[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 67 (Thursday, May 19, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5539-S5540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1087. A bill to amend section 337 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to prescribe the oath or affirmation of renunciation 
and allegiance required to be naturalized as a citizen of the United 
States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Today I am introducing legislation to address an 
important statement on what it means to be a citizen of the United 
States: the Oath of Allegiance, to which all new citizens swear in 
court when they are naturalized.
  In the last session of Congress, I introduced legislation to enshrine 
the Oath of Allegiance in law. I was joined in that effort by 34 
colleagues, including the Senator from New York, Mr.

[[Page S5540]]

Schumer, as the lead cosponsor. That legislation was introduced, in 
part, in response to reports that the Bureau of Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, or BCIS, an agency of the Department of Homeland 
Security, may have been planning to change the Oath of Allegiance that 
immigrants take to become a citizen of this nation. Other Senators and 
I felt the proposed language, as reported in the press, would have 
weakened the Oath.
  Today, I introduce a bill that puts forward a compromise that I hope 
everyone can support. I am again grateful to be joined in this effort 
by the senior Senator from New York. This bill introduces a modified 
Oath of Allegiance that is just as strong as the current one, but that 
uses more modem language.
  I was surprise to learn that Congress has never voted on the content 
of this Oath. We have left it to Federal regulators. That's not how we 
treat other symbols of our Nation or other statements on what it means 
to be an American.
  For example, the American Flag, with its 50 stars--one for each 
State--and 13 stripes for the original colonies, cannot be altered by 
Federal regulation. The only way a star gets added is when Congress 
acts to admit a new state. And we've never changed the 13 stripes since 
the flag was first adopted in 1777.
  The Pledge of Alliance, which we repeat each morning in the United 
States Senate, can't be altered by Federal regulation. The Pledge is a 
statement of some of the values of the American Creed: ``one nation, 
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' What if a 
Federal agency decided we should take out justice, just saying ``with 
liberty for all''? It can't happen: because the Pledge can only be 
altered by Act of Congress, as it last was in 1954 when the phrase 
``under God'' was added.
  The National Motto ``In God We Trust,'' which appears on all our 
coins and dollar bills, can't be altered by Federal regulation. It is a 
fundamental statement of the religious character of the American 
people--even though we don't permit and don't want the establishment of 
state religion. The Treasury Department can't decide to leave the motto 
off the next dollar bill it prints because the motto was adopted by 
Congress--at first in 1864 to be printed on the 2-cent piece, an later 
as the official National Motto in 1956.
  Our National Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, can't be changed by 
Federal regulation. It, too, is a statement of our values, declaring 
our country ``the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' If a 
government agency decided it preferred America the Beautiful, or the 
Battle Hymn of the Republic, or God Bless America, all of which are 
great songs, the agency would have to ask Congress to act. Why? Because 
the Star Spangled Banner was named our National Anthem by law in 1931.
  Likewise, the Oath of Allegiance should not be altered lightly--by a 
government agency, without public comment, and without approval from 
Congress. Of the five symbols and statements I've described--the Flag, 
the Anthem, the Pledge, the Motto, and the Oath, only the Oath of 
Allegiance is legally binding on those who take it. New citizens must 
take it, and they must sign it.
  On September 11, 2003, when I spoke about my legislation, I said:

       To be clear, I have no objection to others proposing 
     modifications to the Oath of Allegiance that we use today. . 
     . . perhaps ways can be found to make it even stronger.
       Still, let's make sure any changes have the support of the 
     people as represented by Congress. The Oath of Allegiance is 
     a statement of the commitments required of new citizens. 
     Current citizens, through their elected representatives, 
     ought to have a say as to what those commitments are. That's 
     a lesson in democracy. A legally binding statement on 
     American citizenship ought to reflect American values, 
     including democracy.

  It is in that spirit that I offer this compromise language that 
prescribes an updated but very strong Oath of Allegiance. This is the 
right way to go forward in considering any changes, and, I hope, will 
allow us to finally enshrine this statement of what it means to be an 
American in law.
                                 ______