[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 106 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5018-H5025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1930
CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Babin). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
[[Page H5019]]
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be recognized by
you and address you here on the floor of the United States House of
Representatives, this great deliberative body.
General Leave
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special
Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to take up
a topic that I think is going to be of interest to all Americans, but I
can't dive into that topic immediately without first referencing my
reaction to these long days of debate that have taken place here in
Congress about opening up a subject that had been put away by this
country since about 1865.
I grew up as a Yankee well north of the Mason-Dixon line. I saw the
Confederate flag in multiple applications. It always was a symbol of
southern pride and regional patriotism and a symbol that said to them
that the South was proud to be the South, but I never saw it as a
racist symbol.
But it had drifted into a symbol of an artifact of history until such
time now as it has been seized upon by those who are using it to divide
America again.
I regret that they have gone through these days of this ritual of
excoriating the Confederate flag. I regret that that has been brought
up. And one would think that, if it was that offensive, that they would
just let it drift back into history as a relic of history rather than
try to resurrect it as a symbol of something that they can't seem to
let go of.
But, for us, we are a country that every component of our history has
not been as noble as we would like. Every country in the world has had
difficulties along the way. We have risen above our difficulties, Mr.
Speaker, and we have adjusted to them and have put them behind us.
But we cannot be eradicating or erasing the history of our country.
It is important that we do keep it in front of us so that we can
evaluate the lessons learned and move forward and make progress. That
was the reconstruction era. That goes clear back to right after 1865,
and I regret that those old wounds have been peeled open again.
It is ironic that the gentleman would talk about President Lincoln's
second Inaugural Address and binding up this Nation's wounds. They have
been bound up. They have been healed up. And now they are open again,
regretfully, Mr. Speaker. So I will package up that component of my
response.
The Supreme Court
Mr. KING of Iowa. I will now shift over to the topic that I came to
the floor to address, and that is the topic of the Supreme Court from
the marriage decision, the decisions that actually came down from the
Supreme Court--I believe it was a week ago last Thursday and Friday.
On Thursday, there was a decision from the Supreme Court on
ObamaCare, the King v. Burwell case, where the majority decision of the
Supreme Court concluded that the law, as passed by the United States
Congress, doesn't mean what it says.
It means instead, according to the majority of the Supreme Court,
what they think the President would have liked to have had it said if
he had actually been dictating the language there.
But we have to vote, Mr. Speaker, on the language that is in the
bill, not the language that should have been in the head of the
President and the Speaker of the House at the time.
That is why we have had a Supreme Court who, over the last
generation, has been textualist. This has emerged from the Rehnquist
court and should have survived and been enhanced under the Roberts
court, that the law means what it says and the Constitution means what
it says and, furthermore, it needs to mean what it was understood to
mean at the time of ratification.
We do have a language that moves and changes and morphs along the
way. And the language that is written into the Constitution, into the
various amendments that are there and written into our laws, we can't
simply say that because we have a different way we utilize language
today, that somehow the people who ratified it had a meaning that
conformed to the morphed language of the modern world. And I would have
thought that Chief Justice Roberts would have been one of those who
would have adhered to that.
I can think of times when the Court has said to this Congress: You
may have intended one thing, but the language in the bill that you
passed and was signed into law actually means something different. So
you can either live with the decision of the Court or you can set about
changing the language so that the language actually does what you
intended it to do. It is a simple understanding of simple construction
under the law in the Constitution.
An example, Mr. Speaker, would be the ban on partial birth abortion
that passed here in this Congress in the nineties. It went before three
Federal courts and then was appealed to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court concluded that the ban on partial birth
abortion that Congress had first passed was vague in its description of
the act itself and that Congress didn't have findings that partial
birth abortion was not necessary to save the life of the mother.
So it was struck down by the Supreme Court, and that means they sent
it back to us. They said: Congress, fix that. And I got involved in
that.
I want to tip my hat to Congressmen Steve Chabot of Ohio, who was the
chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee at the time, and Jim
Sensenbrenner, the chair of the full Judiciary Committee. We held
hearing after hearing. We rewrote the definition of ``partial birth
abortion'' so that it was precise and clear and understandable, and we
complied with the Court's directive.
In those hearings, we brought witnesses that put into the
Congressional Record a mass of evidence that concluded that a partial
birth abortion was never necessary to save the life of the mother. We
did those things to conform to the directive of the Supreme Court
because they read the text of the law.
But today we have a Supreme Court that concludes that--well, the text
may say one thing, but we think the President would have preferred it
to say something else. And so did most of the people, maybe, that voted
to pass ObamaCare, that very partisan piece of legislation. Maybe they
intended for it to say something else, too, but it didn't.
So the Supreme Court inserted the words ``or Federal Government''
into the statute that said an exchange established by the State. The
Supreme Court essentially wrote into that ``by State or Federal
Government,'' alleging that the language was vague.
That is appalling to me, Mr. Speaker, to think that in the United
States of America, a country ruled by the rule of law, that we could
have a Supreme Court who--no one has a higher charge to read the
language, to understand it, to call the balls and strikes, as the Chief
Justice has said.
