Providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Today, we are taking up the very serious issue of the constitutionality of separation of powers, but the rule also covers the deregulation of pesticides. I think that should be noted here as well, because one is as ridiculous as the other.

This is a ridiculous lawsuit of one House of Congress seeking to sue the President for not implementing a law they have tried everything to kill.

The majority has wasted time, money, and energy on legislative proposals designed to distract us from the real problems of the United States.

Instead of tackling climate change, ensuring that college is affordable, and modernizing our crumbling infrastructure, the majority wants to sue the President for doing his job. The record is clear. This has been judged the most recalcitrant and useless Congress in history.

This lawsuit will be a monumental waste of time, energy, and funds. This is a political maneuver timed to peak as Americans go to the polls in November for the midterm elections. This lawsuit is a drumbeat pushing Members of the Republican Party to impeachment.

Last week in the Rules Committee, Democrats attempted to amend this resolution. In the pursuit of transparency and accountability, we offered

several amendments that addressed the cost of this lawsuit.

The majority in the Rules Committee voted down every amendment that the minority offered. With this closed rule, we have set a new record, by the way, for the most closed rules in a single Congress. On the committee level, on the House floor, and in the minds of our citizens, this is a closed process, a partisan maneuver, and nothing but a political messaging opportunity.

This lawsuit is a gimmick, which even legal scholars of the majority's own party say will fail, including the conservative writer and former Justice Department official Andrew C. McCarthy. He wrote about this lawsuit and said it is:

A classic case of assuming the pose of meaningful action

while in reality doing nothing.

Democrats in the House and the American people could not agree more.

The House minority has three main concerns about this lawsuit: first, the cost; second, the partisan nature; and third, the lack of legal standing and the implications for our constitutional separation of powers.

First, the cost. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which not a single Republican voted for, the majority has mounted a Herculean effort trying to repeal, dismantle, and discredit it. It seems that they will spare no expense attempting to take health care away from millions of Americans.

Not only did they shut down the government to deny Americans health care, it took from this economy $24 billion to pay for that shutdown. In addition, with over 50 votes on the House floor to undermine the Affordable Care Act, the majority has spent more than $79 million on that voting effort.

When the minority of the Rules Committee requested from the majority the proximate costs of this lawsuit, we got a response that read: ``A lawsuit is a small price to pay.''

Cost is not a hypothetical question, because there are real consequences for our country.

The minority and the American people still would like to know how much will this cost and where will the money come from. We asked directly through letters and by offering amendments to the resolution, and we have gotten no clear answers.

What cuts will come from what programs that Americans depend on to pay for this ridiculous lawsuit? The majority will spend money on more than 13 hearings, 50 briefings, 25,000 pages of documents produced, and allocated $3.3 million for a Select Committee on Benghazi. All that money for Benghazi, but they won't give us a concrete answer on where the funds will originate to pay for the lawsuit.

In a similar lawsuit, when Republicans defended the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, they paid their lawyers $520 an hour. I choke over that figure. At that rate, we would have paid over $1 million a year for a 40-hour workweek. If we are spending that kind of money, we ought to do it out in the open, and that amendment was defeated on party lines.

The majority does not intend to make this lawsuit anything but another opportunity to attack the President, which leads me to our second concern: its partisan nature.

As I said, no Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act. After strenuous efforts to take health care away from millions of Americans, the majority plans to file a lawsuit that, if successful, would result in the faster implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The inconsistency is breathtaking. Let me reiterate that. After not a single vote for health care, with over 50 votes to kill it, they are suing the President of the United States because he did not implement it faster. I don't know if anybody can make sense out of that, but all this effort to derail a law that is working. Just 2 days ago, The Washington Post reported in an article, titled ``Medicare finances improve partly due to ACA, hospital expenses, trustee report says,'' that the Affordable Care Act has extended the life of Medicare by 4 years because of the savings, and that will only get better.

I would like to insert this article from The Washington Post dated July 28, 2014, into the Record.

[From the Washington Post, July 28, 2014]

Medicare Finances Improve Partly Due to ACA, Hospital Expenses, Trustee

Report Says--Outlook for Social Security, However, Remains the Same

(By Amy Goldstein)

Medicare's financial stability has been strengthened by the

Affordable Care Act and other forces that have been subduing

health-care spending, according to a new official forecast

that says the fund covering the program's hospital costs will

remain solvent until 2030--four years later than expected a

year ago.

The annual report, issued Monday by trustees overseeing the

government's two largest entitlement programs, found little

change overall in the finances of Social Security. The

trustees warned, however, that the part of Social Security

that pays monthly benefits to people with disabilities is

especially fragile and, without changes, will start to run

short of money for benefit checks in 2016.

Taken together, the findings provide a nuanced portrait of

the fiscal future of these two programs, which act as

cornerstones of social insurance--and a buffer against

poverty--for older people and other vulnerable Americans. The

trustees welcomed the improved financial prospects for

Medicare but acknowledged that the underlying reasons are not

yet entirely understood. At the same time, they exhorted

Congress to take steps to prevent both programs from

collapsing in the long term.

``Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain

projected long-run program costs,'' the trustees said in a

message accompanying their reports.

For the past few decades, Democrats and Republicans have

fretted about the unsustainability of the Medicare and Social

Security programs. They have appointed high-level

commissions, proposed legislation and tried to stoke public

fears that benefits might not be available for their

parents--or themselves. But Congress has not restructured

either program to withstand long-term fiscal pressures, and

the issue has been absent lately from the agendas of both

parties.

At a news briefing Monday, Cabinet secretaries and two

public trustees reiterated the call for Congress to act.

``[We] must make manageable changes now, so we do not have to

make drastic changes later,'' Treasury Secretary Jack Lew

said.

``It is getting very late in the game'' to find a

bipartisan consensus, said the trustees' only Republican,

Charles P. Blahous III, who worked on Social Security and

other economic issues as an aide to President George W. Bush.

``A solution much further delayed is a solution much less

likely to occur.''

Both programs are being strained by the nation's

demographics. As more baby boomers reach retirement age,

people 65 and older are making up an increasing percentage of

the country's population, with proportionally fewer working-

age Americans chipping in payroll taxes.

Medicare's finances are facing other pressures, too,

including from scientific advances that lead to new treatment

and therapies, the report said.

The trustees' forecast said that the trust fund that pays

for hospital care--Medicare Part A--has been strengthened

significantly, with the date when it is predicted to start

running short of money extended by 14 years since the

Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010. The report also

predicted that the insurance premiums that older Americans

pay for the portion of Medicare that covers doctors' visits

and other outpatient care would probably remain the same for

a third year in a row.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell

said that it is impossible so far to gauge how much of that

trust fund's improved fiscal health was due to the health-

care law as opposed to other changes in the health-care

system that are slowing cost increases. She said both had a

role. The ACA, for instance, is slowing payments to Medicare

Advantage, the part of the program in which older Americans

join private health plans, while other provisions focus on

curbing hospital readmissions.

The report said that spending on hospital stays last year

was less than expected, although trustees noted that analysts

have not determined whether this trend reflected broad

economic trends or stemmed from specific changes in the

practice of medical care.

