desalin isation. water recycling and $55 million for specific protections for the fish and wildlife species and there are a whole series that would fit into again. all of this infrastructure work is designed to coordinate specifically with what the state of california is doing with eir multi-billion dollar proposition 1. this money is working its way through the various environmental studies and various levels of government so that very soon these projects will be under way. and if we are able to pass the legislation that we want to introduce, we are going to see the federal government working very, very closely with the state government in addressing

the california problem. , w, 2/3 of california -- well if you care about food, your fresh vegetables, you better care about california. over here in the salinas valley, comes from, tuce drought. let's see, everything from rice to walnuts and wine grapes, very, very important if you like your wine. central coast down here, same thing. what we are trying to do with the legislation is to provide a long-term fix for california so we can increase the supply of water, increase the storage during the wet years. put the storage in reservoirs so when the dry years come, then we'll do it. there was a fellow by the name

of steinbeck, "east of eden." he talked about california droughts. usually the droughts would be one or two years, but now we are looking at quite possibly a five-year drought. steinbeck said this and not the exact quote, it was like in the dry years, they worried about where their water would come from and wet years would come and then they would forget about the dry years. that has been the story of california. steinbeck saw that in the early part of the 20th century. we are now in the 21st century and cannot relive that old addage that steinbeck wrote about. we need to build for the future

and address this and put in place the water systems. i'm going to describe those water systems to you briefly. here in the north, we have the great shasta reservoir. it could be raised and increased and there are some costs with raising shasta. that is one of the proposals. the other one fights right about in here, the sacramento river flows down the middle of the valley. and offstream over here in my district is a reservoir that's been talked about for maybe 50 years. stores about 1.8 million acre of feet of water and could deliver a lot of water. that's one acre -- that's 5,000 acres, one foot of water across

5,000 acres. actually 5,000. 500,000 acres. that's the reservoir over here. the reservoir does something unique. it will take the water that's flowing down the sacramento river during the heavy storms, put that water into the reservoir and when summer comes or the drought comes, that water can be released back into the sacramento river providing water quality issues here in the delta of california. and i'll come to that. trading flexibility on the great reservoirs, shasta, yubea, the folsolm reservoir and the big california reservoir allowing those to be modified in such a way that they are able to store water rather than releasing it down the river for fish and

wildlife. it would be able to release water from that reservoir and keep the water. major problem in sacramento, the folsolm reservoir, i will have representatives in my office tomorrow saying we don't have enough water for our cities roseville and the like east of sacramento. it could provide more water in the sacramento region by keeping that water in the folsolm reservoir. let's talk about the delta. i guess i get better finish the other reservoirs. san joaquin, area, we have a reservoir. bit of a problem. it managed to dry up the san joaquin river, trading a big,

big problem for the salmon. they don't very well in dry rivers. there is an effort to restore some of the salmon in the san joaquin river valley. and the other rivers as you move down towards the san joaquin. a new reservoir is considered. is it environmentally controversial? oh, yeah. no doubt about that. and it's expensive. but our legislation would authorize the continuation of the studies to see if it's worth doing. over here on the hills east of oakland there is a storage reservoir offstream. it is a reservoir that is controlled by the contracosta water district and have agreements to increase the size of that reservoir to store more

water. again that's offstream and it would take the high winter flows and put that water offstream as with the reservoir to the north of it. all very, very important. and so these are the essential projects that would be long-term for california. again, they would be the surface storage reservoirs, two offstream and three potentially onstream. there would be the recharging and the infrastructure needed to do that. recycling in the great cities of los angeles, san diego and in the bay area to recycle water and also dealing with the contamination that occurs in many of the cities in the central valley, the san joaquin valley and a little bit up here in the sacramento valley and a lot of problems in the salinas valley. those are the essential elements

in the long-term. so those are the long-term projects both in proposition 1 of the california water bond of 2014 and also in our legislation. the second piece of the legislation deals with the operation of the two great water projects of the these are the largest water projects in the world. although china is building one that might be bigger. but as of today, the two largest are in california. and what they basically do -- maybe i'll back up for a second. it would be great if my colleagues really had a sense of what's happening. the basic water projects of california take the water from the sacramento valley, sacramento river, mount shasta up here and the trinity river, bring that water in through

