[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11803-11815]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  SENSE OF HOUSE THAT NEWDOW V. U.S. CONGRESS WAS ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree 
to the resolution (H. Res. 459) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that Newdow v. U.S. Congress was erroneously decided, 
and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H. Res 459

       Whereas on June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals held that the Pledge of Allegiance is an 
     unconstitutional endorsement of religion, stating that it 
     ``impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely 
     religious question of the existence and identity of God,'' 
     and places children in the ``untenable position of choosing 
     between participating in an exercise with religious content 
     or protesting.''
       Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer or a 
     religious practice, the recitation of the pledge is not a 
     religious exercise.
       Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance is the verbal expression 
     of support for the United States of America, and its effect 
     is to instill support for the United States of America.
       Whereas the United States Congress recognizes the right of 
     those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge to 
     refrain from its recitation.
       Whereas this ruling is contrary to the vast weight of 
     Supreme Court authority recognizing that the mere mention of 
     God in a public setting is not contrary to any reasonable 
     reading of the First Amendment. The Pledge of Allegiance is a 
     recognition of the fact that many people believe in God and 
     the value that our culture has traditionally placed on the 
     role of religion in our founding and our culture. The Supreme 
     Court has recognized that governmental entities may, 
     consistent with the First Amendment, recognize the religious 
     heritage of America.
       Whereas the notion that a belief in God permeated the 
     Founding of our Nation was well recognized by Justice 
     Brennan, who wrote in School District of Abington Township v. 
     Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 304 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring), 
     that ``[t]he reference to divinity in the revised pledge of 
     allegiance . . . may merely recognize the historical fact 
     that our nation was believed to have been founded `under 
     God.' Thus reciting the pledge may be no more of a religious 
     exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln's Gettysburg 
     Address, which contains an allusion to the same historical 
     fact.''
       Whereas this ruling treats any religious reference as 
     inherently evil and is an attempt to remove such references 
     from the public arena.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of 
     Representatives, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase ``One 
     Nation, under God,'' reflects the historical fact that a 
     belief in God permeated the Founding and development of our 
     Nation; and
       (2) The Ninth Circuit's ruling is inconsistent with the 
     U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence that the 
     Pledge of Allegiance and similar expressions are not 
     unconstitutional expressions of religious belief; and
       (3) The phrase ``One Nation, under God,'' should remain in 
     the Pledge of Allegiance and
       (4) the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals should agree to 
     rehear this ruling en banc in order to reverse this 
     constitutionally infirm and historically incorrect ruling.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from

[[Page 11804]]

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 to include extraneous material on House Resolution 
459, the resolution under consideration.
  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 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San 
Francisco topped itself, not an easy accomplishment for the court of 
appeals with the dubious record of being most likely to be reversed by 
the U.S. Supreme Court. It did so by ruling in Newdow v. U.S. Congress 
that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public 
school students is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and, 
thus, a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause.
  Immediately following this decision, I introduced House Resolution 
459, expressing the sense of the House that the Newdow case was 
erroneously decided by the Ninth Circuit and the court should agree to 
rehear this ruling en banc.
  The Ninth Circuit ruling treated the word God as a poison pill. 
Rarely has any court, even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit, shown 
such disdain for the will of the people, an act of Congress and our 
American traditions. What is next, a court ruling taking ``In God We 
Trust'' off the money, which the dissenting judge expressed his concern 
about? Or how about banning the performance of God Bless America from 
4th of July celebrations at local courthouses and in parks next week?
  Any fourth grader knows that the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer 
or a religious practice. Therefore, its recitation is not a religious 
exercise. Rather, as my resolution states, it is a verbal expression of 
support for the United States of America, and its effect is to instill 
support for the United States of America.
  In truth, yesterday's ruling is the latest in a string of rulings by 
misguided courts misinterpreting the Constitution's establishment 
clause. Under West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, cited by 
the Supreme Court in 1943 and which is still good law, individuals 
cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and in this 
case children were not compelled to say the Pledge.
  We recognize the right of those who do not share the beliefs 
expressed in the Pledge not to participate, but this ruling treats the 
mere reference to religion as inherently evil and coercive. It is 
simply a barefaced attempt to remove all religious references from the 
public arena by those who disagree. In effect, it is a heckler's veto.
  Our Nation's founders based their claim of independence upon the laws 
of nature and nature's God. The Founders of our Nation declared all men 
to be endowed with inalienable rights by their creator and urged their 
revolution relying upon the protection of divine providence. Thus, God 
is referred to or alluded to four times in the Declaration of 
Independence and countless times in other documents.
  In the years since the ratification of the Constitution, beginning 
with President George Washington's administration, religious services 
have been conducted in government buildings, including the halls of 
Congress. The Supreme Court begins each session with ``God Save the 
United States and this Honorable Court.'' The Supreme Court has upheld 
the offering of a prayer by a publicly-funded chaplain to open 
legislative sessions. Lower Federal courts continue to uphold the 
constitutionality of the Federal Government's Christmas holiday as well 
as the placement of In God We Trust on our currency. If the Pledge of 
Allegiance is unconstitutional, then certainly these traditions and 
even the Declaration of Independence are as well.
  The fact of the matter is that these statements of patriotism reflect 
the love Americans feel for their country and recognizes the fact that 
our Nation was founded by brave men who stood on the principle that all 
men possess inalienable rights endowed not by man but by God. This view 
continues to be shared by most Americans today.
  In this time of profound challenges facing our Nation, the last thing 
our citizens need is two irresponsible judges using the Pledge of 
Allegiance to promote what can only be characterized as an effort to 
purge the public arena of all religious references.
  Yesterday's ruling is dumb. It is an insult to the brave men that 
founded our Nation and preserved it for over 200 years, and we in 
Congress should do whatever it takes to void this laughable ruling.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the reasoning in the majority opinion in this 
case is sound. It outlines how the phrase ``under God'' is in violation 
of all of the differing standards developed by the Supreme Court over 
the last 50 years to evaluate challenges under the establishment clause 
of the first amendment to our Constitution.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the dissent in this 
case; and the operative language that persuaded me is language on page 
9132, which says, ``But, 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 
somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger that 
phrase presents to our first amendment's freedoms is picayune at most. 
Judges, including Supreme Court Justices, have recognized the lack of 
danger in that and similar expressions for decades, if not for 
centuries.''
  But whatever we think of the decision, Mr. Speaker, the only thing 
worse than the decision is the spectacle of the Members of the United 
States House of Representatives putting aside discussions of 
prescription drug benefits under Medicare to take up and pass this 
resolution. When we were sworn in, we promised to uphold the 
Constitution, and it is important to acknowledge that any court ruling 
based on constitutional rights will be unpopular. If the issue were 
popular, the litigant would vindicate his rights using the normal 
democratic process. Obviously, the fact that the litigant had to rely 
on constitutional rights means that he was in the minority.
  This is the way it always is with constitutional rights. An 
individual does not need a constitutional right of freedom of speech to 
say something popular. They only need it when the majority has the 
legislative and police power to stop them from expressing their views, 
and the decision will obviously not be politically popular.
  In that light, Mr. Speaker, what Members of Congress think of the 
decision is irrelevant. If the judicial branch finds the Pledge to be 
unconstitutional, which I do not believe it will ultimately do, no bill 
we can pass will change that.
  Mr. Speaker, because the decision is based on constitutional rights, 
it will always be unpopular, and what we think about the decision is 
irrelevant, and because we have important business to address, I would 
hope that this resolution will be defeated.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  I just want to answer the last speaker. That kind of attitude that 
thinks that when a judge speaks that that is the law of the land, well, 
it does not work that way by the Constitution. There are checks and 
balances in our Constitution, and what Congress does is relevant to 
what the judiciary does.
  Congress is going to stand up in this particular case and fight the 
judiciary of this country and stop them from running amuck. There is 
accountability built into the Constitution, as long as this Congress 
understands that

