Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment from North Carolina and in support of the base bill that is being considered.

As I listen to the debate on this bill, I cannot help but remember the note written in the margin of the pastor's sermon where he reminds himself during a particularly questionable part of theology where he says, ``pound pulpit hard here; argument weak.'' And that is what we see here from the other side, a very weak argument, because the suggestion that is being made by several of the folks on the other side is something we are trying to do is unconstitutional.

In the markup of this bill in the Committee on the Judiciary, I was intrigued by the attempt by the other side to continue to ask Americans to leave the Constitution alone. A colleague of mine on the other side of the aisle repeatedly said, leave the Constitution alone. What he meant by that was, stop reading the Constitution. Because if you read the Constitution, you will find that in article III section 2 of the Constitution, you find the basis for the legislation, the policy that the gentleman from Missouri seeks to put into law.

In article III section 2, after referring to all of the types of cases that shall come under the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary, it says, ``In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all of the other cases before mentioned,'' all the other cases before mentioned, ``the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law, in fact, with such expects and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.''

The notion of an independent judiciary, and it has been quoted by several folks here, my statement in the markup, the notion of an independent judiciary fails the Constitution test. The simple fact is, the framers of the Constitution did not want an unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured body, namely, the judiciary, to be able to, by writ large, enact policy across the country when the people themselves would not have an obligation or an ability to reverse it. But they gave that authority in the Constitution to the people's representatives in the Congress.

The gentlewoman from California, the minority leader, requested that Members of the House of Representatives read the Federalist Papers, and especially Hamilton, to understand the importance of the Congress' role vis-a-vis the judiciary. And as she said that I was inspired to do just that thing, and I pulled out from Alexander Hamilton, 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. It 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 and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm, even for the efficacy of its judgments. That is, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its coordinate branches.''

Now, does that sound like an independent judiciary? I am not sure how radical, I have heard the word ``radical'' today, radical Alexander Hamilton was. But we do know that what Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, all of the founders, all of the framers of the Constitution wanted was to have these very important decisions, fundamental decisions about inculcating in our children the values of our families as being Americans, that they gave this opportunity, this ability to the people through their elected representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hayworth amendment.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, I convened a hearing on this issue of totalization with Mexico on September 11, 2003.

As a result of the troubling testimony received at that hearing, I asked the GAO to conduct a study on the possible effects of such an agreement. I wanted to make sure that any totalization agreement with Mexico does not drain tens or hundreds of billions of dollars out of the Social Security trust fund by paying benefits to aliens who are illegally present and working in the United States while at the same time we are fighting to keep the fund solvent to ensure benefits for American workers.

Unfortunately, we know now that the Social Security Administration did not use an accurate actuarial basis for the proposed totalization agreement with Mexico. They did not account for the estimated millions of illegal aliens residing in this country, nor did they account for reported widespread fraud by these illegal workers using Social Security numbers belonging to others and ``not for employment'' numbers.

The system cannot tolerate the burden of paying out to possibly millions of illegal workers. Protect the Social Security system and vote for the Hayworth amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and, obviously, in strong support of the underlying legislation.

I would like to bring us back to a discussion of the actual legislation that is being considered and a discussion initially of the constitutionality of that legislation.

We have heard lots of folks that have suggested that this legislation is in fact unconstitutional, and I think at the outset we need to remember the wisdom of a law school professor that testified before the United States Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and

Intellectual Property of the Committee of the Judiciary in 1997, that reminded us as Members of Congress and the country that when it comes to the teaching of constitutional law in our law schools, which we will hear a few of those folks who graduated from those law schools today on this very issue, the thing that you need to understand about constitutional law is it has virtually nothing to do with the Constitution.

And with that in mind, we will talk today about the constitutional law and what is ``constitutional or unconstitutional'' and then we will be talking about the Constitution.

I will be erring on the side of the actual Constitution and try to inform my colleagues of what the Constitution actually says with regards to, for example, separation of powers.

The notion of separation of powers is this: That the legislature has its powers limited and enumerated in the Constitution; the Article II branch, the executive has their powers, his powers in this particular case, limited and enumerated in the Constitution; and in Article III you have the very limited and enumerated powers of the judiciary in Article III, a much smaller article in text than Article II and Article I; and so you have that separation of powers.

It is interesting to note that in Article III, for example, it talks a lot about the powers vested in the Congress. Well, we will talk about that in just a moment but let us look at Article IV, Section 1 that talks about the power of Congress with regards to the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed in 1996.

This bill, the Marriage Protection Act, seeks to remove from the Federal courts jurisdiction concerning the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, why would we take that step? One reason is because we can and another reason is because we should. I will tell you why we can in a moment, and part of that is the fact that this power granted to Congress that is not granted to the judiciary, that is not granted to the executive, is so explicitly expounded in the Constitution in Article IV, Section 1.

It says, ``Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State, and the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.''

So in Article IV, Section 1 we see a power of the Congress. We do not see anything about the Supreme Court. We do not see anything about the President. That is power explicit and exclusive to Congress. And so in employment of that power, we passed the Defense of Marriage Act that said no State would have to give full faith and credit to a marriage license issued by another State if that marriage license was issued to a same sex couple.

We exercised the explicit and exclusive authority of Congress to, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which the effects of a marriage license and, for example, the State of Massachusetts, was to be felt in the State of, for example, Indiana, my home State. So we have that power.

Once again, nothing here says the courts, nothing here says the executive branch, and then when we move to the idea of can Congress take from the courts certain jurisdictions we have to ask ourselves, well, how does the Constitution grant the authority to create the courts? Well, we turn to Article I, Section 8 and it says, ``The Congress shall have power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court,'' and those are today known as the district courts and appeals courts. We have the power to constitute them, to make them up.

Then it goes on to say in Article I, Section 8 that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for caring into execution the foregoing powers, such as constituting the inferior tribunals, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.''

So we can create the Federal courts, we can by definition abolish the Federal courts. We do not seek to do that today, but we seek to make a law that will carry into execution that power of creating the courts, and that is to limit the jurisdiction.

We then turn to Article III, Section 1, and we hear once again in Article III, which is generally referred to as the judicial branch creation, and what does it say in Article III? It says, ``The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' Then it goes on to talk about the Supreme Court and the judicial capacity and jurisdiction of the court system.

It says in Article III, Section 2, ``In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned,'' and that is previous in Article III, Section 2, all those other cases, ``the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.''

So the United States Constitution is very clear. Congress has the authority to create the inferior Federal courts. Congress has the authority to make exceptions and regulations with regard to all of the appellate cases that come before the Supreme Court. Anyone that actually reads the Constitution and has a basic understanding of grammar and the English language in general can find that in fact the Constitution grants Congress the authority.

Now, the question is, so we can do this, the question remaining before us is this: Should Congress do this? That question was answered on Tuesday.

On Tuesday of this week a couple from Massachusetts, a lesbian couple who had been married in Massachusetts, removed themselves to the State of Florida and they entered into the Federal courts a complaint that Florida would not recognize their same sex marriage license conferred upon them.

This battle has been engaged. In fact, the attorney for the lesbian couple that wishes to demand an overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act said this, ``With the filing of this historic lawsuit today in the Federal court, Florida has become a battleground.''

Well, we want to snuff that battleground out today in Congress by claiming that the people of Florida should be able to determine the marriage laws of the people of Florida and not the State of Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the full committee, for yielding me this time.

In my discussion during the consideration of the rule, I informed the body of the constitutional basis for this law. I have several of the provisions beside me here, and for Members who are actually interested in what the Constitution says, that is available in the record as well as in several copies that are available to every Member's office.

However, I would like to address some of the issues talked about during this debate, and one of the issues that is a discussion of where we are with regard to other countries, it was suggested earlier, and we heard it in the last person's speech, that somehow we are doing as the Soviet Union has done in the past by limiting the ability for individuals to go before the court.

