[Pages H1976-H1981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SENSE OF HOUSE THAT NEWDOW V. UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND
SHOULD BE OVERTURNED

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree
to the resolution (H. Res. 132) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in
Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme
Court's interpretation of the first amendment and should be overturned,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 132

Whereas on June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, in Newdow v. United States Congress (292 F.3d 597;
9th Cir. 2002) (Newdow I), held that the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag as currently written to include the phrase, ``one
Nation, under God'', unconstitutionally endorses religion,
that such phrase was added to the pledge in 1954 only to
advance religion in violation of the establishment clause,
and that the recitation of the pledge in public schools at
the start of every school day coerces students who choose not
to recite the pledge into participating in a religious
exercise in violation of the establishment clause of the
first amendment;
Whereas on February 28, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals amended its ruling in this case, and held (in Newdow
II) that a California public school district's policy of
opening each school day with the voluntary recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ``impermissibly coerces a
religious act'' on the part of those students who choose not
to recite the pledge and thus violates the establishment
clause of the first amendment;
Whereas the ninth circuit's ruling in Newdow II contradicts
the clear implication of the holdings in various Supreme
Court cases, and the spirit of numerous other Supreme Court
cases in which members of the Court have explicitly stated,
that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag is consistent with the first amendment;
Whereas the phrase, ``one Nation, under God'', as included
in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, reflects the notion
that the Nation's founding was largely motivated by and
inspired by the Founding Fathers' religious beliefs;
Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag is not a
prayer or statement of religious faith, and its recitation is
not a religious exercise, but rather, it is a patriotic
exercise in which one expresses support for the United States
and pledges allegiance to the flag, the principles for which
the flag stands, and the Nation;
Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes the right
of those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the pledge
or who do not wish to pledge allegiance to the flag to
refrain from its recitation;
Whereas the effect of the ninth circuit's ruling in Newdow
II will prohibit the recitation of the pledge at every public
school in 9 states, schooling over 9.6 million students, and
could lead to the prohibition of, or severe restrictions on,
other voluntary speech containing religious references in
these classrooms;
Whereas rather than promoting neutrality on the question of
religious belief, this decision requires public school
districts to adopt a preference against speech containing
religious references;
Whereas the constitutionality of the voluntary recitation
by public school students of numerous historical and founding
documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address, has been placed
into serious doubt by the ninth circuit's decision in Newdow
II;
Whereas the ninth circuit's interpretation of the first
amendment in Newdow II is clearly inconsistent with the
Founders' vision of the establishment clause and the free
exercise clause of the first amendment, Supreme Court
precedent interpreting the first amendment, and any
reasonable interpretation of the first amendment;
Whereas this decision places the ninth circuit in direct
conflict with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which, in
Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District (980 F.2d
437; 7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy
allowing for the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag in public schools does not violate the
establishment clause of the first amendment;
Whereas Congress has consistently supported the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag by starting each session with its
recitation;
Whereas the House of Representatives reaffirmed support for
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in the 107th Congress by
adopting House Resolution 459 on June 26, 2002, by a vote of
416-3; and
Whereas the Senate reaffirmed support for the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag in the 107th Congress by adopting
Senate Resolution 292 on June 26, 2002, by a vote of 99-0:
Now, therefore, be it

[[Page H1977]]

Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that--
(1) the phrase ``one Nation, under God,'' in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag reflects that religious faith was
central to the Founding Fathers and thus to the founding of
the Nation;
(2) the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag,
including the phrase, ``one Nation, under God,'' is a
patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or
belief;
(3) the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' should remain in
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the practice of
voluntarily reciting the pledge in public school classrooms
should not only continue but should be encouraged by the
policies of Congress, the various States, municipalities, and
public school officials;
(4) despite being the school district where the legal
challenge to the pledge originated, the Elk Grove Unified
School District in Elk Grove, California, should be
recognized and commended for their continued support of the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag;
(5) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v.
United States Congress has created a split among the circuit
courts, and is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the first amendment, which indicates that
the voluntary recitation of the pledge and similar patriotic
expressions is consistent with the first amendment;
(6) the Attorney General should appeal the ruling in Newdow
v. United States Congress, and the Supreme Court should
review this ruling in order to correct this constitutionally
infirm and historically incorrect holding; and
(7) the President should nominate and the Senate should
confirm Federal circuit court judges who interpret the
Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).

General Leave

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 132.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we will consider House Resolution 132, which
expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals' recent ruling in Newdow v. United States
Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the
first amendment and urges the Attorney General to appeal its decision.
We are here today because the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit continues to get it wrong.
On February 28, 2003, as our country continued preparations for what
is now an impending war to defend the values upon which our great
Nation is founded, the Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case of
Newdow v. U.S. Congress. In Newdow, a three-judge panel of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the voluntary, voluntary recitation
of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students violates the
first amendment because it includes the phrase ``one Nation under
God.'' In addition, on February 28, the three-judge panel amended its
June 2002 ruling and held that the Elk Grove, California, school
district policy of opening each school day with the voluntary
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ``impermissibly
coerces a religious act'' on the part of those students who choose not
to recite the Pledge and, thus, violates the Establishment Clause of
the first amendment.
This second preposterous ruling by the most-often reversed appellate
court in the Nation impels us to come to the House floor again to voice
our profound disagreement. House Resolution 132 expresses the sense of
the House that the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' should remain in
the Pledge of Allegiance and that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling in Newdow v. U.S. Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme
Court's interpretation of the first amendment.
It also urges the Attorney General of the United States to repeal the
Ninth Circuit's ruling and urges the President to nominate and the
Senate to confirm Federal circuit court judges who will interpret the
Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text. House Resolution
132 also encourages school districts across the Nation to continue
reciting the Pledge daily and praises the Elk Grove School District for
its defense of the Pledge of Allegiance against this specious
constitutional challenge.
Since the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer nor a statement of
religious faith, the recitation of the Pledge is not a religious
exercise. Rather, it is a patriotic exercise in which one expresses
support for the United States of America and pledges allegiance to the
flag, the principles for which the flag stands, and to the Nation. To
conclude otherwise is to ignore clear precedent from the Supreme Court.
If this latest ruling is allowed to stand, schoolchildren at every
public school in nine States, a total of 9,600,000 students, will be
prohibited from reciting the pledge. Furthermore, the constitutionality
of the voluntary recitation by public school students of numerous
historical and founding documents such as the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address has been
placed into serious doubt. When one considers how this decision
distorts Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the importance of
appointing judges who will interpret the Constitution consistent with
its text becomes clear.
Congress has consistently supported the Pledge of Allegiance by
starting each session of the House with its recitation. The House
reaffirmed its support for the Pledge when, on June 27, 2002, it
adopted House Resolution 459, which I introduced, by a vote of 416 to
three. The House should do the same with House Resolution 132 today.
I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor of this measure, and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1145

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, judges certainly should not be immune from criticism. I
mean, healthy debate on the merits of judicial decisions is an
important feature of our democracy. But there is a difference between
legitimate criticism and overt pressure that threatens judicial
independence.
Like all Americans, Members of Congress are free to criticize
judicial decisions with which we disagree. Our collective voice should
be heard on matters of profound constitutional significance as we, too,
are guardians of the Constitution. In fact, I joined most of my
colleagues in voting for a resolution during the last Congress that was
referenced by the chairman that expressed disapproval of this very
decision on the Pledge of Allegiance and urged that it be overturned.
However, I intend to vote present on this current resolution because
it does not stop at expressing disapproval; it goes further, in a way
that I believe would set an unwise and dangerous precedent.
It is one thing to urge the judicial branch to use the normal process
of appellate review to correct an erroneous decision. It is quite
another to imply that judges who issue unpopular decisions in
particular cases are unfit for office.
Unfortunately, that is what H.R. 132 does. It not only expresses
disapproval of the court's reasoning in the Newdow case, but it states
that the President should nominate and the Senate should confirm
Federal circuit court judges who interpret the Constitution consistent
with the Constitution's text.
By linking future nominations to a particular ruling with which the
proponents disagree, the resolution sends a not-so-subtle message to
sitting judges, and in particular to potential nominees, that they had
better tailor their constitutional views to those of the congressional
majority if they wish to be confirmed. That, I submit, goes far beyond
our appropriate constitutional role.
The Framers of the Constitution recognized that an independent
judicial branch is an essential guarantor of liberty in any democracy.
To understand this, one need only observe those nations with a weak
judiciary that is subservient to the political branches. Invariably
such nations are democracies in name only. Those who profess fidelity
to the Constitution must take

