Transcripts For CSPAN3 House Rules Committee Meeting On Pend

Ive learned quite a lot. I, too, w like to associate as myself with the remarks of our chair about how enraged i think we all are when we hear some of the things that weve heard today. I think that just leads us all want to go forth and make sure we do everything we can to cooperate with you to minimize these issues that are out there, if not eliminate them entirely, and i do agree, too, that the role of the internet no doubt has been really important in magnifying the problem multiplying the problem perhaps in many instances, too, so thanks for being here today and i want to thank the chair again for having this hearing. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Ryan, thank you again for being here. We really appreciate your leadership. Appreciate your commitment to this country and our kids. We join you in that effort, and we look forward to continuing our relationship in that dialogue you spoke of and doing everything we can so that families can build better lives for themselves. With that, seeing no further business before the subcommittee, subcommittee stands adjourned. Today the House Rules Committee is holding a hearing to consider the merits and legal viability of a pending lawsuit brought by Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans against president obama. The speaker says the lawsuit aims to stand up for the institution of the legislative branch and ensure the president is proper ly and faithfully executing the laws. Live coverage here on cspan1. Specifically were here to discuss an 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 has gone beyond his article ii powers and has infringed upon article i powers of congress to write the law. Todays hearing is an original jurisdiction hearing, so instead of having members of congress here to testify before us today, we have four expert witnesses who we have welcomed to the rules committee this morning and all of whom have constitutional law scholastic understandings. Their expert testimony will be in response to questions and will allow this committee to better understand the questions at hand as well as our role in rebalancing and carefully understanding the separation of powers. First, we have Jonathan Turley. Second excuse me, and hes the jb and maurice c. Shapiro professor of Public Interest law at George Washington University Law school. Thank you very much for taking time to be with us today. I know you are busy and have schedules that youve got to attend to this afternoon, and as you have previously been a part of our discussion, were going to try and make sure youre an on time delivery there, professor. Thank you very much. Second is professor Elizabeth Pricefoley from Florida International University School of law. Professor foley, thank you for taking time to come with us to be with us today, and we look forward to your testimony. Third, we will hear from simon lorantz, senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. We thank you for taking time, and ive enjoyed our discussions before we walked in today and were delight that had youre with us. Finally we have Walter Dellinger, the douglas b. Maggs Professor Emeritus of the school of law at duke university. We did not bring a basketball for you this morning, but we have a goal in mind today. Professor is also a lawyer at omevley and myers, and thank you very much for joining us. Todays hearing will be structured as follows. Ill share an Opening Statement before turning to our Ranking Member, louise slaughter, so that she can provide us with her Opening Statement. I will then ask each of our witnesses to provide us with their testimony that will help these members of the rules committee to better understand their thoughts on the issues that are before us today. As we hear each witnesses testimony, well then open up the hearing to questions, and i encourage each member of the committee to make an Opening Statement as they choose at the time they have their question. We need to remember that we are attempting to ensure that the members as well as each of our guests have an opportunity to fully vet and give their ideas, but i would ask that we stay after the mark of understanding that were trying to make sure that we stay after the timing that we have previously discussed. Additionally, members should feel free to enter longer statements into the record allows us to stay after this agenda. At the beginning of this congress each of us took an oath of office in which we swore to support and defend the constitution of the United States. Similarly at the beginning of each president ial term, the president takes an oath to faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States and to the best their ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. While these oaths are different on some of the margins the crux of each oath is the same. The president and members of congress each have an obligation to follow and defend the constitution of the United States. The text of the constitution that we have sworn to defend provides separation of powers for each branch of the federal government, article i, puts the power to legislate, to write laws into 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 Founding Fathers knew that by giving one branch the power to write both to write and to execute the law would be a direct threat to liberties of the future of this young and fledgling nation when it began. The separated powers between these branches are there in order to ensure that no one person would trample on the rights of others. 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 influences on other branches, but the president in my opinion has gone too far. Rather than faithfully execute the laws as the constitution requires, the president has instead selectively enforced the law in some instances, ignoring the law in other instances and in a few cases changed the law all together, all without going through the required constitutional lawmaking exercise. The law as written by congress and signed by the president must be enforced by the president as written. If the president wishes that the law be changed, article ii of the constitution provides him or her with the power to recommend to congress consideration of such measures as shall be judged necessary and expedient. The constitution does not, however, give the president the power to rewrite the law by himself. If the president wants a change in the law, the federal government must follow the process as outlined in the constitution and understood under the rule of law that the American People count on. Any approach in which the president can ignore, selectively enforce or unilaterally rewrite the law tilts the balance of power away from legislation and rule of law to the executive. President ial overreach also undermines the rule of law which provides the predictability necessary to govern in a functioning and fair society. When the executive branch goes beyond its constitutional powers and begins exercising the role of the legislative branch, it is important that the remaining branches of government, in our opinion, the judiciary, play its role in rebalancing the separation of powers. After all, the constitutional limits on government power are meaningless unless judges agree and also help us to enforce the limits. It is vital that the judiciary engage with the constitution and play its essential role in the system of checks and billioalan think that were crafted in the original constitution thought of by our Founding Fathers. It is important, i believe, that we acknowledge that this is not a political issue. This is not an issue that should pit republicans against democrats. This is an issue where we must hear testimony from constitutional experts who are able to give us the guidance, and the testimony that we hear today will look deeply into the crux of our constitutional system and the rule of law. Any person interested in our constitution, and what i believe is our brilliant system of separation