John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I just asked the gentleman to yield.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the FY 2004 Defense Appropriations Act that would prohibit any funds in this act from being used to carry out activities in 2004 related to the next round of Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, currently authorized to take place in 2005. The purpose is to put a hold on the implementation of BRAC-related activities until Congress and the Department of Defense can get a better handle on the expected savings, anticipated force structure and infrastructure changes, and the actual need for additional closures. As many of my colleagues know, in 2001, the Defense Department testified to Congress that it has 20 to 25 percent excess physical capacity that must be eliminated, so the President's fiscal 2002 budget proposal to Congress requested authorization to carry out another round of base closures. As part of the FY 2002 Defense Authorization Act, the Senate authorized a BRAC round to take place in 2005. The House specifically refused to include any such BRAC authorization in its version of the bill, but this body did agree to the Senate's BRAC provision when it passed the conference report to the FY 2002 authorization bill. To date, we have gone through four different rounds of military base closure process, in 1989, 1991, 1993, and 1995. Through these rounds, we saw the BRAC commission's result in the closing of over 450 military installations of various size, mission and stature in the United States. Nearly everyone currently involved in this process agrees that all the low-hanging fruit have already been picked. Yet the current administration succeeded in enacting another round for 2005 following the horrific events of September 11, 2001. On December 28, 2001, just a little more than 3 months after those deadly attacks, and 3 days after Christmas, the President signed into law the FY 2002 defense authorization bill, which included the BRAC authorization provision at his request. The administration seems to sincerely believe there is a 20 to 25 percent excess military infrastructure, and the administration has a laudable goal of finding additional savings in the defense budget to free up funds for procurement and new weapons systems. Specifically, the Department of Defense claims that it could save as much as $6.6 billion per year with an additional round of base closures. But there are many reasons to question both the Department's rationale and its estimates. First, this Congress deserves to know the details about the suggested excess capacity. Is it 20 percent? 25 percent? 23 percent? The 5 percent difference is not insignificant, particularly when you are talking about the hundreds of U.S. military bases. And where is that excess capacity exactly? Furthermore, DOD estimates that it eliminated 71,000 Federal civilian jobs and 39,800 military positions in the past four BRAC rounds. Unfortunately, no one could give me an estimate of how many of those jobs were transferred to private contractors still paid through DOD contracts. Eliminating military positions, only to replace them with private contractors, raises doubts about any potential savings. Regarding the estimated savings from additional base closures, I must advise the House of an April 2002 Government Accounting Office, GAO, report that indicates the previous four base closure rounds have produced a net savings of $16.7 billion through FY 2001. GAO, however, admits that these are the Defense Department's numbers and that they could not be independently verified because DOD's accounting systems are not oriented to identifying and tracking savings. GAO further noted that the estimates do not include a cumulative $1.5 billion cost incurred by the Federal Government to assist communities affected by the closure process or $3.5 billion in environmental costs expected beyond FY 2001. Because the BRAC savings estimates cannot be supported by real data, the GAO report had to affirm the DOD numbers, while characterizing the savings as ``imprecise and rough approximations.'' The Members of this body need to understand that when Defense Department officials talk about so-called savings from a BRAC round, they are not talking about real cost savings. Most of the so-called cost savings are actually cost avoidances. DOD also claims that it needs savings from BRAC to fund new weapons systems in support of the military transformation. However, the first few years of a BRAC round requires hundreds of millions of dollars in upfront investments costs. This includes upfront costs for new military construction, for relocated troops and families, new MILCON dollars for realigned missions, new money for environmental restoration and base conveyance procedures. To complicate the problem, DOD still does not have solid data on costs of environmental clean up. Our current information indicates that environmental clean-up costs have exceeded $10 billion, and the estimated environmental costs beyond 2001 rose from $2.4 billion in 1999 to $3.5 billion as stated in last year's GAO report on purported BRAC savings. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Ray DuBois, summed it up well when he told the DOD Roundtable in December 2002 the following: ``The excess capacity statistic, which the Secretary and others, including myself, have referred to, is based on a 1998 capacity utilization study. It is true that there is excess capacity in some range of 20 to 25 percent, but that is a clumsy number insofar as it is an aggregate number.'' He goes on to say: ``Remember that BRAC is not inexpensive. BRAC will probably end up costing the Department of Defense, over a 4- to 6-year period, depending upon how large the BRAC is, depending upon how much capacity you are reducing, and by definition, how much you are realigning it, it could cost 10 to $20 billion over that period of time.'' Mr. Chairman, I ask for my colleagues to support the amendment to limit the funding for BRAC in this appropriations bill.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This amendment inserts a so-called ``health exception'' in the ban. I hope my colleagues will realize that this substitute would completely destroy the ban on partial-birth abortions. The amendment relies upon an outrageously broad definition of health that would effectively allow the doctor to determine that any circumstance qualifies for a ``health exception.'' That means that a doctor could prescribe a partial-birth abortion because a mother is suffering from temporary depression or any number of other such circumstances. The mother's depression should be taken seriously and she should receive the best care possible, but snuffing out the life of her child is not a good cure for depression. In fact, partial-birth abortion has a great likelihood of being injurious to a woman's health--the doctor, while jabbing a pair of scissors into the child, could also stab the mother, as well. The Subcommittee on the Constitution held hearings on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban on March 25, and during that hearing, Dr. Mark Neerhof testified that hemorrhage, infection, and uterine perforation are all possible results of partial birth abortion. These women are put at greater risk of severe bleeding, uterine rupture, and death, as well. Women deserve better. Do not sell women short by making them pawns of abortion providers. It is not right to murder children--we should make strides to help these mothers without killing their children. Every child is precious in God's eyes, and we must learn to look at all children and their parents through God's eyes. I urge my colleagues to support the ban on partial-birth abortion, and to oppose the substitute.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, even though I generally do not support amending the Constitution, today I rise in strong support of this proposed constitutional amendment. We have come here today because five individuals in black robes have opined that we must tolerate flag desecration as protected speech. As a result of that opinion, 48 States and the District of Columbia have decided not to enforce their own laws prohibiting the desecration of the flag of the United States of America. Clearly, I believe the Supreme Court has it wrong. The flag is a unique symbol that merits our special recognition. The flag represents our freedom, our history, and our values as a Nation. In battles spanning 2 centuries in all corners of the globe, the flag has served as an inspiration and rallying point for U.S. soldiers fighting for the ideals it embodies. More than a million Americans have given their lives in defense of our flag and our unique way of life. Many of those who gave the last full measure of devotion in serving their Nation were honored with a flag draped over their caskets. This proposed amendment places the debate exactly where our framers intended for it to take place, in the town halls across America. It is the American people, not the Supreme Court, that have the ultimate responsibility to answer constitutional questions. And that is encouraging to me, Mr. Speaker, because as it was suggested earlier that we act today to amend the Constitution because of the vulgarization of society, I believe we are here actually today because of the facilitation of the vulgarization of society by the highest Court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States. Forty-nine State legislatures, including my home State of Indiana, have passed resolutions asking that Congress approve this amendment to the Constitution. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I find the words of the Pledge of Allegiance telling: ``I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.'' I would underscore that this simple phrase recited every morning in this very Chamber pledges our allegiance not only to the Republic but to the flag itself. Mr. Speaker, others will argue that the ideals of the flag are the only things that are worth protecting. I must respectfully disagree with their argument. The flag itself occupies a unique place in our Republic. It is the one symbol that merits our allegiance. Why do we continue to pledge our devotion and support to a flag if we are not willing to protect it from desecration? I urge my colleagues to support the proposed amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 975, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Commander Daniel F. Verheul, United States Navy. CDR Verheul has distinguished himself by exceptional service as the Defense Intelligence Agency's Liaison Officer to the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees from February 2000 to December 2002. Commander Verheul brought his wealth of tactical through strategic- level operations