Congressional Black Caucus

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and my privilege to coanchor today's CBC Special Order, along with my good friend and distinguished colleague from the Silver State, Representative Steven Horsford.

Every Monday when Congress is in session, we have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people for 60 minutes, the so-called CBC Hour of Power, where we get a chance to discuss an issue of relevance to this great country.

Today, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are here to talk about halting the GOP march toward impeachment. We are going to address the troubling fact that the GOP appears to want to move forward this week with a lawsuit challenging the President's authority.

Now, I think most legal scholars will come to the conclusion that the House GOP lawsuit is baseless, it is frivolous, it is without merit. But the American people should pay attention to what is going to take place this week because the lawsuit is part of a continuing effort to delegitimize the President of the United States of America.

Now, I recognize, unfortunately, that there are some folks in this Chamber who believe that the President exceeded his authority on January 20, 2009, when he took the oath of office. And they have continued to accuse him of Presidential lawlessness ever since.

So during this Special Order hour, we are going to discuss the alleged lawlessness that has taken place, and I think we will be able to dismiss these allegations as nothing more than political broadsides leveled against a President who was elected by the people of this great country and reelected by the people of this great country.

And then we are also going to deal with the fact that there are so many other things that we, as a Congress, could be doing other than wasting taxpayer money related to a lawsuit that is sure to be thrown out of court. It is going to be thrown out because there is no congressional standing to sue the President. The Supreme Court has said this over and over again. There must be a particularized injury in order for one to get standing in Federal court, and Members of Congress lack it. That is what the Supreme Court has concluded.

There is also the issue of the political question doctrine: disputes between the two branches of government, the executive branch and the congressional legislative branch, are not to be resolved by the article III courts. They are to be resolved by the normal governmental processes put in place by our Constitution.

We are joined today by the distinguished chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, who has been a tremendous leader of our CBC over the 113th Congress. It is now my honor to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished chairlady of the CBC. The people of America deserve a Congress that does the business of the people and that deals with real issues that impact working families, the middle class, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, and the afflicted.

Instead, we get an agenda from the majority in the House of Representatives that is all about delay, destruction, and delegitimization of the President of the United States of America. This is a frivolous lawsuit that lacks any basis in law or in fact, and we need to get beyond the political gamesmanship and get back to doing the business of the people.

I am pleased that we have been joined by the gentlewoman from the Badger State, Representative Gwen Moore, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee. I am honored to serve with her, a champion for working families, the poor, and the middle class.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. Chief Justice Rehnquist, in an opinion in 1997, Raines v. Byrd, made the point that individual Members of Congress do not have standing to bring lawsuits in court if they cannot point to a particularized or personal injury, which the GOP in this case will not be able to do because the injury that is being claimed relates to policy disputes, such as the ACA and the employer mandate, such as DACA, and such as the welfare work requirements. These are broad policy disputes, not particularized injuries.

The Court went on to point out that, if one of the Members of Congress were to retire tomorrow, he would no longer have a general claim. The claim would be possessed by his successor instead.

The claimed injury--referring to policy disputes--attaches to the Member's seat, a seat which the Member holds as trustee for his constituents, not as a prerogative of personal power. In other words, there is no standing for Members of Congress to bring a lawsuit against the President in the context of a policy dispute.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin for her very eloquent and sharp observations with respect to the lack of merit to the GOP lawsuit that they are going to proceed with this week.

We now have also been joined by the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Representative Barbara Lee, another distinguished member of the Budget Committee, someone who is a voice for the voiceless, a champion for the poor, and a fighter for the district that she represents in Congress.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California. In the 113th Congress, we have had sequestration, $85 billion in randomly spread-out cuts across our budget impacting the American economy. We have had a government shutdown that was unnecessary, unreasonable, and reckless; it cost us $24 billion in lost economic productivity.

We have had a flirtation with the debt ceiling threatening the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Now, we have got a frivolous lawsuit against the President of the United States, and it leads me to ask the question: Is there such a thing as a four-ring circus?

Let me now yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Representative Robin Kelly, my good friend and colleague from the freshman class, and a distinguished champion for her district.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Let me now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). Although he does not have on one of his signature ties, he is the informal chair of the ``bowtie caucus'' and someone who has been a champion for the district he represents in New Jersey.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for those very poignant observations.

