Opening Statement
Ranking Member Conyers Statement at Executive Authority Hearing
Washington, DC,
February 26, 2014
Statement of Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. A discussion about enforcing the president’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws would be a fruitful undertaking if there was any evidence that the president has, in fact, failed to fulfill this duty. Yet today’s hearing – like the hearing we held on this very same topic just three months ago – is being held in the absence of any evidence of such failure. Although I explained much of this before, I will again highlight the reasons why there is no problem. To begin with, let’s acknowledge what today’s hearing is really about: it is yet another attempt by the majority to prevent the president’s implementation of duly enacted legislative initiatives that they oppose, such as the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Allowing flexibility in the implementation of a new program, even where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation. Rather, it is the reality of administering sometimes complex programs and is part and parcel of the president’s duty to ‘take care’ that he ‘faithfully’ execute laws. This has been especially true with respect to the Affordable Care Act. The president’s decision to extend certain compliance dates to help phase-in the act is not a novel tactic. President George W. Bush, for instance, failed to meet some of the deadlines in implementing Medicare Part D, even though it was legislation he strongly supported. Taking steps to deal with the realities of the implementation of a complex program hardly constitutes a failure to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. It is, rather, a necessary part of meeting that obligation. And, even though not a single court has ever concluded that reasonable delay in implementing a complex law to constitute a violation of the Take Care Clause, the majority insists there is a constitutional crisis. Surely, there are issues more worthy of the full committee’s consideration than this. Another fact that the majority appears to ignore is that the exercise of enforcement discretion is a traditional power of the executive. For example, the decision to defer deportation of young adults who were brought to the United States as children, who have not committed felonies or serious misdemeanors, and who do not pose a threat to public safety – the ‘DREAMers’ – is a classic exercise of such discretion. The administration cannot legalize these individuals’ status without a legal basis, but the administration’s decision to defer action against particular individuals is neither unusual nor unconstitutional. Again there is precedent for the exercise of such discretion. In 2005, President George W. Bush’s administration announced deferred action for approximately 5,500 foreign students affected by Hurricane Katrina. And, it is no surprise that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the exercise of such discretion is a function of the president’s powers under the Take Care Clause. As the Court held in Heckler v. Chaney, "in agency’s refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics of a decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict - a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' ’’ For this reason, the Court concluded that "an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion." I am especially dismayed that two of the legislative proposals that will be considered today disrespect the aspirations of DREAMers and reinforce old prejudices and inflammatory views about DREAMers, including views expressed by some majority members of the Committee. Indeed, the American people expect the Executive Branch, under President Obama’s leadership, to work to address a whole host of issues that this House refuses to address, including enhancing protections for the environment, ensuring worker safety, and helping financially distressed homeowners, student-loan borrowers, and others who are struggling to achieve the American Dream. Rather than wasting precious time on a hearing like this, we should be working to address these and many other critical challenges facing our nation. Not only are President Obama’s actions constitutional, they are needed steps to helping the American people, and that should be the focus of our discussion today.
### |