If Medicare is unchanged by 2030, the year it is projected

to become insolvent, it would then be able to pay 85 percent

of its beneficiaries' hospital bills, a proportion that would

slip to 75 percent by 2047, the forecast said.

For Social Security, the trustees predicted that the

program's two separate trust funds will, combined, have

enough money to pay all the retirement and disability

benefits it owes until 2033, the same time horizon as in the

last two annual forecasts. They forecast that Social Security

will be able to afford checks for retirees and workers'

survivors until 2034--nearly two decades longer than the part

of the program that pays disability benefits.

Social Security's expenditures last year exceeded its

income from payroll taxes, as it has each year since 2010,

the report says, although interest so far is making up the

difference.

This year, President Obama backed away from an idea he

broached in his budget last year to save money for Social

Security by changing the basis on which inflation is

calculated for the program. But his 2015 budget proposal

reprises the idea of charging more for care under Medicare to

older Americans who are relatively well-off--an idea that

Congress has not touched this year.

In calculating Medicare's future finances, the trustees for

the first time acknowledged that Congress has each year

overridden scheduled reductions in Medicare doctors' fees--

cuts that, if adopted, would lower payments for doctors'

services by 21 percent in 2015. In the latest report, the

trustees assumed that such cuts would continue to be waived.

The trustees noted that their new forecast was released 49

years to the week that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the

law that enacted Medicare, a major component of the Great

Society programs of the mid-1960s. Social Security was a

response to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Last year, Medicare insured 52 million Americans, including

43.5 million age 65 and older and nearly 9 million younger

people with disabilities. Social Security last year provided

benefits to 41 million retired workers and their families, 6

million survivors of workers who died, and 11 million

working-age people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, a recent poll from the Commonwealth Fund found 77 percent of people were pleased with their new coverage. Republicans themselves have a 74 percent satisfaction rate with the new plan that they have bought.

The House majority is going to spend unknown millions of dollars coming from somewhere to stymie a law their own party Members support.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert this article from Talking Points Memo, citing a survey from July 10, 2014, entitled: ``Survey: Most Republicans Who Bought ObamaCare Coverage Like Their Plans,'' into the Record.

[From Talking Points Memo Livewire, July 10, 2014]

Survey: Most Republicans Who Bought Obamacare Coverage Like Their Plans

(By Dylan Scott)

About three-quarters of Republicans who obtained health

insurance under Obamacare are satisfied with their coverage,

according to a survey published Thursday by the Commonwealth

Fund.

The survey found that 74 percent of Republicans said they

were very or somewhat satisfied with their new coverage.

Overall, 78 percent of Americans said they were satisfied: 73

percent of those enrolled in a private plan and 84 percent of

those enrolled in Medicaid.

There was a minimal difference between the previously

uninsured and the previously insured: 79 percent of the

former were satisfied and 77 percent of the latter were,

according to the survey by the group, which is generally

supportive of Obamacare.

Those surveyed also reported being better off: 58 percent

said that they were better off now than they were before,

while 9 percent said they were worse off. And 81 percent said

that they were optimistic that their new coverage would help

them get the health care they need.

Some of the survey's broader findings, on the overall drop

in the number of uninsured and the percentage of Obamacare

enrollees who were previously uninsured, generally fell

within other findings. It found that the uninsured rate for

adults under 65 fell from 20 percent to 15 percent since

Obamacare enrollment began. It also found that 63 percent of

Obamacare enrollees had been previously uninsured.

The survey, conducted from April 9 to June 2, covered 4,425

U.S. adults.

Mr. Speaker, it is also obvious to the American people that this is a political stunt. A recent poll, commissioned by CNN, shows 57 percent of us oppose this lawsuit. That is right: the majority of this country recognizes it for what it is: a political scheme. They recognize that there is no basis for this lawsuit.

And our third concern is the legitimacy of standing, in the legal sense, as well as the constitutional principles that the Supreme Court has said limit the kind of disputes that a court can consider.

Perhaps the best authority for the inadequacy of the majority's claim to standing is one of the majority's own witnesses at our Rules hearing, the Florida International University College of Law professor, Elizabeth Price Foley. Professor Foley wrote in a February article:

When a President delays or exempts people from a law--so-

called benevolent suspensions--who has standing to sue him?

Generally, no one. Benevolent suspensions of law don't, by

definition, create a sufficiently concrete injury for

standing.

That's why, when President Obama delayed various provisions

of ObamaCare, his actions cannot be challenged in court.

Congress probably can't sue the President, either.

If the majority's own witness doesn't think that Congress has standing, what judge will?

Finally, one of the most dangerous possible consequences of this lawsuit would be an unprecedented transfer of powers from the legislative to the judicial branch.

This concern for maintaining the separation of powers as it was written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers is exactly why courts have established what is called the ``political question doctrine.''

It says that courts should stay out of fights between the other two branches of the Federal Government and should defer to the other branches when the Constitution says the matter to be resolved is the responsibility of the President or the Congress. That couldn't be clearer, Mr. Speaker.

The mismanagement of our Nation's funds is deplorable, the partisan nature of the stunt is a abundantly clear, and our constitutional balance of powers is in jeopardy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the closed rule which, yet again, distorts the legislative process and stifles debate even on the most important issues.

Mr. Speaker, we will ask the House to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to bring up four bills: first, the Bring Jobs Home Act; second, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which pays women equal to men for the same job; third, a bill to increase the minimum wage to $10.10; and finally, the Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which makes it easier for young people to pay their college loans.

These are the priorities of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and align themselves with those priorities instead of this lawsuit, which is surely a waste of time, money, and resources.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal- Allard).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

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.

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).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 676) providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the consideration of H. Res. 676.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to discuss the unwarranted, ongoing shift of power in favor of the executive branch.

Under President Obama, the executive branch has increasingly gone beyond the constraints of the Constitution. In fact, in a number of instances, the President's actions have gone beyond his article II powers to enforce the law and have infringed upon the article I powers of Congress to write the law.

We are here today because, at the beginning of this Congress, every Member of this body took an oath of office in which we swore to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' At the beginning of each Presidential term, the President takes an oath to ``faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States and . . . to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' While these oaths are slightly different, the object of both oaths is the same. The President and Members of Congress have an obligation to follow and defend the Constitution.

The text of the Constitution that we have sworn to defend provides separate powers for each branch of the Federal Government. Article I puts the power to legislate--that is, to write the law--in the hands of Congress. Article II, on the other hand, requires that the President ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The difference is important. The Founders knew that giving one branch the power to both write and execute the law would be a direct threat to the liberties of the American people. They separated these powers between the branches in order to ensure that no one particular person, whether it be the President or a Member of Congress, could trample upon the rights of the people.

My fear is that our Nation is currently facing the exact threat that the Constitution is designed to avoid. Branches of government have always attempted to exert their influence on the other branches, but the President has gone too far. Rather than faithfully executing the law as the Constitution requires, I believe that the President has selectively enforced the law in some instances, ignored the law in other instances and, in a few cases, unilaterally attempted to change the law altogether.

