[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 98 (Monday, July 24, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1494]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. JEFF FLAKE

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 19, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2389) to 
     amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the 
     jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and 
     controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance:

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, today I voted against the Pledge Protection 
Act--H.R. 2389. I believe in the constitutionality of the Pledge and 
believe that the Pledge should contain the words ``under God.''
  Unfortunately, this bill does more to hurt the Pledge than help it. 
The bill strips Federal courts of jurisdiction over Federal 
constitutional claims, leaving the States to each decide issues 
regarding the Pledge. Some States may strike down the Pledge; others 
may modify it. The end result would be lasting damage to the Pledge. 
This is clearly a Federal, constitutional issue.
  I realize that, in 2002, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
reached a disturbing result by declaring that it was an 
unconstitutional establishment of religion to have students to recite 
the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Supreme 
Court overruled the ninth circuit on procedural grounds in 2004. 
Unfortunately, there was no clear opinion overruling the ninth circuit 
on substantive grounds.
  The ninth circuit's ruling has created confusion as to whether the 
decision must be followed within the boundaries of the circuit. At 
least one Federal district court in California has since ruled that it 
must. That case is on appeal now to the ninth circuit, and hopefully it 
will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court for a reversal.

                          ____________________