Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2828-H2830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of
the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Clerk will report the
resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives shall not
consider H.R. 3, the `Northern Route Approval Act' because:
(1) it violates Rule XXI of the House, and (2) it affects the
dignity and integrity of the proceedings of the House since
it is unconstitutional.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida wish to
present argument on the parliamentary question whether the resolution
presents a question of the privileges of the House?
Mr. GRAYSON. Yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
that purpose.
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

[[Page H2829]]

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''----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must confine his remarks to
whether the resolution qualifies as a question of privilege.
Mr. GRAYSON. I believe I have. May I continue?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may not debate the underlying
bill but must confine himself to the matter of privilege.
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?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed in order.
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----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's remarks should be confined
to the question of privileges of the House. The gentleman's remarks
address the underlying bill, which is not before the House currently.
If the gentleman is unwilling to confine his remarks to the question of
privilege, the Chair is prepared to rule.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of whether I'm willing
to. As I indicated before, the two are inextricably linked.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman that
there are two different questions. One is the merits of the measure
that the gentleman keeps trying to propose in his remarks; the other is
the question of privilege. The debate is on the question of privilege,
whether this resolution constitutes a question of privilege.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed in order.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will give the gentleman one more
opportunity. The question of constitutionality is not the same as a
question of privileges of the House. The gentleman should confine
himself to the question of privileges of the House. And if the
gentleman is unprepared to do so, the Chair is prepared to rule.
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?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed on the question of
privilege, and the Chair believes the gentleman knows the difference.

{time} 1430

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I just said.
May I proceed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed, but the Chair is
prepared to rule if the gentleman strays off the course of the question
of privilege.
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?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed in order.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has heard sufficient argument. The
argument that the gentleman is making is proper for the merits of the
proposed legislation but not on the question of privilege. The Chair
will rule.
The gentleman from Florida seeks to offer this resolution as a
question of the privileges of the House under rule IX. The resolution
proposes a special order of business with regard to a specified
legislative measure. Specifically, it mandates that a measure not be
considered by the House because it is unconstitutional and violates a
rule of the House.
To qualify as a question of privilege, a resolution must affect the
rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, or integrity of
its proceedings. In evaluating the resolution under the standards of
rule IX, the Chair is guided by a fundamental principle illuminated by
annotations of precedent in section 706 of the House Rules and Manual,
to wit: that a question of the privileges of the House may not be
invoked to effect a change in the rules or standing orders of the House
or their interpretation, nor to prescribe a special order of business
for the House.
The averment that this resolution presents a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX embodies precisely the contrary
principle, under which each individual Member of the House would
constituent a virtual Rules Committee, able to place before the House
at any time whatever proposed order of business he or she might deem
advisable based on allegations of unconstitutionality or violations of
the rules. In such an environment, anything could be privileged; so
nothing would enjoy true privilege.
Accordingly, under the long and well-settled line of precedent, as
elucidated

[[Page H2830]]

most recently by the ruling of August 10, 2010, the Chair finds that
such a resolution does not affect the rights of the House collectively,
its safety, dignity, or the integrity of its proceedings within the
meaning of clause 1 of rule IX and, therefore, does not qualify as a
question of the privileges of the House.

____________________