I think he forgot to say that you are supposed to also call whether
it is fair or foul. Well, I think it is foul. It is a foul ball for the
Supreme Court to think that they can change the language of the law.
If they sent it back here, Congress then had an obligation to adjust
the policy to our intent from now, maybe not the intent at the time
that it was passed, because those years have moved.
Then subsequent to that, the very next day, Friday--a week ago last
Friday, as I recall--the Supreme Court came with a decision, a decision
on same sex marriage. I have some experience with this, Mr. Speaker,
and it falls along this line.
In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court, in reading the mirror of our 14th
Amendment, which is in our United States Constitution--and the mirror
of it is written into the Iowa State Constitution--they concluded that
same-sex marriage was the law of the land in Iowa. And their conclusion
was that it fell underneath the equal protection and due process
clauses of the 14th Amendment--the mirrored component of the 14th
Amendment that was in our Iowa constitution.
There are 63 pages in the Varnum v. Brien decision in the Iowa case.
I read that decision. I read all 63 pages. But
[[Page H5020]]
not only that, I poked through it. I read it. I looked at the ceiling.
I contemplated. I looked back down at the words. I tried to absorb the
kind of legal rationale that would get you to the point where you could
conclude that under equal protection or due process, that marriage
really was between one adult and another entity, whatever sex or gender
that entity might be. And they wrote that under the protection of the
14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and due process, that,
quote, homosexuals have a right to public affirmation, closed quote.
Mr. Speaker, I know of no place in law, I know of no place in
society, I know of no place in history where there is an individual,
let alone a group of people, a self-labeled group of people that have
any claim to public affirmation, public approval conferred by the
court. But that was the key to understanding this litigation that has
moved forward since 2009.
It brings us into 2015. And we have a decision in the Supreme Court
that commands all States, if they are going to recognize any marriage,
to recognize same sex marriage and for all States to also provide the
reciprocity of recognizing marriages that take place in other States,
as those individuals may come through or move into their States. That
is that right of reciprocity. It is in the Constitution, reciprocity.
But, Mr. Speaker, for the Supreme Court to essentially create a new
right, a right to same sex marriage manufactured out of the 14th
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, that was ratified
in 1868--and, by the way, it ties into this dialogue about the
Confederate flag and all the rhetoric that we have had in this Congress
all week long. It ties into it in this way:
The 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution were ratified in the
aftermath of the Civil War. They were established, first, the 13th
Amendment, to free the slaves because the people in the legislature at
the time didn't believe that a clear statute that freed the slaves was
going to actually have the impact that a constitutional amendment
would. So they passed the 13th Amendment to establish that there will
be no slavery in the United States anywhere, ever.
The second was the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and
the Due Process Clause and the clause says that all persons born in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be American
citizens. All of that to ensure not only that the freed slaves would be
free and they would have equal access to all their rights of
citizenship but that their children would also be citizens and that
they would have equal protection under the law. That was the essence of
the 14th Amendment.
We are asked to believe that somehow those who wrote and ratified the
14th Amendment in 1868 had secretly put some subtle language into it
that they somehow knew we would discover in 2015 that says, there shall
be same sex marriage in all of America, and the Supreme Court will find
it, and they will impose it upon the rest of the country because they
are the enlightened five of nine in black robes.
Well, the Supreme Court has had a terrible record, a terrible record
on dealing with large domestic issues. In 1857, Dred Scott, they
thought they could resolve the slavery issue. The Supreme Court was
stacked in favor of the South. Five from the South and one from
Pennsylvania that was sympathetic to slavery. They had a 6-3 operation
going on. And they essentially declared that blacks could not be
citizens, and they could not be free. They could not be citizens, and
they could not be freed by States. And that if a slave owner owned a
slave, they owned that slave in any State that that individual might
go. That was the decision of Dred Scott.
They thought they had put the issue away. It came back to haunt this
country over and over again. And it was part of the conflict that began
in the next decade, within 1862, and that brought about the death of
600,000 Americans and split this country apart and it has taken years
to put us back together. The Dred Scott decision.
Fast forward 100 years. They took prayer out of the public schools.
We honored that decision. We stopped praying at least openly in our
public schools. Now the question is: Can a football team without the
coach kneel on the grass and pray before a ball game?
We are a First Amendment country. Freedom of religion. And we are
dealing with this kind of assault on free religion because the Supreme
Court in Murray v. Curlett in 1963 dumped that on us; 1973, Roe v. Wade
and Doe v. Bolton. Then you have the Lawrence v. Texas decision.
{time} 1945
And it goes on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. Up to this point, the
domestic life of America has been dramatically transformed by order of
the Supreme Court, the people least connected to the will of the
people. When they separate themselves from the text of the statute and
the text in the understanding of the Constitution, we are in a place
where the Supreme Court then has put themselves above the law, above
the Constitution, and above the will of the people.
