Jerry Nadler: “I entirely agree with the purpose of this amendment. The problem I have with this amendment is that, as I understand it…”

“I entirely agree with the purpose of this amendment. The problem I have with this amendment is that, as I understand it, it says no funds may be spent to enforce a court decision. If that is what this amendment says, and I just heard it briefly, then it is the wrong way to do it. We have to put in a bill. I am sure the Judiciary Committee will entertain, I assume would entertain it quickly, to clarify the law and say that that is not what the law is, and that what the gentleman seeks to do we ought to do legislatively. But the idea of saying we will not permit funds to be used to carry out an order of a court destroys, undermines, and subverts the rule of law in this country. We cannot subvert the rule of law in this country by denying funds to carry out an order of the court. If we don't agree with the order of the court, and I agree, I certainly don't agree with the order of the court in this case, it is terrible, we ought to change the law. That is why we have a Congress. That is our job. Let's change the law. If the court interprets the law wrongly, as it has, in my opinion, along with the gentleman, we ought to put in a bill, change the law and clarify it. I think that bill would sail through here pretty quickly in all likelihood. That is the way to do it. But to make an amendment to say no funds appropriated may be used to enforce the court order, what's next? A different court order that we dislike?”