[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7391-H7395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2028, PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 781 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H7392]]

                              H. Res. 781

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2028) to amend title 28, United States Code, 
     with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior 
     to the Supreme Court over certain cases and controversies 
     involving the Pledge of Allegiance. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  The resolution before us is a well-balanced, structured rule 
providing 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and 
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall 
be considered as read.
  It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute and makes in order only those amendments printed 
in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.
  It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report. They shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject 
to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of 
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Finally, it waives all points of order against the amendments printed 
in the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and its 
underlying legislation, the Pledge Protection Act of 2004. This 
legislation offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) follows 
up and improves upon the work that the House has already accomplished 
on behalf of protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from those whose 
ultimate goal is to undermine and devalue the meaning of the Pledge of 
Allegiance by stripping the words ``under God'' from it.
  Since June 27, 2002, the House has voted three times to protect the 
Pledge from those fringe and radical elements in our country who 
dislike its content and its meaning as it is currently written. Twice 
the House has overwhelmingly voted through House resolutions to express 
its opinion that the 9th Circuit Court's decision in Newdow v. The 
United States Congress is incorrect, and once to limit the use of 
Federal funds from enforcing this onerous judgment.
  Today, Congress has the opportunity to once again stand up for the 
Pledge of Allegiance and the values that it imparts to the millions of 
patriotic Americans who recite it every day by supporting this 
carefully crafted resolution.

                              {time}  1815

  H.R. 2028 would amend the Federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction 
to any court established by an act of Congress to hear or determine any 
claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the 
first amendment of the Constitution. This legislation would prevent 
Federal judges from legislating from the bench and striking down the 
historic and heartfelt meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance.
  My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), has 
clearly stated, ``A remedy to abuses by Federal judges has long been 
understood to lie, among other places, in Congress's authority to limit 
Federal Court jurisdiction.''
  I too understand this, as my father was a Federal judge for many 
years, and I know that not all judges are interested in legislating 
from the bench, but there are those occurrences and abuses that do 
occur. I believe that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) is correct.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice posed by this legislation is stark and it is 
very clear: Should Congress allow those activist judges to decide by 
fiat how patriotic Americans across our great country may pledge their 
allegiance to our country; or should Congress, which is directly 
accountable and speaks to and for the people of this great Nation, 
exercise its authority to act as the ultimate arbiter of the 
Constitution as envisioned by our Founding Fathers?
  I believe that this choice is simple. It is very important for every 
Member of the House to place themselves on record as sharing the values 
of the majority of Americans in our country that believe that America 
is one Nation under God and that the opinion of a few liberal judges in 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can never change that fact.
  There may be some who come to the floor today to argue that Congress 
is not competent enough to address this issue. They will argue, I am 
sure, in an attempt to confuse the issue, that only Federal courts can 
decide on constitutionality and that this legislation represents some 
kind of affront to the separation of powers doctrine which our 
government is based upon.
  This attempt to divert attention from the real matter is not only 
deceptive, I believe it would be patently wrong. The Pledge of 
Allegiance Act does not dictate how the courts should come to a 
decision. Instead, it carefully limits the jurisdiction of the Federal 
courts clearly within the constitutional powers of the Congress to hear 
a case calling into question the pledge's constitutionality.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to protect this very 
important right that we have in our country to recite the Pledge of 
Allegiance and to stand up for values upon which our great Nation was 
founded by supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of 
America because I believe in its stars and stripes, and I believe that 
they symbolize our strength and our diversity. I do so out of respect 
for and love of our country, not because the cameras are rolling and 
voters are watching. Apparently, the same cannot be said of some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  The underlying legislation, more than anything else, is about the 
politics of a national election. The Republican political spin machine 
is in full

