Transcripts For CSPAN Former Justice John Paul Stevens 20240714

And cspan is here, so this is an historic occasion. Ilr. The chair of you encountered some of the Board Members when checking into this room. , whot to acknowledge carol is where . Where are you, carol . She is our her. [applause] best our executive director. Of businesscouple items i have to address. Photographs, recordings, not permitted. We have already turned off the cell phones. We are beginning our full , inion on monday the 15th less than two weeks but 10 days. We have an open house scheduled for next week the 10th at 1 00 at the boca raton Committee Center which is right near palmetto. Program brochure on your seats when you came in that shows you the full program for the eightweek session which i think was very exciting. Rr, there are new to il are also signup sheets which you can turn in when we are done. Some business at hand. Havee privileged today to with us retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens. [applause] he hasnt even said anything yet. [laughter] the origins of this event are traceable to paula challif. A member of our board as well. She is also a former judge herself in philadelphia. She is needed right now here in the front row. [applause] not incidentally paula plays , bridge with Justice Stevens. And that is the basis whereby he comes to be here today. So thank you, paula. The conversation will be modified by frank cherubino, a familiar figure to many of you. [applause] a little background, frank started out in long island and graduated from the u. S. Naval academy. He served in the navy. Completed a journalism masters at Northwestern University began , work in chicago and eventually came to south florida and joined the miami herald for several years and then he moved to the Palm Beach Post where he has been writing a local news column years. Fiu and lectures at probably does other things i dont know about. Anyway. [laughter] while Justice Stevens will have to leave immediately afterward, and i ask you to please give him some easy access of the aisle, frank has agreed to stick around if there is audience interest in doing that. No further delays. Frank cherubino. [applause] frank can you hear us in the back . We might need a microphone to pass around. Just thinking, because of the sound are you ok . Ok, i think we will need a mic. [indiscernible] frank okay, were supposed to be coming to the system. Okay. My best experience with south florida audiences is they can never be too loud. [laughter] i dont want to waste anymore time. This is a thrill for me and it should be a thrill for all of you. There it goes. Ok. All right. Its my distinct honor to introduce retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul stevens. He is really one of the Living Legends of american jurisprudence. It is true. [applause] stevens became the 101st Supreme Court justice after being nominated by gerald ford in 1975, and was swiftly confirmed by the senate in a unanimous vote. [laughter] thats not happening anytime soon. [laughter] later, while looking at his presidency, president ford remarked that he was prepared to allow historys judgment on his entire term in office to be rested exclusively on his nomination of Justice John Paul stevens to the Supreme Court. Justice stevens joined the court when he was 55 years old. He served for 35 years. The third longest tenure of any Supreme Court justice in american history. During those years, he shipped Public Discourse on a breathtaking variety of issues come up from the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees, to copyright laws, to environmental regulation. Whether the topic was flagburning, vote counting, or George Carlins seven dirty words, Justice Stevens voice leaves us with a rich history of his fine mind and a compassionate human being. With a sense of duty that earned him a bronze star in world war , and a navy quote breaker carried forward to the nations highest court at the age of 90, Justice Stevens has truly lived a life of Public Service. And it goes on. He continues to write about legal issues in provocative ways, including an oped piece he wrote after the parkland massacre for the New York Times entitled repeal the Second Amendment. [applause] frank i guess we will have to talk about that and so many other things. We have to get right to it. So, everyone please rise for a , great american, a Living Legend in our midst, Justice John Paul stevens. [applause] frank how did i do . You have a dissenting opinion on that . Or am i ok . [laughter] hon. Stevens you made me think of something i should say. When i retired, one of the tv commentators called me a quitter. I explained that i had reasons for retiring, which were the fact that when i announced my best regarded opinion in the Citizens United case, in which the court upheld a rule of permitted unlimited financial donations in election campaigns, a fairly long dissent. Frank i think it was 86 pages. Hon. Stevens that is fairly long. [laughter] and i summarized it in less than that, but i had some difficulty articulating what i was trying to say. I explained that i had apparently had some kind of problem that persuaded me that i should retire. I was going to have difficulty speaking and doing my work, then i should quit. That was the reason why i became a quitter. [laughter] so i thought i would explain that from time to time, i still have problems articulating what im trying to say. If i do today, please forgive me. I will do my best. [applause] frank i was going to talk about this later, but now that we are on the subject, you probably know that florida requires state judges to retire