Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the consideration of H. Res. 676.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to discuss the unwarranted, ongoing shift of power in favor of the executive branch. Under President Obama, the executive branch has increasingly gone beyond the constraints of the Constitution. In fact, in a number of instances, the President's actions have gone beyond his article II powers to enforce the law and have infringed upon the article I powers of Congress to write the law. We are here today because, at the beginning of this Congress, every Member of this body took an oath of office in which we swore to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' At the beginning of each Presidential term, the President takes an oath to ``faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States and . . . to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' While these oaths are slightly different, the object of both oaths is the same. The President and Members of Congress have an obligation to follow and defend the Constitution. The text of the Constitution that we have sworn to defend provides separate powers for each branch of the Federal Government. Article I puts the power to legislate--that is, to write the law--in the hands of Congress. Article II, on the other hand, requires that the President ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The difference is important. The Founders knew that giving one branch the power to both write and execute the law would be a direct threat to the liberties of the American people. They separated these powers between the branches in order to ensure that no one particular person, whether it be the President or a Member of Congress, could trample upon the rights of the people. My fear is that our Nation is currently facing the exact threat that the Constitution is designed to avoid. Branches of government have always attempted to exert their influence on the other branches, but the President has gone too far. Rather than faithfully executing the law as the Constitution requires, I believe that the President has selectively enforced the law in some instances, ignored the law in other instances and, in a few cases, unilaterally attempted to change the law altogether. These actions have tilted the power away from the legislature and toward the Executive. They have also undermined the rule of law, which provides the predictability necessary to govern a functioning and fair society. By and large, this country is founded upon the rule of law, and this tilts that balance. By circumventing Congress, the President's actions have marginalized the role that the American people play in creating the laws that govern them. Specifically, the President has waived work requirements for welfare recipients, unilaterally changed immigration laws, released the Gitmo Five without properly notifying Congress, which is the law, and ignored the statutory requirements of the Affordable Care Act. We have chosen to bring this legislation forth today to sue the President over his selective implementation of the Affordable Care Act because it is the option most likely to clear the legal hurdles necessary to succeed and to restore the balance between the branches intended by the Founders. This administration has effectively rewritten the law without following the constitutional process. When the executive branch goes beyond the constraints of the Constitution and infringes upon the powers of the legislative branch, it is important that the remaining branch of government--the judiciary--play its role in rebalancing this important separation of powers. After all, the constitutional limits on government power are meaningless unless judges engage with the Constitution and enforce those limits. My friends in the minority do not seem to believe that the judiciary is up to its role in rebalancing the separation of powers. I disagree. Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, Members of the minority argued that this lawsuit is frivolous and a waste of time. They argued that if this litigation were to go forward that it would lead to countless lawsuits between the branches of government. What my friends in the minority might fail to tell you--but I will today on the floor--is that they were for suing the President before they were against it. Eight years ago, in 2006, some Members of the minority, including the ranking member of the Rules Committee--the gentlewoman from New York--were plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats against then sitting President George W. Bush. That is right. Eight years ago, my friends across the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President, brought by Members of one half of the Congress. The Democratic ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, who is also a plaintiff, argued that he was alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of government and by a President who shrugged about the law. After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the Nation, he said he had determined that there was one group of people who was injured by the President's lack of respect for checks and balances--the House of Representatives. I want to echo one line that he argued at the time regarding the separation of powers: If a President does not need one House of Congress to pass the law, what is next? Perhaps this makes sense. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial from The Huffington Post, on April 26, 2006, by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan. It is entitled, ``Taking the President to Court,'' in which he made a compelling argument as to why Members of the House could, in fact, have standing to sue the President. [From The Huffington Post, July 30, 2014] Taking the President to Court As some of you may be aware, according to the President and Congressional Republicans, a bill does not have to pass both the Senate and the House to become a law. Forget your sixth grade civics lesson, forget the book they give you when you visit Congress--``How Our Laws Are Made,'' and forget Schoolhouse Rock. These are checks and balances, Republican- style. As the Washington Post reported last month, as the Republican budget bill struggled to make its way through Congress at the end of last year and beginning of this year (the bill cuts critical programs such as student loans and Medicaid funding), the House and Senate passed different versions of it. House Republicans did not want to make Republicans in marginal districts vote on the bill again, so they simply certified that the Senate bill was the same as the House bill and sent it to the