Alan Grayson: “Thank you. The Supreme Court held in Bowsher v. Synar that ``interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the…”

“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.”