Floor Statements

Let me thank my colleague for yielding, and let me thank all of my colleagues who have worked to put this bill together.

Madam Chair, today, I rise--and the House rises--to support and defend our Constitution. We do not take this action lightly; but, simply, there is no alternative. This is not a dispute between the parties or even between the branches of our government.

This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself. I appreciate all of the efforts of those working to fix our broken immigration system, especially since I am one of them.

What we are dealing with is a President who has ignored the people, who has ignored the Constitution, and even his own past statements. In fact, on at least 22 occasions, he said he did not have the authority to do what he has done.

Before he became President, on March 31, 2008, the President said: ``I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with the President trying to . . . not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm President.''

On May 19, 2008, the President said, ``I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.''

After he was President, on May 5, 2010, the President said, ``Anybody who tells you . . . that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.''

On July 1, 2010, the President said: ``There are those . . . who have argued passionately that we should . . . at least ignore the laws on the books . . . I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.''

On October 14, 2010, the President said: ``I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there.''

On October 25, 2010, the President said: ``I am President. I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. . . . I can't just make the laws up by myself.''

On March 28, 2011, the President said: ``America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.''

On April 20, 2011, the President said: ``I can't solve this problem by myself. . . . I can't do it by myself.''

On April 29, 2011, the President said: ``Some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that's not how democracy works.''

On May 10, 2011, the President said: ``They wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that's not how a democracy works.''

On July 25, 2011, the President said: ``The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. . . . But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.''

On September 28, 2011, the President said: ``We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.''

On September 20, 2012, the President said: ``What I've always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there's a limit to what I can do.''

On October 16, 2012, the President said: ``We're . . . a nation of laws. . . . And I've done everything that I can on my own.''

On January 30, 2013, the President said: ``I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law.''

On January 30, 2013, the President also said: ``I'm not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.''

On February 14, 2013, the President said: ``The problem is that I'm the President of the United States. I'm not the emperor of the United States.''

On July 16, 2013, the President said: ``I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative.''

On September 17, 2013, the President said: ``My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. . . . But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law.''

On November 25, 2013, the President said: ``The easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. . . . That's not our tradition.''

On March 6, 2014, the President said: ``And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore . . . any of the other laws that are on the books.''

And on August 6, 2014, the President said: ``I'm bound by the Constitution; I'm bound by separation of powers.''

To think that the President of the United States actually studied constitutional law is one thing. But he didn't just learn constitutional law, he taught it as well. But now his actions suggest that he has forgotten what these words even mean.

Enough is enough. By their votes last November, the people made clear that they wanted more accountability from this President; and by our votes here today, we will heed their will, and we will keep our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, since 1983, the U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and interact on issues of mutual interest.

A staff delegation from the U.S. Congress will be selected to visit Germany for ten days from Friday, June 26-Sunday, July 5, 2015. During this ten day exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag/Bundesrat Members, Bundestag and Bundesrat party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic, and media agencies.

A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for ten days Saturday, May 9-Sunday, May 17, 2015. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington. The U.S. delegation is expected to organize and facilitate these meetings.

The Congress-Bundestag/Bundesrat Exchange is highly regarded in Germany and the United States, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. This exchange is funded by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag reciprocates by sending senior staff professionals to the United States.

Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern to the United States and Germany such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. This year's delegation should be familiar with transatlantic relations within the context of recent world events.

In addition, U.S. participants are expected to plan and implement the program for the Bundestag/Bundesrat staff members when they visit the United States.

Participants are selected by a committee composed of personnel from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State and past participants of the exchange.

Members of the House and Senate who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state their qualifications, the contributions they can make to a successful program and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated.

Applications should be sent to the Office of Interparliamentary Affairs, HC-4, the Capitol, by 5 p.m. on Friday, February 27, 2015.

``We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following memoranda of understanding.

Memorandum of Understanding

On January 6, 2015, the House agreed to H. Res. 5,

establishing the rules of the House for the 114th Congress.

Section 2(a)(2)(A) of H. Res. 5 contained a provision adding

`` criminalization'' to the jurisdictional statement of the

Committee on the Judiciary.

The Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on

Agriculture jointly acknowledge as the authoritative source

of legislative history concerning section 2(a)(2)(A) of H.