at the age of 70. Which i guess in your case, you are just getting warmed up. What do you think about this notion that Public Service should have a cap . A lot of people have criticized for example, some of the senators and members of congress who go well into their 80s. Do you think there should be a retirement age for members of the legislature or judiciary . Hon. Stevens i have never really been in favor of that because i do think very often requirementirement robs the public of several valuable years of service, but it serves the function of providing a reason for why somebody has to move on. Frank we should discuss in some extent what is going on lately with the Supreme Court, and in particular, last Thursdays Senate confirmation hearing which was broadcast live by as Many Americans as watched the super bowl. It is one of those events that captivated the nations interest. My question to you is, is this the best we can do as far as the confirmation process, where we have this very political process and everybody gets into their camp and this is a drama played out almost like a soap opera on television . Hon. Stevens i dont think it is the best we can do. We certainly need to do better because it is an issue of credibility that should be resolved on its merits, not on the basis of political screeching back and forth. I should explain that, with regard to judge kavanaugh, that i have a picture of him in my book. I had written a book called six amendments in which i recommend six changes in our fundamental law. One of them is to reverse the united case, which allowed unlimited political contributions to a candidate. [applause] i still feel, as apparently some of you do, that my dissent has a right in that particular debate. In my book, i described some of the reasons for the rule that i think should apply, and in truth really did apply for many years before that case. In that discussion, i described an opinion written by judge kavanaugh on that very issue. The issue in the case was whether a canadian citizen and a citizen of israel, who were living in new york temporarily, could make expenditures in elections going on at the time. Following Citizens United, they brought a proceeding to the federal court asking for an injunction against enforcing the statute that prohibits expenditures by foreign citizens in american elections. Judge kavanaugh wrote the opinion upholding the statutes and holding that they could be barred from making contributions to an american election. I thought that he wrote a very persuasive opinion and i put his picture in the book to illustrate my admiration for it. One of the cases that he cited in that opinion was my dissent in Citizens United which i thought showed the fact that he was a very good judge and had very good taste in cases to follow. [laughter] i forget what the point i was going [laughter] but anyway, so at that time, i theght he definitely had qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court and should be confirmed if he was ever selected. But i have changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability or his record as a federal judge. He is a fine federal judge and he should have been confirmed when he was nominated. But i think that his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind. I think, as several commentators, larry shribe among them, a constitutional law professor at harvard, have written pieces in which they suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibility. I think that there is merit in that criticism and that the senator should really Pay Attention to it for the good of the court. Its not healthy to get a new justice who can only do a parttime job. [applause] frank how is that different from the Clarence Thomas case . Clarence thomas had a bruising confirmation hearing in 1991. How did the other justices react to that, and the fact that you had somebody who was a polarizing figure in a body of people who were basically a collegial group of people . Hon. Stevens there are differences between that. There was nothing in the hearings that disqualified him from sitting in cases after he came on the court. Secondly, i dont remember any conflict in the testimony between him and anita hill. I think you could believe everything she said and think he may have acted unwisely and improperly to her, without saying he would be disqualified from acting as an impartial judge or honest judge. He turned out i disagree with him on most of his important rulings, but as a person, i am very fond of him. He is a very, very decent and likable person. You cannot help but like Clarence Thomas, which i dont think necessarily would be the truth of this particular nominee. [laughter] [applause] frank you watched the hearings and followed that his explanations of things in his yearbook, people have noted that some of the things he said under oath were some level of being evasive or not true. Is that, in itself, disqualifying . When you swear to tell the truth before Congressional Committee and get a number of facts wrong or mischaracterized . Hon. Stevens im not aware of any facts that he got wrong, that clarence got wrong. Frank not clarence, im talking about justice kavanaugh. Hon. Stevens oh, i am sorry. It is an important thing, yes. Frank is it disqualifying . Hon. Stevens not necessarily. I dont know, but i would think in this case, there have been enough people put in categories where he would be unable to sit as a judge. Frank you have been a gigantic proponent of the three branches of government. You almost didnt participate in the swearingin of Justice Roberts because the george w. Bush administration wanted that in the