[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 88 (Thursday, June 27, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6225-S6228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TO REAFFIRM THE REFERENCE TO ONE NATION UNDER GOD IN THE PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of S. 2690.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The bill (S. 2690) to reaffirm the reference to ``One
Nation Under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. At 3:20 this afternoon we will vote on a piece of
legislation I introduced to reaffirm Congress' commitment to the Pledge
of Allegiance and our national motto ``In God we trust.'' I hope my
colleagues will join me in this reaffirmation. Many already have.
I ask unanimous consent the list of 32 Senators as original
cosponsors be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Original Cosponsors of S. 2690
Mr. Sessions, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Burns, Ms.
Collins, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhoff.
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roberts, Mr. DeWine, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Shelby, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Voinovich.
Mr. Phil Gramm, Mr. George Allen, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Bob
Smith, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lugar.
Mr. Bond, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Craig, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Crapo,
Mr. Brownback, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Zell Miller.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yesterday's decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Newdow v. U.S. Congress was, in a word, outrageous. It is
inexplicable that this man so seriously objected to his daughter having
to listen and watch others recite the pledge at their school. Keep in
mind, in this country no one can be forced to recite the Pledge of
Allegiance. It is simply a matter of respect.
It is appalling that this court took the time and judicial resources
to resuscitate this case which the district court had already dismissed
for failing to state a claim. This complaint was a mess. The plaintiff,
Dr. Newdow, who represented himself, asked a Federal court to order the
President to change a law. The court took great pains to find a claim
in Mr. Newdow's complaint and then to rule in his favor.
He did this at a time when Federal judicial resources are very
strained. The Nation is trying to function in the speedy manner
required by the sixth amendment, with 89 judicial vacancies, a
staggering number, representing 10 percent of the Federal judiciary.
According to the Judicial Conference, in the past three decades, a
U.S. Courts of Appeals judges' average caseload increased by nearly 200
percent. In light of these strained resources, it is appalling to me
that the court took time to resuscitate this very flawed case.
[[Page S6226]]
The Pledge of Allegiance plays a very important part in the
citizenship experience of every American. It is part of the patriotic
thread that weaves us all together in times of crisis and times of
celebration.
If the ninth circuit's interpretation of the establishment clause
stands, many national ceremonies and celebrations will be negatively
impacted. Singing of songs with references to God on government
property will be prohibited. For example, songs such as ``Star Spangled
Banner,'' ``God Bless America,'' and ``America the Beautiful,'' which
Americans sing every Fourth of July on the steps of this building. But
such references are not just important in ties of celebration. On
September 11 we stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang ``God Bless
America.'' Countless Americans uttered the phrase ``God Bless America''
and prayed together in public spaces. This ruling could prohibit that.
Judge Ferdinand Fernandez wisely dissented from this decision. His
words have been quoted before. He said it beautifully. Such phrases as
``In God we trust'' or ``under God'' have no tendency to establish a
religion in this country or to suppress anyone's exercise or
nonexercise of religion. He went on, in eloquent terms, and defends his
dissent.
I believe this ruling will be soundly rejected. I was so pleased that
yesterday the majority leader and the minority leader moved the Senate
very quickly in expressing its disapproval immediately following the
ruling yesterday. The Ninth Circuit is not unfamiliar with going out on
a limb, and the Supreme Court is not unfamiliar with striking it down.
This circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country.
There is certainly nothing wrong with pushing the envelope and using
an original interpretation on novel issues of law, but this court
repeatedly makes rulings which countervail standing precedent. Instead
of administering justice, it seems some judges in the ninth circuit are
far more interested in making social policy statements. It is not what
the Constitution asks them to do and it is not what the American people
pay them for.
The first amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law
establishing a religion. Coming as they did from a land with an
established religion where those of other faiths were not well
tolerated, they set the highest value on freedom of religion. But they
were not advocating freedom from religion.
By passing this legislation today the Senate will make clear that we
understand the Founders' intention. We will reiterate our support for
the Pledge of Allegiance as codified and our national motto, ``In God
we trust.''
Finally, I commend the Judiciary Committee today in voting out the
nomination of Lavenski Smith to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Lavenski Smith, who is from the State of Arkansas will make an
outstanding jurist on the Federal bench. He is supremely well qualified
as a former member of the Arkansas Supreme Court. He understands the
proper role of the judiciary.
I applaud the committee's unanimous vote today. I believe if we did
not have the vacancies on the Federal bench to the extent that we now
have them, the decision from the Ninth Circuit would not have occurred.
In Judge Smith's confirmation hearings last month, he expressed his
unshakable respect for an adherence to precedent. He said even when it
goes against his personal beliefs, he would follow precedence. Clearly,
we need people like Lavenski Smith on the bench.
I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee has taken this step. I am
also pleased that the Senate will, today, make clear to the Federal
judiciary, our reaffirmation of our Pledge of Allegiance and our
national motto ``In God we trust.''
