H.Res. 694

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 935.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call up the bill (H.R. 935) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013.

The reason we are back here on the floor for this bill today is pure politics. In the last Congress, this bill then was H.R. 872. It was introduced on a bipartisan basis, with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it passed on the suspension calendar with two-thirds of this body in support of it. In this Congress, H.R. 935--the exact same bill--was again introduced on a bipartisan basis, with bipartisan support, and it was voice-voted out of the Transportation and Agriculture Committees.

However, earlier this week, partisanship reared its ugly head, and Members who were on record as voting in support of this legislation or in having agreed to it by voice vote were urged to change their votes from ``yes'' to ``no'' in order for it not to be agreed on by two- thirds of this body. This is partisanship at its ugliest. The principles and policy of this legislation have not changed over the last few years. Instead, the politics of it did.

I introduced H.R. 935 to clarify congressional intent regarding how the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters should be regulated. It is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act--also know as FIFRA--and not the Clean Water Act, which has long been the Federal regulatory statute that governs the sale and use of pesticides in the United States. In fact, FIFRA regulated pesticide use long before the enactment of the Clean Water Act. However, more recently, as the result of a number of lawsuits, the Clean Water Act has been added as a new and redundant layer of Federal regulation over the use of pesticides.

I will not repeat the history I gave in Monday's debate of how the EPA came to impose this unnecessary second layer of Federal regulation, but I think it is important for everyone to realize that this regulatory burden is impacting not just farmers, but cities, counties, and homeowners.

Federal and State agencies are expending vital funds to initiate and maintain Clean Water Act permitting programs governing pesticide applications, and a wide range of public and private pesticide users are now facing increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting process. This is adding another layer to an already big and growing pile of unfunded regulatory mandates being imposed on the regulated community. Despite what some would have you believe, all of this expense comes with no additional environmental protection.

The cost of complying with the NPDES permit regulations and the fears of potential liability are forcing mosquito control and other pest control programs to reduce operations and redirect resources to comply with the regulatory requirements. This may be having an adverse effect on public health. In many States, routine preventative programs have been reduced due to the NPDES requirements. This most likely impacted and increased the record-breaking outbreaks of the West Nile virus around the Nation in 2012. H.R. 935 will enable communities to resume conducting routine preventative mosquito and other pest control programs in the future.

H.R. 935 exempts from the NPDES permitting process a discharge to waters involving the application of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under FIFRA, where the pesticide is used for its intended purpose and the use is in compliance with pesticide label requirements. This is appropriate because pesticide registration and enforcement programs under FIFRA take into account environmental and human health risks just like the Clean Water Act does.

H.R. 935 was drafted very narrowly with technical assistance from the United States EPA to return pesticide regulation to where it was before the court got involved. It leaves FIFRA as the appropriate and adequate regulating statute. Well over 150 organizations, representing a wide variety of public and private entities and thousands of stakeholders, have signed a letter supporting a legislative resolution of this issue.

I will insert the letter in the Record. Just to name a few of these organizations, they include the American Mosquito Control Association, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Water Resources Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, Farm Family Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, CropLife America, and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.

In addition, I will submit for the Record a letter from the National Alliance of Forest Owners, who expressed support for H.R. 935. NAFO represents private forest owners and managers of over 80 million acres of private forestland in 47 States, supporting 2.4 million jobs.

Finally, I will submit for the Record a letter of support, plus a rebuttal paper, prepared by the American Mosquito Control Association, which rebuts the inaccuracies of several statements made by several Members on the House floor Monday evening.

July 28, 2014.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: The undersigned organizations ask for

your vote in support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory

Burdens Act, today. The bill will be on the floor of the

House of Representatives on suspension this evening.

Pesticide users must now comply with the added requirement

that certain pesticide applications--already stringently

regulated under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)--obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or

delegated states. The legislation would clarify that federal

law does not require water permits for FIFRA-compliant

pesticide applications.

The new water permit for pesticides provides virtually no

environmental benefit because all pesticide applications are

already stringently regulated through FIFRA, including

applications to and near water. Compliance requirements under

the permit impose significant resource and liability burdens

on thousands of small businesses, farms, municipalities,

counties, and the state and federal agencies legally

responsible for protecting public health. Most notably, the

permit potentially exposes all pesticide users to citizen law

suits under the CWA.