shasta reservoir, hold the water there and then send the water down the sacramento river to the delta and that water is picked up in canals, two of them, one operated by the federal government and one by the state of california and brings that water down into the san joaquin valley where it divides hundreds of thousands of acres of irrigated agricultural production. the other part of the other part of that project is here and that takes water down the east side of the valley all the way to kern county here in the bakersfield area and up north. d that's called the kern system. that's the federal water project. the state water project, like the federal, takes the water out of the delta here and brings it down in a canal you, all the -- canal, all way down here, providing water to the county, and then pumps that water 2,000 feet over the

mountains through tunnels and canals, over the mountains into southern california. flows down through the western part of the mow vave desert down here and throws into the los angeles area and also into the palm springs area all the way over here. that's the california water project. some of that water flowing into the metropolitan water district is then available for the cities and water districts of southern california, all the way down to san diego. and into the coachella valley over here in the palm springs area. it is one huge water project. all of it dependent on the large ms. esty: wear on the west coast of the western hemisphere -- largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere. there's no larger estuary as large and as important to the 'quatic species and birds -- to

the aquatic species and birds as the great delta of the sacramento-san joaquin river system. unlike many deltas, this is an inland delta. this is the beginning of san francisco bay here. goes on out. once again, the water flows southward, down the sacramento river, past the city of sacramento here. and flows down through the delta, picked up by the great pumps here at tracy, into the canals, and down the canals to the san joaquin valley and on to southern california. here's the problem. the pumping has significantly altered the ecology of the delta. and when coupled with the drought, has created a situation that has led to a ery serious potential of the

extinction of species in the delta. particularly the delta smelt. and because of the alteration of the sacramento river system's normal flow, the salmon, which would normally migrate up the sacramento river , all the way to mount shasta and beyond, or down the san joaquin river system to fresno, that migration pattern has been seriously altered. in normal years, the management of the river is such that the salmon are able to get along. not asal well, as they once did -- not as well as they once did when it was said you could walk across the river on the back of salmon, you can't do that today for sure. but nonetheless in a normal year these river systems, excluding the lower san joaquin, are able to produce a significant salmon run. in the delta, the delta smelt

have been under great pressure since the pumps were put in and the smelt's a little tiny fish. but it happens to be like the foundation fish. all the bigger fish eat it. and it is also what we call the cannary in the coal mine. if you remember what that's all about, you use cannaries in a coal mine. when the cannary keels over, you have a serious problem because you're the next to keel over. bad air. well, here the delta smelt are considered to be the cannary in the water. when they're in deep trouble, and they are today, the question arises, is the entire ecosystem of the delta going to collapse? we think not. california's severe stressed. california is still in drought. today the rainfall in california is 75% of normal.

that's for the entire state. r the sacramento region, february is 22% of normal. and i think we are rapidly approaching the end of february. what that means for the delta is extraordinary stress. extraordinary stress. and a monumental california water fight. my great-grandfather came to california in the 1860's to mine for gold. during that time there was a fellow out there by the name of mark twain who was writing about the gold rush and other things that were going on in california. he said a couple of things that are really interesting. about san francisco he said, the coldest winter he ever spent was summer in san francisco. i think he was referring to the fog. e also said that in california

, in the 1850's, 1860's and 1870's, he said, whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting. and so the been. during the gold rush period, it was all about water. you couldn't mine for gold unless you had water. and people fought over water. and they built incredible systems to get their hands on the water that came out of the sierra nevada mountains. today it's the same. we still fight about water. and what senator feinstein and i are trying to do is to reduce the friction, reduce the fighting that's been going on for the last decade or last five years about water as it flows through the delta. my san joaquin valley colleagues, democrat and republican, have put forth two pieces of legislation that they believe would solve the water

problem for them. what they've managed to do with that legislation is to basically wipe out the environmental protection for the species, salmon, smelt and other species in the delta, and simply say, turn the pumps on. we need the water, we've got the votes, we're going to get the water. well, those two pieces of legislation have not become law. and they never should become law. because if they did, the large ms. esty: wear on the west coast of the -- largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere would be in serious jeopardy. so what we propose is to work with within the environmental laws -- work within the environmental laws, within the environmental laws and the biological opinions that have been put forth by the federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and the national

