Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed. Yes. I rise today to address H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, and my resolution…
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.
Yes.
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''----
I believe I have. May I continue?
Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I think they are inextricably entwined. I don't see how I can do one without the other.
May I continue?
``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. Speaker, it's not a question of whether I'm willing to. As I indicated before, the two are inextricably linked.
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.
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. 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. Speaker, I stand by what I just said.
May I proceed?
Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe you can properly do that without being fully informed as to the facts here.
May I proceed?
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.
