[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8418-H8422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SHOULD 
 SPEEDILY FIND USE OF PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN SCHOOLS TO BE CONSISTENT 
                           WITH CONSTITUTION

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree 
to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 245) expressing the sense of 
Congress that the United States Supreme Court should speedily find the 
use of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools to be consistent with the 
Constitution of the United States.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 245

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) judicial rulings by the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the 4th and 9th circuits have split on the issue of 
     whether the Constitution allows the recitation of the Pledge 
     of Allegiance in schools;
       (2) the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the 4th circuit correctly finds the Constitution does allow 
     such a recitation; and
       (3) the United States Supreme Court should at the earliest 
     opportunity resolve this conflict among the circuits in a 
     manner which recognizes the importance and Constitutional 
     propriety of the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by 
     school children.

  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 H. Con. Res. 245.
  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, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 
245, expressing the sense of Congress that the United States Supreme 
Court should speedily find the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in 
schools to be consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
  As Justice Stevens noted, writing for the Court last year in Elk 
Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, ``The Pledge of Allegiance 
evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag 
symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster 
national unity and pride in those principles.''
  However, going far beyond the requirements of the Establishment 
Clause and the Supreme Court's interpretation of that clause, the Ninth 
Circuit struck down a school policy of voluntary, teacher-led 
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, citing that the policy 
impermissibly coerces a religious act.
  Last summer, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision 
on standing grounds. Though the Court did not address the merits of the 
case, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in his concurring 
opinion: ``I do not believe that the phrase `under God' in the Pledge 
converts its recital into a `religious exercise.' Instead, it is a 
declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States 
flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase `under God' is in 
no sense a phraser, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple 
recognition of the fact that from the time of our earliest history, our 
peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept 
that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God.''
  Just 2 weeks ago, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, the Eastern District of 
California relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision and held that school 
district policies of voluntary, teacher-led recitations of the Pledge 
violate the Establishment Clause.
  But, as former Chief Justice Rehnquist stated: ``The Constitution 
only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the 
ceremony if they choose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a 
sort of `heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly 
participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of 
Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase `under God' is an 
unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension would 
have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic 
observance.''
  The Pledge of Allegiance is simply a patriotic exercise in which one 
expresses support for the United States of America, that was founded by 
a generation of framers who saw a belief in God as fundamental to 
sustaining the moral fabric of a free society. Those who did not share 
the beliefs of our founding generation as reflected in the Pledge are 
free to refrain from its recitation. However, those who wish to 
voluntarily recognize the special role of providence in America's 
identity and heritage must also continue to be free to do so.
  This body affirms its support for the Pledge of Allegiance by 
starting each session of the House with its recitation. When the Pledge 
of Allegiance has come under legal and political assault, this body has 
consistently and overwhelmingly defended it by passing resolutions that 
expressed support for its voluntary recitation. Most recently, in 2003, 
the House passed H. Res. 132 affirming support for the Pledge by a 
margin of 400 to 7.
  I urge my colleagues to continue to affirm their support for the 
Pledge of Allegiance by supporting the passage of this important 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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 
predates the amendment to the Constitution.
  Unfortunately, H. Con. Res. 245 is not about supporting religious 
freedom. In fact, this resolution is totally gratuitous, as it will do 
nothing to change the underlying law. This is because we are dealing 
with constitutional issues that cannot be altered by resolution. If the 
judicial branch ultimately finds the Pledge, or the national motto to 
be constitutional, then nothing needs to be done. On the other hand, if 
the Court ultimately finds it to be unconstitutional, no law that we 
pass will change that.
  Although I tend to agree with the dissent in the 2002 Ninth Circuit 
decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, which