Res. 5 the description printed in the Congressional Record

and submitted by Rules Committee Chair Pete Sessions.

By this memorandum, the committees record their further

mutual understandings by providing the following example,

which will supplement the statement cited above.

In general, this change is not intended to cover measures

that make changes to a regulatory or revenue collection

scheme without making changes to the specific conduct that

triggers a criminal penalty that is part of the enforcement

regime.

For instance, where a statute prohibits unauthorized

movement of certain prohibited plants or animals without the

proper permit and imposes a criminal sanction for a violation

of the permit, a measure which simply makes changes to the

permitting process would not fall within the scope of this

rules change, even in the case where a criminal penalty

applies broadly to the statute in question. It is the conduct

of moving the prohibited item, not the permitting process,

which gives rise to the Committee on the Judiciary's

jurisdictional interest.

This example is intended to be merely illustrative rather

than exclusive or exhaustive. Nothing in this memorandum

precludes a further agreement between the committees with

regard to the implementation of this provision.

Bob Goodlatte,

Chair, Committee on the Judiciary.

K. Michael Conaway,

Chair, Committee on Agriculture.

Thank you.

Friends, colleagues, countrymen, and especially the people of Ohio's Eighth Congressional District, thank you for sending me here. Let us today welcome all of the new Members and all of their families to what we all know to be a truly historic day.

As we welcome all of the Members back who were reelected, we want to welcome your families as well, and I want to thank my family. I was doing pretty well on the walk over here from my ceremonial office until I ran into Devin Nunes' three little girls--my three biggest fans--and one of them came running over and gave me a kiss, and I was a mess.

This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad. We rejoice that our new Members and families are here. We welcome them. We are glad and humbled to begin anew as servants of the people's House. Here, it is our duty and our privilege to lend a willing ear to the people, to make laws in tune with their priorities and within the limits of their Constitution.

In recent months, our economy has shown signs of improvement, and after difficult years, it may be a temptation to accept what I will call the new normal. But America did not become exceptional by ease. Far too many Americans remain out of work, and too many are working harder only to lose ground to stagnant wages and rising costs. We can do better. We can build an economy that furthers better-paying jobs, more growth, and more opportunity for the Nation's middle class. This is our vital task.

We will begin this endeavor on common ground, both in letter and in spirit. It was actually my predecessor, Nicholas Longworth of Cincinnati, who changed the order of things so that all Members now take the oath of office at the same time. He called this innovation a timesaving device. He sounds like my kind of guy. But this shared ritual is no passing formality. It is a frontier where words end and where deeds begin.

The pessimists don't see us crossing this channel. They say nothing is going to be accomplished here, that division is wider than ever and so gridlock will be even greater. Frankly, fair enough. Skepticism of our government is healthy and, in our time, quite understandable. But one problem with saying it can't be done is that it already has been done--or at least started.

In the last Congress, this House passed a number of jobs bills with broad support from the majority and the minority, and we will begin our work on this common ground, taking up measures to develop North American energy, restore the hours of middle class workers, and help small businesses hire more of our veterans. We invite the President to support and sign these bipartisan initiatives into law. It will be a good start; and more, it will be a sign that the logjam is breaking, and it will be a foundation on which to address the bigger challenges in the pursuit of freedom and security.

No, this won't be done in a tidy way. The battle of ideas never ends and, frankly, never should. As Speaker, all I ask--and, frankly, expect--is that we disagree without being disagreeable. In return, I pledge to help each of you carry out your duties. My door, of course, is always open. Now don't get carried away with it--all right?--but it is always open.

My colleagues, some things we do here will be characterized as shadowboxing and show business, but let me tell you and the American people, it is real work. It is a grind, as it should be, in striving to preserve the things that we all hold dear.

Every day, you and I come out here, try to plant good seeds, cultivate the ground, and take care of the pests; and then, with patience and some sacrifice and God's grace, there will be a harvest. Along the way, we may falter, but we Americans do not fall away from the task. We do not quit.

So let's stand tall and prove the skeptics wrong. Let's make this a time of harvest, and may the fruits of our labors be ladders our children can use to climb the stairs to the stars.

Thank you all, and God bless the United States of America.

I am now ready to take the oath of office.