President. The President, despite warnings that the bill did not represent the consensus of the House and Senate, simply shrugged and signed the bill anyway. Now, the Administration is implementing it as though it was the law of the land. Several public interest groups have sought to stop some parts of the bill from being implemented, under the theory that the bill is unconstitutional. However, getting into the weeds a bit, they have lacked the ability to stop the entire bill. To seek this recourse, the person bringing the suit must have what is called ``standing,'' that is they must show they were injured or deprived of some right. Because the budget bill covers so many areas of the law, it is difficult for one person to show they were harmed by the entire bill. Thus, many of these groups have only sought to stop part of it. After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the nation, I determined that one group of people are injured by the entire bill: Members of the House. We were deprived of our right to vote on a bill that is now being treated as the law of the land. So, I am going to court. With many of my Democratic Colleagues (list appended at the bottom of this diary), I plan to file suit tomorrow in federal district court in Detroit against the President, members of the Cabinet and other federal officers seeking to have a simple truth confirmed: a bill not passed by the House and Senate is not a law, even if the President signs it. As such, the Budget bill cannot be treated as the law of the land. As many of you know, I have become increasingly alarmed at the erosion of our constitutional form of government. Whether through the Patriot Act, the Presidents Secret Domestic Spying program, or election irregularities and disenfranchisement, our fundamental freedoms are being taken away. Nothing to me is more stark than this, however. If a President does not need one House of Congress to pass a law, what's next? The following is a list of co-plaintiffs on this lawsuit. I would note that I did not invite every Member of the House to join in the suit, and I am certain many, many more Members would have joined if asked. However, this was not possible for various arcane legal reasons. The other plaintiffs include Rep. John Dingell, Ranking Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee; Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Committee; Rep. George Miller, Ranking Member on the Education and Workforce Committee; Rep. James L. Oberstar, Ranking Member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Rep. Barney Frank, Ranking Member on the Financial Services Committee; Rep. Collin C. Peterson, Ranking Member on the Agriculture Committee; Rep. Bennie Thompson, Ranking Member on the Homeland Security Committee; Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member on the Rules Committee; Rep. Fortney ``Pete'' Stark, Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee; Rep. Sherrod Brown, Representing Ohio's 13th District.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the litigation considered by this resolution is a lot different and is a lot stronger than litigation filed by my friends on the other side against a previous President. The majority of these lawsuits was brought by a small group of legislators or individual Members. Today, the House as an institution will vote to authorize the suit, which gives this case, I believe, a far better chance in court than previous attempts. My friends in the minority at the Rules Committee yesterday claimed that this is all about politics, but the Republican members of this committee repeatedly insisted that we disagreed. The issue is not about partisan politics. It is not about Republicans and Democrats. This lawsuit is about the legislative branch's standing up for the laws that have been passed and signed into law by the legislative branch and signed by the Executive of this great Nation. Republicans are motivated to stand up for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. Any person who believes in our system of government should be worried about the President's executive overreach. This President, as well as future Presidents--from either party--must not be allowed to ignore the Constitution and to circumvent Congress. Both Republicans and Democrats have stood up for the legislative branch in the past. In fact, there have been 44 lawsuits filed in the last 75 years in which legislators sought standing in Federal court. Of the 41 filed by plaintiffs from a single party, nearly 70 percent were brought by Democrats, representing the body. I submit for the Record an editorial by Kimberley Strassel, from The Wall Street Journal, dated July 17, 2014, that further explains why the Democrats were suing the President before they were against it, and I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for Congress and to defend our Constitution against the executive branch. [From The Potomac Watch, July 17, 2014] The Boehner-Bashers' Track Record (By Kimberley A. Strassel) In the tiny House Rules Committee room in Congress on Wednesday, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter let roll her grievances against House Republicans' lawsuit against Barack Obama. It took a lot of coffee. The suit, which sues the president for unilaterally changing a core provision of ObamaCare, is a ``political stunt,'' declared Ms. Slaughter. Republicans have ``timed'' it to ``peak . . . right as the midterm elections are happening,'' said the ranking Rules member. Having failed to stop ObamaCare, they have chosen to ``run to the judicial branch.'' And, she lectured, a ``lawsuit against the president brought by half of the Congress'' is ``certainly'' not the ``correct way to resolve'' a ``political dispute.'' As for the legal merits, well! Ms. Slaughter feted her witness, lawyer Walter Dellinger, praising his work on Raines v. Byrd , a 1997 case in which the Supreme Court found members of Congress do not have automatic standing to sue. The courts, she insisted, had no business settling such disputes. A lawsuit against the president, she declared, ``is preposterous.'' About the only thing Ms. Slaughter didn't do in five hours was offer House Speaker John Boehner her litigation notes. For it seems to have slipped Ms. Slaughter's mind--and the press's attention--that a mere eight years ago she was a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats against George W. Bush. The year was 2006, just as Democrats were, uh, peaking in their campaign to take back the House. Democrats were sore that they'd lost a fight over a budget bill that made cuts to Medicaid and student loans. They dredged up a technical mistake--a tiny