Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, my car battery died and I was detained from voting on Tuesday, May 15, 2012. If present, I would have voted yea on the following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 250; rollcall No. 251; and rollcall No. 252.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the great privilege of serving in Congress with Senator Richard Lugar. He was in the Aspen Institute, and I visited with him on those occasions, and received an award from the American Bar Association the same day he did, as did John Lewis, which made it more important than any other reward I have received.

Richard Lugar's loss is a great loss to this country. He worked in a bipartisan fashion, and worked with President Obama on nuclear proliferation treaties and on the approval of Supreme Court Justices.

He said, last night, we are experiencing days of political division in our society. These divisions have stalemated progress in critical areas. They have, indeed. And unless the Republican side works with the Democratic side in a bipartisan fashion, we won't be successful, as Richard Lugar tried to do, and was defeated for doing it.

There's something wrong in the constituencies that don't realize that progress is made by parties working together, not by one party conquering the other.

I move to strike the last word.

There have been quite a few good arguments made--excellent arguments--as to why this amendment should pass. Justice Louis Brandeis is

one of my favorite Justices. He said the laboratories of democracy are the States. Indeed, 16 States, mostly through, if not entirely through, referenda determined that they wanted to try to find out whether medical marijuana laws worked.

The Federal Government should not be infringing on what the States have determined and their citizens have determined in the most direct form of democracy that this Nation knows--State referenda. The Federal Government has been using its resources, which could be used in better ways, to police the jurisdictions that have voted it in. That's what this amendment does. It says there will not be any additional spending of Federal moneys to try to thwart the will of the people of the States on issues on which they have voted.

This is the most basic democracy that we could be talking about. You talk about the Founding Fathers. This is the people who give us power. They have voted in their States to make it the law, and the Federal Government has taken its heavy hand and has tried to come in there--and has come in there--to prosecute individuals. It's for the States to prosecute those individuals if they want.

As the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) has pointed out, Federal priorities have to be made to meet the resources available. The moneys that they're spending now in these States could be spent on border traffic and could be spent on policing against heroin and cocaine, which cause people, when they get hooked, to commit violent crimes in order to get their money to buy their drugs. That has never been known to be the case with marijuana, and it is not the case with marijuana. That's where our priorities for law enforcement should go and prosecution should go is to crack and cocaine and heroin, and they're not being used there.

So this is a commonsense, basic, democratic proposal to tell our Federal Government that has gone astray to not use its resources against the people of this country who have made this determination.

Now, as far as some of the other statements that have been made, I think the public who listens knows that this is not about legalization, that this is not about 14-year-olds or 15-year-olds or 18-year-olds.

It's about States, democracy, doctors, and people who have cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, MS, whatever. Montel Williams has testified how it has helped him with his illness. I had a Navy SEAL friend who died of cancer. There is no question but that marijuana, which he smoked, helped him with his appetite when he wasn't eating, and his pancreatic cancer took him from 215 pounds to 115 pounds. His grandmother said it's the only thing that makes Orel laugh, and it's the only thing that makes Orel eat. And when he was dying, I wanted my friend to have whatever he could have to make his illness less damaging to him and less difficult to deal with.

So I rise here and assure people that it won't affect your States; it will just be those States where it's been voted in. It will save resources and be able to give our government the proper direction, the usage of resources to protect us against heroin, crack, and cocaine.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank my colleague from New York for yielding to me.

This is a particularly important amendment because minority business development agencies give people a hand up, not a hand out.

The fact is the folks on the other side are always talking about opportunities in businesses and in small business, and this is the ideal type of Federal Government program in which small business-- minorities--are given opportunities to get knowledge about contracting opportunities with the Federal Government and to get a share and get financing capabilities. Minorities have long been denied the opportunity to get adequate financing from our banking system, and they have been less than properly represented in the number of contracts they get from the Federal Government.

The Minority Business Development Agency just put an office in my district in Memphis, Tennessee, which has the largest metropolitan population, African American population, in this country. Yet it wasn't until this year that a minority business office was placed there--the first one in the history of the State of Tennessee.

There is a lot more that needs to be done to give people an opportunity. In this recession, small business has been hurt and minorities have been hurt, and minorities have been hurt in a disproportionate manner. With this amendment, the Minority Business Development Agency can thrive and give people opportunity--give people jobs, give people contracts--and make economic development go throughout all of America.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, the Clarke-Cohen-Chu amendment, and to have a hand up, not a hand out.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I was off campus, and I got a notice from my staff that this amendment was here.

I kind of knew it was coming, but I find it shocking. In these economic times, there is more of a need for legal services than there has ever been a need for legal services. There are more people that have been economically hurt because of this economy who haven't been able to get jobs because we haven't passed a transportation bill to put people to work, we haven't passed jobs bills to put people to work. When people are out of work and they're economically deprived, they are more likely to have domestic violence in their homes. It's a direct cause and a direct relationship. They're more likely to be behind in their payments on their house and have problems with their mortgage where they need legal services because they're facing foreclosure. More people are in need of help than ever before, and yet we're taking legal services away from poor people who are the Purple Hearts, the victims of this recession/depression, whichever we're having. This is just hard to fathom. It's unfair, it's unwise, and it violates every Judeo- Christian principle that I can conjure up and imagine.

What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me. And when you take people who are being foreclosed upon, victims of domestic violence, or whatever other purpose and taking away the opportunity to get legal representation, that is un-American.

Now you have a right to legal representation in a criminal case because of the Constitution. In a civil case, it's really up to this Congress to provide funds for Legal Services Corporation to give people that opportunity. And while there is no constitutional amendment, we've got the words of Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who said, There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has, or the type of representation.

And if you can't get representation, you are not going to have any chance to win in court. And justice should be blind. People should have an opportunity to go to court, particularly for economic distress. And we're seeing more and more of that.

So slashing funds to Legal Services is the wrong thing to do. It hurts the most vulnerable. It hurts the poorest.

