[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15055-15078]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 920 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2389.

                              {time}  1225


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2389) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the 
jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies 
involving the Pledge of Allegiance, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we approach this bill today, Mr. Chairman, I want to make the 
point that clearly the Pledge of Allegiance is well understood by this 
body and the Members of this body. It is repeated here every day. The 
words of the Pledge are words that we have learned since our childhood:
  ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, 
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, 
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.''
  When Congress passed the bill adding the words ``under God,'' 
Congress stated its belief that those words in no way run contrary to 
the first amendment, but recognize ``only the guidance of God in our 
national affairs.''
  Two words, ``under God,'' in the Pledge helped define our national 
heritage as the beneficiaries of a Constitution sent to the States for 
ratification ``in the year of our Lord,'' as the ratification statement 
said, 1787, by a founding generation that saw itself as guided by a 
providential God. These two words were added to the Pledge in the 
1950s, and at that time President Eisenhower made the point that in 
those days of Cold War, those days after World War II, that it was 
important that we realize that there was something bigger than 
ourselves and that our country was guided by that.
  For decades children have been reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in 
classrooms across America. The Pledge of Allegiance is an important 
civic ritual. It binds us together as Americans. But last year that 
daily ritual was halted in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The 
court actually told teachers and children in Alaska and Arizona, in 
California and Hawaii, in Idaho and Montana, in Nevada, Oregon, and 
Washington that they could not recite the Pledge of Allegiance as they 
had for decades in their classrooms.
  The Court's reasoning? The words ``under God'' constituted a 
violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. According 
to the court, it was unconstitutional to lead students, even 
voluntarily, in the Pledge of Allegiance because it included the phrase 
``under God.''
  Any of the phrases in the Pledge do not need to be subject to this 
kind of court interpretation. The Pledge of Allegiance, an act of 
Congress, modified by the Congress in 1950s, still continues to be the 
Pledge of Allegiance said by school students and Members of this body 
and others all over the country today. Judges should not be able to 
rewrite the Pledge. Passing this bill will protect the Pledge from 
Federal judges and will strike an important blow for self-government.
  This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is in the spirit of the first 
judiciary act, the Judiciary Act of 1789, drafted by individuals who 
had drafted the Constitution, voted on by Members who had been at the 
drafting of the Constitution, all willing to define the role of the 
Federal courts and to narrow the role of the Federal courts, as this 
bill proposes to do.
  I look forward to the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I really hate to be an ``I told you so,'' but when, in 
2003, we considered legislation to strip the Federal courts of 
jurisdiction, in that case to hear cases challenging the Defense of 
Marriage Act, I warned that there would be no end to it.
  In fact, when we first marked up this bill, I asked my friend, the 
chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, whether there would be other 
court-stripping bills. He assured me that this and the marriage court-
stripping bill were the only ones ``so far.'' As we know, he was being, 
as always, truthful.
  Our former colleague Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage 
Act, whose legislation Congress was purporting to protect in that case, 
said, no thanks.
  He wrote: ``This bill will needlessly set a dangerous precedent for 
future Congresses that might want to protect unconstitutional 
legislation from judicial review. During my time in Congress, I saw 
many bills introduced that would violate the takings clause, the second 
amendment, the 10th amendment, and many other constitutional 
protections. The fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution 
would be rendered meaningless if others followed the path set by this 
bill.''

                              {time}  1230

  Bob Barr was right. Today it is the turn of the religious minorities.
  Once upon a time in this country a student could be expelled from 
school for refusing to cite the Pledge because it was against his or 
her religion. In 1943, the Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of 
Education v. Barnette held that children, in that case Jehovah's 
Witnesses, had a first amendment right not to be compelled to swear an 
oath or recite a pledge in violation of their religious beliefs.
  This legislation would, of course, strip those families of the right 
to go to court and to defend their religious liberty. Schools would be 
able to expel children for acting according to the dictates of their 
religious faith, and Congress will have slammed the courthouse door in 
their faces.
  As dangerous as this legislation is, even for an election season, it 
is part of a more general attack on our system of government which 
includes an independent judiciary whose job it is to interpret the 
Constitution even if those decisions are unpopular. It is their job to 
protect individual rights, even if the exercise of those rights in 
given instances are unpopular.
  Sometimes we do not like what the court says. I don't like that the 
Supreme Court struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act, or 
that they struck down part of the Gun Free Safe Schools Zones Act, or 
that they are misapplying, in my opinion, the commerce clause and the 
11th amendment in order to gut some of our civil rights laws. I really 
didn't like it that Republican-appointed justices traversed, perverted 
justice in order to put someone in the White House who got more than 
half a million votes less than the other candidate who really won the 
election.
  I don't hear my colleagues on the other side screaming about judicial 
activism by unelected judges in these cases.
  As wrong as I believe the current Supreme Court to be on many issues, 
I understand that we cannot maintain our system of government and 
especially our Bill of Rights if the independent judiciary cannot 
enforce those rights, even if the majority doesn't like it.
  Again, I will refer to the Soviet Stalinist Constitution of 1936, 
which had

[[Page 15056]]

many rights in it, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom 
of the press, freedom of religious and antireligious propaganda, as 
they quaintly put it. But, of course, it wasn't worth the paper it was 
written on because they had no judicial enforcement of it, and if you 
tried to bring a lawsuit to enforce your right, they shot you before 
they brought you to court. Any constitutional right without the ability 
to enforce it in court is no right.
  This House appears infected with hostility toward the rule of law. 
This bill is a perfect example. Even more egregious is the way it has 
reached the floor. The Judiciary Committee twice voted against 
reporting this bill to the House. The ``no'' vote was bipartisan. Now 
the Republican majority is abusing its power to bring it to the floor 
anyway.
  Neither the Parliamentarian nor the Congressional Research Service 
has been able to find any other case like this. They report, ``We found 
one instance of a bill, a joint resolution, between the 100th Congress 
and the current Congress, in which a committee specifically voted not 
to report a measure that was later considered by the House.'' That 
measure was a 1996 agriculture bill that was rejected in committee and 
later folded into a reconciliation bill.
  Now the Republican majority exceeds even that arrogance. We are asked 
to vote on a bill that guts our system of government and guts the 
protection of our individual rights when the committee tasked with the 
consideration of this bill rejected it. It must be an election year.
  To return to Justice Jackson and the flag salute case, he observed 
that, and I quote because it is very apposite here, ``The very purpose 
of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the 
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach 
of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles 
to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, 
to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly and other 
fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote. They depend on the 
outcome of no elections.''
  But now some would strip the courts of any ability to protect these 
individual rights against a temporarily intolerant majority.
  As to the complaints about unelected judges, I would refer my 
colleagues back to their high school civics textbooks. We have an 
independent judiciary precisely to rule against the wishes of the 
majority, especially when it comes to the rights of unpopular 
minorities. That is our system of government and it is a good one and 
we should protect it.
  As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Number 78, ``The complete 
independence of the court of justice is peculiarly essential in a 
limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which 
contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; 
such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex 
post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be 
preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of 
justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the 
manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all reservations 
of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.''
  Where would this bill leave religious liberty? The Republicans tell 
us State courts can protect those rights. What would this mean? It 
would mean that your rights might be protected in one State, but not in 
another. I thought the 14th amendment to our Constitution settled that 
issue.
  One of the reasons we have a Supreme Court is so that the Federal 
Constitution means the same thing in New York as in California or 
Mississippi or Minnesota. This country must be one country, not 50 
separate countries.
  We are really playing with fire here. Do you really hate unpopular 
religious minorities so much that you are willing to destroy the first 
amendment? I urge my conservative colleagues especially to shape up and 
act like conservatives for once. We live in a free society that 
protects unpopular minorities, even if the majority hates them or hates 
the expression of their opinion.
  If someone doesn't want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or doesn't 
feel conscientiously able to recite the words ``under God,'' that is 
their privilege. Our Constitution protects it, our civil liberties 
protect it, this country should protect it, and I urge the defeat of 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the principal sponsor 
of the bill, my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce the Pledge Protection Act 
and just to give a quick and brief history as to why it is important. 
We have heard some discussion that this is really not necessary, that 
we can rest assured that the words of the Pledge of Allegiance will 
just stand firm forever. Unfortunately, that is not what our recent 
history shows.
  First of all, three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court in California 
ruled that the words ``under God'' are unconstitutional. They were 
supported by the entire Ninth Circuit.
  The case went to the Supreme Court, and I was there at the hearing at 
the Supreme Court. The President's attorney there argued that the 
Supreme Court should kick the case out because the person, Mr. Newdow, 
bringing the case did not have standing. The response of one of the 
Judges was, as a Supreme Court we never kick a case out based on 
standing, because we assume the lower courts have already taken care of 
that.
  Why did the Supreme Court do this? They could easily have ruled that 
the Pledge is just fine, that it is completely constitutional. Is that 
their ruling? No. They kicked the case out based on standing.
  So we believe that there are not five Judges on the Court, which is 
what it would take to uphold the Pledge of Allegiance. Hence we use a 
constitutional authority granted to us from the Founders that wrote the 
Constitution to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. That constitutional 
authority is known as Article III, section 2.
  What we do is we create a very simple fence around the Federal court 
system. We say just regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, that no Federal 
Court has authority to hear a claim that the Pledge is 
unconstitutional. So we put a fence around the Federal court system.
  Well, what does that mean, if somebody really wants to make a claim 
that the Pledge is unconstitutional? It means that they go to their 
local State courts, with the ultimate decisions being made in 50 
separate supreme courts and a court here in the District of Columbia. 
So that is the reason for why we need to pass the Pledge Protection 
Act.
  It seems a bit ironic that some people will complain about the fact 
that we have no respect for the Constitution and that we are eroding 
the separation of powers, and yet it is the very Constitution that 
gives Congress the authority and the responsibility to stand up to the 
Court when they are misusing the Constitution. If you claim you respect 
the Constitution, part of that is the first amendment, and the first 
amendment to the Constitution is about free speech. It is not about 
censorship.
  To say that a child cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance is a form of 
censorship. The Court has already ruled that no child has to say the 
Pledge. But now the Court wants to go the other step and say no, we are 
going to use the first amendment about free speech to say that you 
cannot say the Pledge. We must step in.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, anytime we consider legislation 
like this, one can be assured that veterans benefits have either just 
been cut or are about to be cut. Instead of addressing the real issues 
of patriotism, such as the adequacy of health care funding for veterans 
or the fact that the number of veterans waiting for benefit 
determinations has increased