These actions have tilted the power away from the legislature and toward the Executive. They have also undermined the rule of law, which provides the predictability necessary to govern a functioning and fair society. By and large, this country is founded upon the rule of law, and this tilts that balance. By circumventing Congress, the President's actions have marginalized the role that the American people play in creating the laws that govern them. Specifically, the President has waived work requirements for welfare recipients, unilaterally changed immigration laws, released the Gitmo Five without properly notifying Congress, which is the law, and ignored the statutory requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

We have chosen to bring this legislation forth today to sue the President over his selective implementation of the Affordable Care Act because it is the option most likely to clear the legal hurdles necessary to succeed and to restore the balance between the branches intended by the Founders. This administration has effectively rewritten the law without following the constitutional process.

When the executive branch goes beyond the constraints of the Constitution and infringes upon the powers of the legislative branch, it is important that the remaining branch of government--the judiciary--play its role in rebalancing this important separation of powers. After all, the constitutional limits on government power are meaningless unless judges engage with the Constitution and enforce those limits.

My friends in the minority do not seem to believe that the judiciary is up to its role in rebalancing the separation of powers. I disagree. Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, Members of the minority argued that this lawsuit is frivolous and a waste of time. They argued that if this litigation were to go forward that it would lead to countless lawsuits between the branches of government.

What my friends in the minority might fail to tell you--but I will today on the floor--is that they were for suing the President before they were against it. Eight years ago, in 2006, some Members of the minority, including the ranking member of the Rules Committee--the gentlewoman from New York--were plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats against then sitting President George W. Bush.

That is right. Eight years ago, my friends across the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President, brought by Members of one half of the Congress. The Democratic ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, who is also a plaintiff, argued that he was alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of government and by a President who shrugged about the law. After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the Nation, he said he had determined that there was one group of people who was injured by the President's lack of respect for checks and balances--the House of Representatives.

I want to echo one line that he argued at the time regarding the separation of powers:

If a President does not need one House of Congress to pass

the law, what is next?

Perhaps this makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial from The Huffington Post, on April 26, 2006, by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan. It is entitled, ``Taking the President to Court,'' in which he made a compelling argument as to why Members of the House could, in fact, have standing to sue the President.

[From The Huffington Post, July 30, 2014]

Taking the President to Court

As some of you may be aware, according to the President and

Congressional Republicans, a bill does not have to pass both

the Senate and the House to become a law. Forget your sixth

grade civics lesson, forget the book they give you when you

visit Congress--``How Our Laws Are Made,'' and forget

Schoolhouse Rock. These are checks and balances, Republican-

style.

As the Washington Post reported last month, as the

Republican budget bill struggled to make its way through

Congress at the end of last year and beginning of this year

(the bill cuts critical programs such as student loans and

Medicaid funding), the House and Senate passed different

versions of it. House Republicans did not want to make

Republicans in marginal districts vote on the bill again, so

they simply certified that the Senate bill was the same as

the House bill and sent it to the President. The President,

despite warnings that the bill did not represent the

consensus of the House and Senate, simply shrugged and signed

the bill anyway. Now, the Administration is implementing it

as though it was the law of the land.

Several public interest groups have sought to stop some

parts of the bill from being implemented, under the theory

that the bill is unconstitutional. However, getting into the

weeds a bit, they have lacked the ability to stop the entire

bill. To seek this recourse, the person bringing the suit

must have what is called ``standing,'' that is they must show

they were injured or deprived of some right. Because the

budget bill covers so many areas of the law, it is difficult

for one person to show they were harmed by the entire bill.

Thus, many of these groups have only sought to stop part of

it.

After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional

experts in the nation, I determined that one group of people

are injured by the entire bill: Members of the House. We were

deprived of our right to vote on a bill that is now being

treated as the law of the land.

So, I am going to court. With many of my Democratic

Colleagues (list appended at the bottom of this diary), I

plan to file suit tomorrow in federal district court in

Detroit against the President, members of the Cabinet and

other federal officers seeking to have a simple truth

confirmed: a bill not passed by the House and Senate is not a

law, even if the President signs it. As such, the Budget bill

cannot be treated as the law of the land.

As many of you know, I have become increasingly alarmed at

the erosion of our constitutional form of government. Whether

through the Patriot Act, the Presidents Secret Domestic

Spying program, or election irregularities and

disenfranchisement, our fundamental freedoms are being taken

away. Nothing to me is more stark than this, however. If a

President does not need one House of Congress to pass a law,

what's next?

The following is a list of co-plaintiffs on this lawsuit. I

would note that I did not invite every Member of the House to

join in the suit, and I am certain many, many more Members

would have joined if asked. However, this was not possible

for various arcane legal reasons.

The other plaintiffs include Rep. John Dingell, Ranking

Member on the Energy and

Commerce Committee; Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Ranking Member on

the Ways and Means Committee; Rep. George Miller, Ranking

Member on the Education and Workforce Committee; Rep. James

L. Oberstar, Ranking Member on the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee; Rep. Barney Frank, Ranking Member

on the Financial Services Committee; Rep. Collin C. Peterson,

Ranking Member on the Agriculture Committee; Rep. Bennie

Thompson, Ranking Member on the Homeland Security Committee;

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member on the Rules

Committee; Rep. Fortney ``Pete'' Stark, Ranking Member on the

Ways and Means Health Subcommittee; Rep. Sherrod Brown,

Representing Ohio's 13th District.

Mr. Speaker, the litigation considered by this resolution is a lot different and is a lot stronger than litigation filed by my friends on the other side against a previous President. The majority of these lawsuits was brought by a small group of legislators or individual Members. Today, the House as an institution will vote to authorize the suit, which gives this case, I believe, a far better chance in court than previous attempts.

My friends in the minority at the Rules Committee yesterday claimed that this is all about politics, but the Republican members of this committee repeatedly insisted that we disagreed. The issue is not about partisan politics. It is not about Republicans and Democrats. This lawsuit is about the legislative branch's standing up for the laws that have been passed and signed into law by the legislative branch and signed by the Executive of this great Nation. Republicans are motivated to stand up for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.

Any person who believes in our system of government should be worried about the President's executive overreach. This President, as well as future Presidents--from either party--must not be allowed to ignore the Constitution and to circumvent Congress.

Both Republicans and Democrats have stood up for the legislative branch in the past. In fact, there have been 44 lawsuits filed in the last 75 years in which legislators sought standing in Federal court. Of the 41 filed by plaintiffs from a single party, nearly 70 percent were brought by Democrats, representing the body.

I submit for the Record an editorial by Kimberley Strassel, from The Wall Street Journal, dated July 17, 2014, that further explains why the Democrats were suing the President before they were against it, and I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for Congress and to defend our Constitution against the executive branch.

[From The Potomac Watch, July 17, 2014]

The Boehner-Bashers' Track Record

(By Kimberley A. Strassel)

In the tiny House Rules Committee room in Congress on

Wednesday, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter let roll her

grievances against House Republicans' lawsuit against Barack

Obama. It took a lot of coffee.

The suit, which sues the president for unilaterally

changing a core provision of ObamaCare, is a ``political

stunt,'' declared Ms. Slaughter. Republicans have ``timed''

it to ``peak . . . right as the midterm elections are

happening,'' said the ranking Rules member. Having failed to

stop ObamaCare, they have chosen to ``run to the judicial

branch.'' And, she lectured, a ``lawsuit against the

president brought by half of the Congress'' is ``certainly''

not the ``correct way to resolve'' a ``political dispute.''