[[Page H7393]]

gear playing, in my view, to the lowest common denominator, to 
reinvigorate some who may not be as invigorated as the majority party 
would wish that they be. Instead of wrapping themselves in the flag and 
marketing their candidates with gimmicks, the majority in Congress 
ought to work for the people and legislate in their interests.
  Senator Kerry recently said it very well. He said, ``The flag doesn't 
belong to any President, it doesn't belong to any ideology and it 
doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American 
people.''
  The underlying bill is totally unnecessary since there is no binding 
decision in any court, Federal or State, holding that ``under God'' in 
the Pledge is unconstitutional.
  This is a solution in search of a problem. Given the serious 
challenges we face, we must act responsibly. But this unnecessary 
legislation, designed by political consultants as the answer to an 
uninspired right-wing constituency, detracts from the real work that 
needs to be done in this body.
  In 8 days, 13 appropriation bills must be signed into law. So far, 
only one has the President's signature. Not even the appropriation for 
Homeland Security has been completed, despite the terrifying threats 
the Nation faces. Similarly, this coming Friday the authorization for 
Federal transportation programs is scheduled to expire and we are 
nowhere near a new transportation bill.
  Did you hear that? Congress has one requirement, to pass the 
appropriations bills, to act responsibly and pass all 13 appropriations 
bills before September 30. Under this leadership, Congress has failed 
miserably.
  Why has this congressional session been so disastrous, you might ask? 
Well, it is because the majority has made the conscious decision to 
play politics, rather than legislate; to squander opportunities for 
success, rather than create them; to give lip service to the Nation's 
needs, rather than address them. The underlying bill is an illustration 
of that irresponsibility, and in my view, it is ridiculous.
  We are at war, a war on terror and a war in Iraq. Unemployment is 
high, jobs are being outsourced abroad, the economy is anemic, people 
cannot afford housing at the lower rungs of our economy, health care 
costs are through the roof, and more than 44 million Americans are 
uninsured. Right-wing Republicans are suffering the consequences of the 
wrong decisions made during these years that just passed, as are 
liberal and moderate Americans; and I, for one, wish this body were 
discussing how to solve these pressing problems instead of legislating 
on nonissues.
  Now, more than ever, we must use the legislative session wisely and 
productively to strengthen America's way of life. Now, more than ever, 
we must do what is necessary to promote the principles that have made 
us strong.
  Simply put, the underlying bill is, at its core, un-American. Indeed, 
passage of this legislation would represent one of the broadest attacks 
on the separation of powers in American history. If Congress, by 
statute, can end-run the Bill of Rights, no rights to liberty, due 
process or equality under law are safe. Further, it would set the 
terrible precedent of barring citizens from challenging government 
infringement of fundamental rights in Federal court.
  Mr. Speaker, the Pledge of Allegiance is the recitation of the strong 
sense of patriotism and pride for American ideas and rules. Throughout 
my lifetime and that of many of our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle here, we have tried to live up to its underlying values. I have 
done so, as have many of my colleagues, out of conviction, and not at 
the insistence of a paid political strategist that suggested 
legislating patriotism.
  In the name of liberty, in the name of democracy and in the name of 
religion, I oppose the underlying legislation, and I call on my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a very eloquent opportunity to hear from the 
gentleman from Florida as he spoke about his desire not to support this 
legislation. We should also remember that there are many judges around 
