Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Utilities District of Western Indiana Rural Electric Membership Corporation (REMC) for its remarkable safety record, specifically working more than 750,000 hours without a lost-time accident.

Since its incorporation some seventy years ago, UDWI REMC has focused on its core mission of providing reliable and affordable power to its member consumers. The electric cooperative was formed to serve southwestern Indiana residents in 1936 when most of our nation's rural homes and farms were without the benefits of electric power.

Today, UDWI REMC delivers power, services and energy solutions to nearly 19,000 homes, businesses and farms in Indiana's Greene, Clay, Daviess, Knox, Lawrence, Martin, Monroe, Owen, Putnam, Sullivan and Vigo counties. Through its efforts, the Bloomfield-based cooperative has improved the quality of life for thousands of Hoosiers.

Ensuring reliable electric distribution is a vital job that requires dedication, skill and safe work practices. Electricity provides light, heat, cooling, and comfort, and power for labor-saving conveniences and electronics along with life-saving benefits. Yet electricity demands proper respects and attention. UDWI REMC's 49 employees have demonstrated their commitment to safe work practices by compiling an exceptional safety record, working from February 24, 1998 to August 10, 2006 without a lost-time accident.

Mr. Speaker, it is through the efforts and cooperation as demonstrated by UDWI REMC that our country's rural communities enjoy the benefits of clean, safe electricity. We take great pride in commending UDWI REMC General Manager Roger Davis, the cooperative's employees, and Board of Directors on a job done well--and safely--for the past 8 years. Thanks to these men and women, and others like them, the future is bright in southwestern Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the personal dedication of one of my constituents from Southern Indiana, Mr. Larry Rhodes, to our troops in the field, and their families here at home. Mr. Rhodes, a Vietnam Veteran, recognized the need for his community to step in and volunteer their time, energy, and resources to the families of our troops preparing to deploy to Iraq. Rather than wait for an opportunity to do his part, Mr. Rhodes took the initiative and formed the support organization ``Operation: Support on the Homefront.''

In the Summer of 2005, Mr. Rhodes began holding events for families of soldiers in the National Guards 163rd Field Artillery unit, and the Army Reserves 406th Corps Support Battalion, both of which have units in my congressional district--the 8th District of Indiana.

Mr. Rhodes has organized numerous fundraising events, including concerts, dinners, silent auctions, and of course a joyous Christmas party for the families, where a huge dinner was served and all of the children received donated gifts. In addition to his fundraising efforts, Mr. Rhodes has worked with the business community in Evansville and surrounding communities to encourage them to provide discounted products and services to the families of the deployed soldiers.

This August, after months of negotiating with the U.S. government, Mr. Rhodes and his producer Steve Olglesby, were given permission to travel to Iraq to spend time with troops from the 163rd and 406th, conduct interviews, and film a short documentary of their experiences in Iraq. Underscoring the hazardous nature of this trip, the day Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Olglesby left Al Diwaniyah, the base where they were staying came under mortar attack. Luckily, no one was injured.

This dedication to our troops, commitment to our country, and selfless sacrifice deserves the praise and recognition of a grateful community and country. I commend Mr. Larry Rhodes for his personal service to his country and his ongoing efforts to support our men and women in uniform that proudly serve today.

Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to speak on the rule. I will be speaking a little later on the bill itself, as I am the original sponsor of the bill and have been since the 105th Congress, but I felt it necessary to clarify the discussion somewhat in that, as I have heard the discussion, it has focused on some issues that the bill does not cover, as well as does not discuss some of the issues that the bill is attempting to remedy.

First of all, the words from the gentleman from Texas suggested that this bill had to do with the first 16 words of the first amendment. That is not true. The first 16 words to the first amendment say the following: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

It has been concluded that there are essentially two clauses to that portion of the first amendment. First is the so-called Establishment Clause and the second is the Free Exercise Clause. This bill addresses the issue of the Establishment Clause and the attorney's fees awarded as a result of cases brought regarding Establishment Clauses. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Free Exercise Clause, the last portion of the gentleman from Texas' 16 words to the first amendment.

So with regard to free exercise cases, the Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 will still apply, and attorneys's fees will still be awarded with no alteration of the laws as a result of passage of this bill.

Secondly, the suggestion was that somehow Mr. Madison left the Constitution sterile with regard to the discussion of religion. Mr. Madison, who many claim to be the chief architect of the Constitution, I believe probably even including my friends from Texas and Massachusetts, included in the signatory clause two dates of reference for the United States Constitution's approval by the constitutional convention. When he said, ``Done in convention by unanimous consent of the States present the 17th day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the independence of the United States of America, the 12th.''

So James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution, as well as the rest of the delegates who signed the Constitution, gave two dates of reference that every schoolchild should know, every public schoolchild, private schoolchild, home schoolchild should know, with regard to the discussion of the approval of the Constitution of the United States.

The delegates thought it was so important that these two dates be referenced that they ensconced them in the very wording of the Constitution. The first primary, most important, date of reference would be the 17th day of September, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven. So the first date, the primary date of reference for the delegates of the constitutional convention as placed in the Constitution itself, was the birth of Jesus Christ.

The second important day, the secondary important day for the ratification of the United States Constitution was the day that was placed secondarily in the signatory clause, and that is the independence of the United States of America, the 12th. It had been since July 4, 1776, a little over 11 years since that celebration, and so

they were in the 12th year of the independence of the United States, the Declaration of Independence being effectively the birth certificate of the United States of America.

So there would be those on the other side, first of all, that would suggest that this bill has something to do with the free exercise of religion. It has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. And some that would suggest that the Framers of the Constitution and the Founders of this country would somehow sterilize government from the very mention of religion.

Now, if someone today in the State of Virginia where Mr. Madison come from and Jefferson would suggest erecting a monument to the individual whose birth is the primary date of reference for the delegates for the approval of the United States Constitution to be later sent to the States for ratification would raise a life-size monument to that one individual, they would be sued by the ACLU. They would be sued by the ACLU, and the ACLU would come to those people and say, we are going to sue you, just like they did educators in the State of Indiana. And they would say, we are going to sue you and we are going to win, and when we win you will not only have to pay your attorney's fees but you will have to pay our attorney's fees, too, as a result of the Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 by erecting a monument to the individual's whose birth is celebrated in the United States Constitution.

Now, that case could go to court, but it probably would not. Because those county officials, those officials would have this sword of Damocles hanging over their head, meaning we are going to take you to court, and when we win, you will have to pay our attorney's fees as well.

The Public Expression of Religion Act would simply say let that case go to court, do not allow that sword of Damocles, that notion of intimidation to continue and let the case go to court.

The gentleman from Massachusetts says that we cannot trust the courts as conservatives. We do trust the courts, which is exactly what the Public Expression of Religion Act allows. It allows these cases to go to court. Whereas in many cases they do not go to court, and the gentleman from Georgia and others have given examples. They will go to court and will allow the cases to go to court, but that is exactly what the other side does not want to have happen because let us give recent experience.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court came down with two decisions, the same day, on the first amendment to the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, and in those two decisions, they said that the Ten Commandments posted on public property, public property paid for and maintained with government dollars, was constitutional in the State of Texas. Then they said, on the same day, in a different case, they said the public display of the Ten Commandments on government- funded, government-maintained property in Kentucky was unconstitutional. Constitutional in Texas, unconstitutional in Kentucky. I think the Ten Commandments were pretty well the same. They are pretty well the same wherever you read them, but in Texas it was constitutional, and in Kentucky it was unconstitutional.

What the other side does not want to have happen is for these cases to actually go to court. Because if they go to court, it is likely with the new makeup of the United States Supreme Court that had those two cases come out of that Supreme Court, the Texas case would have probably been a 6-3 majority in favor of maintaining the Ten Commandments in Texas and a 5-4 majority in maintaining the Ten Commandments in the State of Kentucky.

This is an issue of allowing the cases to go to court and not to have the threat or intimidation by the ACLU and their minions to hang over all of these heads.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Taking back my time, because in both cases the United States Constitution grants Congress the exclusive explicit authority to do those things, and that is why I am saying this is the exclusive authority of the United States Congress. We have that authority. We do not have to be in one particular area allowing the court to consider cases. In other cases, we can allow the cases to go to court. That is what the legislative process is about.

And the gentleman has heralded the idea of democracy and the legislative process. Today, we continue to exercise that.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

And I can understand that concern, but let me remind you that the awards act came in 1976. In 1962, the United States Supreme Court struck down the notion of school prayer without the attorneys fees award act. In 1963, the Supreme Court struck down Bible reading in public schools, without the attorneys fees award act. This bill will simply allow the cases to actually continue to go to court.

The gentleman from Massachusetts concluded his remarks by saying this is going to keep people out of the courts. In fact, the precedent is just the opposite. In 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the United States Supreme Court said, 14 years before the attorneys fees award act was put into place, that the state sanctioning of prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. In 1963, 13 years before the attorneys fees award acts came into play, the United States Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional to have Bible reading in public schools.

This will not change anything from what happened before this law was created that we are amending today. The same things will happen. And this bill, most importantly, does not remove injunctive relief. If it is the desire of the plaintiff to stop an activity or to remove a monument or remove a display, this bill does nothing to stop that from taking place. The injunctive relief available in all of these cases continues to be available in establishment clause cases.

And, in fact, the court can say, remove the monument, stop the practice. This bill does not change that, and I want to make that clarification.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

And that is perfect, so the gentleman can support my bill. I appreciate that, which is why it does something very important, which is why the gentleman and his cohorts are opposing the bill, because they understand that by removing the chilling effect on these closed-door sessions with county commissioners, with schoolteachers, with mayors and the like, without that ability for the ACLU and others to go into these closed-door sessions and say, Mayor, we are going to sue you, we are going to win, and you are going to have to pay our attorneys fees, that without that chilling effect, these cases will go to court.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

From the gentleman's perspective, because of the benign nature and virtual nonutilitarian nature of the bill, please support it.

Because a blatant violation is determined by a court of law.

We are letting them go to court. That is exactly right, we are going to let them go to court. A blatant violation is determined by a court of law and not by ACLU attorneys behind closed doors.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I cannot name one. Will the gentleman yield for a discussion?

First of all, Mr. Jefferson was in France during the approval process of the Bill of Rights.

He was not in France during the ratification by the States of the Bill of Rights, but he was in France during the approval by the Congress of the Bill of Rights, which took place 2 years prior.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act. This legislation would allow establishment clause cases to go to court unfettered by fear or coercion on the part of the defendant. And as an aside, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for clarifying a position earlier made by that side of the aisle when it was suggested by the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Massachusetts that somehow this bill would actually affect free exercise cases. But as the gentleman from New

York pointed out, this bill does not address free exercise cases.

The Public Expression of Religion Act would amend 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988 to prevent the mere threats of the legal system to intimidate communities, States, and groups like the American Legion into relenting without ever darkening the doorsteps of a Federal courthouse.

I first introduced the Public Expression of Religion Act in the 105th Congress after I realized that the mention of attorneys fees in these kinds of cases were jeopardizing our constituents' constitutional rights. An example of this was in 1993, when the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, which is affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union, mailed a letter to all the public educators in the State of Indiana. In this letter, the ICLU informs the educators that should they support a prayer at graduation, the ICLU will sue both the school and any individuals who approve the graduation prayer. The letter plainly states the ICLU will win and that whoever is sued will have to pay not only their attorneys fees but the ICLU fees as well.

These threats to teachers, who are highly unlikely to be able to pay their own attorneys fees let alone the exorbitant attorneys fees of the ICLU, make it very likely educators would capitulate to the ICLU before even checking to make sure the ICLU has their facts right.

What makes this even more difficult for States and localities is that the jurisprudence in establishment clause cases is about as clear as mud. Different districts and even the Supreme Court itself flipflops on issues. For instance, last year, the Supreme Court handed down two Ten Commandments case decisions on the same day with a different decision in each.

In the Van Orden case, the court applied the Marsh test of historical perspective to determine the Ten Commandments in a public venue was constitutional in Texas; while the McCreary case used the Lemon test to determine the Ten Commandments in a public venue in Kentucky was unconstitutional. Clear as mud.

Our constituents who are being threatened with those lawsuits know even if they are right they will still have to pay their own attorneys fees to take the gamble the court will muddle through the jurisprudential mess of the establishment clause and come out on their side. If the court chooses to use the Marsh test, they might win. If the court chooses to use the Lemon test, they might lose. It is a toss- up.

Unfortunately, many of our constituents do not have the means by which to set aside a small fortune each year to defend their constitutional rights against intimidating liberal organizations. Nor do they look kindly on the fact that their constitutional rights have become subject to the whims of unelected judges; but, Mr. Speaker, that issue is for another legislative day. Regardless, many do not wish to roll the dice to have their day in court, so they capitulate to these organizations and their often questionable pronouncement of what is or is not constitutional.

A majority of the cases the ACLU and its affiliates represent are facilitated by staff attorneys or through pro bono work, so any attorneys fees awarded to them is icing on the cake. It is a win-win situation for them right now. On the other hand, States and localities have limited resources with which to fight court battles, thus another reason they are capitulating before they even go to court.

