[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6550-6555]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 SENSE OF HOUSE THAT NEWDOW V. UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS INCONSISTENT 
  WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND 
                          SHOULD BE OVERTURNED

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree 
to the resolution (H. Res. 132) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 
Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme 
Court's interpretation of the first amendment and should be overturned, 
and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 132

       Whereas on June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals, in Newdow v. United States Congress (292 F.3d 597; 
     9th Cir. 2002) (Newdow I), held that the Pledge of Allegiance 
     to the Flag as currently written to include the phrase, ``one 
     Nation, under God'', unconstitutionally endorses religion, 
     that such phrase was added to the pledge in 1954 only to 
     advance religion in violation of the establishment clause, 
     and that the recitation of the pledge in public schools at 
     the start of every school day coerces students who choose not 
     to recite the pledge into participating in a religious 
     exercise in violation of the establishment clause of the 
     first amendment;
       Whereas on February 28, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals amended its ruling in this case, and held (in Newdow 
     II) that a California public school district's policy of 
     opening each school day with the voluntary recitation of the 
     Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ``impermissibly coerces a 
     religious act'' on the part of those students who choose not 
     to recite the pledge and thus violates the establishment 
     clause of the first amendment;
       Whereas the ninth circuit's ruling in Newdow II contradicts 
     the clear implication of the holdings in various Supreme 
     Court cases, and the spirit of numerous other Supreme Court 
     cases in which members of the Court have explicitly stated, 
     that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to 
     the Flag is consistent with the first amendment;
       Whereas the phrase, ``one Nation, under God'', as included 
     in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, reflects the notion 
     that the Nation's founding was largely motivated by and 
     inspired by the Founding Fathers' religious beliefs;
       Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag is not a 
     prayer or statement of religious faith, and its recitation is 
     not a religious exercise, but rather, it is a patriotic 
     exercise in which one expresses support for the United States 
     and pledges allegiance to the flag, the principles for which 
     the flag stands, and the Nation;
       Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes the right 
     of those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the pledge 
     or who do not wish to pledge allegiance to the flag to 
     refrain from its recitation;
       Whereas the effect of the ninth circuit's ruling in Newdow 
     II will prohibit the recitation of the pledge at every public 
     school in 9 states, schooling over 9.6 million students, and 
     could lead to the prohibition of, or severe restrictions on, 
     other voluntary speech containing religious references in 
     these classrooms;
       Whereas rather than promoting neutrality on the question of 
     religious belief, this decision requires public school 
     districts to adopt a preference against speech containing 
     religious references;
       Whereas the constitutionality of the voluntary recitation 
     by public school students of numerous historical and founding 
     documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, the 
     Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address, has been placed 
     into serious doubt by the ninth circuit's decision in Newdow 
     II;
       Whereas the ninth circuit's interpretation of the first 
     amendment in Newdow II is clearly inconsistent with the 
     Founders' vision of the establishment clause and the free 
     exercise clause of the first amendment, Supreme Court 
     precedent interpreting the first amendment, and any 
     reasonable interpretation of the first amendment;
       Whereas this decision places the ninth circuit in direct 
     conflict with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which, in 
     Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District (980 F.2d 
     437; 7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy 
     allowing for the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of 
     Allegiance to the Flag in public schools does not violate the 
     establishment clause of the first amendment;
       Whereas Congress has consistently supported the Pledge of 
     Allegiance to the Flag by starting each session with its 
     recitation;
       Whereas the House of Representatives reaffirmed support for 
     the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in the 107th Congress by 
     adopting House Resolution 459 on June 26, 2002, by a vote of 
     416-3; and
       Whereas the Senate reaffirmed support for the Pledge of 
     Allegiance to the Flag in the 107th Congress by adopting 
     Senate Resolution 292 on June 26, 2002, by a vote of 99-0: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) the phrase ``one Nation, under God,'' in the Pledge of 
     Allegiance to the Flag reflects that religious faith was 
     central to the Founding Fathers and thus to the founding of 
     the Nation;
       (2) the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, 
     including the phrase, ``one Nation, under God,'' is a 
     patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or 
     belief;
       (3) the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' should remain in 
     the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the practice of 
     voluntarily reciting the pledge in public school classrooms 
     should not only continue but should be encouraged by the 
     policies of Congress, the various States, municipalities, and 
     public school officials;
       (4) despite being the school district where the legal 
     challenge to the pledge originated, the Elk Grove Unified 
     School District in Elk Grove, California, should be 
     recognized and commended for their continued support of the 
     Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag;
       (5) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. 
