Faithful Execution of the Law Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I now yield myself such time as I may consume.

I begin by just pointing out, contrary to the gentleman's assertion, the term ``Federal officer'' is mentioned 238 times in the Federal Code, and the Dictionary Act defines ``officer.'' It includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office.

Contrary to some of the other discussions, this bill is focused on trying to make sure that we faithfully enforce the laws and that we understand when the laws are perhaps being not enforced for persons suggesting that they are unconstitutional or otherwise.

So, Madam Speaker, it is inherent, I suppose, in the nature of Washington, D.C., politics that, at a certain point, all of the back-and-forth discussion eventually turns into white noise, and the continual debating, reporting, and blaming is so commonplace that many Americans tune it out entirely.

And just as the partisanship in Washington causes so many to tune out the substance of the debate, so do we also become accustomed sometimes to hearing lofty rhetoric and allusions to our Founding Fathers. But tonight, I pray that we can all truly listen anew to the men whose ideas so revolutionized the world because the challenges we now face were not unforeseen, Madam Speaker.

James Madison, in Federalist Paper 48, expressed his concern that eventually the mere rule of law might not be enough to restrain those who really had a mind to abuse the power of their office. He said:

Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the Constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government.

When Madison originally published this paper in 1788, he did so using the title, ``These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other.''

Mr. Madison expressed these concerns only 12 years after America had declared its independence. And I would submit that in the intervening 226 years, these abuses have spiraled out of control.

I would urge Americans to ask themselves: Has this administration moved our Nation back toward the noble dream imagined by men like James Madison when all laws were equally enforced and all people are equal under those laws, or has this administration worsened the trend Madison detected so early on?

President Obama infamously said on this very floor, Madam Speaker:

We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we are providing Americans the kind of help they need. I have got a pen, and I have got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.

To this I would humbly respond, Madam Speaker, no, he can't, not if what he is doing is abrogating the Constitution of the United States. That is exactly the sort of overreach Madison warned us about, and it is exactly what we are referencing when we talk about an Imperial Presidency.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we are dealing with a President who has admitted he would prefer to be unconfined by constitutional limitations. He specifically said:

Wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation, that is what I am going to do.

Madam Speaker, they say that to be forewarned is to be forearmed. This President has not been shy about his intentions to go beyond the Constitution when he is inclined. Under this administration, the IRS has become a political tool used against those who oppose the President's policies. The Justice Department has adopted a policy of selective law enforcement, essentially rewriting the law by only enforcing the ones they prefer. The Senate's role in the appointment process has been ignored outright, with the administration making so-called recess appointments, even though the Senate was not in recess.

The legislative branch has been deemed little more than an inconvenient hurdle, with legislation like the DREAM Act and ObamaCare being either imposed via fiat or grossly and repeatedly modified without the input, consent, or action on the part of Congress.

We have seen the unconstitutional seizure of reporters' phone records, reported spying even on Members of Congress, and attempting to force small businesses to disclose their political affiliations before being considered for Federal contracts. At what point, Madam Speaker, do we say enough is enough?

I would remind all of us of the pleading words of Daniel Webster to all Americans when he said:

Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution, and to the Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. So hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world.

Madam Speaker, the Faithful Execution of the Law Act is one very important step in the right direction. This bill will help prevent executive overreach and require greater disclosure when it does occur.

I want to thank Congressman DeSantis for bringing this legislation forward. I want to thank Chairman GOODLATTE for his steadfast leadership on bringing this administration's executive overreach to light, and I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

I would say, Madam Speaker, in spite of the many unrelated issues that my friends on the left have brought up to bear on this bill, this bill is about the rule of law. Madam Speaker, I would remind all of us that the rule of law is what we had that little unpleasant discussion with England about so many years ago. After that we wrote a Constitution, and every person in this body swore to defend that Constitution, and that is what we are trying to do here.

If we now, as legislators in the United States Congress, are willing to stand idly by and let the President of the United States arrogate legislative power unto himself and dismiss the Constitution, then we would be obligated, Madam Speaker, to apologize for our oaths and dismiss the dream of human freedom and step back and board this place up and go home.

I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that some of us are not prepared and willing to do that. And so to that end, to the end that we can uphold the rule of law, I would encourage my colleagues to pass this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I would oppose the amendment, as it would explicitly grant the Attorney General the unilateral power to negate the entire bill based on his own subjective determination of what constitutes ``sufficient'' appropriations.

This amendment would shield from accountability the President, the Attorney General, and any other Federal employee from the duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

Madam Speaker, we know that this bill will not cost the taxpayers any money, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. As stated in their official view submitted, CBO estimates:

Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues.

CBO estimates that implementation of the bill would not have a significant effect on the budget because such reporting costs are small and subject already to the availability of appropriated funds.

So, Madam Speaker, why does this amendment grant the Attorney General the unilateral authority to conclude otherwise?

Well, Madam Speaker, the Attorney General works for the President, and when given the opportunity to immunize the President from accountability, what does one think the Attorney General would do? It is logical to assume he would shield the President from accountability.

The base bill is specifically designed to hold the President accountable. This amendment, on the other hand, would allow his own Attorney General to shield the President from accountability, thereby gutting the bill, and so this amendment should be roundly defeated.

Madam Speaker, we have had significant debate here, but it is important to remind ourselves what it really is all about. The rule of law is truly the only context in which human freedom on Earth can exist. It is incumbent upon those of us who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States to protect that rule of law here tonight. This is the intention of this bill. This is the deep commitment that should be on the part of all of us.

With that, I hope my colleagues would defeat this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 3973 is postponed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source