[[Page 15057]]

by approximately 80,000 since last year alone, we are going to use this 
bill to divert attention from those more pressing issues.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is aimed at the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals case, Newdow v. U.S. Congress, which held that the words 
``under God'' in the Pledge are unconstitutional in the context of 
public school recitations. I happen to disagree with that decision and 
I agree with the dissent in that case which stated, ``Legal world 
abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the 
danger that `under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring 
about a theocracy or suppress someone's belief is so miniscule as to be 
de minimis. The danger that the phrase represents to our first 
amendment's freedoms is picayune at best.''
  I agree with that language, Mr. Chairman. So as we discuss the 
constitutionality of ``under God'' in the Pledge, we must recognize 
that every bill that is introduced, every hearing we have, every vote 
that we take on the issue enhances the importance of this issue and 
these actions serve to chip away at the de minimis argument and 
actually increase the chance that the court will ultimately decide that 
the Pledge is unconstitutional.
  The simple fact is that we need to respect the Constitution and the 
right of courts to decide whether the Pledge is constitutional or not. 
But the majority will not do that. H.R. 2389 is a court-stripping bill 
as the bill does not address the substance of the arguments pro and 
con, it just prohibits Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, 
from deciding the case.
  This bill is a blatant attempt to prevent the judicial branch from 
doing its job. The foundation of our democracy rests on the principle 
of checks and balances of power among three coequal branches, and this 
bill is a flagrant disregard of that principle. In addition, this bill 
will result in unprecedented confusion as each State court will decide 
how to interpret the Federal Constitution.
  It also sets a poor precedent that at any time we are considering a 
bill that might be found unconstitutional by the courts, we might just 
prohibit the courts from saying so by taking away their right to hear 
the case.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill would strip Federal courts from their ability 
to hear cases that are clearly within Federal jurisdiction because 
those cases address Federal constitutional rights and individual 
liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, and many rights may be 
involved because the bill is not limited to cases addressing the words 
``under God.'' The recitation of the Pledge may in some situations 
implicate the right of free speech, the right of freedom of 
association, the right to free exercise of religion, the establishment 
clause protections, all guaranteed under the first amendment of the 
Constitution.
  The passage of this bill will mean that there will be no Federal law 
on a Federal constitutional question, not even a supreme law of the 
land to guide other Federal or State courts on the matter or to 
definitively state the law when there are inconsistent decisions in 
different States. So a Federal constitutional right could be applied 
inconsistently to American citizens simply because they live in 
different parts of the country.
  The need for a Federal review of many different rights that may be 
involved is not speculative. For example, Mr. Chairman, even before the 
words ``under God'' were in the Pledge, the Supreme Court in 1943 held 
in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette that a compulsory flag 
salute and accompanying Pledge were unconstitutional when required of a 
public school student in violation of the student's religious beliefs.
  In that case, the lawsuit was originally filed in Federal Court and 
was never considered in State court. If this legislation passes, State 
courts won't even have to follow prior Supreme Court precedents. The 
reason that State courts are prohibited from ignoring Supreme Court 
precedent is if they do so, the Supreme Court is there, ready and 
willing and able to reverse the State court's decision. But no more 
under this bill. We may well end up with 50 interpretations and 
applications of a single Federal constitutional right.
  For over 200 years, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme 
Court has been the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is 
not. So while Congress has the power to regulate jurisdiction of 
Federal courts, the court-stripping language of H.R. 2389 grossly 
exceeds that power in violation of the principles of separation of 
powers.

                              {time}  1245

  If this court-stripping idea had been around in 1954, Congress could 
have prohibited the Supreme Court from hearing issues involving student 
assignment to public schools. We never would have had the decision of 
Brown v. Board of Education, or it could have passed in the 1960s, and 
the decision in the Federal court in Loving v. Virginia, to overrule 
the will of the people of Virginia and require Virginia to recognize 
racially mixed marriages, might not have ever happened.
  The judges in those decisions were described just as judges are 
described today: liberal, rogue, unelected, life-time appointed 
activist judges. But they made the right decisions in those cases. The 
truth is that we rely on Federal courts to determine and enforce our 
constitutional rights.
  America is more politically and religiously diverse than it was in 
1943, but instead of embracing that diversity, this bill would 
jeopardize our fundamental rights. We should instead adhere to the 
wisdom of the Supreme Court in the Barnette case which said, and I 
quote, ``The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain 
subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy and place them 
beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as 
legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, 
liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship 
and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to 
vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.''
  Mr. Chairman, there are numerous legal, civil rights and religious 
organizations opposed to this legislation, including the American Bar 
Association, the ACLU, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-
Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Constitutional 
Project, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Legal Momentum, the 
National Women's Law Center and People for the American Way.
  Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to insert those letters 
into the Record at the appropriate time, and there are other 
organizations, of course, that are opposed to the bill. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
                                                    June 14, 2006.
     Protect Separation of Powers and Religious Minorities' 
         Longstanding Constitutional Rights; Oppose Final Passage 
         of H.R. 2389.

       Dear Representative: We, the undersigned religious, civil 
     rights, and civil liberties organizations, urge you to oppose 
     H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' misguided 
     legislation that would strip all federal courts, including 
     the Supreme Court, from hearing First Amendment challenges to 
     the Pledge of Allegiance and from enforcing longstanding 
     constitutional rights in federal court.
       The signatories to this letter include organizations that 
     supported the court challenge to the constitutionality of 
     including ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, 
     organizations that opposed that challenge, and organizations 
     that took no position on the matter. We are united, however, 
     in believing that H.R. 2389 threatens the separation of 
     powers that is a fundamental aspect of our constitutional 
     structure. Beyond this, while the legislation ostensibly 
     responds to the controversy surrounding ``under God'' in the 
     Pledge of Allegiance, this legislation sweeps far more 
     broadly, with potentially severe constitutional implications 
     for religious minorities who are adversely affected by 
     government-mandated recitation of the Pledge.
       First and foremost, we are opposed to H.R. 2389 because 
     this legislation, by entirely stripping all federal courts, 
     including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over a 
     particular class of cases, threatens the separation of powers 
     established by the Constitution, and undermines the unique 
     function of the federal courts to interpret constitutional 
     law. This legislation deprives the federal courts of the 
     ability to hear cases involving religious and free speech 
     rights of students,

[[Page 15058]]

     parents, and other individuals. The denial of a federal forum 
     to plaintiffs to vindicate their constitutional rights would 
     force plaintiffs out of federal courts, which are 
     specifically suited for the vindication of federal interests, 
     and into state courts, which may be hostile or unsympathetic 
     to these federal claims, and which may lack expertise and 
     independent safeguards provided to federal judges under 
     Article III of the Constitution.
       In addition, as drafted, the bill would deny access to the 
     federal courts in cases to enforce existing constitutional 
     rights for religious minorities. Over sixty years ago, the 
     Supreme Court decided the case of West Virginia State Board 
     of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). In Barnette, 
     the Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that 
     mandated schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. 
     Under the West Virginia law, religious minorities faced 
     expulsion from school and could be subject to prosecution and 
     fined, if convicted of violating the statute's provisions. In 
     striking down that statute, the Court reasoned: ``To believe 
     that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are 
     voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is 
     to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our 
     institutions to free minds . . . If there is any fixed star 
     in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, 
     high, or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in 
     politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of 
     opinion.'' 319 U.S. at 639-40.
       Moreover, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     Third Circuit, holding unconstitutional two provisions of a 
     Pennsylvania law mandating recitation of the Pledge, said, 
     ``It may be useful to note our belief that most citizens of 
     the United States willingly recite the Pledge of Allegiance 
     and proudly sing the national anthem. But the rights embodied 
     in the Constitution, most particularly the First Amendment, 
     protect the minority--those persons who march to their own 
     drummers. It is they who need the protection afforded by the 
     Constitution and it is the responsibility of federal judges 
     to ensure that protection.'' Circle School v. Pappert, 381 
     F.3d 172, 183 (3d Cir. 2004).
       H.R. 2389 would undermine the longstanding constitutional 
     rights of religious minorities to seek redress in the federal 
     courts in cases involving mandatory recitation of the Pledge. 
     As a result, this legislation will seriously harm religious 
     minorities and the constitutional free speech rights of 
     countless individuals.
       H.R. 2389 also raises serious legal concerns about the 
     violation of the principles of separation of powers, equal 
     protection and due process. The bill undermines public 
     confidence in the federal courts by expressing outright 
     hostility toward them, threatens the legitimacy of future 
     congressional action by removing the federal courts as a 
     neutral arbiter, and rejects the unifying function of the 
     federal judiciary by denying federal courts the opportunity 
     to interpret the law. We strongly believe that this 
     legislation as drafted will have broad, negative implications 
     on the ability of individuals to seek enforcement of 
     previously constitutionally protected rights concerning 
     mandatory recitation of the Pledge. We therefore urge, in the 
     strongest terms, your rejection of this misguided and unwise 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       American Humanists Association.
       American Jewish Committee.
       Americans for Democratic Action.
       Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
       Anti-Defamation League.
       Baptist Joint Committee.
       Buddhist Peace Fellowship.
       Central Conference of American Rabbis.
       Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of Christ).
       Equal Partners in Faith.
       Federation of Jain Associations in North America (JAINA).
       Friends Committee on National Legislation.
       Human Rights Campaign.
       Jewish Council For Public Affairs (JCPA).
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
       Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education 
     Fund).
       National Council of Jewish Women.
       National Council of Negro Women, Inc.
       National Family Planning and Reproductive Health 
     Association (NFPRHA).
       National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
       People For the American Way.
       Secular Coalition for America.
       Sikh Coalition.
       The Interfaith Alliance.
       The Workmen's Circle/ Arbeter Ring.
       Union for Reform Judaism.
       Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
       Woodhull Freedom Federation.
                                  ____

