manuscript, and may be part of the June 29 debate that led to Ellsworth's motion (ser MACLAY'S DIARY, supra note 36, at 91), in lines 118-20.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SPENCER BACHUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Thank you Chairman Cabot for holding this very important hearing today on "Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect Marriage for the States." I would also like to thank the witnesses for giving their time to be here today. You should know that this is an issue that is personally important to me, as well as many of my constituents.

The circumstances that we find ourselves in are occasioned by an increasingly intrusive and tyrannical judiciary, who through recent court decisions are redefining for all Americans the institution of marriage. These decisions demonstrate a judiciary out of touch with the intent of the Framers as well as the moral norms of society.

I believe that marriage is a sacred commitment between a man and a woman and that it is this commitment that is the foundation of all families. Children deserve to be raised and nurtured by parents who are spiritually devoted to one another. Recognizing that past government studies indicate that giving same-sex couples the same benefits as married heterosexual couples could cost the federal Treasury billions of dollars, it is important that we remember that the consequences of legally recognizing same-sex marriage extend beyond healthcare, insurance, pensions, and taxes. These consequences include: discouraging the rearing of children in two-parent biological families, the creation of fatherless or motherless families by design and the further erosion of an institution that has proved to be a crucial social stabilizer. The fact that these consequences may fall upon some of the most vulnerable members of society-our children-makes it incumbent upon us to act to preserve the institution of marriage which is dedicated to protecting them.

Congress, as an elected body of the people, has a duty to defend marriage against assaults by the judiciary. I will continue to work with my colleagues to prevent activist judges from standing our Constitution on its head.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. It has become increasingly clear in recent times that our federal judiciary no longer sees a line between itself and the legislature. From the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban decision in San Francisco, the courts are proving to us that they are sitting as super-legislatures, and challenging us to do something about it.

Our Founders created a system of checks and balances, in which each branch would keep the others in line and, in turn, be kept in line by the others. Thomas Jefferson discussed these checks and balances as they relate to the judiciary. In essence, he stated that, if the judiciary is always given the final say on constitutional issues, there is no one to check that power. This is why it is so important for the 535 Members of Congress, elected by the people, to reassert our power and perform our constitutional duties.

Whenever jurisdiction limitation is discussed, the argument that the judiciary is the final arbiter of the Constitution is sure to arise. It is time for this Congress to ask who gave the courts this right? The answer is the Supreme Court itself, in Marbury v. Madison. Over the last 200 years, however, the judiciary has continued to seize legislative powers, and the legislature has done little to stop that confiscation. I think the words of Thomas Jefferson sum this up best: "Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. [T]heir power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control." In other words, there is no reason to believe that the judiciary can be trusted more to ensure that our laws reflect our Constitution than the legislature. It is very likely that the status of the federal judiciary as unelected officials might allow judges to interject more of their personal beliefs into their decisions. The role of the Supreme Court is to determine whether laws are consistent with the Constitution of the United States. Legislators and the people who elect them get to decide if laws are unwise or unpopular, not judges and justices. It is our duty, on behalf of the American people, to rein in the federal judiciary and prevent them from usurping the role of elected legislatures. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

I should thank my Republican colleagues for one thing; for the first time, I truly understand the phrase "beating a dead horse." This is the fourth of five hearings on whether we should pass an amendment enshrining discrimination into the Constitution. All we have heard in this tedium is that right-wing conservatives really, really want a discriminatory amendment in the Constitution.

The fact is, though, that such an amendment does not have the two-thirds support it needs to pass in Congress. That begs the question of why we are even discussing it. To most Americans, the answer is clear: the Republican leadership wants to score political points with its right-wing base in an election year.

The point of this particular hearing is for Republicans to reiterate their opinion that federal judges do not share the values of mainstream Americans and thus should not hear cases involving same sex marriage. I think the word "reiterate" is important because whenever a federal court issues a ruling that conflicts with their conservative leanings, the Republicans try to strip federal courts from hearing similar cases. They did not like the Ten Commandments or Pledge of Allegiance decisions, so they introduced numerous bills to prevent federal courts from hearing cases on those two declarations. They also severely limited the ability of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus for state convictions.

What is confusing is that Republicans strongly favor federal court jurisdiction in other instances. Last year, they made it a federal offense for a doctor to comply with a woman's right to choose. In the 1980's, the Republicans clogged up federal courts with new drug prosecutions that were normally handled at the state level. For at least a decade, they have been trying to move all tort cases from state to federal

courts.

Finally, but for the highest federal court in the land overruling a state court and the will of the people, George W. Bush would not be the current occupant of the White House. I do not hear my conservative colleagues complaining about that instance of federal court overreaching.

My careful analysis of this matter shows that Republicans favor federal court jurisdiction when state courts and juries issue rulings that conservatives do not like. These areas generally include crime, torts, and presidential elections in which the Democratic candidate has won.