Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
FORMER COLLEAGUE, A HAPPY
BIRTHDAY, AND THANKS AGAIN AND
AGAIN FOR ALL THE SERVICE THAT
HE'S GIVEN TO THIS GREAT NATION.
HE HAS REALLY MADE AMERICA A
BETTER PLACE, AND I'M HONORED TO
HAVE BEEN ONE OF HIS COLLEAGUES.
AND I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM IOWA.
THE SUPREME
COURT EARLIER THIS MONTH ISSUED
A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION, A
DECISION THAT BOTHERS ME, A
DECISION THAT I THINK SHOWS THAT
JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS.
THE CENTERS IN THIS DECISION ARE
IT IS IMPORTANT NOT ONLY ON THE
MERITS OF THIS CASE BUT BECAUSE
IT SHOWS HOW THIS COUNTRY IS
ONLY ONE VOTE AWAY FROM AN
UNPRECEDENTED JUDICIAL ACT V.I.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION --
ACTIVISM.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS
ACTIVISM.
ENCOURAGING THIS JUDICIAL
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS
TAKING LEGAL POSITIONS THAT
THREATEN THE ROLE OF CONGRESS AS
A COEQUAL BRANCH OF OUR
GOVERNMENT.
THOSE POSITIONS CHALLENGE THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS THAT IS
DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE FREEDOM
OF AMERICANS AND EVEN THE RIGHT
OF PEOPLE TO GOVERN THEMSELVES,
WHICH IS THE BASIS OF
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND
THE PURPOSE OF THE CONGRESS.
THE UNITED STATES HAPPENS TO BE
A PARTY TO THE VIENNA CONVENTION
ON CONSOLATE RELATIONS.
THIS TREATY GIVES RIGHTS TO THE
CITIZENS OF COUNTRIES WHO ARE
PARTIES TO THAT TREATY TO HAVE
ACCESS TO THEIR COUNTRY'S
ARRESTED ABROAD.
CONSULAR OFFICIALS IF THEY ARE
THERE ARE SOME FOREIGN NATIONS
IN THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE
SENTENCED TO DEATH WITHOUT THOSE
RIGHTS BEING RESPECTED.
ALL OF THESE DEATH SENTENCES
APPEAR TO BE VALID UNDER THE
AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.
NOW THE STORY IS COMPLICATED,
BUT IN 2008 THE SUPREME COURT
RULED THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE TREATY WAS NOT AN
OBSTACLE TO THE EXECUTION OF A
FOREIGN NATIONAL WHO HAD BEEN
SENTENCED TO DEATH.
THIS WAS THE CASE EVEN IF THE
PRESIDENT ORDERED A STATE TO
ALLOW THE CRIMINAL TO CHALLENGE
HIS SENTENCE IN LIGHT OF THE
TREATY AND EVEN IF THE CRIMINAL
OBTAINED A JUDGMENT FROM THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
THAT HIS CONVICTION VIOLATED
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
THE COURT SAID THAT CONGRESS
COULD PASS LEGISLATION TO MAKE
THE TREATY APPLY TO PEOPLE ON
DEATH ROW WHO HAD NOT RECEIVED
CONS CONSULAR ACCESS.
WE IN THE CONGRESS HAVE NEVER
PASSED SUCH A LAW.
NOW TO THE SUPREME COURT CASE
THAT CONCERNS ME IN LIGHT OF
THIS BACKGROUND ON THE CONSULAR
RELATIONS TREATY.
IN 1994, HUMBERTO LAO GARCIA, A
MEXICAN NATIONAL, KIDNAPPED A
16-YEAR-OLD GIRL, *** HER AND
BLUDGEONED HER TO DEATH.
HE DID NOT ASK FOR ACCESS TO THE
MEXICAN CONSUL, AND HE DID NOT
RECEIVE ACCESS.
HE DID NOT CHALLENGE HIS FAILURE
TO RECEIVE CONSULAR ACCESS
DURING HIS TRIAL.
ONLY AFTER HE BROUGHT STATE
HABEAS CORPUS LITIGATION DID HE
RAISE THIS CLAIM.
AND THEN EVEN THEN HE DID NOT
RAISE CONSULAR NOTIFICATION TKAS
AN ISSUE IN HIS FIRST HABEAS
CORPUS DECISION.
HE DID OBTAIN A RULING THAT HIS
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WERE
OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE ORDERED THAT HE WAS
ENTITLED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
TO RECEIVE ANOTHER REVIEW OF HIS
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HABEAS LAW
ALLOWED HIM TO RAISE SUCH AN
ISSUE.
BUT THAT RULING IS OBVIOUSLY NOT
BINDING ON AMERICAN COURTS, AS
NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, EVEN
INCLUDING THE COUNTRY OF MEXICO,
ENFORCES INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE RULINGS AS PART OF ITS
DOMESTIC LAW.
AS HIS EXECUTION DATE APPROACHED
, MR. LAO SOUGHT A
STAY IN THE SUPREME COURT.