                                                     June 9, 2006.
     Oppose the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' H.R. 2389.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: We, the undersigned organizations 
     dedicated to protecting women's reproductive health and 
     rights, write to urge you to oppose H.R. 2389, the so-called 
     ``Pledge Protection Act.'' The implications of this bill go 
     far beyond the context of the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill 
     would set a dangerous precedent that would disrupt the 
     traditional separation of powers and undermine the 
     longstanding role of the federal judiciary in safeguarding 
     constitutional rights, including the right of reproductive 
     choice.
       H.R. 2389 would deny all federal courts--including the U.S. 
     Supreme Court--the jurisdiction to hear any cases concerning 
     the interpretation or constitutionality of the Pledge of 
     Allegiance. The bill would irreparably alter the relationship 
     between the judicial branch and the two other branches of the 
     federal government by depriving the federal courts of their 
     traditional role as interpreters of the U.S. Constitution. 
     Even more disturbing, unlike other previous versions of 
     court-stripping legislation, H.R. 2389 deprives even the U.S. 
     Supreme Court of jurisdiction, divesting the Court of its 
     historical role as the final authority on the U.S. 
     Constitution.
       We are deeply concerned about legislation like H.R. 2389 
     that strips federal courts of their important role in 
     safeguarding constitutional rights and freedoms. While the 
     target today is a controversial view of the Pledge of 
     Allegiance and the separation of church and state (a view 
     that the Supreme Court has not endorsed), there can be no 
     doubt that anti-choice lawmakers and their allies in Congress 
     intend to use this strategy to achieve other policy goals 
     that they are unable to accomplish without toppling the 
     delicate constitutional balance of powers that has served 
     this country for more than 200 years. In the past, Republican 
     leadership has discussed ``jurisdiction stripping'' measures 
     to achieve other social policy goals. While they have claimed 
     that the time is ``not quite ripe'' to apply this legislative 
     tactic to the issue of abortion, in fact, anti-choice 
     lawmakers have already made the attempt--in 2002, when 
     considering the Federal Abortion Ban. Although that 
     particular effort failed, passage of H.R. 2389 would set a 
     dangerous precedent for future attempts to strip federal 
     courts of jurisdiction to hear cases regarding reproductive 
     choice. The federal courthouse doors should not be closed to 
     women seeking to vindicate their right to obtain critical 
     reproductive health services.
       For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 2389.
           Sincerely,
       Center for Reproductive Rights.
       Choice USA.
       Feminist Majority.
       Legal Momentum.
       NARAL Pro-Choice America.
       National Abortion Federation.
       National Council of Jewish Women.
       National Family Planning and Reproductive Health 
     Association.
       National Organization for Women.
       National Partnership for Women & Families.
       National Women's Law Center.
       Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
       Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. 
     (SIECUS).
                                  ____

                                             Leadership Conference


                                              on Civil Rights,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2006.
     Re Oppose the ``Pledge Protection Act of 2005'' (H.R. 2389): 
         It Threatens Constitutional Protections and Civil Rights.

       Dear Judiciary Committee Member: On behalf of the 
     Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's 
     oldest, largest, and most diverse civil rights coalition, we 
     urge you to vote against H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge Protection 
     Act of 2005.'' LCCR strongly opposes any proposal that would 
     eliminate access to the federal judiciary for any group of 
     Americans. H.R. 2389 would do just that: it would deny 
     constitutional rights to religious minorities by stripping 
     the courts of jurisdiction to hear some cases.
       For decades, the judicial branch has often been the sole 
     protector of the rights of minority groups against the will 
     of the popular majority. Any proposal to interfere with this 
     role through ``courtstripping'' proposals would set a 
     dangerous precedent that would harm all Americans. Allowing 
     the courthouse doors to be closed to any minority group, as 
     H.R. 2389 would do to religious minorities, is not only 
     unnecessary in itself, but will also set a dangerous 
     precedent that will undermine the rights of other minority 
     groups that may need to turn to the courts for justice.
       Further, H.R. 2389 threatens the separation of powers 
     established by the Constitution, and undermines the unique 
     function of the federal courts to interpret constitutional 
     law. It deprives federal courts of the ability to hear cases 
     involving religious and free speech rights of students, 
     parents, and other individuals. The denial of a federal forum 
     to plaintiffs to vindicate their constitutional rights would 
     force them out of federal courts, which are specifically 
     suited to hear such cases, and into state courts, which may 
     be hostile or unsympathetic to these federal claims and which 
     may lack the expertise and independent safeguards that 
     distinguish Article III courts.
       In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 
     U.S. 624 (1943), the Supreme Court recognized the importance 
     of protecting the religious beliefs of all Americans,

[[Page 15059]]

     by striking down a West Virginia law that required 
     schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court 
     reasoned: ``To believe that patriotism will not flourish if 
     patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of 
     a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of 
     the appeal of our institutions to free minds.'' H.R. 2389 
     would slam the federal courthouse doors to all religious 
     minorities trying to do nothing more than vindicate a 
     fundamental, existing constitutional right that they have had 
     for over 60 years.
       LCCR urges you to vote against H.R. 2389 because of the 
     dangers it poses to constitutional protections and to the 
     enforcement of civil rights laws. If you have any questions, 
     please feel free to contact Rob Randhava, LCCR Counsel or 
     Nancy Zirkin, LCCR Deputy Director. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Wade Henderson,
       Executive Director.
     Nancy Zirkin,
       Deputy Director.
                                  ____

                                           Baptist Joint Committee


                                        for Religious Liberty,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 2006.
       Dear Representative: The Baptist Joint Committee (BJC) 
     urges members of the Judiciary Committee to vote no on H.R. 
     2389, the so-called ``Pledge Protection Act,'' when 
     considered during markup tomorrow. The BJC is a 70-year-old 
     organization committed to the principle that religion must be 
     freely exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by 
     government. We oppose any legislation that seeks to strip the 
     federal courts of their fundamental role in protecting 
     individual liberties.
       The existence of an independent judiciary, free from 
     political or public pressure, has been essential to our 
     Nation's success in protecting religious liberty for all 
     Americans. Indeed, the role of the federal courts has long 
     been recognized as essential in the battle for full religious 
     liberty. As Justice Jackson stated in the case of West 
     Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett: ``The very 
     purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects 
     from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them 
     beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish 
     them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's 
     right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free 
     press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental 
     rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the 
     outcome of no elections.'' 319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943).
       Moreover, the result of any particular case does not 
     undermine the important role of the judiciary. The misnamed 
     ``Pledge Protection Act'' represents a dangerous attack on 
     our tradition of religious freedom, on the constitutional 
     separation of powers and indeed our system of government. It 
     represents an unwarranted attempt to restrict the power of 
     the federal judicial system.
       Whatever the motivation, there is insufficient basis to 
     depart from a long-standing congressional custom against 
     using jurisdiction-stripping to control the federal courts. 
     Federal judicial review has consistently supported the proper 
     separation of church and state so vital to all Americans, and 
     we must trust that the courts will continue to do so. We ask 
     the Judiciary Committee to reject H.R. 2389.
           Sincerely,
     J. Brent Walker,
       Executive Director.
     K. Hollyn Hollman,
       General Counsel.
                                  ____

                                            Unitarian Universalist


                                 Association of Congregations,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 2006.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 1,050 
     congregations that make up the Unitarian Universalist 
     Association, I urge you to oppose H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge 
     Protection Act''. As a tradition with a deep commitment to 
     religious pluralism, we believe that this legislation would 
     seriously undermine the First Amendment protections of the 
     Constitution, and particularly the rights of religious 
     minorities, by stripping federal courts, including the 
     Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over cases concerning the 
     Pledge of Allegiance.
       In resolutions dating back to 1961, the highest policy-
     making body of the Unitarian Universalist Association has 
     repeatedly affirmed the right of all Americans to religious 
     freedom, including the right of religious minorities in 
     public schools to not recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The 
     Supreme Court has agreed in the case of West Virginia State 
     Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) that the 
     Pledge cannot be mandatory for public school students.
       Despite the Barnette ruling, we know from experience that 
     the practice of mandatory recitation continues. By 
     eliminating the mechanism for religious minorities to seek 
     relief from this practice through appeals to a federal court, 
     H.R. 2389 would have the practical effect of all but 
     eliminating the right itself. As a result, we believe that 
     this legislation will seriously harm religious minorities and 
     the constitutional free speech rights of countless parents 
     and children, many of whom are members of Unitarian 
     Universalist congregations and are involved in our religious 
     education programs.
       By undermining the power of federal courts to protect 
     constitutional rights affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, we 
     believe that H.R. 2389 would weaken the separation of powers 
     in a way that we find deeply troubling.
       The congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association 
     collectively affirm and promote the right of conscience and 
     the use of the democratic process in society at large. We are 
     committed to the ideals of the founders of this nation, 
     including religious liberty and religious pluralism, as well 
     as the balance of powers that protects such rights.
       I urge you to preserve the rights of religious minorities, 
     as well as the constitutional separation of powers, by 
     opposing the ``Pledge Protection Act.''
           In Faith,
                                                Robert C. Keithan,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                           Religious Action Center