One of the people that understands that as well as anybody in this
United States Congress is my friend from Texas, Mr. Louie Gohmert, who
speaks to us often in these Chambers. I know about his marriage, and I
know about his conviction to the rule of law and the Constitution.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Louie Gohmert.
Mr. GOHMERT. I am very grateful for my very dear friend--not just
friend, but dear friend--from Iowa, and I am pleased that he would take
the time to talk about this. He is making some great points.
The Dred Scott decision, if you really look at it, was decided by a
majority who had great aspirations that the media was going to love
what they did. Instead of looking at the words of the Constitution and
applying those words, they were playing to the elite media, and the
elite media was completely wrong. Slavery was the worst abomination and
blot on this Nation's history, and it is tragic that the Supreme Court
played an active role in that.
It is tragic that in the seventies, as you pointed out, from the
sixties, the seventies, the Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has
contributed to tens of millions of murders--tragic. But I guess as a
former judge and a former chief justice, nothing infuriates me more
than for a judge or justice to believe that they are completely above
the law. I know what it is to recuse myself. I know what it is for
judges who are friends of mine who had strong feelings about a case,
but they knew that they would not be fair and impartial and so they had
to recuse or disqualify themselves.
With regard to marriage, we had one Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, who has
made comments indicating a massive question over her impartiality. But
if you take two Justices about which there is no question, they were
totally disqualified. They were very partial, and they were
opinionated. Going into this opinion, they had long since made up their
minds.
In fact, one columnist reported on the last marriage, a same-sex
marriage, that Justice Ginsburg performed. She emphasized the word
``Constitution'' when she said, ``I now pronounce these two men married
by the powers vested in me by the Constitution of the United States.''
That is a Justice who was completely disqualified.
Do you wonder, well, what actually disqualifies a judge? The law is
very clear about that, and Congress does have the authority to dictate
the terms by which a judge may sit on the Supreme Court or may sit on a
particular case. This law, 28 U.S.C. 455 (a) part--(b) gets into a
number of different options--in (a) there is no option. This is an
emphatic requirement for a Justice.
We know that Justice Kagan had performed a same-sex marriage before
this opinion. So we had two Justices who, under the laws of the United
States as allowed by the United States Constitution's clear reading,
were disqualified. They were lawbreakers in order to dictate
legislation on a social issue over which they have no authority by
virtue of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. Yet they violated
the law, they violated the Constitution, and they violated their oath.
It is dishonorable to be a justice in any court and violate your
oath, violate the law, and violate the Constitution. But the law is
wanting to assure
[[Page H5021]]
the American people that we are going to be so far above question that
not only do you have to disqualify yourself if you are partial, you are
biased, you are prejudiced in a case, but ``if your impartiality might
reasonably be questioned'' is the language, then you have to. It is a
``shall.'' You shall disqualify yourself.
Mr. Speaker, two Justices violated the law, violated the
Constitution, violated their oath, were dishonorable, and dictated law
they have no business dictating.
There is just one final point I would like to make, and I brought
this up on C-SPAN yesterday, but I have been giving it some thought.
What would be a good way to really get a grip on what nature would
indicate? And my friend knows I was there in Iowa with him after that
ridiculous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court and the three judges that
were up for retention that year were eliminated, as they should have
been. But having read that Iowa decision back then, I was amazed that
the Iowa Supreme Court said this is a no evidence matter.
We have different standards: substantial evidence, beyond a
reasonable doubt, and preponderance of the evidence.
They said this is a no evidence issue. There is no evidence of any
kind from any source to indicate a preference for marriage between a
man and a woman as opposed to marriage between two men or two women.
I think it is a very important point to say, well, I would be willing
to put up everything I will make for the rest of my life, that it would
go in to a bet, because I have that much faith in what Moses said and
what Jesus said.
Moses said that this is from God, that a marriage is when a man shall
leave his father and mother and a woman leave her home and the two will
become one flesh. That is a marriage. Jesus repeated: You know the law.
Moses give you the law. Here is the law.
And He repeated the very words of Moses, and then He added a line and
said: What God has joined together, let no man pull apart.
So I have such faith in the words of Moses and Jesus, I would be
willing to stake anything I make the rest of my life that my kids would
otherwise get that we could take four couples of man and woman as Moses
and Jesus said and find a place that we could place them where they are
isolated but they have everything they need to live and have a good,
full life, and then take another place, an island or such, and put four
couples of men, all men that love each other, and put them in such an
isolated island situation where they have everything they need to be
comfortable and live, and then have an island where we have four
couples of women that love each other, they are going to stay together.
And then let's come back however many years you want to wait to come
back, at least 25, and you could go 200 years, and let's go back and
see what nature has to say about which couple it prefers to sustain a
civilization. Which couple is preferred by nature? You and I believe
nature is God, as the Founders did. Which one is preferred? And I am
willing to bet everything that I make the rest of my life that in those
situations where just nature has to take its course, the couples of man
and woman will be the one that proliferates and continues to exist and
live on to produce further generations.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is what the people of Iowa found so
offensive that they had judges that were so completely ignorant of
nature and nature's God that they could say that there is no evidence
in nature or anywhere else to indicate a preference for a couple
between a man and a woman.