white house and you firmly believed it should happen in the Supreme Court. I want to talk about why you think the Supreme Court should not see themselves as aligned with any particular president. Hon. Stevens i think it is important. In my particular case, jerry ford came to the Supreme Court he participated in the ceremony, which i thought was appropriate, because it is a Supreme Court ceremony, not a president ial ceremony. In my own case, everything went beautifully. For sandra day oconnor, reagan came to the court, but in later cases, they decided to hold the swearingin ceremony at the white house rather than the court. That sends an incorrect message. That it is a president ial event when it is not. , the president should have nothing to do with it and no continuing influence of his nominee. So i thought that was symbolically a mistake. I refused to attend probably four or five swearingins of my , ruthgues, david souter ginsburg, stephen breyer, they were sworn in at the white house and in each case, i didnt go. I did swearin john roberts , because i strongly approved of the appointment. I thought he was an excellent appointment. Excellentink he is an chief justice, even though i disagree with a number of his rulings. He is a very fine person. I thought that if i did not go to the white house on his swearingin, it would create an impression that he did not approve of the appointment which was not true with the others. I did go to the white house and swear him in at that time. Frank the obama appointments were held in the Supreme Court . Hon. Stevens yes. Obama followed what i think is the correct practice in this regard. Frank Justice Stevens wrote an opinion on a case that is somehow relevant. That was apologetic, bill that was the bill clinton versus paula jones case, where your opinion basically said that a sitting president is not immune from any civil prosecution or civil litigation and can be held accountable while serving as president. Do you feel the same about a criminal prosecution . Should there be immunity from a president participating in that . Hon. Stevens the fundamental rule that applies is that no one is above the law. No individual is above the law. I would assume that would apply to federal law in current times. Frank you are not persuaded by the argument that the president s job is so important that to get bogged down in a criminal prosecution would make him not an effective president and that it should wait until he is out of office . Hon. Stevens the court faced that squarely, but i think it would be most unusual that would be a justification to delay a trial. Hon. Stevens one of the decisions to which you were specifically a post was the bush v. Gore decision in i dont think it got 86 pages 2000. But it was up there. I want to read you this and ask you this question. You wrote, it falls to the men and women of the judicial system that they are the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will heal the wound inflicted by todays decision. One thing is certain, although we may never know with certainty the identity of the winner, the identity of the loser is clear. It is the nations confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. This is a strong statement. Hon. Stevens its correct. [laughter] [applause] frank how have we done over the intervening 18 years . Have we done much to repair the damage that was done in your v. Gore, orushbush in your mind, has a gotten worse . Has the court become even more political . Hon. Stevens i think it is worse. I regret to say it but i really do. I think that case was a terrible example of judicial behavior. If it could be erased ands sent if it could be erased and sent over again, we should do so. One of the ironies about that case the election might have come up the same way because they had that ballot in Palm Beach County that caused voters to mistakenly vote for buchanan. Frank they wanted to vote for gore, i think. But punched in buchanan. Hon. Stevens i think those studies showed that those particular ballots were sufficient in number to account for the total election in florida and the whole country. So i think that we now know what might have been the answer to the election. But i dont think we have modified our lack of confidence in that decision. In all of the opinions written in that case, there is only one that explains why they granted a stay of the recount. The florida Supreme Court ordered a recount throughout the state. The actual holding of the court was to enjoin the recount. Frank you had one opinion that explained the reasoning. Hon. Stevens the one opinion was nino scalias response to my dissent on the order to stay the recount, which should have been done on its own merits because it was of such importance. The answer to the request for a recount was, there was no irreparable damage. There had to be irreparable damage to enjoin public action of that kind and there was no showing of irreparable damage, and there was no and that was the debate between nino and me at the original stage. Frank i love that you call Justice Scalia nino. Hon. Stevens well, thats his name. [laughter] frank you were also talking about Justice Scalias Health Care Decision in 2008. Lerhis hel decision in 2008, that was another one that bug you. For the first time in u. S. History, it enshrined a persons individual right to have a firearm. You thought that was a disastrous decision. Justice stevens i did, because it had been settled law throughout our history prior to that decision that the Second Amendment merely protected the right of militia to have firearms, and the reason they had that right was that at the time, shortly