marine fisheries, and national marine fisheries, concerned about the salmon, fish and wildlife agencies concerned about the endemic species of the delta, to work within those biological opinions which are designed to protect those species and say, the flexibility that's allowed under the endangered species act, the clean water act, and the biological opinions, are sufficient to allow for the maximum amount of pumping to the south, from the delta, consistent with the protection of the species. and in order to accomplish that we need to use science. now, the biological opinions are based on about 13 to 15-year-old science and what we're saying in our legislation is, ramp up the science. senator feinstein was able to deliver $100 million to

california fish agencies to put in place realtime monitoring. she was not able to write how that could occur. so in the legislation we would direct the agencies to conduct realtime monitoring. daily monitoring. so as the winter flows, and there have been winter flows thus far this year, not enough, but they're there, as those winter flows enter the delta from the north and the south, the fish agencies study where are the smelt? where are the salmon coming down the sacramento river? and also from the san joaquin river. if they are near the delta pumps, reduce the pumping. or don't pump at all. depending where those fish are. and if they are not, if they've moved away from the pumps and there is water in the system, then tump the pumps on -- then

turn the pumps on. pretty simple. if the fish are endangered, reduce the pumping. if the fish are not endangered, then increase the pumping. and so that's essentially what our legislation would accomplish. there are other elements to -- to it. for example, putting in fish screens at the delta channel on the slew and also to improve the levee system within the delta. we'll see. we'll see what happens here. we have a choice as members of congress and men and women that are supposed to solve problems, we can go the way of my san joaquin valley colleagues and simply push aside, negate, the environmental laws that provide for the protection of the salmon, the great fishing industry of california, the salmon runs up and down the coast, oh, by the way, the salmon, they come out of the sacramento river, provide

salmon all the way to the columbia river in oregon. it's not just about san francisco bay. it's about the salmon and the fishing industry with much of the west coast. also south to monterey bay. o, can we wipe out the environmental laws? and simply turn the pumps on? yes. if that legislation were to pass, that's been offered by my colleagues from the san joaquin valley. or we can work within the environmental laws. achieving maximum flexibility, understanding the science. where are the salmon? or the salmon that have hatched and are coming back down the river, little tiny salmon? where are they? are they coming down the river and getting sucked to the pumps? or are they coming down the river and headed out to the bay? we really don't know today. we're not doing realtime monitoring. but if we did realtime

monitoring, we would know where they are, we would know where the delta smelt are and other species and we could adjust the pumping to protect the species and to take advantage of the high flows that occur during the normal winters. and also this year, even though t's well below normal. i have confidence. i have confidence in the wisdom f the californians who decided pass a water bond, to put in place long-range solutions for california. recycling, conservation, storage systems, underground aquifers, and to develop safe drinking water. i have confidence in the wisdom of california. because they did. they voted by over 60% for this project. now, i have confidence in the

congress. i have confidence in the senate. senator feinstein has come up with a good bill and i had the honor to work with her on that bill and i will soon introduce that bill here in the house. i have confidence that we have the wisdom and we have the understanding of the systems of california water. to maximize over time the water potential of california. in the e near term, ear term, when california, this great state that we would green, when california is faced with this. i have confidence that we're wise enough and we are smart enough politically to maneuver ourselves into a situation where we can address the current drought to the maximum extent possible, delivering

water to the san joaquin valley nd on into southern california , without harming the fish. without destroying the salmon of california and the fishing, the multibillion-dollar fishing industry that goes with it and without jeopardizing, without jeopardizing the large ms. esty: wear on the west coast -- largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere. that's our challenge. this is what we're going to try to accomplish. senator feinstein's bill has been introduced. that version will be introduced over here in the next several days. as we develop a better understanding among my colleagues of what we're trying to accomplish here. and i have confidence that the representatives of the southern california area will see the wisdom of putting aside what

mark twain said we always do in california, put aside fighting over water and getting about drinking more whiskey. probably a pretty good idea. i think we're going to get southern california's support for this. i think the southern -- the san joaquin valley folks will look at this and say, well, we can continue fighting as we have for the last five years, with no progress, none, nada, zero, no progress, and say, let's see if we can figure out how to do this in a way that protects the species, the salmon, the other fish, protects the largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere, and provides the maximum amount of water that's available to california. which has an economy that is ranked seventh in the world, so water is really important. i know we can do better.