[[Page 11805]]

they have a responsibility to defend the Constitution against a runaway 
judiciary.
  It appears that this Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has experienced 
another short-circuit. This court went way too far, and we know that. 
This Congress is committed to righting that court's wrongs, starting 
right here, right now, today.
  Now, according to this absurd logic, the following could be in danger 
of being outlawed:
  The four mentions of God in the Declaration of Independence that made 
our country free; the oath that each President takes to uphold the 
Constitution, which holds our Nation together; the words etched right 
here above the Speaker in this august institution that helps govern our 
Nation; the phrase that begins with each U.S. Supreme Court session, 
``God Save the United States;'' the oath of witnesses to tell the truth 
in courts that protect us; our own currency that keeps our Nation 
prosperous; and the singing of God bless America on the steps of this 
Capitol that signaled yesterday our resolve.
  So as my colleagues can see, this absurd decision was made by a court 
run amuck; and I urge all our Members, of all political stripes, to 
send a very clear message and put the stars and stripes, along with the 
words ``God Bless America'' as the banner for their .gov websites.
  As upset as we all are, once again we must summon the best in us to 
defend this one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and 
justice for all. This Congress is not going to let anyone strip our 
Nation of our proud heritage; not now, not ever.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself.
  Mr. Speaker, on constitutional issues, the judicial branch and the 
Supreme Court is the law of the land, even if those decisions are 
unpopular.
  If we had to wait for school integration to be popular in America, 
people in many States would still be going to segregated schools. It is 
important that we note that the Supreme Court is the law of the land on 
constitutional issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier today that 
I adhere to the loyalty Pledge that is taken by all of us to pledge 
allegiance to the United States of America and find comfort in the fact 
that since 1954, we have been able to say ``one nation under God, 
indivisible.'' I say it without hesitation, and I support this 
resolution.
  Allow me, however, to track an understanding for the American people. 
I think that is important. It is likewise important to acknowledge the 
status and the position as it relates to the laws of the land that the 
courts have. My colleague from Virginia is absolutely correct. When we 
look to the courts, we look to them to establish a body of law; and, of 
course, the Congress has a responsibility as an equal in the lineage of 
hierarchy in this Nation, judicial, legislative and executive, to speak 
its will and its mind.
  What I consider the resolution today is a Congress speaking its will 
and its mind. It is speaking to the American people. It is saying all 
is well. It is suggesting to them its interruption of the utilization 
of the Pledge of Allegiance, something that is done most mornings in 
our schools around the Nation, most times at ceremonial activities, and 
certainly after September 11, recognizing the privilege we have in this 
country to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of 
America.
  But allow me to take the first amendment again and refer us to it as 
I read from the Constitution of the United States which says ``Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of 
speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble 
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the first amendment is the first amendment 
because the Founding Fathers thought this had to be one of the highest 
tenets of our democracy. Why? Because our country was founded on those 
who were fleeing from persecution.
  I would take issue, and I have the right now as I am debating on this 
floor, I have a right to take issue, I have a right to make a statement 
of what I believe in, is that in pledging allegiance to the flag or not 
pledging allegiance to the flag, Americans are exercising their freedom 
of religion. It is not classified or should not be classified as 
forcing someone to protest. An individual is absolutely within their 
right to exercise their freedom of religion.
  I disagree with the decision of this particular court, but I do 
believe it has the right to move forward through the judicial process 
to express its view as well.
  Let me share the dissent of the court that I think is accurate. Judge 
Ferdinand Fernandez pointed out in dissent: ``The establishment clause 
tolerates quite a few instances of ceremonial deism. Is it okay to sing 
`God Bless America' or `America The Beautiful' at official events? Is 
American currency unconstitutional?''
  The answer must be, as Judge Ferdinand Fernandez argues, that in 
certain expressions it is obvious that the tendency to establish 
religion in this country ought to interfere with the free exercise or 
nonexercise of religion is de minimus.
  My point is to take that a step further and suggest that the first 
amendment allows one to exercise their religious faith. In not saying 
the Pledge of Allegiance, it is exercised. It is not a protest. I say 
it. I willingly say it. I believe it should be said. I do not believe 
it is unconstitutional. I believe this resolution is intact and 
appropriate because it allows an equal, independent branch of 
government to express its viewpoint on a decision that is made. We all 
have to adhere to the procedures of this lands, the democracy as it 
works; and that is a republic, three branches of government. We will 
watch this case as it goes forward. I proudly rise to support this 
resolution because I believe the interpretation is accurate.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit disturbed that what the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) seemed to have said was that Congress should never 
question a court decision that is based on constitutional grounds. Had 
he and I been in Congress before the Civil War when the Supreme Court 
decided the Dred Scott case, I am sure both of us would be asking the 
House of Representatives to go on record opposing that decision as 
being misguided. We are doing something similar to that today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot).
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I 
rise in strong support of this resolution and against the court's 
decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the Pledge of 
Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion is a complete 
misinterpretation of constitutional law. I would hope that this 
outrageous decision by this three-judge panel will be quickly 
overturned by the full Ninth Circuit Court or, if necessary, by the 
United States Supreme Court.
  Incredibly, while Americans are pulling together following the 
horrific events of September 11, a panel of liberal Federal judges has 
chosen to challenge the time-honored Pledge of Allegiance. Like most 
Americans, I reject the court's unconscionable decision and stand 
resolutely with my colleagues today as we vote overwhelmingly to oppose 
this attack on an American symbol that we all hold dear.
  Mr. Speaker, for all of the veterans who risked their lives for our 
country, for all the servicemen and servicewomen who serve today, and 
for all of our children who recite the Pledge every morning with 
respect and admiration, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution 
and condemn the court's decision.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

[[Page 11806]]


  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I indicated my support for 
this resolution because I believe this is an appropriate comment time 
by the House. Let me also suggest to Members, however, that what 
happens with this kind of approach, and I am at this moment thinking of 
this because it is of such concern to me, my colleague from Ohio 
mentioned this, and the distinguished chairman mentioned the Dred Scott 
case, and none of us would claim to be in the House at that time in the 
1800s. Maybe we are looking quite young at this point, but I would join 
him in asking for a commentary on that case.
  Likewise, some of us are going to be asking for a comment on the 
question dealing with the constitutionality of vouchers. We happen to 
believe that that fosters segregation, as opposed to opening the doors 
of opportunity. What this does, in fact, is I hope out of the spirit of 
bipartisanship, and I certainly hope the distinguished majority whip 
was not suggesting that this issue is liberal or conservative, we are 
all over the lot on this particular legislative initiative. I support 
it, but I am going to be looking for bipartisan support when it comes 
to discussing what I think is an untimely decision on the voucher 
issue, and certainly an untimely issue as I review it, dealing with the 
question of drug testing. What we are trying to do here is improve the 
constitutional rights and freedoms of Americans, not diminish them.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the former chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on what has been said 
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  I could not disagree more. What they are saying is because this is de 
minimis, because that was in the dissenting view, therefore, it is okay 
to let it go. That is a way of standing on two stools. That is a way of 
having it both ways because it is not important.
  Well, I do not think that it is unimportant. I do not think that it 
is trivial. I think acknowledging the primacy of almighty God is of 
transcendent importance, and I guess de minimis is in the minds of the 
analysts; but I could not disagree more. In addition to the Dred Scott 
case, Plessy v. Ferguson, there is a whole line of cases that I am sure 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my distinguished learned 
friend, would disagree with and not invest them with a dignity because 
they come from the Court.
  And, lastly, I point out to my dear friend, the gentlewoman from 
Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), that the first amendment has two 
parts: the establishment and the free exercise.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the distinguished gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) would listen, the chairman, he has 
misinterpreted my entire remarks. I quoted from the dissent, and what I 
said was out of the dissent of Judge Fernandez, I believe, that any 
commentary about God is de minimis in terms of saying that someone is 
practicing religion. I support the fact that saying ``under God'' is 
not violating religious freedom.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it is ``de minimis'' that offends me.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. It is in the court's ruling.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I understand the court's ruling, and it was in 
the editorial in the Washington Post; but I disagree.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. It is in the dissent.
  Mr. HYDE. I disagree.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in reclaiming my time, if the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) disagrees, would he please indicate 
that he is disagreeing because he does not like the term ``de minimis'' 
used by the judge who is supporting his position, because I am 
supporting the position that we have a right to comment on it and am 
supporting the resolution. Please make sure that is clarified.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. I object to ``de minimis'' from whatever source.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I will cite that to the Washington Post.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Both sides have exactly 10\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The game is just beginning. We are in the first inning of what may 
turn out to be a long game in trying to overturn this decision by the 
Ninth Circuit. We must remember that this was only a three-judge panel, 
not representing necessarily the total views of all the Ninth Circuit. 
In that regard, we have directed that a letter be sent to the presiding 
judge of the Ninth Circuit to ask that they reconsider the decision 
rendered by the three-judge panel, which is within our right to ask and 
which is within the right of the Ninth Circuit to reconsider. So now we 
stretch out the possibilities that we have to overturn this decision. 
If they do the right thing and overturn their own panel, the game has 
ended. If not, then the game stretches on to the Supreme Court, which 
will undoubtedly undertake this case.
  We will be guided when we see it go to the Supreme Court with the 
fact that another circuit has found just the opposite of what the Ninth 
Circuit may be leading to draw, and so we are strengthened by the 
resolve that when it goes to the Supreme Court we will have precedent 
on the other side of the issue and we will have in front of the Supreme 
Court in the final innings of this game the undoubted wholesome fulsome 
support of the American people.
  The Supreme Court of the United States cannot, cannot, discount the 
popular will of the people of the United States in this regard. So my 
ultimate position in all of this is that this will not stand even if we 
have to then undertake a constitutional amendment if the Supreme Court 
should disappoint us in this particular issue; and if that happens, all 
the more reason why we can say this will not stand because Americans 
stand together.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, prior to yielding to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman 
of the committee, indicated what would happen if we had taken a 
position on Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott. The litigants in those 
cases, Mr. Speaker, lost and I suspect that the Congress might have 
even approved of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's greatness derives not only from our 
commitment to tolerance and a profound belief in the separation of 
church and state but also from the fact that we have always been, and 
hopefully will always be, a Nation of faith.
  Our Declaration of Independence which we celebrate 1 week from today 
avowed, and I quote, ``firm reliance on the protection of divine 
providence.'' Every one of our 43 Presidents has said a prayer or 
invoked God during their inaugural address. And our Pledge of 
Allegiance has included the phrase ``one Nation under God'' since 1954, 
harkening back to, 100 years prior to that, the remarks of President 
Lincoln in his Gettysburg address.
  Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the 
acknowledgment of a power greater than ourselves or the state was 
somehow unconstitutional, notwithstanding the language of Thomas 
Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that we hold these

[[Page 11807]]

truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed, 
not by the state, not by the majority, but by their creator with 
certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness. That is what we acknowledge when we say ``in God 
we trust.'' That is what we acknowledge when we say ``one Nation under 
God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.''
  I adamantly disagree with this misguided decision which runs counter 
to our cultural and historical traditions. I have high hopes that upon 
reflection that either the Ninth Circuit itself or the Supreme Court 
will reverse this erroneous and harmful decision.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Like most Americans, Mr. Speaker, I believe in this country, I 
believe in God, and I believe in the power and importance of allegiance 
to our flag. So I rise today in strong support of the resolution. Like 
millions of Americans, I was shocked and appalled by the Ninth 
Circuit's ruling that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance are 
unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, we opened this House in prayer to God today. The walls 
of this temple of democracy bear His name. But we are told that it is 
unconstitutional for our children to name God as they acknowledge their 
fealty to that very same Nation.
  Sadly, this decision is part of a 35-year history by radical 
secularists who would twist the freedom of religion into freedom from 
religion. We must reject this course of judiciary decisions. We must 
pass the resolution and reaffirm a right understanding.
  I pledge myself to fight every decision by the judiciary, including 
this one, that seeks to drive expressions of faith, the Ten 
Commandments, and voluntary prayer out of schools and out of every 
corner of American life, so help me God.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this 
resolution. I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman, for bringing this resolution to the 
floor in a speedy fashion.
  The American people are crying out for action. Here we are in the 
midst of a war. Our homeland has been attacked. The faith that many 
Americans have had has been rekindled. And now we are faced with this 
overreaching, inappropriate act of a court that is misinterpreting our 
Constitution.
  There will be a lot of talk about the power of the judiciary versus 
the power of the legislative branch. But I would just like to remind 
all of our colleagues that the Constitution begins with ``we the 
people'' and that it has really vested in the American people the 
authority to make decisions, and they ultimately decide what will 
happen.
  I believe that today the American people are clearly crying out, 
``Overturn this decision.''
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ruling 
which found our Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The Pledge of 
Allegiance is a sacred oath all Americans take to uphold the values of 
freedom and independence for which so many veterans have fought and 
died. It is an outrage that today as our brave men and women are 
overseas defending our great country against the threat of terrorism, 
these words that represent the very core of the American values come 
under attack.
  I ask my colleagues and the American people again to show our 
independence and protest the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision by 
joining together as ``one Nation under God'' to recite the Pledge of 
Allegiance on that day we celebrate soon, 226 years of independence, on 
July 4. I ask all Americans to stop what they are doing on that day 
this July 4 and with hand over heart recite the Pledge that has 
reminded millions of schoolchildren each and every day of why America 
is the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me say at the outset that when the vote is put on this 
resolution, I intend to vote ``present.'' I have had a discussion with 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) earlier today about whether I 
agree or disagree with the court's opinion, the majority opinion, a 2-1 
opinion, a part of the court; and I told him I thought I agreed more 
with the dissent in the case than I do with the majority.
  But that is almost a side issue here. The real issue is what the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) started to say, I think, was 
that the process is still continuing. Three people have entered a 
decision, a 2-1 decision. That decision no doubt will be reviewed by 
the entire circuit court and no doubt ultimately be reviewed by the 
United States Supreme Court. And while I recognize that this body has a 
prerogative to express an opinion about anything it wants to express an 
opinion about, I just do not think that I want to be a party to joining 
in the collective expression of an opinion of the legislative side of 
government to the judicial side of government on this issue, 
particularly when the case is still pending before the court and we do 
not know its ultimate disposition.
  I have strong opinions about this issue. I think the Bill of Rights' 
first amendment and other amendments in the Bill of Rights was intended 
to protect those who are in the minority. Obviously, people who do not 
believe in some God are in the minority; but they are entitled to have 
their rights protected, too, and not to be in a coercive setting, so I 
can certainly understand the decision, although I do not necessarily 
agree with it. I just think at this juncture this body should not be 
expressing itself on this issue.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and 
I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for bringing this measure to the floor 
at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 459, expressing the 
sense of Congress that Newdow v. U.S. Congress was erroneously decided 
by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Federal court's decision is 
truly an insult to our Nation, a disgrace and an absurdity of justice. 
Moreover, it defies the basic principles of reason and good judgment. 
It is particularly outrageous that such a ruling was made at a time 
when our Nation's dedicated men and women are fighting an ongoing war 
against global terrorism, the very epitome of evil. What kind of 
message does this court's ruling send to our enemies? What message does 
it send to our patriotic military personnel out there on the front 
lines?
  Accordingly, I urge the court to rehear the ruling with all due speed 
and overturn this egregious injustice perpetrated against the very 
principles upon which our great Nation was founded.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I just want to, I guess, me-too-it as much as possible on this. I 
think it is incredible that at a time when our Nation is at war, when 
we have suffered one of the greatest domestic tragedies in our history, 
that a court would be so out of touch with America that they would say 
this is what we need at this point in time, reversing all the other 
court decisions.
  I certainly stand in strong support of this resolution. I just want 
to say when I was in Afghanistan back in January, one of the proudest 
things I saw were all the young men and women on the USS Theodore 
Roosevelt saluting the

[[Page 11808]]

flag which Rudy Giuliani had flown over the rubble of the World Trade 
Center. I am glad that they also said the Pledge and that they know 
that we are one Nation under God.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the cosponsor with me of this 
resolution.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly as a cosponsor of this 
resolution. For over a generation now, our courts have taken the wrong 
path, eliminating prayer from schools, eliminating Christmas from our 
courthouses. They are saying today in our courts that access to child 
pornography is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and today they are 
saying that saying the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
  Something is wrong. They are trying to drive God from the public 
square, and this is their fallacy. We believe that our creator endows 
all men with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 
History shows that every godless state every time trampled on the 
rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under God and 
through our creator, we have our rights. We must never forget that. We 
must protect it so those who disagree with us will have their rights 
protected as well.
  I urge my colleagues to continue standing for the expression of our 
freedom under God.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the 
chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the 
manager of this measure, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for 
the excellent way that they have conducted it. It has been a fair and, 
I think, revealing discussion that is so important. I cannot help but 
also note that the former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), has considered this an issue of 
great importance, as has our colleague, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). 
This is important.
  This radical secularist decision was rendered by Judge Alfred T. 
Goodwin, appointed by past President, Richard Milhouse Nixon. And so 
for all of you who are leading the attack on the left, I do not know 
this judge and I do not know what his position was, but he passed 
muster in the Senate, he was reviewed and favorably considered by a 
sitting Republican President, and I think that it is very important 
that no one question the right of the Members of the House of 
Representatives to express their opinion on this decision or any other 
decision.
  What I fear is that it may be intended by some for political gain. 
But that is not a new feature in the course of our discourse in the 
House of Representatives. Or some who may be trying to discredit the 
judiciary in general for the work of two people on the Ninth Circuit.