There was a group that met out here in Statuary Hall, Come Pray With Me. And Come Pray With Me was saying that we need to have the values that religion has, and they should be a part of this Congress. Well, there should be a separation of church and State, no question about it. But there should be values that are in the Judeo-Christian heritage, which goes to the Muslim heritage, which is that we care about those who are at the bottom and we give them a hand up. And it's not the wealthy we care about, but the poor. We want to give them help.

This is the type of situation, with Legal Services, where we need to help people. And we need to call on the values that we've been taught from generation to generation and put them into effect, not just talk about them in Statuary Hall when the Christian

Broadcasting Network is putting them on television, but put them into effect when we have an opportunity to act. And this Legal Services amendment is one where we have a chance to act because you are helping people who are in distress and need help and need fair, just opportunities that the Legal Services Corporation can provide.

I know these are tough budgetary times, but this is not the place to cut, and it's not the people to cut. So I would ask that we not do this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Do you know if the Marine Mammal Commission has anything to do at all with the dolphins that help us in security, that they get these sonars attached to them and they do a lot of security work for us? Isn't this what they do?

I yield to the gentleman.

So the dolphins that they train and that they study save us in the way of security and they do jobs that humans don't have to do, so they save human lives. And you're talking about $200,000 and the cost of one SEAL. To me, a SEAL in the United States Navy is worth a lot more than $200,000. I would rather those dolphins be understood and trained and be able to do that security work and save us. They are marine drones and they are protecting our country and saving human lives. That's why I say this is penny wise and pound foolish

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his response, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the April 7, 2012 swearing-in address by Malawi President Joyce Banda.

This is a unique occasion.

May his soul rest in peace.

I am not here to give a long speech considering the

circumstances we are in. Let us focus on mourning our father,

former President Mutharika.

I also would like to report to all you people that this

afternoon I had a cabinet meeting. We felt the holy spirit in

that room. It was a good meeting, as a nation we should

realize that, because it was significant and marks a starting

point for healing the wounds of this nation . . .

I thank you all for showing me great humility and honor as

I accept the huge responsibility. I also thank you all for

the peaceful transition and I appeal to the nation to mourn

the former president with dignity and thank all of you who

have come to witness this occasion from all walks of life,

irrespective of political, spiritual, regional backgrounds .

. .

I want to ask all of us to move into the future with hope

and the spirit of oneness and unity. I sincerely hope there

is no room for revenge, that we shall stand united . . .

As a God fearing nation we shall allow God to come before

us because if we do not do that, we have failed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Hunter

Lane, Jr., a volunteer, attorney and political leader who dedicated his career to improving government and promoting civil rights. Born in Memphis, TN on July 6, 1929, Hunter attended Central High School in Memphis, where he earned outstanding recognition in academics and also as the quarterback of the football team. After high school, he attended Washington and Lee University in Lexington, VA on an academic scholarship, graduating in 1951 magna cum laude. He earned his law degree from Washington and Lee in 1953. Mr. Lane entered the U.S. Marine Corps as an Officer Candidate in 1953 and served as a legal officer in the Republic of Korea and Japan. Though released from active duty in 1955, he continued to serve with various units of the Marine Corps Reserve until he retired as Lt. Col. in 1978.

Mr. Lane's involvement with the community began when he was elected Commissioner of Public Service in 1964, a position he held for the next three years. He was a leading advocate for a progressive agenda that ultimately led to the city's conversion from the commission system to a strong mayor and city council local government model. He served on the Board of Education from 1972 to 1975, where he promoted the desegregation of public facilities. Hunter was very active with the Civil Rights Movement in Memphis and worked diligently in many behind the scenes activities with renowned civil rights attorney Lucius Burch, who represented Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in a successful attempt to lift an injunction against a planned march in support of the striking workers in the Memphis Sanitation Strike. He then served as Director of the Memphis Better Schools Committee from 1976 to 1979.

Hunter dedicated a great deal of time to performing volunteer work. He worked as a volunteer mentor at the Memphis City Schools for many years and mentored children at the Dream Academy for several years. He also volunteered at the Community Legal Center after his retirement, helping people who could not afford an attorney. For most of his adult life, he was a member of the Downtown Kiwanis Club, a service organization dedicated to helping the children of our community.

An avid outdoorsman, Hunter was a lifelong member of the Wolf River Society and a supporter of the Wolf River Conservancy, a nonprofit group dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the Wolf River corridor and watershed as a sustainable natural resource. He was an active member of a canoe club and enjoyed canoe trips on the rivers of Arkansas and Missouri. As a member of the Grey Eagles Hiking Club, he climbed many mountains in the U.S. and Canada during his retirement. His passion for travel took him on trips with his wife, Susan, to 49 of the 50 states and to countries on five continents.

Hunter was a lifelong member of Idlewild Presbyterian Church, where he served on the Board of Elders from 1978 to 2012. He supported the University of Memphis football and basketball programs as a member of the High Hundred and the Rebounders Club.

Hunter Lane, Jr. passed away on April 22, 2012 at 82 years of age. He is survived by his loving wife, Susan; three children, Dorothy Lane McClure, James Hunter Lane III, and William Martin Lane; two stepsons, Charles Michael Bowen and Robert Kenneth Bowen; four grandchildren, and two stepgrandchildren. His was a life well lived.

Mr. Speaker, today, there was a Yom HaShoah service held in the United States Capitol as they are being held in State Capitals throughout the Nation, to remember the victims of the Holocaust--the loss of six million lives. It is imperative that we remember the loss of those six million people and, also, the people who survived and those who helped them survive.

In 1984, as a young State Senator, I sponsored legislation to create the Tennessee Holocaust Commission, one of the first such state Commissions. I'm very proud of the work of the Tennessee Holocaust Commission, much of which is educating Tennessee teachers so they can teach children about the Holocaust.

The Commission has been very successful and has benefitted from great leadership. Then Commission Chair Reverend Beverly Asbury, also Chaplain at Vanderbilt University, worked tirelessly to get the Commission off the ground and current Chairwoman Felicia Anchor, born in the Bergen-Belsen camp, uses her passion and personal experience to continue to do great things.