doesn't at this nation have to have this kind of water from flint, michigan. doesn't at this nation have to have children in the central valley of california getting their water out of a cattle water trough. i know that this nation doesn't have -- this nation does not have to destroy the largest estuary and all the fish, all the salmon and the industry that goes with that in its quest for water. and what little is available can be shared and maximized. and that's what we are going to try to do with the feinstein-garamendi legislation. i know we can do it. i know we have to do it. and i know at the end of the

day, we aren't going to destroy. we are going to build, create and solve the problem. that, mr. speaker. i yield back. and i believe i have a motion. i believe i do not have a motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 0 minutes. mr. gohmert: i rise tonight in greatest one of the jurists in this nation's history. ustice antonin scalia. had a great mind, following an

excellent education. beautiful family. has a beautiful family. and he has already been very sorely missed. i thought it might be helpful, mr. speaker, and get a sense of a profoundly concerned he was with the place in which this country finds itself. after world wars, after depression, after all kinds of threats, massive civil war in the 1860's, all kinds of things that have threatened this nation, even the war of 1812 during which this capitol was set on fire, all these threats and yet at this time in which we

live, he could see and he tried to sound the warning alarms for what a majority of the supreme court was doing to this country. o it seemed to be encapsulated rather well. ack in 2008, june 12, 2008 cision in the case against george bush, president of the united states, combined with another case, but the decision of the majority of the court, as justice scalia pointed out, was theotally inconsistent with majority's own majority opinion in a prior case regarding people who are captured on the

battlefield, who are clearly at war with the united states and throughout the history of war warfare, at least among civilized nations in the history of warfare, the civilized thing to do was to hold those who were at war with you until such time as the group they represent come from, declared, no longer at war with you. then they can be released unless they have committed some heinous crime for which they should account beyond that of being part of the war against the nation. so the supreme court majority had previously said basically that of course the constitution gives the congress the power to

create tribunals, to create courts as my former constitutional law professor said, there's only one court in the whole country's federal system that owes its creation to the u.s. constitution, and that is the u.s. supreme court. all other federal courts, ribunals owe their existence and their jurisdiction to the united states congress. so the majority court previously said in effect that congress enemy cases where combatants are seized on the battlefield, hold them without ight of habeas corpus.

uncivilized d -- warfare were taken and made slaves. for nations civilized, you held them and hopefully in humanitarian conditions. well in the case, justice scalia starts his dissent by saying, i shall devote to the legal errors contained in the opinion of the court. contrary to my usual practice, however, i think it appropriate to begin with the description of the disastrous consequences of what the court has done today. ustice scalia goes on, america is at war with the radical islamists. killing americans and american

allies abroad. marine barracks and at the khobart towers and 224 in our mbassies in nairobi, 17 on the usscole in yemen. on september 11, the enemy brought the battle to american soil killing 2,749, 184 at the pentagon in washington, d.c., and 40 in pennsylvania. it has threatened further attacks against our homeland. one need only walk about barricaded washington or board a plane anywhere in the country to know that the threat is a serious one. our armed forces are in the field against the enemy in afghanistan, in iraq. last week, 13 of our countrymen

were killed. the game of bait and switch that today's opinion plays upon the nation's commander in chief will make the war harder on us. what comes next, perhaps one of the most profound statements that any justice on the supreme court ever put in writing. but he was right and being right in his dissent in the supreme court's decision, he knew he needed to put this next sentence in print. so justice scalia said this. talking about the majority opinion, he said, it will almost certainly cause more americans to be killed. he said that consequence object would be tolerable if necessary

to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional republic. but it is this court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces a decision today. the president relied on a settled precedent in johnson rsus isentrager back in 1950 when he established the prison aliens. namo bay for the office advised him that the great weight of legal authority indicates that a federal district court could not properly exercise habeas jurisdiction over an jailen detained at guantanamo bay. further down, he says the decision is devastating. at least 0 of those prisoners released from guantanamo bay have returned to the

