Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is commenting and his entire speech was about the desirability or the worth of the words ``under God,'' which I think almost everybody agrees with. The issue in this bill is court-stripping. Do we take away from the courts the right to decide, to protect people's rights? Mr. Speaker, Mr. Stearns may be right in everything that he is saying, but he does not seem to have the confidence that the courts will agree with him, because if he did, he would not be supporting this legislation.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 1\1/2\ minutes. I will simply say that this amendment is dangerous for the same reason that the bill is dangerous. We should not say, in the case of this amendment, to someone who is a plaintiff in a court in a pending case, we are going to shut the courthouse door in your face because we are afraid the Supreme Court might issue a decision. It has not done it yet, but we are afraid the Supreme Court might issue a decision that we disagree with. We do not trust the courts. We do not agree with them. Never mind that George Bush has appointed two new members of the Court. We still do not agree with it, and, therefore, we are going to try to strip them of their jurisdiction. That way strips the protection of our liberties from us. We need the courts to protect our liberties. Our constitutional rights can only be vindicated by the courts stepping in when the political branches of government violate the rights of unpopular minorities. That is what the courts have done throughout our history, and we need that protection to continue. And that is why this bill is not only subversive of our constitutional rights, but unconstitutional. The bill ought to be defeated. The amendment ought to be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. NADLER. The other side?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, every word that we have heard uttered on this floor by the majority side has, as Mr. Scott said, increased the likelihood of the courts ordering that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be recited in a public, in a school situation where there is an imputation of coercion or pressure because the students are, in fact, under the direction of the State agent, namely, the teacher. As someone who very deeply believes in God, I think it is insulting to say that the words ``under God'' are not important, and yet that is the defense that is offered in court because the Constitution says there should be no establishment of religion. Well, saying that schoolchildren must recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words ``under God'' is not an establishment of religion. The defense is, no, it is not because this is de minimis; it is not important; it is minor. I do not believe the words ``under God'' are minor or de minimis, unimportant. I think that it is an insult to religion. But that whole question is for the courts, not for us, and here we are seeing another bill to strip the courts of jurisdiction. We are getting to a point where it is becoming boilerplate in any controversial issue to say the courts shall not have jurisdiction. Consider this, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Pledge, we passed the bill a few weeks ago on the floor here saying that no funds should be expended to enforce a court order in some court in Indiana because we do not like what the courts do, or we think we might not like what the court will do; we will strip them of jurisdiction. This is a danger to all our constitutional rights. The only thing that protects our rights as Americans, that protects our freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, et cetera, is the ability to go to court and tell the President or the Governor or whoever, you cannot do that, you cannot force them to do that, you cannot put them in jail for not doing it. Without the protection of the court, rights are meaningless. There is a maxim in law: There is no right without a remedy. What we are doing here is saying to people who are unpopular, to people who may not want to recite the words ``under God,'' they may be wrong and unpopular, but we are saying you cannot go to court to defend yourself and assert your constitutional rights. It is very dangerous. As was pointed out before, if we had done that before, we would still have segregation in this country because in every State we would have stripped the Supreme Court of the ability to declare separate but equal schools unconstitutional. The State courts would have soon said it is fine, and we would still have Jim Crow. Almost lastly, we should not have a separate law in every State. We should not have the Constitution mean different things in New York and New Jersey. We should be one country. That is why the Supreme Court is vested with jurisdiction to rule on appeals from the State supreme courts. Finally, this bill is itself unconstitutional. Someone said that the courts have upheld Congress' ability to limit jurisdiction. Sure, they have. Every single case has upheld limitations to jurisdiction, regardless of subject matter, never with regard to constitutional claims, not one case in the history of the Republic. At a hearing that was held 2 years ago on a similar bill, the majority witness, the Republican witness, professor of constitutional law, said the following: ``The due process clause of the fifth amendment requires that a neutral, independent and competent judicial forum remain available in cases in which the liberty or property interests of an individual or entity are at stake. The constitutional directive of equal protection restricts congressional power to employ its power to restrict jurisdiction in an unconstitutionally discriminatory manner,'' which is what this bill does. There is no ability, for example, to constitutionally provide that Republicans, but no one else, may have access to the Supreme Court. No one will think Congress could do that. This bill is clearly unconstitutional for the same reason. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the recent unprovoked attacks on Israel are particularly notable because of the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005. Israel, as it has so often been urged to do, gave up land for the hope of peace. Yet what happened? From the day Israel withdrew, Hamas fired rockets at Israeli cities and villages every single day, followed more recently by Hezbollah rockets. Can you imagine what the United States would do if terrorists rained down thousands of rockets on American cities from Canada? We would tell the Canadian government to stop it immediately. And if the reply was we don't want to stop it, as with Hamas, or we can't stop it, as the government of Lebanon says it cannot stop Hezbollah, we would not hesitate to bomb whatever targets were necessary and to invade whatever territory was necessary to stop the bombardment, and we would not cease until we had destroyed or disarmed the terrorists. Similarly, we must not demand a cease-fire that leaves the Hezbollah or Hamas weapons and infrastructure intact. This recent violence, this war, is the penalty we pay for looking away and urging restraint on Israel as Hamas and Hezbollah flouted peace agreements and built up terrorist infrastructures and arsenals of thousands of rockets as they openly proclaimed their intentions to destroy Israel and murder her people. The Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, a Hamas leader, wrote in the Washington Post just last week that what matters are not the issues of 1967, but the issues of 1948, that is, the very existence of Israel. But the existence of Israel is not negotiable. But many seem not to have learned the lessons. The European Union criticized Israel's response as disproportionate. What would the EU do if European cities were attacked as Safed, Haifa and Nazareth have been? How is Israel's response against strategic Hezbollah targets disproportionate to Hezbollah's intentional attacks against Israeli civilians? And since when do we demand that responses to naked aggression and intended genocide be proportionate? It was Colin Powell who said that military responses must be of ``overwhelming force.'' The violence can end only if Hamas and Hezbollah are disarmed. Otherwise, Israel will have to defend itself against future terrorist attacks, and innocent Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese civilians will continue to die. There is a role for diplomacy in the Middle East, but only when Hezbollah and Hamas are forced to stand down and Hezbollah forces are moved away from the Israeli border. I extend my sympathy to the families of the victims of the attacks in Israel and in Lebanon, and I pray for the safe return of those captured. But I know that because the United Nations and the international community have failed to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure by diplomacy, Israel must be permitted to dismantle that infrastructure by force of arms if the killing is not to go on indefinitely. We must not stop her from doing so. I strongly support the resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Federalism is the division of power between the Federal Government and the States. Family law, marriage, divorce have always been a matter for the States. This amendment attempts to seize it for the Federal Government. That is a major change in federalism, whatever the gentleman from California may say. It is most certainly an issue of federalism because the Federal Government has never before gotten into the definition of marriage or divorce or any of those things. It has always been left to the States until this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of points made in this debate today with doubtful validity. We are told we should pass this amendment to protect marriage. But against what threat? If Henry and Steve want to get married, maybe that is a good idea, maybe it is a bad idea, but it does not threaten the marriage of anyone else, of any man or woman who wants to get married. It does not affect them in any way. Divorce is a threat. Some of our other threats are threats, but gay marriage is not a threat to a straight marriage. We are told we have to protect children, but children are already in the custody of straight people, of gay people, of gay couples, of individuals. If we want to protect children, we should give a legal basis to the partnership of the two people who have custody of them. Now, we are not saying that it might not be preferable to have a traditional custody arrangement, maybe it is, but this does not affect that in any way. Nor do we say because we want to protect children that we prohibit elderly couples from getting married or sterile couples from getting married because procreation is the purpose of marriage. So this is a red herring. We had a whole religious discussion. The fact is churches can define marriage in their point of view, any way they want. We are not telling a church you must consider this couple married from a religious point of view. We are not telling the church how to define the sacrament. We are talking about civil marriage, and churches can do what they want and regard as married whom they want, but we are talking about what the government recognizes. We are also told that this is to protect marriage, but the amendment talks about not only marriage by, but the incidents thereof, to clearly prohibit specific rights that a State may choose to give to a gay couple, the right of inheritance, a right of visitation when one is sick in the hospital. Why should we tell the States they cannot do that at their wisdom? We are told always by the other side of the aisle that we should protect the rights of States, but as I said a few moments ago, family law, the marriage law, divorce law, visitation law, child custody law have always been a matter for the States. Why are we preempting those State laws? We are told we are preempting unelected judges, that that amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that it would preempt not just judges elected or appointed. It would preempt the State legislative action; it would preempt action by the people in a referendum. That is not democratic, with a small D. This, Mr. Speaker, is a political stunt. It is a political stunt at the expense of a minority, of an unpopular minority. That is all it is. We know it is not going to pass. We know the Senate already rejected it. So this is just a political stunt. I appeal to my colleagues, vote ``no'' on this amendment. Leave family law where it always has been, with the State, and do not desecrate our Constitution, do not desecrate our most sacred document, our civil religion, by inserting it into an amendment to deny a basic right to an unpopular group just because we want to make a political point at the expense of that unpopular group in an election year. Make no mistake, that is what this amendment is. That is all it is. It does not protect marriage. It does not protect children. It just makes a political point at the expense of an unpopular group, and we should not desecrate our Constitution by so doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. I will yield to Ms. Jackson-Lee for a unanimous consent request, and then you have your speaker, and I will close for my side and you close for yours. Let me ask how much time we have left at this point.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).