Authorizing the Speaker to Appear As Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the House

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Under the rules of the House, in order to accept volunteer efforts, one must be cleared by the Committee on Ethics. The resolution purports to seek pro bono assistance, but the inquiry is whether this comports with the rules of the House requiring the Committee on Ethics to preclear the acceptance of such assistance to avoid unseemly or potentially illegal assistance?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some very eloquent comments today. I was particularly taken by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the chairman of the committee, his passionate speech about the rule of law. In fact, we all do agree about the importance of the rule of law in American life and in the vitality of our country.

Unfortunately, the facts of this case have nothing to do with the speech given by Mr. Gowdy.

On November 20, 2014, a number of memoranda were issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security. One of them is titled: ``Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.'' That was pursuant to the 2002 action of this Congress, creating the Department of Homeland Security and directing the Secretary to establish priorities for removal. And it is worth pointing out that this memorandum has not been enjoined. Nobody sued to stop it. It is in effect. Nobody has challenged its legality. It is what is happening right now.

In fact, the only things that have been enjoined temporarily are the DAPA, the relief for parents, and the expansion of relief for children.

My colleague, who I respect and like, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), did mention that the deferred action provides benefits, health care, and education. In fact, the deferred action provides no such benefits. It is not a legal status. It is a deferral of deportation. It is revocable at any time.

Here is what the memorandum establishing this said:

``This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only an act of Congress can confer these rights. It remains within the authority of the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and deferred action within the framework of existing law. This memoranda is an exercise of that authority.''

In fact, the exercise of that authority is nothing new. We have mentioned earlier that President Reagan deferred action on the deportation of the wives and children of those who got relief through the 1986 IRCA Act that Congress passed, despite the fact that Congress told him not to do it, because he had the authority to do it.

We have also had instances where wives of American soldiers were going to be deported. Do you know what? The President gave them deferral from deportation because it was unconscionable to us that a soldier fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan would have his wife deported while he is over in the battlefield.

We have private bills that we take up, egregious cases. Do you know what? If we ask for a report from the Department about that bill, the Department defers action on it. They defer deportation for the person who is the subject of that bill.

We, on the committee, thank them for doing that. We know that they do that, and we agree and like that they do that.

I mentioned earlier that the Congress, after Tiananmen Square, passed a bill to prevent the deportation of Chinese students who had been murdered, some of them, in Tiananmen Square. President Bush vetoed that bill. Why did he veto it? He vetoed it so he could give deferred deportation to the students because it was his position--and no one challenged that--it was the President's authority to do that.

I want to raise another issue. My friend, the Chairman of the Rules Committee, mentioned earlier this morning that the House had received a request to brief this issue. I was very surprised by that. It was the first I had heard of it. It is my understanding from the paper submitted that what he was referring to was the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which was granted. This is what it says:

``In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question--''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. I know that Mr. Sessions is not a lawyer and I would not suggest he intended to mislead this House. But the comment was, in fact, misleading because that is not a requirement for the House to brief that point. It is simply directed to the parties in the litigation, which we are not.

This is about whether we deport kids or not, but it is also about whether we engage in rhetoric that is injurious to the public because it distorts the actual facts of this case.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source