SINCE MR. LEAL RECEIVED A FAIR
TRIAL UNDER AMERICAN LAW AND
THERE WAS NO QUESTION CONCERNING
HIS GUILT, HIS REQUEST SHOULD
HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND REJECTED
UNANIMOUSLY.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
HE WAS EXECUTED, BUT THE SUPREME
COURT'S RULING WAS SHOCKINGLY
CLOSE BY DEFAULT.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
THROUGH THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
VERRILLI ASKED THE SUPREME COURT
TO GRANT THE STAY.
HIS BRIEF WAS TRULY ASTONISHING.
IT DID NOT ARGUE THERE WAS ANY
DOUBT ABOUT MR. LEAL WAS GUILTY.
IT DID NOT SAY MR. LEAL WAS
HARMED IN ANY WAY BY THE VIENNA
CONVENTION.
IT CITED NO CASE THAT PROVIDED
AN EXAMPLE WHERE A STAY HAD
ISSUE -- HAD BEEN ISSUED IN
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
IT RAISED NO ARGUMENTS FOR THE
STAY THAT WERE BASED ON AMERICAN
LAW BECAUSE AMERICAN LAW DID NOT
SUPPORT A STAY.
INSTEAD THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE RELIED ON INTERNATIONAL
LAW AND MADE POLICY ARGUMENTS.
IT ARGUED THAT MR. LEAL'S
EXECUTION WOULD CREATE NEGATIVE
EFFECTS ON AMERICA'S
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
IT ARGUED THAT HIS EXECUTION
WOULD VIOLATE OUR INTERNATIONAL
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.
AND IT ARGUED THAT THE MORE --
THAT THE MERE INTRODUCTION OF
LEGISLATION -- NOW UNDERSTAND
THIS.
JUST INTRODUCING A BILL AND AT
THE SAME TIME HAVING THE SUPPORT
OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
SHOULD ALLOW THE COURT TO ISSUE
A STAY TO PRESERVE ITS
JURISDICTION IF TIME WERE GIVEN
TO ALLOW THE BILL TO BE ENACTED.
THIS IS A POSITION THAT WORRIES
ME AND THREATENS THE ROLE OF
CONGRESS AS A COEQUAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT.
EVERYONE KNOWS BILLS ARE NOT
LAWS.
BILLS ARE WHAT WE INTRODUCE.
IF WE PASS BILLS, THEY BECOME
LAW.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS MADE IT
VERY DIFFICULT TO ENACT LAWS.
THERE ARE TWO HOUSES OF
CONGRESS, AND EACH HAS TO PASS
THE SAME VERSION OF THE BILL,
AND THE PRESIDENT HAS TO SIGN
THAT BILL OR A SUPERMAJORITY OF
BOTH HOUSES MUST OVERRIDE A
VETO.
THIS WAS DONE TO PROTECT THE
RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
ONLY IF A BILL PASSES THROUGH A
SPECIFIED PROCESS CAN A BILL
BECOME A LAW.
A COURT FOLLOWING THE RULE OF
LAW CAN ONLY ENFORCE WHAT
ACTUALLY BECOMES A LAW.
THERE MAY BE TIMES WHEN AN
AGENCY MIGHT PAY ATTENTION TO A
BILL THAT IS INTRODUCED, BUT
THAT'S AN AGENCY.
IN THE CASE OF COURTS, A COURT
SHOULD ONLY APPLY WHAT HAS
ACTUALLY BECOME LAW.
IN OTHER WORDS, A BILL PASSING
BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, SIGNED
BY THE PRESIDENT.
NOT JUST PAY ATTENTION TO A BILL
THAT'S BEEN INTRODUCED.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL BRIEF
RELIED ON A BILL, NOT A LAW.
THE NAME OF THE BILL IS THE
ACT.
CONSULAR NOTIFICATION COMPLIANCE
THAT BILL WOULD RETROACTIVELY
ALLOW PRISONERS ON DEATH ROW
WHOSE VIENNA CONVENTION RIGHTS
WERE VIOLATED YET ANOTHER BITE
AT THE APPLE.
IF THE BILL PASSED, THEY WOULD
BE ABLE TO DELAY THEIR DEATH
SENTENCES, SENTENCES THAT ARE
LAWFUL UNDER AMERICAN LAW, WITH
ANOTHER ROUND OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT?
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
ALTHOUGH THE BILL IS STRONGLY
SUPPORTED BY THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, IT HAS NOT
PASSED SOFPLT IT IS NOT LAW --
IT PASS NOT PASSED.
SO IT IS NOT LAW.
IT IS JUST A BILL.
NOW IT'S GOING TO HAVE A HEARING
SOON, BUT IT'S NOT SCHEDULED TO
BE PLACED ON THE COMMITTEE
AGENDA FOR MARKUP.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO
CHANCE THAT THIS CONGRESS WOULD
PASS A LAW THAT RETROACTIVELY
ALLOWED FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO
FACE LAWFUL DEATH PENALTIES
ANOTHER ROUND OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
BASED UPON THE VIENNA
CONVENTION.
CONGRESS SIMPLY WILL NOT PASS A
BILL THAT GIVES FEDERAL JUDGES
ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DISPLAY
THEIR DISLIKES OF THE DEATH
PENALTY BY DELAYING CASES FOR NO
GOOD REASON.