                              {time}  1530

  Certainly, the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals appears to have presented a ruling that runs counter to the 
existing precedent regarding the establishment clause, and as someone 
with great respect for our Pledge of Allegiance, I do not believe its 
recitation substantively infringes on freedom of religion.
  Now, interestingly enough, just hours ago the United States Supreme 
Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that taxpayer funds can be used in 
voucher programs to support parochial schools. This ruling has been 
regarded generally as the worst church-state ruling in the last 50 
years. Do we have any resolution on that one?
  The Supreme Court today upheld the random drug testing of high school 
children, even those not suspected of wrongdoing. It is hard to imagine 
an opinion more objectionable from a privacy standpoint, but do we have 
anyone calling for a resolution of a program on that?
  And then I have colleagues who come to the floor claiming that this 
is a shocking sign of some fundamental defect in the judiciary. Now, 
unlike Bush v. Gore, this decision can be appealed, and where there is 
a strong probability that it will be overturned. This has been observed 
as just the first step in a judicial process that usually and 
ultimately gets it right. From Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. the Board 
of Education, to the issue of executing mentally impaired prisoners, 
the courts who may have originally lost their way ultimately find it 
again.
  But lost in today's debate and in the resolution before us is the 
value of our judicial system, the crown jewel of our democracy.
  Our Founders, in their wisdom, created a system of checks and 
balances. Independent judges with lifetime tenure were given the 
tremendous responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. So it is no 
surprise over the years that the judiciary has ultimately been the 
greatest protector of our rights and our liberties. The fact that one 
panel of the Ninth Circuit that has rendered this opinion should do 
nothing, I hope, to diminish from Members our general, overarching 
respect for the judiciary.
  All of this might be justified if there was any real question as to 
the constitutionality of the 1954 law that added God to the pledge. But 
while the Supreme Court has never specifically considered the question, 
the justices have left little doubt how they would do so. Even former 
Justice William Brennan--a fierce high-waller--once wrote ``I would 
suggest that such practices as the designation of `In God We Trust' as 
our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of 
Allegiance to the flag can best be understood . . . as a form a 
`ceremonial deism' protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly 
because they have lost through rote repetition any significant 
religious content.'' Other justices have likewise presumed the answer 
to the question and no court of appeals should blithely generate a 
political firestorm--one that was already beginning yesterday--just to 
find out whether they meant what they said.
  Half a century ago, at the height of anti-Communist fervor, Congress 
added the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a 
petty attempt to link patriotism with religious piety, to distinguish 
us from the godless Soviets. But after millions of repetitions over the 
years, the phrase has become part of the backdrop of American life, 
just like the words ``In God We Trust'' on our coins and ``God Bless 
America'' uttered by Presidents at the end of important speeches.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with my distinguished ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that the Congress should not 
pass resolutions like this every time some of us disagree with a court 
decision. However, this court decision was so out of bounds in terms of 
basic American values as well as judicial precedent that I think that 
we would be remiss in our responsibilities as representatives in an 
equal branch of government not to express the fact that we strongly 
disagree with what the two judges that struck down the Pledge of 
Allegiance decided yesterday. So that is why this resolution is here 
before us.
  If we look at the consequences of this decision becoming law, they 
are just mind-boggling. We have heard about the currency being placed 
at risk. Maybe we ought to pay those two in rubles or euros or 
something that does not have the offensive motto ``In God We Trust'' on 
it.
  The Declaration of Independence refers to God either directly or 
indirectly in four separate places, and the signers of the Declaration 
of Independence called upon divine providence to support the revolution 
against the English crown. What if that is unconstitutional? Would 
Queen Elizabeth come back here to reclaim her sovereignty? I do not 
think so.
  But I think that it is important that while the Court has a chance to 
change its mind rather than writing something in that can only be 
overturned by a constitutional amendment, that we express ourselves, 
and that is exactly what we are doing in this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I could not believe the contorted logic that the two 
judges

[[Page 11809]]

that were in the majority in the Newdow case used yesterday. They said 
that because all of the other kids except Mr. Newdow's daughter got up 
and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, they were coercing her to do the 
same. Now, that is ridiculous.
  The Court, since 1943, has said, you cannot compel everybody to say 
the Pledge of Allegiance, and those who voluntarily do not wish to 
participate are perfectly and legally able to sit down and not do so. 
But to use the logical extension of the Court's contorted thinking, it 
gives every heckler and every dissident a veto over what the majority 
would like to do and to do it in a way that does not coerce somebody 
who is not in the majority from doing something against their own 
principles or their own beliefs. This resolution tells the court that 
they were wrong, that they should review and reverse.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support passage of 
H. Res. 459, ``Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives 
that Newdow v. U.S. Congress was Erroneously Decided.''
  The Pledge of Allegiance is as much of a child's school day, as 
English, Math, or even recess. Yesterday, two activists jurists sitting 
on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California robbed children in 
its nine states and two territories of the privilege of following the 
tradition in which their parents and grandparents proudly took part.
  I am fully aware of the significance of the 1st Amendment's 
Establishment Clause, and I wholeheartedly believe in its purpose--to 
prevent establishment of a state-sponsored religion--which was at the 
heart of our fight for independence against the English crown. However, 
jurists who interpret this vital clause of the Bill of Rights to 
prohibit even references to God, as in the Pledge of Allegiance, are 
way off base. If this decision is allowed to stand, can we next assume 
the 9th Circuit will require the San Francisco mint to cease producing 
U.S. currency with the motto, ``In God We Trust?'' Or perhaps, we can 
look forward to these distinguished jurists prohibiting the singing of 
our National Anthem at government sponsored events?
  The Supreme Court has already established that a person cannot be 
compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. However, this opinion 
cites dicta from concurring Supreme Court opinion, which has absolutely 
no controlling authority, stating that the Pledge of Allegiance, 
``constitutes a government endorsement of religion because it sends a 
message to unbelievers, `that they are outsiders of the political 
community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are 
insider, favored by the political community.'''
  Nothing could be further from the truth, which is why the Supreme 
Court has rejected this argument. These ceremonial references to 
``God'' neither endorse religion, nor coerce anyone into adhering to a 
specific religion. The inclusion of phrases like ``Under God'' or ``In 
God We Trust'' is solely a reference to America's long-standing 
reverence for our creator, and to the freedom and liberties that have 
been bestowed upon us.
  Thankfully, not all the judges of the 9th Circuit are as irrational 
as the authors of this opinion. Judge Fernandez, writing in his 
dissent, stated that, ``what religion clause of the 1st Amendment 
require is neutrality; that those clauses are, in effect, an early kind 
of equal protection provision and assure that government will neither 
discriminate for nor against a religion or religions.'' This rationale 
is precisely what was intended when the Bill of Rights was adopted and 
I am confident the full 9th Circuit, or if necessary the Supreme Court, 
will recognize this on appeal.
  This point also underscores the necessity of pushing politics aside 
and confirming federal judges who understand the Constitution and will 
use common sense and rationality in reaching decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a nation ``under God.'' It always has been. If 
the Republic is to endure, it must always remain so. I believe that 
Francis Scott Key stated it best, when he penned our national anthem in 
1814, while observing the valiant defense of Fort McHenry:

     ``Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
     Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
     Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
     Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
     Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
     And this be our motto: ``In God is our trust.''