[[Page H1978]]

great care not to chip away at the independence of the judiciary on
which our liberty depends. For that reason, this resolution ought to be
rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, our Nation was founded on the idea of
freedom of religion, the freedom to believe, the freedom to pray, the
freedom to worship any time, anywhere. Today more than ever the people
of our Nation need to have faith, a religion, a belief.
James Madison stated in 1825 that ``The belief in God All Powerful,
wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to
the happiness of man that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn
from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the
different characters and capacities impressed with it.''
I believe Madison's statement is accurate, and we as a people should
maintain this strong sense of values. We in Congress should do our part
by protecting what our forefathers built this Nation on. We should do
that today by passing H.R. 132.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I
rise in opposition because it is wrong in its principles, it is wrong
on the stated findings, it is wrong on its facts. Let me just go
through them.
First of all, people may very well, everybody has the freedom to
disagree with a court decision. All of us have the right to get up and
say that. I do not think it is the role of Congress to say that a court
decision is wrong. If we disagree as a body with a court decision, then
pass a law if it is a question of statutory interpretation, or propose
a constitutional amendment if it is a question of constitutional
interpretation. That is our role.
The role of the judiciary is, to quote Chief Justice Marshall, to say
what the law is. They say what the law is, and we say what the law
should be. It is not our role to tell the court it is wrong; it is our
role to change the law if we think so. To pass a resolution which has
no power except perhaps the power to intimidate judges is wrong and a
violation of our constitutional role.
Secondly, this states as fact that recitation of the Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag, including the phrase ``one Nation under God,''
is a patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or
belief. It certainly is a patriotic act, but it certainly is a
statement of religious faith and belief when you say ``one Nation under
God.''
The only way you can get around that conclusion is to say, as the
dissenting opinion in the court said, that the phrase ``under God'' is
minor, it is de minimis, it does not mean anything. But that is a
sacrilege. Since when is God minor? Are we really going to say in this
Chamber that God is minor; that belief in God is a minor question, so
minor as to not to be worthy of notice?
That is the only ground on which we could say that asking
schoolchildren, in the context of a group recitation of a pledge in a
classroom, is not a prayer and an affirmation of belief and a religious
conviction. To say that God is minor and ``under God'' means nothing, I
do not think we want to say that. I certainly hope we do not want to
say that. Yet, if we say it means something, then the Pledge of
Allegiance with that phrase in it is a statement of a religious belief,
or at least a statement of a belief in God.
There are religions in this country, Shintoism, Hinduism, that do not
believe in one God. There are people who are atheists. It is factually
a wrong statement. It says, as a statement of fact, that the court's
ruling in this case is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the first amendment. That is demonstrably wrong, and
the Supreme Court will say so.
First, the Supreme Court for the last 40 years in its jurisprudence
on school prayers has said that we cannot ask schoolchildren to recite
a prayer or a belief in God in the classroom setting, even if we allow
the dissenters to walk out of the room; but that is exactly what asking
them to say the Pledge of Allegiance with that phrase ``under God'' is.
It is exactly consistent with the Supreme Court's last 40 years of
jurisprudence and rulings on the school prayer cases. It is, in effect,
the school prayer, that as long as you ask schoolchildren to say ``one
Nation under God.'' It has all the same pros and cons; and many
disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions, but those were its
decisions.
In the name of religious liberty, in the name of the separation of
powers, in the name of religion, to say that God is not minor, we ought
not to pass this resolution and let the Supreme Court uphold or
overturn the Court of Appeals decision in Newdow. After that we can
worry about a constitutional amendment, which I would propose, and some
Members may want to propose. But at this point it is not our function
to be correcting a court.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 132
expressing the sense of the House that the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with
the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment.
It is clear that the ninth circuit's amended Newdow ruling
contradicts any reasonable interpretation of the first amendment. In a
long line of cases, the Supreme Court has interpreted the establishment
clause as prohibiting not only compelled participation in religious
activity in public schools, but even voluntary religious devotional
activity if, under the circumstances, children feel coerced to
participate.
These cases, however, were based upon the fact that the activity at
issue involved compelled participation in prayers and devotional
exercises, as in the cases of School District of Abington Township v.
Schemp and Engle v. Vitale; or the practice of graduation prayers at
issue in Lee v. Weisman.
In fact, the questionable activity in these cases occurred either
just before or just after the recitation of the Pledge. In its review
of these cases, however, the court not only failed to question the
practice of the voluntary recitation of the Pledge by schoolchildren,
but instead explicitly limited its holding to the prayer or devotional
exercise.
To have applied these cases to the facts in the Newdow case was
incorrect because the Pledge is clearly not a religious statement or
prayer; thus, its recitation is not a religious exercise. It is a
historical fact that our Nation's founding principles were based upon
the Founding Fathers' deeply held religious views. The Pledge of
Allegiance simply refers to this fact.
The reasoning and holding of the ninth circuit in Newdow turns
historical fact, as well as Supreme Court precedent, on its head.
Either the judges were incapable or were unwilling to make this
distinction.
Those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge or those
who do not wish to pledge allegiance to the flag have a right to
refrain from its recitation. This was recognized by the Supreme Court
in the 1943 case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett, in
which the mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was held
unconstitutional under the first amendment's free speech clause.
Indeed, it is a cornerstone of the religious faith that the Founding
Fathers held dear that no man can force another to say or believe that
which their conscience will not allow. I would hope that no court would
issue a ruling that tramples upon this right. However, the ninth
circuit in Newdow simply ignored Supreme Court precedent and
essentially gave those who do not wish to recite the Pledge, and who
possess the right to refrain from reciting the Pledge, a heckler's veto
over those who do wish to recite the Pledge.
This ruling also places the ninth circuit in direct conflict with the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which, in Sherman v. Community
Consolidated School District, held that a school district's policy
allowing for the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in
public schools does not violate the establishment clause of the first
amendment.

