[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 116 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10147-S10148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    SUPPORT FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 243, which was submitted 
earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 243) Expressing Support for the 
     Pledge of Allegiance.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about yesterday's 
court decision which ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is 
unconstitutional. I am concerned, but certainly not surprised, with 
this decision. And I am very concerned with the decision's 
implications.
  It is time for us to take a stand against activist judges who seek to 
circumvent the will of the American people and who issue judgments 
flying in the face of decency and common sense. With all that is going 
on in our world today, to attack the Pledge of Allegiance because it 
contains a reference to God is ludicrous.
  Most Americans were outraged when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Last year, 
the Supreme Court dismissed the case. The Supreme Court said that the 
plaintiff in the Pledge of Allegiance case did not have standing. The 
Court found that, because he was not the custodial parent, he could not 
object to his daughter's reciting the pledge of allegiance in school.
  When that decision came down, many people, myself included, knew that 
it would only be a matter of time before the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, 
would be back. We were right. Yesterday, the Court, looking to the 
previous ninth circuit decision, ruled that the use of the simple 
phrase ``under God'' was a religious act. The Court found that a school 
policy involving the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance had a coercive 
religious effect.
  I strongly disagree that the pledge is coercive. I also strongly 
disagree with the court's decision. The Pledge of Allegiance, in 
addition to containing a statement of common values and patriotism, 
recognizes historic facts behind our Nation's founding. There are so 
many references in America to God, our Creator. Those references can be 
seen in our currency, on public buildings, even in the Declaration of 
Independence which is displayed a few blocks from the Capitol in the 
National Archives.
  This recent decision further emphasizes our Nation's need for judges 
who are respectful of people of faith and for judges who understand 
that America's continued reference, and reverence, toward the Creator 
are very important to our common culture.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution 
expressing the strong disapproval of the Senate to the September 14, 
2005, decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 
California in the case of Newdow, et al. v. The Congress of the United 
States of America, et.al.
  This decision is a prime example of why we need to put judges on the 
bench who will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the 
bench. Judges are not politicians. They are on the bench to hear the 
cases in front of them, not to pursue their own personal political 
agendas. We need more judges that will decide each case based on the 
facts and the law, not legislate from the bench.
  Like most Americans, those of us who are not serving on the Judiciary 
Committee have watched intently as President Bush's nominee for Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court has stood up to the over 21 hours of 
questioning. Judge John Roberts has been asked nearly 500 questions, 
and his responses have added to the more than 76,000 pages of documents 
concerning his Federal Government service. The hearings themselves have 
proved to be an incredible civics lesson for the American public, and 
to some extent the Senate, on the role of judges.
  I have been very impressed with Judge Roberts, both when we met and 
in his considerable response during these hearings. He is a modest and 
humble man who I believe will be a credit to our judicial system. As he 
stated in his opening remarks, ``[i]t is that rule of law that protects 
the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. 
Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.'' Judge 
Roberts believes in judicial restraint, adherence to the rule of law, 
as well as a posture of modesty and humility in a court.
  I believe that Judge Roberts is the kind of judge that America 
needs--a fair, independent and unbiased judge committed to equal 
justice under the law. If confirmed, I am convinced that Judge Roberts 
will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. As he 
said yesterday, he does not come to the bench or to a case with an 
agenda or a platform. In fact, he reminded my colleagues that he was 
not

[[Page S10148]]

a politician, and he is not going to advocate positions on issues to 
win votes.
  Returning to the case at hand, I call on my colleagues to support 
this resolution. The Pledge of Allegiance is a unifying force in this 
Nation. It draws all of us, regardless of race, religion, gender, or 
national origin, together in support of the common good. At a time when 
we should be uniting to support our troops in Iraq and our neighbors in 
the Gulf States affected by Hurricane Katrina, it is a shame that an 
activist court is seeking to divide based on the principle of ``I'' or 
``me first,'' instead of pursuing the selfless principle of the common 
good. Just last Congress this body came together to support the current 
Pledge of Allegiance on a 94-0 vote. I hope that we will have the same 
bipartisan support again for this important issue, and I urge support 
of this resolution.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, 
the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 243) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 243