  A handful of judges in ivory towers may not understand this; but our 
Founding Fathers did, and the overwhelming majority of Americans do. I 
urge you to vote ``aye'' on H. Res. 459.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, today, I am deeply saddened to hear that 
a court in California has ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is 
unconstitutional.
  After September 11, America turned to prayer. Churches, community 
groups, colleges, all of America prayed for the victims, their 
families, and our great Nation. On the sides of buildings and in car 
windows and even on the roofs of houses the words ``God Bless America'' 
could be seen in every city and every town across the country. People 
everywhere donned red white and blue ribbons in support of our military 
forces and preachers everywhere called our great Nation to prayer. 
Every morning a moment of silent prayer was offered up for the victims 
of this great tragedy, wayward souls who had not set foot in a church 
in years found themselves on their knees praying for America.
  And now, now after that great outpouring of faith, a court in San 
Francisco has decided that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional 
because it mentions God. ``One Nation, under God with Liberty and 
Justice for all.'' Beam me up! I ask, what is next? Will we remove ``In 
God we Trust'' from our currency and from the House chamber? Will we 
deny members of Congress the right to recite the Pledge of Allegiance 
every morning? The courts started their assault on God by banning 
school prayer. The courts then banned the public display of the 
Christmas nativity scene. The courts banned students from writing 
papers about Jesus. Even in my home state of Ohio, the courts have 
ruled that our state motto ``With God All Things Are Possible'' is 
unconstitutional! Unbelievable. I am continually amazed at the utter 
stupidity of the American political system that continues to 
rationalize, debate, and deny the importance of God and why our 
founders placed in it our Constitution. The founders never intended to 
separate God from our schools; the founders simply intended to ensure 
that there would not be one State-sponsored religion, period. My 
colleagues know it, I know it, and the American people know it. I think 
that these judges should be tied to a chain link fence and flogged with 
a copy of the Constitution! They are so concerned with pleasing the 
FBI, the CIA, and the IRS so they won't lose their lifetime 
appointments, that God has become background music in a doctor's 
office!
  I would like to commend my colleagues in both the House and the 
Senate for supporting God and supporting the Pledge of Allegiance. I 
also commend our President for taking a strong stand on religion and 
for fighting for our country's religious freedoms. Freedoms that are 
taken for granted every single day, but all it takes is one voice. One 
atheist who does not believe that God has a place in our schools, and 
those simple freedoms are taken away. I urge this Congress to take 
whatever steps and means are necessary to invite and allow God back 
into our schoolrooms.
  Mr. GREEN to Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a constitutional 
amendment that would protect the rest of the nation from the erroneous 
and ill-timed decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the 
Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment's stricture against 
the establishment of a state religion.
  The 9th Circuit, while arguing that this ruling is a logical 
extension of previous United States Supreme Court decisions, is seeking 
to protect citizens from the advance of a nonexistent theocracy. 
Religion and government have existed side-by-side in our nation for 
over 200 years, and we still have yet to establish an official religion 
for America.
  Writing for the majority, Judge Alfred Goodwin asserts that the 
``profession that we are a nation `under God' is identical * * * to a 
profession that we are a nation `under Jesus,' a nation `under Vishnu,' 
a nation `under Zeus,' or a nation `under no god,' because none of 
these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.''
  I disagree, and echo the thoughts of Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who 
contended that there is only a ``minuscule'' risk that the use of the 
phrase ``under God'' would ``bring about a theocracy or suppress 
someone's beliefs.'' According to his colleagues, he wrote, ```God 
Bless America' and `America the Beautiful' will be gone [from public 
places] for sure, and . . . currency beware!''
  Newspapers across the country were quick to respond, with the Los 
Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Sun Jose Mercury-News, 
and The San Diego Union-Journal all attacking the decision of the 
California-based court. They were not alone, though, as nationally 
prominent papers known for their dedication to the First Amendment like 
The New York Times and The Washington Post also weighed in with their 
criticism of the court.
  As for the timing of the issuance of this decision, the 9th Circuit 
chose a time when our

[[Page 11810]]

nation is still actively engaged in the war against terror, with our 
troops still present in Afghanistan, searching for al-Qaeda and Taliban 
operatives, providing logistical assistance and training to Philippine 
troops in their pursuit of the al-Qaeda ally organization Abu Sayyaf, 
and with the wounds of September 11 still fresh in the memory of all 
Americans.
  I ask my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important 
legislation, and I hope that it will receive speedy consideration by 
this House.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Resolution, 
which recognizes that the outrageous decision rendered by a three-judge 
panel in San Francisco yesterday has no basis in law. I am referring, 
of course, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision yesterday to 
declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, I have read the Court's opinion, which argues that the 
inclusion of the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance 
violates the religious clauses of the Constitution of the United 
States. Specifically, we are told it violates the Establishment Clause, 
which reads as follows: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  Putting the pieces together, this means that the Ninth Circuit has 
determined that phrases such as ``under God,'' or ``In God We Trust'' 
tend to establish a religion, or to suppress anyone's exercise of 
religion.'' This conclusion is absurd on its face.
  The phrase ``under God'' when read in the Pledge of Allegiance, 
acknowledges that our rights are derived from our Creator. That is 
principle upon which our country was founded. How this qualifies as an 
attempt to suppress anyone's exercise of religion, or how it tends to 
establish a religion, I'll never know. And while I will not force 
anybody to believe what I believe, neither will I sit still while the 
ability of my fellow citizens to practice religion is trampled upon by 
a court that failed U.S. history 101.
  I am saddened by this ruling, but what is most unfortunate is that I 
am not surprised by it. I saw this coming from a mile away, Mr. 
Speaker. It is the logical conclusion to a judicial philosophy 
promulgated over the past 30 years by the politically correct.
  Mr. Speaker, I pray this travesty of justice will wake the Daschle-
led Senate up so that they might fulfill their Constitutional 
obligation and confirm President Bush's nominees.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
condemning the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling striking down the Pledge of 
Allegiance as unconstitutional. This decision is unpatriotic--
particularly at this time when our nation is at war. We should be 
embracing symbols of national unity like our pledge of allegiance, but 
instead the Ninth Circuit Court is attacking them.
  The argument against the pledge is above all, unreasonable. By 
declaring the inclusion of the phrase ``under God'' as 
unconstitutional, the ruling implies that any mention of ``God'' is 
equally inappropriate. Remember--the Declaration of Independence and 
the Constitution refer to ``the Lord'' and ``Creator'', our currency 
reads ``In God We Trust'', and even the oaths we take as Congressional 
members speak of ``God''. These references are embedded in the very 
foundation of our country and national identity--if we stand by and 
allow this change to the pledge, what will be next? Where do we draw 
the line?
  Mr. Speaker, this court decision will only lessen the already 
declining respect for our national symbols and for the liberties for 
which they stand. Yet devaluing an American symbol is unfortunately 
something that America has been seen before. As you know, in 1989 the 
US Supreme Court ruled that desecration of an American flag was a 
permissible and constitutional right. Nevertheless, public disrespect 
for such a well-known symbol only weakens the sense of a united people. 
When we do not protect our flag and the god-granted liberties it 
represents, decisions such as the one declared yesterday will certainly 
continue.
  It is just as essential for Congress to pass House Resolution 459 
today as it is to pass the flag burning amendment. We must send a 
strong message to the courts of America: we value our liberties. We 
take pride in symbols of national unity. We will fight to protect the 
pledge and the flag to which we profess our allegiance.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H. Res. 459, 
which I am proud to cosponsor. I am deeply troubled, but sadly not 
surprised, that the action of this San Francisco-based court compels us 
to consider this resolution today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Pledge of Allegiance is one of the first things that 
children learn to recite in school. Adults still place their hands over 
their hearts when they say it. This simple thirty-one-word affirmation 
of our great country encompasses the affection and devotion of 
Americans young and old toward their flag and their nation.
  Two years ago, in a court decision equally as absurd as this Newdow 
decision, a three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals struck down Ohio's official state motto, ``With God All Things 
Are Possible.'' The Court sided with the American Civil Liberties Union 
in declaring that the motto expresses a ``particular affinity toward 
Christianity,'' in violation of the Establishment clause.
  Mr. Speaker the Ohio motto decision was ultimately overturned, just 
as this outrageous decision will be overturned. Our Pledge of 
Allegiance, along with our Biblically based national motto ``In God We 
Trust,'' stands as a testament to the undeniable religious foundation 
of our country. ``In God We Trust'' has been upheld in the courts time 
and again as a proper reflection of our nation's enduring faith.
  It's too often overlooked that the First Amendment's Establishment 
clause--``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion''--is followed by the phrase ``or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.'' My constituents are tired of having their free 
religious exercise attacked by fringe groups in the name of separation 
of church and state. The Ninth Circuit Court's action is nothing more 
than political correctness run rampant.
  When President Eisenhower approved the addition of the words ``under 
God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, he said, ``In this way we 
are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's 
heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those 
spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful 
resource in peace and war.'' During this time of war, when people 
across the nation gather in their homes and places of worship to pray 
for the safety of our men and women in uniform, the Ninth Circuit's 
assault on our nation's faith-based foundation cannot stand. It flies 
in the face of common sense, and blatantly ignores a plethora of court 
precedents.
  When we pledge allegiance to our flag, we are not saluting a mere 
piece of cloth. Our flag is the most visible symbol of our nation--a 
unifying force in our nation of nearly 300 million. Since the Supreme 
Court invalidated state flag protection laws in 1989, the legislatures 
in each of the 50 states have passed resolutions petitioning Congress 
to propose a flag protection amendment to the Constitution. People 
across the nation--and across the political spectrum--support the right 
of everyone to affirm the religious foundation of our country through 
our Pledge.
  My hometown of Findlay, Ohio, is known as Flag City USA. Major 
downtown thoroughfares are lined with flags in a patriotic salute to 
the greatness of America. Nearby Arlington, Ohio, which I am also 
privileged to represent enjoys the designation Flag Village USA. The 
messages I am receiving from Findlay, Arlington and throughout my 
district are clear: we are one nation under God, despite this ludicrous 
court action. I know that my constituents and all Americans are saying 
the Pledge of Allegiance a little louder and with even more pride.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose yesterday's 9th U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that the use of ``under God'' 
in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
  The case in question originated from a lawsuit filed by a parent who 
felt that the use of the phrase ``under God'' impinged on his 
daughter's First Amendment rights since he believed that it constituted 
a sanction of religion in the public school she attends.
  This decision was clearly erroneous and I find it abhorrent, as do 
the vast majority of Americans. It was based upon a total lack of 
respect if not knowledge of the traditions, the values, and the history 
of our nation. From the very beginning, as the Declaration of 
Independence points out, our founding fathers established this land 
based on the idea that individuals were endowed not by man, but by 
``their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.''
  The Pledge of Allegiance is a revered expression of patriotism 
recited by millions of citizens every day. When it is spoken, it 
instills support for the United States and reflects the love that 
Americans feel for their country. The Pledge does not violate the 
separation between church and state since it is not a religious 
statement, but a verbal expression of Americans' affection for our 
country.
  As the dissenting judge pointed out, similar brief references such as 
the ``In God We Trust'' that appears on our currency and the opening 
call of the Supreme Court, ``God save the United States and this 
honorable court'' have always been accepted. I am hopeful that