I wear a button to honor Raoul Wallenberg, a great diplomat who helped save 100,000 Jews. This morning HRH Princess Madeleine and Swedish Parliamentary Leaders met with the Congressional Swedish Caucus and talked about the efforts of Swedish Diplomats to engage the United States to help save lives.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Morgenthau and two people in his administration, Mr. Pehle and Mr. DuBois, implored our President to help rescue Jews, and the United States certainly helped. Unfortunately, many lives were lost because we didn't get involved soon enough. We should never meet evil with silence.

Yom HaShoah is about remembering. As we remember the lives lost, we should also remember those who survived and, also, the military that liberated the camps and the hundreds of thousands of righteous gentiles who risked their own lives to save Jews.

I urge all Americans visiting Washington to visit the U.S. Holocaust Museum and I urge all Tennesseans and those visiting Nashville to go to the Memorial on the State Capitol Grounds, situated alongside six cedar trees representing six million people, to remember and to understand why we must always remember.

Mr. Speaker, Julian Bond was and is a great civil rights leader. He founded SNCC in the sixties and fought for civil rights in this country. He was a Georgia State senator for 20 years, and had to fight and go to the Supreme Court for First Amendment rights.

He was the chairman of the board of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, for many years. He's also been a professor of civil rights history at the University of Virginia for the last 20 years, and he'll be retiring on May 1.

On May 2, there will be a dinner in New York at the Plaza Hotel to raise money for the Julian Bond Civil Rights History Chair at the University of Virginia, an opportunity for people to see that civil rights history is taught at the University of Virginia for time immemorial. After Julian retires, civil rights history will continue to be taught at the University of Virginia, as it should be taught at every school, and not just in February, Black History Month.

I commend Julian Bond, and I commend the University of Virginia for having hired him to teach the course and for having a chair in his honor, and encourage all to support such May 2, New York City.

Thank you, Mr. Bond.

Mr. Speaker, the best thing Members of Congress can do to represent their constituents well is to stay in touch.

Today we had another teletown hall in my district, and we listened to seniors be concerned about Social Security and Medicare. They wondered why the Ryan budget takes away from them and why would Social Security and Medicare, which are good for so many years to come and not the cause of the deficit, why their future health care expenses and their daily expenses are being threatened. Those are good questions, and I let them know that the Democrats in this Congress and in the Senate aren't going to allow that to be jeopardized. We are going to maintain Social Security and Medicare as we know it. It's so important.

For the young people--and I see one up there. The young people, Mr. Speaker, need to see that student loan rates stay at 3.4 percent and not the way the Republicans are going to do it and pay for it by taking away cervical cancer screenings and mammograms for women. That's wrong. We need to protect our future, the future generations, be statesmen and not worry about tomorrow's election.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following remarks given by Willy Mutunga, Chief Justice and President Supreme Court of Kenya on April 13, 2012.

Fellow Africans and our Friends: I thank the Albany Law

School and Professor James Gathii for inviting me to this

conference. I am delighted to be among so many practitioners

and scholars of international law who share a commitment to

Africa. There is a very special reason for me to be

delivering this address today. April 13th was the late

President--Mwalimu-Julius Nyerere's birthday. He would have

been 88 today. Nyerere was a special and inspirational

leader--he believed in the solidarity of the African people

as well as in human dignity.

Nyerere was interested in both constitutional law and

international law. There is a picture of him as a student at

Edinburgh holding a copy of Dicey's Law of the Constitution.

His interest was both scholarly and practical. It fell to him

to develop a constitution suitable for his country--where his

commitment to a one party state, although intended to

increase democracy, must have come sorely in conflict with

the Diceyan preference for the rule of law. As far as

international law goes, he was greatly concerned to promote

African unity, redefine the relationship between Africa

(indeed the whole of

the South) and the West--as well as deal with Tanzania's

colonial legacy, including that relating to treaty

succession. He ruled out automatic succession, so the newly

independent country was not burdened with unfair and unequal

obligations.

I also felt honored as I read the biographies of the other

participants in this conference: they read like a ``Who's

Who?'' of international law and Africa. One only has to look

at the conference program to see the broad depth of

international law work relating to Africa. The papers

submitted are impressive. I am looking forward to the

deliberations here and the opportunity to get to know you and

to talk about our common commitments and concern about

Africa. My challenge to you always is to continue making

transformative contributions in your work on Africa and

international law. This will at times require those of you

who are based outside Africa to return home and help

contribute to the growing use and practice of international

law in Africa.

My focus this morning is the new Constitution of Kenya and

the role of the judiciary within it. First I want to tell you

about that constitution and the vision that it espouses. We

are now engaged in the challenging but difficult task of

implementation in which a key role has been assigned to the

judiciary. The judiciary has already made a good start on a

progressive, indeed in some respects, radical jurisprudence--

and now enjoys great public support.

The Constitution is one of the most progressive in the

world. It was overwhelmingly approved in a referendum as a

result of the most consultative and participatory processes

of Constitution making anywhere in the world. The long period

before the Constitution was upheld in the referendum was

characterized not only by delays and deadlock, but by a

series of governance challenges familiar in many countries of

Africa:

An absence of a political culture of obedience to and

respect for rules, and a cavalier treatment, even of

constitutional texts;

Failed systems including the electoral system;

Failed institutions including a corrupt judiciary and

police force;

A population tortured and inhibited from fulfilling its

full potential;

Exclusion of women and many groups from full participation

in society;

Gross manipulation of ethnic, racial, regional, religious,

generational, clan, class, and occupational divisions by

politicians for their personal ends;

Extreme inequality, great poverty and failure of even

development;

An institutional culture of timidity, even where no threats

existed;

A society and politics characterized by violence, fragility

and instability; and

An international community that excelled in perfidy and

double standards and that could not be relied upon to

consistently support progressive constitutional reforms.

The result of the above has been a massive culture and

practice of impunity and the marginalization of the

constitution. The Constitution, which was, as my old teacher,

and one of the leading constitutional scholars in Africa and

the world, Yash Ghai is fond of saying, ``forced upon the

rulers by the ruled.'' Here Yash's reference to rulers means

both internal and external rulers--for Ghai, the Constitution

has to be written to address these ills.

The 2010 Constitution of Kenya seeks to incorporate such

rules in a number of ways. For example, it constantly

emphasizes the sovereignty of the people, and is full of

people oriented values. So Article 10 enumerates the national

values and principles of governance that bind all state

organs as well as everyone who applies or interprets the

Constitution or any law or performs any public duty:

Patriotism, national unity, sharing and devolution of

power, the rule of law, democracy and participation of the

people;

Human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness,

equality, human rights, nondiscrimination and protection of

the marginalized;

Good governance, integrity, transparency and

accountability; and

Sustainable development.

I had argued before its promulgation that our constitution

should establish a human rights state and society whose

vision is radical social democracy. It is my view that this

has now happened. It is, therefore, not surprising that there

is considerable internal and external resistance to the

constitution from people who have a vested interest in bad

old habits--tribalism, nepotism and corruption. This

increases the responsibility of the judiciary to ensure the

enforcement of the constitution, as indeed is envisaged in

Art. 20(3), which requires that a court develops the law

where the Bill of Rights fails to give effect to a right or

fundamental freedom.

The extent of my personal pride, sense of responsibility,

and hope, as head of the judiciary, can perhaps be judged

from the fact that I once wrote a book about efforts for a

new Constitution, in the 1990s, in which I said ``The process

of making the new constitution, the credibility of the final

document and whether the people would be convinced that they

own the new constitution are all issues at the root of the

problem of constitution making. It is a fact that the

judiciary has not fully implemented the Bill of Rights to

protect the rights of the people against encroachment by the

executive and state apparatuses. The overhauling of the

judiciary and judicial system is also at the root of these

issues.''

I still believe in the key importance of the judiciary. And

the Constitution does give it a central role. Article 259

requires that the Constitution be interpreted in a way that

promotes its purposes, values and principles, an obligation

placed specifically upon courts and tribunals by Article

159(2)(e). And it provides a practical basis for this central

role of the courts by its provisions designed to make them

truly accessible, including through the institutionalization

of public interest litigation. It destroys old concepts of

standing by providing that anyone may bring an action to

protect rights or enforce the constitution, even if they have

no interest other than that of concerned citizen. It

prohibits the charging of court fees for actions to enforce

the Bill of Rights. It endorses the practice that the Indian

Courts call ``epistolary jurisdiction''--the possibility of

actions being commenced by informal documentation. And while

requiring the rules of natural justice to be observed, it

denies the possibility of ``unnatural justice'' in the form

of procedural technicalities standing in the way of justice.

Much of this comes ultimately from the jurisprudence of the

Supreme Court of India, some by way of the South African

Constitution.

The judiciary was one of the most criticized of the

institutions of the old order. The legacy of the one party

state was still discernible in judicial pandering to

executive wishes. And I do not mean merely the sort of

deference to the legislature that lawyers may legitimately

argue about, but judges who would adjourn matters before them

to take instructions from State House. The judiciary was one

aspect of the machinery of impunity. Simple financial

corruption was also rife. And, if you are auctioning your

judgment to the highest bidder, it is probably counter-

productive to exhibit much legal skill! For many years law

reports were not up to date, and legal literature was all but

non-existent.

Radical measures were needed. And they are found firstly in

a process of subjecting all serving judges and magistrates to

an examination of their suitability to remain in office. This

process is under way, in the hands of an independent body, a

process with which I have nothing to do, and on which it is

of course improper for me to comment. Secondly, the

appointment system was revamped. Now judges are interviewed

and nominated by a Judicial Service Commission truly

independent of government. The President is to have no

discretion but must act on the Commission's recommendation.

The Chief Justice and Deputy must be approved by Parliament.

I was myself interviewed by the parliamentary committee, on

live television, and questioned about, among other things, my

finances, my attitudes to certain sensitive issues, my

sexuality and my earring!

The judiciary has embarked upon many organizational changes

intended to realize the Constitution's vision. These include

the recruitment of judges and magistrates and professional

administrative staff. Recently we appointed 26 judges to the

High Court (that is the court of first instance of unlimited

jurisdiction)--half of them women. The Court of Appeal now

has 7 more judges, 5 of them women. We will recruit 160

Magistrates before the end of May, 2012. We have delinked

judicial functions from administrative functions, boldly set

out to stamp out corruption in the judiciary while speeding

up reforms in computerization and other electronic justice

measures. We have achieved some significant progress in

reducing the backlog of cases and changing backward judicial

culture. The 12 clusters that reflect these reforms,

including the creation of progressive, indigenous and

patriotic jurisprudence that I touch on later are contained

in a write-up named the Judicial Transformation Framework

that I will launch in May, 2012.

The constitution also provides for the decentralization and

democratization of the judiciary. Unlike previous years when

the old constitution made the Chief Justice a judicial

autocrat and monarch, under the new constitution I do not

control everything from the top. I have already set up a

management and leadership committee that is representative

and participatory.

Organization is of course important, even essential, to

make the courts accessible, to end the interminable delays,

the strain on the pockets and the patience, and to end

impunity and, as far as the courts can, injustice. But I want

briefly to emphasize something else.

I preside over the Supreme Court. As I understand the

reasoning of the Constitution makers when creating this new

court, apart from the desire to reintroduce the possibility

of a second appeal, was similar to that that motivated the

drafters of the South African Constitution when they created

the Constitutional Court: to have at the apex of the system a

court that would be respected, was committed to the

Constitution and could set a new standard, and a new tone. In

my view, one of the most important tasks that court will

perform will be as a source of a new, highly competent and

indigenous jurisprudence.