       Whereas on June 26, 2002, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow v. United States 
     Congress that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of 
     Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause of the United 
     States Constitution when recited voluntarily by students in 
     public schools;
       Whereas on March 4, 2003, the United States Senate passed a 
     resolution disapproving of the Ninth Circuit's decision in 
     Newdow by a vote of 94-0;
       Whereas on June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United 
     States dismissed the case, citing the plaintiff's lack of 
     standing;
       Whereas on January 3, 2005, the same plaintiff and 4 other 
     parents and their minor children filed a second suit in the 
     Eastern District of California challenging the words ``under 
     God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance;
       Whereas on September 14, 2005, the Eastern District of 
     California declined to dismiss the new Newdow case, holding 
     that the Ninth Circuit's earlier ruling that the words 
     ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the 
     Establishment Clause was still binding precedent;
       Whereas this country was founded on religious freedom by 
     the Founding Fathers, many of whom were deeply religious;
       Whereas the First Amendment to the United States 
     Constitution embodies principles intended to guarantee 
     freedom of religion both through the free exercise thereof 
     and by prohibiting the Government from establishing a 
     religion;
       Whereas Congress, in 1954, added the words ``under God'' to 
     the Pledge of Allegiance;
       Whereas Congress, in 1954, believed it was acting 
     constitutionally when it revised the Pledge of Allegiance;
       Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance has for more than 50 years 
     included references to the United States flag, to our country 
     having been established as a union ``under God'', and to this 
     country being dedicated to securing ``liberty and justice for 
     all'';
       Whereas the 107th Congress overwhelmingly passed a 
     resolution disapproving of the panel decision of the Ninth 
     Circuit in Newdow, and overwhelmingly passed legislation 
     recodifying Federal law that establishes the Pledge of 
     Allegiance in order to demonstrate Congress's opinion that 
     voluntarily reciting the Pledge in public schools is 
     constitutional;
       Whereas the Senate believes that the Pledge of Allegiance, 
     as revised in 1954, as recodified in 2002, and as recognized 
     in a resolution in 2003, is a fully constitutional expression 
     of patriotism;
       Whereas the National Motto, patriotic songs, United States 
     legal tender, and engravings on Federal buildings also refer 
     to ``God''; and
       Whereas in accordance with decisions of the United States 
     Supreme Court, public school students are already protected 
     from being compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved,
       Sec. 1. That the Senate authorizes and instructs the Senate 
     Legal Counsel to continue to cooperate fully with the 
     Attorney General in this case in order to vigorously defend 
     the Constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. That the 
     Senate strongly disapproves of the September 14, 2005, 
     decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern 
     District of California in Newdow, et al. v. The Congress of 
     the United States of America, et al.
       Sec. 2. That the Senate authorizes and instructs the Senate 
     Legal Counsel to continue to cooperate fully with the 
     Attorney General in this case in order to vigorously defend 
     the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this resolution that we passed is a Senate 
resolution expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance. Because of 
the significance of this matter, I would like to read some paragraphs 
in the resolution and then the closing resolve section:

       Whereas on June 26, 2002, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow v. United States 
     Congress that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of 
     Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause of the United 
     States Constitution when recited voluntarily by students in 
     public schools;
       Whereas on March 4, 2003, the United States Senate passed a 
     resolution disapproving of the Ninth Circuit's decision in 
     Newdow by a vote of 94-0;
       Whereas on June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United 
     States dismissed the case, citing plaintiff's lack of 
     standing.
       Whereas on January 3, 2005, the same plaintiff and 4 other 
     parents and their minor children filed a second suit in the 
     Eastern District of California to challenge the words ``under 
     God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance.
       Whereas on September 14, 2005, the Eastern District of 
     California declined to dismiss the Newdow case, holding that 
     the Ninth Circuit's earlier ruling that the words ``under 
     God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment 
     Clause was still binding precedent . . .

  Mr. President, the ``whereas'' clauses continue.

       Resolved, That the Senate strongly disapproves of the 
     September 14, 2005, decision by the United States District 
     Court for the Eastern District of California in Newdow, et 
     al. v. The Congress of the United States of America, et al.
       Sec. 2. That the Senate authorizes and instructs the Senate 
     Legal Counsel to continue to cooperate fully with the 
     Attorney General in this case in order to vigorously defend 
     the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

  This is an important Senate resolution, as is the one that follows 
this, S. Res. 244, which we will address shortly. Every morning in the 
Senate, we open with that pledge to the flag of the United States of 
America. It is an issue on which the Senate now speaks loudly in 
disagreement with the most recent findings.
  The second resolution related to this issue is S. Res. 244.

                          ____________________