[[Page 11811]]

the 9th Circuit Court as a whole reverses the decision of this three 
judge panel or that the Supreme Court takes up the case and overturns 
this badly mistaken ruling.
  This morning we were proud to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on the 
House floor as we do each day. I am a co-author of the resolution 
before us, H. Res. 459, that expresses the opinion of Congress that the 
court's judgment was in error. The measure calls for ``under God'' to 
remain in the Pledge, and for the decision to be reversed. I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 459, 
Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that Newdow v. 
U.S. Congress was Erroneously Decided.
  ``One Nation, under God,'' reflects the fact that a belief in God 
permeated the founding and development of our Nation.
  The Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer of part of a religious 
service. It is a statement of our commitment as citizens to our great 
Nation and the role God played in it.
  Yesterday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confused the issue 
of separation of church and state with the foundation on which our 
nation was built. ``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.'' So reads our Declaration of Independence.
  As a new nation we claimed our freedom from any monarch in the 
Declaration of Independence and inherently in the U.S. Constitution 
because of ``certain unalienable rights'' guaranteed to us by our 
Creator.
  President Abraham Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, spoke of 
God 13 times, not in an effort to unite church and state but to unite 
our Nation at the conclusion of one of the most devastating periods in 
U.S. history, the War Between the States.
  Speaking of the Northern blue and Southern grey, this is what Abraham 
Lincoln said: ``Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and 
each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any 
men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread 
from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be 
not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered--that of neither 
has been answered fully.''
  Abraham Lincoln continued, ``With malice toward none; with charity 
for all; with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right.''
  Today, we as Americans need to seek the right as God gives us to see 
this right, and continue to ask God's blessing on our great Nation, 
whose 226th year of freedom we celebrate next week.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House 
Resolution 459, Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives 
that Newdow v. U.S. Congress was Erroneously Decided.
  I do this on behalf of all Georgians who share my outrage with the 
Ninth Circuit ruling that our ``Pledge of Allegiance'' is 
unconstitutional.
  For many years, liberals have been unsuccessful in achieving their 
objectives through the consent of the governed and have turned to 
activist judges who are willing to distort the Constitution and erase 
from all public forums any mention of religion and our country's rich 
religious heritage. Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment guarantees us 
freedom of religion.
  Is it any wonder that this year alone, the Ninth Circuit Court has 
been overruled 12 times by the Supreme Court. But in a larger sense, 
this ruling is further evidence that our nation is facing a judicial 
crisis. Liberal special interests are working tirelessly to prohibit 
the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees in order to 
further pack the courts with liberal judges who will promote their 
liberal agenda thus guaranteeing that ruling such as this will become 
the norm.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution, I urge the 
Department of Justice to immediately appeal this decision and work to 
have it overturned. I urge confirmation of the President's judicial 
nominees. To date, only 28% of the President's circuit court nominees 
have been confirmed. The ruling yesterday in San Francisco demonstrates 
that the time has run out for holding up the President's nominees. We 
need the President's judges. We need them now.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution--not 
because I necessarily agree that the recent decisions it addresses is 
``inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment 
jurisprudence'' as the resolution says, but because I do agree that 
``the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should agree to rehear'' the 
matter.
  I am not a lawyer, and have not had a chance to carefully review the 
decision. So, I am not prepared to conclude that its author--a long-
serving judge originally appointed by President Nixon--was clearly 
wrong as a matter of law. However, it is my understanding that another 
appeals court, in a similar case, has ruled differently. So, I 
definitely think the issue needs to be resolved, either through 
reconsideration or by the Supreme Court.
  I also strongly agree with the part of the resolution which states 
that ``the United States Congress recognizes the right of those who do 
not share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge to refrain from its 
recitation.''
  I am proud to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because I personally 
agree that, as the resolution states, ``the Pledge of Allegiance is not 
a prayer or a religious practice'' and its recitation ``is not a 
religious exercise'' but instead ``the verbal expression of support for 
the United States of America.'' However, I think it is not a good idea 
for the Congress to attempt to define what constitutes a religious 
practice or a prayer. So, I am uncomfortable with the parts of the 
resolution dealing with those points. The resolution is only an 
expression of opinion, of course, but still I would have preferred if 
those clauses had been omitted.
  Similarly, I am not sure it is correct to say, as the resolution 
does, that the court's decision ``treats any religious reference as 
inherently evil and is an attempt to remove such references from the 
public arena.'' That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, especially 
since under our legal system the courts rule only on cases brought to 
them, and--unlike the political branches of the government--do not have 
complete control over their agenda.
  On balance, however, and for the reasons I have outlined, I am 
generally in agreement with the resolution, and so I will vote for it.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals held that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional 
endorsement of religion. The Court stated that the Pledge 
``impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious 
question of the existence and identity of God.'' Furthermore, the Court 
concluded that the Pledge places children in the ``untenable position 
of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content 
or protesting.''
  I vehemently disagree with the Court and rise in strong support of H. 
Res. 459, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that this case was erroneously decided. The Court's 
ruling is contrary to the vast weight of Supreme Court authority 
recognizing that the mere mention of God in a public setting is not 
contrary to any reasonable reading of the First Amendment.
  The Pledge of Allegiance is not a religious service or a prayer, but 
it is a statement of historical beliefs. The Pledge represents 
everything that unites us. It is a reminder of the ideals that we all 
share--patriotism, loyalty, and love of country. While I firmly believe 
in the separation of church and state, I also believe that the 
Constitution was not designed to drive religious expression out of 
public sight.
  Our people are part of a culture where many believe in God and value 
the fact that religion played an important role in the founding of this 
great nation. The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is 
firmly out of touch with what is good and right in America and with the 
vast majority of this country's people and I trust that this 
fundamentally flawed decision will be quickly overturned.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I added my name as a 
cosponsor to this resolution and I urge my colleagues to join me and 
send a strong message to all Americans that they should be proud of the 
religious heritage of America by supporting H. Res. 459.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 459 to firmly 
denounce yesterday's outrageous court ruling that the Pledge of 
Allegiance ``is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot 
be recited in schools.''
  The Pledge of Allegiance is an American tradition that instills 
patriotism, gratitude, and respect in our children. Many of us grew up 
pledging allegiance to the flag each morning in our school rooms--an 
honor I want my children to experience. Many of us also have family and 
friends who fought in foreign wars under the red, white, and blue of 
Old Glory. The Pledge of Allegiance affirms the strength, unity, 
sacrifice, and a commitment symbolized by the flag under which they 
fought and bled.
  The late Red Skelton ended his now-famous patriotic commentary on the 
Pledge of Allegiance by saying ``since I was a small boy, two states 
have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the 
Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said 
that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?'' If 
allowed to stand, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling would make 
this fear a reality.

