Date: 2014-03-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman very much. I will conclude by saying that what this bill is doing is seeking to usurp the powers of the President. particularly President Obama. and my friends on the other side. although I never attribute any malfeasance or bad intentions to Members that come on this floor. we never did this with President Bush. There was some question about signing statements. and some of us wanted to address the question of signing statements. but we never decided to be able to put on the floor of the House the complete abolishment of the powers of the Presidency. I ask my colleagues to vote down this legislation because it is unconstitutional. The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism for one House of Congress to enforce the "take care" clause in article II. section 3 of the United States Constitution. which requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The bill authorizes either chamber of Congress to bring a civil action against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute existing laws. My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the president from exceeding his constitutional authority. But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the presidents powers under the Constitution. But we must uphold the Constitution and that is why my amendment which I will hopefully bring before the House shortly. addresses situations. It is hard to believe that I would even need an amendment which instructs the Executive Branch that it is okay toENFORCE THE LAW. If separationofpowers principles require anything. it is that each branch must respect its constitutional role. When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a federal law. the other branches must abide by the decision. The Executive Branchs ability to fulfill its obligation to comply with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by Congress pursuant to this bill. Basic respect for separation of powers requires adoption of this amendment. But that is exactly what this bill is doingin seeking to usurp the powers of the presidentparticularly President Obamamy colleague whom I realize was a former prosecutorhas put forth a piece of legislation which baffles me. In our Constitutional Democracy. taking care that the laws are executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion. And it is a wellsettled principle that our Constitution imposes restrictions on Congress legislative authority. so that the faithful execution of the Laws may present occasions where the President declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law because he must enforce the Constitutionwhich is the law of the land. In fact Mr. Chair. if the legislation raises no question of constitutionality. the laws that we pass in this pose complicated questions. and executing them can raise a number of issues of interpretation. application or enforcement that need to be resolved before a law can be executed. This bill. H.R. 4138. The ENFORCE Act. has problems with standing. separation of powers. and allows broad powers of discretion incompatible with notions of due process. The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to faithfully execute the law. Any such decision would be reviewable only by the Supreme Court. These are critical problems. First. Congress is unlikely to be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing. which the Supreme Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally injured by the challenged conduct. In the wide array of circumstances in which the bill would authorize a House of Congress to sue the president. that House would not have suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article IIls standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of any legislators votes. Second. the bill violates separation of powers principles by inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left to the other branches to be decided. And Mr. Chair I thought the Supreme Court had put this notion to rest as far back as Baker v. Carr. a case that hails from 1962. Baker stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate political questionsand that it is impossible to decide such questions without intruding on the ability of agencies to do their job. Third. the bill makes one House of Congress a general enforcement body able to direct the entire field of administrative action by bringing cases whenever such House deems a Presidents action to constitute a policy of nonenforcement. This bill attempts to use the notion of separation of powers to justify an unprecedented effort to ensure that the laws are enforced by the presidentand I say one of the least creative ideas I have seen in some time. I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation.