[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 75 (Tuesday, June 13, 2006)]
[House]
[Page H3895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL CONSTITUTION CAUCUS' CONSTITUTION HOUR--CONSENT DECREES

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim my time out 
of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I do thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Tonight, I come here as we do each week as members of the 
Constitutional Caucus come here on a regular basis to present a series 
of 5-minutes following the day's activities and the day's votes. We do 
so tonight to focus on really one of the most important and significant 
issues dealing with our Constitution and threats to our constitutional 
rights as well.
  Before I do that, let me just say this, that I wish to show my utmost 
appreciation earlier this evening for the majority whip coming out and 
joining us to discuss a piece of his legislation that goes to this very 
fundamental issue and also for his efforts to work to protect those 
basic liberties of every American.
  The threats that I am referring to is our Founding Fathers' 
principles of self-government and the jeopardy that comes in the form 
of consent decrees. For those of you who are not familiar with exactly 
what consent decrees are, in essence, they are simply this. They are 
judicial actions that are entered into between opposing parties, in 
this case by the party bringing the action, private individuals, 
usually, and State or local entities. State or local governments are 
basically compelled at the end of a court case to enter into these 
agreements. They are then, therefore, called consent decrees. In their 
name and on their face, they sound innocent enough. In reality, they 
simply can be because they are protecting rights of some sort or the 
other. But they can also have in the long-term a cumulative effect, a 
threat to the legislative process and also to the hardworking American 
taxpayer who supports it as well.
  These decrees have resulted in judges engaging themselves in affairs 
outside of their constitutional job description, outside of the very 
framework of the protections that we have established in our documents 
of checks and balances. I say that their intents are noble and good in 
many cases, and that is to protect our rights, but by engaging in such 
blatant activism, they are actually threatening self-government itself, 
rights outside what our Founding Fathers intended.
  I agree with what the majority whip had indicated before. This is not 
simply a case of dealing with judicial activism because it really goes 
beyond that and does not engage in that at all times. It is an 
understanding that our Founding Fathers had, and we have reminded those 
who have listened to these programs, listened to us coming to the floor 
each week to discuss constitutional issues, that we must be very 
mindful always of protecting those rights set forth by the Fathers, 
especially the rights of States as established in the 10th amendment. 
All rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are 
retained by the people and the States, respectively.
  Consent decrees, therefore, can place an undue burden on the States 
and local officials. They can last literally for decades, long after 
the local officials or State officials who may have been involved with 
those cases in the first instance have long since left office. Newly 
elected officials may have come into place to find they are bound by 
those previously entered into decrees. They are now unable to place in 
policies that could rectify the situation, unable to put in policies 
that could solve the situation for future generations, and unable to 
put in policies that basically could save the taxpayers money at the 
end.
  Judges have already tried to engage in other ways in activism, 
obviously of taking away our rights as we have discussed before, taking 
away our property rights and the democratic right to construct our 
marriage institutions.
  But consent decrees go one step further. They chip away at the 
authority of our local officials, allowing judges and not the people 
who were democratically elected to represent them. This is not just a 
decision and opinions of Members of Congress. The Supreme Court has 
also spoken on this. In fact, in a unanimous decision back in 2004, the 
U.S. Supreme Court called for limiting these types of decrees in the 
case of Frew v. Hawkins. The court proclaimed there that Federal 
consent decrees could encroach on State and local power. They continued 
that these decrees may ``improperly deprive future officials of their 
designated and executive powers.'' They may also lead ``to Federal 
court oversight of State programs for long periods of time even absent 
an ongoing violation of the law.''
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I am more than proud to support my 
good friend from Missouri and his legislation, H.R. 1229, the Federal 
Consent Decree Fairness Act. This is legislation that would provide 
relief to newly elected mayors and other State officials who inherit 
these overly broad and outdated decrees. It would limit their ability 
to govern. And it would be able to respond to priorities of their 
constituents for the future.
  This legislation will put term limits on existing decrees while 
setting out guidelines for the future. We must ensure that they are 
limited in nature, not opening the doors for future violations. Again, 
I commend the gentleman from Missouri.

                          ____________________