after the revolution and in our early history, there was a fear that the National Government might be too strong, and the state militias needed to be able to protect themselves by their own firearms. That certainly is not a common problem today, as i am aware of, anyway. So not only is there a total absence of historical justification for giving the amendment its present interpretation, but it also does not really make sense. And it is out of harmony with the rest of the world. Frank you have suggested what some people say is a very radical solution to that. I will read what you wrote. That decision, which i am convinced was wrong and was the was debatable, has provided the n. R. A. With a propaganda weapon of immense power overturning that decision via constitutional commitment to get rid of the Second Amendment would do more to stymie the nras ability to weaken political debate and block constructive gun control legislation, more than any other available option. So you have actually proposed that either the Second Amendment should be either eliminated or rewarded to a well regulated militia being necessary to the right of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed. We have 300 million guns in america right now. Hon. Stevens yes. Frank while i philosophically can see your argument, how is that practically going to turn the tide of what has been going on in this country for decades, as far as guns . Hon. Stevens i dont know. I dont know. But no problem is insoluble. If people made up their minds that the presence of guns does more harm than good, it seems to me they would be able to work out a way to confront the problem. Frank i have to ask this other question. I wonder if you have strong feelings on this. A lot of republicans seem to know how to get Supreme Court justices, you have to belong to the Federalist Society and you kind of get groomed in a very orthodox way to adhere to their principles. The reason they do that is, in part, because of you. You were appointed by nixon and in federal court, and then you turned, and then out over 35 years to be a liberal. Justice souter, justice souter, who was nominated by george h. W. Bush, another conservative, turned out to be about as liberal as you. Anthony kennedy, reagan appointee, turned out to be the deciding vote on gay marriage. So republicans are saying why is it that so many people start out republican, and turn out to be liberal on the court . We have to find a way to do that. What did you, souter, and kennedy, sort of drift away from the orthodoxy of the Republican Party . Hon. Stevens first of all, i never really have been a political person of any kind. I am not conscious of changing my basic views. And first, it was clear from you started, that president ford would still appoint me. I think what has changed is a very large number of republicans i really dont think all republicans are like donald trump. Frank you dont think so . [laughter] hon. Stevens no. Frank if thats true, why does the whole of our address of the party get behind him . Hon. Stevens i dont know. [laughter] frank that is an honest answer. Okay. When people think about your long history, one of the cases brought up is the chevron versus nrdc. In the chevron case, you created a Legal Standard that has lasted for decades. That is, basically the congress , writes laws, and everything that is embodied in that law isnt spelled out, but federal agencies are entrusted to enforce those laws. You wrote that what the federal agencies decide in enforcement as far as enforcement, should be carried with the weight of the law and should not be litigable by the court. It came to be known as the chevron doctrine, and it has been a really important thing for environmental groups. For example, the e. P. A. Interprets federal legislation and comes up with rules. If you are a polluter, you dont like the e. P. A. Rules, but under your doctrine, there was no way to go to court and change it. Now we are seeing a change. We are seeing that doctrine of yours really come under stress. We have justice gorsuch, and i assume if kavanaugh gets confirmed, he will be opposed to it. A lot of people are saying and there was the case of michigan in 2015 that that doctrine of yours is fading away. I wonder if you feel like you need to defend it. Hon. Stevens yes. [laughter] frank well, why . Why should it be defended . Hon. Stevens i think it is sound doctrine. It is interesting. When that case came before the court, it was my third or fourth year. Sandra was on the court at the time. Frank 1984. Hon. Stevens 1984. When we discussed it at conference, there was disagreement among us. Bill brennan and Warren Burger thought, well the court of appeals with, i think, ruth ginsburg, had set aside an agency ruling. Brennan and berger, among others, thought that was the right thing to do. That judges should look at the issue and decide what is right, not leaning one way or another, whereas, as ended up in the case, when youre in doubt, you should defer to the agency view because they are experts in the field and they have more knowledge of particular problems. And so in the long run, it makes more sense to back the agency to be the political spokesman for the point of view. We discussed it in conference, and there was really disagreement among us. Finally, byron white was the senior judge on the court, and he said, lets give it a try. Write the opinion that way and see how it comes out. And i was not completely clear on my view at the time either. But anyway, i did try my hand at writing the opinion and i persuaded the entire court. And it is the only time in my history on the court when i visited