battlefield. others have succeeded in carrying on their atrocities against innocent civilians. in one case, a detainee released from guantanamo bay masterminded the kidnapping of do chinese dam workers, one of whom was shot to death when used a shield. another former detainee promptly resumed his post as a senior taliban command are and murdered a united nations engineer and three afghan soldiers. still another murdered an afghan judge. it was reported only last month that a released detainee carried ut a suicide bombing in mosul, iraq. the return to the kill illustrates the incredible difficulty of assessing who is and who is not an enemy

combatant in a foreign theater of operations where the environment does not lend itself to rigorous evidence collection. he goes on, during the 1995 prosecution of raman federal prosecutors released the nails of unindicted co-conspirators to the blind sheik's lawyers. that information was within the hands of osama bin laden within two weeks. justice scalia went on to write page after page explaining the and s that the overzealous under thinking majority of the unitedhat imposed on the states, on our military, because

justice scalia made clear when it comes to war by the decision that the majority made to basically tell our military that instead of protecting yourself and protecting your brothers and sisters in arms, we are going to require you to go out there, gather up d.n.a. evidence, get blood evidence, maybe just drive a forensic wagon out there on the field of battle because some person in a pal ace in washington -- palace in washington, palace that some of the justices went through the new supreme court building back in 1935, that palace in which they reside have said that in a time of war, we have lost our

minds in america and we're going to now start putting our military at risk of their very lives so they can go gather up evidence to satisfy some bloated judge in a palace in washington. that's why he made the profound statement that he did in his dissent. his words will almost certainly cause more americans to be killed. that's extraordinary. but dear justice scalia finished the dissenting opinion by saying, today the court warps our constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the suspension clause invoking judicially brain storms separation of power principles to establish a functional test for the extra

territorial reach of happen just corpus and no doubt, the reach of other constitutional protections as well. it blatantly misdescribes portant precedents, most conspicuously, justice jackson's court in the johnson case. it breaks the chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into the detention of aliens abroad absence statutory authorization. and most tragically, it sets our ilitary commanders the task of convincing a civilian court that

evidence supports the confinement of each and every prisoner. the nation will live to regret what the court has done today, i dissent. what a brilliant man with extraordinary common sense system of mr. speaker, my staff helped me, we've all been picking out favorite quotes that justice scalia has provided both in written opinion and in speeches. one of justice scalia's statements was, never compromise your principles unless, of course, your principles are adolph hitler's, in which case you would be well advised to compromise them as much as you can. another statement by justice scalia, more important than your obligation to follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your convince correctly.

justice scalia said, you think there ought to be a right to abortion? proknob. the constitution says nothing about it. create the way most rights are created in a democratic society. pass a law. and that law, unlike a constitutional right to abortion, created by a court, can compromise. he said, a constitution is not meant to facilitate change. it is meant to impede change to make it difficult to change. brilliant statement. some think the constitution is a living, breathing document. i've discussed this over at the supreme court palace with him and i've discussed it at lunches, breakfasts. there are a handful of special

privileges that i count myself lucky to -- or blessed to have been able to enjoy. one of those handful has been ime spent with justice scalia. he had an incredible sense of humor. he could crack me up. most of the time he meant to. sometimes his sarcasm was just too humorous not to laugh. and he attacked himself with self-effacing humor. but he said this, i attack ideas, i don't attack people. and some very good people have some very bad ideas. and if you can't separate the two, you got to get another day job. funny man. but a brilliant man. god bless that man with wisdom.

justice scalia said, i love to argue, i've always loved to argue and i love to point out the weaknesses of the opposing arguments. it may well be that i'm something of a shin kicker. it may well be that i'm something of a con trarne. he said, well we didn't set out to have nine children, talking about his beautiful family. he said, we're just old fashioned catholics, you know he said, i think thomas jefferson would have said the more speech, the better. that's what the first amendment is all about, said justice scalia. today, i see around our college campuses conservatives like me are often shunned. i'm grateful to have been invited to speak at oxford. in england. and cambridge. but it's amazing that places like my conservative texas a&m, there are students there, much