                                            of Reform Judaism,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 2006.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Union for Reform 
     Judaism, whose more than 900 congregations across North 
     America encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, and the Central 
     Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), whose membership 
     includes more than 1,800 Reform rabbis, I ask you to oppose 
     H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act, when it is marked up by 
     the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow.
       As you know, the bill would strip federal courts, including 
     the Supreme Court, of their authority to hear First Amendment 
     cases pertaining to the Pledge of Allegiance. By supporting 
     this legislation, you risk compromising the traditional--and 
     vital--system of checks and balances upon which our 
     government was founded. In addition, the bill threatens the 
     ability of members of religious minorities to seek the 
     protection of the federal courts in cases where they feel 
     coerced into reciting the Pledge.
       What this legislation places at stake is nothing less than 
     the principle of the separation of powers that has allowed 
     our nation to flourish for more than two centuries. Americans 
     of all religious backgrounds, and of none, hold differing 
     views about the inclusion of the phrase ``under God'' in the 
     Pledge of Allegiance. The Movement I have the honor of 
     representing, for example, took no position when the Supreme 
     Court heard a case concerning the Pledge two years ago. Yet 
     H.R. 2389 is not about that contentious issue. By removing 
     cases involving the Pledge from the jurisdiction of the 
     federal courts, Congress would undermine the ability of those 
     courts to interpret constitutional law, the very core of the 
     courts' functions. Plaintiffs seeking to have their federal 
     rights upheld should not be forced to defend those rights in 
     state courts.
       In addition, H.R. 2389 threatens the rights of members of 
     religious minorities, such as Mennonites, Buddhists, and 
     others who in the past have been adversely affected by being 
     forced to recite the Pledge in violation of Supreme Court 
     rulings. Were H.R. 2389 to become law, elementary school 
     students who are punished for declining to participate in the 
     recitation of the Pledge based on their religious teachings 
     would not be able to have their rights upheld in federal 
     court. Under H.R. 2389 as currently drafted, even the Supreme 
     Court would not be allowed to hear the case and uphold the 
     child's rights. As a people who have long known the dangers 
     inherent in limiting the protections afforded religious 
     minorities, we are particularly sensitive to this effort to 
     restrict courts from protecting such minorities.
       The dangers of Congressional tampering with the 
     jurisdiction of the federal courts and restricting their 
     ability to uphold the rights of religious minorities could 
     not be graver. The very values upon which our nation was 
     founded--separation of powers and religious liberty--are 
     threatened by H.R. 2389. I strongly urge you to oppose this 
     perilous legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mark J. Pelavin,
     Associate Director.
                                  ____



                             National Council of Jewish Women,

                                       New York, NY, June 6, 2006.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
     Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: I am writing on behalf of the 
     90,000 members and supporters of the National Council of 
     Jewish Women (NCJW) in opposition to the ``Pledge Protection 
     Act of 2005'' (H.R. 2389) which would strip all federal 
     courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing First 
     Amendment challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance and from 
     enforcing longstanding constitutional rights in federal 
     court.
       NCJW is a volunteer organization, inspired by Jewish 
     values, that works to improve the quality of life for women, 
     children, and families and to ensure individual rights and 
     freedoms for all. As such we must oppose the passage of any 
     legislation that threatens religious liberty and an 
     individual's access to the judicial process.
       This bill threatens the separation of powers that is a 
     founding principle of our nation

[[Page 15060]]

     and a key source of our liberties. In addition, it would 
     impose religious and ideological conformity regardless of 
     individual conscience, by preventing dissenting voices from 
     appealing to the courts.
       This attempt to restrict access to the courts is part of a 
     larger campaign to roll back political and religious freedom 
     by crippling the ability of the judicial branch of government 
     to defend civil and individual rights. If this bill moves 
     forward, it would undermine constitutional rights and the 
     judiciary.
       As Jews, we know that the power of the majority can become 
     the tyranny of the majority if left unchecked. H.R. 2389 
     would undermine the longstanding constitutional rights of 
     religious minorities to seek redress in the federal courts in 
     cases involving mandatory recitation of the Pledge.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Phyllis Snyder,
     President.
                                  ____



                                The American Jewish Committee,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2006.
     Re Pledge Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 2389).

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Jewish 
     Committee, the nation's oldest human relations organization 
     with over 150,000 members and supporters represented by 33 
     regional offices nationwide, I urge you to oppose the Pledge 
     Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 2389).
       While AJC has not taken a position on the constitutionality 
     of including ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, we 
     believe that the federal courts must be available to hear 
     cases in which individuals contend that their First Amendment 
     rights have been violated. H.R. 2389 would strip all federal 
     courts, including the Supreme Court, of the jurisdiction to 
     hear First Amendment challenges to the Pledge. This 
     legislation threatens the separation of powers that is a 
     fundamental aspect of our constitutional structure and has 
     potentially severe constitutional implications for religious 
     minorities and others who are adversely affected when the 
     government impermissibly seeks to mandate the recitation of 
     the Pledge.
       Furthermore, this legislation would undermine public 
     confidence in the federal courts, threaten the legitimacy of 
     future congressional action by removing the federal courts as 
     a neutral arbiter, and reject the unifying function of the 
     federal judiciary by denying federal courts the opportunity 
     to interpret the law.
       Finally, as drafted, the bill would deny access to the 
     federal courts--even the Supreme Court--when individuals seek 
     redress in cases involving mandatory recitation of the 
     Pledge. As a result, this legislation will seriously 
     undermine constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and 
     religion. Coercing students to say the Pledge of Allegiance 
     is contradictory to the very principles of conscience which 
     both our Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance itself 
     represent. Students' First Amendment rights were protected in 
     the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in West Virginia 
     State Board of Education v. Barnett, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) 
     (striking down a West Virginia law that mandated 
     schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance), and, more 
     recently, in the decision of a federal appellate court in 
     Circle School v. Pappert, 381 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2004) 
     (holding that a Pennsylvania law mandating the recitation of 
     the Pledge, even when it provided a religious exception, 
     violated the Constitution because it violated the free speech 
     of the students). H.R. 2389 contradicts these significant 
     decisions by removing from the federal courts the 
     jurisdiction to hear these types of cases.
       For all of these reasons, the American Jewish Committee 
     urges you to vote against this misguided and unwise 
     legislation. Thank you for your consideration of our views on 
     this important matter.
           Respectfully,
                                                Richard T. Foltin,
     Legislative Director and Counsel.
                                  ____



                                      The Interfaith Alliance,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2006.
       Dear Representative: As the president of the Interfaith 
     Alliance, I am writing to urge you vote ``No'' on passage of 
     the ``Pledge Protection Act'' (H.R. 2389). The Interfaith 
     Alliance is a nonpartisan, clergy-led organization that 
     represents over 150,000 members. We are committed to 
     promoting the positive and healing role of religion in public 
     life and challenging those who employ religion to promote 
     intolerance.
       If passed, H.R. 2389 would strip all federal courts, 
     including the U.S. Supreme Court, from hearing any cases that 
     have to deal with the Pledge of Allegiance. The Interfaith 
     Alliance has not taken a position either for or against the 
     inclusion of the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of 
     Allegiance. We will advocate, however, for the right of any 
     person of faith or of no faith at all to receive a fair 
     hearing by the federal courts if they feel their 
     Constitutional rights have been violated by this or any other 
     imposition of sectarian religious references in public 
     places. No citizen's rights or opportunities should depend on 
     religious beliefs or practices.
       This bill is not only an assault on the freedom of 
     conscience guaranteed by our Constitution; it also undermines 
     the federal courts' role of providing access to justice to 
     those who are in the religious minority and those in 
     religious majorities who believe that religious choices 
     should be couched in freedom and never imposed by law. If 
     passed, H.R. 2389 would slam the courthouse door and reduce 
     the phrase ``Equal Justice under Law'' to just a hollow 
     phrase above a courthouse that is off-limits to those who 
     fall outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
       It is time for congress to stop trying to curtail the power 
     of the federal judiciary, a fundamental component of our 
     nation's system of checks and balances. The efforts to 
     prevent the courts from hearing cases on gay marriage and the 
     Pledge of Allegiance, among others, appear to be nothing more 
     than an attempt to pander to a political base.
       Americans of all faiths--Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, 
     Christians and Jews--and those who profess no faith--must 
     have the right to practice their religions and raise 
     challenges when they feel that there is a specific violation 
     of the clause in the First Amendment which guarantees that 
     ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion.'' How strange the times when the democratic process 
     founded to protect the rights of minorities is being used to 
     jeopardize or abolish the rights of minorities in the name of 
     religion.
       Although this legislation most directly affects those who 
     do not adhere to the mainline religious traditions in our 
     nation, in truth it diminishes any of us who see religious 
     liberty as a non-negotiable part of our American democracy. 
     H.R. 2389 is bad for the Constitution. It is bad for 
     religion.
       If there is anything that we at The Interfaith Alliance can 
     do to assist you in this important matter, please do not 
     hesitate to contact Preetmohan Singh, Senior Policy Analyst.
           Sincerely,
                                         Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,
      President, The Interfaith Alliance, Pastor of Preaching and 
     Worship, North Minister Baptist Church (Monroe, LA).
                                  ____



                                     The Constitution Project,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 2004.
     House of Representatives,
     The Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of the House of Representatives: I write on 
     behalf of the Constitution Project to urge you to oppose H.R. 
     2028, the ``Pledge Protection Act of 2003.''
       The Constitution Project, based at Georgetown University's 
     Public Policy Institute, specializes in creating bipartisan 
     consensus on a variety of legal and governance issues, and 
     promoting that consensus to policymakers, opinion leaders, 
     the media, and the public. We have initiatives on the death 
     penalty, liberty and national security, war powers, and 
     judicial independence (our Courts Initiative), among others. 
     Each of our initiatives is directed by a bipartisan committee 
     of prominent and influential businesspeople, scholars, and 
     former public officials.
       Our Courts Initiative works to promote public education on 
     the importance of our courts as protectors of Americans' 
     essential constitutional freedoms. Its co-chairs are the 
     Honorable Mickey Edwards, John Quincy Adams Lecturer at the 
     John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University 
     and former chair of the House of Representatives Republican 
     Policy Committee (R-OK), and the Honorable Lloyd Cutler, a 
     prominent Washington lawyer and White House counsel to 
     Presidents Carter and Clinton.
       In 2000, the Courts Initiative created a bipartisan Task 
     Force to examine and identify basic principles as to when the 
     legislature acts unconstitutionally in setting the powers and 
     jurisdiction of the judiciary. The Task Force was unanimous 
     in its conclusion that some legislative acts restricting 
     courts' powers and jurisdiction are unconstitutional. The 
     Task Force also concluded that some legislative actions, even 
     if constitutional, are undesirable. (The Task Force's 
     findings and recommendations are published in Uncertain 
     Justice: Politics and America's Courts 2000.)
       Our Task Force arrived at seven bipartisan consensus 
     recommendations, including the following, which are relevant 
     to the legislation at hand:
       1. Congress and state legislatures should heed 
     constitutional limits when considering proposals to restrict 
     the powers and jurisdiction of the courts.
       2. Legislatures should refrain from restricting court 
     jurisdiction in an effort to control substantive judicial 
     decisions in a manner that violates separation of powers, due 
     process, or other constitutional principles.
       3. Legislatures should not attempt to control substantive 
     judicial decisions by enacting legislation that restricts 
     court jurisdiction over particular types of cases.
       4. Legislatures should refrain from restricting access to 
     the courts and should take necessary affirmative steps to 
     ensure adequate access to the courts for all Americans.
       Specifically, our Task Force was unanimous in its view that 
     there are some constitutional limits on the authority the 
     legislature to restrict court jurisdiction in an effort to 
     control substantive judicial decisions.