I link this last adjective to the Constitution's value of

patriotism. Patriotism (when not being abused as the ``last

refuge of the scoundrel'' in Samuel Johnson's words) requires

putting love of country above love of self. For a judge it

does not mean putting country above justice. I conceive that

it requires the judge to develop the law, for, as

we all know, in the common law system that is what judges do,

in a way that responds to the needs of the people, and to the

national interest. I call this patriotic and indigenous

jurisprudence. Above all, it requires a commitment to the

Constitution and to the achievement of its values and vision.

But don't get me wrong: by ``patriotic and indigenous'' I

do not mean insular and inward looking. The values of the

Kenyan Constitution are anything but that. We need to learn

from other countries. And we need to learn from scholars like

this assembled company. We intend to build up a network of

interested and highly qualified academics who share our

vision. I hope that some of you here will form part of that

network. My concern, when I emphasize ``indigenous'' is

simply that we should grow our jurisprudence out of our own

needs, without unthinking deference to that of other

jurisdictions and courts, however, distinguished. The Kenyan

judiciary has, therefore, a great opportunity to develop a

robust, indigenous, patriotic and progressive jurisprudence

that will give the country direction in its democratic

development. This transformative mission is a duty to all

judicial officers. They have all undertaken a constitutional

obligation to undertake it and I have challenged them to make

a personal obligation to help accomplish it.

Former Justice Krishna Iyer of the Indian Supreme Court

expressed the same ambition, in his inimitable style:

Jurisprudence must match jurisdiction and jurisdiction must

broaden to meet the challenges of the masses hungry for

justice after a long night of feudal-colonial injustice. . .

. The rule of law must run close to the rule of life and the

court, to be authentic, must use native jural genius, people-

oriented legal theory and radical remedial methodology

regardless of Oxbridge orthodoxy, elitist petulance and

feudal hubris.

Far from being inward looking, it would be my hope that we

could learn from, and even emulate, distinguished courts in

other countries, including, for example, the Supreme Court of

India and the South African Constitutional Court. The Kenyan

courts do not need to be as bold as the Indian apex court:

many of its procedural innovations in public interest

litigation are already enshrined in our constitution. And I

would argue that the types of jurisprudence that that court

has been so creative in developing are already part of our

constitution. Protection of the environment, recognition of

rights of communities especially in land, affirmative action,

rights of persons with disability, rights to education,

health and food--and the redress of past injustices--are

engraved in our constitutional text.

What the first Chief Justice of the South African

Constitutional Court, Arthur Chaskalson, said of their

constitution could just as well be said of ours:

We live in a society in which there are great disparities

in wealth. Millions of people are living in deplorable

conditions and in great poverty. There is a high level of

unemployment, inadequate social security, and many do not

have access to clean water or to adequate health services.

These conditions already existed when the Constitution was

adopted and a commitment to address them, and to transform

our society into one in which there will be human dignity,

freedom and equality, lies at the heart of our new

constitutional order.

For these reasons, including that our Constitution is

couched often in language similar to that of South Africa, I

anticipate that we shall learn a great deal from them, though

always, as I say, suiting the decisions to our own realities.

Upendra Baxi wrote, of Public Interest Litigation (PIL),

The Supreme Court of India is at long last becoming . . .

the Supreme Court for Indians. For too long the apex court

had become ``an arena of legal quibbling for men with long

purses''. Now increasingly, the court is being identified by

the Justices as well as people as ``the last resort of the

oppressed and bewildered.''

I would hope that the Supreme Court of my country will be

the Supreme Court for Kenyans where the oppressed and

bewildered will find justice.

But it is not enough for the Supreme Court to shine in

jurisprudential terms. Most cases will never get beyond the

High Court. The corollary of the decision to create a new,

final, court of general, not specifically constitutional

jurisdiction, was the desire that courts at all levels could

confront constitutional issues and deal with them in a way

that fulfills the constitutional dream. We are hoping to

raise standards of judging and standards of advocacy,

including through the work of the Judicial Training

Institute, and by adopting frequent use of written briefs,

rather than just skeleton oral arguments. The development of

a new jurisprudence must be a collaborative effort between

judges at all levels, and practicing and academic lawyers.

The internet is making access to precedents much easier,

and there is an improvement in the law reporting situation.

There is even some sign of a resurgence of interest in

writing about Kenyan law. Do add your bit!

If I may turn now to the focus of concern of most of you:

international law. The Constitution took a bold step and

provides that ``The general rules of international law shall

form part of the law of Kenya'' and ``Any treaty of

convention ratified by Kenya shall form part of the law of

Kenya under this Constitution''. Thus Kenya has become a

monist state rather than a dualist one!

The implications of this will have to be worked out over

time, as cases come before the courts. I would not have you

imagine that Kenyan judges have ignored international law. I

know firsthand from Kenya's supercharged civil society that

constantly makes claims of international law to hold the

government accountable, exemplifies the growing importance of

international law in our courts. The courts have often

applied the familiar common law approach, and indeed quoted

the Bangalore Principles on Domestic Application of

International Human Rights Norms, including:

It is within the proper nature of the judicial process and

well-established judicial functions for national courts to

have regard to international obligations which a country

undertakes--whether or not they have been incorporated into

domestic law--for the purpose of removing ambiguity or

uncertainty form, national constitutions, legislation or

common law.

However, where national law is clear and inconsistent with

the international obligations of the State concerned in

common law countries the national court is obliged to give

effect to national law. In such cases the court should draw

such inconsistency to the attention of the appropriate

authorities since the supremacy of national law in no way

mitigates a breach of an international legal obligation,

which is undertaken by a country.

Now, however, the courts have greater freedom. Many issues

will have to be resolved: what precisely are the ``The

general rules of international law'' ?; what is the effect of

the direct application of a treaty of which the language is

not self-executing, such as ``States Parties shall take all

appropriate measures'' rather than ``everyone has the right''

? And what is the effect of a treaty provision that does not

fill a gap in domestic law but inescapably conflicts with it?