Well, the fact is that there was a mechanism in the Soviet Union very similar to the mechanism we have in this country, and it was referred to as the Politburo, and the Politburo was a very small entity of individuals that made policy for the hundreds of millions of individual citizens of the Soviet Union. We have that today in this country. We refer to it as the United States Supreme Court. As few as five people in black robes can look at a particular issue and determine for the rest of us, insinuate for the rest of us, that they are speaking for the majority when, in fact, they are not.

It is time with the passage of this legislation to say that we will have the people in the several States to determine their marriage laws, and we will not allow, for example, what is attempting to be done in the State of Florida, and that is a couple that was wed in the State of Massachusetts imposing their will on the rest of the country by overturning the Defense of Marriage Act.

This bill uses constitutional provisions to allow the States and to allow the citizens of the several States to determine the definition of marriage for themselves and to not allow another State and especially the Federal judiciary to determine the definition of marriage for them.

Mr. Chairman, eliminating these authorities, as this amendment would do, would mean that we can get library records for run- of-the-mill criminal investigations with a grand jury subpoena that does not require a court order or judicial review, and it would also mean that we would be eliminating or restricting section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, and that would preclude the government from getting the identical library records as the run-of-the-mill investigation I mentioned earlier to protect national security interests of the United States. This is at best inconsistent with regard to law enforcement.

Congress recognized this inconsistency and corrected it in the U.S. PATRIOT Act. For example, today by grand jury subpoena the government can obtain similar records, library or other business records, related to the crime of cattle rustling under Title 18 U.S.C. section 2316. But under this amendment we could not get identical records using a court order for terrorism-related information.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act only applies to the foreign intelligence investigations and allows only for the collection of records for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. This authority requires judicial review, whereas a grand jury subpoena for cattle rustling on the criminal side does not.

By exempting library records from the business records authority under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, this amendment creates a safe haven for terrorists to communicate and do research on the next attack that is not created for cattle rustlers.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Indiana's Eighth Congressional District, I rise not only to pay tribute to Ronald Wilson Reagan but to also thank him for a Commander in Chief we could always be proud of.

The most important role of any American President is that of Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces; and I, for one, do not need to wait for history to conclude that he was one of the greatest Commanders in Chief this Nation has ever had.

Last year, my son Matthew and I were honored to attend the commissioning of the newest U.S. Super Carrier, CVN-76. I could not think of a better namesake for CVN-76 than Ronald Wilson Reagan. The ship's motto is appropriately, ``Peace Through Strength.'' While he is rejoicing in heaven, the American people should feel comforted in knowing that his legacy lives on in a mighty U.S. warship that bears his name and will provide firepower for freedom for another 50 years.

So Communists and terrorists and other enemies of freedom, you have been forewarned. You have not heard the last from Ronald Reagan. And as he used to say when he was President, ``You can run, but you cannot hide.''

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may the prayers and thoughts of a loving free world comfort his wife, Nancy, and their children during their time of supreme sorrow and unimaginable loss.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my appreciation to Special Agent Rodney Miller of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service for his 32 years of service to his country, and to salute him on the occasion of his retirement from the ranks of federal law enforcement.

Special Agent Rod Miller was born and raised in Linton, Indiana, which is in the heart of Indiana's 8th Congressional District. The son of an Army veteran who was awarded the Purple Heart during World War II and who himself worked as a Navy employee for some 30 years thereafter, Rod spent time as a lifeguard and paperboy in Linton before graduating from Linton High School in 1966. He enrolled at Indiana State University in Terre Haute, and completed two years of study before enlisting in the U.S. Air Force in 1969. After a four-year stint in the Air Force, including over a year spent in Vietnam, Rod returned to Terre Haute and completed his undergraduate studies, earning a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminology in 1974. Shortly thereafter, he began coursework at the same school to obtain a Master of Science degree, also in Criminology.

In May 1975, Rod commenced what would become a long and illustrious career as a Special Agent with the Naval Investigative Service (NIS)-- the predecessor of today's Naval Criminal Investigative Service--at NIS Resident Agency Great Lakes. There he learned the basics of criminal investigation, and proved himself to be a talented and driven law enforcement professional.