[[Page H1979]]

I believe that this clearly incorrect first amendment interpretation,
as well as the split in the circuits created by the Newdow ruling,
warrants an appeal by the Attorney General and Supreme Court review.
I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution so, during this time
of international conflict in which our young men and women may be hours
away from going to war to fight for those values based upon which our
Founding Fathers gave birth to this very Nation, our youngest
Americans, our children, may pledge their allegiance to those same
values.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that has a long tradition in
supporting religious freedom. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson who
wrote the Virginia statute for religious freedom which precedes the
first amendment to our Constitution.
House Resolution 132 is totally gratuitous, as it will do nothing to
change the underlying law. This is because we are dealing with
constitutional issues that cannot be altered by resolution. If the
judicial branch ultimately finds the Pledge or the motto to be
constitutional, then nothing needs to be done; on the other hand, if
the Court ultimately finds it to be unconstitutional, then no law that
we pass can change that.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the reasoning of the majority opinion in the
case was sound. In the case, the appellate court applied three
different tests which have been applied in the last 50 years in Supreme
Court jurisprudence in evaluating establishment clause cases. One test
was whether the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge constitutes an
endorsement of religion. The majority opinion says that it was an
endorsement of one view of religion, monotheism, and therefore was an
unconstitutional endorsement.