And what if the general rules of international law are

exploitative, oppressive and subvert the radical social

democratic vision of our constitution? All these questions

clearly identify where the scholarship of people like

yourselves, will be much appreciated by both bar and bench.

I should also like to quote another Bangalore Principle,

relevant to my theme of indigenous jurisprudence:

While it is desirable for the norms contained in the

international human rights instruments to be still more

widely recognized and applied by national courts, this

process must take fully into account local laws, traditions,

circumstances and needs.

How can we achieve this marriage consistent with

international law obligations?

Let me also emphasize that Kenya does not intend to be a

``user'' of international law, but a producer, shaper and

developer of it as well. This is the link to the Nyerere

Doctrine where I began. Nyerere refused to accede to existing

international rules on treaty succession and came up with his

own innovation. Kenyan judiciary will not just import all

international legal rules including those which are

disempowering to the South as a political and economic

category. Instead, as I pointed above in our strategy to

create an indigenous, patriotic and progressive

jurisprudence, the Kenyan judiciary will use our new

constitution to begin a dialogue with international legal

communities to nudge the jurisprudence of social justice in a

progressive direction. In particular, we have a chance to

develop jurisprudence on economic and social rights in ways

that are unique to our social and economic development. We

intend, therefore, to be able to export progressive

jurisprudence to the rest of the world.

Finally, let me not give the impression that I am negative

about the work of my judicial colleagues. There are many

competent and committed members of the bench. Even under the

former constitution with its inadequate Bill of Rights (more

limitations than rights!) creative judges were doing their

best. And now many of them, new and longer established, are

responding with enthusiasm to the challenges and

opportunities of the new Constitution. I cannot really

comment on individual cases--none has come before us yet, and

some will undoubtedly do so. But I personally feel encouraged

by signs of willingness to draw on international instruments,

not only treaties, and by reliance on the values including

those of Article 10--as Article 259 requires.

As we say in Kenya in Kiswahili--Asante Sana. We also say

Shukrani, shukran and shukria. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I was detained from voting on Monday, April 16, 2012 and the afternoon of Tuesday, April 17, 2012. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall Nos. 152, 153, and 157.

If present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall Nos. 154, 155, and 156.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the topic of my 1-minute.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, there was a Yom HaShoah service held in the United States Capitol, and they were held in State Capitals throughout the Nation. It's the remembrance of the Holocaust that occurred in Europe. Six million lives were lost.

What the Yom HaShoah program is about is never to forget the Holocaust and never to forget what caused it to occur, to remember the outstanding military and people that helped Jews survive, the military that liberated the camps and the hundreds of thousands of righteous gentiles who helped and risked their own lives to save Jews. I wear a button for Raoul Wallenberg. The Swedish Government sent people over here, and he was a diplomat that saved 100,000 Jews, and they participated today.

There was testimony about how Treasury Secretary Morgenthau and two people in his administration, Mr. Pehle and Mr. DuBois, implored the President to help rescue Jews, and they did so. Many, many were lost because we didn't get involved soon enough. Never be silent to evil and remember the victims of the Holocaust.

I urge you to visit the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Mr. Chairman, last week in Memphis, I met with dozens of transportation, business, and civic officials involved in transportation. Every one of them said, stop the partisan politics and pass a transportation bill.

Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican who served 12 years in this House and 17 years as the chief of staff to Bob Michel, one of the great Members of this group, came to Memphis. He said, Pass the transportation bill. And he said the reason they don't want to do it is they don't want to give President Obama any jobs because they want to beat President Obama, and the American people don't matter. That's the fact. The Secretary said this is the worst transportation bill he's ever seen, and he said it shouldn't be politicized.

Transportation leaders across the country and our Republican Transportation Secretary are begging us to take up the Senate bill, get it passed, put Americans back to work, and improve our infrastructure.

What's going on here is political. Gas prices are soaring, yes, but that's because of trouble in the Middle East, and that's because of oil speculators. It's not because of the Keystone XL pipeline. That is hooey. Domestic oil prices are set by the international market, and more and more emerging economies are wanting and needing oil. That causes the price to go up.

This assertion, the assertion that gas will go down because of the pipeline, is false. In fact, if the pipeline is completed, gas prices will go up in this country, and TransCanada said that in their papers when they tried to get the pipeline approved.

This will not mean more energy security. It will simply mean more money for international oil companies whose purpose is to raise money for themselves, and they're going to ship that oil overseas. It's not for American consumption.

Yeah, they're not Middle Eastern, yeah, they're not Venezuelan, but they're making profit, and they're going to send that oil overseas. It won't help America at all. And then they threw in something about coal ash, coal ash rules that the EPA had that would have prevented a disaster like what happened in Tennessee. It has nothing to do with transportation. Put America back to work. Pass the Senate bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

That's a rare time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the legacy and accomplishments of Rufus Thomas, Jr., one of the most charismatic and beloved performers of rhythm & blues, funk and soul music. Mr. Thomas was born in the tiny hamlet of Cayce, Mississippi on March 27, 1917 and moved to Memphis when he was two years old. He passed away in 2001 and would have turned 95 years of age this year. Before his passing, he had contributed significantly to the Memphis music scene and his legacy lives on through his daughter, singer Carla Thomas, and his son, keyboardist Marvell Thomas. In 1961, Carla Thomas' ``Gee Whiz (Look at His Eyes)'' charted within the Top 10 on the pop chart and within the Top 5 on the R&B chart. Marvell Thomas was keyboardist and arranger for such greats as The Staple Singers, Etta James and Albert King, and co- produced Isaac Hayes' album, ``Hot Buttered Soul.''

Entertaining people came naturally for Rufus. In his youth, Rufus earned pocket change by tap dancing on Beale Street. In his teenage years, he performed with the Rabbit Foot Minstrels, a traveling vaudeville show, as a tap dancer. He comprised one-half of the comedy team known as Rufus and Bones with Robert ``Bones'' Couch. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s he hosted Amateur Night at the Palace Theatre, where he introduced young performers such as B.B. King, Bobby ``Blue'' Bland and countless others.