[[Page H8419]]

found that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge are permissible under 
the Constitution, I believe it is important to review the reasoning of 
the majority decision in that case which held that the words ``under 
God'' are impermissible on constitutional grounds.
  The majority in the Newdow case applied each of the three Supreme 
Court tests that have been used over the last 50 years in evaluating 
Establishment Clause cases. That review is essential, because if we 
support the Pledge, we need to make sure that we support it based on 
appropriate constitutional principles.
  One test the Ninth Circuit cited was whether the phrase ``under God'' 
in the Pledge constitutes an endorsement of religion. The majority 
opinion said 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 are 
compelled to attend school and ``may not be placed in the dilemma of 
either participating in a religious ceremony or protesting.''
  Finally, the Court applied the Lemon test, named after the 1971 
Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman. Part of that test holds that a 
law violates the Establishment Clause if there is no secular or 
nonreligious purpose. Mr. Speaker, the Pledge was amended in 1954 to 
add the words ``under God'' to the existing Pledge, and so the Ninth 
Circuit concluded that the 1954 law had no secular purpose and was, 
therefore, unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, while I believe that the majority's reasoning was sound, 
I indicated that I tend to agree with the dissent in the 2002 Newdow 
case. The operative language in the dissent which persuaded me was as 
follows:
  ``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.
  ``Judges, including Supreme Court Justices, have recognized the lack 
of danger in that and similar expressions for decades, if not for 
centuries.''
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the dissent and support the Pledge of 
Allegiance as is under the theory that the words ``under God'' are de 
minimis. Because the language fails other traditional Establishment 
Clause tests, the principle that the words ``under God'' are de minimis 
is the only principle that supports the Pledge as it is. If we suggest 
that the words are not de minimis, then what do we have to rely on? We 
would have to overturn one of the existing Supreme Court tests. What 
will we base that decision on? Would we permit, for example, the 
government endorsement of one religious view and open the door to other 
endorsements? Will we permit proscribed coercion of young and 
impressionable schoolchildren and open the door to other government 
proscribed religious messages? Should we repeal the Lemon law test and 
permit the enactment of legislation that only has a religious purpose?
  Moreover, if we elect to maintain the Pledge with the words ``under 
God'' simply because it represents a page in our history as the Fourth 
Circuit appears to allow, then are we establishing a new Supreme Court 
test, a historical setting test, or is that the same de minimis 
standard that the Ninth Circuit cited?
  Again, the only principle which upholds the constitutionality of the 
Pledge is that the words ``under God'' are de minimis, as explained by 
the dissent in the 2002 Newdow case in the Ninth Circuit. The problem 
with relying on that principle and enacting H. Con. Res. 245 is that 
our actions do more harm than good. The de minimis principle is 
precarious at best.
  It is easily undermined by the emphasis we place on the language. If 
the courts look at the importance that we apparently affix to the words 
``under God'' by passing this legislation and increasing the magnitude 
of the attention we give the issue, we subvert the argument that the 
phrase has de minimis meaning and, in fact, increase the constitutional 
vulnerability of that phrase in the pledge.
  Mr. Speaker, when we were sworn in, we promised to uphold the 
Constitution. It is important to acknowledge that any court ruling 
based on constitutional rights will be unpopular. If the issue was 
popular, the complainant would be able to vindicate his rights using 
the normal democratic legislative process. Obviously, the fact that he 
had to rely on constitutional rights and go through the courts means 
that he was in the minority.
  This will always be the case with constitutional rights. You do not 
need the Constitution to protect the freedom of speech to say something 
that is popular. You only need it when the majority tries to use the 
democratic legislative process or police power to stop you from 
expressing your views, and stopping the majority from exercising that 
power will always be unpopular.
  Mr. Speaker, whatever we think of the recent California district 
court or the previous Ninth Circuit decisions, the only thing worse 
than those decisions is a spectacle of Members of Congress putting 
aside efforts to address the tragedies caused by Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita, considering the appointments to the Supreme Court, completion of 
the appropriations process for the fiscal year that begins 3 days from 
now, and the need to address a budget deficit that jeopardizes the next 
generation in order to take time to pass this resolution. Such a 
spectacle only emphasizes the importance of the words ``under God'' 
and, simultaneously, undermines the only constitutional argument that 
supports the Pledge as it is, and that is, that the words are not 
important.
  Mr. Speaker, in that light, the majority of the Members of Congress 
will always disagree with the constitutional decision of the judicial 
branch, and so, Mr. Speaker, because this resolution actually makes it 
less likely that a court can find the Pledge unconstitutional and 
because what we think about the decision is actually irrelevant and 
because we have other important business to do, I would hope that this 
resolution is defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Issa), the author of the resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, this is not a de minimis issue, and those who 
would say that a constitutional question is ever inappropriate I am 
afraid do not understand the importance of millions of American 
children not knowing, depending upon where they live, how they should 
recite the Pledge of Allegiance. More importantly, it is not about 
religion. It is about from where our power comes.
  Our Founding Fathers rightfully said that our power came from the 
laws of nature and of nature's God in the Declaration of Independence. 
I do not know what Thomas Jefferson exactly meant; I was not there. 
What I do know is that our Founding Fathers believed that the power of 
the Almighty came to the American people and they loaned to government 
the right to govern them, rather than the sovereign that they had 
served in England, the sovereign who said that the powers of God came 
to him or her and that they then doled it out to the people they chose 
to.

