are aren't needed. they'll say the president has prosecutorial discretion and so entitles him to make these changes in enforcement or delay certain provisions of the law. but we're really not talking about individual cases, mr. speaker. we're not here today because we're concerned with the administration using discretion on a case by case basis, we're concerned with a president employing blanket policies of nonenforcement. in some cases the president isn't just ignoring enforcement of the laws he's effectively rewriting them. i understand the president isn't the first to expand executive power under his watch. he's not the first president to do that. in fact, congress has failed to protect article 1 powers for decades. this house, the senate has been in dereliction because they haven't actually protected article 1 powers. . this should alarm every member

of this body. take the president's recessed appointments, for example. they've already been deemed unconstitutional by the d.c. court in a unanimous, unanimous decision. the court rejected the administration's argument that the president has the discretion to determine when the senate is in recession. the court explained, and i quote, allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would axes aer bait the constitution -- exacerbate the constitution separate of powers. this is disrupting the legislative powers. what assurances do we have the president won't just change the law once we've passed it? what guarantees do we have a president won't suspend parts of the law that we believe in are important? the truth is, mr. speaker, we don't have that assurance. the truth is, mr. speaker, we can't trust the president to enforce any would-be law

equally and faithfully and that's a shame. if anyone thinks the president's unilateral actions aren't a big deal because they happen to agree with him on a policy, well, mr. speaker, they've badly missed the point. all presidents, all presidents have probably pushed the limit of their power, and it's our responsibility, this house, to check that power. we're a nation of laws. we ought to fight to keep it that way. we can no longer sit by and watch congress' constitutional responsibility. our role in this government eroded. the rule is to allow us to consider legislation addressing this growing problem. this rule ensures that ideas from members on either side of the aisle are included in consideration of the underlying legislation. i support this rule and i hope all my colleagues will also. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from florida, my good friend, mr. nugent, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, somehow against all odds the republican leadership of this house keeps coming up with new and creative ways to waste everybody's time. this is getting to be embarrassing, quite frankly. last night in the rules committee i joked that i picked the short straw so i'm handling the rule today. and the reason why i said that is because what we're doing today is a joke. this is not serious legislating. even if there was some substance to the concerns the gentleman raised, the bills that have been written are written in such a way that they are purely political. this is not about serious

legislating. this is about political statements. this is about political press releases. i think the american people quite frankly have had enough. you know, the congressional research service says it costs $24 million a week to run this place. i'm going to tell you what we're doing right now is wasting taxpayers' dollars. with all that needs to be done, with all that needs to be done, this is another political -- politically motivated week of let's go after the president. that's the way it has been since this president has been elected. i think people are getting tired of it. week after week, month after month and year after year now, this republican majority continues to bring bills to the floor that have no chance of passing the senate and have no chance of being signed into law, that are just again political press releases. and what's worse, the bills that are being brought forward do nothing, absolutely nothing to help rebuild our economy or

put people back to work. you know, my friend, the gentleman from florida, talks about our responsibility as members of congress. well, our responsibility as members of congress is to help people, is to legislate, is to deliberate, is to debate serious issues passionately. that's what we're here to do, not this. you know, this belongs at the republican national committee. this is a press conference that my friend should have outside of this great building, quite frankly. mr. speaker, this economy is slowly recovering, but republicans insist on doing nothing to actually strengthen that recovery. they refuse to consider any meaningful jobs legislation. we should have a highway bill, put millions of people back to work, you know, putting millions of people back to work of increased revenue and taxes,

you can actually bring down the deficit and the debt. they block every attempt to increase wages for workers. you know, we need to raise the minimum wage in this country. it is unacceptably low. people who work full time ought not to live in poverty, and yet we can't even get a minimum wage bill scheduled on the floor of the people's house. they won't even talk about it. we can't even -- we can't get them to even allow us to have an amendment on the minimum wage. and they continue to ignore the plight of the long-term unemployed in this country. over 1.7 million americans are unemployed. these are people who are looking for jobs and still can't find them. and the answer to them from this republican congress is you're on your own. i wonder sometimes whether my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have ever met somebody who is unemployed or

have talked to anybody who lost their long-term unemployment benefits. their answer is, go ask daddy for a loan or go sell some stocks. that will take care of it. they have no idea what people in this country are going through. they have no idea how hard it is to struggle in poverty. somehow they find it -- find the time to take 51 votes to repeal the affordable care act. 51 votes. now, i get it. you don't like it. so you vote to repeal it once, you can vote to repeal it twice, maybe five times. ok. but 51 times that we have wasted the taxpayers' money debating a repeal of the affordable care act, it's ludicrous. it is unreal. people don't understand this -- this behavior outside of the beltway. mr. speaker, you know, they also, quite frankly, they find time to take -- to waste millions of tax dollars

