The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, the issue in this amendment has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. It has nothing to do with whether the Ten Commandments, or a sculpture of them, I assume, should be removed from wherever it is in Indiana. The issue in this amendment is should Congress prohibit the enforcement of a decree of a Federal court. There is nothing more fundamental to the rule of law in this country that once a Federal court issues a decision, sometimes it may be appealable, but once there is a final court order, that is the law.

Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison 200 years ago, and I know that the gentleman from Indiana stated he thinks that case was wrongly decided, and he is entitled to his opinion, but it is the foundation of law in this country that it is emphatically the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is.

If Congress wants to change the law, that is our prerogative. If we want to begin the process of amending the Constitution, that is our prerogative. But in terms of interpreting what the law is, what the Constitution commands, what the law passed pursuant to the Constitution says, that is the job of the courts. To fail to enforce court orders, to arrogate to this body the right to say that we do not like a particular decision, we do not agree with the court's interpretation of the Constitution, we do not agree with the court's interpretation of a law that we passed, therefore they may not enforce the law, is to say that we are no longer a Nation of laws. It is to say that we are no longer a Nation governed by a Constitution.

   This amendment is subversive in the extreme. If we can adopt this amendment saying that we shall not enforce the decision ``no funds herein appropriated may be used to enforce the decision of the court,'' in this particular instance in the Southern District of Indiana, then we can pass a bill that says we shall not enforce a decision of the court that says so and so may not go to jail or so and so must go to jail or anything else.

No Member of this House who believes in the rule of law should vote for this amendment. The subject matter on which it is specifically aimed, the particular decision of the court, is not relevant. When President Eisenhower was faced in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 with a question of sending in U.S. marshals to enforce the decree of the court in desegregating Little Rock High School, he did not approve of that decision. His biographers tell us he was not happy with it. But he sent in the U.S. marshals because the law, as decreed by the courts, as passed by Congress, as interpreted by the courts, must be enforced.

If that is not the case, if the court's determination of what the law is is not the final arbiter, which we had that once in our history, then the final arbiter becomes the cannons and the guns. The rule of law must be supreme in this country.

During the Clinton impeachment, we heard from the other side of the aisle about the rule of law. We disagreed with the rule of law dictated, but here there can be no question. The court orders must be enforced, and anyone who says that we shall not spend money to enforce a court order because I do not like that particular court order or we do not agree with that particular court order is subversive of liberty, subversive of the Constitution, subversive of every human right, and subversive of the very notion of American liberty and democracy.

This amendment should not be agreed to.

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

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) has 30 seconds remaining and he has the right to close.

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

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) will be postponed.