I ask the Dean of the House of Representatives, the Honorable John Conyers of Michigan, to administer the oath of office.

Mr. Conyers then administered the oath of office to Mr. Boehner of Ohio, as follows:

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and

defend the Constitution of the United States against all

enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith

and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation

freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;

and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of

the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.

(Applause, the Members rising.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Joe W. Strickland, the Chief Reporter of Debates, for his contributions to the House of Representatives during almost 22 years of service.

The House has employed Official Reporters of Debates since 1873, when the Speaker of the House took control of the privately-run Congressional Globe and the verbatim proceedings of events were published as the Congressional Record--as they still are today.

It was a five-man operation back then, and the Reporters were praised in the New York Tribune for their ``intimate knowledge of the precedents and practice of the House, and of the national events, great and small, which have passed in close review before their eyes.''

Joe follows in that long tradition, noted in the Tribune, of ``superior ability'' and ``efficiency,'' though the office is now under the supervision of the Clerk of the House and has grown to 43 people. Joe has worked diligently to achieve the daunting task of maintaining an accurate record not only of House Floor proceedings but of House Committee work, as well. In addition to his managerial responsibilities, he has been front and center, reporting seven State of the Union speeches and several Joint Meetings to receive messages from foreign heads of state, such as Afghan President Hamid Karzai and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Joe was born in central Texas and graduated from Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene with a degree in music. A tenor, he regularly toured with an all-male quartet and performed at conventions and competitions from Moscow to Washington, DC, including engagements at the White House.

After college, Joe co-owned a travel and tour company and pursued several other passions before turning his sights on court reporting. Joe attended court reporting school outside of Dallas, and he quickly earned a position as a real-time captionist for a television station. A mere three years later, his skills won him a place as an Official Reporter of Debates for the U.S. House of Representatives, reporting both Committee and Floor debates. The Clerk of the House promoted Joe to Deputy Chief of the office in 2000, and he became Chief Reporter of Debates in 2005.

Joe is recognized by the National Court Reporters Association as a Registered Professional Reporter, a Certified Realtime Reporter, and a Certified Communication Access Realtime Translation provider-- qualifications that place him among the elite in court reporting.

Mr. Speaker, the work of the Official Reporters of Debates has been an essential part of House operations for more than 140 years, and while the technology has changed, the dedication of the Reporters, like Joe, has not. We are sad to lose such a valuable member of the House Clerk's team, but we wish him and his family the very best during a long and happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a very special person to our local area, Carl Lindner, as the city of Cincinnati recently moved to adorn one of its downtown streets with Mr. Lindner's name.

Mr. Lindner spent a lifetime making the Queen City the best place on earth to live and raise a family. I cannot think of a better place to honor him than on the streets of the city he loved and worked so hard to make better for us and for our children.

He was a wonderful man, and, more importantly, a good friend to so many of us. It's for these reasons that our community is so very grateful, and I ask all Members of the House to join me as we celebrate Carl Lindner's legacy.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant, David M. Schnittger of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

David will be leaving the Office of the Speaker shortly after two decades of distinguished service to the people's House. He has performed his duties with unparalleled skill and devotion. I am honored to have this opportunity to record his service for posterity.

Like me, David was born and raised in Southwest Ohio and graduated from Archbishop Moeller High School. He volunteered on my first campaign for Congress in 1990 while he was attending the University of Dayton, where he graduated with a degree in economics and political science.

Since officially becoming a member of my staff in 1994, David has served as both press secretary and chief of staff for my office serving Ohio's Eighth District. In addition, he served as communications director for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce during my tenure as chairman.

Since 2006, he has served as deputy chief of staff in the Office of the Majority Leader, Office of the Minority Leader, and Office of the Speaker. As one of my most trusted advisers, he has overseen communications, speechwriting, outreach, and special events operations.

This biography, while impressive, does not do justice to the sheer breadth of David's contributions. It is not enough to say he enjoys the respect and admiration of his colleagues. He has inspired generations of staff who will always cherish his wisdom and strive to emulate his example of loyalty and integrity to the last. He has served as the beating heart of this operation he helped build. These are irreplaceable things.