[[Page 15061]]

     In particular, separation of powers, due process, and other 
     constitutional provisions limit such authority. Task Force 
     members had differing views about the scope and source of the 
     constitutional limit on the legislature's power in this area. 
     For instance, some believed that restrictions on jurisdiction 
     become unconstitutional when they undermine the essential 
     role of the Supreme Court. Others relied on a reading of the 
     Vesting Clause of Article III, which places judicial power--
     the power to decide cases--in the hands of the courts alone. 
     Nonetheless, all believed that constitutional limitations 
     exist.
       Apart from the constitutionality of laws restricting 
     federal court jurisdiction, the Task Force was also unanimous 
     in its view that legislative acts stripping courts of 
     jurisdiction to hear particular types of cases in an effort 
     to control substantive judicial decisions are undesirable and 
     inappropriate in a democratic system with co-equal branches 
     of government. Legislative restriction of jurisdiction in 
     response to particular substantive decisions unduly 
     politicizes the judicial process, and attempts by 
     legislatures to affect substantive outcomes by curtailing 
     judicial jurisdiction are inappropriate, even if believed 
     constitutional. (Indeed, it was striking that members 
     reflecting a broad ideological range--from, for example, 
     Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society to Steven Shapiro of 
     the American Civil Liberties Union--agreed that restrictions 
     on jurisdiction to achieve substantive changes in the law are 
     unwise and undesirable policy.)
       The Task Force was also unanimous that legislation that 
     restricts access to the courts and precludes individuals from 
     using a judicial forum to enforce rights is undesirable and 
     unconstitutional. Rights are meaningless without a forum in 
     which they can be vindicated. Therefore, access to the courts 
     at both the federal and state levels is essential in order 
     for rights to have effect. Legislatures have the duty to 
     ensure meaningful access to the courts and legislative 
     actions that preclude this are undesirable and 
     unconstitutional.
       Our Task Force reached these conclusions and 
     recommendations rightly. From its beginning, our system of 
     constitutional democracy has depended on the independence of 
     the judiciary. Judges are able to protect citizens' basic 
     rights and decide cases fairly only if free to make decisions 
     according to the law, without regard to political or public 
     pressure. Similarly, the judiciary can maintain the checks 
     and balances essential to preserving a healthy separation of 
     powers only if able to resist overreaching by the political 
     branches. Indeed, the cornerstone of American liberty is the 
     power of the courts to protect individual rights from 
     momentary excesses of political and popular majorities.
       In recent years, as part of the polarization and posturing 
     that increasingly characterize our national and state 
     politics, threats to judicial independence have become more 
     commonplace. Attacks on judges for unpopular decisions, even 
     those made in good faith, have become more rampant. 
     Politicians are responding to unpopular decisions and 
     litigants by attempting to restrict courts' powers in certain 
     kinds of cases. However, Americans have much to lose if we do 
     not exercise self-restraint and instead choose short-term 
     political gain at the expense of judicial independence. The 
     independence of our judiciary is, as Chief Justice Rehnquist 
     described, ``one of the crown jewels of our system of 
     government.''
       In conclusion, while Article III of our Constitution gives 
     Congress the power to regulate federal court jurisdiction, 
     this power is not unlimited, and Congress should not--and in 
     some instances may not --use its power to restrict federal 
     court jurisdiction in ways that infringe upon separation of 
     powers, violate individual rights and equal protection, or 
     offend federalism. H.R. 2028 is poised to do all three by 
     stripping federal courts--including even the U.S. Supreme 
     Court--of the authority to hear cases involving the Pledge of 
     Allegiance, even when such cases involve First Amendment 
     issues of free speech and freedom of religion. It sets the 
     dangerous precedent of transferring questions of federal and 
     constitutional law exclusively to state courts and preventing 
     American citizens from seeking protection of fundamental 
     rights in federal court, and it threatens the critical and 
     unique role that the federal courts play in constitutional 
     balance of powers, interpreting and enforcing constitutional 
     law, and providing legal certainty.
       For these reasons, as well as those detailed our Task 
     Force's findings and recommendations, the Constitution 
     Project urges you to oppose H.R. 2028. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                Kathryn A. Monroe,
     Director, Courts Initiative.
                                  ____



                                     American Bar Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 2006.
     Re H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005.

       Dear Representative: We understand that the House is 
     scheduled to consider H.R. 2389 tomorrow. We are writing to 
     express our opposition to this legislation, which would strip 
     from all federal courts jurisdiction to hear constitutional 
     challenges to the interpretation of, or the validity of, the 
     Pledge of Allegiance.
       Our views on H.R. 2389 are informed by our long-standing 
     opposition to legislative curtailment of the jurisdiction of 
     the Supreme Court of the United States and the inferior 
     federal courts for the purpose of effecting changes in 
     constitutional law. The ABA has taken no position on the 
     underlying issues regarding recitation of the Pledge of 
     Allegiance in public schools; instead, our strong opposition 
     to H.R. 2389 and other pending legislation that would strip 
     the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear selected types of 
     constitutional cases is based on our concern for the 
     integrity of our system of government.
       This legislation would authorize Congress to use its 
     regulatory power over federal jurisdiction to advance a 
     particular legislative outcome by insulating it from 
     constitutional scrutiny by the federal judiciary. In addition 
     to being constitutionally suspect, this legislation would 
     establish a dangerous precedent if enacted. As a matter of 
     policy, Congress should not jettison our foundational 
     principles because of current dissatisfaction with a 
     controversial decision of the Supreme Court or lower federal 
     courts by permanently stripping the jurisdiction of the 
     federal courts to hear certain categories of cases. Rather 
     than strengthening its legislative role, Congress, by 
     pressing its own checking power to the extreme, imperils the 
     entire system of separated powers.
       If enacted, H.R. 2389 would restrict the role of the 
     federal courts in our system of checks and balances and 
     thereby limit the ability of the federal courts to protect 
     the constitutional rights of all Americans. Indeed, this 
     legislation would leave the state courts as the final 
     arbiters of federal constitutional law, creating the 
     possibility that some state judges might choose not to follow 
     Supreme Court precedents. Because the legislation would 
     nullify the Supremacy Clause in certain classes of cases, the 
     Constitution could mean something different from state to 
     state; and, contrary to the expressed intentions of the 
     Framers, our fundamental rights and the balance of power 
     among the branches would be subject to evanescent majority 
     opinion.
       At a time when Congress is accusing the federal courts of 
     overstepping their constitutional role and calling for 
     judicial restraint, we urge you to likewise exercise 
     legislative restraint and demonstrate your continued 
     commitment to the doctrine of separation of powers and a 
     government composed of separate but coequal branches by 
     voting to defeat passage of H.R. 2389.
       If you have any questions regarding our position, please 
     have your staff contact Denise Cardman, Deputy Director of 
     the Governmental Affairs Office.
           Sincerely,
     Robert D. Evans
                                  ____



                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 2006.
     Re Don't Shut the Federal Courthouse Doors to Religious 
         Minorities; Oppose H.R. 2389

       Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union 
     strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 2389, ``the Pledge 
     Protection Act of 2005.'' H.R. 2389 is an extreme measure 
     that would remove jurisdiction from all federal courts, 
     including the Supreme Court, over any constitutional claim 
     involving the Pledge of Allegiance or its recitation.
       H.R. 2389 would slam shut the federal court house doors to 
     religious minorities, parents, schoolchildren and others who 
     seek nothing more than to have their religious and free 
     speech claims heard before the courts most uniquely suited to 
     entertain such claims. Further, by entirely stripping all 
     federal courts of jurisdiction over a particular class of 
     cases, H.R. 2389 raises serious legal concerns, violating 
     principles of separation of powers, equal protection and due 
     process. The bill undermines public confidence in the federal 
     courts by expressing outright hostility toward them, 
     threatens the legitimacy of future congressional action by 
     removing the federal courts as a neutral arbiter, and rejects 
     the unifying function of the federal judiciary by denying 
     federal courts the opportunity to interpret the law. H.R. 
     2389 would deny the U.S. Supreme Court its historical role as 
     the final authority on resolving differing interpretations of 
     federal constitutional rights. As a result, each of the 50 
     state supreme courts would be a final authority on these 
     federal constitutional questions. This would potentially 
     create a situation where we could have as many as 50 
     different interpretations of any relevant federal 
     constitutional question.
       It is in apparent recognition of many of these concerns 
     that no federal bill withdrawing federal jurisdiction in 
     cases involving fundamental constitutional rights has become 
     law since the Reconstruction period. Federal courts were 
     established to interpret federal law and to ensure that the 
     states and the government did not violate the protections in 
     the federal constitution. An effort to deny the federal 
     courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, of jurisdiction 
     over the very sort of claim they were established to hear--
     governmental conduct that violates a constitutional right--is 
     an extreme attack on the role of federal courts in our system 
     of checks and balances. It strikes at the very intent of the 
     Founders.