                              {time}  1400

  That difference is profound. It is the difference in American 
government that we are not the governed of our government but, in fact, 
the owners of our government.
  More importantly, I want the Members on both sides of the aisle to 
understand that this is not about raising or lowering the importance, 
it is not about deciding what is appropriate in the Pledge of 
Allegiance. What it is about is having the indecision between the Ninth 
and the Fourth Circuit appropriately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Once decided by the Supreme Court, it would then be up to the people of 
the United States to decide if they wanted to change the Constitution, 
because the Supreme Court is in fact the final decision point.
  It is inappropriate, it is always inappropriate for the Supreme Court 
to allow an important issue to remain undecided and different in 
different parts of the United States. Therefore, appropriately, my bill 
asks the U.S. Supreme

[[Page H8420]]

Court on behalf of the House and the Senate to take up this important 
issue, an appropriate issue, and to decide it. We do not determine how 
it is to be decided by the vote. Those who vote for this are simply 
asking the Supreme Court to decide an important issue to end the 
undecided issue between the Ninth and the Fourth and, for that matter, 
all the other circuits.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it seems that many Members of this House 
must really be dissatisfied with their jobs. Instead of being 
legislators, they seem to want to be Federal judges. Every Member, like 
every citizen, is entitled to express an opinion on any ruling by any 
court. That is what our system of government is about. What concerns me 
is that too many people here seem to think it is the job of Congress to 
order courts to decide cases certain ways or to consider issues that we 
want them to consider.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) should read his own 
resolution. His resolution does not ask the Supreme Court to decide 
between the Ninth and Fourth Circuit views. It asks them to decide that 
the Fourth Circuit is right and the Ninth Circuit is wrong. It asks for 
a certain specific direction.
  We have considered bills here to take away certain Federal court 
jurisdiction because some Members do not like certain court decisions. 
We have heard threats against judges, against the courts, even 
statements by some who have said that they understand the murder of 
judges. This resolution is not binding, and it is probably as innocuous 
as they come; but it is part of a greater campaign of delegitimizing 
the independent judiciary, by implication our system of checks and 
balances and our system of government.
  Courts are supposed to rule on cases that come before them; to call 
them as they see them; to decide what the Constitution means as the 
court sees it, as Judge Roberts recently told the Senate regardless of 
popular opinion. That is their job. It is not our job to pressure the 
court to decide the case a specific way. If we do not like a court 
decision, we can amend the law. We can start a constitutional amendment 
if we disagree with a court decision.
  I am more than a bit concerned that Members seem to want to decide 
this case for themselves, but I am more concerned by the constant 
assertions by Members and some courts that the phrase ``One Nation 
Under God'' is not a form of religious expression. As the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) mentioned, constitutionally the only way, 
since it is clear that we cannot have an establishment of religion, 
since the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court for the last 40 years says 
that we cannot mandate a prayer, that we cannot mandate that children 
in school should say a prayer, we cannot lead an organized prayer in a 
public school, as I have said repeatedly on this floor, there will 
always be prayer in the public schools as long as there are math tests, 
but we cannot have organized prayer where an agent of the State, namely 
the teacher, says this is the prayer you shall say. That is an 
establishment of religion, and it is against the first amendment.
  The only way around that is by saying that the phrase ``under God'' 
in the Pledge of Allegiance does not mean anything. It is a mere 
patriotic expression. It is not religious. It does not mean anything. I 
think that is sacrilegious. Frankly, it violates the Second 
Commandment: ``Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in 
vain.'' Maybe we should have the Ten Commandments here, so people can 
take a look at it every so often.