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Zell Miller be added as an original cosponsor on the bill on which we
are about to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to speak in support of
the legislation proposed by Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas. I am a
cosponsor and helped draft this legislation. I would say this: This is
not an itty-bitty issue. This is a big issue. The Congress and States
and cities have been expressing a desire to have, and be allowed to
have, an expression of faith in the public life of America. The courts
have been on a trend for decades now to constrict that.
The opinion out of the Ninth Circuit is not as aberrational as some
would think. The Supreme Court, in my view, has been inconsistent and
unclear. It has cracked down on some very small instances of public
expression of faith. Our courts have made decisions such as
constraining a valedictorian's address at a high school. Certainly our
prayer in schools has been rigorously constricted or eliminated in any
kind of normal classroom setting, as has the prayer at football games.
I will just say we hope the courts will reconsider some of their
interpretations of the establishment clause and the free exercise
clause of the first amendment and help heal the hurt in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 3:20 has arrived.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I wish to announce this will be a final
rollcall vote of the day and the week. Our next rollcall vote will
occur Tuesday morning following the July Fourth recess. Senators should
be on notice that we will have a vote that morning and votes throughout
the day and the week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 166 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Helms
The bill (S. 2690) was passed, as follows:
[[Page S6227]]
S. 2690
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores
of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that
declared: ``Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the
advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and
country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern
parts of Virginia,''.
(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after
appealing to the ``Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God'' to
justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared:
``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness''.
(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the
Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third
President, in his work titled ``Notes on the State of
Virginia'' wrote: ``God who gave us life gave us liberty. And
can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of
the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That
they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that
his justice cannot sleep forever.''.
(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the
Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the
delegates and declared: ``If to please the people we offer
what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our
work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the
honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!''.
(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the
Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress
of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance,
providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of
the Ohio River, which declared: ``Religion, morality, and
knowledge, being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall forever be encouraged.''.
(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously
approved a resolution calling on President George Washington
to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of
the United States by declaring, ``a day of public
thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging,
with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God,
especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to
establish a constitution of government for their safety and
happiness.''.
(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln
delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle
and declared: ``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.''.
(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306
(1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused
from public schools for religious observances and education,
Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated:
``The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every
and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and
State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific
ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or
dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the
matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to
each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.
Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes.
Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or
fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped
parishioners into their places of worship would violate the
Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals
to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the
proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me
God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references
to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public
rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First
Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object
to the supplication with which the Court opens each session:
`God save the United States and this Honorable Court.' ''.
(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed and President
Eisenhower signed into law a statute amending the Pledge of
Allegiance to read: ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America and to the Republic for which it
stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.''.
(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the
national motto of the United States is ``In God We Trust'',
and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the
Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and on the currency of the United States.
(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp,
374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which compulsory school prayer was
held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan,
concurring in the decision, stated: ``But untutored devotion
to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or
approval of results which partake not simply of that
noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which
the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive
devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active,
hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not
compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are
prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or
should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast
portion of our people believe in and worship God and that
many of our legal, political, and personal values derive
historically from religious teachings. Government must
inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and,
indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may
require that it do so.''.
(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668
(1984), in which a city government's display of a nativity
scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger,
writing for the Court, stated: ``There is an unbroken history
of official acknowledgment by all three branches of
government of the role of religion in American life from at
least 1789. . . [E]xamples of reference to our religious
heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national
motto `In God We Trust' (36 U.S.C. 186), which Congress and
the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C.
5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language `One Nation under
God', as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American
flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public
school children--and adults--every year... Art galleries
supported by public revenues display religious paintings of
the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one
religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington,
maintained with Government support, for example, has long
exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the
Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the
Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with
explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in
which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated
with a notable and permanent--not seasonal--symbol of
religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long
provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and
meditation.''.
(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38
(1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for
meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional,
Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing
the contention that the Court's holding would render the
Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress
amended it in 1954 to add the words ``under God,'' stated
``In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge, as
codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of
religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing
public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'
''.
(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of
Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community
Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir.
1992), held that a school district's policy for voluntary
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words
``under God'' was constitutional.
(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in
Newdow v. U.S. Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the
Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference
``under God'' violates the First Amendment to the
Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy
and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the
Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the
Constitution's use of the express religious reference ``Year
of our Lord'' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to
the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's
policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of
the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.
SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
(a) Reaffirmation.--Section 4 of title 4, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of
delivery
``The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: `I pledge
allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and
to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.', should be
rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the
right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at
the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in
uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the
military salute.''.
(b) Codification.--In codifying this subsection, the Office
of the Law Revision Council shall make no change in section
4, title 4, United States Code, but shall show in the
[[Page S6228]]
historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress
reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Pledge
for decades.
SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.
(a) Reaffirmation.--Section 302 of title 36, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 302. National motto
`` `In God we trust' is the national motto.''.
(b) Codification.--In codifying this subsection, the Office
of the Law Revision Council shall make no change in section
302, title 36, United States Code, but shall show in the
historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress
reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Motto
for decades.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________