Providing for Consideration of H. Res. Authorizing the Speaker to Appear As Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the House

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 649 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 649

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House 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. 15-674. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, which will provide for consideration of House Resolution 639. I believe the underlying resolution is imperative to protecting the balance of power that our Founders so carefully enshrined in the United States Constitution.

I would also like to point out that the House Committee on Rules held an original jurisdiction hearing and markup yesterday in which we received testimony and consideration of an amendment from the minority.

Mr. Speaker, over 25 States or State officials have filed suit 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.

On February 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction prohibiting further implementation of these programs on the ground that States are likely to prevail in their argument for the programs that have run afoul of the law.

The Supreme Court indicated that they will begin hearing oral arguments on United States v. Texas in April of 2016 and that it will consider the plaintiffs' claims under the Take Care Clause. Because of this timely consideration by the highest court in the land, it is imperative that the House consider this underlying resolution.

I want to make it very clear that this resolution is not about policy. If you spoke with every single Member of this body, you would find a wide spectrum of opinions regarding how to handle the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States unlawfully. This resolution is not about those viewpoints. It is about the fundamental separation of power ingrained in our founding document, the Constitution.

Article I, section 8 gives Congress, not the President, the authority ``to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.'' The administration simply cannot ignore certain statutes and selectively enforce others or bypass the legislative process to create laws for executive fiat.

This administration has failed in its duty under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and the Supreme Court has specifically indicated that it will consider the plaintiffs' claims under the Take Care Clause. Clearly, the Court views this case as an important review of Article I and Article II issues and the balance of power between the branches.

For that reason, and that reason alone, the United States House of Representatives is uniquely suited to speak to this underlying question that has been raised by the court.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the argument we are making today is that this President has a repeated history of needing to have his actions resolved through the court system.

The Supreme Court has acted over 13 times to rule against the Obama administration. This President is an activist President that works around the legislature. As a matter of fact, even Members of this body have implicated that they don't even know who their White House contacts are.

We have repeatedly tried to work with the President. We hold hearings. They ignore and rebuff the things that we do. They disallow what are considered to be normal rules of law.

So this is an action that has been brought by the States, not by the United States Congress. We were simply asked to give an opinion, and that is what we are doing today.

Mr. Speaker, if you listen to our colleagues, they make wild accusations. They are swinging widely rather than understanding the essence of the case. The essence of the case is more than 25 States have gone to Federal Court in Texas, at the heart of the border, and argued the laws of the United States of America.

The process that comes about and that we agree with is we do not believe that the President of the United States, not any President, has the authority, the responsibility, or the legal standing to do what this President has done.

The President repeated that, evidently, some 21 times, that he did not have that standing either to do what he eventually did, which was purely political, and that is what we are being accused of today.

We believe that rule of law is the most important attribute, and we simply in the House of Representatives are supporting what the Supreme Court has asked at the time the oral arguments will be done here before the Supreme Court, probably in the next month or so.

I would remind this body, Mr. Speaker, that over 13 times the highest court in this land, the Supreme Court, has ruled against this activist President for exceeding his constitutional authority.

This President, in his own concoction of the way the country ought to be run, does not follow the rules, not the rule of law, not the rule of providing enough information for people by properly delineating the way rules and laws should be executed.

That is why we are here today. It has everything to do with our belief that the President of the United States has not well and faithfully properly executed the laws of the country.

There is a lot of good debate here today. The facts of the case are real simple. The Supreme Court of the United States will be deciding this.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal District Court of the Southern District of Texas have let their answer be known, and that is they believe that the President is wrong. But we have a process to follow, and the good part is it is not whether something House Republicans are doing is trying to delay or to stop something that might be a decisionmaking that has been made by someone else. We are simply trying to support an action that was asked as a result by the Supreme Court: Do we have an opinion about this issue? And it is thus that we are asking the House of Representatives to come together today to hear the facts of this issue and to then render a decision.

That, to me, Mr. Speaker, is normal and regular, and our Speaker, Paul Ryan, is most meticulous in looking at this issue. His advice and judgment comes from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Bob Goodlatte. Both of these gentlemen are not only well balanced, but really doing what is being asked of them by the third branch of government, which is the judiciary. The judiciary has asked the House of Representatives and parties to this suit if they would please discuss this issue.

We believe our ideas are material to the question at hand, and that is why the United States House of Representatives, through the Rules Committee, is here for this rule today and the underlying legislation in just a few minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the arguments that are on the floor today evolve and revolve around the issues that we believe are very important; that is, we believe that the President of the United States has exceeded his executive authority, and the Supreme Court is going to hear the case.

But, in fact, today the question that lies before the House is about an action that will be taken by this House to support, in an amicus brief, the positions that will be needed.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the Speaker of the House.

(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague that I have come to the end of my speakers and would wait for her to offer her final comments, and I will close.

I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her engagement on this important issue and for her leadership on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, most of all, what we are doing here is acknowledging that the Supreme Court of the United States will make this decision; but in seeking input on this important question, we feel like the House is uniquely qualified to begin answering that question, literally, with a vote. That is how we do things around here.

I do recognize and respect that the minority leader has gathered a group of those who might be Democrats--from the Democrat Party, House and Senate sides--for their own opinion, and they did file that. This is an action that will be taken today that is by the House of Representatives, and I think the Speaker outlined why we are here and the importance of it.

Mr. Speaker, in July of 2011, President Obama stated: ``I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform, but that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.''

I quote the President of the United States on addressing the same issue exactly that is before us today.

Article I, section 8 gives Congress, not the President, the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. It is directly out of the Constitution. The President had it right at least 21 times.

Article II, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States requires the President take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today, before this body, is not about policy. It is not about how we should handle the 11 million undocumented, illegal immigrants who are currently residing in this country. It is about our Nation's Constitution. It is about the checks and balances that our Founders labored over so intensely to ensure a government will always be by and for the people. It has even been noted that it has been taught and is taught today in elementary school that the legislature--the Congress--writes the laws. That is why we are here today. It is even taught in our elementary schools.

Mr. Speaker, this administration, as well as future administrations from either party--whoever serves--must not be allowed to ignore the Constitution and circumvent those who write the laws, and it is imperative that the House speaks as an institution on this matter.

I am pleased with the arguments that have been made today. I believe they were right and just, and I believe that our Speaker, Paul Ryan, in his own wisdom and experience and temperament, is attempting to approach this as an important constitutional issue and as the prerogative and the right and the responsibility of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source