another judges chambers to try to talk him into joining my opinion. [laughter] hon. Stevens i did that to bill brennan. I finally persuaded him and we ended up with the unanimous opinion that byron signed, but there was uncertainty in the court even after that discussion. The more i worked on it the more i became convinced of the views set forth in the opinion and im proud of the fact that we ended as the unanimous view. And in retrospect, i think it was dead right. It makes a lot of sense to give the people in the government who have the most Specialized Knowledge of the particular area a preference, that when in doubt, takes their view. I just looked at it, because i asked my law clerk to check for me. It has been cited, let me see, 15,900 times, cited with approval. But it is now being subjected to criticism that it may be incorrect. Well, the most important thing to me is that the doctrine of stare decisis should protect a decision when it has been repeatedly cited over many, many years, and almost never disagreed with. You should follow stare decisis. And the fact that they are even considering rejecting a case as wellestablished as that, it seems to me, reflects on the court itself. I do think that the court is subject to criticism these days for failure to give adequate respect to existing decisions. Frank that case was 1984 and you say it should be settled. Roe v. Wade was 11 years before that 1973. , should the theory of stare ecisis hold for that, too . If the court finds a way to overturn roe, do you think that would be the activist court that some people complain about . Hon. Stevens yes, i think that should be treated as settled law. That is basically what kennedy and oconnor and souter said in their joint opinion in the case several years ago. That is more important than whether the case was correctly decided or not. I really think that is right. There are some rules that ought to be accepted as part of the law and not reexamined over and over again. And i think that is an example of such a case. Frank ok, i want to bring another case up, in case you think Justice Stevens is a wild eyed liberal, well talk about the flag burning case where Justice Stevens was in the minority against some of your good buddies, brennan and thurgood marshall, saying it should be illegal to burn the flag. And i want to read what you wrote, the creation of a federal right to post Bulletin Boards on the Washington Monument might enlarge the market for Free Expression at a cost i would not pay. Similarly, in my considered judgment sanctioning the public , desecration of the flag will tarnish its value, both for those who cherish the ideas for which it waves, and for those who desire to don the robes of martyrdom by burning it. That is not trivialized with an alternative mode of expression. Including uttering words critical of the flag. The countrys flag is a symbol of more than nationhood and national unity, it also signifies the ideas that characterize a society that has chosen that emblem, as well as a special history that has animated a growth and the power of those ideas. My question, i guess, you feel that way today, and in light of the protests we are nows the of people who are protesting the treatment of black citizens by police officers, we see it at National Anthems playing during nfl games, players kneeling and others suggesting that it should not be permissible. Is there a nexus between flagburning and making that outlawed, and disrespect during the playing of the National Anthem . Hon. Stevens there are several questions in that one. Frank all right. Well. [laughter] im out. Hon. Stevens do i still believe in my flag case decision . The answer is absolutely yes. One of the things is that nobody burns flags anymore. It is not a common method of expression that has any use to society. The symbolicat importance of the flag was injured significantly by that decision, and unnecessarily. I really dont think it accomplished anything. And i do think, and i think back to world war ii, in those days , the country was so united, you cannot imagine the complete agreement within the country about the war in europe and japan, largely as a result of the japanese attack on pearl harbor. And the country was it really felt 100 we have to win the war and we had to do it completely and everything else. I do think there was an important patriotic value in having a flag that is a symbol of unity for the country as a whole. And i think what i said in that opinion really i am still am moved when i think about the particular issue. And i do not think that the refusal to respond at Football Games is at all comparable. I just dont think they are the same issue. Anyway, i have always felt very strongly about my dissent in that case and i would write it again. Frank what do you think of the current protests during the National Anthem . Does that bother you as a patriotic american . Or no . Hon. Stevens i dont think so. That is not the same kind of dramatic thing as burning a flag in a public place like in the city in texas as they did in that case. [applause] frank right. Right. As long as we are talking about First Amendment cases i wanted to mention the George Carlin case. I made reference to it in the introduction. George carlin famously did a routine about the dirty words you cant say over the air. And then he said it over the air and the f. C. C. Sued the station. It was fcc versus pacifica foundation. It was one of your early cases. You ruled in the majority that 1978. Political speech is different from comedic speech. That basically, if youre making political speech, you can use a lot of bad language, should you that