Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), an esteemed district attorney in Colorado and currently a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), an exciting young member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my dear friend.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), who serves on the Agriculture Committee.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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.''

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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman who, I believe, represents not only thought and balance, but who is trying to work within the constitutional confines and the laws of this country.

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, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the young chairman from Texas.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) in order to further this example of why Republicans are on the floor at this time, and he will so adequately explain our case.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes

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

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

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).

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