John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to at this time state that the administration, as a result of the amendment to section 3032, has said that they favor the change in my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), majority whip.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is supported by leadership, including Chairman Henry Hyde, and will protect the American people from dangerous aliens while continuing our Nation's proud history of providing refuge to the innocent oppressed. This amendment will protect the American people in the same way as section 3032, which it replaces, would have. Section 3032 would have barred aliens who posed a threat to the American public from seeking our country's protection. The courts have created a need to defend the American public against such aliens. You see, the decisions of a few judges have turned what was a clear congressional mandate authorizing the detention of dangerous aliens who are facing removal into a confused and unworkable mess. Congress has authorized the Attorney General to detain all aliens who pose a risk to the community, including aliens granted protection under the Convention Against Torture, until they can be removed from the United States. The Supreme Court has read this provision, however, to find that any alien who has been ordered deported but who cannot be removed must be released, no matter how grave a danger the alien poses, unless some ``special circumstance'' makes the alien especially dangerous. Congress' clear standard has eroded to the point that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Department of Homeland Security authorities to release a dangerously insane alien who had accumulated convictions for assault, harassment and rape. Why? Because the Supreme Court had released a killer in the same circumstances, and the alien in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' case had not actually killed anyone. Under such logic, DHS cannot protect the public against an alien who has been granted torture convention protection and who therefore cannot be removed from the United States unless the alien has done something more serious than killing another person. This amendment will address the goals of section 3032 by giving the Secretary of Homeland Security the tools to keep dangerous aliens granted protection under the torture convention out of our communities, off of our streets, and away from our children. It will authorize the Secretary, in his unreviewable discretion, to detain aliens granted such protection who pose a risk to the American people. In addition, this amendment will continue our Nation's tradition of providing aliens the opportunity to request asylum and torture convention relief while at the same time ensuring that our country's generosity is not abused. It would also amend section 3007 to reinforce the current burdens governing asylum, with one exception. Aliens who claim that they need asylum because they have been accused in connection with terrorist, militant or guerilla activity must show that race, religion, membership in a particular social group, nationality or political opinion is a central reason for any claimed persecution. This amendment will protect innocent aliens who come to our shores fleeing thugs and dictators, while undoing an inappropriate burden imposed on our government by, once again, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Contrary to law and logic, the Ninth Circuit has required the government to prove that aliens claiming persecution because they have been tied to terrorism are not eligible for asylum, instead of requiring the aliens seeking protection to show that they are. My subcommittee has discovered that Hesham Hedayet, who killed two innocent bystanders at LAX on July 4, 2002, had tried to exploit this loophole. I must underscore again, however, the most important effect of this amendment which is to give the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to detain aliens who would pose a risk to the American people if released. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate on this amendment to 20 minutes, equally divided.

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and commend my colleague from Wisconsin for his work on this issue. Currently, terrorists and their supporters can be kept out of the United States, but as soon as they set foot in the U.S. on tourist visas, for example, we cannot deport them for many of the very same offenses. This hinders our ability to protect Americans from those alien terrorists who have infiltrated the United States. This amendment makes aliens deportable for terrorist-related offenses to the same extent that they would not be admitted in the first place to the United States. Another deficiency in current law is based on a flawed understanding of how terrorist organizations operate. The Immigration and Nationality Act now reads that if an alien provides funding or other material support to a terrorist organization, the alien can escape deportation if he can show that he did not know that the funds or support would further the organization's terrorist activity. That is, his donation did not immediately go to buying explosives. This notion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how terrorist organizations operate. As Kenneth McKune, former associate coordinator for counterterrorism at the State Department explained, ``Given the purposes, organizational structure and clandestine nature of foreign terrorist organizations, it is highly likely that any material support to these organizations will ultimately inure to the benefit of their criminal, terrorist functions, regardless of whether such support was ostensibly intended to support nonviolent, nonterrorist activities.'' Money given to terrorist organizations is fungible. Senator Dianne Feinstein has rightly stated that, ``I simply do not accept that so- called humanitarian works by terrorist groups can be kept separate from their other operations.'' I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Foley- Ackerman amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. This important amendment will close a longstanding gap that has allowed thousands of aliens who have tortured or otherwise abused the human rights of untold numbers in their home country to live in the United States. They are living here in our country the lives that many of their victims will never enjoy. As we continue our war on terror, we must do everything in our power to make sure that our Federal agencies have the tools they need to ensure our safety. The Foley-Ackerman amendment will take such a step. This amendment will keep our country safe by barring admission into the United States and authorizing the deportation of any foreigner who has committed acts of torture or other human rights abuses abroad. These criminals have committed some of the most atrocious acts ever imagined by mankind. We can no longer be a safe haven for those who seek to do us harm and have proven this by doing grave harm to others in the countries they have fled. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this very important amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, forty years is a long time to wait for anything But sometimes a dream deferred is all the sweeter when it finally comes true. Nobody knows that better than Dan Beery, a native of Oaktown, Indiana and a member of the U.S. Men's Elite Eight rowing team. It was Dan and his teammates who won the gold medal at the Olympic Games in Athens on Aug. 22. They set a world record when they did it. It had been 40 years since the U.S. won that Olympic event. Dan's story is an inspiration. He grew up in a small town in Indiana. He played football and basketball at North Knox High School. He began his college career at Vincennes University and eventually transferred to the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, where his life would be changed by a providential meeting. In 1997, Dan was playing a game of pickup basketball when the coach of the crew team walked by. The coach stopped and asked the six-foot-seven Hoosier to try out for the rowing team. Dan did and quickly showed potential. And while he became a good college rower, he failed to make the national team 5 years in a row. But Dan would not give up. He devoted himself to his training. He had the ardent support of his parents, Jim and Merry Beery, who still live in Oaktown, and his sisters, Meredith and Marsha. And the whole community rallied behind Dan with support and fundraisers. This small-town unity of spirit made a difference. When he returned to Knox County with his gold medal, Dan told a local newspaper that the one question people ask him the most is how he became an Olympic champion considering most in the sport are from Ivy League universities. ``My answer is how could I not?,'' Beery said. ``I came from a place with warm and loving people who supported me no matter what.'' Dan's determination paid off. He made the national team and in the 2002 World Championships won silver in the men's pair with coxswain event. At the 2003 World Championships, he won gold. Earlier this year, Dan was a member of the four-man crew that won gold at the 2004 World Cup in Lucerne, Switzerland. Following that success, he was moved into the eight for the Olympic games in Greece. It was that crew that surged early and won the first gold for the United States in four decades. His crew also included Jason Read, a volunteer firefighter who was at ground zero after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Mr. Speaker, Dan Beery is an inspiration to young people who dare to dream big dreams. He is the pride of his community. Dan embodies the American dream, where hard work and perseverence, combined with the encouragement and support of family and community, great things can be achieved. Dan himself says it best: ``Just because you're from a little town in Indiana doesn't mean you can't make it to the Olympics and win.''

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor those communities designated as All-America Cities, particularly the city of Evansville in my district. Evansville is to be commended and should take pride for being recognized by the National Civic League as an All-America City. Evansville, like all of southwest and west central Indiana, is a wonderful place to live, work and raise a family. The city has a rich heritage and its citizens hold dear Hoosier values like faith, family and hard work. The All-America City Award recognizes in Evansville an exemplary grass-roots community approach to problem-solving where community members, government businesses and nonprofit organizations work together to address critical local issues. The National Civic League recognized Evansville, Indiana, as a community that cooperatively tackles challenges and achieves results. The All-America City Award is America's original and most prestigious community recognition award. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and the other cosponsors of this resolution in commending Evansville and the other cities honored by the National Civic League.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Marriage is designed to be between a man and a woman, period. It is not for two women, nor for two men. It was for this reason that I authored the Marriage Protection Act, which passed in the House in July. Nevertheless, I cannot in good conscience support this amendment. I have two primary concerns. The first is the potential this amendment has to federalize domestic relations law, that is the law of families, parents, custody, etc., all of which are now handled in the States. Let me say at the outset that I am not among those who believe that marriage cannot be defined in our Constitution under principles of federalism. But I am deeply concerned that we may unintentionally be doing far more than simply defining marriage. By setting forth marriage in the Constitution will we also set forth the basis upon which some future Federal court claims the ability to enter into all forms of domestic relations law now reserved to the States? I say it is very plausible. In fact, I thought it so plausible that I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules this week to address this issue. My amendment would have added the following new section to all text: Nothing in this amendment grants any new legislative authority to the Congress of the United States or any new judicial power to the Supreme Court of the United States or any court created by Congress. This amendment was not made in order. Without some