     United States Congress has created a split among the circuit 
     courts, and is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 
     interpretation of the first amendment, which indicates that 
     the voluntary recitation of the pledge and similar patriotic 
     expressions is consistent with the first amendment;
       (6) the Attorney General should appeal the ruling in Newdow 
     v. United States Congress, and the Supreme Court should 
     review this ruling in order to correct this constitutionally 
     infirm and historically incorrect holding; and
       (7) the President should nominate and the Senate should 
     confirm Federal circuit court judges who interpret the 
     Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 132.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we will consider House Resolution 132, which 
expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals' recent ruling in Newdow v. United States 
Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 
first amendment and urges the Attorney General to appeal its decision.
  We are here today because the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit continues to get it wrong.
  On February 28, 2003, as our country continued preparations for what 
is now an impending war to defend the values upon which our great 
Nation is founded, the Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case of 
Newdow v. U.S. Congress. In Newdow, a three-judge panel of the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the voluntary, voluntary recitation 
of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students violates the 
first amendment because it includes the phrase ``one Nation under 
God.'' In addition, on February 28, the three-judge panel amended its 
June 2002 ruling and held that the Elk Grove, California, school 
district policy of opening each school day with the voluntary 
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ``impermissibly 
coerces a religious act'' on the part of those students who choose not 
to recite the Pledge and, thus, violates the Establishment Clause of 
the first amendment.
  This second preposterous ruling by the most-often reversed appellate 
court in the Nation impels us to come to the House floor again to voice 
our profound disagreement. House Resolution 132 expresses the sense of 
the House that the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' should remain in 
the Pledge of Allegiance and that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

[[Page 6551]]

ruling in Newdow v. U.S. Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme 
Court's interpretation of the first amendment.
  It also urges the Attorney General of the United States to repeal the 
Ninth Circuit's ruling and urges the President to nominate and the 
Senate to confirm Federal circuit court judges who will interpret the 
Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text. House Resolution 
132 also encourages school districts across the Nation to continue 
reciting the Pledge daily and praises the Elk Grove School District for 
its defense of the Pledge of Allegiance against this specious 
constitutional challenge.
  Since the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer nor a statement of 
religious faith, the recitation of the Pledge is not a religious 
exercise. Rather, it is a patriotic exercise in which one expresses 
support for the United States of America and pledges allegiance to the 
flag, the principles for which the flag stands, and to the Nation. To 
conclude otherwise is to ignore clear precedent from the Supreme Court.
  If this latest ruling is allowed to stand, schoolchildren at every 
public school in nine States, a total of 9,600,000 students, will be 
prohibited from reciting the pledge. Furthermore, the constitutionality 
of the voluntary recitation by public school students of numerous 
historical and founding documents such as the Declaration of 
Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address has been 
placed into serious doubt. When one considers how this decision 
distorts Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the importance of 
appointing judges who will interpret the Constitution consistent with 
its text becomes clear.
  Congress has consistently supported the Pledge of Allegiance by 
starting each session of the House with its recitation. The House 
reaffirmed its support for the Pledge when, on June 27, 2002, it 
adopted House Resolution 459, which I introduced, by a vote of 416 to 
three. The House should do the same with House Resolution 132 today.