In the 112th Congress, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens

Act--then, H.R. 872--passed the House of Representatives on

suspension.

Now, in the 113th Congress, the Act has been reintroduced

as H.R. 935. Strong bipartisan support was again demonstrated

by the bill's recent passage out of both the House Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Committee

on Agriculture.

Pesticides play a critical role in protecting crops from

destructive pests, controlling mosquitoes and other disease-

carrying pests, and managing invasive weeds that choke our

waterways and shipping lanes, impede power generation, and

damage our forests and recreation areas. We believe that the

water permit for pesticides jeopardizes these protections and

the economy as regulators and businesses expend time and

resources on implementation and compliance all for no

additional environmental benefits. We urge you to vote in

support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.

Sincerely,

Agribusiness Council of Indiana, Agricultural Alliance of

North Carolina, Agricultural Council of Arkansas,

Agricultural Retailers Association, Alabama Agribusiness

Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, Alabama Farmers

Federation, American Mosquito Control Association, American

Soybean Association, Aquatic Plant Management Society,

Arkansas Forestry Association, Biopesticide Industry

Alliance, California Association of Winegrape Growers, Cape

Cod Cranberry Growers Association, The Cranberry Institute,

CropLife America, Council of Producers & Distributors of

Agrotechnology, Edison Electric Institute, Family Farm

Alliance, Far West Agribusiness Association.

Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Fruit & Vegetable

Association, Georgia Agribusiness Council, Golf Course

Superintendents Association of America, Hawaii Cattlemen's

Council, Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Potato

Commission, Idaho Water Users Association, Illinois Farm

Bureau, Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association, Kansas

Agribusiness Retailers Association, Louisiana Cotton and

Grain Association, Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Maine

Potato Board, Michigan Agribusiness Association, Minnesota

Agricultural Aircraft Association, Minnesota Pesticide

Information & Education, Minor Crops Farmer Alliance,

Missouri Agribusiness Association, Missouri Farm Bureau

Federation.

Montana Agricultural Business Association, National

Agricultural Aviation Association, National Alliance of

Forest Owners, National Alliance of Independent Crop

Consultants, National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture, National Association of Wheat Growers, National

Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National

Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union,

National Pest Management Association, National Potato

Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association,

National Water Resources Association, Nebraska Agri-Business

Association, North Carolina Agricultural Consultants

Association, North Carolina Cotton Producers Association,

North Central Weed Science Society, North Dakota Agricultural

Association, Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance.

Northeastern Weed Science Society, Northern Plains Potato

Growers Association, Ohio Professional Applicators for

Responsible Regulation, Oregon Potato Commission, Oregonians

for Food & Shelter, Pesticide Policy Coalition, Plains Cotton

Growers, Inc., Professional Landcare Network, RISE

(Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), South Dakota

Agri-Business Association, South Texas Cotton and Grain

Association, Southern Cotton Growers, Inc., Southern Crop

Production Association, Southern Rolling Plains Cotton

Growers, Southern Weed Science Society, Texas Ag Industries

Association, Texas Vegetation Management Association, United

Fresh Produce Association, U.S. Apple Association, USA Rice

Federation.

Virginia Agribusiness Council, Virginia Forestry

Association, Washington Friends of Farm & Forests, Washington

State Potato Commission, Weed Science Society of America,

Western Growers Association, Western Plant Health

Association, Western Society of Weed Science, Wild Blueberry

Commission of Maine, Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation,

Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, Wisconsin

State Cranberry Growers Association.

This is a good bill that reduces burdensome regulations without rolling back any environmental safeguards.

Don't just ask the environmental community about what it takes to comply with the current duplicative Clean Water Act regulation of pesticides. Ask your farmers and your mosquito control agencies in your cities and your counties. Then look at your States' Web sites to see what it takes to apply for the NPDES permit for pesticide applications. We did that. It costs over $200 in my State of Ohio, and in Oregon, it is over $900. That does not count the time of an applicant to complete the process or the time of a regulator to evaluate the application--all to regulate again something that is already adequately regulated under

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

Well, as a farmer, I take a little bit of offense to some of the remarks that we are applying pesticides in the shadows.