[[Page 15062]]

       While the supporters of this bill see it as an appropriate 
     response to recent court decisions that they dislike 
     concerning the words ``under God'' in the Pledge, the impact 
     of H.R. 2389 would NOT be limited merely to that issue. This 
     bill would remove jurisdiction over ALL constitutional 
     claims, related to the pledge, from ALL federal courts. This 
     could potentially undermine decades of well-established 
     Supreme Court precedents by denying access to the federal 
     courts in cases brought to enforce existing constitutional 
     rights for religious minorities. For example, over sixty 
     years ago, the Supreme Court decided the case of West 
     Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 
     (1943). In Barnette, the Supreme Court struck down a West 
     Virginia law that mandated schoolchildren to recite the 
     Pledge of Allegiance. Under the West Virginia law, religious 
     minorities faced expulsion from school and could be subject 
     to prosecution and fined, if convicted of violating the 
     statute's provisions. In striking down that statute, the 
     Court reasoned: ``To believe that patriotism will not 
     flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and 
     spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an 
     unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to 
     free minds * * *. If there is any fixed star in our 
     constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or 
     petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, 
     nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.'' 319 
     U.S. at 639-40.
       In 2004, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 
     Circuit held that a Pennsylvania law mandating recitation of 
     the Pledge, even when it provided a religious exception, 
     violated the Constitution because it violated the free speech 
     rights of the students. Circle School v. Pappert, 381 F.3d 
     172 (3d Cir. 2004). In Pappert, the court found that: ``It 
     may be useful to note our belief that most citizens of the 
     United States willingly recite the Pledge of Allegiance and 
     proudly sing the national anthem. But the rights embodied in 
     the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, protect 
     the minority--those persons who march to their own drummers. 
     It is they who need the protection afforded by the 
     Constitution and it is the responsibility of federal judges 
     to ensure that protection.'' Pappert, 381 F.3d at 183.
       First comes marriage then comes the Pledge . . . Where will 
     it end? Passage of H.R. 2389 would set a dangerous precedent 
     for responses by Members of Congress to court decisions with 
     which they disagree. In the 109th Congress alone, Congress is 
     considering court-stripping legislation related to the Pledge 
     of Allegiance, marriage, governmental acknowledgement of God, 
     and impeachment of judges for considering certain religion 
     cases.
       Over the years, Congress has considered legislation 
     designed to strip court jurisdiction on the issues such as 
     public school busing, voluntary prayer and abortion. 
     Fortunately, none of those proposals was adopted by Congress 
     because legislators understood that setting a precedent for 
     stripping the courts of their jurisdiction over a particular 
     issue might, in the future, be used by some other group of 
     advocates, when in the majority, to establish its views as 
     the law of the land, safely out of the reach of the courts. 
     We urge members of this Committee to oppose passage of H.R. 
     2389 and not to abandon this tradition of thoughtfulness and 
     restraint.
       Please do not hesitate to contact Terri Schroeder at (202) 
     675-2324 if you have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                             Caroline Fredrickson,
                                                         Director.
                                               Terri A. Schroeder,
     Legislative Analyst.
                                  ____

         Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2006.
     Reject Efforts to Slam Federal Courthouse Doors on Religious 
         Minorities and Vote ``No'' on H.R. 2389
       Dear Representative: Americans United for Separation of 
     Church and State urges you to vote ``No'' on passage of H.R. 
     2389, the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' which is being marked up 
     by the House Judiciary Committee this week. Americans United 
     represents more than 75,000 individual members throughout the 
     fifty states and in the District of Columbia, as well as 
     cooperating houses of worship and other religious bodies 
     committed to the preservation of religious liberty. H.R. 2389 
     is an extreme and unwise proposal that will undermine the 
     crucial separation of powers at the heart of our government 
     and deny religious minorities from seeking enforcement of 
     their longstanding constitutional rights in the federal 
     courts.
       H.R. 2389 would deprive all federal courts--including the 
     U.S. Supreme Court--of their ability to hear cases involving 
     the Pledge of Allegiance and to enforce longstanding 
     constitutional rights against coerced recitation of the 
     Pledge. Americans United firmly believes that the text, 
     history and structure of the Constitution, together with 
     important policy considerations, should lead the Judiciary 
     Committee to soundly defeat this dangerous and misguided 
     bill, as well as any other court-stripping proposal.


             The Pledge Protection Act is Unconstitutional

       Article III, Section I of the United States Constitution 
     creates the Supreme Court and provides the Congress with the 
     power to establish ``such inferior Courts as the Congress may 
     from time to time establish.'' Section 2 of Article III 
     delineates sets of cases that the federal courts may hear, 
     provides for areas of original jurisdiction of the U.S. 
     Supreme Court, and also provides for the appellate 
     jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in other areas ``with such 
     Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall 
     make.''
       Under Section 2, Congress may have some degree of authority 
     to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, as well 
     as the jurisdiction of lower federal courts. Although the 
     extent of this congressional authority is in dispute and has 
     been the subject of academic commentary over the years, there 
     are clear limits to this authority--and these limits are also 
     found in the Constitution. With the Pledge Protection Act, 
     Congress makes its limited--and disputed--power in Section 2 
     more important than the fundamental due process rights of 
     citizens and the fundamental notion of separation of powers 
     underlying our government.


    The Pledge Protection Act Would Violate Due Process Rights and 
                   Undermine the Separation of Powers

       Basic due process demands an independent judicial forum 
     capable of determining federal constitutional rights. This 
     legislation deprives the federal courts of the ability to 
     hear cases involving fundamental free exercise and free 
     speech rights of students, parents, and other individuals. 
     Congress' denial of a federal forum to plaintiffs in a 
     specified class of cases would force plaintiffs out of 
     federal courts, which are specially suited for the 
     vindication of federal interests, and into state courts, 
     which may be hostile or unsympathetic to federal claims, and 
     which may lack expertise and independent safeguards provided 
     to federal judges under Article III of the Constitution. It 
     is in apparent recognition of this concern that no federal 
     bill withdrawing federal jurisdiction over cases involving 
     fundamental constitutional rights with respect to a 
     particular substantive area has become law in decades.
       Political frustration with controversial court decisions 
     during the second half of the twentieth century provoked 
     Congress to propose a number of court-stripping measures 
     designed to overturn court decisions touching on a wide 
     variety of issues, including: anti-subversive statutes, 
     apportionment in state legislatures, ``Miranda'' warnings, 
     busing, school prayer, abortion, racial integration, and 
     composition of the armed services. All of these measures 
     failed to pass Congress. In each instance, bipartisan 
     concerns over threats to the American system of government 
     and constitutional order gave way to a recognition of these 
     court-stripping measures for what they truly were: attempts 
     to circumvent the careful process required for amendments to 
     the U.S. Constitution. As Professor Michael J. Gerhardt 
     stated in his testimony regarding the ``Constitution 
     Restoration Act of 2004'' before the Subcommittee on Courts 
     on September 13, 2004: ``Efforts, taken in response to or 
     retaliation against judicial decisions, to withdraw all 
     federal jurisdiction or even jurisdiction of inferior federal 
     courts on questions of constitutional law are transparent 
     attempts to influence, or displace, substantive judicial 
     outcomes. For several decades, the Congress, for good reason, 
     has refrained from enacting such laws.'' Like so many failed 
     court-stripping measures that have come before it, the Pledge 
     Protection Act represents yet another illegitimate short cut 
     to amending the Constitution, is against the weight of 
     history, and must fail.


The Pledge Protection Act is Extreme, Unwise, and Represents Misguided 
                                 Policy

       As drafted, the bill would slam the courthouse doors to 
     religious minorities trying to gain protection for their 
     fundamental constitutional religious and free speech rights. 
     Over sixty years ago, the Supreme Court decided the case of 
     West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 
     624 (1943). In Barnette, the Supreme Court struck down a West 
     Virginia law that mandated schoolchildren to recite the 
     Pledge of Allegiance. Under the West Virginia law, religious 
     minorities faced expulsion from school and could be subject 
     to prosecution and fined, if convicted of violating the 
     statute's provisions. In striking down that statute, the 
     Court reasoned: ``To believe that patriotism will not 
     flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and 
     spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an 
     unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to 
     free minds .  .   . If there is any fixed star in our 
     constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high, 
     or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, 
     nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.'' 319 
     U.S. at 639-40.
       Moreover, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     Third Circuit, holding unconstitutional two provisions of a 
     Pennsylvania law mandating recitation of the Pledge, said, 
     ``It may be useful to note our belief that most citizens of 
     the United States willingly