defending an anti-gay marriage law that is blatantly discriminatory. they think it's ok to waste taxpayers' tax dollars to promote this discriminatory -- to push out -- to stop the reversal of this discriminatory law. never mind the fact that president obama is using the same kinds of executive authority that president bush and others before him used. let me repeat that. president obama is using the same kind of executive authority that president bush and other presidents before him used. and never mind the fact that people supporting this legislation were more than happy to let george w. bush and dick cheney ignore and contraconvenient congress at every single opportunity. in fact, they defended what i think some really questionable behavior of the bush-cheney

team. and never mind the fact that the last people on earth who should be complaining about empurialism continue to vote for closed rules, continue to vote for regular order and continue to shut democrats out from the legislative process. by the way, one of the bills that we're debating today was introduced the day before it was marked up, had no hearings. so much for the promise speaker boehner made that we're going to go back to regular order. no hearings. introduced the day before. let's be honest. even if president obama did everything in the world that my republicans say they're asking him to do, they would still find a reason to complain. my friends on the other side of the aisle, you guys just don't like the president. i get it. you know what, get over it, because at this point in time our job is to work with the senate and with the president to move this country forward.

republican my friends have spent every single second this president has been in office -- they complain. the bills that the republicans bring before us today are likely unconstitutional, violate the separation of powers, would result in scores and scores of frivolous lawsuits and would be costly and impractical to apply. they don't deserve to be on this floor, and they certainly do not deserve to pass. when you read the way they were drafted, as i said before, they were written in a very political, partisan way. mr. speaker, i consider myself an institutionalist. i love the house of representatives. i am proud to serve here. it is a privilege to serve here. our founders created the congress as a co-equal branch of government, and this institution should never be overlooked or sidestepped. and there is a strong argument

to be made over the past 30 years congress has allowed itself to become so bogged down in gridlock it has allowed executive power to grow far too large. that's a worthy debate for us to have. with that being said, the executive branch has the authority to make certain regulations and take certain executive actions. and this president, any president has a responsibility to lead when congress can't get its act together and do its job. we are elected to legislate, but time after time instead of tackling issues like immigration reform, climate change, jobs, the minimum wage, bringing our troops home safely from afghanistan, feeding our hungry, we have 50 million people in the richest country in the history of the world that are hungry. we all should be ashamed of that. but instead of dealing with that or issues like ending poverty or rebuilding our infrastructure or helping the long-term unemployed, this republican majority chooses instead to bring up partisan

messaging bills that will be justify -- that will justifiablely die. mr. speaker, the -- justifiably die. mr. speaker, we are wasting taxpayer dollars doing this kind of stuff. they deserve a congress that tries to improve the lives of every american instead of placating an extreme right wing. they deserve a congress that actually does its job, and i will say to my friends, this is not doing our job. the bills before us today go exactly in the opposite direction of what we should be doing. and i urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and defeat the underlying legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida is now recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, you need to go back. hen i first took the oath as a police officer in chicago and

then a sheriff in florida and then here in this body and also when i joined the military, it was to support and defend the constitution. not to ignore the constitution. not to utilize it when we think it's ok or when it's necessary, not to just skip over article 1 and say, you know what, forget about it, because our congresses have done that. and my good friend from massachusetts pointed that out. they have done it for over 30 years. that doesn't make it right. at some point in time we got to set the record straight. somebody's got to step up and say, you know what, the constitution matters. what we do here matters. and that all of us, the three branches of government, need to work and the co-equal, not one -- and they are co-equal, not one above the other. you know, mr. speaker, right now i have the opportunity to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. we appreciate it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes.

mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule as well as the underlying bills. mr. speaker, the instances of the executive branch overreach are numerous. whether it's the multiple episodes of the president of the united states unilaterally delaying and waiting aspects of his signature law, the affordable care act, or the failure to enforce this nation's immigration laws by unilaterally implementing aspects of the dream act, this president has shown an appalling lack of concern for the laws which his oath dihands that he enforce. someone who holds office of the presidency cannot pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce and which laws he wants to ignore. i was astonished when during the state of the union speech, many in this chamber today and applauded when the president said that if congress didn't act on issues which he felt were important he would go around congress and act on his own. this follows the i got a pen and i got a phone statement earlier. is this really how the

executive branch should feel about his concern? the pen and phone approach to his executive duties is disastrous -- which is spread across multiple branches. where is the president's respect for the rule of law? he expects vladimir putin to respect international law with respect to ukraine. while the president himself at the same time continues to disregard the laws passed by the united states congress. the legislative branch was designed as an equal branch of government. in fact, establishment of the executive branch was easy for the founding fathers who didn't wish to see empurialism in a presidency and they intentionally chose to limit the executive branch's powers. it was the -- legislative branch designing and enumerating the powers which we hold and it's time we say no to presidential overreach. no, mr. president, you cannot write laws via executive orders. you must lead in an effort to

