Faithful Execution of the Law Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam Speaker, when I rise today, it is amazing that I have actually come to the floor and heard said it is a waste of time, it is problematic talking about the very structure of our government, the very structure that was formed, and how we interact with each other. I just don't get it. I never thought I would come to the floor of the House and actually hear those words actually uttered.

And I do remind my friends from across the aisle that there was that nirvana just a few years ago, and I do it every time because we talk about immigration reform in which there is basically control of everything, and you just chose not to act on it.

So let's move past the point when we can look at what we are doing here today, and that is looking at a law that actually goes back to the understanding of why we are here.

Every time I go home and every time I am up here, I get calls, I get notes, saying: Why is there the ability to change the law?

It is not prosecutorial discretion. It is saying: there is a black letter date, I am changing it, I don't like it.

That is wrong. When you are looking at discretion, it is not an issue of do I want to do it or not; it is an issue of what does the law say?

People back home could care less about Washingtonspeak. They could care less about what goes inside the beltway. They care about their lives, and they care about a government that they read about in textbooks that said here is how a bill becomes a law and here is how it works. We even had a little jingle about it on Schoolhouse Rock.

But we decided to move away from that. In fact, if the Republicans were not here talking about this, you would not have heard about some of these things because they are buried in many places--the very things that we talking about here, but the American people, especially in my district, want us to do more. They want us to say: reaffirm your article I responsibilities.

Now, the interesting thing here is we have had testimony, yes, in committee talking about this issue. The gentleman in which we disagree on policy, Mr. Turley, has said you may not like it, and I like some of what has been done, but this is not the way to do it.

It goes back to just really an understanding of what undermines Congress. We talk about our approval rating, we talk about our lack, but we don't do what we are supposed to do because we are not holding article I responsibility and accounting transparency from an executive who blatantly disobeys it.

So what do we need to do? We have got to reassert that article I authority. It is not only in bills like this and also the one we just passed, but it is also looking at our article I responsibility with budgeting. It is our article I responsibility to say we have got to come to an agreement and say this is the law and the executive has to enforce that law.

This is something that we can--and my good friend from Tennessee, we disagree on a lot of things--but we can agree on one thing today. We can work together on this because I remember, when you all was back watching on C-SPAN just a few years ago, the same outrage. Why would the President make signing statements?

In fact, we talk about Imperial Presidency. I remember the first time Imperial Presidency came up. It happened to be from the ranking member of our committee, Mr. Conyers, when he wrote about the Imperial Presidency of Bush.

So let's take the hyperbole out.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

It is because of the folks that I see every day that want to say: Congress doesn't do anything, the President does whatever he wants to do, why is Congress not doing anything?

We are doing something. These bills that we are passing today move forward and say we are asserting our responsibility and our role.

But this is what breaks my heart, really frankly, is that this should be bipartisan. This should be something we come down here and both agree on. It should be bipartisan that we should work together.

For me, this is not an issue of who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania. That is irrelevant to me. What is important to me is this institution that was set up to make laws, to execute laws, and to judge the constitutionality of laws. That is the way our system was set up.

It has changed through the years. If the Attorney General or the administration feels that there is a law that is wrong or unconstitutional, then the process is to come back to Congress and say here is our ideas, and you come to the elected representatives of the people.

You don't continue to just say I don't like it, I am not going to enforce it; and for many of these, to say this is just simply prosecutorial discretion is an affront to the American people.

The reason we are here today is Congress is asserting itself and asserting its role, and for the Ninth District of Georgia, that is why they sent me, is to do what Congress is supposed to do, but also hold the administration accountable for what they are supposed to do because back home they don't get it.

They remember I am just a bill, just an ordinary bill. That is the way it was supposed to work.

It is time we start rewriting the textbooks. It is time to get back to transparency and faithfully executing the law.

With that, I ask for support of this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source