  Frankly, references to God are inherently religious, and it is a sin 
to use the Lord's name for any other purpose. It is a religious 
expression with which not all people, including people of different 
religions, might agree. It is not out of the question that a court 
could reasonably conclude that this sentence is a religious expression, 
that it is inherently coercive when the government makes it part of 
every school day. That is what the Ninth Circuit did conclude.
  It is not the job of Congress to tell the court what to decide, and 
certainly not the job of Congress to tell the court that God is not 
religious. If God is not religious, then nothing is religious.
  I know most people will look at this vote and think it is a vote on 
whether or not you support the Pledge of Allegiance; whether or not you 
are loyal, in fact, to this government; or whether or not you are a 
person of faith or whether you support God. It is unfortunate that we 
have to politicize this issue in this way, and that is the real reason 
for this resolution, since it is totally innocuous, is not binding and 
has no effect.
  But it is even more unfortunate that there is so little respect for 
our system of government and such enthusiasm for delegitimizing the 
judiciary every time someone disagrees with a court ruling. That is 
very dangerous. The future of our Nation depends on the preservation of 
our system of government, the preservation of the independence of the 
courts, and not on the text of the Pledge that children are asked to 
recite in school.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for yielding me this time and for managing the bill so ably.
  Well, here we are again, as we take this issue up for a fourth time; 
and I am again disappointed to say that we are not here for a love of 
this country or the time-honored Pledge that celebrates it, but to take 
yet another stab at our independent judiciary. Because the Ninth 
Circuit did not bend to the resolve of Congress and because the Supreme 
Court skirted the first amendment claims in the Newdow I decision, 
Members of this House have introduced this resolution in an attempt to 
strong-arm judges and manipulate the Supreme Court appointment process. 
How sad.
  So I respectfully take issue with this resolution. While my reverence 
for the Pledge of Allegiance is unending, my patience with this sort of 
political maneuvering has long run out. This resolution is a vehicle 
simply for a conservative litmus test for new judges, particularly 
Supreme Court Judges, as we currently face both a vacancy and a 
confirmation of a new Justice.
  This resolution was introduced the day after Newdow II, September 14 
it was reported; and opponents immediately put it to use in the 
confirmation process. One conservative group used the case as a vehicle 
to endorse the confirmation of Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice and 
to bash Carter-appointed District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton as a 
judicial activist, even though he was bound by a prior ruling of the 
Ninth Circuit on the merits. Moreover, the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham, deliberately invoked the Pledge 
ruling at the Roberts confirmation hearings.
  All of this comes on the heels of our prior Pledge resolution in 2003 
that directed the President to appoint and the Senate to confirm 
circuit judges who would supposedly ``interpret the Constitution 
consistent with the Constitution's text.''
  Today is the next step. We urge the Supreme Court to accept an appeal 
to resolve the conflict between the circuit courts over the 
constitutionality of the Pledge. While drafters have tried to use the 
most subtle phrase possible in this series of resolutions, their intent 
is clear: the resolutions demand the promotion of judges who fall in 
line with a specific series of conservative ideals and a specific 
result on the merits.
  Our judiciary was meant to be independent. Our Founding Fathers 
created three distinct branches of government to ensure that no single 
body could write, interpret, and enforce the laws all at the same time. 
Today's resolution is part of a series that overreaches the bounds 
between the legislature and the judiciary and attempts to make puppets 
of our judges. Our judges should be impartial arbiters, which they 
cannot be if they are manipulated by the Congress.
  Further, the Model Code of Judicial Conduct reveals that no candidate 
for a judgeship ``make pledges or promises or conduct in office other 
than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the 
office,'' nor ``make statements that commit or appear to commit the 
candidate with respect to