this country who have the same opinion that the gentleman has, and they 
would wish a case to come forth to them where they could change this 
Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America, one Nation under 
God, indivisible. And this is one of the reasons why this is an 
important issue.
  The gentleman correctly talked about the things which we have now 
achieved or not achieved, in his opinion, for the last year-and-a-half 
of this Congress, the 108th Congress. We had votes on taxes. We had 
votes on opportunities to limit lawsuits, lawsuit abuse. And every 
single time, we have had an opportunity to vote on these very important 
issues. So I am proud of what we have done. But I would also say that 
the Pledge of Allegiance is something that is worth fighting for on the 
floor of the House of Representatives and to protect.
  So I know and recognize that there are my friends in the other party 
that do not agree with us on this, that they would call it un-American 
that we would not allow some Federal judge to hear a case and then to 
legislate against the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe that is what 
Congress is here to do, and I believe that judges are there to rule on 
the law, not to make law. That is why we offer this bill, this very 
important bill, that we have here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2028, the 
Pledge Protection Act, because it makes in order an amendment that I 
strongly support. The amendment to be offered by my colleague, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), is very straightforward. It 
would restore to the bill the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over 
questions related to the Pledge of Allegiance, changing the bill back 
to the way it was originally introduced and as it was when I and 224 
other Members of this body cosponsored it.
  As introduced, H.R. 2028 would have restricted the Federal district 
courts and the appellate courts from hearing cases involving the Pledge 
of Allegiance.
  When I signed on as a cosponsor of the original bill a week after its 
introduction back in May of 2003, H.R. 2028 was a good bill. It took 
care of those renegade jurists, but it retained the jurisdiction of the 
Supreme Court over this important constitutional issue.
  Its title read, ``To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect 
to the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court 
over certain cases and in controversies involving the Pledge of 
Allegiance.''
  While the title has not changed, the content of the bill certainly 
has. As reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. 2028 now 
prohibits the Supreme Court from hearing such cases.
  I recognize that Congress clearly has the authority under Article III 
of the Constitution to define the jurisdiction of the Federal district 
and appellate courts. The original H.R. 2028 was perfectly supportable 
on this point, for it related to the courts ``inferior to of the 
Supreme Court.''
  I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) 
cited ex parte McCardle as authority under Article III to make 
exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But 
constitutional scholars say there is no direct precedent for making 
exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
  This unprecedented restriction of the Supreme Court's authority would 
violate the basic tenet of checks and balances within our system of 
government. The Founding Fathers created this balance of power within 
our democratic government to ensure the integrity of the Constitution. 
If the Supreme Court is not able to fulfill its constitutional purpose, 
our Federal Government will be unable to ensure that our laws reflect 
the rights set forth in our Constitution.
  I would caution my colleagues to think twice before tampering with 
authorities clearly granted in the Constitution. The issue today may be 
the pledge, but what if the issue tomorrow is environmental protection, 
civil rights, second amendment rights or a host of other issues that 
Members may hold dear?

[[Page H7394]]

  I would ask my colleagues not to succumb to a false comfort that the 
Supreme Court ultimately will strike down the legislation, so therefore 
it is acceptable to cast a politically expedient vote that you know is 
just wrong.
  I would also ask my colleagues to think about, do we really want 50 
different versions of the Pledge of Allegiance? I certainly do not 
think so. However, that is what could happen if you believe the 
Committee on the Judiciary's press release on this bill.

                              {time}  1830

  Its headline says it all, ``Committee approves legislation allowing 
States to decide whether 'under God' should remain in the Pledge of 
Allegiance.''
  I believe the Supreme Court, not 50 different State courts, should be 
the final arbiter of any questions on the constitutionality of that 
congressionally approved phrase.
  I come to the floor with a heavy heart on this but, Mr. Speaker, I 
revere the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe that 
``under God'' are two of the most important words in the pledge. I also 
believe that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of all 
Federal questions. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule and the Watt amendment to the Pledge Protection Act.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I shall not take an awful lot of time, but I do have a considerable 
amount of experience in this area, and I can tell my colleagues that 
the Doctrine of Judicial Review, the notions with reference to 
``fundamental due process'' and ``full faith and credit'' are matters 
that we should hold dear and not be about the business of court-
stripping on specific matters.
  The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) put forward the exact 
proposition that I did in last night's Committee on Rules among other 
things that she has said with which I agree, and that is that another 
day will come, and this establishes a bad precedent. I note that the 
original sponsor of the measure is here, and I put to him that question 
last evening. Perhaps, he and I will have an opportunity for a further 
exchange with reference to the same matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I would start by asking a question that I have 
had a chance to ask a number of times to different school groups and 
other collections of Americans, and that is, if you were to take a look 
at America, the unique nation that it is, and you were to try to put 
into a phrase or a sentence what is the heart of what America is all 
about; if you had to, in a sense, as an onion, go through all of the 
different things that are America and get down to the center nub of 
what is it that we believe, what is it that people who came from 
Germany or Scotland or England or all of these other different 
countries believe; they came here together. They do not call themselves 
by their old name, but they call themselves Americans, and America is a 
unique and special place to all of us.
  Now, what is the heart of what makes America? What is the central 
formula? Why is it that our young men and women would go and risk their 
lives overseas for this Nation?
  I would suggest to my colleagues that the answer can be found in our 
birthday document, that Declaration of Independence, that document 
which paints a vision which goes beyond just the shores of America but 
touches the hearts of all freedom-loving people around this entire 
world. It is the sentence that says that we hold these truths to be 
self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain 
unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit 
of happiness. The sentence goes on to say that it is the job of 
government to protect those rights.
  Notice that that sentence is essentially a three-part formula. It 
says, first, that there is a God; secondly, that that God is the 
grantor of human rights; and among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. And then our job in civil government is to 
protect those basic rights, and that, I would suggest, is something 
that Americans have largely agreed to down through the ages and has 
been something that has united us. It is also something that we have 
exported as we export freedom around the world.
  Now, if we take the concept of God out of the equation, then our 
rights cannot come from God, and then the whole essence of what America 
is has been threatened.
  Now, this concept that I am suggesting is not something that I just 
invented; anybody who would like to can go down to the Jefferson 
Memorial, and they can look at the stone where these words are 
inscribed and Jefferson says, the God that gave us life gave us 
liberty, and can the liberties of the people be secure if we remove the 
conviction that those liberties are the gift of God? What Jefferson was 
saying is people will not fight for something if they do not believe 
that those liberties were the gift of God.
  And ironically, here on this floor, just in the last few minutes, I 
have heard people make the statement that they are very content to let 
the Supreme Court decide what our rights should be. Whatever the 
Supreme Court says, oh, well, that is just fine. The problem is, the 
Supreme Court has men and women on it, and they make mistakes, and we 
have three coequal branches of government to act as checks and balances 
on each other.
  Before us today is an important matter. It is important because what 
we are dealing with is a question of free speech. Our Founders fought 
wars because we really thought that people should be able to have 
freedom to state a religious or a political conviction and to be free 
to express that opinion.
  Yet, we have activist judges among us today who have the intent and 
who have even stated fairly clearly where they stand on this issue, 
that school children are not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance as 
we have said it for the last 50 years. Now, no school child is required 
to say the Pledge, but to tell a school child that we have been saying 
the Pledge this way for 50 years in America and, now, you cannot say 
it, is akin to censorship. That is completely turning the first 
amendment upside down. I do not think that it is right for the judges 
to do that.
  I also know that I took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, 
and as a member of the legislative branch, I realize that it is part of 
my responsibility and part of the responsibility of other Members who 
call themselves Congressmen to stand up for the Constitution, to stand 
up for free speech, to tell the judges that they are wrong to tell 
school kids that they cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Now, there is all kinds of legal mumbo jumbo that people might want 
to talk about, but let us not make the issue too complicated. It is 
about the Pledge of Allegiance; it is about the fact that we have 
activist judges saying that kids cannot say the same pledge that you 
and I have said for the last 50 years.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I would ask the gentleman from Missouri to participate in 
a colloquy with me, if he would.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked last evening what jurisdiction in the United 
States of America today exists where a child cannot say ``under God'' 
in the Pledge of Allegiance?
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. AKIN. Well, Mr. Speaker, fortunately, because of the fact that 
the Supreme Court dismissed this case just based on a technicality, 
there are none. There were some before. At the moment, there are not. 
And that is why it is so important to move this bill rapidly before 
something gets in the pipeline again to threaten the Pledge.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time just for the 
moment, that is that same Supreme Court that the gentleman would prefer 
not have jurisdiction in these matters, no matter whether they rule on 
a technicality. The gentleman's argument is that the Supreme Court 
makes mistakes because it is constituted of human beings.
  Well, let me tell my colleague, a whole lot of mistakes are made in 
this body of us, 435-plus and five territories, because we are human 
beings. But respect for the courts is key and critical,