  I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor of this measure, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, judges certainly should not be immune from criticism. I 
mean, healthy debate on the merits of judicial decisions is an 
important feature of our democracy. But there is a difference between 
legitimate criticism and overt pressure that threatens judicial 
independence.
  Like all Americans, Members of Congress are free to criticize 
judicial decisions with which we disagree. Our collective voice should 
be heard on matters of profound constitutional significance as we, too, 
are guardians of the Constitution. In fact, I joined most of my 
colleagues in voting for a resolution during the last Congress that was 
referenced by the chairman that expressed disapproval of this very 
decision on the Pledge of Allegiance and urged that it be overturned.
  However, I intend to vote present on this current resolution because 
it does not stop at expressing disapproval; it goes further, in a way 
that I believe would set an unwise and dangerous precedent.
  It is one thing to urge the judicial branch to use the normal process 
of appellate review to correct an erroneous decision. It is quite 
another to imply that judges who issue unpopular decisions in 
particular cases are unfit for office.
  Unfortunately, that is what H.R. 132 does. It not only expresses 
disapproval of the court's reasoning in the Newdow case, but it states 
that the President should nominate and the Senate should confirm 
Federal circuit court judges who interpret the Constitution consistent 
with the Constitution's text.
  By linking future nominations to a particular ruling with which the 
proponents disagree, the resolution sends a not-so-subtle message to 
sitting judges, and in particular to potential nominees, that they had 
better tailor their constitutional views to those of the congressional 
majority if they wish to be confirmed. That, I submit, goes far beyond 
our appropriate constitutional role.
  The Framers of the Constitution recognized that an independent 
judicial branch is an essential guarantor of liberty in any democracy. 
To understand this, one need only observe those nations with a weak 
judiciary that is subservient to the political branches. Invariably 
such nations are democracies in name only. Those who profess fidelity 
to the Constitution must take great care not to chip away at the 
independence of the judiciary on which our liberty depends. For that 
reason, this resolution ought to be rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, our Nation was founded on the idea of 
freedom of religion, the freedom to believe, the freedom to pray, the 
freedom to worship any time, anywhere. Today more than ever the people 
of our Nation need to have faith, a religion, a belief.
  James Madison stated in 1825 that ``The belief in God All Powerful, 
wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to 
the happiness of man that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn 
from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the 
different characters and capacities impressed with it.''
  I believe Madison's statement is accurate, and we as a people should 
maintain this strong sense of values. We in Congress should do our part 
by protecting what our forefathers built this Nation on. We should do 
that today by passing H.R. 132.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I 
rise in opposition because it is wrong in its principles, it is wrong 
on the stated findings, it is wrong on its facts. Let me just go 
through them.
  First of all, people may very well, everybody has the freedom to 
disagree with a court decision. All of us have the right to get up and 
say that. I do not think it is the role of Congress to say that a court 
decision is wrong. If we disagree as a body with a court decision, then 
pass a law if it is a question of statutory interpretation, or propose 
a constitutional amendment if it is a question of constitutional 
interpretation. That is our role.
  The role of the judiciary is, to quote Chief Justice Marshall, to say 
what the law is. They say what the law is, and we say what the law 
should be. It is not our role to tell the court it is wrong; it is our 
role to change the law if we think so. To pass a resolution which has 
no power except perhaps the power to intimidate judges is wrong and a 
violation of our constitutional role.
  Secondly, this states as fact that recitation of the Pledge of 
Allegiance to the flag, including the phrase ``one Nation under God,'' 
is a patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or 
belief. It certainly is a patriotic act, but it certainly is a 
statement of religious faith and belief when you say ``one Nation under 
God.''
  The only way you can get around that conclusion is to say, as the 
dissenting opinion in the court said, that the phrase ``under God'' is 
minor, it is de minimis, it does not mean anything. But that is a 
sacrilege. Since when is God minor? Are we really going to say in this 
Chamber that God is minor; that belief in God is a minor question, so 
minor as to not to be worthy of notice?
  That is the only ground on which we could say that asking 
schoolchildren, in the context of a group recitation of a pledge in a 
classroom, is not a prayer and an affirmation of belief and a religious 
conviction. To say that God is minor and ``under God'' means nothing, I 
do not think we want to say that. I certainly hope we do not want to 
say that. Yet, if we say it means something, then the Pledge of 
Allegiance with that phrase in it is a statement of a religious belief, 
or at least a statement of a belief in God.

[[Page 6552]]

  There are religions in this country, Shintoism, Hinduism, that do not 
believe in one God. There are people who are atheists. It is factually 
a wrong statement. It says, as a statement of fact, that the court's 
ruling in this case is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 
interpretation of the first amendment. That is demonstrably wrong, and 
the Supreme Court will say so.
  First, the Supreme Court for the last 40 years in its jurisprudence 
on school prayers has said that we cannot ask schoolchildren to recite 
a prayer or a belief in God in the classroom setting, even if we allow 
the dissenters to walk out of the room; but that is exactly what asking 
them to say the Pledge of Allegiance with that phrase ``under God'' is. 
It is exactly consistent with the Supreme Court's last 40 years of 
jurisprudence and rulings on the school prayer cases. It is, in effect, 
the school prayer, that as long as you ask schoolchildren to say ``one 
Nation under God.'' It has all the same pros and cons; and many 
disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions, but those were its 
decisions.
  In the name of religious liberty, in the name of the separation of 
powers, in the name of religion, to say that God is not minor, we ought 
not to pass this resolution and let the Supreme Court uphold or 
overturn the Court of Appeals decision in Newdow. After that we can 
worry about a constitutional amendment, which I would propose, and some 
Members may want to propose. But at this point it is not our function 
to be correcting a court.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 132 
expressing the sense of the House that the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with 
the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment.
  It is clear that the ninth circuit's amended Newdow ruling 
contradicts any reasonable interpretation of the first amendment. In a 
long line of cases, the Supreme Court has interpreted the establishment 
clause as prohibiting not only compelled participation in religious 
activity in public schools, but even voluntary religious devotional 
activity if, under the circumstances, children feel coerced to 
participate.
  These cases, however, were based upon the fact that the activity at 
issue involved compelled participation in prayers and devotional 
exercises, as in the cases of School District of Abington Township v. 
Schemp and Engle v. Vitale; or the practice of graduation prayers at 
issue in Lee v. Weisman.
  In fact, the questionable activity in these cases occurred either 
just before or just after the recitation of the Pledge. In its review 
of these cases, however, the court not only failed to question the 
practice of the voluntary recitation of the Pledge by schoolchildren, 
but instead explicitly limited its holding to the prayer or devotional 
exercise.
  To have applied these cases to the facts in the Newdow case was 
incorrect because the Pledge is clearly not a religious statement or 
prayer; thus, its recitation is not a religious exercise. It is a 
historical fact that our Nation's founding principles were based upon 
the Founding Fathers' deeply held religious views. The Pledge of 
Allegiance simply refers to this fact.
  The reasoning and holding of the ninth circuit in Newdow turns 
historical fact, as well as Supreme Court precedent, on its head. 
Either the judges were incapable or were unwilling to make this 
distinction.
  Those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge or those 
who do not wish to pledge allegiance to the flag have a right to 
refrain from its recitation. This was recognized by the Supreme Court 
in the 1943 case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett, in 
which the mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was held 
unconstitutional under the first amendment's free speech clause.
  Indeed, it is a cornerstone of the religious faith that the Founding 
Fathers held dear that no man can force another to say or believe that 
which their conscience will not allow. I would hope that no court would 
issue a ruling that tramples upon this right. However, the ninth 
circuit in Newdow simply ignored Supreme Court precedent and 
essentially gave those who do not wish to recite the Pledge, and who 
possess the right to refrain from reciting the Pledge, a heckler's veto 
over those who do wish to recite the Pledge.