[[Page H8421]]

cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the 
court.'' So not only do these resolutions make a mockery of our 
judicial system, they also, my colleagues, subject our judges to 
potential ethical violations.
  While I may disagree with the Newdow decisions, I disagree even more 
with attempts to influence the constitutional interpretation by 
politicizing judicial appointments. I respect the Pledge of Allegiance 
so much that I resent that it is being used as a tool for political 
jockeying and partisanship. Our Pledge simply deserves better.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume and point out that out of respect for the judicial branch and 
because the passage of this resolution will actually make it less 
likely that the Pledge will be found constitutional by the judicial 
branch, we should defeat this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, in the past, over 300, sometimes 
over 400, Members of Congress have affirmed the Pledge as it is. I do 
not think this is a question about whether or not God is appropriate to 
be used at times. I think that has been decided within this body. 
Certainly ``In God We Trust'' above the Speaker's head says a great 
deal about the role of God in our deliberation.
  This resolution is about asking, albeit with a bent in favor of past 
votes, asking the Supreme Court to decide an issue. Ultimately, when we 
ask the Supreme Court to decide an issue, we are not deciding it. We 
are not binding them to some decision. Just the opposite. This is a 
free and independent judiciary that will decide the issue as it sees 
fit. But it is appropriate both for us to ask them to do it and, when 
appropriate as an amicus, enter into the debate at the Supreme Court. I 
expect we will do that if and when the Supreme Court takes this issue 
up.
  Mr. Speaker, I move strongly that the Members support the opportunity 
and the insistence to the extent of our authority that the Supreme 
Court take this unreconciled difference between two circuits up and 
decide one way or the other, one time, for the youth of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 245. It is time 
to settle the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. America's 
circuit courts are currently split on the issue, and I introduced this 
resolution to encourage the Supreme Court to resolve this conflict on 
the side of patriotism.
  We come to this juncture because of an attempt by a very few to scour 
the public space of religious symbols and expression. They have 
targeted federal, state and local governments in a determined effort to 
erase every single reference to the existence of a higher power from 
public life. While they claim to be fighting the establishment of 
religion, what they are really doing is eliminating the freedom of 
religious expression. They have forgotten that the inclusion of ``under 
God'' in the Pledge is no more egregious than Thomas Jefferson 
including the phrase ``Laws of Nature and of Nature's God'' in the 
Declaration of Independence.
  In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that recitation of 
the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms is unconstitutional. Far be it 
for we in Congress to criticize the wisdom of the 9th Circuit. I would 
rather compliment the 4th Circuit's ruling last month that the Pledge 
is constitutional. The 4th Circuit noted that the primary reason for 
the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment was to combat the 
practice of European nations compelling individuals to support 
government favored churches. The 4th Circuit stated that the inclusion 
of the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance does not pose a 
threat to freedom of religion.
  We are left with two divergent interpretations of the 
constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Two weeks ago, a U.S. 
District Court within the 9th Circuit judge stated that he was bound by 
precedent of the 9th Circuit and held that the Pledge is 
unconstitutional in another school district.
  The Supreme Court must decide the issue to ensure that our children 
have the right to express their patriotism through recitation of the 
Pledge of Allegiance. The Court had the opportunity to resolve this 
issue last year but failed to do so. It is time for the Supreme Court 
to step in and support the Pledge.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 
245.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 245, 
affirming the words of the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Religion has always been an important part of America. Our country 
was created on a religious foundation. Since the first Pilgrim stepped 
on Plymouth Rock, people came to our shores in pursuit of religious 
liberty. They left nations of intolerance and established a country 
