Civil Rights

We should be focusing on the needs, aspirations, and challenges of Americans, not on divisive issues such as gay marriage that have no place in the political debate except to be mean-spirited, to discriminate, and to bring bias and prejudice. The needs of Katrina survivors are still unmet, gas prices continue to skyrocket, confusion on the prescription drug bill abounds, record deficits are spiraling out of control, and today the Washington Post reports that as many as 2.2 million military personnel were among the 26.5 million records mishandled and lost by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Americans on active-duty, many of them overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, are now distracted with the threat of identity theft back home. House Democrats have called for an immediate investigation and review of the VA's security practices and how this breach happened, as well as introduced legislation protecting veterans and service members from identity theft and other harm.

Yesterday, Congressman Jim McCrery (R-LA), the Republicans' point person on Social Security, said that the first order of business in the new Congress in January will be to take up President Bush's Social Security privatization proposal. The American people rejected that plan overwhelmingly. Rubber stamping President Bush's failed Social Security privatization scheme simply reinforces the Republican record of failure and attention to the wrong priorities. Democrats have a new direction for the American people, and are working to strengthen Social Security and address the real concerns of everyday Americans.

Historically, laws regulating family and domestic affairs have been almost exclusively regulated by the states. I see no reason to change that. The Defense of Marriage Act, which I support and which Congress passed in 1996, clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. In addition, this legislation affirms the right of states to choose not to recognize same-sex marriages, regardless of where they occurred. Most states, including my home state of Maine, have passed laws declaring that they will not recognize such marriages. Therefore, I voted against proceeding with the constitutional amendment at this time.

States should only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman. In New Hampshire, we have such a law. Moreover, the Defense of Marriage Act protects our state's marriage laws from what any other states might choose. As long as these protections remain the law of the land, an amendment to the Constitution is unnecessary.

If activist judges force states to recognize non-traditional marriages endorsed by other states, I will support legislation that returns this power to the people as the framers of our Constitution so clearly intended.

In 2004, we defeated attempts to force this extreme agenda into the Constitution. Now, we’ve done it again and it’s time for the U.S. Senate to get back to the real business of the nation. It’s disappointing and frustrating that the Senate allowed this agenda to come ahead of so many other higher priorities that need to be addressed. Read more...

We have an obligation as American citizens to speak up and speak out. We made a mistake once as a nation, when we used the Constitution to exclude African Americans from full participation in the democratic process. That one act allowed the forces of separation, hatred, and brutality to run rampant in this country. It cost this nation millions of lives during the TransAtlantic Slave trade, the Civil War, and the decades of overt segregation and racial discrimination.

A bitter history has taught us a great lesson, that regardless of our own personal values, we as a nation will pay a heavy price if we do not respect the dignity and the worth of every individual.

As a participant in the Civil Rights Movement, I confronted police dogs, bull whips, and fire hoses. I was arrested and jailed over 40 times because of discriminatory practices that were made the law in this country. We must not write discrimination into the Constitution. And we must not allow politicians to sow the seeds of division among us when they are campaigning for office. Read more...

>Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy

Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee

On S.J. Res. 1, The Marriage Protection Amendment

June 5, 2006

 

It should come as no surprise to any observer of partisan politics that the Republican Leader has decided that today our Nation's most pressing priority is concern over committed relationships between same sex couples. That we are devoting the precious few Floor days we have left in this session to this issue, when so many of us are trying to focus on solutions to high gas prices, the rising costs of healthcare, the ongoing situation in Iraq, and strengthening our national security, is a testament to the misplaced priorities of the Senate Republican leadership. News reports have clearly revealed how this proposed constitutional amendment is being used to satisfy the most extreme right-wing supporters of Republican politicians. I do not believe that Americans are well served by this strategy.

Read more...

Most Members of Congress have been left in the dark about the particulars of the Administration's highly secretive domestic surveillance program. What we have been hearing about that program over the last few weeks, however, is extremely disturbing. Perhaps the most chilling development has been the revelation that the nation's phone companies may have turned over millions of customer calling records to the NSA National Security Agency (NSA) at the NSA's request.

In short, an Administration that professes the importance of limited government may be adopting Big Brother tactics to spy on the day-to-day activities of ordinary Americans. While the facts are still developing, we've also heard from General Michael Hayden, the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and architect of the NSA program. General Hayden unfortunately has a less than inspiring grasp of the Constitution. Asserting this past January that the Fourth Amendment does not include a "probable cause" requirement - which it does - he essentially stated that so long as a search and seizure is "reasonable" it is "lawful." That's not the standard, and while his approach is likely full of good intentions, the path to hell is paved with them.

General Hayden's interpretation of the law would essentially allow any domestic surveillance program to proceed, no matter how invasive, so long as he or someone else in the Administration believes that it will protect us. Just as 9/11 reminds us that we are not immune to terrorist attack despite our wealth and power, however, the McCarthy Era and the Church Committee remind us how our government is not immune to abuses of power and corruption. Today is no different.

If we are truly to be protected during the war on terror, we must concern ourselves not only with our physical security but also with securing our most cherished liberties and rights. Indeed, neither is worth much without the other. Leaders of all party affiliations accordingly need to work to execute an anti-terrorist strategy that promotes caution and precaution - one that includes robust efforts to protect us from attack while demanding that the Administration comply with the law when working those efforts. If "warrantless surveillance" and other homeland security strategies promulgated by General Hayden and others run roughshod over the Constitution, Congressional oversight, and the law, the Administration's approach to protecting the public may well become as potent a threat as terrorism itself.

The arrests made in Toronto and the recent news out of London should serve as a stark reminder that al Qaeda and related groups are not sleeping-they are actively pursuing the tools of terror and plotting against our people and our cities. Law enforcement must have every legal tool at their disposal for the surveillance, tracking and capture of al Qaeda and other terrorists.

And though some oppose the NSA's terrorist surveillance programs, it is clear that our law enforcement and intelligence forces need the right tools, the right focus and the right people to 'connect the dots' and prevent further attacks from al Qaeda. And they need to be able to do this while the terrorists are planning attacks and purchasing bombs-not after they've set them off.  

 

The House Republican leadership has rolled over and played dead as the Bush administration has trampled on Congressional authority on a range of issues from domestic wiretapping to the President's so-called signing statements. It is interesting to see them claim certain Congressional prerogatives in the midst of alleged criminal wrongdoing when they have looked the other way as the rights of American citizens have been compromised.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 5417, the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006," which I introduced with Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member John Conyers and Rep. Rick Boucher. This is the first bill with real protections for net neutrality that has passed any committee in Congress and I am proud to be a part of it.

The bill requires broadband providers to operate their networks in a non-discriminatory manner and makes sure that the phone and cable companies cannot favor or block access to the Web sites or online services that they pick instead of the consumer. It will keep the Internet an open and free marketplace of ideas and services chosen by consumers instead of big corporations. It will also guard against "the pipes" gleaning profits by creating a virtual toll road.

H.R. 5417 was introduced by a bipartisan coalition from the Judiciary Committee and passed out of the Committee by a vote of 20-13-1. 14 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted in favor of it and 13 Republicans voted against it. 1 Democrat voted present.

The Internet has revolutionized the way Americans communicate with one another and do business. It's only right to keep that revolution where it belongs - in the hands of net users instead of the phone and cable companies.