difference between the House and Senate version of the bill. Michigan Democrat John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, decided to (how did Ms. Slaughter put it?) file a lawsuit against the president brought by half of the Congress. He was joined as a plaintiff by nearly every other then-ranking Democratic member and titan in the House--Charles Rangel, John Dingell, George Miller, Collin Peterson, Bennie Thompson, Barney Frank, Pete Stark, James Oberstar and Ms. Slaughter herself. In an April 2006 Huffington Post piece titled ``Taking the President to Court,'' Mr. Conyers explained that he was ``alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of government,'' and by a president who ``shrugged'' about ``the law.'' After ``consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the nation,'' he had determined that there was ``one group of people'' who were ``injured'' by Mr. Bush's lack of respect for ``checks and balances'': Congress. So he was ``going''--or as Ms. Slaughter might put it, ``running''--''to court.'' The plaintiffs--including Ms. Slaughter--meanwhile filed briefs explaining why Raines v. Byrd (her Dellinger special) should be no bar to granting them standing. They chided the defendants for omitting ``any mention'' of Coleman v. Miller, a 1939 case in which the Supreme Court did grant standing to members of a legislature to sue. By Wednesday, it was Ms. Slaughter who was omitting any mention that any such decision ever existed. Then again, there was so much that escaped Democrats' minds at that hearing. Not one of those present, for instance, recalled that only two years ago, four of their House colleagues filed suit against Vice President Joe Biden (in his capacity as head of the Senate) challenging as unconstitutional the filibuster. Or that Democratic legislators also filed lawsuits claiming standing in 2011, and in 2007, and in 2006, and in 2002 and in 2001 and . . . It was left to Florida International University law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, another witness, to remind Democrats that in fact no fewer than 44 lawsuits in which legislators sought standing had been filed in federal court since Coleman v. Miller. Of the 41 filed by plaintiffs with unified political affiliation, nearly 70 percent were brought by Democrats. At least 20 of those came since 2000. The GOP might thank Ms. Slaughter for the idea. Save one crucial difference. It was also left to Ms. Foley to explain that the reason most of these prior cases had failed is because most were, in fact--again, in Ms. Slaughter's words--''political stunts.'' The majority, including the Slaughter case, were brought by ad hoc groups of legislators, sore over a lost political battle, complaining to courts. The judiciary wasn't much impressed. By contrast--and by far the more notable aspect of the five long hours of the hearing--is the care the Boehner team is putting into its own suit. While Democrats used Wednesday to score political points, Republicans used it to grill their expert witnesses on case law and constitutional questions. Mr. Boehner's decisions to have the House as a whole vote to authorize the suit, and to narrowly tailor it around a specific presidential transgression (and one that no private litigant would ever have standing to protest), are designed to make this a far different and better breed of a court case. It's precisely because Democrats know how good a point Republicans have about Obama unilateralism that they are already working to dismiss the suit as ``political.'' And to do that, Ms. Slaughter must have us forget that up until, oh, two weeks ago, Democrats were all about asking the courts to vindicate Congress's prerogatives. How times change.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, through this lawsuit, the United States House of Representatives will take a critical and crucial step in reining in the President and in defending the Constitution so that it will endure for yet another generation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we just heard a lot of revisionist history. But I will answer the question. And the answer is that years back, we did impeach William Jefferson Clinton because he lied to an FBI agent. He lied to a Federal grand jury, and he violated a Federal law, which was a felony. Oh, by the way, that led to impeachment for a felony while in office, a sitting President. In this instance, the President of the United States is not faithfully executing the laws of the country, and that is an entirely different process. So for the gentleman to suggest that this is going to lead to that is simply not true. I will tell you that William Jefferson Clinton violated the Federal law as a felony, and we believe our President, now Barack Obama, is not faithfully executing the laws. And anybody could figure that out who serves as a Member of Congress. I would now like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, and Natural Resources Committees.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time remains on both sides.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. With the gentlewoman having 5\1/2\ minutes left, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentlewoman that I have no additional speakers except myself to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, our system of government is in a bad place when one branch of government is compelled to sue another branch of government for failing to play its proper constitutional role. We shouldn't be in that situation, but we are. The President should have fulfilled his oath to faithfully execute the laws as written by Congress and signed by this President. Unfortunately, this lawsuit is necessary because the President has not implemented the law as passed and chose to pick and choose how he would have the law affect the American citizens. This resolution will help guarantee that the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President is faithfully executed according to the rule of law and not according to the whim of one person, that being the President of the United States. Also, no President should be allowed to pick and choose which laws matter and which ones do not. It is unfortunate that some Members of Congress believe this body should be irrelevant. It is unfortunate that they believe any President should be able to enforce the law or not enforce the law as that President chooses. The American people elect their Member of Congress. They live under the laws that are written. They make their plans and follow through based upon what the laws are, and they live under these rules of law, and they need to be able to count on them. When Members of Congress believe the laws that we pass no longer matter, they are also saying that the beliefs of the American people do not matter. When we allow the President to singlehandedly determine what the law is, the Constitution, our separation of powers, and the American people become irrelevant. That is why the President's system of unilateral governance cannot stand. It must be stopped. Even if it takes a lawsuit to do so, that is what we think the Federal judiciary is there to do: to resolve differences based upon the law. If the President's goal was to goad the House into defending the Constitution and the role of the government, he certainly had succeeded when he said: Why not just sue me? Our Constitution must be defended and the role of the American people in the lawmaking process must be understood and guaranteed. This resolution is an important step in doing that. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I submit an exchange of letters between Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Candice Miller, and myself regarding the Committee on House Administration's jurisdictional interests in this resolution as well as Chairman Miller's desire to waive House Administration's consideration of H. Res. 676. These letters were also included in House Report 113- 561, which was filed on July 28, 2014. July 24, 2014. Hon. Pete Sessions; Chairman, The Committee on Rules, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Sessions: On July 24, 2014, the Committee on Rules ordered reported H. Res. 676, a resolution providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the United States. As you know, the Committee on House Administration was granted an additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to the Committee's jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives over the allowance and expenses of administrative officers of the House. Because of your willingness to consult with my committee regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill by the Committee on House Administration. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, the Committee on House Administration does not waive its jurisdiction over H. Res. 676. I request that you include this letter and your response as part of your committee's report on the bill and the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Candice S. Miller, Chairman, Committee on House Administration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 676) providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and in memory of one of Texas's most heroic sons, Navy SEAL Sniper Chris Kyle. Chris was one of the deadliest snipers in American history, with 160 confirmed kills out of 255 claimed by his SEAL brethren. He earned Two Silver Stars, and five Bronze Stars With Valor; and survived six IED attacks, two gunshot wounds, two helicopter crashes, and more surgeries than he could remember in his distinguished career. Sadly, on February 2, 2013, while trying to help a fellow veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, he was shot and killed at a shooting range. His courage, selfless service, and his dedication to his country and family make us all proud. He is survived by his wife Taya. I submit this poem penned in his honor by Albert Carey Caswell. The Sights We've Set (By Albert Carey Caswell) The . . . The sights . . . The sights we've set! All in our moments upon this earth as met . . . All in our honor that we've so kept! All in the goals that we've so met! So reached! To all our children we must teach! Of uncommon valor so very deep! As a United States Navy Seal Chris, The Legend you now beseech! And so surpassed, forever onward to so last! All in the sights Chris you've so set! You, Star of Texas so very deep! All in your Seal of Honor Chris, you would not so breach! Throughout your magnificent life so sought to seek! Are left behind all of those moments of your life of now we speak! About Strength In Honor so very deep! As why for you Chris we now all so weep! For such things can only be found, only in the most courageous of all hearts which so beat! When, courage comes to crest! To but be one of The Very Best! As a true American Hero no less! And to march off to war, so willing to give up all that you love and adore! For such ones, Heaven will so reach! And ah all of those lives you've saved! And all of those Mothers whose tears you so helped not to break! Not to so weep! And all of those children now so born, from all of your Brothers In Arms from death you'd keep! For only our Lord so knows this number so sweet! And to you this day will speak! Rest now our most heroic son! As the eyes and the Hearts of Texas are upon you this one! As we pray to our Lord to help your loved ones to move on! As SEALED with a kiss we say goodbye! As here we stand with tear in eye! To so guide us all, each and everyone! All in the sights Chris, for us you have set! For now Chris you have but a new war so to be won! As an Angel in The Army of our Lord our most precious son! To so watch over us from sun to sun! And we will hear you on the wind! And feel your Angel's breath upon us, as Thy Will Be Done! As we pray up in Heaven one day we all shall so meet! As this sight we have so set, now so seek! For you were once, and will forever be . . . one of America's Best! So Rest my Son! As we lay your fine body so down to sleep! And when there comes a gentle rain, your tears shall wash down upon your loved ones to so ease their pain! Until, up in Heaven you all so meet, and you won't have to cry no more! Amen!

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, did you know that Google keeps emails for 7 years? Google, a company which is used for personal emails, keeps your emails, evidently, longer than the IRS. Well, that is, at least, what we are understanding now from the IRS. I think it is highly doubtable that these emails simply disappeared. And seeing the other claims by the IRS that have turned out to be falsities, I believe this is also. I do not believe that they have lost them. First, the IRS delayed in telling the American people, through their report of the missing emails. They did not even acknowledge the problem that occurred. Second, the IRS Commissioner Koskinen was, I believe, untruthful when he referred to these emails being missing. No, not in April, as he first claimed, but actually February 2, according to the IRS deputy associate chief counsel, did he recognize that they were missing. Madam Speaker, I would say if Google can keep these emails for 7 years, I think the IRS should have to do the same, and if they can't do their job, we are going to, as Members of Congress, find out.