[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 130 (Monday, October 7, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7028-H7030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REAFFIRMING REFERENCE TO ONE NATION UNDER GOD IN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
Senate bill (S. 2690) to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God
in the Pledge of Allegiance, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
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 that was clearly
consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of
the United States, that amended 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.
[[Page H7029]]
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 any non-religious 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 Counsel shall show in the 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 Counsel 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) 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 S. 2690, the Senate
bill currently under consideration.
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, Senate 2690 would amend section 4 of title 4 of the U.S.
Code to reaffirm the text of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the
phrase, ``one Nation under God,'' and section 302 of title 36 to
reaffirm the text of the national motto, ``In God we trust.''
It is an accepted legal principle that government acknowledgment of
the religious heritage of the United States is consistent with the
meaning of the establishment clause of the first amendment. The U.S.
Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this principle in its rulings.
Yet, on June 26, 2002, a three-member panel of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held unconstitutional, in Newdow
v. U.S. Congress, a California school district's policy and practice of
teacher-led voluntarily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance,
concluding that the use of the phrase ``one Nation under God'' violates
the establishment clause of the first amendment.
The Newdow ruling is troubling because its analysis to reflect a
belief that any religious reference presents an inherent danger to
individuals who hear it, the result of which would be the banishment of
all such references from the public arena. Clearly, this is
inconsistent with any reasonable interpretation of the establishment
clause of the first amendment. Thus, it has become necessary for
Congress to reaffirm its understanding that the text of both the Pledge
and our national motto are legally and historically consistent with a
reasonable interpretation of the first amendment.
Immediately following the Newdow ruling, on June 27, 2002, the House
of Representatives passed House Resolution 459, which I introduced,
expressing the sense of the House that the Newdow case was erroneously
decided by the Ninth Circuit and that the court should agree to rehear
the ruling en banc. H. Res. 459 passed the House of Representatives by
a 416-3 vote.
By passing Senate 2690, the House will join the Senate in reaffirming
its commitment to our Nation's pledge and motto and also reaffirm that
the myriad of ways in which Federal, State and local governments
acknowledge America's religious heritage and its consistency with both
historical practice and legal precedent.
I urge Members to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that has a long tradition in
supporting religious freedom. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson of
Virginia who wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which
precedes the first amendment of the Constitution.
Today's exercise is totally gratuitous, as nothing we do here will
change the underlying law. This is because we are dealing with
constitutional issues that cannot be altered by statute. If the
Judicial branch ultimately finds the Pledge or the national motto to be
constitutional, then nothing needs to be done. If, on the other hand,
the courts ultimately find either to be unconstitutional, no law that
we pass will change that.
Although I tend to agree with the dissent in the Newdow case
regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, I believe the reasoning of the
majority opinion in that case was sound. In that case the Supreme Court
applied three different tests that have been applied in the last 50
years in evaluating the establishment clause cases.
One test was whether the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge
constitutes an endorsement of religion. The majority opinion says it
was an endorsement of one view of religion, monotheism and, therefore,
was an unconstitutional endorsement.
Another test was whether the individuals were coerced into being
exposed to the religious message, and the majority opinion concluded
that the Pledge was unconstitutional because young children ``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 silence
in public schools, some of those laws have been upheld if the law
allows silent prayer as one of the many activities that 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 that the 1954 law which added ``under God'' to
the existing Pledge had no secular purpose and, therefore, was
unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I tended to agree with the dissent in
the case. The operative language in the dissent which persuaded me was,
``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
as to be de minimis. The danger that phrase represents to our first
amendment's freedoms is picayune at best.''
[[Page H7030]]
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, our actions today may cause the courts to
review the sentiments behind ``one Nation under God'' or ``In God We
Trust'' because if the courts look at the importance that we apparently
affix to ``one Nation under God'' or ``In God We Trust,'' then it
diminishes the argument that the phrase has de minimis meaning and
increases the constitutional vulnerability of the use of that phrase in
the Pledge.
Furthermore, the court may look at the legislation under the Lemon
test and find that this exercise has no secular purpose and is,
therefore, unconstitutional. The section of bill referring to ``In God
We Trust'' as the national motto appears to be vulnerable to the same
constitutional attack as the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge. Those
attacks gain validity because of our actions today.
Mr. Speaker, let me just close with a quote from an editorial that
appeared in the Christian Century, a non-denominational Protestant
weekly, which a good friend was kind enough to send me. It reads, ``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, we side with the Ninth
Circuit. We see no need, especially for Christians, to defend hollow
references to an innocuous God.'' For those reasons, I urge Members to
oppose this legislation.
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, in 1776 the great American patriot Thomas
Paine wrote, ``These are the times that try men's souls.''
But right now we are living in times that try men's souls. These are
times when our faith is being tested as never before.
Even as we contend with the aftermath of the September 11th attacks,
three judges in California decide that our Pledge of Allegiance is
unconstitutional because it includes the words, ``Under God.''
The values we teach at home and church are universal and should not
be left outside the schoolhouse door, or outside of where we work and
play every day.
``One Nation Under God'' is the foundation of our Pledge of
Allegiance. ``In God We Trust'' is our national motto and should be
engraved in our national conscience. I am not afraid to say, ``In God
We Trust'' wherever and whenever I want. All Americans should have that
right.
My father, Clifford Shows, was one of those captured as a Prisoner of
War at the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. He stands tall when our
Flag is displayed. There is nothing more un-American than denying our
children the right to honor the symbol of the very freedom we all enjoy
today.
The California court ruling flies in the face of every veteran who
sacrificed his or her life to protect this nation. The Court's ruling
was a disgrace and our people deserve better.
In the 106th Congress I introduced a resolution that encourages ``In
God We Trust'' to be posted prominently in all public and government
buildings, just like it is in my own office, right next to the Ten
Commandments.
I wrote this bipartisan resolution with the direct assistance of the
Reverend Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. And I re-
introduced it as H. Res. 15 on the first day of the 107th Congress.
This issue is too important to let partisan politics get in the way,
and I am happy that we are today considering a measure that reiterates
the importance of our National Motto, and the presence of God in our
lives.
Let's adopt an ``In God We Trust'' resolution today--for our families
and for our nation.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2690, as amended.
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.
____________________