ONLY CONGRESS CAN LEGISLATE, BUT
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ARGUED
IN THE COURT THAT THE SUPREME
COURT SHOULD GRANT A STAY EVEN
THOUGH CONGRESS HAS NOT
LEGISLATED, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH STRONGLY
SUPPORTED THE BILL WHICH
THEORETICALLY, BUT ONLY
THEORETICALLY, COULD PASS AT
SOME FUTURE TIME.
YOU KNOW WHAT DISTURBS ME?
FOUR JUSTICES AGREED WITH THIS
OUTLANDISH POSITION.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PRECEDENT
FOR THE POSITION.
THESE DISSENTERS ACCEPTED AN
OBAMA POSITION THAT WAS MADE OUT
OF WHOLE CLOTH.
WHEN COURTS RULE BASED ON LAW,
WE HAVE THE RULE OF LAW.
WHEN THEY RULE BASED UPON POLICY
PREFERENCES, WE HAVE JUDICIAL
ACTIVISM.
NOT THE RULE OF LAW.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ASKED
FOR A STAY BASED UPON POLICY
PREFERENCES, BASED ON
INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND BASED ON
THAT ADMINISTRATION'S VIEW THAT
A BILL THAT IT SUPPORTS TAKES
OVERWHELMING PRECEDENCE OVER A
CONSIDERED DECISION OF CONGRESS
THAT LEGISLATION.
FOUR JUSTICES, JUST ONE SHORT OF
A MAJORITY, WERE WILLING TO
DISREGARD AMERICAN LAW IN FAVOR
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
ALSO IN FAVOR OF POLICY
IMPLICATIONS AND ALSO BASED JUST
CONGRESS.
UPON A BILL BEING INTRODUCED IN
THIS IS NOT ONLY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE RULE OF LAW, IT IS A
THREAT TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
HOW EXTREME.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THROUGH
THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES,
HAVE ENACTED THE DEATH PENALTY
AND ESTABLISHED LIMITS ON HABEAS
CORPUS PETITION THAT IS IMPEDE
EXECUTIONS.
THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES,
THOSE OF US HERE IN THE
CONGRESS, ALSO DECLINED TO ENACT
A BILL TO IMPLEMENT THE VIENNA
CONVENTION, NOT WITHSTANDING
THAT DECISION OF THE PEOPLE'S
REPRESENTATIVES, THIS
ADMINISTRATION AND FOUR JUSTICES
WOULD HAVE USED AN UNPASSED BILL
TO DELAY A DEATH SENTENCE.
HOW EXTREME.
THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE COURTS
NOT ALLOW THE PREFERENCES OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AS EXPRESSED
THROUGH THEIR ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES BUT INSTEAD
THEIR OWN POLICY PREFERENCES.
HOW EXTREME.
BUT UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT, THE RESULTS OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS ARE ENTITLED
TO PREVAIL UNLESS THE
CONSTITUTION AND ONLY THE
CONSTITUTION CLEARLY PROVIDES
OTHERWISE.
THE POSITION OF THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION AND THE FOUR
DISSENTING JUSTICES ALSO IS
HARMFUL TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IN
YET ANOTHER WAY.
IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DISLIKE
WHAT CONGRESS IS DOING, YOU
KNOW, IT'S VERY SIMPLE.
IN THE NEXT ELECTION, ELECT NEW
REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS.
THEY CAN ASK THAT JUDICIAL --
FEDERAL JUDICIAL NOMINEES BE
STOPPED OR THAT LAWS BE PASSED
THAT OVERTURN JUDICIAL DECISIONS
MADE UNDER FEDERAL LAW, BUT WHAT
ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO DO IF
JUDGES MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON
THE VIEWS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
AND INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS THAT
ARE CONTRARY TO OUR VERY OWN
LAW?
WHAT IF JUDICIAL RULINGS ARE
DESIGNED TO ENFORCE DECISIONS OF
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE, RULINGS THAT ARE NOT
BINDING AS FEDERAL LAW.
AMERICANS CANNOT INFLUENCE THE
VIEWS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS OR
AMERICANS CAN'T INFLUENCE THE
RULINGS OF INTERNATIONAL
TRIBUNALS.
HAD THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND
THE FOUR DISSENTING JUSTICES
PREVAILED, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WOULD HAVE LOST A PART OF THE
RIGHT TO GOVERN THEMSELVES.
THAT RIGHT WOULD HAVE BEEN
REPLACED WITH OBEDIENCE WITHOUT
RECOURSE TO FOREIGN POWERS OVER
VOICE.
WHOM OUR PEOPLE EXERCISE NO
THAT IS NOT THE SYSTEM THAT THE
FOUNDING FATHERS BEQUEATHED US.
THE QUESTION WHETHER COURTS
SHOULD APPLY AMERICAN LAW OR
FOREIGN LAW IS OF GREAT CONCERN
TO ME AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND MAYBE TO
A LOT OF SENATORS WHO AREN'T ON
THAT COMMITTEE, BUT THOSE OF US
ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION
ON THE COMMITTEE HAVE FOUGHT
LONG BEFORE THIS RECENT CASE
THAT HAS COME, I GUESS, WITHIN
THE LAST THREE WEEKS.
AND I HAVE ASKED JUDICIAL AND
ADMINISTRATION NOMINEES ABOUT
THESE VERY ISSUES AT THEIR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS.