limitation, I fear a future where the entire realm of domestic relations law, be it marriage, divorce, child custody, paternity determination, adoption--you name it--will become fair game for a future Supreme Court. Without some limitation on Federal power to assume all family law, I simply cannot support the present text. The second problem with the current amendment arises out of my concern over the nature of marriage and what we are truly trying to protect in this amendment. The supporters of this amendment contend that they have three goals: prohibit same-sex marriage; stop courts from granting the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples; and, allow State legislatures to enact civil unions or domestic partnerships if they so desire. Regarding the second goal, that is prohibiting the courts from granting the incidents of marriage to unmarried couples, presumably those in civil unions or domestic partnerships, I contend that here they have simply failed. They have failed because in introducing H.J. Res. 106, they have only restricted the courts from improperly construing State or Federal constitutions. Unlike the original H.J. Res. 56, they have dropped the requirement that courts refrain from construing State or Federal law in the granting of the incidents of marriage to same-sex couples. Hence, under this amendment any court, for any reason short of a constitutional one, may simply grant the incidents of marriage to unmarried couples and this amendment will not stop them. At this point, one might say, shouldn't we match our amendment to that voted upon in the Senate in July? I say why? That amendment did not even obtain a majority of votes for cloture. My friends, it is dead. As I said, the authors of this Amendment had three goals concerning the incidents of marriage. The third goal was to allow, yes allow, the legislatures in the States to enact civil unions or domestic partnership laws. I ask those of you from California or Vermont what this Amendment does for you? The answer is nothing. Your domestic partner law in California and your civil union law in Vermont are unaffected. This Amendment may actually, by restricting the courts' ability to grant the incidents of marriage but remaining silent as to the legislatures, provide a constitutional basis for civil unions. I cannot support this result. I offered amendments to the Committee on Rules to address both these issues. Again, my amendments were not made in order. I have not yet addressed the first goal of this amendment, that is to protect marriage. I suppose that to the extent that marriage is not a mere word, I will concede that the authors met their goal. But is the goal sufficient? Let me conclude. Simply protecting the term ``marriage'' is not enough. Marriage by any name is marriage, whether we call it ``civil unions,'' ``domestic partnerships'' or any other label that may be conjured up. Marriage is too important to be only about semantics. We must also be cognizant that while we may today be talking about same-sex marriage, someday in the future we may be laying the groundwork for all marriage issues to become federal. I submit that given the makeup of the House this Amendment cannot pass. I suggest that if we really care about marriage, that we focus on the other constitutional tools that our founders gave to Congress. Let us remove the federal courts' jurisdiction in this area. Let us cut off the funding of the enforcement of unconstitutional decisions. All of these means are sufficient to control the judiciary. In fact, by specifically addressing the power of the courts to construe constitutions we are actually giving support to the myth that the courts are already the final arbiters of the constitutions. We must now allow this to happen. I respectfully urge my colleagues to consider what they are doing here today, including all of the ramifications of this Amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and commend him on his legislation that I am speaking in support of. Mr. Speaker, those of us who have the honor of serving in Congress are in good hands. In the Capitol, in our office buildings, for several blocks in each direction, we enjoy the protection of the Capitol Police, the Park Police, the Secret Service and the Metropolitan Police. Though they represent different law enforcement agencies, these officers all have one thing in common, they all carry guns. So why is it that residents of Washington, D.C. are forbidden from protecting their families in this same fashion? The D.C. police, though hardworking, do not have the resources to set up a perimeter around neighborhoods the way they do for us. In reality, D.C. police usually respond after a crime has been committed. Yet D.C. residents are forbidden by law from defending themselves. As many residents of Indiana and Virginia and Texas and Florida and Vermont know, a firearm is an effective deterrent against crime. Even the threat of a firearm can frighten off a criminal. John Pena, born, raised and currently living with his family in southeast Washington, D.C., about 13 blocks from here, was at home recovering from eye surgery a couple of years ago when he heard a noise downstairs. Despite his severely blurred vision, he investigated and found a burglar in his living room. Mr. Pena is a Navy veteran and served in Vietnam, but he was in no condition to confront this criminal. So thinking quickly, Mr. Pena called upstairs to his retired father, ``Dad, get the gun.'' Mr. Pena was bluffing and I do not want to suggest that he had then or has today a firearm in his residence. But at the mention of a gun, the thief turned and ran out the back door in such a hurry he neglected to open the storm door, cutting himself as he crashed through it. Mr. Speaker, we feel secure here on the Capitol grounds knowing we are protected by men and women with guns. Tens of thousands of my constituents in Indiana also keep their families safe with the presence of a gun. It seems to me that a criminal's dream would be a city where law-abiding citizens are disarmed. Preventing these law-abiding citizens, our fellow Americans of Washington, D.C., from enjoying the same protections the rest of us enjoy is unsafe and unfair.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Is this in compliance with the Ten Commandments?