Providing for Consideration of H.R. Separation of Powers Restoration Act of Providing for Proceedings During the Period From June Through July and Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 796 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 796

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4768) to amend title 5, United States Code, with respect to the judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five- minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. It shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment during the month of July, 2016.

Sec. 3. On any legislative day during the period from June 23, 2016, through July 4, 2016-- (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved; and

(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.

Sec. 4. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.

Sec. 5. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of June 23, 2016, or June 24, 2016, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016. I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, which I believe directly benefits the American people by ensuring unelected bureaucrats are not able to reinterpret the intent of legislation passed by this body, the United States Senate, signed by the President, or known also as lawmakers under the legislative process Article I powers that are directly elected by the people of this country.

Two weeks ago, the Rules Committee met and reported a structured rule for H.R. 4768. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I also want to point out that the Rules Committee asked Members to submit their ideas and amendments, and, as a result, this resolution makes in order all of the amendments submitted that did not raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of these United States established three coequal branches of government, each with a clearly defined role. The separation of powers protects Americans by preventing any one branch from gaining too much power.

Unfortunately, this system is being, I believe, abused by unlawful actions by administrative agencies that are increasingly asserting lawmaking powers. This modern ``Federal administrative state,'' as it is called, runs counter to our Founders' intent, outlined in our Constitution, and I believe must be reined in. That is why we are on the floor of the House of Representatives today with our ideas to move forth on behalf of the ideas that we believe should rule in law, in rulemaking, and in the way the American people find governance of these United States.

Mr. Speaker, in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that, when a congressional statute is ambiguous, courts hearing challenges to executive actions must preemptively defer to the regulators' interpretation of the law. The Court effectively rigged America's regulatory and judicial system in favor of unelected bureaucrats and against the American citizens that are being targeted.

Later, in Auer v. Robbins, the Court required deference to agencies' interpretations of their own regulations. This great deference to administrative agencies is particularly troubling because it effectively gives unelected bureaucrats the power to make law.

Administrative agencies issue, enforce, and settle disputes involving regulations that have the force of law in many, many respects. In every aspect of our daily life, we are impacted by these decisions. Though the courts have a duty to check the abuses of the political branches in certain appropriate cases, they too often rely on deferential doctrines in reviewing agency actions. Given the inconsistent application of Chevron deference and concerns about the separation of powers, it is imperative that Congress act.

H.R. 4768 reverses this erosion of our constitutional system that has allowed unelected bureaucrats to mandate their own interpretations of laws. The legislation overturns the Chevron and Auer doctrines by clarifying the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the bill directs courts to conduct a de novo, or from scratch, review of all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and the provisions of agency rules.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that, at the time we pass laws, at the time we debate intent, and at the time we pass these laws and give to the agencies the opportunity to work with us on the formation of how the laws will be played out, meaning the agencies' rules and regulations, it should be done with the intent of Congress. Many States have regulatory systems that require all regulations come back through their elected officials.

We find that what we are trying to do is to simply return the power of legislating to Congress and ensure the courts, not the agencies, interpret the laws, based upon the original intent of the laws. This is a critical step in restoring the constitutional balance and, I believe, limiting executive overreach to the balance that works on behalf of people for the intent of the original passage of the laws.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS.

The purpose why we came to the floor was to support the rule and the underlying legislation. And I believe that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) spoke very clearly about how this Congress needs to stand up and speak clearly about not only the role of Congress in writing laws, but also working more carefully with agencies as they write rules and regulations.

We get that. We have oversight. We work with regulatory bodies. But what we are trying to say, as we provide the information on this bill, is that we want the courts to recognize that in the power struggle that takes place between the executive, legislative branch, and the courts, that we would like to defer to the people who originally wrote the law. What we are here to do today to talk about is exactly that.

I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel like they have a lot of frustration about a lot of issues. I would say to them: 2 weeks ago, that was the Zika virus; this House has tried to work its will on that. We will get to rather quickly this issue of the terrorist watch list.

What we are trying to do today are also things that are of grave importance to the American people because of the loss of jobs in this country, based upon the executive branch that is overusing what we believe are the rules and regulations to inhibit the American people that are costly--over a trillion dollars' worth of cost--that have been placed over these years on private industry and the American citizens.

We are here today to also talk about an important aspect, and that is jobs opportunity. The American people are overburdened. We are trying to bring back the discussion today that we believe the intent of those who write the law, that the rules and regulations that are the underpinning of how those laws will be looked at, will be supported by the same effort that we wrote the law with. And so we are trying to go back to the intent that the people who wrote the laws and the agencies that are attempting to enforce the laws, that they would mirror each other to the benefit of the American people.

We have had virtually 1 percent GDP growth now during the entirety of President Obama's administration. For 7 years, America has lagged behind in its ability to catch up and be competitive with the world. And the question becomes: Why do we allow the Federal Government to be bigger and larger and put roadblocks, impediments in front of job creators?

That is why we are here today. We are here today to say we would like to balance out the process. We would like the courts to understand and the administration to understand that for America to continue to be competitive with the world, we have to go back to some balance of power that we believe directly is related to Article I; that we believe that the courts should understand that the original intent of laws come from the legislative process. And that is why we are on the floor today.

We have too many people who cannot find work, cannot find a job because of rules and regulations that are burdening industry and people who are job creators. This is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker. I think we are here doing the right thing.

We are talking about jobs, job creation, the original intent of this body, the legislation that is written by legislators with the intent and rule of law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS.