As for the legal merits, well! Ms. Slaughter feted her

witness, lawyer Walter Dellinger, praising his work on Raines

v. Byrd , a 1997 case in which the Supreme Court found

members of Congress do not have automatic standing to sue.

The courts, she insisted, had no business settling such

disputes. A lawsuit against the president, she declared, ``is

preposterous.''

About the only thing Ms. Slaughter didn't do in five hours

was offer House Speaker John Boehner her litigation notes.

For it seems to have slipped Ms. Slaughter's mind--and the

press's attention--that a mere eight years ago she was a

plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats

against George W. Bush. The year was 2006, just as Democrats

were, uh, peaking in their campaign to take back the House.

Democrats were sore that they'd lost a fight over a budget

bill that made cuts to Medicaid and student loans. They

dredged up a technical mistake--a tiny difference between the

House and Senate version of the bill. Michigan Democrat John

Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee,

decided to (how did Ms. Slaughter put it?) file a lawsuit

against the president brought by half of the Congress. He was

joined as a plaintiff by nearly every other then-ranking

Democratic member and titan in the House--Charles Rangel,

John Dingell, George Miller, Collin Peterson, Bennie

Thompson, Barney Frank, Pete Stark, James Oberstar and Ms.

Slaughter herself.

In an April 2006 Huffington Post piece titled ``Taking the

President to Court,'' Mr. Conyers explained that he was

``alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of

government,'' and by a president who ``shrugged'' about ``the

law.'' After ``consulting with some of the foremost

constitutional experts in the nation,'' he had determined

that there was ``one group of people'' who were ``injured''

by Mr. Bush's lack of respect for ``checks and balances'':

Congress. So he was ``going''--or as Ms. Slaughter might put

it, ``running''--''to court.''

The plaintiffs--including Ms. Slaughter--meanwhile filed

briefs explaining why Raines v. Byrd (her Dellinger special)

should be no bar to granting them standing. They chided the

defendants for omitting ``any mention'' of Coleman v. Miller,

a 1939 case in which the Supreme Court did grant standing to

members of a legislature to sue. By Wednesday, it was Ms.

Slaughter who was omitting any mention that any such decision

ever existed.

Then again, there was so much that escaped Democrats' minds

at that hearing. Not one of those present, for instance,

recalled that only two years ago, four of their House

colleagues filed suit against Vice President Joe Biden (in

his capacity as head of the Senate) challenging as

unconstitutional the filibuster. Or that Democratic

legislators also filed lawsuits claiming standing in 2011,

and in 2007, and in 2006, and in 2002 and in 2001 and . . .

It was left to Florida International University law professor

Elizabeth Price Foley, another witness, to remind Democrats

that in fact no fewer than 44 lawsuits in which legislators

sought standing had been filed in federal court since Coleman

v. Miller. Of the 41 filed by plaintiffs with unified

political affiliation, nearly 70 percent were brought by

Democrats. At least 20 of those came since 2000. The GOP

might thank Ms. Slaughter for the idea.

Save one crucial difference. It was also left to Ms. Foley

to explain that the reason most of these prior cases had

failed is because most were, in fact--again, in Ms.

Slaughter's words--''political stunts.'' The majority,

including the Slaughter case, were brought by ad hoc groups

of legislators, sore over a lost political battle,

complaining to courts. The judiciary wasn't much impressed.

By contrast--and by far the more notable aspect of the five

long hours of the hearing--is the care the Boehner team is

putting into its own suit. While Democrats used Wednesday to

score political points, Republicans used it to grill their

expert witnesses on case law and constitutional questions.

Mr. Boehner's decisions to have the House as a whole vote to

authorize the suit, and to narrowly tailor it around a

specific presidential transgression (and one that no private

litigant would ever have standing to protest), are designed

to make this a far different and better breed of a court

case.

It's precisely because Democrats know how good a point

Republicans have about Obama unilateralism that they are

already working to dismiss the suit as ``political.'' And to

do that, Ms. Slaughter must have us forget that up until, oh,

two weeks ago, Democrats were all about asking the courts to

vindicate Congress's prerogatives. How times change.

Mr. Speaker, through this lawsuit, the United States House of Representatives will take a critical and crucial step in reining in the President and in defending the Constitution so that it will endure for yet another generation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a lot of revisionist history.

But I will answer the question. And the answer is that years back, we did impeach William Jefferson Clinton because he lied to an FBI agent. He lied to a Federal grand jury, and he violated a Federal law, which was a felony. Oh, by the way, that led to impeachment for a felony while in office, a sitting President.

In this instance, the President of the United States is not faithfully executing the laws of the country, and that is an entirely different process. So for the gentleman to suggest that this is going to lead to that is simply not true.

I will tell you that William Jefferson Clinton violated the Federal law as a felony, and we believe our President, now Barack Obama, is not faithfully executing the laws. And anybody could figure that out who serves as a Member of Congress.

I would now like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, and Natural Resources Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time remains on both sides.

With the gentlewoman having 5\1/2\ minutes left, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentlewoman that I have no additional speakers except myself to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, our system of government is in a bad place when one branch of government is compelled to sue another branch of government for failing to play its proper constitutional role. We shouldn't be in that situation, but we are. The President should have fulfilled his oath to faithfully execute the laws as written by Congress and signed by this President. Unfortunately, this lawsuit is necessary because the President has not implemented the law as passed and chose to pick and choose how he would have the law affect the American citizens.

This resolution will help guarantee that the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President is faithfully executed according to the rule of law and not according to the whim of one person, that being the President of the United States. Also, no President should be allowed to pick and choose which laws matter and which ones do not.

It is unfortunate that some Members of Congress believe this body should be irrelevant. It is unfortunate that they believe any President should be able to enforce the law or not enforce the law as that President chooses.

The American people elect their Member of Congress. They live under the laws that are written. They make their plans and follow through based upon what the laws are, and they live under these rules of law, and they need to be able to count on them. When Members of Congress believe the laws that we pass no longer matter, they are also saying that the beliefs of the American people do not matter.

When we allow the President to singlehandedly determine what the law is, the Constitution, our separation of powers, and the American people become irrelevant. That is why the President's system of unilateral governance cannot stand. It must be stopped. Even if it takes a lawsuit to do so, that is what we think the Federal judiciary is there to do: to resolve differences based upon the law. If the President's goal was to goad the House into defending the Constitution and the role of the

government, he certainly had succeeded when he said: Why not just sue me?

Our Constitution must be defended and the role of the American people in the lawmaking process must be understood and guaranteed. This resolution is an important step in doing that.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit an exchange of letters between Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Candice Miller, and myself regarding the Committee on House Administration's jurisdictional interests in this resolution as well as Chairman Miller's desire to waive House Administration's consideration of H. Res. 676. These letters were also included in House Report 113- 561, which was filed on July 28, 2014.

July 24, 2014.