Pesticides cost money and, as farmers, we do not control what we get for our products, our commodities. We are raising corn and soybeans. We are at the mercy of the commodities market, so we have to do everything we can do on the cost side. And we certainly aren't going to waste a valuable input cost: pesticide, herbicide, and insecticide. So that is just an erroneous statement. That is just not true. Farmers of today are professionals, high capital cost operations, and it just makes no sense that we would waste those inputs.

On the issue about finding pesticide residues in water bodies, there is an issue that we call legacy issue, meaning that there was pesticides used many years ago that didn't break down in the environment, weren't biodegradable, and there is essentially a bank of residue left, and you get those legacy issues. The pesticides we are using today are much safer. The industry, the technology has improved drastically, and a lot of these pesticides, if not all, are more biodegradable.

Also, keep in mind, under FIFRA, the EPA approves the label. That is the approval of the process and the application and the amount that can be used. In most States, if not all States, most of these pesticides are being applied, have to be applied by certified applicators, and they are licensed. So they are filling out some paperwork and have to do due diligence.

This bill really does add a lot of duplication, because we went to a couple of States, and if you are applying a pesticide near a water body or a wetland--and that is open for definition how close that may be-- you have to go online and apply for the permit. In some States, you have to apply for, you have to submit a management plan. You have to list where you are going to be applying the pesticide, the location.

So, basically, let's take this down to a homeowner level. A homeowner maybe wants to spray their yard for dandelions. If they are maybe reasonably close to a water body, or maybe not--that is open for discussion--they have to go online and, like I said, in Oregon, they have got to apply for a permit and submit a management plan and pay over a $900 fee. In my State of Ohio, it is over $200.

I think that is a little bizarre, as long as they are applying it to the label under EPA approval.

So let's also talk about mosquito control districts. We had a huge outbreak of West Nile virus in 2012. That was a big mosquito year. I guess last year wasn't as much. This year, the debate is going to be out on that.

But we were hearing evidence that, because of the permitting requirements, that some of our mosquito control districts--and the American Mosquito Control Association actually surveyed their members. Some of them were actually kind of holding back and doing the preventative programs.

I know of one large metropolitan area in the southern part of this country that had to declare an emergency. And the irony of this, when they declare an emergency, they don't have to get any permits. It was so bad, they had to do aerial spraying, so that was putting the environment even at more risk. When you go from land application up to aerial, you can imagine the possible results that could happen of contamination--and with no permit requirement.

So we do have evidence, there was some talk on Monday night in this debate that the one gentleman on the other side of the aisle was talking about: My mosquito control district, there is no issue--no issue, no problem.

Well, we talked to his mosquito control district and it is a problem, and they have been talking to them for the last several years that this is a problem.

I would also contend, I did some research, checked around with some of our local spraying outfits, the grain elevators that do spraying. They don't know about this new rule yet because the EPA, in a lot of States, hasn't notified, they haven't implemented it. I think maybe because they know there is legislation hanging out there. So a lot of our entities don't know about it yet. Some of the larger, obviously, mosquito control districts and larger operations might know.

But the reason, when you talk about it has been nearly 3 years, which is more like 2 years, and there hasn't been a problem as we might think

there should be a problem is because a lot of them aren't doing the NPDES permits because they are not aware of that fact yet.

So at some point, if we don't fix this, the hammer is going to come down and you are going to hear about it from farmers, mosquito control districts, and individual homeowners.

So I just want to make that clear that this bill is duplicative, and they are under a lot of regulation, and the EPA approves the label. If you are not applying a pesticide under the label requirements, then you have got a problem.

But we don't need to open this up to farmers and landowners and mosquito control districts to lawsuits and other problems. So what this is really boiling down to today is, now I am starting to see this is a revenue stream into the EPA for these outrageous costs of the NPDES programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not deregulate pesticides as has been suggested by some speakers. Pesticides have been regulated under FIFRA for decades, and this bill does not change that.

This bill makes it clear that if you are a mosquito control agency, a farmer, or a citizen that is applying a pesticide and you are complying with FIFRA, you do not need an NPDES permit.

Now, there are a couple facts that came out here tonight that the other side said that, without this bill, it is not necessary because you don't have to get a permit to go out and apply pesticides. Well, if you are applying near a water body or a wetland, you do have to get an NPDES permit from the court decision.