I know people have raised issues, but you need to be able to see
someone you love in the hospital, you bet. We ought to make sure State
legislatures fix that problem. If you love somebody, they are your
partner, you care about them and they care about you, you don't want to
just stalk anybody you want, but if there is a mutual love, admiration,
and respect, you ought to be able to see them in a hospital. You ought
to be able to transfer property and leave property. We ought to be able
to address those things in the law.
But when it comes to the building block for future generations and
future civilizations, I can promise you that if it is not built on
couples that are man and woman, as Moses and Jesus said, then that
civilization will not endure. It is just the law of nature.
I love the people of Iowa. I love the fact that they came out and let
it be known that these judges who were educated far beyond their
intellectual capability needed to step down because the people of Iowa
could figure out that there was evidence to support marriage being
between a man and a woman.
So I appreciate the time the gentleman has yielded to me. Thank you
for continuing to stand for what is right, even when we have Supreme
Court Justices that violate the law, the Constitution, and their oath.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman from Texas. I appreciate his presentation here tonight and
the many times and many hours that he has spent on the floor. I also
would say for the record that the gentleman from Texas, Judge Louie
Gohmert, who had the temptation to legislate as a judge and understood
constitutionally how to go about that, resigned his seat as a judge and
ran for the United States Congress because he is, at heart, a
legislator with a deep respect and appreciation for the rule of law,
the statutory construction, and the Constitution itself.
Congressman Gohmert did come to Iowa and rode the judge bus. We
traveled around from town to town and gave speech after speech. There
were some folks to greet us there that weren't very happy with our
presence. I don't think their mothers were very proud of them, Mr.
Speaker, but I think Louie's mother can be very proud of him.
I look across the Midwest, in the heart of the heartland, and you
can't think about the heart of the heartland without thinking of
Kansas. I know the gentleman that represents the vast reaches of the
western at least two-thirds of Kansas, if not more, has arrived here
tonight, and he has demonstrated his faith and his commitment to family
in a lot of ways. I have been able to see that.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Huelskamp).
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to visit tonight about a
very radical decision. I appreciate the discussion of my colleagues
from Texas and Iowa outlining some of the background.
I was born in 1968, and what this Court would have us believe is that
100 years before I was born, somehow secretly written into this
constitutional Amendment was language that invalidated laws in every
State of the Union at that time. They want us to believe the authors of
this constitutional Amendment, the 14th Amendment, violated their own
State laws at the time and just didn't know it. That is silly. That is
utter nonsense. And only if you lived in Washington, D.C., in some
bubble and spent your weekends or your summers vacationing in Western
Europe, not in western Kansas where I am from, could you dream up
somehow the Constitution dictated that you would overrule, override,
undo--this is five unelected black robe attorneys that are going to
dictate to 50 million Americans that you are wrong on the definition of
marriage. You are wrong. 2,000 years of human history is wrong. The
authors of the 14th Amendment were wrong, and 31 States are wrong. Let
me go through that. We are talking about dozens and dozens of States
that adopted by a vote of the people.
Again, let's roll back 2 years ago in the Winter decision. This same
Court, the exact same Court, said: Do you know what? It is up to the
States to decide.
They actually declared themselves wrong 2 years previous to that and
set to deny the vote, the right to vote to short-circuit the democratic
process. Now recognize, folks have strong opinions.
{time} 2000
Even the President of the United States--President Obama and I both
agree on this point; there are strong opinions on both sides, but what
is happening here is the folks that can't win in the State of Kansas,
can't win in 30 other States, have decided that they are going to try
to find five people, five people to overrule 50 million.
[[Page H5022]]
Let me give you an example. My home State of Kansas, when we passed
our Kansas marriage amendment, which I was proud to be the author of,
417,675 men and women voted to declare that marriage is only between a
man and a woman. Five lawyers across the street said, You are all
wrong--every one of them.
You go to the State of California, in 2008, 7,001,084 Californians
were declared to be wrong by five people across the street, five people
who have already fled town. They have left town. They won't even stay
here; they don't even show up in public. They go behind closed doors,
make up their mind, come out, and rule.
This is exactly what our Founders were afraid of with judicial
tyranny of folks trying to dictate, to mandate, take their personal
biases, and mandate them on California, mandate them--let me pick a
State at random--the State of Maine, 300,848 folks in Maine. How about
in Alaska? 152,965 people that these 5 people said were wrong.
Total across the entire Nation, there were 51,483,777 people that
this court, these 5 people, not the entire court, 5 people decided you
51,483,777 people, you are wrong. Those five were wrong 2 years ago--or
at least one of them was wrong. They changed their mind 2 years ago.
If you look at the Holy Father's latest encyclical that has been much
discussed, it talks about the rule of law and how if you start
violating laws that becomes a pattern--and here, we have a pattern of
this Court deciding to ignore the clear Constitution and decide to
impose their biases.
As I understand, the dissent was frightening. This is not only
imposing their biases against traditional marriage; these five people
don't like marriage as 51 million Americans understand that.