  This ruling also places the ninth circuit in direct conflict with the 
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which, in Sherman v. Community 
Consolidated School District, held that a school district's policy 
allowing for the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in 
public schools does not violate the establishment clause of the first 
amendment.
  I believe that this clearly incorrect first amendment interpretation, 
as well as the split in the circuits created by the Newdow ruling, 
warrants an appeal by the Attorney General and Supreme Court review.
  I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution so, during this time 
of international conflict in which our young men and women may be hours 
away from going to war to fight for those values based upon which our 
Founding Fathers gave birth to this very Nation, our youngest 
Americans, our children, may pledge their allegiance to those same 
values.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that has a long tradition in 
supporting religious freedom. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson who 
wrote the Virginia statute for religious freedom which precedes the 
first amendment to our Constitution.
  House Resolution 132 is totally gratuitous, as it will do nothing to 
change the underlying law. This is because we are dealing with 
constitutional issues that cannot be altered by resolution. If the 
judicial branch ultimately finds the Pledge or the motto to be 
constitutional, then nothing needs to be done; on the other hand, if 
the Court ultimately finds it to be unconstitutional, then no law that 
we pass can change that.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the reasoning of the majority opinion in the 
case was sound. In the case, the appellate court applied three 
different tests which have been applied in the last 50 years in Supreme 
Court jurisprudence in evaluating establishment clause cases. One test 
was whether the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge constitutes an 
endorsement of religion. The majority opinion says that it was an 
endorsement of one view of religion, monotheism, and therefore was an 
unconstitutional endorsement.

                              {time}  1200

  Another test was whether individuals were coerced into being exposed 
to a religious message, and the majority concluded that the Pledge was 
unconstitutional because young children who are compelled to attend 
school ``may not be placed in the dilemma of either participating in a 
religious ceremony or protesting.''
  Finally, the court applied the Lemon test, part of which holds that a 
law violates the Establishment Clause if it has no secular or 
nonreligious purpose. For example, cases involving a moment of public 
silence in public schools, some of those laws have been upheld if the 
law allows silent prayer as one of many activities which can be done in 
silence; but courts have stricken laws in which a moment of silent 
prayer is added to existing moments of silence because that law has no 
secular purpose.
  The court concluded, if the 1954 law, which added ``under God'' to 
the existing Pledge, had no secular purpose, it was, therefore, 
unconstitutional.
  It is interesting to note the reasoning of the dissent in the Newdow 
case. The important operative language in the dissent was the 
following: ``Legal world abstractions and

[[Page 6553]]

ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that `under 
God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy 
or suppress someone's belief is so minuscule to be de minimis. The 
danger that the phrase represents to our first amendment's freedoms is 
picayune at best.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our actions in enacting H. Res. 132 may 
cause the courts to review the sentiments behind ``one Nation, under 
God'' because, if the courts look at the importance we apparently affix 
to the phrase by passing yet another resolution before the judicial 
branch has even entered final judgment, this attention diminishes the 
argument that the phrase has de minimis meaning and increases the 
constitutional vulnerability of the use of that phrase in the Pledge. 
While one Federal appeals court rejected a call to rehear the 
controversial ruling that struck down the recitation of the Pledge due 
to its religious content, the fact remains that this issue is still 
alive and well; and every resolution we pass chips away at the de 
minimis argument.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the court may look at this very resolution, 
understand the Lemon test, and find that today's exercise has no 
secular purpose and, therefore, adds to the constitutional 
vulnerability of the Pledge.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, to quote from an editorial that appeared in the 
Christian Century, a nondenominational Protestant weekly, puts this 
matter in perspective: ``To the extent `under God' has real religious 
meaning, then it is unconstitutional. The phrase is constitutional to 
the extent that it is religiously innocuous. Given that choice, I side 
with the Ninth Circuit. The government should not link religion and 
patriotism.''
  Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I believe we should reject this 
resolution.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ose), who represents the area that includes the 
Elk Grove Unified School District, which is the district from which 
this case arose.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently 
declared it is unconstitutional to say the Pledge of Allegiance, our 
national recitation and proclamation of patriotism. This ruling is an 
attack on the history of our Nation and on the display of our patriotic 
pride.
  On Friday, February 28, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
upheld its ruling on Newdow v. U.S. Congress. In its decision, the 
court declared the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' to infringe on the 
Establishment Clause of the first amendment and is therefore 
unconstitutional to recite within our public schools. This issue hits 
especially close to home because Newdow v. U.S. Congress originated in 
the Elk Grove Unified School District, which is located in my district 
in California.
  I would like to recognize the school district for its participation 
in defending our right to say the Pledge. As the party named in the 
lawsuit, they have shouldered the burden and the cost for standing up 
for our community and our Nation. Elk Grove Unified has not waivered in 
their support of the Pledge of Allegiance and remains an example of 
true patriotism.
  In response to the court's ruling, I authored this resolution 
reaffirming that the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety is 
appropriate and calling upon the Supreme Court to review this ruling in 
order to correct this infirm and historically incorrect decision. The 
Ninth Circuit is quite plainly wrong and has failed to represent the 
values of the people of California and the United States of America.
  The origin of this phrase is rumored to have come from a speech 
delivered on a cold fall day in the aftermath of the one of the 
bloodiest battles in American history. On November 19, 1863, President 
Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg Address while overlooking the 
massive graves of the soldiers who died there during that famous battle 
and said the following:
  ``It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task 
remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased 
devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of 
devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have 
died in vain, that this Nation, under God shall have a new birth of 
freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the 
people shall not perish from the Earth.''
  Mr. Speaker, there is no better time than today, given the 
circumstances of our efforts to protect our homeland, that we rise to 
honor the men and women of the military and reaffirm our patriotism to 
this great Nation across all generations.
  I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and his 
staff for their assistance on this resolution, for bringing it to the 
floor in such a timely manner, and I urge Members to support the 
resolution.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), particularly for the 
leadership that he has given on a number of key issues dealing with the 
distinctive responsibilities of the three branches of government. H. 
Res. 132 challenges that interrelatedness and the constitutional 
structure of the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. But, 
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to quarrel with that because as Members of 
Congress we are designated to represent the people of the United States 
and to come to voice those expressions. We do so in a tool called a 
resolution, congressional resolutions. This happens to be H. Res. 132.
  Just as I am going to enthusiastically vote for the armed services 
tax relief that was just recently debated on the floor of the House, 
gratified of course that it has been eliminated from the baggage of 
gambling extras, benefits that were given to gamblers, I am likewise 
going to vote for H. Res. 132.
  Mr. Speaker, let me share with you I believe an analysis that for 
some may hold water. The first amendment guarantees freedom of 
expression and freedom of religion. To date now this Pledge of 
Allegiance is a voluntary act that Americans choose to do, voluntarily 
in places of worship, voluntarily in this Congress, voluntarily in 
schools; and it should remain that. There is language in here to 
suggest that we encourage schools to do so. I want the Congressional 
Record to reflect that this is voluntary and no one should be forced to 
say the Pledge.
  But if you do say the Pledge, then I believe out of your freedom of 
expression and freedom of religion you have every right to say ``under 
God.'' And for those who desire not to say it, they have every right 
not to say it.
  Equally, I would argue with the proponent legislative listing of 
irrelevant aspects of this resolution, and that is to suggest that 
there may be, as we discussed in the Committee on the Judiciary, some 
litmus test for judges. The President should nominate and the Senate 
should confirm Federal circuit court judges who interpret the 
Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text. An interesting 
benign statement maybe, but irrelevant. Because the courts will do as 
they desire to do because that is an independent, free branch of 
government that we should reflect.
  Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, as we are taking up H. Res. 132, I 
filed the first day H. Con. Res. 2, to repeal the Iraqi resolution, so 
that this Congress would not be deadly silent on the question of war. I 
intend to file today a resolution that will restate the constitutional 
premise that this Congress has the sole authority to debate the 
question of war.
  It is interesting how my colleagues are selective in what resolutions 
can come to the floor, constitutional questions, commentary on the acts 
of other branches of governments. And I believe if we are to be fair 
and honest in this House, if we are to be truly the people's House, 
just as I can come to the floor and support this resolution because I 
believe the first amendment protects it, and I proudly pledge 
allegiance to the Flag with the language ``under

[[Page 6554]]

God'' even though we have separate branches of government, it seems 
patently, if you will, disingenuous, and as well hypocritical, for us 
not to be able to debate questions, constitutional questions that deal 
with the issue of war. Not that we will be all of one mind. I respect 
that, Mr. Speaker, because this is a democracy. But certainly as the 
Prime Minister of England can go to the Parliament on this very somber 
question, then we can too, Mr. Speaker. We can unshackle ourselves from 
the fear of disagreeing with each other, and lo and behold we can 
unshackle ourselves from any commentary that anyone who opposes the 
particular option that has been chosen, I believe, should be the last 
option of war is in any way unpatriotic or is in any way not supporting 
the brave young men and women in the front lines allowing us to be here 
today.
  We know that we are facing troubling times, and we will do it united 
as a Nation. But it speaks little of what we are fighting for if we 
cannot come again to the floor of the House and express either our 
support or our opposition to the question of the option of war being 
the only option.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, there are many options. There is a third 
option that we can engage in from putting troops at the front lines, 
U.N. inspections and indicting Saddam Hussein. But as I rise to support 
H. Res. 132, let me say, Mr. Speaker, I do it proudly; but I also ask 
this House to be able to debate a question that will deal with the 
lives of young men and women and it will be a question of life or death 
and war or peace.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) to get back to debating the Pledge 
of Allegiance and the Newdow ruling.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this 
resolution and in support of the Pledge of Allegiance.
  I believe children in schools across America should start their day 
in the same way we do here on the floor of the United States House of 
Representatives, by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mr. Speaker, the Ninth Circuit's decision is outrageous and has set a 
dangerous precedent that we cannot allow to continue nationwide. I know 
of no better way to educate our children about the beliefs we stand for 
in this great Nation of ours than with the Pledge of Allegiance. The 
Pledge is an important way of educating our children about the value of 
patriotism, democracy, a reminder that we are one Nation under God. 
That is why I believe we need to keep the Pledge in our schools, and as 
my constituents in Oklahoma would say, keep the judges who do not value 
the Pledge out of our courts.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents are dumbfounded and angered by the Ninth 
Circuit's actions. That is why I have introduced legislation 
immediately after the court's original ruling last year that would 
amend the U.S. Constitution to protect the right of schools to lead 
willing students in the recitation of the Pledge. I have reintroduced 
my Pledge of Allegiance Protection Amendment in this Congress; and 
while I know, I believe in my heart that the U.S. Supreme Court will 
overturn this foolish ruling, I urge my colleagues' support for its 
passage if the Supreme Court upholds the Ninth Circuit Court's 
atrocious decision.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I support this resolution in support of the 
Pledge.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
132. This legislation expresses that the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals' ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance is inconsistent with 
the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment.
  The Pledge of Allegiance brings together people of different 
backgrounds in a shared expression of support for our country. Before 
the start of business in the House of Representatives, my colleagues 
and I proudly recite the Pledge of Allegiance, just as I proudly said 
it before every school board meeting back home in my hometown of 
Rogers, Arkansas.
  Our pledge to support our country and the beliefs on which it was 
founded is an important part of our everyday life. Every time an 
American turns to the flag to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, they are 
reminded of all that has been sacrificed in the name of our country and 
for our freedom.