In 1978, Rod opened a new NIS office in Crane, Indiana, where the Navy conducts some of its most important research, development, and engineering of surface ship combat systems. He also took this opportunity to conclude his studies at Indiana State University, finishing his thesis and earning his Master's degree in 1979.

Following his NIS service in his home state of Indiana, Rod was assigned to the NIS Resident Agency in Guam from 1980 to 1982. He demonstrated continued leadership and investigative acumen in Guam, where he received a meritorious award from the Drug Enforcement Administration for his role in a significant international drug smuggling investigation, and was made an honorary Police Officer with the Guam Department of Public Safety for the support he provided to that department. He was rewarded with a supervisory role at the NIS Resident Agency in Portsmouth, Virginia, where he was appointed to the position of Assistant Special Agent in Charge in 1982.

For the next 21 years, Rod served with distinction in supervisory roles at a host of critical Navy locations--from 1984 to 1985, as the Special Assistant to the NIS Regional Director in Norfolk; from 1985 to 1986, as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the fraud unit at NIS Resident Agency Norfolk; and from 1987 to 1988, as the first Special Agent in Charge of the new NIS Mid-Atlantic Regional Fraud Unit.

In 1988, Rod was appointed to be the first Special Agent in Charge of Operation Ill Wind, one of the most significant defense procurement fraud investigations in our nation's history. This joint investigation ultimately resulted in the conviction of 46 individuals and six defense corporations, and yielded fines and penalties in the amount of some $190 million.

Rod's professional success continued in the wake of his involvement in Operation III Wind. In 1989, he was appointed the Special Agent in Charge of the new NIS Regional Fraud Unit based in Los Angeles, California. And, when

the decision was made to open a new NIS Field Office in Los Angeles in 1992, Rod was the natural choice to be the first Special Agent in Charge there, as well.

In 1993, in the aftermath of the Tailhook investigation, the then- acting Secretary of the Navy disestablished the Naval Investigative Service and established the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) in its stead. This change, and the reforms associated with it, had profound and dramatic effects across the organization.

Among other developments, in 1997 NCIS created a new Office of Special Projects, or OSP, representing the vanguard of the agency's counterespionage efforts. The following year, Rod was named the Special Agent in Charge of OSP, and set about to make his impact felt. He applied his vision and leadership to the OSP mission, ultimately evolving the unit far beyond original expectations. In addition to enjoying success in several significant espionage cases, Rod's unit applied its specialized training to a broad range of other investigative and operational activities, including counterterrorism operations, counternarcotics initiatives, and ``cold case'' homicide efforts. The successes achieved in these endeavors have earned OSP accolades from across the law enforcement and counterintelligence communities.

Mr. Speaker, Rod Miller has served our nation with distinction for 32 years--first in the uniform of an Air Force airman, and then in the ranks of federal law enforcement with NCIS. His is a record to be admired. I hope that the occasion of Rod's retirement from NCIS this November will give all of us pause to consider the many contributions and sacrifices of our nation's law enforcement professionals. On behalf of all Americans, I wish him ``fair winds and following seas'' as he pursues the next stage in his life--returning to Linton with his wife of 34 years, to join his three children and three grandchildren there-- after a long, successful, and distinguished career in service to the United States of America.

I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I think the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), for her work on this legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize two points. First, employers participating in the pilot program find it of immense help in the day- to-day operations of their businesses. And, second, the pilot is working extraordinarily well and will only get better in the future.

The report commissioned by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, to evaluate the program found that ``an overwhelming majority of employers participating found the basic pilot program to be an effective and reliable tool for employment verification.'' Participating employers

appreciate the pilot because it reduces uncertainty. The pilot ensures that their operations will not be disrupted by the mass dismissal of employees after the Department of Homeland Security or the Social Security Administration question the status of their employees. The pilot ensures that they will not be put in the position of hiring illegal aliens, investing hundreds of thousands of hours in training them and then losing the benefit of this investment years down the road when they are forced to dismiss these illegal employees.

As Paul Weyrich has said in his support of this bill, ``If we are really serious about enforcing the immigration laws we have on the books, then we must provide the means for employers to quickly determine the validity of the documents with which they are presented. The way the pilot program works is simple and reflects plain common sense.''