In the dissent, it talked about not only that, they have opened the
door to plural unions; and it is coming. They referenced a Court case.
This is where this Court is headed, and it is totally out of step, not
only with 51 million Americans, but with their own Court decision 2
years ago, but also with the whole idea of our Constitution, that
somehow it is living and breathing and then five people.
I mean, this is the same margin by which we have had atrocious
decisions throughout history of this country. You go not far from
this--and my colleague from Iowa knows this--you go not far from here,
you go down, I think it is a floor down, where you had a decision by
the same U.S. Supreme Court, just a few different folks, decided
certain people didn't have rights and made a decision, an atrocious
decision. They were wrong. I think the Court is wrong today.
Again, the idea that somehow they know better is the elitism that I
think is driving folks crazy, and it is not just on this issue. My
colleague from Iowa has pointed out, again and again, it is concerns
about immigration, it is concerns about education, it is concerns about
spending, about overregulation where you have folks inside a bubble in
Washington, D.C., they read every week.
Every day, I guess, they read the New York Times and think they are
doing a great job; they read The Washington Post, but they don't read
and listen to real Americans. Again, they travel and vacation in
western Europe.
Many times, we see them using Court decisions in the arguments that
have no basis not only in our jurisprudence, but in our history and are
using that which is outside--I have never served in the U.S. Senate; I
probably never will, and I have no desire to do that, but I have got to
wonder, when each of these five that decided to overrule 51 million,
did anybody ask them: Do you think you are smarter than the rest of
America? Did anybody ask them?
Actually, when they did ask them, they said: We can't tell you how we
are going to rule.
There is no doubt that at least four, perhaps five, of these judges,
these attorneys, these lawyers made up their mind before they got the
case and said: This is the decision. Here is what we want to reach.
Here is the outcome. Let's make something up so we can at least claim
there is an argument.
There is no logical argument; there is no legal argument. All there
is, is the utter power, the claim that we get to dictate what the rest
of America will accept.
As a pro-life American as well, we have to go 42 years ago. A court
tried to do the same thing. And at that time, in '73, and I am guessing
January 24, 1973, I was a little tyke. Thank goodness I was born before
the Roe v. Wade generation. I saw some of those folks run around today,
claiming they were part of that generation.
Part of that generation, one-third of those are gone. At that time,
the Court said they were going to impose abortion on all of America
through all 9 months. Do you know what, they walked away and said: We
got it all done.
What they found out is the American people are resilient. When they
see outrageous decisions like this, it might take them weeks, it might
take them months, it might take them a year, it might take them
decades, but they will be pushing back. They will be pushing back and
demanding that, when you put your thumb into the eye of 51 million
Americans, you put your thumb in the eye of 2,000 years of history, you
put your thumb in the eye of millions of millions of children that
deserve a dad and a mom, a married dad and a mom, and say: Do you know
what, you don't count; you don't count.
That is what this Court is saying. We spend billions of dollars every
year trying to replace a mom and a dad. Here we are today because of
five people across the street--again, five people deciding for the rest
of us. This was not interpretation of the Constitution; this was just
utter legal nonsense.
There are two ways to respond to this. One is a Federal marriage
amendment. I have introduced that a couple sessions in a row. That is
the way you amend the Constitution. The way the left amends the
Constitution is they get five votes.
Folks have been worried about a constitutional convention; and I
always joke that, well, they have one every time they issue a ruling.
This one was a constitutional convention, utter legal fiction and
nonsense. They know it; they all know this.
They are probably drinking cocktails tonight, laughing about our
comments on the floor saying: Well, yeah, everybody knows that.
So we are just under some fiction. We are trying to figure out, okay,
here is the decision we want; here is how we get there. A Federal
marriage amendment is one option, but that is difficult.
A second one that we have to worry about--and it was noted in the
oral arguments, it was noted in the opinion of the majority and the
minority, because of this decision, mark my words, mark the words of
the dissenters--is they will use this decision to attack religious
liberties of Americans who still believe, 51 million and plenty of
others, that marriage is between a man and a woman.
They are not going to stop. Ten years ago, they said they would stop
at civil unions. That was all they wanted; then, well, maybe want
something else. Now, it is not only do they want marriage, the next one
will be to say, if you disagree with me, you not only have to bake a
cake, you have to participate in other ceremonies in other ways. It
goes on and on.
That is why I have introduced, along with others, the First Amendment
Defense Act, which I call upon those who believe in marriage, and even
if you don't believe in marriage but believe in the supremacy of the
American people rather than five attorneys, we bring that to the floor
and defend the rights and liberties of Americans and the thousands,
perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps millions of churches that say, Do
you know what, we don't agree with that, and we will not have the
Federal Government imposing their way--these five people.
Now, I am just one. We got 435 in this body, 100 in the other body,
and the Court just said: Do you know what, that doesn't matter.
That is the definition of tyranny, and from tyranny, good things do
not come. Our Founders understood that.
