Faithful Execution of the Law Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, we have in this country a government of laws, not of men. The Congress passes laws, the President executes laws, and the courts adjudicate disputes under those laws.

One law on the books already requires the Attorney General to report to Congress when the executive branch suspends enforcement of a law due to constitutional concerns, and AGs ranging from Holder to Gonzalez have done this.

When the executive branch suspends execution of the law for other reasons, this same reporting requirement should apply, and, in fact, may even be more important on separation of powers grounds. This transparency will help Congress safeguard its constitutional authority, and will allow the American people to evaluate the actions of the executive branch.

Now, why is this necessary?

Yesterday's paper, The Wall Street Journal:

Last week the administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax penalty.

This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn't think the details of this delay were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials, or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don't comply with ObamaCare benefits and redistribution mandates.

This is no way to run a government. Surely, this is not consistent with being the most transparent administration in history.

Now, some have said that the transparency requirements would be burdensome, but this raises the question, exactly how many laws is this administration suspending?

This bill can only be burdensome if the administration is consistently suspending duly enacted laws.

My question is: What is wrong with a little sunlight?

Now, I have not heard the President's defenders articulate a limiting principle regarding his actions. ``If Congress does not do what I want, I will do it anyway'' is not a limiting principle, and is not consistent with constitutional government.

Here is a limiting principle. U.S. Supreme Court, Kendall v. United States:

To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed implies a power to forbid their execution is a novel construction of the Constitution, and is entirely inadmissible.

Now, news reports have detailed how the latest ObamaCare suspensions are tailored to help the President's party in the midterm elections. Now, this is not sufficient justification. Of course there is always going to be another election around the corner.

Once you do suspension to get to 2014, well, you are going to have 2016. Do you need to get Hillary across the finish line?

Then when a Republican President takes over, guess what? That President's supporters are going to say, hey, they suspended these provisions. Why don't you suspend the provisions that we don't like?

Pretty soon, you end up with Presidents of both parties picking and choosing what they want to enforce.

Here is the deal. Short-term political advantages and fleeting policy victories do not trump our duty to support and defend the Constitution. This is true whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican.

I would much rather lose out on my preferred policy outcomes and see my party lose an election while safeguarding our constitutional order, because it is, ultimately, that Constitution which does the most to protect our freedoms.

If we go down the road where Presidents of both parties simply enforce what is good for their party and disregard what is not, then we will no longer be a government of laws, but a government of men, and this institution will be forever diminished.

The Constitution delegates the Congress the power to make law, not to make suggestions. The Faithful Execution of the Law Act will help shine a light on executive branch failures to faithfully execute the laws of our land.

A vote for this bill is a vote for transparency, for the rule of law, and for constitutional government.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion, and vote ``yes'' to pass this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source