FOR INSTANCE, JUST A FEW MONTHS
AGO, I POSED A QUESTION TO THE
NOMINEE FOR SOLICITOR GENERAL,
MR. VERILLI, ABOUT AN A-- AMICUS
BRIEF THAT HE HAD FILED ON
BEHALF OF FOREIGN NATIONALS THAT
HE HAD SENTENCED TO DEATH.
IN THAT BRIEF, MR. VERILLI
ARGUED NOT THAT THE PRISONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN
VIOLATED, BUT THAT -- QUOTE --
"IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE
UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD
COMMUNITY THAT THE LEGAL
STANDARDS OF THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD REFLECT AND BE INFORMED
BY INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS."
END OF QUOTE.
I ASKED MR. VERILLI IF HE WERE
CONFIRMED IF THERE WERE ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH HE WOULD
ARGUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
COURTS BE -- QUOTE -- "INFORMED
IN A DEATH PENALTY CASE THAT THE
BY INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS."
END OF QUOTE.
HE RESPONDED, AND I QUOTE -- "I
WILL ADHERE TO THE VIEW THAT
FOREIGN LAW, INCLUDING
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LOU,
HAS NO AUTHORITATIVE FORCE IN
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
EXCEPT IN THOSE RARE INSTANCES
INCORPORATE OR MAKE
WHERE FEDERAL STATUTES
INTERNATIONAL AND/OR FOREIGN
AUTHORITY."
COURT DECISIONS BINDING LEGAL
END OF QUOTE.
RESPONDING TO MY QUESTIONS ON
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS
AND INTERNATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, MR. VERILLI STATES --
QUOTE -- "INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES,
RIGHTS ARE SET FORTH IN
CONVENTIONS AND CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
THEY ARE NOT BINDING OR
ENFORCEABLE IN THE UNITED STATES
SO."
UNLESS CONGRESS HAS MADE THEM
END OF QUOTE.
THE LAHOL CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE
A FEDERAL STATUTE OF THE TYPE
MR. VERRILLI CITED.
I BELIEVE THAT MR. VERRILLI'S
BRIEF AS SOLICITOR GENERAL IS
VERY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE
RELATED DURING HIS CONFIRMATION.
THE BRIEF RELIED ON
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND
ITS ONLY REFERENCE TO AMERICAN
LAW WAS THIS BILL THAT I HAVE
REFERRED TO, NOT A LAW.
WHICH BILL UNDER OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM AS
DIFFERENT FROM A LAW AS NIGHT IS
FROM DAY.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT
MR. VERRILLI STATED DURING HIS
CONFIRMATION -- QUOTE -- "IF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THE
PRESIDENT DIRECTED THAT I TAKE A
POSITION, ONE THAT I BELIEVE TO
BE AN INDEFENSIBLE VIEW OF THE
LAW, I WOULD NOT LEND MY NAME OR
THAT OF THE OFFICE OF SOLICITOR
GENERAL TO CARRYING OUT THE
ORDER, AND I WOULD CERTAINLY
RESIGN RATHER THAN CARRYING OUT
THE ORDER."
END OF QUOTE.
MR. VERRILLI OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT
BELIEVE THAT RELIANCE SOLELY ON
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN A BILL IS
AN INDEFENSIBLE VIEW OF THE LAW.
I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT
POINT.
SIMILARLY, DURING HER
CONFIRMATION HEARING, JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR WAS ASKED ABOUT THE
APPLICATION OF FOREIGN OR
AMERICAN LAW, AND SHE WAS ONE OF
THESE DISSENTERS.
SHE STATED -- QUOTE -- "I DO
NOT BELIEVE THAT FOREIGN LAW
SHOULD BE USED TO DETERMINE THE
RESULTS UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
OR AMERICAN LAW EXCEPT WHERE
AMERICAN LAW DIRECTS."
END OF QUOTE.
IN THE LEAL CASE, FOREIGN LAW
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO
RESOLVE THE CASE BECAUSE
AMERICAN LAW DID NOT DIRECT THAT
FOREIGN LAW APPLY, AND WHEN
JUSTICE KAGAN APPEARED FOR HER
CONFIRMATION HEARING, SHE STATED
THAT IN DECIDING CASES -- QUOTE
-- "YOU'RE LOOKING AT LAW ALL
THE WAY DOWN.
NOT YOUR POLITICAL PREFERENCES,
NOT YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCES."
END OF QUOTE.
HOWEVER, THE LAW IN THE LEAL
CASE IS CLEAR.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH POLICY
ARGUMENTS AND UNENACTED BILLS
ARE NOT LAW.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL OR THESE
JUSTICES WHO DISSENTED LIED AT
THEIR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS OR
MADE A MOCKERY OF THE
CONFIRMATION PROCESS, BUT
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FORESAW CASES LIKE LEAL AND
ASKED THE NOMINEES TO ADDRESS
THE ROLE OF FOREIGN LAW IN
CONSTITUTIONAL CASES.
I BELIEVE, ALTHOUGH THEY DO NOT,
THAT WHAT THESE INDIVIDUALS
WROTE IN THE LEAL CASE IS
INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY SAID
AT THAT TIME OF THEIR
CONFIRMATION.