The report indicated that the pilot program could be improved in a few areas. Some employers had taken adverse actions against new employees tentatively found ineligible to work. And INS databases had to be improved, especially in the context of adding data for persons recently issued a work authorization document and for new immigrants and refugees. However, remember that the report evaluated operations of the pilot in the 1990s. Since that time, INS and now the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, have been actively making any needed improvements. DHS believes that there has been ``an overwhelming improvement in the timeliness of data entry, particularly in response to the events of September 11.'' In fact, DHS now requires that all new data regarding immigrants be entered into the system within 3 days and all new information regarding temporary visitors be entered within 14 days.

As to employer responsibilities, DHS said that ``greater emphasis on pilot procedures has been added to training materials, and safeguards have been added to pilot software to increase compliance with required procedures. For instance, employers will be required to certify that they have talked with their employees and advised them of their rights if they cannot immediately be confirmed.'' Finally, DHS reports that the soon-to-be-implemented Internet-based version of the pilot will greatly reduce or eliminate any remaining problems.

S. 1685, the bill now under consideration, should ameliorate concerns about any lingering problems in the pilot program by delaying nationwide implementation until next December and requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue a report by June evaluating whether the problems identified by the 2001 report have been substantially resolved and describing what actions he needs to take before December 2004 in order to resolve them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 1685.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that our session today began with a prayer delivered by Bryce Anderson, pastor of the Church of the Living Word in Vincennes, Indiana.

It is a proud and longstanding part of our heritage that the work of Congress begins only after God's blessing and favor is sought, and I am proud that Pastor Anderson could participate in this historical duty.

In 1987, Pastor Anderson and his wife, Bobbie, established the Church of the Living Word as an outreach to their community. In his 16 years as pastor, Bryce has demonstrated the commitment and dedication that make him both a role model and spiritual leader in Knox County.

Bryce shares with the first Speaker of the House, Frederic Augustus Muhlenberg, the notion that service to God and public service go hand in hand. Like so many of our founders, Pastor Anderson believes the church has both a role and responsibility to be active in faith and in service to community and country.

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more.

Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize two points about the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. First, employers participating in the pilot program find it of immense help in the day-to-day operations of their businesses.

Second, despite some of what we have heard today already, the pilot is working extraordinarily well and will only get better in the future. The report commissioned by the INS to evaluate the program found that ``an overwhelming majority of employers participating found the basic pilot program to be an effective and reliable tool for employment verification.''

Participating employers appreciate the pilot because it reduces uncertainty. The pilot ensures that their operations will not be disrupted by the mass dismissal of employees after the Department of Homeland Security or the Social Security Administration questions the status of their employees. The pilot ensures that they will not be put in a position of hiring illegal aliens, investing hundreds or thousands of hours in training them, and then losing the benefits of this investment years down the road when they are forced to dismiss illegal aliens who were employees.

As Paul Weyrich has said in support of this bill, ``If we are really serious about enforcing the immigration laws we have on the books, then we must provide the means for employers to quickly determine the validity of the documents with which they are presented. The way the pilot program works is simple and reflects plain common sense.''

The report indicated that the pilot program could be improved in a few areas. Some employers had taken adverse actions against new employees tentatively found ineligible to work, and INS databases had to be improved, especially in the context of adding data for persons recently issued a work authorization document and for new immigrants and refugees. However, remember that the report evaluated operations of the pilot in the 1990s. Since that time, INS and now the Department of Homeland Security have been actively making any needed improvements. DHS believes there has been ``an overwhelming improvement in the timeliness of data entry, particularly in response to the events of September 11.''

In fact, DHS now requires that all new data regarding an immigrant be entered into the system within 3 days and all new information regarding temporary visitors be entered within 14 days. As to employer responsibilities, ``greater emphasis on pilot procedures has been added to training materials, and safeguards have been added to pilot software to increase compliance with required procedures. For instance, employers will be required to certify that they have talked with their employees and advised them of their rights if they cannot immediately be confirmed.''