[[Page H7395]]

and to refer, for example, judges with whom I disagree, I call them 
strict constructionists, but I do not demean them. And I do not come 
down here and refer to them because I have a different point of view. I 
am from Florida. The United States Supreme Court made a decision that I 
thoroughly disagree with. But at the very same time, I respected that 
decision and went about my business, because it is the Supreme Court. 
We have three branches of government, not one that can make all of the 
laws.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate what 
the gentleman is saying, and I think that what the gentleman is saying 
gets to the heart of our disagreement on this point.
  The gentleman said that the Supreme Court has made decisions that he 
strongly disagrees with, but he refused even to open his mouth hardly 
to refer to them other than in this context.
  My sense is the three coequal branches of government means that we 
have a right to speak when we disagree and that we have even a 
responsibility to express that disagreement. And so our difference of 
opinion is that the gentleman really sees them as supreme, as the final 
decision on everything, and regardless of what they say, we have to 
suck it in and live with it. What I am saying is, that is alien to the 
thinking of our Founders. It is completely wrong.
  Out of my State, I say to the gentleman, came the Dred Scott decision 
on slavery. I would not sit here and say, oh, I have to sit here and 
live with it. They are wrong, just as you and I can be wrong. We all 
make mistakes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, the 
fact of the matter is that the Dred Scott decisions, Plessy v. 
Ferguson, a litany of decisions were changed over time.
  One thing I would urge my colleague to really pay attention to, I 
will give him an illustration of two of this Nation's most prominent 
judges: One, Felix Frankfurter; and the other, Hugo Black. Hugo Black 
was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, and Felix Frankfurter was an 
activist American civil libertarian. And when they went on the United 
States Supreme Court, they were ideological opposites. Over the course 
of time and events, if the gentleman will read their decisions, they 
changed.
  My fear, as I have said, is, one day, we are no longer going to be in 
Congress. One day, mark my words, a different party will be in the 
majority. One day, conditions in the United States will be different. 
One day, world affairs will dictate an altered world reality. I ask my 
colleagues to vote against the underlying bill because if the reaction 
to these different scenarios goes beyond the constitutional limit, we 
would have already created the precedent that Congress cannot be 
checked and balanced by the judicial branch. That would be unfortunate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We had the opportunity to hear from the gentleman from Missouri to 
enunciate not only what was in his heart about this Pledge of 
Allegiance, and I believe he supported very strongly the belief of 
exactly why we are here today for the Flag Protection Act. I think that 
there are many people in the United States that simply do not like the 
Pledge of Allegiance and would wish and choose to change that.
  We have heard the gentleman from Florida suggest that the world and 
this country will be much different in the future, and while I cannot 
argue with the gentleman that I think change is incumbent and will 
always happen, I think that there are some things that are worthy of 
keeping, that we should hold dear and important to this Nation. And one 
of them is the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
  I think it is one of the reasons why, when new citizens come to this 
country and they become citizens, that tears stream down their eyes as 
they raise their hand, as a Federal judge or a Federal magistrate will 
administer their oath, and then they will say the Pledge of Allegiance. 
And people who are today fighting terrorism and represent our United 
States military, they stand up at attention before our flag. They 
understand that the United States of America is not perfect, and there 
may be changes in our future. But I believe that they also believe that 
one thing should not change, and that is the Pledge of Allegiance to 
the flag of the United States of America. Every day, when we open the 
United States Congress, we respectfully give our thanks not only to 
God, and certainly the words right over your head there, Mr. Speaker, 
``in God we trust'' are stated from the podium up front, but also we 
say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
  This body has been used as an attempt to publicize and perhaps 
politicize the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of 
America. I think that it is a right thing that we will stand up for the 
Flag Protection Act. I think it is the right thing to do, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to not only stand up for this flag but 
for this wonderful legislation, for traditional American values and our 
Founding Fathers' intent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.

                              {time}  1845

  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________