Hon. Pete Sessions;

Chairman, The Committee on Rules,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sessions: On July 24, 2014, the Committee on

Rules ordered reported H. Res. 676, a resolution providing

for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the

President or other executive branch officials inconsistent

with their duties under the Constitution of the United

States. As you know, the Committee on House Administration

was granted an additional referral upon the bill's

introduction pursuant to the Committee's jurisdiction under

rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives over the

allowance and expenses of administrative officers of the

House.

Because of your willingness to consult with my committee

regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill

by the Committee on House Administration. By agreeing to

waive its consideration of the bill, the Committee on House

Administration does not waive its jurisdiction over H. Res.

676.

I request that you include this letter and your response as

part of your committee's report on the bill and the

Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation

on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Candice S. Miller,

Chairman, Committee on

House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

As the gentleman knows full well, we have 3\1/2\ days next week. We have, I guess, 9 full days and 3 half days scheduled in September and the first couple of weeks in October, assuming that we meet in that last week of September.

There have been some rumors. My Members have been asking me about whether or not there is serious consideration being given to not using the last week scheduled in September. Does that have any credence?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

In any event, as the gentleman knows, in the very short period of time that we have left before the election--and there is a lot of very substantive work that, in my view, still needs to be done and that we feel very strongly about on this side of the aisle--the gentleman posits that we have four endangered species bills on the floor. Frankly, they probably could all be done by suspension on Monday, but I understand it is going to be under a rule.

In addition to that, we have legislation which is designed to authorize a suit against the President of the United States for trying to do things when we can't get the Congress to act on them, so that there can be some movement forward on behalf of the American people.

Does the gentleman believe there is any possibility of bringing up comprehensive immigration reform--either a comprehensive immigration reform bill that the majority supports, individual bills which are passed out of committee, border security which is passed out on a bipartisan way out of your committee here on this side of the House--on this side of the Capitol, or legislation which we believe would have had a direct effect on the crisis to which the gentleman refers may be addressed next week?

It is not scheduled. I understand that the majority leader's party is divided on the issue of what ought to be done to meet this crisis, but there is no doubt, Mr. Leader, that there are going to be additional resources necessary to meet the challenge that we are confronting now.

The administration has requested, as the gentleman knows, some $3.7 billion. The Senate, as I understand it, is suggesting $2.7 billion. Part of that, of course, is to meet the needs of fighting wildfires. In the Senate bill, there is also money for Iron Dome--to beef up Iron Dome in Israel, but we don't have any language, if language is contemplated.

So I am hopeful that language will not be included in any effort that is made next week on meeting this. You referred to it as a crisis. Whether you refer to it as crisis, challenge, whatever, we know that resources are needed. Everybody seems to agree on that.

Unfortunately, we have not had that bill on the floor now, so we can get it over to the Senate and get it to the President before we leave. We are at risk, in my view, Mr. Leader, of leaving here without addressing this issue.

Furthermore, last week, as the gentleman knows, I suggested that if we included legislative language on that bill, it would be almost impossible to get to the administration the resources it needs to comply with the law and to meet the challenge that has been presented.

Does the gentleman have any expectation that we will consider a comprehensive immigration bill that has resources and will be Senate- passed? We have a bill here, as the gentleman knows, that we introduced many, many months ago, which is a bipartisan bill. All the provisions have been supported in a bipartisan fashion--some in the Senate, some here in the House committee--unanimously.

Does the gentleman have any belief that we will consider next week a clean funding bill at such level as is necessary, at least until the end of the fiscal year, and/or some comprehensive immigration bills which will meet the issue and establish a process, the lack of which clearly is causing people to take actions which we do not approve of and not agree with, but are manifesting the frustration of a broken system remaining broken?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his response.

Does the gentleman contemplate that that bill will include substantive changes in law or will it simply be restricted to additional resources necessary to meet the crisis that confronts this country?

I yield to my friend.

I understand the process will come from the Rules Committee. There is no text, Mr. Leader. We have seen no text to apparently amend legislation which was adopted overwhelmingly by this House and signed by President Bush.

We need resources today--and we will certainly need them next week-- and we are going to go on a 5-week recess work period, at which point in time we will come back here and meet for a very brief period of time, and we don't have any text in this very substantive, very consequential area of the law, which obviously was adopted overwhelmingly, and we have no text.

I understand the process in the Rules Committee. There have been no hearings, no debate in committee, no subcommittee, no full committee hearings on any legislation.

As I suggested to you last week, Mr. Majority Leader, if you put legislation out there, you and I both know that inevitably that legislation will not be able to pass within the timeframe necessary to meet the crisis.

So the responsible thing, I suggest to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the resources necessary to meet the challenge right now. And then, if hearings show substantive changes in the law are needed or further show what substantive changes ought to be made and can be considered in a thoughtful, effective fashion, we can then move forward at some point in time, perhaps as soon as September, on that legislation. But to do otherwise will put at great risk the ability of the administration and this country to respond consistent with the law that we passed and that was signed by President Bush.

I yield to my friend if he wants to comment further.

I thank, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader for that information, and I am glad that he brought up the processes that are going to be followed.

I want to quote to him something Speaker Boehner said on January 5, 2011, when he took the gavel:

But you will always have the right to robust debate in an

open process that allows you to represent your constituents,

to make your case, offer alternatives and be heard.

The gentleman has told me now three times that the Rules Committee hearing is going to be open and they will decide the process under which a bill is going to be considered. Apparently, I am presuming the gentleman does not know what the substance of that process will be. I don't know the substance. I don't know any language that is being proposed. No Member on our side of the aisle knows what language is being proposed. Maybe Members on your side of the aisle know.

So what you are apparently telling me is that we will have the Rules Committee solely for the purpose of learning what substantive changes are suggested in the law. And I suggest to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that if that is the case, we will not be able to thoughtfully debate it, we will not be able to have a process that is open, and we will not have a process which allows us to make our case, offer alternatives, or be heard.

I would predict, as has happened 67 times to date, this is going to be a closed rule. One of my staffers, by the way, suggested that perhaps open rules ought to be included in the endangered species bills that we are considering. We are doing so many closed rules, open rules seem to be an endangered species.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the leader to please report if we are going to consider, as I think we should, a supplemental next week that gives our country the resources to meet the crisis to which you referred?

It is our responsibility to consider it. It is our responsibility to give the resources. We passed the law, which is being implemented by the administration. We passed it overwhelmingly. It was sponsored by a gentleman who just spoke on this floor a short time ago to try to prevent and ameliorate human trafficking.

A number of bills we passed this week on human trafficking were passed unanimously. That bill that passed overwhelmingly was also about human trafficking. And I tell my friend, we need the resources. It is the responsibility of the majority party and the minority party to join together to give the administration the necessary resources to respond to carrying out the law that we passed.

If we want to change that law, that is also our responsibility. But I tell my friend it cannot be done in the timeframe that is available to us. We have delayed this so long, there is no time. And the gentleman keeps responding to me that the Rules Committee will decide the process.

The Rules Committee normally does not decide the substance of legislation. It decides the process under which we will consider the substance. Authorizing committees, as my friend so well knows, decide the substance of that legislation.