In the late 1940s, Memphis radio station WDIA AM emerged as the first radio station in the country to target black audiences with black DJs playing black-oriented programming. Rufus landed a job there in 1948 and soon became one of the station's most popular DJs. His 2-hour nighttime show, ``Hoot and Holler'' premiered and helped launch the careers of music icons such as Elvis Presley, Ike Turner, Isaac Hayes, Roscoe Gordon and Junior Parker. Rufus continued to be an on-air personality at WDIA, influencing musicians in the Memphis area for the next 40 years, while still creating and performing his own music.

Rufus played an indispensable role in the birth of Memphis' two great record companies, Sun Records and Stax Records. His 1953 single, ``Bear Cat,'' an answer to Big Mama Thornton's then-popular record, ``Hound Dog,'' became the first national hit for the upstart record label. In 1959, Rufus and his then-teenage daughter Carla became the first stars of the new Stax Records with their single, ``'Cause I Love You.'' Rufus would go on to release a string of popular songs for Stax, including favorites such as ``Walking The Dog'' (1964) and ``Do The Funky Chicken'' (1969). Throughout his career, Rufus appeared on the Billboard charts 29 times with the help of such singles as ``Push and Pull'' (1970) and ``The Breakdown'' (1971).

His life and seventy-year career were inextricably linked with the development of black entertainment in the 20th century and his work earned him an array of accolades. In January 1992, he was honored by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, named as an ``Early Influence.'' That same year the Rhythm and Blues Foundation honored him with its prestigious Pioneer Award. In 1996, he was featured as a performer at the Olympic Games in Atlanta. For his 80th birthday in 1997, the city of Memphis renamed Hernando Street as Rufus Thomas Boulevard at the intersection of Beale Street where the Palace Theater once stood. In 1998, Rufus received an award from the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in recognition of his five decades of promoting black music on radio.

Off stage, Thomas was entirely serious about his work as an ambassador for Memphis and its music. In his characteristically forthright fashion, he told the journalist Richard Knight: ``Memphis has made more of a contribution to music than any other one city in the whole world, and that includes New York.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in remembering the life and legacy of Rufus Thomas, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed by recent press reports attacking former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell for taking a stand in support of the residents of Camp Ashraf as well as Iran's main opposition movement, the MEK.

Mr. Rendell is not alone, and he is backed by several dozen senior former U.S. Government officials who have taken the same position because they feel that position actually serves the national security interests of our country. Some 21 senior officials from past administrations, whose job it was to keep this country safe, agreed with Mr. Rendell when they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals-DC Circuit in February in support of delisting the MEK. Among the former officials were a CIA Director, a FBI Director, an Attorney General of the United States, a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism, and a Marine Corps Commandant.

Governor Rendell spoke at an event in the Cannon Caucus Room on February 3, 2012 and eloquently made the case for why the MEK should have been delisted long ago.

Governor Rendell's views are in line with almost 100 Members of Congress who co-sponsored H. Res. 60 ``Urging the Secretary of State to remove the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran from the Department of State's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.'' I would like to submit Governor Rendell's comments for the Record.

Remarks of Former Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, U.S Capitol,

Washington, D.C.--February 3, 2012

Good afternoon. I want to start out by saying I have come

to many of these things. I have come to too many. It's not

that I don't like you. You are a wonderful people. As Alan

Dershowitz said, this has a feel of a civil rights movement.

I have been told how much myself and our other officials

have helped this cause. But I look at where we are and I'm

not sure that all of our speaking out, all of our rallies in

front of the White House, Geneva, Paris and Brussels, here in

Washington and in the Cannon Building, I'm not sure we have

accomplished much.

And it is terribly frustrating to me. I want to stop coming

to these meetings. I want to see you all in Teheran someday.

(Applause)

We talk about how difficult it is to be at the end of the

row speakers. So much has been said that we want to say

ourselves. And today it's been said in resoundingly good

fashion. Senator D'Amato talked about the fact that what our

country has done here is a disgrace. And I echo those

sentiments. When I first got involved with this issue and

started learning about Ashraf and learning about the fact the

United States Government in general, United State's forces

contracted with each and every one of the residents of

Ashraf, if they relinquished their weapons, we promised them

we would protect them.

Have we lived up to our promise? Absolutely not. Maybe

until 2009 we did a pretty good job thanks to General

Phillips and Colonel Martin, who is not with us today, we did

a fine job of protecting them.

But all of a sudden in 2009, when we turned it over to the

Iraqis, all responsibility for military action and police

action was turned over to the Iraqis we essentially washed

our hands on that promise. And yes, Senator D'Amato is right.

In 2009 and in 2011, not only did this attack occur with the

use of vehicles and weapons that had been given to the Iraqi

police by the United States of America, but United States

forces in both instances were withdrawn from the immediate

area so they could not do anything to stop the carnage.

Is that what the promise was? Of course not. It's

diametrically opposed to the promise we made. And that

General was speaking for the United States of America and for

all 300 million of our citizens.

Subsequent to that have we stood by the residents of

Ashraf. Did we take a stand and say, wait. Why can't we do

this right here in Ashraf? Why does it have to be a closure

of the camp. To what purpose? Iraqi Government, tell me the

purpose, legitimate purpose, Iraqi security or anything else

that is going to be served by closing down Ashraf. Well, the

only excuse we ever heard was the belief that there's

intimidation in Ashraf and the individuals could not be free

to speak their will about where they wanted to go.

Well, that would have been an easy problem to solve. Just

set up, the General can tell me where, set up something

outside the gates where individual residents one by one can

talk freely right there.

There was no need to close Ashraf in the beginning. And the

United States Government should have stood by and residents,

stood by our promise and said, no.

And then how are we going to ensure protection of the

residents? Well, it's my belief that we should have done one

of two things; one, we should have left a small number of

United States Marines to protect the residents of Ashraf.