Finally, DHS reports that the soon to be implemented Internet-based version of the pilot will greatly reduce or eliminate any remaining problems.

In only about 4 percent of total cases did new hires contact the Social Security Administration or INS to resolve problems with their work authorization status. Of those employees who did contact the government, 99 percent were found to be work-authorized. Thus, employees who carried out their obligations under the verification system, as it is today, were almost always found to be work-authorized. It is not the verification system's fault when a new hire is tentatively found ineligible to work, and then that new hire fails to contact the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland Security. It most likely means the employee does it because he or she knows they are ineligible.

Madam Speaker, all this bill does is give willing employers nationwide the voluntary opportunity to benefit from the pilot program just the way participating employers have been benefiting for the last 6 years. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2359.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, my colleague, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, in short, we are talking a lot today about values, a very ambiguous time, from time to time, but in fact, Mr. Chairman, with the blood, sweat and tears of our men and women in uniform, they have bought the freedom of the Iraqi people.

If the Iraqi people do not learn that one invaluable lesson of our American values, then we can throw hundreds of billions of dollars into the restructuring of their country. That is why I think the Pence amendment is a very logical, reasonable, rational approach to the funding of the reconstruction of that country.

I thank my colleague from Indiana for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues from the great State of Indiana in extending our thoughts and prayers to the family of Governor Frank O'Bannon during this difficult time. I have had opportunities to work with Governor O'Bannon over the last several years and have come away with several impressions. First, Frank was a public servant, committed to working tirelessly on behalf of Hoosiers from Michigan to the Ohio River. Second, when working with the Governor on issues such as the completion of Interstate 69 through Indiana, he proved himself to be a visionary and a leader, willing to address tough issues head- on, to do what is best for the entire State. Finally and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, Governor O'Bannon was in every circumstance a gentleman. In an era of declining civility, Frank stood out for his warmth, his comity and good humor.

I ask my colleagues today to lift the O'Bannon family up in your prayers that they might derive strength and joy from God even as they pass through these most difficult days. Mr. Speaker, I urge immediate passage of this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on June 26, 2002, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, a three-member panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a California school district's policy and practice of voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional claiming that the use of the phrase ``one nation, under God'' violates the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution. In February of this year, the Ninth Circuit, the full Ninth Circuit effectively upheld the decision of the three-judge panel.

Mr. Chairman, the founders of the United States set up a brilliant system of government consisting of three separate branches with unambiguous roles. The Congress legislates, the President executes, and the courts judge. However, as in any organization of institutions with potentially competing interests, one institution would be constructed to be the weakest. Alexander Hamilton made it very clear that the framers had relegated the judiciary to this distinction when he said in Federalist No. 78: ``It proves incontestably that the judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power and it proves that as from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its coordinate branches.''

Hamilton laid out how practically this so-called feebleness manifests itself under what he referred to as the ``plan of the convention,'' or what we call today the Constitution of the United States of America, when he said once again in Federalist No. 78: ``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, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments.''

As Hamilton pointed out, the legislative branch controls the purse strings of this government, and the plan of the Convention set that out in article 1, section 9, when the Constitution states: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law,'' which is the case for our being here today, Mr. Chairman.

When the legislative branch, that is, the Congress, believes the judicial branch to be in error, the Congress may refuse to fund actions to enforce the court's judgment by the executive branch agency that would execute those judgments or, in Hamilton's words, ``depend on the arm of the executive for the efficacy of its judgments.''

Specifically, the U.S. Marshals Service, an agency of the Department of Justice, executes and enforces all lawful writs, processes, and orders of the U.S. district courts, the U.S. courts of appeal, and the Court of International Trade, according to 28 U.S.C. 566(C), and I highlight that it enforces all lawful writs, orders, and processes.

I, Mr. Chairman, along with many of my fellow Members of Congress, believe the judgment in Newdow v. U.S. Congress to be in error. This was evidenced by the overwhelming support of H. Res. 132 on March 12, 2003. This resolution expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the Newdow ruling is inconsistent with the first amendment and should be overturned. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to the FY 2004 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues would say ``no'' to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and support my amendment to stop the enforcement of that ludicrous decision.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in Glassroth v. Moore, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution by placing a granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State judicial building in Montgomery, Alabama. In the court's words, ``The rule of law does require that every person obey judicial orders when all available means of appealing them have been exhausted.''