and operational experiences to bear in supporting the various defense committee's requirements for intelligence briefings and hearings. Some of these briefing and hearings involved intelligence support for the Iraqi resolution authorizing U.S. forces into combat, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, inquiries into the attack on the USS Cole, operations in the Balkans, Plan Colombia, ``Desert Fox'' attacks on Iraq, joint targeting and battle damage assessments for Operation Northern and Southern Watch, and organizing and coordinating a series of weekly classified intelligence briefs. Commander Verheul is an outstanding action officer whose promotion of intelligence capabilities at all levels gained support in the Congress for increased intelligence capabilities and resources. Through his initiative, he organized a myriad of one-on-one briefs to inform key Congressional Members and Staff, enabling them to gain a better understanding of world crises, global threats, weapons and technology proliferation, foreign military capabilities, and support for administration policies and objectives. Commander Verheul made numerous significant contributions to national-level military and civilian policymakers in support of funding and policy for intelligence operations and support activities. His contributions to the Congress, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Community are extensive and invaluable. His willingness to take on any task, and succeed, promoting camaraderie and purpose in every endeavor, reflects great credit upon himself, the Navy, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, and the United States Congress. In closing, I am proud to recognize CDR Verheul and his wife, LDCDR Karen Verheul, U.S. Navy, Nurse Corps for their honorable service to our Nation. I join my colleagues in the House today in wishing them and their children Daniel and Jenny continued success and the traditional naval wish of ``Fair winds and Following seas'' as they transfer to their next assignments on the West Coast.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, the history of our great nation is built upon the shoulders of strong and passionate individuals whose lives teach us about the spirit of America. George Rogers Clark was such a man--his brave leadership during the Revolutionary War was crucial to the American colonies' success against the British, especially in the battle for America's western frontier. George Rogers Clark was born 250 years ago on November 19, near Charlottesville, Virginia and was an industrious young man who embraced the frontier lifestyle of Virginia and Pennsylvania. Clark worked on his father's farm until he studied to become a surveyor at the age of 19. He was on the road to success as a surveyor until his work was interrupted by Lord Dunmore's War, a dispute between several Indian warriors and settlers along the frontier. Clark joined an expedition to apprehend the warriors who started the attack, and he proved to be an effective leader as the troops traveled across the countryside. During this skirmish, he became familiar with the different Indian tribes and learned their customs, and displayed his ability to think strategically. After Lord Dunmore's War, George Rogers Clark also made significant gains for America by increasing the territory of the colonies through western exploration and founding towns in the frontier region of Kentucky. Through diplomatic efforts and advocacy with the colonial government of Virginia, Clark helped to protect the colonists who moved to the frontier. He utilized his knowledge of Indian customs to negotiate trade with Indian tribes. George Rogers Clark's excellent leadership skills also helped to ensure America's victory against the British during the Revolutionary War. Clark led a small band of soldiers along the Mississippi and Wabash rivers, capturing British outposts along the way. And during the harsh winter of 1778-1779, George Rogers Clark led a daring attack in order to recapture the British Fort Sackville in Vincennes, Indiana. Clark only had 200 men with which to accomplish this seemingly impossible task. The British were well-armed and fortified with many troops, but Clark tricked the British into thinking that the colonial militia was large and formidable. On February 25, 1779, the British surrendered Fort Sackville to George Rogers Clark and his soldiers. Afterwards, the British were forced to pull vital resources from their war in the eastern colonies, and the Americans were able to gain a foothold against the British in the western frontier. But Clark's leadership did not stop with the recapture of the fort at Vincennes--he continued to ensure America's victory by helping to control unrest in the western regions of the colonies. Even after the Revolutionary War, this patriot continued to serve his country by offering leadership to his community. George Rogers Clark was one of the unique individuals who helped shape our nation and give America its spirit. I offer H. Con. Res. 499 not only to honor George Rogers Clark, but also to honor the Hoosier community who has not forgotten Clark's heroism and has kept his courageous spirit alive in Vincennes. As Clark said of the Revolutionary War, ``Our cause is just . . . our country will be grateful.'' And we in Indiana are truly grateful for what George Rogers Clark and other patriots did for our state and for our country.