When you consolidate power--and as my colleague said: What difference
does Congress make anymore?
The decision the day before suggested they get to rewrite the law,
and the marriage decision was they get to rewrite the Constitution.
This is a fundamental decision on the history of our
[[Page H5023]]
country, the history of our Constitution, where the future goes, and
the history for and the future for our children.
I appreciate my colleague from Iowa, his efforts for many years. I
will not apologize on behalf of 417,675 Kansans who voted for marriage.
If those five Justices are asking them to apologize, they will not.
They will continue to defend God's lawful marriage, and they will do
that proudly and will continue to defend the State, and our U.S.
Congress should do the same.
I appreciate my colleague from Iowa's leadership. These are one of
these things that it is not easy.
Congressman, I appreciate your leadership on this and not giving up
for the right thing.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Kansas, but I would ask
if he will yield to a question before he retires.
You mention your constitutional amendment to preserve marriage
between a man and a woman. I would ask if you would be prepared to, if
you can, from memory, quote that into the Record here tonight.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. I am not prepared to quote it. I know what the vote
was.
Mr. KING of Iowa. The essence of it, if you could?
Mr. HUELSKAMP. The essence is marriage is reserved between one man
and one woman. It is a very simple definition, a very historical
definition, and it was adopted by 417,675.
Do you know what was interesting? I never once told the State of
Kansas that, if five people wanted it, that was the rule of law in
Kansas--no. We had to go through an open process, have the debate, have
the campaign, get it through the legislature.
We tried 2 years in a row; it didn't happen. Finally, in 2005, it got
on the ballot. It went up. Everybody had their up and down American
experiment of democracy and decided.
I will tell you at the time--and Steve understands this, my
Congressman--that people said: We don't need to do that. The Court
would never overrule that. There is nowhere that is in the
Constitution.
It is very clear; marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the
thing, marriage predates government. No matter what these five
unelected lawyers appointed for life--with full benefits, I might add,
and health care--outside of ObamaCare, that is another issue--no matter
what they say, they are not changing what a marriage is.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would like to reiterate this point that as you
debated this in Kansas, I am one of the authors of the Iowa's Defense
of Marriage Act. Ours says differently than I think all the other
States.
All the other States say marriage is between one man and one woman. I
insisted that the language say between one male and one female because
I didn't want to be in a debate about what a man was and what a woman
was.
I didn't know that, within the last couple of months, we would be
having that debate nationally, but I think our debate is more
specific--however, overruled by the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa.
I didn't get around to mentioning that we voted three of those
justices off the bench, swept them off. There were only three up for
retention ballot in 2010. We voted them all off of the bench.
I still ask this question, which is, as precise as our language is, I
could not divine any right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution,
not in the 14th Amendment, not in the Iowa Constitution that is
mirrored to the 14th Amendment; but the Supreme Court found it anyway.
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that, if your amendment becomes
incorporated into our Constitution that a more liberal court, or this
Court itself, might find a way to rationalize their way around no
matter how we write it?
Mr. HUELSKAMP. That is absolutely true. I mean, where can they end
up?
Again, when it becomes an issue of bias, and our colleague from Texas
talked about that, two justices that clearly demonstrated bias in the
State of Kansas, that would be a basis for not ruling on the case and
perhaps not even being on a court.
I mean, those are illegal. I am not an attorney, but we recognize
that would be highly unethical in the State of Kansas, but apparently,
that is the way you get things done nationally, to impose your will.
One thing that, again, I mention in passing that we can't forget is
what this does for our children, what this does for our children by
attempting to fundamentally destroy and redefine marriage.
I have been asked: Well, how does it affect your marriage?
When you make marriage anything, you devalue what really is marriage.
The last thing we need to be doing in this society is devaluing
families, devaluing marriage, and attacking the basis of our society.
Our Founders understood that.
I don't know what these Justices, what their history was growing up,
what led them to change their mind and impose that on the rest of
America; but that is why our Founders said: Here is the Constitution.
You can interpret it, but you shall go no further.
Mr. KING of Iowa. They understand that in Kansas, they understand
that in Iowa, and I suspect they understand that in Florida.
As I look over, I see the gentleman from Florida--I am looking at two
doctors here--the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
I thank the gentleman from Kansas for coming down tonight, as well as
the gentlemen from Florida and Texas, and the other folks that might
show up.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Iowa, Kansas, and
Texas for coming down here to share your thoughts on this important
item.
Mr. Huelskamp, you brought up about diluting the institution of
marriage, and if we keep going down this path, it will be worth
nothing.
If we keep diluting the value of our money, it is worth nothing; and
if we keep diluting the value of the things that have made our society
great, the nucleus family, if we keep doing that, it becomes more
washed out.
{time} 2015
Roughly 2 weeks ago the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision on Obergefell v.
Hodges demonstrated yet again the highest court in the land legislating
from the bench.
The ruling was disappointing not only for the fact that the court had
not four States to redefine marriage, but even more so because it
removes millions of American from the democratic process of choosing
for themselves who and what defines marriage.