FINALLY, ONE OF THESE ISSUES
COULD ARISE AGAIN IN A DIFFERENT
LEGAL CONTEXT.
LIKE THE DEATH PENALTY CASES,
THERE IS ONGOING LITIGATION
CHALLENGING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DEFENSE
OF MARRIAGE ACT, AND LIKE THE
DEATH PENALTY CASES, THE DEFENSE
BILL.
OF MARRIAGE ACT IS SUBJECT OF A
THE PARTICULAR BILL CALLED THE
RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT
NOTWITHSTANDING ITS ORWELLIAN
NAME WOULD REPEAL THE DEFENSE OF
MARRIAGE ACT.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS
ALREADY DECIDED ONLY NOT TO
DEFEND THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE
ACT BUT NOW ARGUES THAT THE
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THE DEPARTMENT IN LIGHT OF THE
LEAL BRIEF MAY BE CONSIDERING
MAKING THE IMPLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT
THAT THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE
DOWN THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
SIMPLY BECAUSE A BILL HAS BEEN
INTRODUCED TO REPEAL IT, THE
SAME ARGUMENT USED IN THE LEAL
CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
YOU MIGHT WELL ARGUE THAT THE
INTRODUCTION OF A BILL THAT IS
STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION IS ENOUGH TO LEAD
COURTS TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS
ANYWAY.
HAS ALREADY REPEALED THE LAW
SO WHY NOT HAVE THE COURT SIMPLY
DECLARE THE LAW
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT MAKE
SUCH AN ARGUMENT, AND I CAN TELL
THE COURTS THAT LIKE THE BILL TO
MAKE THE VIENNA CONVENTION APPLY
RETROACTIVELY TO CONVICTED
CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WHO FACE THE
DEATH PENALTY, THIS CONGRESS
WILL NOT, AND I REPEAT, WILL NOT
PASS THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE
ACT AND COURTS SHOULD NOT
CONSIDER ITS INTRODUCTION IN
RESOLVING DOUMA'S
CONSTITUTIONALITY.
MR. PRESIDENT, OBVIOUSLY, I'M
DISAPPOINTED THAT THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION HAS ADVANCED
POLICY ARGUMENTS RATHER THAN
LEGAL ARGUMENTS IN THE SUPREME
COURT AND HOW SURPLUS IT IS TO
TRY TO CONVINCE THE SUPREME
COURT THAT JUST BECAUSE A BILL'S
INTRODUCED, THEY OUGHT TO MAKE A
DECISION BASED UPON THAT BILL
BEING INTRODUCED.
IN THE ABSENCE OF ARGUMENTS
BASED ON AMERICAN LAW, IT SHOULD
BASED ON POLICY.
NOT HAVE ASKED THE COURT TO RULE
RATHER, IT SHOULD HAVE EITHER
ARGUED BASED ON AMERICAN LAW,
EVEN IF AMERICAN LAW DID NOT
CONFORM TO ITS VIEW OF DESIRABLE
POLICY, OR SHOULD HAVE DECLINED
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CASE.
AND I'M ALSO DISAPPOINTED THAT
FOUR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
VOTED TO ADVANCE THEIR VIEWS OF
POLICY RATHER THAN LAW, WHICH IS
THE ESSENCE OF JUDICIAL
ACTIVISM.
WE WERE -- OR YOU COULD SAY WE
ARE ONLY ONE VOTE AWAY FROM A
SUPREME COURT MAJORITY THAT
WOULD HAVE APPLIED POLICY
PREFERENCES IN FAVOR OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW RATHER THAN
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
WE WERE ONLY ONE VOTE AWAY FROM
THE SUPREME COURT MAJORITY THAT
WOULD HAVE USURPED THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS BY
CONSIDERING A BILL TO BE THE
SAME AS A LAW THAT CONGRESS
PASSED.
AND WE WERE ONLY ONE VOTE AWAY
FROM A SUPREME COURT MAJORITY
THAT WOULD HAVE APPLIED THE
RULING OF INTERNATIONAL LAW --
THAT WOULD HAVE APPLIED THE
RULING OF AN INTERNATIONAL
TRIBUNAL OVER WHICH AMERICANS
HAVE NO SAY RATHER THAN IN A
BODY LIKE THIS CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES THAT IS
REPRESENTATIVE OF AND ANSWERS
ONLY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I YIELD THE FLOOR, SUGGEST THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
ON THIS
VOTE THE YEAS ARE 244 AND THE
NAYS ARE 56.
WITH ONE ANSWERING PRESENT.
THE JOURNAL SNDS APPROVED.
THE
CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE HOUSE THE
FOLLOWING PERSONAL REQUESTS.
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
REQUESTED FOR MR. BLUMENAUER OF
OREGON FOR TODAY AND FOR THE
BALANCE OF THE WEEK, MS.
MCCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA FOR TODAY,
MR. ELLISON OF MINNESOTA FOR
TODAY, MR. WU OF OREGON FOR
TODAY, MRS. WILSON OF FLORIDA
FOR TAY, MR. BISHOP OF NEW
YORK FOR TODAY.
WERKS,
THE REQUEST ARES -- THE REQUESTS
ARE -- WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
REQUESTS ARE GRANTED.
THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN
ONE-MINUTE SPEECHES.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
THE
HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA IS
RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
AND I RISE TONIGHT TO MARK THE
ANNIVERSARY OF THE ATTACK ON THE
AMIA JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER IN
BUNE HE IS ARIZONA, ARGENTINA,
ON JULY 18, 1994, THE IRANA
REGIME THROUGH THE COORDINATED
EFFORTS OF ITS EMBASSY AND
EXTREMIST PROXY, HEZBOLLAH,
COMMITTED ONE OF THE DEADLIEST
ATTACKS OF ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE
WESTERN HEMISPHERE BY KILLING 85
MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND
INJURING OVER 300 INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS.
17 YEARS LATER, MR. SPEAKER, THE
REGIME HAS YET TO ANSWER FOR ITS
ROLE IN THE ATTACK.
ITS STATEMENT THIS WEEKEND WAS
NOTHING MORE THAN A DESPERATE
P.R. ATTEMPT TO MANIPULATE THE
HEADLINES IN ADVANCE OF TAY'S
SAD ANNIVERSARY.
AND SO AS WE MARK THE 17TH
ANNIVERSARY OF THIS HORRIBLE
ATTACK AND HONOR THE VICTIMS AND
THE SURVIVORS OF THAT DAY, WE
MUST RECOMMIT OURSELVES TO
HOLDING THE IRANIAN REGIME
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE ATTACK AND
FOR THE THREAT THAT IT CONTINUES
TO POSE TO U.S. REGIONAL AND
GLOBAL SECURITY.
I THANK THE CHAIR AND I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HER TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEDY FROM TEXAS RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE
HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE.
MADAM SPEAKER, THE HOUSE IS NOT
IN ORDER.
THE
GENTLELADY IS CORRECT.
THE HOUSE IS NOT IN ORDER.
PLEASE TAKE YOUCONVERSATIONS
OFF THE FLOOR.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.
FLYING IN TODAY OUR PLANE WAS
DELAYED, DIDN'T HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADVANCE MY
SUPPORT FOR H.R. 33, THE CHURCH
PLAN INVESTMENT CLARIFICATION
ACT OF 2011.
AND I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
SPONSORSHIP OF CONGRESSWOMAN
GGERT AND INDICATE TAT UNDE
CURRENT LAW THOUSANDS OF CHURCH
PENSION PLANS ARE DENIED
PARTICIPATION IN COLLECTIVE
TRUSTS, RENDERING THEM UNABLE TO
PULL THEIR ASSETS OR REAP THE
BENEFITS OF BUYING POWER.
MANY CHURCHES EXPERIENCE
DIFFICULTIES AND ENCOURAGE
EXPENSE WHEN IS DIVERSIFYING
PENSION PLANS.
OUR CHUNCHES, OUR HOUSES OF
WORSHIP PROVIDE INVALUABLE
SERVICE AND MANY OF THOSE IN MY
OWN COMMUNITY, THE NEW LIGHT
CHRISTIAN CHURCH, ST. JOHN
MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH AND
MANY OTHERS WORK THROUGHOUT OUR
COMMUNITY, WE ARE BLESSED TO
HAVE LAKEWOOD CHURCH IN OUR
COMMUNITY AS WELL THAT WORKS
VERY HARD, A CHURCH LEADERSHIP
THAT I'VE KNOWN FOR MANY, MANY
YEARS.
SO THIS BILL HAS BEEN SUPPORTED
BY THE CHURCH ALLIANCE, THE YMCA
RETIREMENT FUND, THE CHURCH
PENSION GROUP AND OTHERS AND I
I SAID, CHURCH DOES MISSIONARY
THANK MY FRIEND FROM ILLINOIS AS
THE ABILITY TO HAVE THEIR
WORK, THEIR WORKERS NEED TO HAVE
PENSION AND I CLOSE BY SAYING
THERE ARE THOSE SUFFERING IN
KENYA, THEY ARE DYING, SO THE
MALIANS WHO LEFT BECAUSE OF THE
DEVASTATION OF THE DRAW THE AND
I KNOW OUR FAITH COMMUNITY WANTS
US TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ARKANSAS RISE?
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
LEADER FROM THE STA OF
TODAY I RISE TO REMEMBER A GREAT
ARKANSAS, MR. STANLEY REID.
STANLEY REID WAS PREMATURELY
TAKEN AWAY FROM US LAST FRIDAY
BUT HIS LEGACY WILL LIVE ON.
HE WAS FROM MARY ANNA AND LEE
COUNTY BUT HIS INFLUENCE WAS
ARKANSAS.
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STATE OF
HE SERVED AS THE PRESIDENT OF
THE ARKANSAS FARM BUREAU AND
WORKED FOR THE AGRICULTURE
COMMUNITY, LEADING SEVERAL
INITIATIVES TO ADVANCE
AGRICULTURE.
FOR 10 YEARS HE SERVED ON THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS.
HE PLACED A GREAT EMPHASIS ON
THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION AND
IT CAN BE SEEN THROUGH HIS WORK
AT THE UNIVERSITY.
SANITY ZSH STANLEY WAS ALSO AN
ADVOCATE FOR ARKANSAS
BUSINESSES.