fewer there, but all over the country at what are supposed to be enlightened universities that don't want to hear any view different from themselves. hosti was at a&m, i helped ralph nader. didn't agree with him on much but i loved the exchange with him, the thoughts that went back and forth. he was a very intriguing man. we weren't afraid of discussions with liberals and it's one of the things i loved about justice scalia. he was so brilliant so grounded, is faith was so strongly standing on god's word, the bible. he knew who he was. he knew whose he was. and he knew whose was his and he loved his family dearly. justice scalia said, undoubtedly

some think that the second amendment is outmoded in a society where a standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem. that is debatable. what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the second amendment extinct. it was absolutely a great dissent, pointing out the , pocrisy, the flawed thinking the incredible poor quality of the writing in the majority opinion in the obamacare decision, justice scalia said, this court, however, concludes this limitation would prevent the rest of the act from working as well as hoped.

society rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. we should start calling this the scotus karin stead of obamacare. the supreme court of the u.s. care. how about that. he went on to say, under all the usual rules of interpretation, in sort, the government should lose this case. but normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of this court. then he his a colon and sets out the principle, and that is, the affordable care act must be saved. he gos on and says if a bill is about to pass, that really comes down hard on some minority and they think it's terribly unfair, it doesn't take much to throw a monkey wrench into this complex system. americans should appreciate that. they should learn to love the gridlock.

it's there so the legislation that does get out is good legislation. mr. speaker, it brings to mind a discussion i heard him have with some people from my district. some senior citizens that were coming to washington, 60 or so, 50, 60, and they had asked me, they said, you're friends with justice scalia, do you think we could meet him? and i felt comfortable enough to call him and he said, sure, bring them. so we worked it out, brought them through the side entrance, came into a meeting room. they were all seated there when justice scalia came walking in, leans up against the table in front of them and they were kind of in awe because they knew how brilliant justice scalia was, he said, well, you wanted to meet me, here i am, what kind of questions do you have?

it theek group aback and people were struggling to come up with a question. one of them said, justice scalia, wouldn't you say we're the freest nation in the history of the world because we have the best bill of rights? and in typical scalia style he said, oh, gosh, no. the soviet union had a butch met -- a much better bill of rights than we have, it guaranteed more rights than we have. i forgot but in college i made an a on a paper that compared the soviet constitution and ours. the soviet union bill of rights laid out all kinds of right but didn't protect them he went on to say, i'm not quoting exactly but he said, the reason america is the most free nation in the history of this eworld is because the founders didn't trust the government. so they made it as difficult as they could to pass a law.

wasn't enough to have one house. they wanted two houses. and not like england where one of them doesn't have all that much authority. they wanted two houses with either one could stop a law from being passed. so even if one house were successful in finally getting a majority of people to agree on a law, then the other house would have to agree and they could stop it completely in its tracks and that wasn't good enough they wanted another check and balance, another way to stop law. they wanted to create gridlock so they said, we don't want a parliamentarian system where they, the legislators elect a prime minister, no, we want an executive elected totally different from the legislature. so we'll have him elected a whole different way and then he can stop any law they may try to pass. and that's not good enough, let's create another branch, the judiciary branch and then they

can nix anything that's passed. no, we're the most free nation in history because the founder didn't trust government and made it as hard as possible to pass aws. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has seven minutes. mr. gohmert: justice scalia says, one of his dissents, i have exceeded the speed limit on occasion. he said, a man who has no enemies is probably not a very good man. he said if you read the rest of the section you would say, to find a way, to find a meaning that the language will bear that will uphold the constitutionality, you don't have to interpret a penalty to be a pig. it can't be a pig. he did know how to bring things back to tangible terms.

he said if you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. if you like them all the time, you're going -- you're probably doing something wrong. experienced that myself. there were times when i disagreed with the law but it was constitutionally made and passed and i followed the law as a judge and chief justice. exactly what he did. in a dissent in 1996, justice scalia said, the court must be living in another world. day by day, case by case, it is busy designing a constitution for a country i do not regular regular -- i do not recognize. 10 years later , in 2006 he, said so the question comes up, is there a constitutional right to have -- to have homosexual conduct. not a hard question to me. nobody ever thought when the

bill of rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state, easy question. he made those statements at the remarks at university of freiberg, switzerland , in 2006. 2009 he, said the court today ontinues its quixotic question to right all wrongs and rir re-pair the constitution. alas, the quest cannot succeed. he also said this case involving legal rirptes for the labeling an at products provides opportunity to explore both parts ofs by marc's aforism that no man should see how law or sausages are made. he said, god has been very good to us. one of the reasons god has been good to us is that we have done