But we will have no opportunity to see that, apparently, until perhaps this

weekend, at the earliest, or next week. That does not give us time to debate it and it certainly, as everybody knows, does not give it time to go to the Senate and be debated. I think they will disagree, perhaps, on the language that is suggested. I don't know what it is, but there is a high probability of disagreement. Conference will have to occur, and then it will have to get to the President. And both the Senate and the House are leaving next week for their district work period.

I would urge the majority leader to make every effort with his party to bring what I think ought to be our obligation: a bill which provides the resources necessary--and we may differ on that number--to carry out our responsibilities to implement the law that we passed.

If the gentleman wants to respond further, I yield. If not, I will go on.

Mr. Speaker, we have five appropriations bills which have not been brought to the floor. The Ag bill was on the floor. It was pulled. It has not been brought back. The Labor, Health and Human Services bill, the Interior bill, the Homeland bill, and the Foreign Ops bill have not been brought to the floor, nor has the gentleman indicated any of those are going to be brought to the floor next week.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is any plan to bring those bills to the floor in the 3 weeks that we will be back in September?

I yield to the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, but that does not give me any clarity in terms of the five appropriations bills. The supplemental appropriation bill, of course, is not a part of those bills, although, obviously, Health and Human Services is being put under a great deal of pressure by carrying out the terms of the law that we passed in 2008 signed by President Bush. They need resources. The supplemental is to give them the resources.

This is a scheduling conference. It is not just now, in my view, limited to next week, because we are not going to be here for 5 weeks thereafter, and Members want to know what they should anticipate as substantively going to be on the agenda in the 3 short weeks that we will have left, essentially, before the election.

So I can't tell from the gentleman's answer, Mr. Speaker, whether or not any of those five appropriations bills--I know seven have passed-- are intended to be brought to the floor.

I yield to the majority leader.

Maybe I can just print that out and I will just read it, Mr. Speaker.

We have an Export-Import Bank that is going to expire very shortly. It is of great concern to many people on both sides of the aisle. Forty-one Republican Members, Mr. Speaker, have signed a letter urging that this be brought to the floor. It is a very timely, critical issue for the competitiveness of our country. It has been twisting in the wind for this entire year. I worked, Mr. Speaker, with the leader's predecessor to see whether or not we could get this bill to the floor.

I know what the schedule is for next week, so he doesn't need to repeat that for me--and I thank him very much--but does the majority leader have any idea whether we are going to consider the Export-Import Bank before the election?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask the majority leader any more questions because I am not going to get any answers.

The American people have a right to those answers. The American people need to have transparency, which was going to be brought to this body, frankly, by the young guns, and they need a right to debate, right to anticipate, right to participate, but the answer I get is, It's not scheduled for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is not scheduled for next week. Critical legislation was not scheduled last week, the week before that, the week before that, the week before that, the week before that, and every week before that--critical legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

I am simply inquiring of the majority leader: Is there any contemplation of bringing that legislation to the floor before this Congress leaves for the election so the American people who are going to either reelect this Congress or seek new leadership have an opportunity on which to make an informed decision, which, of course, is what the Speaker said we would have?

Certainly, we ought to have equal consideration for the American people as well so they have the right to robust debate and an open process and so it allows them to understand what we are doing.

I regret that the majority leader in critical issues, like the Export-Import Bank, which relate to the competitiveness of this country, and like Make It In America legislation that we defeated last week on suspension, which we agreed upon--the majority leader voted for it and I voted for it. I presume--I will ask him anyway. I said I wasn't going to ask him: Is there any contemplation of bringing that bill, which got 260 votes on this floor, back to the floor, under a rule which provides again for America's determining whether or not we can find additional rare earth, which is so necessary to be competitive in international markets?

I know it is not on the schedule, so he doesn't have to repeat that litany to me, because I get it. I have heard it now four or five or six times. I get it that it is not on the schedule for next week.

So the question I ask is: Is there any contemplation of bringing that bill, which has 260 people who voted for it, back to the floor, under a rule, so we can provide for a better opportunity to make it in America and to be competitive internationally?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader and I have worked together, and we have sat down for lunch. We agree on the bill that I mentioned, Mr. Swalwell's bill, to try to make America more competitive by producing more rare earth here in this country--so essential in the electronics industry and in other places.

I can't control the Senate, Mr. Speaker. The majority leader cannot control the Senate. What the majority leader and I can do is control what we do here in this House to which we were elected. We can control either urging or, in the majority leader's case--and as the former majority leader of this House, I can tell you I could put a bill on the floor if I thought it was important for the American people and in the best interests of our country. I think the Export-Import Bank falls in that category. I think minimum wage falls in that category. I think comprehensive immigration falls in that category. I think jobs bills fall in that category. I think make it in America--the Swalwell bill-- fell in that category.

We cannot control what the Senate does, but we can control what we do. We can move in a responsible fashion, which the American people, Mr. Speaker, expect us to do and not blame some outside group, whether it is the administration or the United States Senate, for our lack of addressing important issues.

TRIA is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. It is not on the schedule. I presume, if I asked the majority leader about TRIA, he would tell me it is not on the schedule next week. That would not come as a news flash to me, Mr. Speaker, because he has told me that now seven times.

I believe, if the House is going to act in a collegial manner and in a constructive manner and in a manner that the American people want us to act, that we will exchange information not just on what is on next week--there is not much on next week, Mr. Speaker. I know that. There is, in my opinion, a political bill to sue the President of the United States. The American people don't think that is a very good idea. That is on the calendar. So we are using the few short minutes that we have available to do the people's business on four bills, to send a message, that we could pass in, frankly, a very short period of time on Monday night on endangered species. We are filling time. We are treading water, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude with this. You have put the possibility that we are going to have a bill on the floor next week dealing with the crisis-- your word--at the border. When will we see text of that legislation that might possibly be on the floor?

I yield to the majority leader.

When it is available. That was the answer to my question. We don't know when it is going to be available. We don't know what it will be. We don't know, really, whether it will be considered, because the majority leader tells me, Mr. Speaker, that it may be on the floor. We know that it hasn't gone to committee. We know that there is no subcommittee hearing that has been held. We know that there is no committee hearing that has been held.

The gentleman talks about thousands of pages. We can get into that debate at some other time. I know which he refers to, a bill that had literally more consideration than any other bill I have seen considered by the Congress of the United States--the Affordable Care Act, which is having, in my view, a very positive effect. We don't need to debate that today.

I would tell the majority leader, if the crisis were going to be addressed, the first step is having the resources necessary to carry out the law, then, if the law needs to be changed, deciding how it should be changed, having debate on that, bringing it to this floor out of committee, and considering that legislation. There are differences of opinion on that. I recognize that. The gentleman has pointed that out. That would be the way to do it. That is the regular order of which you spoke and you promised.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that that could be followed. There are many of us who believe it is not being followed, and that is to the denigration of not only this body but to the American people's ability to see what we are doing, how we are doing it, when we are doing it.

Unless the gentleman has something further to say, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 694 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 964 provides for consideration of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013.

On Monday, the House had a full and thorough debate on H.R. 935. While the bill did not gain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass by suspension, it did receive 253 bipartisan votes.

It is important we pass this bill in order to reduce the regulatory burden that has been placed on the nearly 365,000 pesticide users, and this rule allows us to do that.