{time} 1200

Another test was whether individuals were coerced into being exposed
to a religious message, and the majority concluded that the Pledge was
unconstitutional because young children who are compelled to attend
school ``may not be placed in the dilemma of either participating in a
religious ceremony or protesting.''
Finally, the court applied the Lemon test, part of which holds that a
law violates the Establishment Clause if it has no secular or
nonreligious purpose. For example, cases involving a moment of public
silence in public schools, some of those laws have been upheld if the
law allows silent prayer as one of many activities which can be done in
silence; but courts have stricken laws in which a moment of silent
prayer is added to existing moments of silence because that law has no
secular purpose.
The court concluded, if the 1954 law, which added ``under God'' to
the existing Pledge, had no secular purpose, it was, therefore,
unconstitutional.
It is interesting to note the reasoning of the dissent in the Newdow
case. The important operative language in the dissent was the
following: ``Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all
is said and done, the danger that `under God' in our Pledge of
Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress someone's
belief is so minuscule to be de minimis. The danger that the phrase
represents to our first amendment's freedoms is picayune at best.''
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our actions in enacting H. Res. 132 may
cause the courts to review the sentiments behind ``one Nation, under
God'' because, if the courts look at the importance we apparently affix
to the phrase by passing yet another resolution before the judicial
branch has even entered final judgment, this attention diminishes the
argument that the phrase has de minimis meaning and increases the
constitutional vulnerability of the use of that phrase in the Pledge.
While one Federal appeals court rejected a call to rehear the
controversial ruling that struck down the recitation of the Pledge due
to its religious content, the fact remains that this issue is still
alive and well; and every resolution we pass chips away at the de
minimis argument.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the court may look at this very resolution,
understand the Lemon test, and find that today's exercise has no
secular purpose and, therefore, adds to the constitutional
vulnerability of the Pledge.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to quote from an editorial that appeared in the
Christian Century, a nondenominational Protestant weekly, puts this
matter in perspective: ``To the extent `under God' has real religious
meaning, then it is unconstitutional. The phrase is constitutional to
the extent that it is religiously innocuous. Given that choice, I side
with the Ninth Circuit. The government should not link religion and
patriotism.''
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I believe we should reject this
resolution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Ose), who represents the area that includes the
Elk Grove Unified School District, which is the district from which
this case arose.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently
declared it is unconstitutional to say the Pledge of Allegiance, our
national recitation and proclamation of patriotism. This ruling is an
attack on the history of our Nation and on the display of our patriotic
pride.
On Friday, February 28, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld its ruling on Newdow v. U.S. Congress. In its decision, the
court declared the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' to infringe on the
Establishment Clause of the first amendment and is therefore
unconstitutional to recite within our public schools. This issue hits
especially close to home because Newdow v. U.S. Congress originated in
the Elk Grove Unified School District, which is located in my district
in California.
I would like to recognize the school district for its participation
in defending our right to say the Pledge. As the party named in the
lawsuit, they have shouldered the burden and the cost for standing up
for our community and our Nation. Elk Grove Unified has not waivered in
their support of the Pledge of Allegiance and remains an example of
true patriotism.
In response to the court's ruling, I authored this resolution
reaffirming that the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety is
appropriate and calling upon the Supreme Court to review this ruling in
order to correct this infirm and historically incorrect decision. The
Ninth Circuit is quite plainly wrong and has failed to represent the
values of the people of California and the United States of America.
The origin of this phrase is rumored to have come from a speech
delivered on a cold fall day in the aftermath of the one of the
bloodiest battles in American history. On November 19, 1863, President
Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg Address while overlooking the
massive graves of the soldiers who died there during that famous battle
and said the following:
``It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task
remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased
devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of
devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have
died in vain, that this Nation, under God shall have a new birth of
freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the
people shall not perish from the Earth.''
Mr. Speaker, there is no better time than today, given the
circumstances of our efforts to protect our homeland, that we rise to
honor the men and women of the military and reaffirm our patriotism to
this great Nation across all generations.
I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and his
staff for their assistance on this resolution, for bringing it to the
floor in such a timely manner, and I urge Members to support the
resolution.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), particularly for the
leadership that he has given on a number of

[[Page H1980]]