The bill that we are debating and going to vote on is a bill that is a very important bill talking about what is essentially the power of the United States Congress as we pass laws and to have the rules and regulations that are written by agencies to conform not only with the law, but even the intent of the law.

This administration increasingly goes further and further and further and further beyond not only the original intent and narrowness of bills and laws, but they are into a power grab.

That is why we are here, Mr. Speaker, because we are concerned about the GDP growth, the lack of jobs in this country, the huge number of people who are unemployed and the strong, strong support that they are not getting from Washington, D.C., to try and say that we need a pro- growth agenda and we need less rules and regulations.

We have many, many, many laws that are already on the books. And this administration keeps pouring on more and more and more rules, taking the laws that we have passed and taking advantage by writing rules that will inhibit not only business, but job creation. That is why we are on the floor today, and this is why Republicans will pass this bill, because we are talking about the real problems today that the average American has.

Americans want to see themselves in a good job, a job that is located near their home, a job that provides good access not only for them, to provide more goods and services for their family, but for communities to survive the onslaught of rules and regulations where it seems like Washington knows better than people back home about how to provide not just jobs, but to make things better for people that are in their own environment.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here. Republicans are going to stay after this. We deeply believe that what we are doing today is offering the American people a good solution to a huge, huge problem.

Once again, what we are here to do today is to bring forth a bill that would bring about the constitutional authority that would give a clearer understanding and meaning to not only the legislative process, the executive process, but also the judicial process whereby there would be an understanding of the laws that are passed and rules and regulations which very understandably must be given to a branch of government, in this case the executive, to look at the law which the executive signed to determine its implementation.

The facts of the case are that years later, this administration comes in and uses that same law which was very specific, which rules and regulations were passed for, and create new and onerous roadblocks and problems for not only industry, but also the development of jobs and job creation. And it is an apparent administration policy that they will use this as their advantage rulemaking authority to prevent further opportunities for us to grow jobs and job creation in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I really could not be here at a more genuine time and say that just last month this great country only netted adding 28,000 jobs--net 28,000 jobs--and yet we had millions and millions of young people who had just graduated from high school or college who should be seeking an opportunity to help themselves into a line of business, into a career, into an opportunity to sustain themselves, their way of life, their city, their State, and this great Nation.

But the sign is there that said: No jobs available; we are not interested; we cannot hire more people; no thank you. And the number one reason back from industry, from employers, from people who want to make America stronger is rules and regulations, rules and regulations coming out of Washington, D.C., that are harming job creation, that are impediments to effectively being able to create new jobs.

That is uncertainty. That is agency power that specifically targets all sorts of industry in this country. And they are doing it for a reason--to the demise of the free enterprise system of America on behalf of Washington, D.C., unnamed, unknown bureaucrats who hide behind their rules and regulations.

We, as Members of Congress, are getting questions: Hey, what about our generation having jobs? What about our communities that cannot have jobs and job creation?

Ask the coal industry in West Virginia. The war on West Virginia, Ohio, Virginia, people who are in an industry not only that has a lineage in this country, but who have adapted themselves very rapidly in the environment that we are in.

How about truckers, men and women who are engaged in moving goods and services back and forth? How about bankers? How about financial services people who look up and see a regulatory scheme that keeps coming after them? How about my old industry that I spent 16 years at, the telecommunications industry, that would wish to put an extra some $18 billion a year more in investment in the ground, up in the air, and available to people, $18 billion they would like to put into the ground for people to have better services?

No. The rules and regulations out of Washington, D.C.--and that is why you see the Democratic Party today talking about something else, because they are protecting this administration. They are protecting these people who write rules and regulations who are making sure that we only have 1 percent GDP growth and, Mr. Speaker, only 28,000 net new jobs last year in the middle of summer in 2016. Meanwhile, we look up and India is at a 7.9 percent GDP growth rate. We are minuscule. We can't sustain what we have, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are here.

I understand the Democrats are frustrated. They are frustrated because their utopia of this idea of this land that would be just a giveaway isn't working because people don't have jobs, and that is why people are shooting each other--drug gangs, drug cartels, people who we have allowed to be in this country who shouldn't be here. That is why, because there are not jobs for people to do, and they are taking it out on each other.

So we are going to stay on the floor. We are going to get our work done here on this bill, and it is about jobs and job creation, but more important, it is back to the original intent of what we believe that those people who write the rules, that the rules and the laws should better be in line with what they wrote in the original intent.

Mr. Speaker, my friends failed to tell you that we know of not one person--not one--that has used the terrorist watch list as an excuse to buy a gun and do things.

What they are forgetting to tell you is that we do have a problem with terrorists and people in this country. The President of the United States is not, in my opinion and in many other people's opinion, taking executive and affirmative action against this. They can't even call terrorism what it really is. That is our problem. But today, Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor trying to debate a bill which we are going to be voting on in a few minutes.

In 2014, Mr. Speaker, 224 laws were enacted by Congress during the calendar year, yet 3,554 rules were passed by agencies. That means that there were 16 rules issued for every law.

Mr. Speaker, the administration is attempting to smother, to overrun the free enterprise system in favor of administrations that are not for job creation, that are not for raising GDP. They have a 7-year history of trying to kill the free enterprise system.

We are here for the American people to talk about jobs and job creation and more investment in America. As long as you have got an administration that is all about issuing some 3,554 new rules in exactly 1 year, you have got a problem. That is why we are here.

Mr. Speaker, I know what we are trying to do, and so do they. This legislation restores all Americans' basic rights and it also helps this body. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 796 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1076. ____ The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source