This was the case recently with the Los Angeles County seal. The ACLU threatened to sue L.A. County if they did not remove the tiny cross from the county seal. The cross symbolized Los Angeles' birth as a Spanish mission town. The county was forced to choose between paying to change the seal or paying to go to court and possibly pay exorbitant attorneys fees to the ACLU.

In the end, the L.A. county supervisors, in a 3-2 vote, decided to ignore the will of the people of Los Angeles County and pay to change the seal instead of paying to go to court. They had been advised by their attorneys that if they lost in court they would not only have to change the seal but they would additionally have to pay attorneys fees of the ACLU.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time to bring this extortion to an end. The Public Expression of Religion Act would make sure these cases are tried on their merits and are not merely used to extort behavior via settlements outside our judicial system.

As the ICLU said at the end of their letter: ``The ICLU does not enjoy litigation. We, and you, have better things to do with our time.'' I for one would like to make sure the ICLU has to think long and hard before litigating, and this would be the case if they knew they would actually have to convince a court of their twisted view of the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in response to a discussion earlier about the notion of ``false advertising'' in relationship to this piece of legislation, I have developed some fairly thick skin over the last several years in this job, but I think that I should draw the line today with regard to suggesting that people such as the American Legion would engage in false advertising in their support of the Public Expression of Religion Act.

In a booklet published by the American Legion entitled ``In the Footsteps of the Founders,'' the American Legion set out a course of action, a battle plan, if you will, in their desire to ``mobilize America to urge passage of the Public Expression of Religion Act, or

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Paul amendment. The proposed national animal ID system will force small family farmers and ranchers to spend thousands of dollars as well as comply with

new paperwork and monitoring regulations to implement and operate the national ID system. This unnecessary financial burden could ruin small farms.

As we all know, many of America's small farms are struggling to survive in today's environment. They are teetering on a line that fluctuates with the seasons, with disease and with ever-changing markets. The national animal ID system will only push these farmers further into financial troubles. By forcing small farms to adhere to unfair bureaucratic regulation, you will be driving third and fourth generation farmers out of the only livelihood they have ever known.

In town hall meetings across my district, constituents have expressed to me their concerns with the proposed program. They are afraid of losing their farms because of big brother looking over their shoulder and forcing them to adhere to unrealistic and intrusive regulations.

I urge my colleagues to support the Paul amendment and stand up for the thousands of hardworking small farmers in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize Toyota Motor Manufacturing on their 10th anniversary of operation in Princeton, Indiana. Since 1996, Toyota has been a top contributor to both the economy and the community life of southern Indiana. During the past 10 years, Toyota has both harnessed the excellent workforce and favorable business conditions available in our region, and has invested time and resources back into our local people and businesses.

The Princeton Toyota plant opened their doors with an initial investment of $700 million, employing 1,300 team members with a production rate of 100,000 trucks per year. In just 10 years, production has skyrocketed to 300,000 vehicles per year, including the Tundra full-size pickup truck, Sequoia SUV, and Sienna minivan. With the recent addition of another plant in Lafayette, Toyota is now the largest automaker in Indiana.

A study released by University of Evansville and University of Southern Indiana determined that Toyota's annual economic impact in Indiana equals 31,385 jobs, $502.9 million in employee compensation, and $5.5 billion in business sales, representing a significant influence on the economy of southwest Indiana, and the state as a whole. In Gibson County alone, Toyota generates 8,865 jobs, $118.9 million in employee compensation, $518.6 million in business sales. The Evansville area enjoys 12,990 jobs, $341.7 million in employee compensation, and $1.4 billion in business sales as a result of Toyota.

In addition to their positive economic impact, Toyota has been a wonderful neighbor to Princeton and the surrounding communities. Toyota is proactively involved in educational and charitable initiatives by awarding scholarships to local students, and providing grants to local schools and non-profit organizations. I am pleased to commend Toyota as an example of good citizenship.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Toyota on 10 years of outstanding service and contribution to southern Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Special Operations Forces have played an increasingly important role in our wars against nonstate actors. Therefore, I believe we need to encourage our Nation's best and brightest military scholars to focus on the scholarly research needs of our special operators.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this new fellowship program will nurture and cultivate the kind of academic scholarship that will help our special operators gain an even greater upper hand against our Nation's adversaries. We supply them with the best weapons in the world. We must, as well, see to it that they benefit from the research of some of our Nation's best scholars.

If enacted into law, my amendment would authorize the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations under which the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict will award a fellowship to an eligible person, as described in the legislation, in a discipline determined by the Assistant Secretary.

