Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his leadership on this bill and a host of others in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to have a pop quiz. That may seem unfair to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I am going to give them a hint: the answer to every one of the questions is the same. I am going to read a quote and then you tell me who said it:

These last few years, we have seen an unacceptable abuse of power, having a President whose priority is expanding his own power.

Any guess on who said that? Mr. Chairman, it was Senator Barack Obama.

Here is another one:

No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the coequal branch the Constitution made it.

That was Senator Barack Obama.

What do we do with a President who can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don't agree with this part or that part?

Senator Barack Obama.

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

Senator Barack Obama.

And my favorite, Mr. Chairman:

One of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power of the other branches. And I think the Chief Justice has been a little too willing and eager to give the President more power than I think the Constitution originally intended.

So my question, Mr. Chairman, is how in the world can you get before the Supreme Court if you don't have standing? What did the President mean by that when he looked to the Supreme Court to rein in executive overreach? If you don't have standing, how can you possibly get before the Supreme Court?

So my question is, Mr. Chairman, what has changed? How does going from being a Senator to a President rewrite the Constitution? What is different from when he was a Senator?

Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is an amendment to the Constitution that I missed. I try to keep up with those with regularity, but what I do know is this: process matters. If you doubt it, Mr. Chairman, ask a prosecutor or a police officer, both of whom, as my friends on the other side of the aisle know, both of them are members of the executive branch. What happens when a police officer fails to check the right box on a search warrant application? The evidence is thrown out even though he was well-intended, even though he had good motivations, even though he got the evidence, because process matters.

What happens when the police go and get a confession from the defendant? He did it. This is not a who-done-it; he admitted he did it. You got the right person for the right crime, but what happens if he doesn't follow the process? The defendant walks free. The criminal defense attorneys who are now Congressmen on the other side of the aisle know that is exactly what they argued when they were before the judge; not that the end justifies the means. Don't look at the motivations, look at the process.

Mr. Chairman, we are not a country where the end justifies the means, no matter how good your motivations may be. We all swore an allegiance to the same document that the President swears allegiance to: to faithfully execute the law. So I will be listening intently during this debate for one of my colleagues to explain to me what does that phrase mean. What does it mean, not to execute the law, but when the Framers thought enough of that phrase to add the modifier ``faithfully''? What does that mean?

If a President does not faithfully execute the law, Mr. Chairman, what are our remedies? Do we just sit and wait on another election? Do we use the power of the purse, the power of impeachment? Those are punishments; those are not remedies. The remedy is to do exactly what Barack Obama said to do: to go to court, to go to the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court say once and for all.

We don't pass suggestions in this body, Mr. Chairman, we don't pass ideas; we pass laws, and we expect them to be faithfully executed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a moment as colleagues--not as Republicans or Democrats, not as members of the majority or the minority, but colleagues who are blessed to serve in the United States House of Representatives, the people's House, with all the tradition, with all the history, with all the laws that have been passed, with all the lives that have been impacted. I want us to talk as colleagues. Because our foundational document gave us, as the House, unique powers and responsibilities. We run every 2 years because they intended for us to be closest to the people.

The President was given different duties and powers. The President was given the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

So my question, Mr. Speaker, is what does that mean to you, that the laws be faithfully executed?

We know the President can veto a bill for any reason or no reason. We know the President can refuse to defend the constitutionality of a statute, even one that he signs into law.

We know the President can issue pardons for violations of the very laws that we pass, and we know the President has prosecutorial discretion, as evidenced and used through his U.S. attorneys.

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of power. What are we to do when that amount of power is not enough?

What are we to do when this President, or any President, decides to selectively enforce a portion of a law and ignore other portions of that law?

What do we do, Mr. Speaker, regardless of motivation, when a President nullifies our vote by failing to faithfully execute the law?

How do we explain waivers and exemptions and delays in a bill passed by Congress and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court?

How do we explain away a refusal to enforce mandatory minimums that were passed by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court?

Why pursue, Mr. Speaker, immigration reform if Presidents can turn off the very provisions that we pass?

You know, in the oaths that brand new citizens take, it contains six different references to the law. If it is good enough for us to ask brand new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the President do the same?

If a President can change some laws, can he change all laws? Can he change election laws? Can he change discrimination laws? Are there any laws, under your theory, that he actually has to enforce?

What is our recourse, Mr. Speaker?

What is our remedy?

Some would argue the Framers gave us the power of the purse and the power of impeachment, but Mr. Speaker, those are punishments, those are not remedies.

What is the remedy if we want the Executive to enforce our work?

This bill simply gives us standing when our votes are nullified. This bill allows us to petition the judicial branch for an order requiring the executive branch to faithfully execute the law.

Mr. Speaker, we are not held in high public esteem right now. Maybe Members of Congress would be respected more if we respected ourselves enough to require that when we pass something, it be treated as law.

Maybe we would be more respected if we had a firmly rooted expectation that when we pass something as law, it be treated as law.

Maybe we would be more respected if we put down party labels and a desire to keep or retain or acquire the gavel and picked up the history, the tradition, and the honor of this, the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives does not exist to pass suggestions. We do not exist to pass ideas. We make law.

While you are free to stand and clap when any President comes into this hallowed Chamber and promises to do it, with or without you, I will never stand and clap when any President, no matter whether he is your party or mine, promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. We make law.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source