On the recordSeptember 20, 2012
I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to change the law, and that's fine. They just need to do it navigating this testy little thing we call the Constitution and respect the separation of powers between the various branches. Mr. Speaker, I want to read the proposed rule to you in part: HHS has the authority to waive compliance with this work requirement and authorize the State to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specify limitations and verification procedures. Then the next sentence, Mr. Speaker, is essentially this, and I'll paraphrase it; it's by the HHS Secretary: trust us, trust us that we're going to have the right motives when we weigh what Congress has expressly said to do. To my lawyer friends on the other side, I would ask you this, why do we have something called substantive due process and procedural due process? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because the way things are done matters. For my friends who prefer literature, the end does not justify the means. We have separation of branches under our system of government. Among my many limitations, Mr. Speaker, is an inability to deign the motives of other people. Their motives may be laudatory. I don't know that. I know this. We have a process in this country which must be followed, and this President has repeatedly said if Congress won't do it, I will do it alone.…