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for yielding me this time. Today the question before this body, Mr. Speaker, is not ``How shall we respond to the unprovoked attack by a foreign nation upon the United States or its fielded military forces abroad?'' We are not debating ``How will we respond to the menace of a political and/or cultural movement that is enveloping nations across the globe and is knocking on the door 90 miles off the coast of Florida?'' Nor, Mr. Speaker, are we discussing a response to an act of aggression by a dictator who has invaded his neighbor and has his sights on 40 percent of the world's oil reserves, an act that could plunge the American economy, so dependent on energy, into a deep spiral. Finally, Mr. Speaker, and this point must be made very clear, we are not discussing how America should respond to the acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001. That debate and vote was held over a year ago; and our men and women in uniform, led by our Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense, are winning the war on terrorism. It is with their blood, sweat, and tears that they are winning, for every one of us who will lay our heads down in peace this night, the right to wake up tomorrow, free. No, Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is ``Will the House of Representatives vote to initiate war on another sovereign nation?'' Article I, Section 8 of the governing document of this Republic, the United States Constitution, gives to Congress the power to provide for the common defense. It follows that Congress's power to declare war must be in keeping with the notion of providing for the common defense. Today, a novel case is being made that the best defense is a good offense. But is this the power that the Framers of the Constitution meant to pass down to their posterity when they sought to secure for us the blessings of liberty? Did they suggest that mothers and fathers would be required by this august body to give up sons and daughters because of the possibility of future aggression? Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit that they did not. As I was preparing these remarks, I was reminded of an entry on my desk calendar of April 19. It is an excerpt of the Boston Globe, Bicentennial Edition, March 9, 1975. It reads, ``At dawn on this morning, April 19, 1775, some 70 Minutemen were assembled on Lexington's green. All eyes kept returning to where the road from Boston opened onto the green; all ears strained to hear the drums and double-march of the approaching British Grenadiers. Waving to the drummer boy to cease his beat, the Minuteman Captain, John Parker, gave his fateful command: `Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want to have a war, let it begin here.'' ``Don't fire unless fired upon.'' It is a notion that is at least as old as St. Augustine's Just War thesis, and it finds agreement with the Minutemen and Framers of the Constitution. We should not turn our back today on millennia of wisdom by proposing to send America's beautiful sons and daughters into harm's way for what might be. We are told that Saddam Hussein might have a nuclear weapon; he might use a weapon of mass destruction against the United States or our interests overseas; or he might give such weapons to al Qaeda or another terrorist organization. But based on the best of our intelligence information, none of these things have happened. The evidence supporting what might be is tenuous, at best. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must conclude that Iraq indeed poses a threat, but it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a preemptive military strike at this time. Voting for this resolution not only would set an ominous precedent for using the administration's parameters to justify war against the remaining partners in the ``Axis of Evil,'' but such a vote for preemption would also set a standard which the rest of the world would seek to hold America to and which the rest of the world could justifiably follow. War should be waged by necessity, and I do not believe that such necessity is at hand at this time. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the resolution to approve force at this time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong support of the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act and commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for sponsoring this important piece of legislation. H.R. 2357 seeks to allow our churches and religious institutions to address the moral and political issues of the day, as they have for the first 300-plus years of America's history, without fear of the IRS imposing financial penalties or revoking their tax-exempt status altogether. This legislation frees our clergy to speak their consciences from the pulpit on all issues, even those which may stem from the political arena, without the chilling effect that the Tax Code has on our houses of worship. As the French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, observed in 1835 in his published accounts of life in American society: ``Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it.'' Our clergy and religious institutions have played a significant role in our Nation's political life from the earliest days of our Republic. A clear example can be found right here in the Capitol. The statue of Reverend