On behalf of the people's House--and on behalf of Boehnerland, from West Chester to Springfield to Troy to Washington, DC--I thank David for his service. I send our love to his wife Stephanie, and their five beautiful children: Ella, Kayla, Julia, Andrew, and Cecilia.

This House, especially this Speaker, owes an immeasurable debt of gratitude to the Schnittger family.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of Division N, Section 101 is to establish separate limits for funds raised into separate, segregated accounts established by national political party committees for certain specified purposes. All of these funds are ``hard money'' subject to all of the source limitations, prohibitions, and disclosure provisions of the Act.

The first account, described in section 315(a)(9)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (``FECA'') (as amended), is intended to allow a national committee of a political party (other than a national congressional campaign committee) to defray expenses related to a presidential nominating convention using funds raised under separate, increased limits. Section 315(a)(9)(A) also caps the aggregate amount of expenditures a national political party committee may make from such account with respect to any convention at $20,000,000. This section is intended to provide national political party committees with a means of acquiring additional resources to be used specifically in connection with the funding of presidential nominating conventions because such conventions may no longer be paid for with public funds. It is the intent to allow these funds to be used in the same manner as the former public funds could have been used, as well as to pay for the costs of fundraising for this segregated account.

The second account, described in section 315(a)(9)(B) of FECA (as amended), is intended to permit a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) to defray expenses incurred with respect to the construction, purchase, renovation, operation and furnishing of party headquarters buildings located throughout the United States, including the cost of fundraising for this segregated account, using funds raised under separate, increased limits. Funds in these accounts also may be used to repay loans and other obligations incurred for the purpose of defraying such building expenses, including loans and obligations incurred two years before the date of the enactment of this Act.

The third account, described in section 315(a)(9)(C) of FECA (as amended), is intended to permit a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) to defray expenses incurred with respect to the preparation for and the conduct of election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings, including the costs of fundraising for this segregated account, using funds raised under a separate limit Section 101 of Division N is not intended to modify Federal Election Commission precedent permitting the raising and spending of funds by campaign or state or national party committees. See FEC Advisory Opinions 2006-24, 2009-4. Section 101 is also intended to permit the national parties to use such funds for costs, fees, and disbursements associated with other legal proceedings.

Finally, under current law coordinated limits do not apply even absent these provisions to the existing accounts as described in section 315 of FECA and therefore it is the intent of the amendments contained herein that expenditures made from the accounts described in section 315(a)(9) of FECA, many of which (such as recount and legal proceeding expenses) are not for the purpose of influencing federal elections, do not count against the coordinated party expenditure limits described in section 315(d) of FECA.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Let me add my words of congratulations to our good friend from Michigan, John Dingell, who has been a mentor to Members on both sides of the aisle and has carried more institutional history than anyone here. My job tonight is to say thank you and merry Christmas.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Latham. I know my colleagues will agree that his retirement is a loss for the House and his constituents.

Ten times beginning in 1994, the people of Iowa had the wisdom to send a good man to Washington.

He brought with him true and much-needed Iowa values, fighting the good fight for individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and economic opportunity.

His work on the Appropriations Committee for first responders, the Iowa National Guard, agriculture, and education will long outlast him-- a legacy of leadership many aspire to, but few truly achieve.

In addition, as the House is well-aware, Mr. Latham is my best friend. This, like all his other duties, he has handled with grace and good humor.

On behalf of the House, I thank Mr. Latham for his service and wish him and his wife, Kathy, all the best.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I also want to thank the whole House for its work to address the American peoples' concerns about jobs and our economy. All told, we have sent the Senate now more than 40 jobs bills, almost all of them in a bipartisan way.

From the first day of this Congress, I have said our focus would be on jobs, and it has been, but also on that first day, you may recall that I addressed the House about the importance of our oath of office. I noted that it is the same oath we all take, that it makes no mention of party, it makes no mention of faction or agenda. The oath only refers to the Constitution and our obligation to defend it.

Mr. Speaker, I said that with moments like this in mind. I said that knowing there would be times when we would have to do things we didn't come here to do, we didn't plan to do, and things that require us to consider interests greater than our own interests.

I have to think this is why, on several occasions, members of the minority party have taken a similar step. In 2011, some of them filed litigation against the Vice President. They took similar steps in 2006, 2002, 2001, and so forth.