change the laws which you may disagree with. in 1787 when asked what form of government the framers have given us, ben franklin reportedly replied a republic, if you can keep it. mr. speaker, i'm afraid we are slowly losing grip on our republic. the government designed by this nation's founding fathers that has provided over 200 years of freedom and prosperity. mr. speaker, it's time for the president's house to regain its constitutional authority as the sole legislative body. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgon: i yield myself such time -- mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i urge my colleagues to remember the words, physician heal thyself. while they are complaining about the novet united states, they should look inward and look at the imperial republican majority that's taken over here in the house of representatives. we have the chairman of the oversight committee literally

stop a member of the democratic party from engaging in legitimate and appropriate debate. in fact he, shut off the microphone. and ended the hearing. is that what our founding fathers envisioned for this congress? is that what, you know, upholding the constitution is all about? as someone who serves on the rules committee, who welcomed the statement by speaker boehner that we would return to regular order, i'm still looking for it. we just saw the most closed in the history of this congress last year. we had the most closed rules in a single year. the most closed rules in a single week. the most closed rules in a single day. the rules committee, which i love to serve on because of the great history, my former boss joe smoke lee was chairman of

the rule -- joe mokley was chairman of the rules committee but the rule committees is becoming the place where democracy goes to die. serious issues are routinely cut out. we had a republican member yesterday who had a great idea about trying to hold the executive accountable when it comes to the war powers act, mr. gibson of new york. it's an important issue. that's a legitimate issue for us to discuss. it was perfectly germane. it was perfectly germane. and on a party line vote, the rules committee voted that down. so we won't have that debate here on the house floor. the way this place is supposed to operate is that all of us, all 435 of us, whether we are republicans or democrats, we ought to be considered that we are important. you know, we all represent the same amount of constituents. and i understand that the party in control gets to kind of control the agenda but that

doesn't mean the party not in control gets shut out on a regular basis on very important issues. but that has become the pattern here. not only that we are see manager and more instances where committees of jurisdiction are not even relevant anymore. where bills are introduced the day before there's a markup, where there are no hearings, or sometimes we have bill this is a just mysteriously appear in the rules committee my colleagues know that i had great difficulty with their approach to dealing with the snap program, formerly known as food stamps. they proposed a $40 billion cut on the poorest of the poor to pay for subsidies for rich agribusinesses. i thought it was a bad thing to do. i'm also on the agriculture committee. that bill never went to the agriculture committee. we never had a hearing on it, never had a markup, it went to

the rule committees and then the floor. when you talk about imperial anything, look in the mirror. look in the mirror. we need to change the way we do business here. this place would operate a lot better for you let the people's house work its will. if you brought the senate-passed immigration reform bill to this floor, it would pass. it would pass. but it's being blocked because a small group within the republican caucus doesn't want to deal with the issue of immigration reform. but important issues are routinely being denied consideration on this floor. this is a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all and people are getting fed up with it. so this politically motivated piece of legislation which is politically motivated because minority leader cantor's memo to, i guess, republicans, after their retreat, they talked about having an imperial presidency week to embarrass the president, i guess that's what they call

serious legislating but this is a joke. i urge my colleagues to vote all this stuff down, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. again, all members are reminded to address their wark remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, all i can tell you is i don't take it as a joke, defending and protecting the constitution that gives us the ability to serve here today. the people gave us the ability to be here based upon what the constitution laid out for us. that's the plan. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from alabama, ms. row by. -- mrs. roby. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: i rise on behalf of the people of alabama's second congressional district to lend my support to h.r. 4138, the enforce act, and of course the rule being debated here today.

i appreciate my friend and colleague from south carolina, trey gowdy, for bringing forth this very important legislation. we're here today to answer one question, mr. speaker. will we stand idly by while an imperial president ignores the rule of law and unravels the separation of powers so carefully woven into our constitution. the answer is no. probably more than anything else my constituents ask me, what are we doing to address the patterns of executive overreaches in disregard of the law by president obama and his administration. good, god-faring americans, who work hard, pay their taxes and obey the law are understandably frustrated by president -- by a president who acts as though he's above the law. the abuses are well documented. selective enforcement of immigration laws, waiving compliance for welfare to work laws and what's become weekly attempts to delay, waive, or

just not enforce parts of obamacare because of the political implications, just to name a few. mr. speaker, our constitutional constraints on government may not be convenient for the president or his political or policy goals but they are necessary for preserving the checks and balance this is a ensure this government still derives its authority from the people and not the other way around. we now seek the intervention of the judicial branch to rein in the executive branch and reconstitute our proper separation of powers. i believe in our constitution and i believe it's worth fighting for. that's why i urge my colleagues to support the enforcement act and the rule and join the fight to restore the checks and balances. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. it's funny, i love how this all of a sudden has become an issue for my colleagues.