built on concepts of diversity and religious freedom. Our Founders 
endowed successive generations of Americans with a Constitution that 
has held us together and healed major fractures within our society.
  Included in the Constitution is the protected right of freedom of 
religion. But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion--
certainly not in something as universally unifying as the Pledge of 
Allegiance. It is an allegiance to the United States of America--and 
its simple words acknowledge that we are ``one Nation, under God.''
  On July 4, 1776, our Founding Fathers, after appealing to the ``Laws 
of Nature, and of Nature's God'' justified their separation from Great 
Britain by declaring, ``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.''
  In 1781, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his ``Notes on the State of 
Virginia,'' ``God who gave us life gave us liberty. And 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.''
  In his Farewell Address in 1796, President George Washington called 
religion ``a necessary spring of popular government.'' President Adams 
claimed that statesmen ``may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is 
Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon 
which Freedom can securely stand.''
  Likewise, the words ``under God'' were used by President Abraham 
Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address in 1863. After paying tribute to the 
soldiers who had died in an effort to end slavery, Lincoln turned to 
the responsibilities of those who would benefit from their sacrifices.
  He said, ``It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to 
the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly 
advanced. 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; 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.''
  There are many other examples of how religion and God have been woven 
into the fabric of our Nation's history.
  By pledging allegiance to this Nation and acknowledging that we are 
under God, that our Nation is indivisible, and that we enjoy liberty 
and justice for all, Americans simply recognize the historical fact 
that we have a religious heritage, that the country cannot be divided, 
and that everyone will be free and treated fairly.
  The words ``under God'' are not in violation of the Establishment 
Clause because they do not sponsor or support a specific national 
religion.
  Our country, and the freedoms we cherish, continue to be fought for 
each day. Just as President Lincoln said during the Gettysburg Address, 
it is our duty to resolve that those who have given the ultimate 
sacrifice for our freedom do not die in vain; that this Nation, under 
God, will continue to protect and honor those hard-fought freedoms.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 
245, which tells the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of 
the Pledge of Allegiance. I oppose this resolution on two grounds. 
First, Congress shouldn't be telling the Supreme Court how to do their 
job. Second, the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and the 9th 
Circuit decision should stand.
  That being said, I shouldn't be surprised that those who claim to 
speak for God also think they have the right to tell our independent 
judiciary what to do. The Republican Majority has railed against 
activist judges legislating from the bench throughout the Supreme Court 
nomination hearings, but they apparently see nothing wrong with telling 
those judges how to rule from the legislature. If judges shouldn't 
legislate, Congress shouldn't adjudicate.
  Beyond the hypocrisy and improper meddling of this resolution, I 
oppose it because the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The 
Constitution bars Congress from passing any law that recognizes 
religion. The 1954 law, passed at the height of anti-Communism, that 
specifically added the phrase ``under God'' to the Pledge, could not be 
more clearly unconstitutional.

[[Page H8422]]

  The feeble argument of proponents of this resolution that ``under 
God'' is not overtly religious is only undermined by their holy crusade 
to make darn sure that the phrase stays in the Pledge. This will be the 
sixth time this House has voted on this issue--hardly a sign of the 
phrase's unimportance to religious conservatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't want my children or any child to have a 
compulsory, religious recitation in this supposedly free society, and 
seeing the vehemence of those who think otherwise only strengthens my 
opposition to the Pledge.
  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 agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 245.
  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.

                          ____________________