George Carlin if youre making political speech, you can use a lot of bad language, and there was a case where somebody said f the draft, or Something Like that, but that comedian George Carlin does not have the same rights. It is at lesser value. You made the argument there are Different Levels at which first amended speech is protected. Hon. Stevens one of the problems with that case is the broadcast was aired at a time that was available to children. That seemed to me to justify the particular rule that they applied in that case. Frank you still would hold that today . Hon. Stevens i suppose so. The whole attitude toward indecent speech has become much more tolerant. And maybe you should say it is not that big a deal anymore. In fact, we had a later case involving a related issue to that particular one in which i came out the other way. Frank that is the other thing i wanted to talk to you about. You had so much work and so many decisions that you made. You have made some strong opinions. Over 35 years, looking back, are there any of them where you say, i think i go that one wrong, i would like another chance at that one . Hon. Stevens there probably are. But i dont think of any. [laughter] frank it doesnt bother you either way. Hon. Stevens no. You do the best you can with a particular case. As you well know, you try to get it right. If youve done your best, you are pretty well satisfied. Frank what about you have talked about cases that have really bothered you, that you think really have hurt this country. On the pecking order of where they are, would you put Citizens United at the top, or would it be Something Else . Because i know you are very big on gerrymandering and the problems that it has created, and the elections and the lack of democracy we have in elections. Where does that sit in the hierarchy . Hon. Stevens gerrymandering is right up at the top because it is such a simple solution. Racial gerrymandering is prohibited. But why political gerrymandering shouldnt have the same fate there is just no real explanation for that. Frank is there a way to do it that takes it out of politics . I mean, we are letting elected officials take the districts, so they naturally draw them to benefit themselves. Is there a better way . Hon. Stevens i remember a new i have been thinking of writing a New York Times piece, saying, based on the james comey book, the higher truth, that when a legislator is asked to vote on a gerrymandered district, he should not vote for it. He should know that it is an improper district. Its like cheating at cards. Some things you dont do. And you should not draw districts just to affect the outcome of elections. That is not frank that happens though. Hon. Stevens it happened so many times, but it shouldnt. Frank why. Hon. Stevens if legislators thought about the consequences of what they were doing, sometimes they might stop and think, this is wrong. Maybe thats silly. Frank Justice Stevens, i think you have been out of political life for a few years. [laughter] hon. Stevens yes, i have. Frank it is a laudable thing to do, but i am just wondering people have suggested that maybe there should be commissions, or even mathematical models, where you get a state and you divide it up, and you let the computer divide up the district. Hon. Stevens any way to bring a neutral result would be fine. Aa neutral result would be fine. Frank you mentioned reading james comeys book. Other kinds of books you read for pleasure. What you read now . What sorts of books do you read . Hon. Stevens just reading a book about the history of the country in which the first chapter is about the duel between Alexander Hamilton and aaron burr. Very interesting story. Frank frank you are obviously a historian of the Supreme Court itself. Youve known five Supreme Court chiefs justices of the Supreme Court. Who would you think is the most courtntial person in the in this century . Since the 1900s . Hon. Stevens john roberts. The best chief justice of the court has had. Really . That is a surprising answer. For someone you do not agree with. Hon. Stevens hon. Stevens he is a very fine man. You cant help but like and admire him. 100 in his corner. Frank you are both midwesterners. Indiana, illinois. Hon. Stevens notre dame. Frank other than the fact that he is a likable guy, why is he effective as chief justice . Efficientns a very chief executive. Handles all the matters that come to that office that require attention. He does a very good job. Frank youve attempted to go back and contact colleagues and give consent on whats going on . Hon. Stevens yes. [laughter] hon. Stevens im tempted but i dont do it. Frank frank it has been a pleasure talking to you today. You are a treasure of the United States of america and we thank you for your service. Hon. Stevens you are very nice. [applause] [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] john responseution was in to a series of tweets the president posted this past weekend. The crimeto infested places from which they came. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave remarks that prompted republican representative doug collins to request a vote on striking her words from the record. The comments described in this resolution were not just offensive to our colleagues, they were inconsistent with the principles and values upon which this nation was founded. Female members of congress of color to go back where they came from, these comments are not only factually incorrect but also deeply hurtful and divisive. These were shocking comments even from an administration that rips children from the arms of their parents and warehouses asylumseekers and