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit outraged people 
across the country by ruling the phrase ``one Nation under God'' makes 
the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. It is unbelievable that a 
Federal court would rule that the Pledge of Allegiance violates our 
first amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps now more than ever the need for the unity in 
America exists. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for 
bringing this legislation before us, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of House Resolution 132.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in an arrogant stunt, last 
summer, 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.'' This is an 
obvious instance of political correctness taken to an absurd extreme.
  This court clearly shows that it is out of step with the will of the 
American people, the U.S. Congress, and traditional American values. 
Religious expression is the fundamental basis of our freedom in this 
country. At the earliest moment in this nation's history, the pilgrims 
signed The Mayflower Compact that declared that the voyage across the 
Atlantic was taken ``for the Glory of God'' and still today, the Ten 
Commandments are publicly displayed in the National Archives. In this 
Nation we have ``In God We Trust'' on our money, and each day the House 
of Representatives starts its day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. 
We will continue to do so despite the folly of the 9th Circuit Court.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to revise 
and extend my remarks and submit them into the Congressional Record.
  I rise in support of H. Res. 132. Fellow Members, in this time of 
war, I think it is more important than ever to be able to express our 
patriotic and religious views together in unity and solemnity. The 
Pledge of Allegiance is a beautiful manifest of the feelings of 
Americans. We are a religious people. We always have been. America has 
been such since our inception. Granted, we are a people of diverse 
religious backgrounds, but being able to express our faith in public 
without fear of government condemnation or censure is without a doubt, 
the reason why you and I are standing here today. The desire for 
religious liberty was what brought the first groups of Americans to our 
country hundreds of years ago to build this shining ``city upon a 
hill.''
  Members, I stand in support of the Pledge of Allegiance as did this 
great body on Flag Day 1954 when the words ``Under God'' were added. As 
President Eisenhower, who supported this change, so eloquently stated, 
``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.'' Eisenhower's words could not 
be more accurate or more timely. Americans' religious beliefs reach to 
the core of our being. It is in both times of uncertainty and turmoil, 
prosperity and blessing that we cling to our beliefs for direction, 
comfort, guidance and peace. To deny Americans the right to stand 
together and say the Pledge of Allegiance is to deny the spirit behind 
the Mayflower Compact, Patrick Henry's great Liberty Speech, the 
Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and all of the 
other documents that serve as a mission statement of our people.
  Members, in this time of war I urge you to support H. Res. 132 to 
defend the Pledge of Allegiance as a fitting and constitutional written 
expression for all Americans.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 
132, a resolution that expresses Congress's disapproval of the recent 
9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held that a public school's 
policy of opening each school day with the voluntary recitation of the 
Pledge of Allegiance impermissibly coerced a religious act.

[[Page 6555]]

  A State sponsored religion is unconstitutional, but there is nothing 
in our founding documents that requires the removal of every reference 
to God from the public square. Most Americans can make this 
distinction, which explains the public outcry to the 9th Circuit's 
misguided decisions.
  The faith of our founding fathers was central to the establishment of 
our Nation and there are references to God in countless public forums. 
The Declaration of Independence declares that ``all men are Created 
equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.'' The 
Supreme Court begins each session with the blessing ``God save the 
United States and this honorable court.'' Congress opens each day with 
a prayer, through which we seek divine guidance for the tasks before 
us. Our currency bears the slogan ``In God We Trust.''
  The Pledge of Allegiance is an important affirmation of both our 
country's faith and patriotism. With our Nation on the brink of war, we 
must be vigilant in guarding against efforts to strip away the 
tradition and powerful public expressions of these key values. Instead, 
we should emphasize our shared heritage, our commitment to freedom, and 
our rich tradition of national humility before the ultimate author of 
our liberty. I urge each of my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Res. 
132.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and am 
prepared to yield back if the gentleman from Massachusetts will do the 
same.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). 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. 132.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________