key issues dealing with the distinctive responsibilities of the three
branches of government. H. Res. 132 challenges that interrelatedness
and the constitutional structure of the judiciary, the executive, and
the legislature. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to quarrel with that
because as Members of Congress we are designated to represent the
people of the United States and to come to voice those expressions. We
do so in a tool called a resolution, congressional resolutions. This
happens to be H. Res. 132.
Just as I am going to enthusiastically vote for the armed services
tax relief that was just recently debated on the floor of the House,
gratified of course that it has been eliminated from the baggage of
gambling extras, benefits that were given to gamblers, I am likewise
going to vote for H. Res. 132.
Mr. Speaker, let me share with you I believe an analysis that for
some may hold water. The first amendment guarantees freedom of
expression and freedom of religion. To date now this Pledge of
Allegiance is a voluntary act that Americans choose to do, voluntarily
in places of worship, voluntarily in this Congress, voluntarily in
schools; and it should remain that. There is language in here to
suggest that we encourage schools to do so. I want the Congressional
Record to reflect that this is voluntary and no one should be forced to
say the Pledge.
But if you do say the Pledge, then I believe out of your freedom of
expression and freedom of religion you have every right to say ``under
God.'' And for those who desire not to say it, they have every right
not to say it.
Equally, I would argue with the proponent legislative listing of
irrelevant aspects of this resolution, and that is to suggest that
there may be, as we discussed in the Committee on the Judiciary, some
litmus test for judges. The President should nominate and the Senate
should confirm Federal circuit court judges who interpret the
Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text. An interesting
benign statement maybe, but irrelevant. Because the courts will do as
they desire to do because that is an independent, free branch of
government that we should reflect.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, as we are taking up H. Res. 132, I
filed the first day H. Con. Res. 2, to repeal the Iraqi resolution, so
that this Congress would not be deadly silent on the question of war. I
intend to file today a resolution that will restate the constitutional
premise that this Congress has the sole authority to debate the
question of war.
It is interesting how my colleagues are selective in what resolutions
can come to the floor, constitutional questions, commentary on the acts
of other branches of governments. And I believe if we are to be fair
and honest in this House, if we are to be truly the people's House,
just as I can come to the floor and support this resolution because I
believe the first amendment protects it, and I proudly pledge
allegiance to the Flag with the language ``under God'' even though we
have separate branches of government, it seems patently, if you will,
disingenuous, and as well hypocritical, for us not to be able to debate
questions, constitutional questions that deal with the issue of war.
Not that we will be all of one mind. I respect that, Mr. Speaker,
because this is a democracy. But certainly as the Prime Minister of
England can go to the Parliament on this very somber question, then we
can too, Mr. Speaker. We can unshackle ourselves from the fear of
disagreeing with each other, and lo and behold we can unshackle
ourselves from any commentary that anyone who opposes the particular
option that has been chosen, I believe, should be the last option of
war is in any way unpatriotic or is in any way not supporting the brave
young men and women in the front lines allowing us to be here today.
We know that we are facing troubling times, and we will do it united
as a Nation. But it speaks little of what we are fighting for if we
cannot come again to the floor of the House and express either our
support or our opposition to the question of the option of war being
the only option.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, there are many options. There is a third
option that we can engage in from putting troops at the front lines,
U.N. inspections and indicting Saddam Hussein. But as I rise to support
H. Res. 132, let me say, Mr. Speaker, I do it proudly; but I also ask
this House to be able to debate a question that will deal with the
lives of young men and women and it will be a question of life or death
and war or peace.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) to get back to debating the Pledge
of Allegiance and the Newdow ruling.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this
resolution and in support of the Pledge of Allegiance.
I believe children in schools across America should start their day
in the same way we do here on the floor of the United States House of
Representatives, by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Speaker, the Ninth Circuit's decision is outrageous and has set a
dangerous precedent that we cannot allow to continue nationwide. I know
of no better way to educate our children about the beliefs we stand for
in this great Nation of ours than with the Pledge of Allegiance. The
Pledge is an important way of educating our children about the value of
patriotism, democracy, a reminder that we are one Nation under God.
That is why I believe we need to keep the Pledge in our schools, and as
my constituents in Oklahoma would say, keep the judges who do not value
the Pledge out of our courts.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents are dumbfounded and angered by the Ninth
Circuit's actions. That is why I have introduced legislation
immediately after the court's original ruling last year that would
amend the U.S. Constitution to protect the right of schools to lead
willing students in the recitation of the Pledge. I have reintroduced
my Pledge of Allegiance Protection Amendment in this Congress; and
while I know, I believe in my heart that the U.S. Supreme Court will
overturn this foolish ruling, I urge my colleagues' support for its
passage if the Supreme Court upholds the Ninth Circuit Court's
atrocious decision.
Mr. Speaker, again, I support this resolution in support of the
Pledge.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