[[Page 15063]]

     recite the Pledge of Allegiance and proudly sing the national 
     anthem. But the rights embodied in the Constitution, most 
     particularly the First Amendment, protect the minority--those 
     persons who march to their own drummers. It is they who need 
     the protection afforded by the Constitution and it is the 
     responsibility of federal judges to ensure that protection.'' 
     Circle School v. Pappert, 381 F.3d 172, 183 (3d Cir. 2004).
       The Pledge Protection Act is an attack on our very system 
     of government. Americans United strongly urges you to leave 
     the independence of the federal judiciary in tact, protect 
     longstanding constitutional rights of religious minorities in 
     the federal courts, and respect free speech rights of 
     countless individuals by rejecting this misguided 
     legislation.
       If you have any questions regarding this legislation or 
     would like further information on any other issues of 
     importance to Americans United, please do not hesitate to 
     contact Aaron D. Schuham, Legislative Director, at (202) 466-
     3234, extension 240.
           Sincerely,
                                               Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                  People for the American Way,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2006.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Committee Member: On behalf of the more than 900,000 
     members and activists of People For the American Way, we 
     write to urge you to oppose H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge 
     Protection Act of 2005,'' when it comes before the Committee 
     today, June 7. This legislation would violate the First 
     Amendment, and would set a terrible precedent against the 
     separation of powers embodied in our Constitution that 
     protects the fundamental rights of all Americans.
       H.R. 2389 would eliminate any role for the federal courts, 
     including the U.S. Supreme Court, in challenges concerning 
     the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. This would 
     have an immediate and dramatic impact on the ability of 
     individual Americans to be free from government-coerced 
     speech or religious expression. For example, this legislation 
     would bar the federal courts from enforcing the U.S. Supreme 
     Court's 1943 decision in West Virginia State Board of 
     Education v. Barnette, which barred a local school district 
     from forcing children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance over 
     their religious objections.
       Apart from being unwise as a matter of policy, H.R. 2389 
     appears to be an unconstitutional overreach of Congress' 
     power under Article III regarding the federal judiciary, 
     particularly in light of the Fifth Amendment's due process 
     clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection 
     clause. Further, it would contradict common sense, and more 
     than 200 years of constitutional history, to allow Congress 
     to circumvent the words ``Congress shall make no law'' by 
     eliminating effective enforcement of the First Amendment by 
     the courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. We agree with U.S. 
     Senator Barry Goldwater who stated about a similar attempt to 
     strip federal courts of jurisdiction over fundamental rights 
     more than twenty four years ago: ``If there is no independent 
     tribunal to check legislative or executive action all the 
     written guarantees or rights in the world would amount to 
     nothing.''
       Nor are state courts the appropriate sole and final venue 
     for enforcement of federal constitutional rights. Indeed, 
     H.R. 2389 raises the prospect of 50 different interpretations 
     of the First Amendment. Guarantees of such fundamental rights 
     as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom from 
     governmental religious coercion should not and cannot 
     properly be relegated to such jurisprudential uncertainty. We 
     note that the Reagan Administration, hardly an opponent of 
     federalism, rejected historical and textual arguments for 
     removing jurisdiction over federal constitutional questions 
     to state courts:
       ``Nor does it seem likely that the [Constitutional] 
     Convention would have developed the Exceptions Clause as a 
     check on the Supreme Court in such a manner that an exercise 
     of power under the Clause to remove Supreme Court appellate 
     jurisdiction would . . . vest [the power] in the state 
     courts. Hamilton regarded even the possibility of multiple 
     courts of final jurisdiction as unacceptable.''
       In addition, H.R. 2389 expressly sets the precedent for 
     future Congresses to completely bar U.S. citizens from 
     raising any judicial challenge to federal action. State 
     courts can only assert jurisdiction over the federal 
     government if it consents to be sued. Failing that consent, 
     individuals would be left without recourse to 
     unconstitutional actions of the Congress or the executive 
     branch. Unreviewable federal power to infringe on fundamental 
     individual rights of American citizens is alien to our 
     republic.
       Finally, H.R. 2389 threatens to disrupt the framework of 
     checks and balances on governmental power embodied in the 
     U.S. Constitution through the separation of powers by setting 
     the precedent for Congress to remove legislation from 
     constitutional review by the judicial branch. For all 
     practical purposes, Congress could become the sole arbiter of 
     constitutionality on any subject within its powers--or indeed 
     outside its powers since it could legislate away any 
     challenge to congressional interpretation of its own 
     authority. Litigation over the meaning of Article III, a 
     necessary part of the inevitable court challenge to H.R. 
     2389, could in of itself result in a constitutional crisis 
     deeply damaging to the separation of powers.
       H.R. 2389 would set a terrible precedent for separation of 
     powers and protection of individual rights. We urge you to 
     reject the premise that Congress is above the Constitution 
     and vote no on this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Ralph G. Neas,
                                                        President.
                                                       Tanya Clay,
     Director, Public Policy.
                                  ____



                                Secular Coalition for America,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2006.
       Dear Representative: The Secular Coalition for America 
     urges you to oppose H.R. 2389, the so-called Pledge 
     Protection Act. Passage of this act would curtail the ability 
     of the judiciary to make Constitutional determinations. It 
     would interfere with the current protection of checks and 
     balances provided by having three independent branches of 
     government.
       It is up to the U.S. Senate to approve or disapprove of 
     federal judges. Thus the elected legislative body has both 
     the right and the duty to ensure that our judiciary is of the 
     highest quality. Once they are seated, it is essential that 
     the judicial branch maintain its independence. By allowing 
     the judiciary to be free of political pressures and majority 
     rule, minorities in our nation gain the protections afforded 
     by the First Amendment freedom of religion. This protection 
     has allowed members of minority religions (such as Jehovah's 
     Witnesses) as well as non-religious Americans to be free of 
     government required religious exercises. Individuals have 
     been free to exercise their own decisions of conscience in 
     public schools and governmental bodies.
       Nontheists oppose the 1954 change to the Pledge of 
     Allegiance, which turned that patriotic exercise into a 
     statement of religiously-based division of Americans and used 
     religion as a tool for political gain and theism as a litmus 
     test for patriotism. By inserting religion into government, 
     Americans who do not believe in God are relegated to a 
     second-class citizenship. Regardless of whether or not 
     individuals support the revision of the pledge however, it is 
     up to the judicial branch to enforce the Constitution, 
     including the Bill of Rights.
       Our nation has respected the separation of powers which our 
     founders so wisely created to prevent anyone branch from 
     gaining too much power. Congress must not encroach on the 
     judiciary's power to resolve constitutional issues. If 
     Congress passes constitutional laws, they should be upheld on 
     judicial review. If Congress passes laws deemed to be 
     unconstitutional, it is the duty of the judiciary to overturn 
     such laws. Without such checks and balances, the rights of 
     minorities guaranteed in the Bill of Rights would be 
     meaningless; the Constitution could not be enforced; and a 
     tyranny of the majority would ensue.
       Passage of HR 2389 creates a slippery slope that would 
     leave the judicial branch constrained to address only those 
     issues of which Congress approves. Any time the judicial 
     branch makes a decision unpopular with Congress, it could 
     simply pass legislation taking away the court's jurisdiction. 
     Passing this type of court-stripping legislation would 
     subvert the will, not only of the people, but of the founders 
     of our great nation.
           Sincerely,
                                          Lori Lipman Brown, Esq.,
     Director, Secular Coalition for America.
                                  ____



                                American Humanist Association,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2006.
     Re Oppose H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge Protection Act of 2005.''
       Dear Representative, The American Humanist Association 
     (AHA) stands in opposition to H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge 
     Protection Act of 2005,'' which would prevent all federal 
     courts from hearing cases challenging or interpreting rights 
     granted by the First Amendment as they relate to Pledge of 
     Allegiance cases. We urge you to vote against this bill, 
     which would compromise long held American legal principles of 
     due process and separation of powers by shutting the federal 
     courthouse doors to large numbers of Americans.
       If passed, the Pledge Protection Act would set a dangerous 
     precedent by stripping federal courts of judicial 
     independence and paving the way to preventing federal judges 
     from ruling on other controversial social issues from 
     abortion and gun control to school vouchers and school 
     prayer. As we warned with the Marriage Protection Act of 2005 
     (H.R. 1100), attempts by Congress to strip the judiciary of 
     their power to review legislation are inequitable and will 
     open the door to more of the same. If the Pledge Protection 
     Act passes it will fuel the fires for similar bills.
       Denying access to the federal court system is unacceptable 
     to religious and Humanist minorities who have a due process 
     right to have their cases heard.

[[Page 15064]]

       The Pledge Protection Act presents a serious separation of 
     powers concern. Federal courts are uniquely prepared to 
     interpret federal constitutional concerns and to serve as a 
     check on the constitutionality of actions of Congress and the 
     Executive branch. That's why constitutional concerns are 
     raised when an attempt is made to block the courts from 
     reviewing and interpreting the constitutionality of a single 
     act.
       Congress should not disrupt the balance of power intended 
     by our Founding Fathers. Restricting the federal courts' 
     ability to protect First Amendment rights severely undermines 
     the American judicial system.
       Humanists are particularly concerned about this bill 
     because it would violate judicial independence in order to 
     undermine American citizens, in this case those of a minority 
     faith or no religion, the right to access federal courts to 
     challenge a piece of legislation.
       In the past Congress has rejected attempts to withdraw 
     controversial issues from the scope of federal courts and the 
     AHA encourages you to do so again at this important juncture. 
     We urge you to defend due process and separation of powers 
     and vote no on the Pledge Protection Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mel Lipman,
                                                    AHA President.