The rule also allows the House to consider H. Res. 676.

This resolution will allow the Speaker to initiate litigation for actions by the President--or other executive branch officials-- inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution.

The fact that we have to sue the President simply to ensure that he is working within the constraints of the Constitution, to me, Mr. Speaker, is troubling, but that is the situation we are facing.

While there have always been disagreements between the legislative and executive branches about how expansive the President's authority is, the Constitution is explicit that Congress writes the laws and the President's role is to ``take care'' that those laws are faithfully executed. No President may have both powers.

Our Founding Fathers understood the danger of having a President who not only enforced the laws, but made them. An executive with those powers would easily infringe on citizens' liberty. Our Founders saw this firsthand. That is why they were fleeing to come to this country and form this country. They knew the Executive would try to exceed the power afforded under the Constitution, even when it is occupied by someone who previously taught the limits the Constitution puts on Presidential power. That is why they were so careful in delegating among the three branches.

This system of checks and balances has served America so well for so long. Now, I am sorry for the civics lesson, but it is clear that some on the other side of the aisle have temporarily lost sight of how important these checks and balances are to the functioning of this House and to the legislative branch in general.

But that wasn't always the case. When Representative Conyers, for instance, was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he remarked:

We are coequal branch of government, and if our system of

checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative

that we understand how the executive branch is enforcing or

ignoring the bills that are signed into law.

Representative Nadler, for his part, cautioned:

And I hope that anyone who thinks that inquiring into the

excesses of the executive branch and into what appears to be

a concentrated effort in every different aspect of law to

destroy the power of the Congress and the judiciary and to

limit our power to protect the liberties of the American

people against encroachments by the Executive are a waste of

time, I hope they will rethink what they are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, I read these quotes to illustrate the concern of the executive branch overstepping its authority isn't confined to just one party or one President. This is a legislative versus executive issue; it is not a Democrat versus Republican issue. And, to be frank, the legislative branch has been on the losing end of this for quite some time.

But my point is that we shouldn't be so callous or shortsighted as to not defend our article I powers simply because the President in question happens to belong to one party.

If we don't take action now, what stops future Presidents--Republican or Democrat--from eroding our powers further? Congress, itself, has shown little opposition to the harm it has done to the separation of powers over the years. That is why it is critical that we take action now. This should be a cause that the legislative branch can unite around, not divide over.

Instead, we have Members of Congress standing in applause when the President says he will bypass Congress to enact his agenda. Mr. Speaker, half of this body stood up in applause. It should be done in defiance. Here we have Members of Congress cheering for the President for basically saying he is going to eliminate their purpose here.

This isn't the first President whose actions have raised the alarms of an overreaching executive, and it is clear if we do nothing, it will not be the last.

I urge my colleagues to defend our role in government, and to stop the assault on the separation of powers.

Let's finally say to the Executive: ``Enough is enough.'' Let's finally say: ``Support the Constitution, support the separation of powers, and support this rule.''

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

I do not, Mr. Speaker. I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only, and we are not yielding for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot here today. A lot of it, I don't know exactly where they are coming from. But we have heard a lot of things today.

Democrats would like to believe--or would like the American people to believe, or go to that narrative--that Congress hasn't done its job. Well, you have to remember that the House of Representatives is one- half of that. The Senate is the other half.

Now, if you think about it, we have sent 40 jobs bills over to the Senate, where they are gathering dust on Leader Reid's desk. We have passed seven of the appropriations bills here in the House. The Senate, zero. We have passed important tax legislation to ensure our economy continues to grow and that companies continue to hire.

We will be voting today on a veterans package to help our veterans. And tomorrow, for the second time, we are going to consider a bill as it relates to the highway trust fund.

So perhaps the Republicans in the House are getting the job done with support of Members on the other side of the aisle. How many bipartisan bills are sitting there in the Senate just languishing away because there is a decision made just not to move anything forward from the House? That is unfortunate because that hurts the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of things that are supposedly what we want to do. But here is what I believe we are trying to do today. It is about defense of the Constitution. It is pure and simple. It is about the protection that is given by the Constitution to the two houses of the legislative branch and to the President of the United States and the executive branch and to the judiciary, and that separation of powers is within the Constitution. That is what we are fighting for.

Forget about all this other stuff that has been thrown up as a smokescreen. We are fighting to defend the Constitution.

And people say, well, you know, it could cost money. Well, thank goodness. Thank God that our Founding Fathers didn't say, well, you know what? It is a reach too far. It will cost too much. It could cost our lives. They didn't make that decision. What they said was, it is important for the future of this country that we live by the Constitution, that we design a Constitution that will endure into the future.

And, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this Constitution has endured and has provided the guidance for this country to move forward every day. It is not by happenstance. It is by the fact that we are supposed to live by and defend the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a deputy sheriff, if we just said, You know what, I don't agree with the free speech portion of the Constitution, we would have stopped free speech. I had to defend people, stand there and put my body in front of people who were opposed to what the people behind me were saying that was repugnant to us and to most Americans. But I had to put my safety at risk for their free speech. And you know, I could have said, You know what, I don't agree with that. That is just part of the Constitution. Let's not worry about free speech. But we didn't do that. We didn't rewrite the law. We didn't rewrite it.

You know, yesterday or the day before--I am not sure which day it was--but in the Rules Committee, we heard an impassioned description from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster), who was the speaker of the house in Florida, who was sued by the Governor in regards to the implementation of law. And guess what? That body won.

And thank goodness that the house won in the Supreme Court of Florida and that they just didn't say, You know what, you don't have standing. So forget about that.

A lot of people are trying to presuppose what the Supreme Court is going to say or do. I would suggest to you that I am willing to go along with whatever the Supreme Court says. Now, I may not like it. But I am willing to go along with it because I do believe they are the ultimate arbitrators as to what is constitutional and what isn't.

It is amazing that this document that we are talking about, that there is a question about it, that there is a question about the separation of powers.

I would like to read a quote from then-Senator Barack Obama:

We have got a government that was designed by the Founders

with checks and balances. You don't want a President that is

too powerful, a Congress that is too powerful, or a Court

that is too powerful. Everybody has got their own role.

Congress' job is to pass legislation.

The President can veto it or sign it, but what George Bush

has been doing as part of his effort to accumulate more power

in the Presidency, he has been saying, well, I can basically

change what Congress passed by attaching a letter that says I

don't agree with this part or that, I'm going to choose to

interpret it this way or that way.

It is not part of his power, but it is part of the whole

theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along.

I disagree with that.

Once again, quoting then-Senator Obama, Senator Obama says:

I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the

Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United

States.

Now, I don't know what happened on the trip from the Capitol down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, how that changed, but I guess the Presidency can change your view of the world. It may not be an accurate view of the world, but it can change it.

I think what then-Senator Obama said rang true then and rings true today. It is about the separation of power, and let me tell you something, my friends on the other side of the aisle should be standing there with us because, for too long, this House has now become irrelevant. Congress in general is becoming irrelevant.

When I got elected just over 4 years ago, I came up here with a purpose. I came up here with a belief in the Constitution and that there is separation of powers between the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, but now, I hate to say it, in my 4 years, I have become disenchanted with the fact that this House for way too long has just had a ``cooperate and graduate'' kind of attitude, and I don't think we should do that.

