[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 98 (Monday, July 24, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. EARL POMEROY

                            of north dakota

                    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. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2389, The 
Pledge Protection Act of 2005.
  As I said in 2004 when the House voted on the Pledge Protection Act 
in the 108th Congress, I strongly believe that the Pledge of 
Allegiance, including the phrase, ``under God'' is a constitutional 
expression of patriotism.
  Therefore, I--along with many of my colleagues--was outraged by court 
decisions that erroneously declared the Pledge of Allegiance 
unconstitutional. As a result, I consistently have voted in favor of 
legislation reaffirming the place of the Pledge of Allegiance in its 
entirety in our schools.
  In the 108th Congress, I voted in favor of H. Res. 132, which urged 
the Supreme Court ``to correct the constitutionally infirm and 
incorrect holding'' by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in its revised 
decision on the Newdow v. U.S. Congress case. This resolution also 
expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the recitation 
of the Pledge is a patriotic act--not a religious act, that the Pledge 
should retain the phrase ``One nation, under God,'' and that 
Congressional policy should encourage the voluntary recitation of the 
Pledge in public school classrooms. I also voted in favor of an 
amendment offered by Rep. Hostettler to H.R. 2799, the Commerce, 
Justice and State and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, which 
prohibited any funds appropriated by the bill being used to enforce the 
court's decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress.
  In the 107th Congress, I voted in favor of H. Res. 459, which 
expressed the view of the House of Representatives that the 9th Circuit 
Court of Appeals' original decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress to 
strike the words ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance was 
incorrectly decided. Similarly, I strongly supported S. 2690, 
legislation that reaffirmed the language of the Pledge of Allegiance, 
including the phrase ``one Nation under God.''
  However, as I stated last year, I am concerned that the passage of 
H.R. 2389 would threaten the separation of powers set forth in the 
United States Constitution. Historically, the United States Supreme 
Court has the final authority on questions regarding a Federal law's 
constitutionality. However, H.R. 2389 would allow future Congresses to 
enact laws that clearly violate basic constitutional principles, while 
at the same time barring these laws from review by the Supreme Court. 
This lack of checks and balances could undermine the strength of 
America's most fundamental founding document. Given these significant 
issues with H.R. 2389, I again plan on voting against this measure.

                          ____________________