I think, as you have pointed out, we are in a divided government context, and we understand there are going to be policy disagreements, but the objective should be to work toward finding common ground to improve the lives of those we were sent here to Washington to represent. Instead, we are in the midst of a campaign to continue to try to delegitimize the President.

It is over. The battle has been lost. The President was elected in 2008. He was reelected in 2012. It is time to put aside the political gamesmanship and figure out where we might be able to find common ground to advance an agenda that makes sense for the American people.

We said earlier that this lawsuit was a frivolous one, and I quoted Chief Justice Rehnquist, a leading conservative former Supreme Court Justice, as it relates to his position with respect to congressional standing. I now want to quote another Justice of the Supreme Court who said in an opinion he wrote just last year, United States v. Windsor:

Our Constitution rejects a system in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into court whenever the President implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress' liking.

That was an opinion, and that wasn't written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That wasn't an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, although I have great respect for those two Justices from the great State of New York. Those words were written by Anton Scalia, one of the most conservative Justices in the history of the Supreme Court. You can't just pop into court because you have a policy disagreement with the President.

And so I think we have dealt with the issue of the frivolous nature of this lawsuit, the fact that we are wasting the time and the treasure of the American people on a political joyride that will ultimately crash and burn in an article III court. In the meantime, we are neglecting our constitutional responsibilities here in the House of Representatives to actually deal with issues that impact the American people. And to touch upon what some of those issues could be, let me now yield to the coanchor of this CBC Special Order, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his observations and for pointing out the many issues that we in the House of Representatives could be addressing this week to deal with quality of life concerns of the American people, but instead we have been forced to come to the floor of the House of Representatives this evening to talk about this frivolous lawsuit that, if the majority gets its way, will be

authorized later on this week.

I also want to point out that there is this troubling undercurrent that has also taken shape in the House of Representatives and amongst the conservative entertainment complex related to the allegedly unlawful actions of the President in what many of us view as a ``march toward impeachment.''

Now, some are going to say: Well, this is a Democratic conspiracy to rile up certain parts of the country, that is why we are raising the impeachment question. No, let's just go to the Record.

The distinguished gentleman from the 17th Congressional District in Texas at a town hall meeting in September of 2013:

I look at the President, I think he's violated the Constitution, I think he's violated the law. I think he's abused his power, but at the end of the day you have to say if the House decides to impeach him, if the House had an impeachment vote, it would probably impeach the President.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of the gentleman from the 17th Congressional District of this House.

The distinguished gentleman from the Third Congressional District in Utah:

This is an administration embroiled in a scandal that they created.

I am not clear what the scandal is that is being referenced.

It's a coverup. I'm not saying impeachment is the end game, but it's a possibility, especially if they keep doing little to help us learn more.

I can go on and on, but you have got the distinguished gentleman from Iowa:

``From my standpoint, if the President''--referencing executive actions--``we need to bring impeachment hearings immediately before the House of Representatives.''

These aren't our words. These are the words of people elected to the 113th Congress.

So that is why we are here to have a conversation with the American people. Do you think this is the issue that we should be debating and discussing as we are still trying to revive large segments of our economy, still struggling to recover from the aftermath of the Great Recession?

Now, this last statement from a member of the impeachment caucus here in the House of Representatives, the Congressman from Iowa, he referenced ``executive actions.''

Let's have a discussion about executive actions. This chart illustrates that President Obama actually has been a President in modern history who has been conservative in his approach with respect to executive actions. Upon entering his sixth year in office, President Obama issued 167 executive orders. As the chart illustrates, at this very same point, George W. Bush had issued 198 executive orders.

Where was the outrage when George Bush was engaging in his orgy of executive orders? Where was the outrage? Where was the outrage when President Ronald Reagan issued 381 executive orders, a pace that there is no way President Obama can match? It is just not clear to me where this is all coming from.

Let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada and/or the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for any parting observations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman for those observations.

Under the House majority, the agenda has constituted the following: delay, destroy, defund, and delegitimize.

We just want to tackle issues relevant to the American people. Let's tackle the fact that America needs a raise. Let's tackle equal pay for equal work. Let's tackle infrastructure funding. Let's tackle our broken immigration system. Let's tackle the fact that we have got a gun violence problem in America.

Let's address the fact that the Supreme Court invalidated portions of section 5 of the historic Voting Rights Act. Let's stop the political gamesmanship.

In the remaining time that we have, let me yield to a championed distinguished member of the Homeland Security Committee, as well as the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source