This was not an EPA decision. This was a court decision that looked at it in a narrow vision, and it was a very ill-advised court decision, and I would say when you look at proposed rules out there about waters in the United States, it is up to debate what is near or close to a water body, so that is a fact that we would have that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share a personal experience. Several years ago, my soybean crop--it was a Friday, late Friday afternoon, working with my certified pesticide applicator, we discovered that my soybean crop had just been attacked by spider mites, an insect, and we had to make application, insecticide application, to take care of it.

That application was made on a Friday night. If I had to apply for an NPDES permit, fill out the form, put in the management plan, submit it to the State, it comes back--I don't know if we would have got it until Tuesday. I would have lost--the damage to my soybean crop would have been substantial.

So the issue out here that there is no cost happening, there will when this thing gets fully implemented because, in practice, this court decision has not been fully implemented in practice across the country, but that will be coming if we fail to enact H.R. 935.

This bill removes the needless and duplicative regulation that threatens public health and imposes an expensive burden on public and private entities trying to safely approve pesticides.

This is a bipartisan bill. It has passed out of this House last Congress by a two-thirds majority. We had partisan antics going on Monday night. We had people switch their votes under pressure for partisan reasons, and that is not good government.

This bill will help protect the environment and human safety when you especially look at West Nile virus and all the other mosquito diseases we are finding that are coming about.

We have to allow our certified pesticide applicators, our mosquito control districts to do their job, and if the private sector wants to go in here and have to do all this extra permitting--we are not talking--when you hear about general permit, you think, oh, I just get a permit for the season, and I am good to go.

That is not what the general permit means. What it means is you have to go every time you do an application, if it is near or close to a wetland or water body, apply for a permit, put in that permit where the location is going to be, probably the date.

Well, say it is raining that day or it is too windy. Do you have to reapply for your permit? That is kind of up in the air still, so there are a whole bunch of issues out there, plus the costs, the time to do it, the bureaucracy, the red tape, and the costs.

Mr. Speaker, I think the one that is really bizarre is if you are a homeowner and you want to apply a pesticide to your yard and if you are near a water body or a wetland, whatever,

you have to apply for a permit because of this court decision.

This will bog down the NPDES permit process, and it will delay and add costs, and it puts farmers in jeopardy to get their crops to maintain and get the yields we need to produce the wholesome food supply in this country that our agricultural community produces and our mosquito control districts that protect many of our citizens from West Nile virus and other mosquito-borne diseases.

So this is critical that these bills pass because we are getting close to the time when we are going to see very much damage being done. We saw a little bit of it in 2012, in at least one large metropolitan area, when they had to spray for mosquitoes aerially when they declared an emergency when it got so far out of hand because they didn't do the preventative measures.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to pass this bill, send it to the Senate, and hopefully, the Senate takes it up and passes it to protect the environment and health and human safety of the citizens of this country.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 935.

In the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership moved similar legislation under the guise that, unless Congress acted, the process for applying a pesticide would be so burdensome that it would grind to a halt an array of agricultural and public health-related activities.

Now, some may say that this may be a bit of hyperbole to describe the impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide general permit. However, if you were to compare the concern expressed before the Agency's draft permit went into effect with the almost nonexistent level of concern expressed after almost 3 years of implementation, you would likely question why we are here this evening debating this bill.

Contrary to the rhetoric, the EPA and the States have successfully drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit, a PGP, for the last 2\1/2\ years that adopted several commonsense precautionary measures to limit the contamination of local waters by pesticides. They do so in a way that allows pesticide applicators to meet their vital public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a cost- effective manner.

This sky has not fallen. Farmers and forestry operators have had two successful growing seasons, and public health officials successfully addressed multiple threats of mosquito-borne illness while, at the same time, complying with the sensible requirements of both the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA.

I say ``sensible'' because, as we should clearly understand, the intended focus of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA are very different. FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of pesticides on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment through uniform labels indicating approved uses and restrictions. Very sensible. However, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of the Nation's waters, with a primary focus on the protection of local water quality-- two very distinct purposes.

It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirements is a surrogate for protecting local water quality. As any farmer knows, complying with FIFRA is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its label. Farmers do not need to look to the localized impact of the pesticide on local water quality.

So why are groups, ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation to CropLife America, so adamantly opposed to this regulation?

Let's explore that.

