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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 649, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 639) authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the House of Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15674, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. Parliamentary Inquiries

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that what we are seeing here are some dilatory moves on behalf of the minority. While I respect every bit of that, we have decorum that is established in this House, and I believe the Speaker has adequately responded to the questions thereon by the gentlemen, and I ask that we move on forward.

I rise today in support of H. Res. 639, authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the House of Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al.

Mr. Speaker, as we have earlier stated, as we were debating and discussing the rule, over 25 States or State officials have filed suits challenging the Obama administration's expansion of DACA and the creation of DACA-like programs for aliens who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

The States allege that these administrative actions run afoul of the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. Article II, section 3 declares that the President ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' which requires any President to enforce all constitutional valid acts of Congress, regardless of the administration's views of the wisdom or the policy.

The States in this case that brought the case in southern Texas allege that these actions run afoul of the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution Article I, section 8, which gives Congress-- not the President--the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. That is directly from the Constitution.

Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which clearly specifies the limited cases in which the executive branch can suspend the removal of unlawful aliens.

Mr. Speaker, this administration has sought review on this case from the Supreme Court, which granted its petition, and that is because this administration lost in the Federal District Court in the Southern District of Texas and lost its case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In doing so, the Court indicated that it would also consider the plaintiffs' claims under the Take Care Clause.

I include in the Record the official document from the Supreme Court. united states, et al. v. texas, et al.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: ``Whether the Guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 3.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the questions presented in the case are really extraordinarily significant to the House of Representatives. In particular, this case raises issues related to the limits on executive discretion not to enforce laws enacted by Congress as well as the point at which the exercise of such discretion turns into lawmaking, thereby infringing on Congress' Article I legislative powers.

It is precisely because of these constitutional questions pending before the highest court in our land, the United States Supreme Court, that the U.S. House of Representatives--which, I believe, will present a side which we believe is important from a constitutional perspective--will consider this resolution. The House, I believe, will and must protect its Article I legislative powers on behalf of the American people and on behalf of Representatives who believe in self- governance.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time you will see that our Republican Members that will come and speak are men and women not only with extensive legal experience, grounded in the law and the Constitution of the United States but will make their arguments from a professional nature that are directly related to the law.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), who served as a judge in Texas, and is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I recognize that there are people in this body who are frustrated, and I have engaged a number of those people very thoughtfully, and they have tried to engage me, I think, thoughtfully.

But the essence of what today's argument is about is actually a legal exercise because, in fact, the Federal District Court in southern Texas, Judge Andy Hanen, looked at the law, and he, in a judicial sense, heard evidence that would be presented from all of the some 25 States, as well as the Federal Government; and findings of facts and conclusions of law, not upon hyper-political accusations or bombastic comments that are made to attack another side, is what actually prevailed in the case.

I am well aware that a number of our colleagues want to talk about politics, politics, politics, and make accusations. This is about the foundation of law, and it actually goes to direct words out of the Constitution of the United States.

A Federal District Court is particularly in tune with those arguments as they handle constitutional issues and questions, and the Court clearly found in favor of these States. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in reviewing that case, came to that same conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will see that the Supreme Court will also rule on the law, not upon political sound bites that come back and forth from this body.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, consistent with the Republican message today, one of our other senior Members who is a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee now serves as the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. He is a gentleman who has devoted himself and his life to the rule of law, a gentleman who is in the thick of the understanding of the immigration issue, being from San Antonio, Texas. He has seen for a long time the need and the desire for not just Congress to work with the executive branch, but the rule of law. He has believed in that in his years of service to the Judiciary Committee. He stands as a testament to his belief in constitutional law--including Federal court and Supreme Court decisions--and how important they are. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that this gentleman has, for a long time, spoken with balance and credibility on the issue, not just to rule of law, but also about this Nation and how we do treat those who come to this country with dignity and respect.

Mr. Speaker, consistent with what we have seen for the last 8 years by a White House and administration, so we see here on the floor of the House of Representatives a denial of trying to follow the law but, rather, to blame people, including using the word ``discriminatory'' and trying to attach that to a party.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, this issue is far different. This is based upon rule of law. In the Federal District Court in the Southern District of Texas, during the trial, there was a determination that was being pushed about whether DACA would be characterized as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. In fact, when challenged, because this was a claim that the administration made, that Federal district court examined the operation of the DACA process, and despite the claim or the reason why the President had this authority, that DACA was applied on a case-by-case basis, the administration could not provide one piece of evidence in the Federal district court, no examples of DACA applicants who would meet the program's criteria.

Mr. Speaker, it does matter why you do something, how you do something, and, if you are going to be a professional, how you sustain that which you have done, in a Federal district court, when asked directly to sustain what the assertions are, could not even sustain their answers.

This is why we are talking about rule of law, Mr. Speaker, and to come here and ascribe insults to a party, to a Presidential process, or to a rule, a body that operates under rule of law, I believe misses the point.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I believe what happened up in the Rules Committee was going through regular order-- regular order to hear the original jurisdiction and regular order as we were discussing, debating, and voting on the rule. Going through regular order here on the floor of the House of Representatives is important, and I appreciate the American people and the Speaker in understanding what we are attempting to accomplish.

I also reiterate that this resolution is not about policy. It is about the law. It is about the Constitution of the United States. It is about the fabric of our democracy and the checks and balances which are demanded by every single Member of not only this House of Representatives, but also by the American people. It is about our American Constitution.

The House, I believe, must speak, will speak, and will defend its Article I legislative powers on behalf of the American people. Today you have watched Republicans argue thoughtfully and carefully on behalf of this, and I urge my colleagues to join me and the Speaker in support of this important resolution.

While we have consulted with the Committee on Ethics and been advised that this resolution complies with its guidance in the House Ethics Manual, section 3 of the resolution provides further authorization for the Speaker to accept pro bono assistance so there is no question as to its propriety.

Mr. Speaker, the relevant portion of the House Ethics Manual states:

``[A]s detailed below, Members and staff may accept pro bono legal assistance for certain purposes without Committee permission.

``As to pro bono legal assistance, a Member, officer, or employee may accept such assistance without limit for the following purposes:

``To file an amicus brief in his or her capacity as a Member of Congress;''

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source