Alan Grayson

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON. I reclaim my time, and I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I speak in favor of the amendment. And I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments at the desk. These are Grayson Nos. 1, 3, and 4. In view of the late hour, I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first amendment, this amendment is identical to language that was inserted into the Military Construction-VA bill yesterday by a voice vote. It expands the list of parties with whom the Department of Homeland Security and other relevant entities are prohibited from contracting. This includes contractors who have been convicted of fraud, theft, forgery, bribery, et cetera, according to the terms of the amendment and otherwise. With regard to Grayson No. 3, the next amendment, this amendment is a simple one. It reads: None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of the First, Second or Fourth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. As you will notice, the same sentiment and relevant language appears in my colleague Mr. Ellison's amendment addressing racial discrimination and other matters. I gladly support his efforts, which passed unanimously by voice vote last Congress, and hope the same will be possible of my amendment in this Congress. With regard to the last Grayson amendment, I regret that my colleague Representative Holt could not be here to offer this amendment himself. He is in New Jersey today, remembering Senator Lautenberg. The amendment that I call up is actually the Holt-Grayson amendment, the last amendment. It's an amendment that Mr. Holt attached to the bill in the last Congress as an en bloc amendment offered by Representative Aderholt, which passed unanimously. The text of the amendment is the same word for word, and it reads as follows: None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for the purchase, operation or maintenance of armed unmanned aerial vehicles. This is an important amendment and one that I am proud to offer here today on behalf of Representative Holt. In no instance should DHS have access to or use weaponized drones. The bill before us today is the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense. That appropriations bill will come to the floor later this month, we hope. As our wars abroad come to a close and as excess militarized drones become available for purchase and use potentially by DHS, I feel that it's important to lay down this marker here today that says, no, DHS may not have access to that military equipment. DHS will continue to have access to surveillance drones, and if the committee report is correct, DHS will increase its supply of drones and possibly even build a new airfield to support them. In his previous amendment, Congressman Holt shared his thoughts on the ways in which these drones should not be used, so I will close with this: Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price, let's be clear with DHS--no armed drones in the United States. I ask for the support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strengthens existing provisions in the bill by preventing the award of contracts of money allocated under this bill to offerers or principals of offerers who, within the 3-year period preceding the offer, have been convicted or had a civil judgment rendered against them for such action as fraud, theft, bribery, making false statements, tax evasion, and so on. It would be unconscionable, Mr. Chairman, if we allowed taxpayer money to be given to contractors who have been convicted of such things as bribery; and, therefore, I offer this amendment to prevent that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, the U.S. House of Representative has passed a bill called the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 1062). Congress intended with this legislation to ensure that the Securities and Exchange Commission consider the costs and benefits of its regulatory apparatus, and further intended for this legislation to protect investors and improve capital formation.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. And having been lectured endlessly by the other side about the profundity of earmarks, we come across a bill here where, in fact, it's an earmark for a foreign oil corporation. We are issuing to a foreign oil corporation a right-of-way that's valued at millions and millions of dollars when the other side tells us they're not in favor of earmarks. Stop the hypocrisy.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Republicans on the other side of the aisle to stop faking it. We have a bill here that deems this, deems that, and deems the other thing. This is a bill that deems that the Environmental Impact Statement required by the National Environmental Policy Act is deemed approved. It's not. This is a bill that says that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act are deemed satisfied and opinion deemed issued. They're not. This is a bill that says that the required right-of-way and temporary use permit under the Mineral Leasing Act is deemed issued. Not. This is a bill that says that the requirements of the Water Pollution Control Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are deemed approved and issued. Not. Why are we doing this? While we're at it, why don't we deem a balanced budget? Why don't we deem full employment? Why don't we deem world peace? It's farcical. It's a violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution. It's not our job to deem things. It's our job to pass laws of general application, not favors to foreign oil companies.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. I understand that. But I don't think that the Chair can properly be informed of that question without the material that I'm providing to the Chair right now.