"the washington post" on july 24, 2006, in an article, let me read the first couple of paragraphs, it says a panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the american bar association is sharply criticizing the use of quote, signing statements by president bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by congress. in rae port to be issued today, the a.b.a. task force said bush has lodge master's degree challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined. they describe it as a serious threat to the system of checks and balances and urge congress to pass legislation to allow court review of such cases. the point is, silence on the other side all that time. now they have rereligion on this issue, we want to hold them accountable. when mr. gibson had his amendment yesterday to bring up a legitimate focus where i think the executive over the years has kind of abused its powers, on the war powers act he, brought a

germane amendment to the floor and that was ruled out of order. we'll deal with it another time, which translation, in this imperial congress, means you'll never see the light of day. this house is being run in the most imperial way. where anybody who has a different view is routinely shut out from debate. more closed rules than any congress in history. i think probably more avoiding regular order, never mind the closed rules, than any congress in history. that's one of the reasons why some of the stuff we bring to the floor here is so contentious because it is written in such a flawed way. i think it is a legitimate topic for discussion to talk about the appropriation powers of the executive and the appropriate powers of the legislature but to do that, i think, in a serious way, means doing it in a bipartisan way. and there are ways for both

republicans and democrats to come together. but again, this has never been about a serious attempt to deal with that issue. this was one of their political talking points at their convention, at their retreat that my friends had. this is not a serious attempt at anything. this is a political press release and we, taxpayers, spent $24 million a week to keep this place in session here and this is how my friends use the taxpayers' money, deal with these kind of things? the gentlelady from alabama talked about her constituents are all talking about this issue. boy, i've got to tell you, where i'm from, what people talk about is when are you going to pass a highway bill? they want to know when you're going to deal with the issue of jobs. my constituent the people i meet all over the country want to know, what are we going to do about raising the minimum wage. how will we deal with a pay equity bill so women don't get

discriminated against and paid less than men do for the same job. they talk about global warm, the worst thing you can talk about here, because my friends don't admit that it exists. they want to know what we're going to do to protect our planet. and what are we going to do to help the long-term unemployed. those are real issues, that's about helping real people. this is politics. i think people have had enough of it. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, say no to this stuff and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i want to make things clear, in the judiciary committee they had two hearings on this. they took some action to bring forward one of these bills based upon the hearings and testimony that they did have. now, i truly believe in the open process. we want to see that. i think we agree on that but at the end of the day this

legislation and my good friend from massachusetts even read it, you know, there was an article about george w. bush, about that presidency and someone said that this congress -- or congress back then should actually do something to allow it to go to court. i believe that was the statement. paraphrasing it. that's exactly what this does. i can't help it, i wasn't here when george w. bush was president. i wasn't here four years ago. but i'm here today. and i'm here to defend and support this constitution. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, a good friend of mine, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, this is very clear that the purpose of today's , bate, the take care clause the take care to pass laws that are passed. s the centerpiece of the president's whole presidency.

he's choosing what will be enforceable and what's not enforced. the faithful execution clause buzz derived from pennsylvania's 1776 constitution, crafted by pennsylvania state executives during the revolutionary war. i want you to let your mind drift back to when people left europe to come to america they got in ricketty old wooden boats with not very good nav systems, but they came here for a reason, they set their course true north, they were coming to get away from a monarchy, from an imperialist, from tyrants. why did they come here? and what did they craft that is so carefully layed out in our constitution. so why are we having this debate about this silliness. this is who we are, not as republicans and democrats but who we are as americans. why would we turn our backs on our constitution? i understand the executive office has great power. but i also understand that the constitution harnesses that. it does not allow it to run

roughshod over the people. mr. duncan very clearly talked about the state of the union when the president says to this body, america cannot standstill and neither will i. so whenever and whatever steps i can take with that will -- without legislation, that is what i'm going to do. that is chilling. to have people give him a standing ovation and not just a standing ovation but from the house of representatives, where that very power is being taken from. that is our responsibility. that is our duty. you cannot take that pledge and then turn around and say this is just about some kind of political maneuvering. that is not about political maneuvering, that's about the protection of our constitution. these things having enshrined for us. . this is critical we look at this. the executive cannot make exceptions and just enforce the laws he or she wants. that's not who we are as a people. we left monarchs. this is a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. e