I personally and millions--you brought up 51 million--hold a
traditional view of marriage between one man and one woman. And I am
proud to say that I have been married to my wife Carolyn for over 40
years. God bless her because we know that is a tough job.
However, the Constitution grants people, the voters, the ability to
decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage.
Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent made a valid point, which I am
sure is shared by many Americans. He said those who founded our country
would not recognize the majority's conception of the judicial role.
And then he continued: They certainly would not have been satisfied
by a system empowering judges to override policies, judgments, so long
as they do so after a quiet extensive discussion.
With this type of legislation from the bench, what is the point of
the States' rights. I think that is what this gets down to because 30
States wanted to define and have the right, according to the 10th
Amendment, that it is a State's rights issue.
If you live in that State and they decide what marriage is and you
don't like it, you have the freedom to move or challenge us through the
State system.
I think it is a sad day in America when we have to, as a country,
redefine who we are as a Nation, we have to redefine what marriage is,
an institution that has been around and ordained by God for over
thousands of years, 2,000-years plus, to come down to this point in our
society.
We have got a book that we have lived by, and I am going to hold this
up for the viewers. This is, in total, the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution. And you can see it is a very thin book. It is not
epic in volume, but, yet, it is an epic in ideology
[[Page H5024]]
of what a nation stands for, a nation of laws.
We have the three branches of government. I have been up here for
2\1/2\ years, and what I hear over and over again is we are in a
constitutional crisis.
And being in Congress for the last 2\1/2\ years, I see a lot of
dysfunctionality. And if we don't do our job, you get other branches of
government fulfilling that job and overstepping their boundaries.
I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia when he stated in his dissent: A
system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee
of nonelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
Wow. Those are powerful words. A system of government that makes the
people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not
deserve to be called a democracy.
We cannot allow our Constitution to be eroded, and I will continue to
fight for the States' rights and stop this continued Federal power
grab.
I look at Justice Roberts, some of the dissension in his ruling, and
Roberts forcibly criticized the majority: Sidestepping the democratic
process and declaring that same-sex couples have the right to marry
when, in his view, such a right has no basis in the Constitution. The
court's decision, he complained, orders the transformation of a social
institution that has formed the basis of human societies for millennia.
We are redefining that.
And then he goes on to the Kalahari bushmen and to the Han Chinese,
the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs. Just who, Roberts laments, do we
think we are?
The other three justices echoed Roberts' sentiment, sometimes in even
more strident terms.
Justice Scalia characterized the decision as a judicial putsch and
suggested that, before he signed on to an opinion like the majority, I
would hide my head in a bag. This is from our Supreme Court justices.
I think it is a sad state of affairs that, in the three branches of
government, that we are out of balance.
We, as Member of Congress, are the most powerful branch. It is the
way our Founders set our country up. It is the longest living democracy
and constitutional free republic in the world. The reason for that is
the checks and balances.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to say to you and to my colleagues that
our three branches of government are seriously out of balance.
And at times during human history, when the government oversteps its
boundaries, whether in total or in the different branches, and they
overstep the boundaries of the Constitution, it is not only our duty,
but it is our responsibility as Americans and as the people's House in
the United States of Congress to stand up and rein in government and
hold those other branches accountable.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House floor to
make sure that we are the ones that stand up and say: Enough is enough.
We have had enough.
Mr. KING of IOWA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the fine gentleman from
Florida for his presentation, his understanding of this, and his
conviction on constitutional issue after constitutional issue,
including reminding us this is a constitutional republic that we live
in.
I would like to now recognize the husband of Roxanne Babin, the
gentleman from Texas whom I get to count as a good friend here in this
Congress, who has stood up on principle time and again.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we have 8 minutes left in our time. So
we will try to judge it accordingly.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from Iowa
and good friend. I appreciate recognizing my wife in the gallery as
well.
I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I thank him for his
leadership on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today deeply and bitterly disappointed and
saddened by the recent actions of five unelected U.S. Supreme Court
justices and their decision to defy the will of the American people and
disregard the rule of law.
As a strong defender of traditional marriage and State sovereignty, I
believe it is absolutely wrong that five unelected members of the U.S.
Supreme Court overruled tens of millions of Americans, including many
in my home State, the State of Texas, who voted to enact State statutes
and State constitutional amendments to define marriage as between one
man and one woman.
Under this ruling, five members of the Supreme Court invalidated the
votes of over 50 million Americans. That is deeply disturbing and
alarming. And the dissenting justices raised this very concern.
Traditional marriage has been under assault as courts and some state
legislatures have sought to both redefine marriage as something other
than between a man and a woman.
Most seriously, they are now taking action to penalize and
discriminate against those who have religious and conscience
convictions against the redefinition of marriage.
Over 30 States and tens of millions of Americans acted through the
legislative and election process to keep marriage between one man and
one woman within their respective States.
Unfortunately, various courts took it upon themselves to sidestep the
democratic process and to silence those voices with their reprehensible
activist decisions.
By circumventing the votes of American citizens, the Supreme Court's
sweeping decision now sets the Government on a collision course with
religious freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution.