The authority to award any amount of funds to any person as a fellowship under this section is subject to the availability of funds for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important that we give our men and women in uniform all of the tools necessary to fight and win our Nation's wars overwhelmingly. And one way to do that is to give them access to the best scholarship available in their respective fields.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. It continues unabated

with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats. Do not get me wrong. Democrats know they should not be doing this. The spirit of, if not the exact, language in the underlying bill added by the Democrat ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin was offered by a Democrat in the Armed Services Committee during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 DOD authorization bill.

The author of that language in the authorizing committee, the gentleman from New York, has suggested since that time that ``extremist groups'' are behind the removal of language similar to his. I and others who spoke in opposition to that amendment had never even heard of the notion of such an amendment until the gentleman from New York actually offered it during the committee markup. And so I am curious as to who these extremists are that the gentleman from New York spoke of.

Mr. Chairman, we may never know because that is the nature of this debate, name-calling of unspecified people and groups who hold a world view different than many of these Democrats. And, as I said, Mr. Chairman, Democrats know they should not be doing this. Following the overwhelming opposition voiced at the DOD markup, the Democrat ranking member of the committee requested the gentleman from New York to withdraw the amendment, which he did. * * *

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence I spoke.

Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the assertions in the language of the bill, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) at this point, even the press has recently indicated the fallacious nature of those assertions.

In the sense of Congress portion of the bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) states, ``coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the

United States Air Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chain of command at the Academy, as has been reported, inconsistent with the professionalism and standards required of those who served at the Academy.

Coercive and abusive religious proselytizing, as has been reported. The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, defines the word ``proselytize'' to mean, ``to convert from one belief or faith to another.''

Are the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others providing one shred of evidence that there has been a forced conversion from one belief to another at the Air Force Academy? And if so, from what belief to what belief did the abusive and coercive conversion take place?

No, there is not a single reported incident of the proselytizing that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) attempts to persuade us is gospel.

Noting this, today's issues of CQ Today, writing about this issue, speaks of our ``spirited debate over whether Congress should speak out about reports that some Christian officials at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, coercively sought to proselytize non-Christian students.''

Sought to proselytize, that is not what this debate or the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is about. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as my chairman of the Authorizing Committee has stated earlier, has indicted, convicted and sentenced the leadership of the Academy, without any evidence, reported or otherwise, that coerced conversions have taken place at the Academy.

And for that miscarriage of justice, Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) should be defeated, and the underlying amendment from the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In Russelburg v. Gibson County, a Federal district judge in the Southern District of Indiana ruled that the presence of a monument depicting the Ten Commandments in Gibson County amounts to a government establishment of religion because, as he stated, the display ``is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment to the United States Constitution.''

This decision is inconsistent with both the clear intent of the framers and the Christian heritage of the United States, which was recounted by the Supreme Court in 1892. While it is true this opinion is consistent with more recent Supreme Court decisions, it is time that Congress exercise its authority to end the practical effect of this judicial misunderstanding. My amendment would prevent any funds from being used to enforce this unconstitutional and unlawful judgment.

The local Fraternal Order of Eagles placed the monument on the Gibson County courthouse lawn in 1956. Clearly, this generous gift to the community is not the equivalent of Congress passing a law to establish a national religion.

Mr. Chairman, here are the facts: Federal statute says, ``Except as otherwise provided by law or Rule of Procedure, the United States Marshals Service shall execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States . . . ''

Since this ruling by the Southern District Court in Indiana is not a lawful decision consistent with the Constitution, I will utilize Congress's article I, section 8 power of the purse to prevent any funding from being used by the U.S. Marshals Service to remove the Ten Commandments monument.

Mr. Chairman, the Founders of this great Nation foresaw the problem of courts imposing their own political views through their judgments and wrote about it.

In promoting the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78: ``Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary . . . is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power;

``The judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment . . . ''

Mr. Chairman, given the fact that the judiciary has neither force nor will, it is left to the executive and the legislative branches to exert that force and will.

Time and again I am sure that my fellow Members of Congress are asked about unconstitutional decisions made by the Federal courts, and many of us say there is nothing we can do. That answer is inconsistent with our Constitution and the vision of our Founders. We can do something.

And, Mr. Chairman, that is not only my opinion and the opinion of the framers of the Constitution and the authors of the Federalist Papers. It is also the opinion of a rather noted jurist by the name of John Marshall. Many in this body may recall that Mr. Marshall was actually Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. While he served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he had an occasion to correspond with an Associate Justice, Samuel Chase.