One plausible answer is that these groups do not want to come out of the regulatory shadows that have allowed unknown individuals to discharge unknown pesticides, in unknown quantities, with unknown mixtures, and at unknown locations.

I wonder how the American public would react to the fact that, for decades, pesticide sprayers could apply massive amounts of potentially harmful materials almost completely below the radar.

In fact, prior to the issuance of the pesticide general permit, the only hard evidence on pesticide usage in this country came from a voluntary sampling of the types and amounts of pesticides that were purchased from the commercial dealers of pesticides. No comprehensive information was available or required on the quantities, types, or locations of pesticides applied in this country.

Based on that practice, I guess we should not be surprised that, for decades, pesticides have been detected in the majority of our Nation's surface and groundwater, which leads me to

question how eliminating any reporting requirement on the use of pesticides is protective of human health and the environment. All this would do is make it harder to locate the sources of pesticide contamination in our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, and it would make the accountability for these discharges even more difficult. If this legislation were to pass, we would require more disclosure of those who manufacture pesticides than those who actually release these dangerous chemicals into the real world.

During the debate this past Monday, several speakers questioned the environmental and public health benefits of the Clean Water Act for the application of pesticides. However, many of these benefits are so obvious that it is not surprising they may have otherwise gone overlooked.

First, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to minimize pesticide discharges through the use of pesticide management measures, such as integrated pest management. I find it very difficult to argue that using an appropriate amount of pesticides for certain applications would be a problem.

Second, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents that result from spraying.

I would think that monitoring for large fish or wildlife kills would actually be a mutually agreed-upon benefit.

Also, it is the Clean Water Act and not FIFRA that requires pesticide applicators to keep records on where and how many pesticides are being applied throughout the Nation. Again, if data is showing that a local water body is contaminated by pesticides, I would think the public would want to quickly identify the likely sources of pesticide that is causing the impairment.

Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware that, despite repeated requests to both EPA and the States, of any specific example where the current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing their services.

So despite claims to the contrary, the Clean Water Act has not significantly increased the compliance costs to States or individual pesticide sprayers, nor has it been used as a tool by outside groups or the EPA to ban the use of pesticides.

So let me summarize just a few points.

One, the Clean Water Act does provide a valuable service in ensuring that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at the appropriate times and that pesticides are not having an adverse impact on human health or the environment.

Number two, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit has imposed no impediment on the ability of pesticide applicators to provide their valuable service to both agricultural and public health communities. In fact, most pesticide applications are automatically covered by the pesticide general permit, either by no action or by filing of an electronic notice of intent.

Three, Federal and State data make clear that application of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA alone, as was the case for many years, was insufficient to protect water bodies throughout the Nation from being contaminated by pesticides. So, if we care about water quality, more needed to be done.

I can see no legitimate reason why we would want to allow any user of potentially harmful chemicals to return to the regulatory shadows that existed prior to the issuance of Clean Water Act pesticide general permits. It has caused no known regulatory, administrative, or significant financial burden, and it has been implemented seamlessly across country. As was stated during the debate on Monday, this legislation is seeking to address a pretend problem that simply does not exist.

I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clear up a couple of points here.

For the record, 45 States actually manage their own pesticide programs. So it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government or the EPA.

In fact, contrary to what we have heard here tonight, Mr. Speaker, small applicators are already covered. They don't need to do anything. They are covered already under the permitting process.

And then just to be clear, in fact, in the management of those 45 States--a State like Idaho, for example, currently has 122 active permits, and there has been no charge for that permit. It is free from the Federal Government. And that is true for actually a number of States.

Now, we have heard about the dramatic effect that the regulations would have. But, in fact, for almost 3 years now, there has been no drama. The process has worked well. And confusing the FIFRA process and the purposes of the Clean Water Act, I think in some ways, is what brings us here today. As I said earlier, they are very distinct. And, in fact, just because we need to cover applying pesticides and controlling the way that those are applied and the application doesn't absolve us of a responsibility also to make certain that our water bodies are clean.

There is another myth, actually, that has been put forward here that we have heard. And that is that maintaining the Clean Water Act would subject pesticide applicators to litigation and increase citizen suits. In fact, this is false. If a pesticide applicator abides by the terms of the Clean Water Act, the pesticide general permit--which applies in accordance with the FIFRA label and minimizes the use of the pesticide and conducts routine monitoring of acute impacts--they are, by the terms of the Clean Water Act, immune from lawsuits by any party.