[[Page 11812]]

Generations of school children would be denied their right as Americans 
to publicly express gratitude to those who aided to secure the 
blessings of freedom.
  We were all inspired by the firemen who risked their lives to stand 
atop the smoking, 70-story debris of the World Trade Towers to unfurl 
the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in its honor. In 
the face of such selfless bravery, it is more evident than ever that we 
are indeed a nation ``under God.''
  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution affirms that 
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .'' Our nation's founding 
fathers sought to ensure freedom of religion, not freedom from 
religion, as the two Ninth Circuit Federal judges have erroneously and 
dangerously concluded. I agree with the dissenting Judge Fernandez, who 
wrote that ``such phrases as `in God we trust,' or `under God,' have no 
tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress 
anyone's exercise, or non-exercise, of religion,'' except in the eyes 
of those who ``most fervently would like to drive all tincture of 
religion out of the public life.''
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 459 to ensure 
that generations of children can pledge allegiance to our flag and 
understand the sacrifices, values, and patriotism that have made our 
country great.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res 459 
expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that the 9th 
Circuit court of Appeals exercised poor judgment in deciding 2 to 1 
that the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the 
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Today, the House of 
Representatives joins the Senator, which voted unanimously, to object 
publicly to this decision.
  Because our Constitution only grants the Supreme Court the power to 
make a final interpretation of the Constitution, Congress cannot 
overturn this decision. However, it is entirely appropriate for 
Congress to express its collective opinion about this 9th Circuit 
decision. I hope the Supreme Court is listening as it will likely hear 
the appeal on this case.
  The Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer. It is an expression of 
support for our nation just as ``In God We Trust'' is on our currency 
or singing the song ``God Bless America.'' These phrases are a form of 
ceremonial deism, not an establishment of religion. Anyone who thinks 
the Pledge of Allegiance will lead us to abandon democracy and 
establish a theocracy is wrong. I hope they will come to realize that 
attempt to extinguish the phrase ``God'' from the public forum is 
really an attempt to extinguish an important element of our nation 
history.
  Finally, it is worthwhile to note that the important principle of 
separation of church and state is already preserved. Under current law, 
student are not required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It is part 
of their freedom of speech to refrain from recruiting it. Lets not 
forget that it is also the freedom of speech of other students to 
recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I respect that the Supreme Court will 
ultimately make its own independent judgment. However, I sincerely hope 
that it will reverse the 9th Circuit decision.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 
459, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case 
of Newdow v. U.S. Congress was wrongly decided. I believe that students 
should be able to continue to recite the full Pledge of Allegiance, 
including the phrase ``under God,'' if they so chose, as the Pledge is 
a central part of the heritage of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001, I took the floor of the House to remind members about the history 
and importance of our flag to the United States. On September 12, 2001, 
I stated:

       Mr. Speaker, it was 187 years ago this very evening that in 
     Baltimore, Maryland, at Fort McHenry, this Nation, this young 
     Nation, won its second war of independence. It was the 
     beginning of the end of the War of 1812. Francis Scott Key on 
     this very evening 187 years ago wrote his inspirational poem 
     that became our National Anthem.
       In that third verse, he wrote some words that are helpful 
     for us this evening:

     From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.
     And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph doth wave.

       We survived the attack by a hostile power and became the 
     strongest Nation in the world, and we will survive this 
     attack on our democratic principles, and we will grow even 
     stronger.

  Mr. Speaker, the Pledge of Allegiance is a simple, eloquent statement 
of American values. For more than four decades, school children have 
recited it in classrooms across the country. Students pledge allegiance 
not only to the flag, but to the nation and our values and principles.
  I was heartened to see Americans all across our great nation pause 
for the Pledge on June 14, Flag Day. The Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, 
regularly opens its proceedings with the injunction ``God save the 
United States and this Honorable Court.'' Congress opens its business 
for the day with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, as do many of 
our state legislatures. We should continue this fine tradition in our 
public institutions of government, as well as our schools.
  At this most trying time for our nation, when American values and our 
democracy are under attack from terrorist both at home and abroad. 
Congress should send a clear message to the nation that we believe the 
Pledge of Allegiance continues to unite us.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this resolution.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and appalled by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling of the Pledge of 
Allegiance as unconstitutional. This outrageous decision allows a tiny 
minority to impose its atheistic views on the vast majority of 
Americans of all faiths. At the same time, it has no legal foundation.
  The Pledge of Allegiance is based on the same fundamental legal 
principles that established our Nation under the Constitution.
  This nation has experienced a tremendous rise in patriotism and we 
continue to take every opportunity to express our pride in this 
country. Yet we have now been told that the Pledge of Allegiance is a 
biased statement and an injury to hear that we are ``one Nation, under 
God.'' How ridiculous!
  I am strongly opposed to this court decision and urge all Americans 
to join me in expressing contempt for this ruling.
  This case must be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in an expedited 
fashion.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the resolution 
introduced by my colleague, representative Bob Riley opposing the 
ruling of the 9th circuit court that the Pledge of Allegiance is 
unconstitutional. This is just the kind of ridiculous decision we in 
the West have come to expect from the 9th Circuit. In an attempt to 
impose political correctness on society at the expense of freedom, 
these judges have ignored the real intent of the framers of the 
Constitution. The First Amendment says nothing about separating church 
and state. What it does is prohibit the government from establishing a 
state religion or laws prohibiting free exercise of religion. What's 
next? Are they going to declare U.S. currency unconstitutional because 
it bears the words ``In God We Trust?'' Religious freedom is the one 
common unifying quality that makes us a peace loving, God-fearing 
nation. We are all Americans, and the Pledge of Allegiance stands as a 
testament to the citizens of this Nation, and their commitment to each 
other as Americans.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
ruling yesterday treats the reference of God as one would treat 
profanity. Religious references in public discourse are wrongly under 
attack.
  The Constitution guarantees us that government will not `establish' a 
religion, but it also provides every American--even students--the right 
to freely express their views. We are `one nation under God' and we 
have the right to say it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that the words ``under God'' as recited 
in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional. The case was brought 
before the panel of three judges by Michael A. Newdow, a self-described 
atheist who protested the requirement of the pledge at his second-
grader's school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in Sacramento, 
California. His case had previously been dismissed by the U.S. District 
Court.
  Writing for the majority, Judge Alfred T. Goodwin found that Newdow 
had standing as a parent to ``challenge a practice that interferes with 
his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.'' 
Following the precedent establish by the Supreme Court in related 
school prayer cases, the Court ultimately decided that the 1954 Act, 
which placed the words ``under God'' in the Pledge was unconstitutional 
because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 
The ruling will affect nine states in the western United States: 
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 
and Washington.
  This decision will not be implemented for several months, and an 
appeal to the Supreme Court will likely be the next step. I urge

[[Page 11813]]