HE SERVED ON THE BOARD OF
ARKANSAS WORLD TRADE CENTER
WHERE HE SHARED HIS VISION FOR
ARKANSAS BUSINESSES TO COMPETE
IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.
STANLEY LEAVES
BEHIND HIS WIFE, AND HIS
CHILDREN AND THREE
GRANDCHILDREN.
ARKANSAS LOST A GREAT LEADER,
ADVOCATE AND AMBASSADOR LAST
WEEK BUT STANLEY REID'S LEGACY
WILL LIVE ON THROUGH THE IMPACT
OF HIS WORK.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
MINUTE.
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MADAM SPEAKER,
LATER THIS WEEK THIS HOUSE WILL
TAKE UP THE SECOND COMING, IF
YOU WILL, OF THE HOUSE
REPUBLICAN BUDGET, A BUDGET
DESIGNED TO DESTROY MEDICARE,
BASICALLY TO TERMINATE IT, FOR
ANYONE THAT'S 55 YEARS OR
YOUNGER.
A PLAN DESIGNED TO PUT SOCIAL
SECURITY ON A TRACK TO
PRIVATIZATION, A PLAN DESIGNED
TO TAKE NEARLY $700 BILLION OUT
OF THE MEDICAID PROGRAM,
BASICALLY TO DESTROY THOSE
THINGS THAT HAVE HELD THE FABRIC
OF AMERICA TOGETHER.
HAVE NO ILLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT
THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
IT'S NOT JUST A CONSTUTIONAL
AMENDMENT, IT'S NOT JUST CUT AND
CAP.
IT IS REALLY ABOUT DESTROYING
MEDICARE, MEDICAID, PROAMS
THAT ARE ESSENTIAL FOR SENIORS.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A CUT IN
SOMETHING, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE
1/3 OF $1 TRILLION OUT OF THE
WAR IN AFGHANISTAN, WHICH IS
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND OVER
THE NEXT FOUR YEARS?
NOW THERE IS A GOOD CUT THAT WE
OUGHT TO MAKE.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TENNESSEE RISE?
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
ADDRESS THE HOUSE.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
I RISE TODAY TO RECOGNIZE A TRUE
AMERICAN HERO, PRIVATE FIRST
CLASS JOE IMMEDIATE.
PRIVATE CLASS MEED WAS A MEMBER
26TH MARINES.
OF MIKE COMPANY THIRD BATTALION,
HE DIED IN VIETNAM WHEN HIS
BATTALION WAS FIGHTIN
WHILE CARRNG A WOUNDED COMRADE
TO A WOUNDED HELICOPTER, HE
STEPPED ON A LAND MINE AND WAS
KILLED.
HE WAS ON A -- HE WAS ONLY 19 AT
THE TIME.
IN RECOGNITION OF HIS VALOR HE
WAS AWARDED THE SILVER STAR.
DWAYNE CRAWFORD, HIS FORMER
COMMANDING OFFICER WHO RECENTLY
FOUNDED A SCHOLARSHIP IN HIS
OFFICER, HAD THESE WORDS TO SAY
ABOUT JOE'S ACTIONS.
WITH TOTAL DISREGARD FOR HIS OWN
LIFE, HE CONTINUALLY EXPOSED
HIMSELF TO DANGER BY
ADMINISTERING FIRST AID TO HIS
WOUNDED COMRADES.
OFFERING THEM COMFORTING WORDS
AND HELPING THEM TO MEDIVAC
HELICOPTERS.
HIS COURAGEOUS ACTIONS SAVED
MANY LIVES.
EVEN THOUGH HE LIVED ON A --
ONLY 19 YEARS, THE LEGACY JOE
LEFT BEHIND IS TRULY REMARKABLE.
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS MEED
EXEMPLIFIED THE BEST OF AMERI.
FOR THIS REASON I ASK YOU TO
JOIN ME IN COMMEMORATING THE
LIFE OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY
MARINE.
SEMPER FI, AND THIS IS AN HONOR
FOR THE 58,479 OF OUR COMRADES
WHO DIED IN VIETNAM.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, AND I
YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM LOUISIANA RISE?
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
I HAVE THREE SIMPLE WORDS FOR
PRSIDENT OBAMA AND
CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS.
CUT, CAP AND
BALANCE.
LAST WEEK WHEN OUR CAMPAIGNER IN
CHIEF HELD HIS NEWS CONFERENCE
HE ASKED FOR A PLAN.
WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, CUT, CAP
AND BALANCE IS OUR PLAN.
IT'S A PLAN THAT CUTS FEDERAL
SPENDING IMMEDIATELY, PUTS IN
PLACE ENFORCEABLE SPENDING CAPS
AND DEMANDS A BALANCED BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
THIS PLAN CUTS TOTAL SPENDING BY
$111 BILLION IN 2012 AND AROUND
5DS.8 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT 10
YEARS -- $5.8 TRILLION OVER THE
NEXT 10 YEARS WHILE NOT
INCREING TAXES ONE SINGLE
PENNY.
WE HAVE TOO MUCH DEBT BECAUSE WE
SPEND TOO MUCH, NOT BECAUSE WE
HAVEN'T TAXED YOU ENOUGH.