Another myth that we have just heard here is that the permitting process, Mr. Speaker, the FIFRA requirements and the Clean Water Act, are duplicative. As I have said earlier, FIFRA addresses the safety and effectiveness on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse impacts on human health and the environment through uniform labeling requirements. In contrast, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of local water bodies, with direct considerations on the potential impact of additional pollutants to specific waters. So measuring the human health and environment with uniform labeling and protecting the waters are two separate purposes.

Another myth that we have heard here is that most of the pesticides that are contained in the existing studies are legacy pesticides that are no longer used domestically. There is no evidence of pesticide contamination by currently used pesticides. This is absolutely false.

Although the U.S. Geological Survey did publish a report in 2006 that documented how pesticides were detected in every stream tested by the USGS, including pesticides such as DDT and chlordane that were previously banned as recently as 2014, the USGS has published several research studies showing how more recently developed pesticides and insecticides are being detected as widespread in streams in high corn and soybean regions of the United States.

So we have heard a lot of mythology here, but it is important for Congress to deal in reality. So I just wanted to clear those things for the record.

And I would inquire of the gentleman if he has additional requests for time because I am prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter from 144 environmental organizations, community-based organizations around the country that oppose H. Res. 935.

Beyond Pesticides, Beyond Toxics, CATA--The Farmworker

Support Committee, Center for Biological Diversity,

Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Species

Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida,

Greenpeace, Louisiana Environmental Action Network,

League of Conservation Voters, Lower Mississippi

Riverkeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council,

Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides,

Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest

Environmental Defense Center, Pesticide Action Network,

San Francisco Baykeeper, Sierra Club, Surfrider

Foundation, Waterkeeper Alliance, Waterkeepers

Carolina,

July 25, 2014.

Re Oppose H.R. 935 (``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of

2013'')

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members

and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 935

(``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013''), which would

prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting

water supplies from direct applications of pesticides.

Nearly 150 human health, fishing, environmental, and other

organizations have opposed efforts like H.R. 935 that would

undermine Clean Water Act permitting for direct pesticide

applications to waterways. We attach a list of these groups

for your reference, as well as a one-page fact sheet with

more information on the issue.

Regulating pesticide discharges to waterways under the

Clean Water Act is critical. Despite current regulation under

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,

pesticides continue to impair our waterways in significant

quantities and have caused real harm to public health and

ecosystems. H.R. 935 would render ineffective the Clean Water

Act pesticide general permit that took effect in 2011

(``pesticide general permit''). This permit is necessary to

protect our waterways, public health, and fish and wildlife.

There have been mischaracterizations of the existing permit

that we must correct:

The pesticide general permit has no significant effect on

farming practices. The permit in no way affects land

applications of pesticides for the purpose of controlling

pests. Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater

runoff will not require permits, even when they contain

pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the Clean

Water Act remain.

The pesticide general permit allows for spraying to combat

vector-borne diseases such as the West Nile virus. According

to the Environmental Protection Agency, the permit ``provides

that pesticide applications are covered automatically under

the permit and may be performed immediately for any declared

emergency pest situations.''

The pesticide general permit--which has been in place for

more than two and a half years now--simply lays out

commonsense practices for applying pesticides directly to

waters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of the

Clean Water Act. Efforts to block this permit are highly

controversial, as evidenced by the attached list of groups

opposed.

Please protect the health of your state's citizens and all

Americans by opposing H.R. 935.

Sincerely,

Marty Hayden, Vice President, Policy & Legislation,

Earthjustice; Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director,

Natural Resources Defense Council; Sara Chieffo,

Legislative Director, League of Conservation Voters;

Dalal Aboulhosn, Senior Washington Representative,

Sierra Club; Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety &

Environmental Health Project Coordinator, Farmworker

Association of Florida; Nelson Carrasquillo, Executive

Director, CATA--The Farmworker Support Committee; Mary

Beth Beetham, Director of Legislative Affairs,

Defenders of Wildlife; Jay Feldman, Executive Director,

Beyond Pesticides; Brett Hartl, Endangered Species

Policy Director, Center for Biological Diversity; Nina

Bell, Executive Director, Northwest Environmental

Advocates; Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace.

