logic upside-down and inside out, it is directly against the feelings of members of their own party. A recent poll from the Commonwealth Fund found that 77 percent of people were pleased with their new coverage. Republicans themselves have a 74 percent satisfaction rate with the new plans that they have bought. Now before us, we have a lawsuit that has been ridiculed and railed against by conservative thinkers and progressives alike. It is a deplorable waste of taxpayer funds and would go against everything the Republicans have been working for for 4 years. The Republicans that I worked with in this Congress when I first came here would not even think of this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).