It seems that Justice Chase was the object of impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives for, among other things, suggesting that Federal judiciary could disregard the clear intent of the legislature when considering cases before his court.

Chief Justice Marshall asserted to Justice Chase that there was a superior mechanism for the legislature to consider over that of impeachment when the Congress disapproved of the opinion of the Federal judiciary. Marshal stated: ``I think the modern doctrine of impeachment should yield to an appellate jurisdiction in the legislature. A reversal of those legal opinions deemed unsound by the legislature would certainly better comport with the mildness of our character than would a removal of the judge who has rendered them unknowing of his fault.''

Marshall's Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, Albert Beveridge, observes of this assertion made by Marshall 11 months after Marbury v. Madison: ``Marshall thus suggested the most radical method for correcting judicial decisions ever advanced, before or since, by any man of the first class. Appeals from the Supreme Court to Congress. Senators and Representatives to be the final judges of any judicial decision with which a majority of the House was dissatisfied.''

Mr. Chairman, today is a great opportunity for us to exercise that very authority ``advanced'' by Chief Justice Marshall concerning the legislature vis-a-vis the judiciary.

After this vote, Mr. Chairman, our constituents will ask us, Congressman, do we have a voice in these most fundamental decisions, or are we condemned to wait on a new Supreme Court Justice who may or may not inject common sense into the judiciary's opinions?

And we will be able to tell them, Yes, you do have a say. The Constitution explicitly provides it. And venerated jurists such as John Marshall have ``advanced'' it.

This legislation is where we fund any executive agency that would enforce the Southern District Court of Indiana's judgment in this case. My amendment would prevent any funds within that act from being used to enforce the erroneous decision in Russelburg v. Gibson County, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There have been the terms ``subversive'' and ``subversion'' used a lot in the gentleman's remarks. I would simply like to point the gentleman to the very words of the individual he believed he was quoting from earlier in that the final word by Chief Justice Marshall, while he was Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is very clear. It may be considered by the gentleman from New York to be subversive, but it is quite clear. John Marshall said: ``I think the modern doctrine of impeachment should yield to an appellate jurisdiction in the legislature. A reversal of those legal opinions deemed unsound by the legislature would certainly better comport with the mildness of our character than would a removal of the judge who has rendered them unknowing of his fault.''

Let us today preserve the subversion of Chief Justice John Marshall and allow this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Offered By: Mr. Hostettler

Amendment No. 21: Page 108, after line 7, insert the

following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the combination of the three amendments I will offer today. It would supply funds for the shortfall of ICE agents, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, border patrol agents and detention beds that have not yet been funded by this Congress. This shortfall occurs as a result of the difference between authorized levels due to last year's National Intelligence Reform Act and a combination of this year's appropriations bills, this appropriations bill and the recently passed supplemental.

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is the agency tasked with enforcing immigration laws internally within the United States. It is critical that ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, receive the resources necessary to successfully complete its mission.

The 9/11 Commission recognized the great importance of adequately securing our Nation's borders against the potential threats. We must make up the shortfall in funding and provide funding for the additional 500 border patrol agents who have not yet been funded.

It is also critical that we have adequate detention bed space to house aliens that might otherwise never return for hearings or, worse, might commit crimes if not detained.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to fully fund critical parts of homeland security and the Bureau of Border Protection, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as detention beds.

Point of Order

Offered By: Mr. Hostettler

Amendment No. 3: Page 12, line 20, after the first dollar

amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $29,000,000)''.

Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $29,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hostettler

Amendment No. 4: Page 7, line 17, after the first dollar

amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $95,000,000)''.

Page 23, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $15,000,000)''.

Page 26, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $50,000,000)''.

Page 36, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $20,000,000)''.

Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hostettler

Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(decreased by $500,000)''.

Page 4, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $5,505,000)''.

Page 12, line 20, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $193,200,000)''.

Page 16, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $21,156,000)''.

Page 19, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $47,500,000)''.

Page 34, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $117,539,000)''.

Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hostettler

Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(decreased by $500,000)''.

Page 4, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $5,505,000)''.

Page 7, line 17, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $95,000,000)''.

Page 12, line 20, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $193,200,000)''.

Page 12, line 20, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $29,000,000)''.

Page 16, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $21,156,000)''.

Page 19, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $47,500,000)''.

Page 23, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $15,000,000)''.

Page 26, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $50,000,000)''.

Page 34, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $117,539,000)''.

Page 36, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $20,000,000)''.

Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $29,000,000)''.

Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.