Mr. GRAYSON. Apparently, we are no longer satisfied with writing the laws. We have now taken it upon ourselves to execute them as well. This discredits the institution, not only within the Federal Government-- complicating our constitutional relationship with both the executive and the judicial branches--but also in the eyes of the American people. We must not allow the House to be degraded this way. Even when the facts of the bill are examined, this measure fails. The bill states that the environmental impact statement satisfies NEPA. That environmental impact statement, however, was for a different project--the Keystone XL Pipeline as proposed in 2009, a pipeline that would have terminated in the Gulf Coast.

Mr. GRAYSON. Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe you can properly do that without being fully informed as to the facts here. May I proceed?

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I just said. May I proceed?

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, the last words that I just said were that this offends the ``dignity and the integrity of the proceedings'' of the House. This relates directly to the matter before the Chair. May I proceed?

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes.

Mr. GRAYSON. I rise today to address H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, and my resolution raising a question of privilege regarding the matter. Please note that this is a privileged motion and therefore outside the scope of the Rules Committee's jurisdiction regarding ``the order of business of the House'' under rule X. Rather, this is a question of privilege ``affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings'' pursuant to rule IX. It is not invoked to ``effect a change in the rules or their interpretation'' as prescribed by House Rules and Manual at page 420. Consideration of this bill exceeds ``the rights of the House collectively'' and brings into question the ``dignity and the integrity of the proceedings'' of the House of Representatives under House rule IX because, first, it is unconstitutional, and second, it is an earmark. I presented this matter to the full House in H. Res. 225 as a question of privilege last night, and I noticed the question immediately following the only vote series of the day. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX of the House you must now make your determination as to whether or not this is an appropriate ``question of privilege'' and hold a vote on the resolution offered before the House. Before that happens, I would like to address the two claims I have made against the bill offered by the gentleman from Nebraska, and then I will outline the reasons why I feel you should find in favor of my question of privilege. H.R. 3 is unconstitutional. ``The Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws.'' The above is taken from the Supreme Court's ruling in Bowsher v. Synar. The bill before us violates this principle. Congress creates the laws, and it's up to the Executive to execute the laws. Under section 3 of this bill, however, ``the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011'' and ``the Presidential permit required for the pipeline described in the application filed on May 4, 2012''----

Mr. GRAYSON. I believe I have. May I continue?

Mr. GRAYSON. Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I think they are inextricably entwined. I don't see how I can do one without the other. May I continue?

Mr. GRAYSON. ``by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. to the Department of State as supplemented to include the Nebraska reroute evaluated in the Final Evaluation Report issued by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in January 2013 and approved by the Nebraska Governor'' shall ``be considered or deemed to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act.'' This is a clear attempt by this body to execute the law of the land, and that is proscribed by the Constitution. Again, Mr. Speaker, the Executive must execute the laws. H.R. 3 runs afoul of this requirement. The Supreme Court held in Bowsher v. Synar that interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of ``execution of the law,'' and that's exactly what is being proposed here and forbidden by the Constitution. The exercise of judgment in the bill before us concerning facts that affect application of statute----

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of whether I'm willing to. As I indicated before, the two are inextricably linked.

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. The Supreme Court held in Bowsher v. Synar that ``interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of `execution' of the law,'' and that's exactly what is being proposed here. The exercise of judgment in the bill before us concerning facts that affect application of statute constitutes execution of the law. It is an unconstitutional act that this body should not entertain. It violates separation of powers and violates the principle underlying the prohibition of bills of attainder. Statements are deemed by this bill to be in compliance with laws the Executive has been tasked with executing--the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA, and the National Historic Preservation Act. If you see section 3 of H.R. 3, it's referenced there. This is an impermissible execution of the law. Congress, through this bill, is attempting to apply the facts of the Keystone XL pipeline environmental impact statement to the body of law and deciding that they comply. This is unconstitutional and brings into question the ``dignity and the integrity of proceedings'' of the House.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following: May 21, 2013. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,