Because this isn't about Republicans and Democrats--it is about defending the Constitution that we swore an oath to uphold and acting decisively when it may be compromised.

No Member of this body needs to be reminded of what the Constitution states about the President's obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our Nation. No Member needs to be reminded of the bonds of trust that have been frayed, of the damage that has already been done to our economy and to our people.

Are you willing to let any President choose what laws to execute and what laws to change? Are you willing to let anyone tear apart what our Founders have built? Think not only about the specifics of the oath you took, but think about how you took it: as one body, standing together.

That is all I am asking you to do today, to act as one institution defending the Constitution on behalf of the people that we serve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Freedom Summer and the significant role of Western College for Women in Oxford, Ohio, now part of Miami University.

In the summer of 1964, college students, civil rights activists, and volunteers joined together to advance the civil rights of African- Americans in Mississippi. The initiative, called the Mississippi Summer Project, was a comprehensive approach to educate and register African- American voters. Hundreds of volunteers assembled in June 1964 at the Western College for Women in Oxford, Ohio for training, learning non- violent methods for dealing with potentially violent opposition.

The memory of Freedom Summer lives on in the account of three brave participants--Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman--who lost their lives in the pursuit of civil rights. These young men departed Oxford, Ohio on June 20, 1964 to investigate a church fire in Mississippi and disappeared shortly thereafter. Burned remains of their car were found on June 23, 1964. The disappearance and deaths of Michael, James, and Andrew brought national attention to Freedom Summer and underscored the obstacles and danger that faced each participant.

I am proud of our community and its meaningful role in Freedom Summer. Throughout 2014, Miami University is hosting a series of activities and events entitled ``Celebrating Freedom: Understanding the Past, Building the Future.'' On October 12-14, 2014, activists and leaders will reunite and join current Miami University students for a national conference to explore the enduring importance of Freedom Summer.

As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of Freedom Summer, it is important to remember this period in our history as more than just a passage in time. Our nation also heralded the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on July 2. The 50th anniversary of these historic events is an opportunity for all Americans to reflect on the Civil Rights Movement and to build on the work of the heroic leaders who came before us.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to recognize a special guest who is in our Nation's Capital today. Dr. Jessica Bienstock is the residency program director for the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

In her career, she has delivered over 1,000 babies, and one of them is well known to all of us, and she is Abigail Rose Beutler, who of course is the daughter of our friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Washington. We are all familiar with Abigail's story and the odds that she overcame. If she is a happy, healthy miracle, then Dr. Bienstock is the miracle worker who helped give the gift of hope and life to this family.

I think the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to her and to all of our doctors, nurses, and medical professionals.

Good morning.

Good morning, and let me just say welcome back to all of you. It has been a long year since you were here last, but over the course of the year I think you all know we lost former Speaker Tom Foley. We lost our good friend Bill Young. And over the course of the last 6 months or so we have had a number of retirements, from Henry Waxman and George Miller, to Dave Camp and Doc Hastings, Buck McKeon, and my good friend Tom Latham.

And so the institution, the institution is actually doing pretty well. I know from the outside people don't quite see that, but I think a lot of you know I am committed to an open process on the floor, amendments from both sides of the aisle. We have had a much more open process, and I think the result of that is we are beginning to see more bipartisan legislation.

Last week we came to an agreement with the House and the Senate in a bipartisan, bicameral way on a job training and retraining bill to consolidate programs and make it easier for people to get the kind of training they need for the jobs that are out there today.

And then when it comes to the appropriations process, we have been trying to restart this process over the last 3 or 4 years. Today on the floor I think we have got our seventh appropriations bill of the year. Of course, you know, our challenge is always across the Capitol, because they have done exactly none, no appropriation bills. But I do think it is important for us to get this appropriation process up and running in the way it should. It hasn't happened for the last 6 or 7 years, and I think we here in the Congress lose our ability to really direct spending as a result of that.

But by and large, I feel pretty good about where we are. You know, it is an election year, so you all have a pretty good idea of what that means in terms of what happens around here. My big job is making sure we avoid all the potholes between now and election day, and there are some out there.

But anyway, my job this morning is to just say hi to all of you, and welcome you back, and hope that you all have a nice visit here in your old home, the U.S. House.

Thanks.