In this statement, Mr. Chairman, the court plainly shows that it believes itself to be the chief lawmaker whose orders become law. But, in fact, Mr. Chairman, this is inconsistent with both the Constitution and article I, section 8, and, in fact, Federal statute, which says that the United States Marshal Service shall execute ``all lawful writs, process, and orders of the U.S. district courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal and the Court of International Trade, 28 U.S.C. 566(c).

In reality, Mr. Chairman, the founders of this great Nation foresaw this problem and wrote about it. And when they developed our form of government, they said this, according to Alexander Hamilton 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, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in capacity to annoy or injure them.

``The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, 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, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.''

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.

We have heard tonight that the executive branch wants to argue the Newdow case that was spoken of earlier and may hear that the executive branch wants to argue in favor of the display of the 10 Commandments in that case. We will allow, therefore, the executive branch to leave these decisions in the hands of the judiciary who, a few years ago, concluded that sodomy can be regulated by the States, but most recently said that sodomy was just short of a fundamental right that is enshrined in our United States Constitution.

But the framers of the Constitution never intended for the fickle sentiments of as few as five people in black robes unelected and unaccountable to the people to have the power to make such fundamental decisions for society. That power was crafted and reserved for the legislature, and one of the mechanisms that was entrusted to us was the power of the purse.

Mr. Chairman, time and again I am sure that our colleagues are asked about ridiculous decisions made by the Federal courts, and many of us say that there is nothing we can do. Mr. Chairman, today, we can do something. We do not have to put our faith in the faint possibility that some day five people in black robes will wake up and see that they have usurped the authority to legislate and will constrain themselves from straying from their constitutional boundaries.

Mr. Chairman, it might be suggested that we do not want this legislation to disrupt the judicial process in the interim between the Circuit Court of Appeals process and the Supreme Court. It is not my intention to do that tonight. In fact, I welcome the highest Court's review of this decision; and I say tonight that if they get it wrong, I will exercise the power of the purse again and defund the enforcement of that inane decision.

Mr. Chairman, today is a great opportunity for us to learn the powers of the legislature vis-a-vis the judiciary. After this vote, Mr. Chairman, and the vote to defund the Ninth Circuit's decision to effectively remove the phrase ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance, sour constituents will ask us, Congressman, do we, your constituents, have a voice in these most fundamental decisions, and we do not need to wait on a new Supreme Court Justice who may or may not, today or tomorrow, inject common sense into the decisions of the Supreme Court?

Mr. Chairman, we will be able to tell them, Yes, you do have a fundamental say.

And it is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I have offered this amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Act. This legislation is where we find any funding in any executive agency that would enforce the 11th Circuit's judgment in this case. My amendment would prevent any funds within that act from being used to enforce that erroneous decision in Glassroth v. Moore. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just asked the gentleman to yield.

Is this in compliance with the Ten Commandments?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

This amendment establishes, Mr. Chairman, requirements that must be met by foreign governments in issuing consular identification cards in the United States and authorizes the Secretary of State to regulate the issuance of those documents.

In the last 2 years, foreign governments have issued more than 1.5 million consular cards in the United States. Recent testimony by the FBI before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, which I chair, highlights the need for such requirements. The FBI explained that the most commonly issued of these cards are vulnerable to fraud and forgery, posing both criminal threats and a potential terrorist threat. The requirements set forth in the amendment will address these flaws.

It is important to note that this amendment does not address the acceptance of these documents in the United States, nor does it prohibit their issuance so long as the foreign mission complies with the requirements of the amendment. Rather, it simply extends the Secretary of State's authority under the Foreign Missions Act to regulate consulates to include their issuance of consular ID cards.

Further, this amendment does not violate our responsibilities under the Vienna Convention. In light of these facts, I urge passage of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).

(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)