MR. PRESIDENT, YOU ASKED FOR A
PLAN AND HERE IT IS.
IT'S YOUR TURN TO GET SERIOUS
AND WORK WITH US TO SOLVE THIS
PROBLEM.
NOT AGAINST US.
STOP DEMAGOGUING THIS ISSUE WITH
CHEAP TACTICS, CHEAP SCARE
TACTICS AND POLITICS BECAUSE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF IT
AND DESERVE MUCH BETTER.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEM
FROM GEORGIA RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
I RISE TODAY TO LET THE AMERICAN
PEOPLKNOW THAT THE CITY OF
BUSINESS.
RINGOLD, GEORGIA, IS OPEN FOR
I KNOW THAT WE ALL REMEMBER THE
TORNADOSES THAT RAVAGED MUCH OF
THE COUNTRY IN APRIL.
OVER 180 OF THESE DESTRUCTIVE
STORMS WERE CONFIRMED IN JUST
ONE DAY AND THE NINTH
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF
GEORGIA WAS NOT SPARED.
SOME OF THE WORST
STORM ZADGE IN NORTH GEORGIA
OCCURRED IN THE SMALL TOWN OF
RINGOLD.
ER 100 BUSINESSES, 500 HOMES
WERE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED ON
APRIL 27.
THIS WAS A DEVASTATING MOMENT TO
THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND THE
LOCAL ECONOMY WHICH RELIES
HEAVILY ON TRAVELERS PASSING
TOUGH ON INTERSTATE 75.
WELL, HOWEVER, RINGOLD IS ON THE
MEND AND READY TO SHARE SOME OF
THAT SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY IT'S
KNOWN SO WELL FOR.
NEARLY HALF OF THE DAMAGED
BUSINESSES HAVE REOPENED, HOPES
-- HOMES ARE BEING REBUILT AND
THE JOBS ARE RETURNING.
WHILE THERE IS STILL MUCH TO BE
DONE, IF YOU FIND YOURSELF
PASSING THROUGH JMING ON I- 5 --
GEORGIA ON I-75, TAKE EXIT 348
FOR GAS, A BITE TO EAT OR AN
OVERNIGHT STAAND ENJOY THE
SHOPS AND THE SITES AND THE
HISTORIC DOWNTOWN AND KNOW THAT
THIS GREAT AND RESILIENT
YOU'RE PLAYING A PART IN HELPING
COMMUNITY REBUILD.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM KANSAS RISE.
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE.
THE
MAJORITY LEADER.
I ASK CONSENT THAT
THE CALL.
QUARREL BE TERMINATED.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE SENATE PROCEED
TO A PERIOD OF MORNING BUSINESS
WITH SENATORS ALLOWED TO SPEAKER
FOR UP TO TEN MINUTES EACHMENT.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
I NOW THAT WE MOVE
TO S. CON. RES. 256789.
CLORMT THE
CLERK WILL REPORT.
WELCOMING THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF
SOUTH SUDAN AND SO FORTH.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE SENATE WILL
PROCEED TO THE MEASURE.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE RESOLUTION BE
AGREED TO, THE PREAMBLE BE
AGREED TO, THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE LAID ON THE TABLE,
NO INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE,
AND THAT THERE ARE STATEMENTS
RELATING TO THIS MATTER, THEY BE
PLACED IN THE RECORD AT THE
APPROPRIATE PLACE AS IF READ.
OFFICER 123ER WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I ASK HAD A THE
SENATE ADJOURN UNTIL TOMORROW
MORNING, JULY 19, AT 10:00 A.M.
FOLLOWING THE PRAYER AND PLEDGE,
THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS BE
APPROVED TO DATE, THE MORNING
HOUR BE DEEMED EXPIRED, AND THE
TIME FOR THE TWO LEADERS BE HEED
FOR THEIR USE LATER IN THE DAY.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
FOLLOWING ANY LEADER
REMARKS, MR. PRESIDENT, THE
SENATE BE IN A PERIOD OF MORNING
BUSINESS FOR UP TO TWO HOURS,
SENATORS PERMITTED TO SPEAK UP
TO TEN MINUTES EVE, WITH THE
TIME EQUALLY DIVIDE AND
CONTROLLED BETWEEN THE TWO
LEADERS OR HER DESIGNEES WITH
THE MAJORITY OF THE REPUBLICANS
ALTER NAIGHT THREE-MINUTE BLOCKS
WITH THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLING
THE FIRST BLOCK.
FOLLOWING MORNING BUSINESS, THE
SENATE RESUME CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 2055, THE MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION VETERANS AFFAIRS
AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
FURTHER, MR. PRESIDENT, THE
SENATE RECESS FROM 12:30 TO 2:15
TO ALLOW FOR THE WEEKLY CAUCUS
MEETINGS.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE'RE
CONTINUING TO WORK ON SENATOR
JOHNSON'S MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
THE SENATE WILL BE NOTIFIED WHEN
MATTER.
VOTES ARE SCHEDULED ON THAT
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS
TO COME BEFORE THE SENATE, I ASK
THAT WE ADJOURN UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER.
THE
SENATE STANDS ADJOURNED UNTIL
10:00 A.M. TOMORROW MORNING.