(Applause)

We agreed to leave. Well, we agreed to leave South Korea.

And, General, am I right, are there still U.S. military

personnel in Korea. And how many years has that been? About

40. So we could have easily done that and lived up to our

responsibilities. One of my proudest moments was when the

President said, we aren't going to let the residents of

Benghazi be subject to genocide.

And U.S. military power and NATO power is going to stop

that from happening. And we did. We toppled one of the worst

dictators. We never contracted with the people in Benghazi.

We never promised them anything. But we as America, we

believed it was our right to do so and we did. We signed a

contract with these residents. They are much better position

to expect our help and protection than the residents of

Benghazi were. One of the things the director will tell you

is we get on almost weekly calls with Ambassador Freeh that

was handling this for the State Department. It is stunning to

me that the United States Government wants to disengage here.

They didn't want to be part of signing of the MOU. They

reluctantly agreed to, after pressure from us, to send the

U.S. observers into so-called Camp Liberty, although it's not

clear when they are coming.

They can't come unannounced. We have disengaged. We wiped

our hands of an issue where we gave our word. So, yes, it's

time for the U.S. to stand up. It's time for us to fulfill

our responsibility. It's time to not only fulfill our

obligation to the resident of Ashraf. It's time to fulfill

our obligation to 4,000 plus United States soldiers who died

in Iraq.

You have heard me say as Governor of Pennsylvania I was the

commander in chief Pennsylvania National Guard. No national

guard in the country lost more men and women in Iraq than

Pennsylvania did.

I used to comfort the families, try to comfort the

families, by telling them their sons or in one case their

daughter, had died creating democracy and making Iraq a

better place. I don't know what I will say to them now

knowing what I know about what is happening here.

So it's time for us to act. What should that action be?

First and foremost we should not let Camp Liberty be turned

into a prison. We should not. That's Job 1 for the United

States. Job 1 for the UN.

Freedom of movement was essential. Everyone says this is a

refugee camp. It's meeting the standards of a refugee camp.

What is the difference between the normal refugee camp and

what is proposed in Camp Liberty?

The difference is the residents of the normal refugee camp

can leave. They can go if they have the ability, if there's a

park or river down the road, they can go to the river, and

bathe, swim, they can go to the park, if they have money,

they can go to the local market.

They have freedom of movement. That makes a huge difference

when you are talking about what goes on in a camp. Here the

Iraqis have made it clear, as long as their position holds,

freedom of movement, the people are going to be inside the

small area forever. We should insist that, the U.S. should

insist there be freedom of movement. We should insist the MOU

be enforced. There is not one resident of Ashraf over there

yet and the MOU is being put aside. The MOU clearly says the

residents can take personal property and vehicles. The Iraqis

now say that's not the case.

It is time for us, the United States, to join the UN and be

heard loud and clear, whatever the leverage is, I agree with

Ambassador Ginsberg, we have got to have leverage, and we

should enforce it. It's time to be heard. Time to say no one

is going. No on is leaving. (Applause)

And next it is time to de-list. If you have been coming to

these regularly, you have heard me say I think we should put

de-listing on the back burner. And the most important thing

is the safety of the residents.

But I don't believe that anymore. Let me tell you why. I

was sent the Forest News Agency release. The Iranian

Ambassador, and let me read you a couple of quotes from this

release. The Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran and

Iraq stress that the representatives in Iraq in meetings they

have had repeatedly stressed that the UN considers the MEK a

terrorist group and will not support it under any

circumstances.

It goes on. Referred to U.S. officials support for the

terrorist group. He referred to us and said, the terrorist

MEK group in the past few years has been constantly supported

by the U.S. and western elements. But it is interesting now

that the U.S. Government has announced it's not prepared to

accept even one member of this terrorist organization and

under no circumstances will allow them onto its soil. It goes

further. It said the members of the terrorist group by the

Government of Iran will not include and the amnesty will

include individuals whose hands are not tainted in blood.

Meaning that this idea that we relocate all the residents of

Ashraf to Liberty and there will be no rest. He's given fair

warning here.

What was our response? We brought all this up for his

response. His response was, oh, the Iranians they exaggerate

all the time. They don't really tell the truth. You can't

believe anything they say.

That's not engagement. That is not us living up to our

responsibility. It is time to de-list just because of these

statements. (Applause)

We have sent a message. We think it's time to act. It is

time to stand up. If the State Department won't de-list as it

should voluntarily, it's time to go back to court. It's time

to say to the Court we want you to mandamus. That's a legal

term in which the court requires an agency or an individual

to do what they are statutorily required to do. The Court

gave an order to the State Department to come back and show

evidence why the MEK should not be de-listed. The Court can

issue a mandamus to say to them come in here within 30 days

and show us why the MEK should not be de-listed.

Now some people say, don't issue, don't go seek a mandamus.

That means the State Department will say we are not de-

listing them. If they say that, then the Court is asked to

review the evidence. When they reviewed the evidence in 2008,

when the Secretary Rice refused to de-list, they found there

wasn't any evidence.

If they review the evidence in 2012--guess what? No

evidence. So it's time to stand up and say, this is not a

terrorist organization. No evidence to the contrary.

In the last decade no open source terrorist database, and

they are all over the internet, has listed one single act by

the MEK or any members of terrorism. And the statute says

terrorist acts against the United States America. That hasn't

happened. Never going to happen.

So let's de-list. Let's give all the Congressmen who came

in here and they have spoken up, they have passed

resolutions. Those are all good things. Those are all

increased pressure. But it is time--Senator D'Amato was

saying there would be a bill along lines of what Ambassador

Ginsberg said, the only

way to hit them is to hit them where it counts.

No military planes or any other equipment to the Iraqi

Government until boom, boom, boom. Don't say we are not a

party to this. We were a party to stopping the slaughter in

Benghazi. We never promised we would.

We are a party to this because, number one, we promised.

And number two, because we are the United States of America.