Attorney General Ashcroft to take steps to begin these proceedings as 
soon as possible.
  Congress already is protesting this decision as well. The day the 
decision was announced, members of the House of Representatives 
gathered on the steps of the Capitol building and proudly recited that 
Pledge of Allegiance. In addition, on Thursday, June 27, H. Res. 459 
was introduced on the House floor. This legislation expresses the view 
of Congress that Newdow v. U.S. Congress was erroneously decided. If 
necessary, I would support a constitutional amendment protecting the 
right to recite the pledge in schools and other public settings.
  As cited in H. Res. 459, the Pledge of Alliance, including the phrase 
``One Nation, under God,'' reflects the historical fact that a belief 
in God permeated the founding and development of our Nation. This is 
evident in many other cultural elements, including our currency and 
many patriotic songs, such as ``God Bless America.'' In this time of 
uncertainty, it is important to remember and uphold the symbols of our 
Nation, which honor our heritage and draw us together as one people.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the U.S. 9th Circuit 
Court of Appeals' declaration that the Pledge of Allegiance is 
unconstitutional because it contains the words ``under God'' which were 
added by Congress in 1954.
  The Federal Court's decision is an insult to our Nation and a 
disgrace and an absurdity of justice. It is an obvious 
misinterpretation of the Constitution, one which violates the basic 
principles of reason and good judgment.
  The ruling, if allowed to stand, means schoolchildren in the nine 
western states covered by the Court (Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) can no longer 
recite the Pledge.
  Accordingly, I urge the Attorney General to expeditiously appeal this 
decision to the Supreme Court. Each day that this unbelievable finding 
stands is another day that the Federal judiciary should hide its head 
in embarrassment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the absurd logic of 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in its decision regarding the Pledge 
of Allegiance and renew my call for much needed reform to stop the 
unchecked abuses of this court.
  We in the West have long known the Ninth Circuit is a court out of 
touch with reality. Yesterday's ruling, however, marks a new low for 
this court and is an affront to the principles on which our nation was 
founded.
  The Ninth Circuit, without question, is the most overturned appeals 
court in the nation. The 1996-1997 session alone saw 95 percent of its 
cases reviewed by the Supreme Court overturned--and the wholesale 
rejection of this court's decision continues to this day.
  I call upon my colleagues in the House to support legislation I put 
forward last year that would split the Ninth Circuit into two courts 
and put an end to this cycle of wasteful and irresponsible rulings. My 
constituents deserve better, the people of the nation deserve better, 
and the constitution deserves better.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 
the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. This is an outrage to me, 
to Congress, to the man on the street, and to the children who will be 
told they can no longer say the pledge in school! I am livid over the 
court's brainless decision. I pledge to support every effort to 
overturn this horrible decision.
  The court's decision stating that the words ``under God'' amounts to 
a government endorsement of religion shows just how out of step these 
liberal judges are with the American people. They state that saying God 
is akin to saying Jesus, Vishnu, or Zeus. This is blatantly nearsighted 
because the term God refers to God in the concept that is personal to 
every single person and does not refer to any certain idea of deity. 
Furthermore, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer or a religious 
practice and thus the recitation of the pledge is not a religious 
exercise but rather it is an expression of support and loyalty for the 
United States. In Justice Brennan's concurring opinion in School 
District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 304 (1963) he 
stated, ``the reference to divinity in the revised pledge of allegiance 
. . . may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was 
believed to have been founded `under God.' Thus reciting the pledge may 
be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln's 
Gettysburg Address, which contains an allusion to the same historical 
fact.'' And Justice Blackmun writing for the Court in County of 
Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 
109 S. Ct. 3086, 3106 (1989) stated. ``Our previous opinions have 
considered in dicta the motto and the Pledge characterizing them as 
consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an 
endorsement of religious belief.''
  Even before Congress added ``under God'' in 1954 to the pledge, the 
Supreme Court had ruled no one could be forced to recite the pledge. 
The court's decision yesterday said simply having to hear it every day 
violates the First Amendment ban on the establishment of religion. 
However, as Judge Fernandez points out in his dissenting opinion, ``in 
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette the Supreme Court did not 
say that the Pledge could not be recited in the presence of Jehovah's 
Witness children; it merely said that they did not have to recite it. 
That fully protected their constitutional rights by precluding the 
government from trenching upon `the sphere of intellect and spirit. As 
the Court pointed out, their religiously based refusal' to participate 
in the ceremony would not interfere with or deny rights of others to do 
so.''
  Essentially this court has with this opinion developed the idea of a 
coercive environment. However, the law doesn't normally condition ones 
behavior on how it will affect others around them. Instead, we are told 
to avert our eyes and turn our heads away from something we find 
objectionable. In Cohen v. California, the Court found that epithets on 
the back of a war protestor's jacket, worn in public places, was 
constitutionally protected speech--the rights of unwilling viewers do 
not outweigh the speaker's. With this decision, the court gives any 
statement which may appear to be religious, no matter how innocuous, 
less protection than any other speech. Religion should be a more highly 
protected value, not a less protected value. At the very least it 
deserves equal protection.
  If this case is allowed to stand what will be next? Our national 
motto ``In God We Trust'' which is emblazoned on our money and above 
the Speaker of the House's chair? Or the singing of songs such as ``God 
Bless America'' or ``America the Beautiful'' in public? Or how about 
congressional prayers or the president's periodic invocation of the 
deity? Or maybe even the crosses at Arlington National Cemetery and our 
national military cemeteries across the country?
  The Pledge, like the National Anthem, is one of few remaining 
vestiges of the old idea of civic inculcation. It reminds us that 
despite the fact that we are all from diverse ethnic, religious, and 
racial backgrounds we remain a part of the same republic. The key to 
our unity is a shared commitment to the republican ideas of liberty and 
justice. The sanctioning of our oath under God is not merely an 
assertion of religious belief, but an appeal for divine blessing of 
this rather strange and mysterious grand experiment. Out Pledge, 
National Anthem, national motto and civic prayers help remind our 
citizens that there are more spiritual ties that bind us than natural 
affinities that divide us.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 
459, to express the sense of Congress that the decision made in Newdow 
v. U.S. Congress was erroneous.
  Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Federal Court that 
has jurisdiction over my constituents in Eastern Washington, ruled that 
our nation's Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The Ninth 
Circuit has a long history of bad rulings, and has had more decisions 
overturned by the Supreme Court than any other circuit. This decision 
once again proves that the Ninth Circuit needs a common-sense judge 
from the Eastern District of Washington to bring a voice of reason to 
the federal appellate bench.
  The Pledge of Allegiance, recited by Americans of every age, is an 
affirmation of our principles of democracy, justice and individual 
liberty. The declaration of our being ``one nation under God'' is at 
the heart and soul of America and her distinguished history.
  This case and decision should serve as a strong reminder to the U.S. 
Senate that it should fulfill its responsibilities to confirm President 
Bush's judicial nominees.
  Mr. Speaker, the ruling in Newdow v. U.S. Congress eliminates a 
constitutionally protected ``genuine choice'' by disallowing students 
across the Nation from proclaiming their love for these United States 
through the Pledge of Allegiance. To do so is wrong. We must encourage 
our Nation's youth to believe in whatever religion they choose, for 
those beliefs set guiding principles that turn our youth into the 
outstanding leaders of tomorrow.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House 
Resolution 459 expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
that the court ruling in Newdow v. U.S. Congress as erroneously 
decided. By supporting this resolution we recognize the meaning of the 
Pledge of Allegiance and embrace the significance of its recitation by 
our nation's schoolchildren.
  Since arriving in Congress in 1993, I have had the privilege of 
leading this House in the

[[Page 11814]]

Pledge of Allegiance several times upon convening at the beginning of 
the day. It is an honor to express my support for the principles and 
ideals of freedom, democracy, liberty and justice, the very foundation 
of this great nation, the nation that our flag and pledge celebrates.
  The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in this 
case is unfortunate in that it fails to recognize the meaning that the 
Pledge of Allegiance has in our lives, its purpose in protection the 
principles of our democracy, and its remembering of the sacrifice made 
by our nation's veterans in defense of this nation and in support of 
all for which we stand and in which we believe.
  Under the logic of this ruling the people of Guam won't be able to 
sing the Guam Hymn. Our hymn, which is sung daily in Guam's schools not 
only acknowledges God, it asks for His protection as in `Yu'os prutehi 
islan Guam.
  For our elders, for our children, and for generations to come, may 
the pledge continue to stand strong for all Americans and may it remain 
the words by which we pledge allegiance to the ideals of liberty and 
justice for all and recognize that we are indeed one nation, under God.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, at a time when meaningful debate is at a 
minimum in this Congress, it is embarrassing that this resolution has 
been brought to the floor in this manner. Issues of great consequence 
to this nation, like reducing prescription drug costs, protecting 
investors and ensuring corporate accountability, and producing a budget 
that allows us to meet our military needs and protect Social Security, 
are being short-changed.
  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided yesterday the case of 
Newdow v. U.S. Congress on the Pledge of Allegiance. One day later, we 
by-pass the committee process and rush this resolution to the floor. In 
my personal opinion, the Court's decision is an over-reaction to 
language that has been part of the civic and governmental life of the 
United States since this nation's founding. Every American responds in 
our own ways to the invocation of God on our currency, in solemn oaths 
and other customary circumstances. Our individual liberties have not 
been threatened by these expressions, including the words ``under God'' 
in the Pledge of Allegiance. However, I would hope we would allow this 
decision to work its way through the judicial process rather than 
engage in political grandstanding.
  I refuse to dignify this trivialization of the legislative process 
and I vote ``present.''
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to state my strong support for 
H. Res. 459. Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the Pledge of Allegiance 
is unconstitutional because it describes the United States as ``one 
Nation, under God.'' This decision is absurd, and it flies in the face 
of reason and a 7th Circuit decision upholding the Pledge.
  Immediate action must be taken against the court's latest decision. I 
call upon the Administration to ask the full 9th Circuit to reconsider 
the case or take the matter directly to the Supreme Court. The phrase 
``under God'' was added to the Pledge at the height of the Cold War. 
The American values in force when this phrase was added are still 
shared today, as we rebuild as a nation from the tragedy that impacted 
our lives on September 11, 2002. That is why I stand in support of 
House Resolution 459.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 459.
  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, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416, 
nays 3, answered ``present'' 11, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 273]

                               YEAS--416

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     Honda
     Scott
     Stark

[[Page 11815]]



                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--11

     Ackerman
     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Frank
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     McDermott
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Velazquez
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Berman
     Greenwood
     LaFalce
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  1616

  Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
  Mr. NADLER and Mr. McDERMOTT changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``present.''
  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 273 I was unavoidably 
detained by duties related to my investigation of Worldcom in a 
interview room without audible vote notification bells. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________