I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'll be very brief. I just want to say that I concur with my colleague's points, to a point. As my colleague acknowledges, we take an oath to defend the Constitution. The administration, the executive branch, also takes an oath to defend the Constitution. Effectively, what this amendment would do is say we are going to defund the Justice Department's ability to undertake and fulfill its oath to defend the Constitution. If the Justice Department disagrees with some Members of Congress about what their oath to the Constitution requires, we are going to defund their ability to follow through. I don't think that's really where we want to be because, plainly, the Justice Department feels the law is constitutional. They believe it's their obligation to uphold the Constitution. And to say that we're going to defund their ability to follow through on that, I don't think that is good policy. On that basis as well, I would urge a ``no'' vote
On the recordMay 9, 2012
Share & report
More from Adam Schiff
Feb 20, 2025
Mr. President, today, the Senate is on track to confirm Kash Patel as Director of the FBI. Think about that statement for a moment. Kash Patel--conspiracy theorist, January 6 denier, MAGA sycophant, and political provocateur--will be FBI…
Feb 10, 2025
Mr. President, after Tulsi Gabbard was selected as Donald Trump's nominee for Director of National Intelligence, the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda was overjoyed. They wrote: ``The CIA and FBI are trembling.'' Sadly, the Russian…
Feb 20, 2025
Mr. President, I stand here on behalf of Western States colleagues--Senators Padilla, Heinrich, Lujan, Bennet, and Hickenlooper--to ask this Chamber to take a clear stand on behalf of the firefighters who help fight and prevent wildfires…