{time} 1215

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution
132. This legislation expresses that the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals' ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance is inconsistent with
the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment.
The Pledge of Allegiance brings together people of different
backgrounds in a shared expression of support for our country. Before
the start of business in the House of Representatives, my colleagues
and I proudly recite the Pledge of Allegiance, just as I proudly said
it before every school board meeting back home in my hometown of
Rogers, Arkansas.
Our pledge to support our country and the beliefs on which it was
founded is an important part of our everyday life. Every time an
American turns to the flag to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, they are
reminded of all that has been sacrificed in the name of our country and
for our freedom.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit outraged people
across the country by ruling the phrase ``one Nation under God'' makes
the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. It is unbelievable that a
Federal court would rule that the Pledge of Allegiance violates our
first amendment.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps now more than ever the need for the unity in
America exists. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for
bringing this legislation before us, and I urge my colleagues to vote
in favor of House Resolution 132.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in an arrogant stunt, last
summer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Pledge of
Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, stating that
it ``impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely
religious question of the existence and identity of God,'' and places
children in the ``untenable position of choosing between participating
in an exercise with religious content or protesting.'' This is an
obvious instance of political correctness taken to an absurd extreme.

[[Page H1981]]

This court clearly shows that it is out of step with the will of the
American people, the U.S. Congress, and traditional American values.
Religious expression is the fundamental basis of our freedom in this
country. At the earliest moment in this nation's history, the pilgrims
signed The Mayflower Compact that declared that the voyage across the
Atlantic was taken ``for the Glory of God'' and still today, the Ten
Commandments are publicly displayed in the National Archives. In this
Nation we have ``In God We Trust'' on our money, and each day the House
of Representatives starts its day be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
We will continue to do so despite the folly of the 9th Circuit Court.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to revise
and extend my remarks and submit them into the Congressional Record.
I rise in support of H. Res. 132. Fellow Members, in this time of
war, I think it is more important than ever to be able to express our
patriotic and religious views together in unity and solemnity. The
Pledge of Allegiance is a beautiful manifest of the feelings of
Americans. We are a religious people. We always have been. America has
been such since our inception. Granted, we are a people of diverse
religious backgrounds, but being able to express our faith in public
without fear of government condemnation or censure is without a doubt,
the reason why you and I are standing here today. The desire for
religious liberty was what brought the first groups of Americans to our
country hundreds of years ago to build this shining ``city upon a
hill.''
Members, I stand in support of the Pledge of Allegiance as did this
great body on Flag Day 1954 when the words ``Under God'' were added. As
President Eisenhower, who supported this change, so eloquently stated,
``In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith
in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly
strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's
most powerful resource in peace and war.'' Eisenhower's words could not
be more accurate or more timely. Americans' religious beliefs reach to
the core of our being. It is in both times of uncertainty and turmoil,
prosperity and blessing that we cling to our beliefs for direction,
comfort, guidance and peace. To deny Americans the right to stand
together and say the Pledge of Allegiance is to deny the spirit behind
the Mayflower Compact, Patrick Henry's great Liberty Speech, the
Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and all of the
other documents that serve as a mission statement of our people.
Members, in this time of war I urge you to support H. Res. 132 to
defend the Pledge of Allegiance as a fitting and constitutional written
expression for all Americans.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res.
132, a resolution that expresses Congress's disapproval of the recent
9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held that a public school's
policy of opening each school day with the voluntary recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance impermissibly coerced a religious act.
A State sponsored religion is unconstitutional, but there is nothing
in our founding documents that requires the removal of every reference
to God from the public square. Most Americans can make this
distinction, which explains the public outcry to the 9th Circuit's
misguided decisions.
The faith of our founding fathers was central to the establishment of
our Nation and there are references to God in countless public forums.
The Declaration of Independence declares that ``all men are Created
equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.'' The
Supreme Court begins each session with the blessing ``God save the
United States and this honorable court.'' Congress opens each day with
a prayer, through which we seek divine guidance for the tasks before
us. Our currency bears the slogan ``In God We Trust.''
The Pledge of Allegiance is an important affirmation of both our
country's faith and patriotism. With our Nation on the brink of war, we
must be vigilant in guarding against efforts to strip away the
tradition and powerful public expressions of these key values. Instead,
we should emphasize our shared heritage, our commitment to freedom, and
our rich tradition of national humility before the ultimate author of
our liberty. I urge each of my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Res.
132.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and am
prepared to yield back if the gentleman from Massachusetts will do the
same.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution, H. Res. 132.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________