of powers, should be worried about what is currently happening in this country, and that is why we are here today. I look forward to the testimony of each of our witnesses and have assured each of them that their obligation to this committee is to give us the very best of their thinking, and they are here exactly to do that. I want to thank each of you again. At this time ill yield to the Ranking Member of the committee for any opening remarks she would choose to make. The gentle woman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and let me also welcome our witnesses here this morning, mr. Jonathan foley, Elizabeth Foley and to mr. Walker dellinger and simon lazarus. Were happy to have them here and their collective wisdom about the constitution im sure will serve as well. The rules committee doesnt often have outside witnesses so this is a very rare occasion for us because we have two of the premier constitutional scholars in the United States with us to give the testimony for the minority, and im so happy to have them here. Mr. Dellinger has testified before this committee before, so this is a return visit. Among other laudable achievements mr. Dellinger served in the white house as an adviser to the president on constitutional issues in 1993, served as acting solicitor general, assistant attorney general and head of the office of legal counsel. From 1993 to 1996. He knows how we work here as well because he has testified more than 25 times before committees of congress. Mr. Simon lazarus is currently serving as senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, served as associate director of the white house domestic policy staff from 1977 to 1981. He has extensive background in lawsuit surrounding the Affordable Care act, and mr. Lazarus writes frequently for the American Constitution Society which has published several of his issue briefs including, quote, mandatory Health Insurance, is it constitutional . Which was released during the Senate Health care reform debate in december of 2009, and the Health Reform law lawsuits unraveling a century of constitutional law and the fabric of modern government published in february of 2011. Both very highly received. And im pleased they have both agreed to appear here today as well as our other two witnesses and were delighted to hear from you all. I know that well have some illuminating arguments against what we believe on this side, despite the fact that the chairman has stated otherwise, we think this is purely a political exercise that we have before us. The jurisdiction of the rules committee includes this resolution, and we will be the only committee to hold hearings and to mark up this resolution. That gives us a special responsibility to weigh these issues carefully. The lawsuit is preposterous. It is a political exercise, and if history is our guide well have little chance of surviving in the court. It is based on two false premises, first, that the president acted outside of his authority with respect to the Affordable Care act is the firm opinion of the rules Committee Minority that he did not act outside his authority, and, second premise is that a lawsuit against the president brought by half of congress is possibly the correct way to resolve a political dispute which it certainly is not. And, in fact, if this suit were successful, the result would be to implement the Affordable Care act faster which would be contrary to everything the majority has been fighting and messaging against for the past four years. The whole exercise is incongruous. Perhaps alice in alice of wonderland said it best, quote, sometimes i believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast, end quote. Not only was there no single vote from a member of the Majority Party to Pass Health Care reform, but they spent four years trying to kill it, to repeal it, to derail it and now they are suing the president to implement it faster. It makes no sense. The lawsuit is clearly being used to appease members of the Republican Party who will not rest until president obama is charged with articles of impeachment. This is a partisan political stunt, time to peak in the house of representatives in november right as the midterm elections are happening. The House Majority is suing the president simply for doing his job. This incredible waste of time will also be a colossal waste of money. The rules committee will mark up the resolution and before we do we will want to ask and have asked for a full account of the cost of this exercise, and would i like to insert a letter from congressman robert brady, Ranking Member of House Administration committee to house Speaker John Boehner which addresses this need for transparency. Id ask unanimous consent. Without objection. Thank you. If outside counsel will be employed, how much will they charge . How long is the process expected to take . Cost is not a hypothetical question. There are real consequences, and, remember, that the majoritys legal efforts in support of a discriminatory defense of marriage act cost the american taxpayers 2. 3 million. What will this lawsuit cost . Is it just another example of the House Majority squandering the taxpayer funds to investigate the nonexistence benghazi scandal, there have been more than 13 hearings, 15 briefings, 25,000 pages of documents produced, and the majority came up with nothing and even after they came up with nothing they created a select committee on benghazi with a 3. 3 million budget. And lets not forget that the Government Shutdown was foisted upon the country as another attempt to delay the Affordable Care act, costing the United States economy 24 billion. Republicans took the American People and the economy hostage because they did not want to give the People Health care coverage. The house is more that be 50 votes to repeal or dismantle the Affordable Health care alone has cost an estimated 79 million. All of this to repeal a Health Care Law when the polls last week from the Commonwealth Fund found that 77 of people were pleased with their new coverage. The republicans polled had a 72 satisfaction rate with the new plans that they had bought. The House Majority is spending billions upon billions of dollars to stymie a law that their own Party Members support which is truly a classic case of obstruction, and further evidence of the foolishness of the whole pursuit. Furthermore, the constitution gives the congress the power to write the laws. This legal the legal theory put forward by the republicans to explain why this lawsuit should prevail relies on the notion that somehow president obama has nullified the houses legislative power. This is simply not the case. Speaker boehner is not proposing to sue the president because he has not let congress introduce, hold hearings on, mark up or pass bills. The speaker is proposing to sue the president because he hasnt executed the law in precisely a certain way. Remember, the president implemented this massive Health Care Law by phasing it in which is not illegal in any manner. It has been done by numerous president s in the past. It bears repeating that the legislative branch consists of two houses and only those two houses together can pass laws, and the president does the executing of those laws. This lawsuit has it backwards. Re republicans want onehalf of the legislative branch to run through the Judicial Branch to tell the executive branch how to enforce the law, a responsibility the constitution clearly commits to the executive. Congresss legislate power be nullified itself if we were somehow prohibited from passing bills that repeal, bills that overturn regulation, bills limiting the use of appropriated funds for certain purposes and for going to war. And the fact that the bills that the House Majority pass do not usually become law is not because the votes have been nullified, it is because they do not have the votes in the senate, and one of our witnesses, former acting solicitor general Walter Dellinger argued the leading case in this issue raines versus byrd in front of the