Americans with religious conviction will now be forced into a
position of great uncertainty. If their religious beliefs conflict with
same-sex marriage, they may lose their business license and they could
be subjected to prosecution or even litigation.
Some are even calling for ending tax exemption status for any church
or religious organization that opposes same-sex marriage. This is
alarming and it demands action.
We have seen the attacks led by IRS bureaucrats like Lois Lerner on
conservative groups in the past, and we can expect the same under these
discussions. As elected leaders, we cannot and must not back down.
We have an obligation to fight for the religious protection of our
constituencies against such judicial activism and the consequences that
will come from it. I have met with local pastors in Texas over the past
few weeks, and they are very, very concerned about this ruling.
Congress wants to take immediate action to restore each States'
ability to determine their own marriage laws and to protect individuals
and institutions with deeply held religious convictions regarding
traditional marriage to ensure that they do not face discrimination
because of these convictions.
As an unwavering advocate for protecting the traditional marriage, I
strongly support and have cosponsored a constitutional amendment to
define marriage as between one man and one woman.
We should also pass the First Amendment Defense Act to protect
churches, Christian schools and colleges and business owners from being
coerced by the government to act against their religious convictions in
regards to acceptance of same-sex marriage.
In the 36th Congressional District of Texas, where I have spent my
entire life, people are very distressed over the Supreme Court's
redefinition of marriage and its impact on their ability to freely
practice their faith. They realize, as do I, that, under the Supreme
Court's decision, things are going to get worse as this collision
course is set in motion.
We will see more lawsuits spring up that challenge the faith of
average American families who hold their beliefs dearly, as well as
their churches, schools, and charities.
Under such uncertainty, I stand in strong solidarity with my
constituents, our local and State leaders, and the like-minded
colleagues that I have had the great privilege of listening to tonight
and having your time yielded to me. I serve with you folks in Congress
that we will never back down on this issue.
I will work tirelessly on all fronts to defend traditional marriage
and the
[[Page H5025]]
protection of religious liberties granted under our U.S. Constitution.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and
I appreciate very much his commitment to many causes, especially this
cause.
I recognize the gentleman from California that has arrived, and I
point out that we are down to 3 minutes.
I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) to hear what
he might have to say about this topic.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Iowa. Thank
you for a little bit of time on this.
It is indeed something I know a lot of people are grieving over with
the Supreme Court decision, first on the morality issue.
Those of us that believe in the Bible, that believe in God, feel that
the Bible is pretty clear on this subject of homosexuality and the
application of marriage.
But even more so, beyond that, it is a choice. People can choose to
follow that path of biblical values or they can choose not. They will
make that decision, and they will be held accountable for that decision
one way or the other.
So what I am looking at is that the court, in this ruling, has
usurped the process of the American people in the legislative process
and replaced it with the opinions of five court members.
Where that ruling was on Friday, the following Monday, the court
upheld that the people would draw their own lines in Arizona and, by
extension, California.
So the people's voice is heard on district lines as seen by the
court, but the people's voice is ignored when California passed two
different initiatives to uphold marriage.
So there is not even consistency on the court on what the
Constitution is supposed to mean on the people's voice, and that is
very troublesome.
It indicates to me that we are not far from a constitutional crisis
with the way this court usurps the people's voice and the legislative
process.
So I appreciate the time from the gentleman here tonight. Thank you
for your leadership on this important issue.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a list of solid
constitutionalists here this evening that are not only committed to
their oath to support and defend the Constitution, but, also, each
committed to their own marriage throughout these years that, if we
added them up, it is well over a century of us together. Marilyn and I
are 43 years.
I am steeped in the Constitution and the rule of law. I have great
respect for the Supreme Court of United States, but I have greater
respect for the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution of
the United States.
If the law doesn't mean what it says and if the Constitution can have
divined within it certain rights that are imagined only by this court
and not imagined by the people that ratified the very language that
they are ruling upon, then what have we come to?
I believe that this decision, this Obergefell v. Hodges decision on
marriage, right behind the decision of King v. Burwell--that, if the
court continues down this path, Mr. Speaker, they will render our
Constitution an artifact of history and this country will not respect a
court that doesn't respect the language and the text of the
Constitution.
{time} 2030
We are here to reject and criticize the decision of the Supreme Court
that imposes same-sex marriage on all of America and requires each of
the States to recognize with reciprocity those marriages. That is a
decision this Congress couldn't make for the American people, and it is
a decision that should be left up to the States.
Mr. Speaker, I will submit that I am one who is prepared to support
the simple elimination of civil marriage because this government has
gotten into it so far that holy matrimony will not be protected from
the further litigation in this Court unless we separate it from civil
marriage itself.
The next litigation that comes will be that that sues our priests and
our pastors to command them to conduct same-sex marriages at their
altars, and that is where the First Amendment freedom of religion comes
into conflict with the distorted view of the 14th Amendment which is
part of this Obergefell, and that, Mr. Speaker, will be a
constitutional crisis.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________