Pete Nichols, National Director, Waterkeeper Alliance;

Heather Ward, Executive Director, Waterkeepers,

Carolina; Mark Riskedahl, Executive Director, Northwest

Environmental Defense Center; Tara Thornton, Program

Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Marylee Orr,

Executive Director, Louisiana Environmental Action

Network; Paul Orr, Riverkeeper, Lower Mississippi

Riverkeeper; Jason Flanders, Program Director, San

Francisco Baykeeper; Kristin S. Schafer, Policy

Director, Pesticide Action Network; Lisa Arkin,

Executive Director, Beyond Toxics; Gus Gates, Oregon

Policy Manager, Surfrider Foundation; Kim Leval,

Executive Director, Northwest Center for Alternatives

to Pesticides.

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

Again, I think it is important for us to deal in facts and not in mythology. And a couple of the facts are these:

In 2008, States reported to the EPA--that is, State reporting agencies--that 16,819 miles of rivers and streams, 1,766 square miles of bays and estuaries, and

260,342 acres of lakes are impaired or threatened by pesticides. So it is simply not the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there is no identified pesticide contamination in our water bodies. It is simply not true.

I just want to note also for the record, Mr. Speaker, that, again, there has been no evidence at all that, again, despite the repeated request of the EPA and State-run permit programs, that there are specific examples where the application of the Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing their services. So if there was a problem and a burden, then identify it. And there simply has been no identification of such a problem.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to review our recent history. Just on Monday of this past week, the House of Representatives actually defeated the bill that we are considering tonight, H.R. 935, under suspension of the rules. So having gone through that defeat, tonight we have debated the merits again of that same piece of legislation under a rule that does not allow any amendments to improve the bill to be offered, debated, or voted on. Tomorrow, the House will, once again, vote on passage of H.R. 935, the bill that failed under a suspension of the rules on Monday.

This legislation will undermine one of our Nation's most successful environmental laws, the Clean Water Act, in limiting the potential contamination of our Nation's waters by pesticides.

Contrary to some of the rhetoric--some of which we have heard tonight, Mr. Speaker--the Environmental Protection Agency has successfully drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit for the last 2\1/2\ years.

That regulation has several commonsense precautionary measures that limit contamination of local waters by pesticides--we have heard from the States even since 2008 that pesticide contamination in thousands of miles of streams, rivers, and estuaries are in fact contaminated by pesticide--while it would allow pesticide applicators to meet their vital public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a cost-effective manner.

Now, last Congress, Mr. Speaker, the House narrowly approved a similar bill, H.R. 872, under suspension of the rules by a vote of 292- 130, under the guise of regulatory uncertainty under a yet-unseen Clean Water Act permit program.

However, since that time, the EPA has issued a reasonable and protective Clean Water Act permit program that preserves vital farming, forestry, and mosquito control activities at the same time as protecting our Nation's waters. So a year passed, and we have implemented a program that is underway now.

Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act is a key to those of us who value clean drinking water and fishable, swimmable waters or who represent States that depend on tourism, like my home State of Maryland, since we have the fourth longest coastline in the continental United States, the Chesapeake Bay--which is the largest estuary in the United States--and several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, Patuxent, Potomac, and Severn Rivers that flow through the Fourth Congressional District.

The shoreline of the Chesapeake and its tidal tributaries stretch for over 2,000 miles, and thousands of streams, rivers, and acres of wetlands provide the freshwater that flows into the bay.

Thanks to the Clean Water Act, over the past 40-plus years, billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers, and the number of waters that meet clean water goals nationwide has doubled, with direct benefits for drinking water, public health, recreation and wildlife.

The act represents a huge step forward by requiring States to set clean water standards to protect uses such as swimming, fishing, and drinking and for the regulation of pollution discharges.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly want to return to a laissez-faire policy that provided no accountability to who was using what pesticides, where they were using those pesticides, and in what amounts and resulted in thousands of miles of streams and lakes being contaminated by pesticides.

I would urge my colleagues to take the commonsense approach that the EPA has taken and to, on both sides of the aisle, vote ``no'' on H.R. 935 and to once again vote down legislation that is looking to solve a problem, Mr. Speaker, that simply does not exist.

With that, Mr. Speaker, 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.