That is why, today, the buck stops here. We have got to make a stand in regards to is the Constitution relevant, is this House relevant. If not, we should just all go home. There is no reason to be here.

I have three sons that serve their country and that have put their lives on the line for this country, not by their own choice--I mean, they serve their country at their choice--but when they go off into war, it is at the direction of the President.

It is a direction to protect this country, and they do so willingly. They raised their hand to say they are going to support and defend the Constitution. I raised it as a police officer outside of Chicago, I raised it as a deputy sheriff, I raised it as sheriff, and I raised it here when I got sworn in as a Member of this body.

I take that seriously, and I take it seriously when anybody thinks they can trample on the Constitution. I take it seriously when anybody thinks that they are above where we need to be.

This legislation is about empowering the Speaker of the House, if he so deems it, to sue the President. I happen to agree with that. Mr. Speaker, we can talk all day--at least I could--in regards to why it is important that this House protect its prerogative in regards to passing legislation and reminding the executive branch as to what their duties are.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. Let me tell you something, I wasn't here before this. I got here 4 years ago. I don't care if it is a Republican or Democrat or Independent or whatever. I believe in this institution. I believe in the Constitution of this country, and I believe we should do everything in our power to defend it no matter who is trying to usurp it.

So I encourage my colleagues for the last time to support this rule, to support this institution, and to support this Constitution. It is about are we really serious about the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers so rightfully created.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentlewoman very much, and I rise to oppose H. Res. 676, which is seeking an unconstitutional right to sue the President for doing his duty and following the law.

The underbelly of this resolution would, in essence, put fire in the hearts and minds of Americans when we find out that this legislation is to undermine the President and any of his officers and employees from doing their jobs.

This is a failed attempt to impeach the President. I am willing to say that word because the President has been following the law. The law passed, and it gives him discretion to interpret the Affordable Care Act to make it best work for the American people. As has been stated, if you want to change the law, go to the floor of the House. But in actuality, this resolution smacks against the Constitution which says there are three equal branches of government. Therefore, the Executive has the right to perform his duties.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is, in fact, a veiled attempt for impeachment, and it undermines the law that allows the President to do his job. It is a historical fact that President Bush pushed this Nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush because as an Executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.

I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to, in essence, provide the opportunity for us to do valid things for the American people--improve the minimum wage, paycheck fairness--and stop undermining the authority as indicated in the Constitution that gives equal authority to the three branches of government.

We can pass laws. We have the ability to pass laws, and citizens have the right to go into court on their independent standing. The courts have often said that the Congress has no standing. The House of Representatives has no independent standing, as evidenced by many cases that we have already taken to court and determined that Congress has no standing.

The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements, derived from the case or controversy provision in article III, and prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be modified by Congress.

That dictates on how you gain standing, and I would say the constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have suffered a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete, and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely be redressed by the relief requested from the court.

Let me be very clear. We in Congress can make no argument that the President has injured us. We can make no independent argument of that, and so I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution and do not accept a veiled attempt at impeachment when our President is doing his duty and following the law under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H. Res. 676, providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other Executive Branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the constitution of the United States.

We could be doing some very important legislation to help the American people from Texas to the tip of Maine, like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the Appropriations Border Supplemental, comprehensive tax reform, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization, or the Voting Rights Act, yet my Republican colleagues insist on wasting valuable time.

The Congressional Black Caucus did a Special Order earlier this week entitled: the GOP's March Towards Impeachment, and that is where we appear to be headed.

But first let me make a distinction between impeachment and a lawsuit initiated by the House, qua House of Representatives, via H. Res. 676.

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

In any impeachment inquiry, the Members of this branch of government must confront

some preliminary questions to determine whether an impeachment is appropriate in a given situation.

The first of these questions is whether the individual whose conduct is under scrutiny falls within the category of President, Vice President, or ``civil Officers of the United States'' such that he is vulnerable to impeachment.

A preliminary question is whether the conduct involved constitutes ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.''

Now Mr. Speaker, whether we get to this point where we are actually considering impeachment of the President is a question that only the GOP majority can answer. It appears that we are heading in that direction--even in the face of doubt from numerous experts as to whether the effort will succeed or not.

Indeed, it is a matter of historical fact that President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending the terrorists of September 11, 2001; and weapons of mass destruction, ``WMD's'' have yet to be found.

House Democrats refused to impeach President Bush.

Let me state that again: House Democrats refused to impeach President George W. Bush.

Now I wish to turn to the resolution which the GOP Majority intends to put before this body in a last-ditch effort to stir their base before November.

Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger testified before the Rules Committee two weeks ago and had this to say about the potential lawsuit:

The House of Representatives lacks authority to bring such

a suit. Because neither the Speaker nor even the House of

Representatives has a legal concrete, particular and personal

stake in the outcome of the proposed lawsuits, federal courts

would have no authority to entertain such actions.

Passage of the proposed resolution does nothing to change

that. If federal judges were to undertake to entertain suits

brought by the legislature against the President or other

federal officers for failing to administer statutes as the

House desires, the result would be an unprecedented

aggrandizement of the political power of the judiciary.

Such a radical liberalization of the role of unelected

judges in matters previously entrusted to the elected

branches of government should be rejected.

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 President's powers under the Constitution.

The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements, derived from the case or controversy provision in Article III, and prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be modified by Congress.

The constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have suffered a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by the relief requested from the court.

Constitutional Requirements

To satisfy the constitutional standing requirements in Article III, the Supreme Court imposes three requirements.

The plaintiff must first allege a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual or imminent, concrete, and particularized.

Second, the injury must be ``fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct, and'' third, the injury must be ``likely to be redressed by the requested relief.''

Prudential Requirements

In addition to the constitutional questions posed by the doctrine of standing, federal courts also follow a well-developed set of prudential principles that are relevant to a standing inquiry.

Similar to the constitutional requirements, these limits are ``founded in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society,'' but are judicially created.

Unlike their constitutional counterparts, prudential standing requirements ``can be modified or abrogated by Congress.''

If separation-of-powers 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 branch's ability to fulfill its obligation to comply with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by Congress pursuant to this bill as my amendment to H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE ACT made clear.

And Mr. Speaker, a basic respect for separation of powers should inform any discussion of a lawsuit from both a constitutional standpoint and a purely pragmatic one.

In our constitutional democracy, taking care that the laws are executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion.

And it is a well-settled 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, or delays such enforcement, because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land.

This resolution, like the bill we considered in the Judiciary Committee on which I serve and before this body, the 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.

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 incident and related to the Affordable Care Act in which the resolution would authorize a House of Congress to sue the president, that House would not have suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of any legislator's votes.

Second, the resolution violates separation of powers principles by inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left to the other branches to be decided.

And Mr. Speaker, 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 questions--and that it is impossible to decide such questions without intruding on the ability of agencies to do their job.

Third, the resolution 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 President's action to constitute a policy, of non-enforcement.

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 President--and I say one of the least creative ideas I have seen in some time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to deliberate before we are at a bridge too far.