him honor. and certainly justice scalia did god honor. a lot of people don't realize what a tender hearted man he was as well. ter the horrendous murder of justice michael ludik's father, the assault and attempted murder of his mother, in their own garage, two streets over from my , the family did not want , call michael and just say describe the horrors that had been inflicked on his father and mother. middle of the night, justice

scalia is in bed, justice scalia to a call, would he go out and let udik's house him know in the wee hours of the morning that his father had been killed. justice scalia, for whom justice ludik had clerked he, knew michael ludik loved him he put on his warmup suit and went out in the middle of the night, many iles away, because he cared. and as i conclude, mr. speaker, i thought about the words of john

quincy adams in the amistad case. he didn't think he had won the case. he was finishing. he was afraid he'd not done an adequate job defending these africans who should be free and should be free to go where they wanted without chains, without bondage. so he finished his argument by saying, this is john quincy adams, 1841, in the supreme court, as i cast my eyes along those seat seeths of honor and public trust, now open -- now occupied by you, talking to the supreme court in 1841, they seek in vain for one of those-ed and honorable persons who indulgence listened them to -- then to my voice. marshall, curbing, chase, washington, johnson, livingston, todd where are they? where's the eloquent statesman, learned lawyer who is my associate council in the management of that cause? where's that brilliant lumenary

so long the pride of maryland and the american bar, then my opposing counsel, where is the excellent clerk of that day whose name has been inscribed on the shores of africa as a monument of his reports of the slave trade. where's the marshall, where's the crier of court, where's one of the very judges this court, arbiters of life and death before whom i comment the sanction, are even now prematurely closed. where are they gone, gone, all gone, gone from the services in which their day and generation they faithfully rendered to their country. i humbly hope and finally trust that they have gone to receive the rewards of blessedness on high. in taking then his final leave of the bar, there at the supreme court, john quincy adams said he hoped that every member of the supreme court may go to his final account with as

little earthly frailtyy to anun for -- to answer for all those illustrious dead. he said, you may, everyone, after the close of a long and virtuous career in this world, be received at the portals of the next with the approving sentence. well done, good and faithful servant. enter thou into the joy of the lord. mr. speaker, i have no doubt whatsoever that justice antonin scalia, my friend, our friend, the lumenary of the supreme court, heard those words days ago. well done, good and faithful servant. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time -- the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will entertain a motion. mr. gohmert: i move we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to

adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, pursuant to house resolution 620, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late honorable antonin scalia.

tonight, republican voters caucus in nevada, after hillary clinton won the democratic caucus in the state d -- saturday. we will bring speeches from some of the candidates. our road to the white house coverages live tonight here on seas than -- c-span. >> the columbus dispatch is reporting that john kasich's have to the nomination is getting murky. joining us is the editor for the columbus dispatch, darrel rowland. darrell: thank you. >> as you put it, the good news for your governor is that he is the last of former governors in the republican race. the bad news, he is teetering on the brink of a relevancy -- irrelevancy -- how so? darrell: we were talking off the

air, if you told me the john kasich campaign people they would outlast former governor , they would be turning cartwheels because they would think the nomination was all but within hand. as we all know, 2016 has turned out like no one has predicted. -- governorey did kasich did well in northern have sure. he did notina, compete much, and finished next last. -- next to last. not realone who is friendly to his middle-of-the-road philosophy, just in comparison to the rest of the republican field -- the super tuesday coming up on march 1. a lot of the states are not very for way to this type of candidacy. the other thing is, many of the

states have a threshold, meaning that unless you get 15 or more you do notof votes qualify to get a single delegate. governor kasich has not gotten that total -- not even in new hampshire. if you do not make the threshold, all of your votes go to the front runners. that adds to their totals. that leaves us to where we are today, a lot of people are pressuring him in a k-6 to get cht of the -- governor kasi to get out of the race. >> governor john kasich has been an affair of our time in michigan, that state primary is beyond super tuesday on march the eighth, can he survive that long? darrell: that is a big question because there are so many states voting on march 1. a handl