John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg depicts him removing his clerical robes to reveal the uniform of a military officer following his farewell sermon to his Virginia congregation on January 21, 1776. From the pulpit Muhlenberg declared that ``there is a time to fight, and that time has now come.'' Reverend Muhlenberg's rousing sermon led 300 men from his congregation to join him that day in America's war for independence. Reverend Muhlenberg was not interested in the endorsement of a political candidate. He preached the overthrow of the government of the colonies. While this illustrates only one incident in our Nation's past, it still leads one to consider what the fabric of American society would look like today without our past clergymen and women denouncing the evils of tyranny, slavery, and segregation. H.R. 2357 simply attempts to return our houses of worship to the role they have historically held as an active participant in the political process, addressing the important issues of the day. This bill assures that those who hold to fundamental truths are not divorced from the arena of ideas simply because they happen to be standing behind a pulpit. I urge my colleagues to support the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First of all, I would like to commend the committee and the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee on this legislation for moving us in the right direction. I would like to point out, however, first of all, I am in support of the Thune-DeFazio-Nethercutt amendment and I would like to suggest why. As was stated earlier, that the underlying amendment makes a provision for 250 pilots to be trained, as such, if we use the lower number that was discussed earlier as to the total number of pilots that would be part of that overall pool, which would be 70,000 pilots, we are talking about training 0.4 percent of America's commercial pilots in this program. That would mean that 99.6 percent of pilots would not be trained. Therefore, a significant number and the overall majority of flights every single day would not be covered as a result of this training program. It was mentioned earlier that the road to destruction is paved with good intentions, and I would agree with that, and I would like to share with the Members of the House one of those noble intentions that was discussed with me by General Ralph Eberhart, the commander in chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command in a recent Committee on Armed Services hearing. I asked General Eberhart what happened on September 11 when it was determined that the fourth plane, Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, may in fact have been aiming to target our Nation's capital. I asked, what were the actions that NORAD had contemplated? General Eberhart stated the following: ``At that time, the authority was passed, if we believed that, in fact, it constituted a threat to people on the ground, that we could take action to shoot it down. ``The decision was made rather than to go out and try to meet this airplane to stay over New York City and Washington, D.C., in case, if we left it uncovered, there was another airplane coming. So had we seen it continue toward one of those metropolitan areas or we were sure it was going to another metropolitan area, be it Baltimore or whatever, we would have engaged the airplane and shot it down.'' He went on to say: ``Obviously, we're always hoping, and we do not want to do that until the last minute because we were hoping that, as those brave souls attempted, that maybe they regained control of the aircraft or that the skyjackers changed their mind. So we don't want to do this prematurely, and we want to see a hostile act, and we want to see it pose a threat. ``So we take this action after a lot of deliberation and to ensure that we have no other option. But we were prepared and we would have been able to shoot that aircraft down had we needed to.'' I then asked General Eberhart: ``General, there is still an action item that your command may be responsible for doing something similar to what was contemplated on September 11th, are you not? That is still a possibility?'' General Eberhart said, ``Regrettably, I'm afraid that's always going to be a possibility now. We redefined it on 9-11, and we now train for that. We've established the procedures for that. We exercise for that, hoping that that would never happen. But hope's not a good strategy.'' The road to destruction is, in fact, paved with good intentions. It is the intention of the North American Aerospace Defense Command to shoot down a commercial airliner, and they train for that if it is determined that that commercial airliner, if the pilots aboard have lost control of that airliner and that airliner is going to be used in a similar activity such as 9-11. I think it would be a good intention today of Congress to take us down another road, not a path to destruction, as is the case with scrambled F-16s armed with Sidewinder and Sparrow missiles, but rather, takes us down a path that allows the pilots in the cockpit, not 0.4 percent of pilots in the cockpit, but 100 percent of pilots in the cockpit, who volunteer to be the last line of defense for passengers traveling across the air these days. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the full House support the Thune-DeFazio amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.