On the recordMarch 17, 2016
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in April, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the United States v. Texas, a case that has been repeatedly litigated by our colleagues in the halls of Congress. And this resolution is absolutely about immigration policy. Let's be clear. Numerous hearings have been held in our committee challenging the constitutionality of Deferred Actions for Parents of Americans. Our colleagues, instead of moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform and fixing our broken immigration system, have instead insisted on putting forth a resolution, a resolution that has no substantive findings, makes no legal arguments against the executive action, and exists only in the hopes of securing time before the Court during oral arguments. If our colleagues do find themselves before the Court in this case, it would be helpful if they remember the settled Constitutional law on this subject. DAPA is a lawful exercise of executive discretion well within the bounds of the Constitution. It is based on laws enacted by Congress that grant broad discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Since 1952, Congress has authorized the executive branch to establish such regulations, issue such instructions, and perform such other acts as it deems necessary for carrying out its authority. And within that authority, it is a reasonable exercise of the discretion delegated by Congress to do what it is doing.…