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, yielding myself 15 seconds, I would like to 
point out that clearly this is in absolute agreement with Marbury v. 
Madison. Even in that case, the Chief Justice dismissed cases later 
when the Federal courts had not been granted jurisdiction.
  Granting jurisdiction is the constitutional job of this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Missouri for yielding me time.
  The question was posed by the gentleman from New York and others is 
this Pledge Protection Act, H.R. 2389, constitutional? Is the whole 
concept of ``under God'' part of our Pledge constitutional? I submit 
this humble penny with Abraham Lincoln's picture on it. Do you know 
what it says on the side? ``In God We Trust.''
  Behind the Speaker's chair, ``In God We Trust.''
  At the Supreme Court they pray every day, asking for God's blessing. 
So Surely when we have a pledge, we should be able to use the word 
``under God.'' Throughout our history this concept, as the United 
States being a providential Nation, has been the cornerstone of our 
success.
  Would our Founding Fathers, if they were here today, decide to take 
``under God'' from the Pledge? I do not think so. In fact, let's go and 
look at what the Founding Fathers talked about. This belief in our 
Nation being under God is a central part of our heritage. History bears 
this out.
  Even before independence, a central theme among all forefathers was 
that our liberty flowed from our Creator. Josiah Quincy was one of 
these leaders. Not a lot of people know who he was. He was a 
charismatic leader in the American Revolution and outstanding lawyer. 
He wrote a series of anonymous articles for the Boston Gazette in which 
he opposed the Stamp Act and other British colonial policies. He, along 
with John Adams, bravely defended the British soldiers at a trial for 
the Boston Massacre, to show the world that the colonialists valued the 
rule of law above all.
  In 1774, he was sent as an agent to argue the colonial cause for 
independence in England. He perished on the journey over. Yet, before 
he left, these are his immortal words that he uttered: ``For under God, 
we are determined that wheresoever, whensoever, or howsoever we shall 
be called to make our exit, we will die free men.''
  Our Founding Fathers uttered similar statements time and time again, 
my colleagues, yet perhaps never more eloquently than the Declaration 
of Independence when even Thomas Jefferson penned the famous lines that 
``we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created 
equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable 
rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness.''
  This same man who first wrote about separation of church and state 
also acknowledged, ``The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the 
same time.'' And so over the years our Nation's leaders have freely 
expressed their beliefs in a higher providence for this country.
  In our darkest hour, President Lincoln during the Civil War and later 
President Kennedy during the civil rights movement reaffirmed that this 
Nation was founded under God, and that all men and women living here 
are entitled by God to equal liberty.
  Even more recently, in the midst of the Cold War, my colleagues, 
President Reagan argued that ``freedom prospers when religion is 
vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.''
  So the whole idea of under God has been passed on from generation to 
generation. We are blessed by this concept. The Constitution was 
drafted to guard our liberties, obviously, our God-given liberties, and 
wisely established a system of checks and balances for our government 
structure. Mr. Akin pointed these out. The power of Congress to limit 
jurisdiction of the courts is one of those primary checks on the power 
of the judiciary. So this is all according to procedures that our 
Founding Fathers established.
  Article III, section 2 grants Congress the power to limit the 
jurisdiction of Federal courts. So what we are doing today is according 
to the Constitution.
  The Pledge Protection Act invokes the constitutional powers and 
removes the Pledge from the jurisdiction of Federal courts. I ask you 
to support this act. I urge my colleagues for future generations to 
acknowledge our providential point in history.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is commenting and his entire 
speech was about the desirability or the worth of the words ``under 
God,'' which I think almost everybody agrees with. The issue in this 
bill is court-stripping. Do we take away from the courts the right to 
decide, to protect people's rights?
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Stearns may be right in everything that he is 
saying, but he does not seem to have the confidence that the courts 
will agree with him, because if he did, he would not be supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield myself 10 seconds so I can yield to the gentleman 
from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Would you agree that we here in Congress can have the 
right in the separation of powers to overrule the Supreme Court?
  Mr. NADLER. To overrule the Supreme Court? Certainly we do not have 
that.
  Mr. STEARNS. Not to overrule, but to pass laws here to check the 
balance of the Supreme Court?
  Mr. NADLER. We have the right, but I do not believe we have the 
right, given the fact that the Bill of Rights postdates the grant of 
the jurisdiction-setting authority in the Constitution, I do not think 
we have the right to take away from the Supreme Court the ability to 
protect constitutional rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, when I listed the organizations 
opposed to the bill, I inadvertently left off Americans United for 
Separation of Church and State and the National Council of Negro Women.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  As the gentleman pointed out, the gentleman from Florida gave a very 
compelling argument for why it is appropriate to have ``under God'' in 
the Pledge of Allegiance, and therefore concludes that since he thinks 
that is in jeopardy, based on the court case now moving through the 
judicial system arguing for stripping away the jurisdiction of the 
court to decide that issue.
  But the bill before us goes far beyond the issue of under God, and 
that is why I would like to ask if the majority whip, I would like to 
use my time to make sure that you and I have the same understanding of 
the purpose of this bill.
  Let's say, for example, that a school board in West Virginia decides 
that

[[Page 15065]]

every student in the school system must recite the Pledge of Allegiance 
at the beginning of the school day. And a Jehovah's Witness family goes 
to court, to State court, after this bill is passed and says, it is a 
violation of our religious principles to pledge allegiance to anyone 
other than God. We are prepared to make all kinds of statements with 
respect to our regard for the country, but we cannot pledge allegiance 
to anyone but God.
  And then that case goes to the State courts, and the West Virginia 
Supreme Court decides that, no, the school board is right. They have 
the right to compel every student in that school system to recite the 
pledge, even if it violates their religious principles. Or maybe it is 
telling an Orthodox Jewish child that they have to remove their skull 
cap for the recitation of the Pledge, and they say, no, if the West 
Virginia school board ruled that way, the individual's right to 
exercise their religious principles by keeping their skull cap on when 
they are outside and in this public arena is trumped by the school 
board's policy.
  Should the U.S. Supreme Court be able to take that case on appeal 
that compels a decision that a State court, that compels the recitation 
of the Pledge in a way that violates the fundamental free exercise of 
religion of a student? That is my question.
  Mr. BLUNT. If my friend is yielding to me, the principal sponsor of 
the bill, Mr. Akin, has said he would like to respond to that. If that 
is appropriate, I would like for that to be our response.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Akin) 1 minute of the remaining time I have.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman made the scenario, let's 
assume the bill passes that we are discussing now, is signed by the 
President.
  Mr. BERMAN. My assumption is this bill is now law.
  Mr. AKIN. Now is law. What happens then is you are going to a 
particular State, you are saying West Virginia. And what happens is 
that a school board or something like that in the State decides to just 
basically go against what is already established Supreme Court policy.
  From 1944, the Supreme Court made the ruling that nobody is required 
to say the Pledge of Allegiance. We have no interest in changing that. 
We think that is good policy.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Because under this 
bill, they can decide to violate that Supreme Court decision, and the 
West Virginia Supreme Court, now the final arbiter of it, says, we did 
not like that decision in the first place, and now the Supreme Court 
cannot take jurisdiction of this case, so they decide to reverse, for 
West Virginia purposes, the Barnette case that the Supreme Court 
decided in 1944, and this bill strips away the jurisdiction of the 
Supreme Court to say, you did not follow our precedent.
  Mr. AKIN. What you are saying is, first of all, you are making, 
obviously you are taking this to a pretty extreme situation. You are 
saying a whole series of courts in West Virginia are going to overturn 
Supreme Court policy on the fact that people have to say the Pledge.
  So first of all, they are going completely against what the Federal 
courts have already established. They then expose themselves to the 
checks and balances within that State. In at least 45, probably more, 
of the States, there are provisions where those judges can be removed 
by the people of that State.
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time. If you had stripped away the right of 
the U.S. Supreme Court, of the Federal courts to decide whether 
segregated schools, whether the doctrine of separate and equal should 
stand or whether it violated the 14th amendment of the Constitution, 
there are many States in this country where every State court would 
have affirmed that separate is equal, is compliant with the 14th 
amendment, and in many of those States, the voters in those States 
would have been quite happy with that decision.
  You have eliminated the Supreme Court's ability to review fundamental 
decisions involving first amendment rights.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will yield the gentleman 30 seconds, and 
yield for an answer to how he would have prevented, under this bill, 
all the States from negating the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of 
Education ruling.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. AKIN. Well, the situation is that you are dependent on this bill 
with the various checks and balances on the Supreme Courts in the 
States. That is, those justices could be impeached for violating the 
Supreme Court.
  Mr. BERMAN. And the voters of that State.
  Mr. AKIN. And the voters of that State. It depends on the State laws.
  Mr. BERMAN. The first amendment was to protect the exercise of 
religion, even if the majority didn't like that religion.
  Mr. AKIN. The bottom line is we have a system of republics. We have a 
system of federalism. We have 51 established republics, one federated 
and 50 States.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my neighbor from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to support this 
legislation that will preserve America's Pledge of Allegiance. This 
Congress is working to strengthen America to taking steps to continue 
job creation, keeping our economy growing, providing the tools that we 
need to fight the war on terrorism and address the problems that are 
leading to high energy prices.
  However, we also have a responsibility to take a few minutes today to 
reinforce the spirit and unity of the American people by protecting our 
Pledge. The Pledge of Allegiance is not just a statement that our kids 
rehearse in schools, it is an expression of we as Americans.
  The American people are united by devotion, not just to our flag but 
to our country. Our devotion is not just to our public, but to our 
principles, including liberty and justice for all. Our shared Pledge of 
Allegiance should not be rewritten on a whim by a few judges against 
the will of the overwhelming majority of American public.
  That is why this legislation is so important, and I appreciate Mr. 
Blunt's and Mr. Akin's leadership on this issue. The Pledge Protection 
Act, which has 197 cosponsors, passed the House in the 108th Congress 
by a wide margin. Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the 
authority to pass this legislation. We should use this authority with 
restraint.
  But when it comes to protecting America's Pledge of Allegiance, we 
should take these thoughtful steps to exercise the will of the American 
people.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, and 
it does pain me to be on the other side of a piece of legislation that 
so many of my friends are advocating so sincerely on the other side.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to no one in my commitment to the Pledge of 
Allegiance, and the Pledge of Allegiance that includes the words 
``under God.'' However, it does not follow that the appropriate way to 
deal with this issue is to strip Federal courts of their jurisdiction 
to hear cases relating to the Pledge of Allegiance.
  First of all, I don't believe that my colleagues who support H.R. 
2389 realize the consequences of this bill, even though we just had a 
discussion about what those consequences might be. H.R. 2389 does not 
strip State and local courts from jurisdiction related to the Pledge, 
only the Federal courts, and specifically strips the U.S. Supreme Court 
of its ability to overrule State supreme courts in this matter.
  So, for example, if the highest court in a State like Massachusetts 
rules that it is unconstitutional under the Constitution for the State 
schools to start their day with a Pledge of Allegiance, including the 
words, ``under God,'' H.R. 2389 would prohibit the U.S.

[[Page 15066]]

Supreme Court from overturning that decision. Such a result would be 
ironically and supremely counter to the stated goals of this bill's 
proponents.
  But that is what would become the result of this language becoming 
law. Members on my side of the aisle should seriously consider the 
consequences of the precedents that are being set.
  Republican support for court-stripping makes it that much easier for 
the other side to someday strip a conservative Supreme Court of 
jurisdiction on an issue paramount to our liberty. For example, if our 
judges on the Court remain devoted to the second amendment, rather than 
upholding a universal gun ban that is put into place by a future 
President and Congress, and the other party, they will accuse our 
President of stripping the court in order to get their way.
  Here we are neutering our ability to have protections for the 
constitutional things we believe in the future, in order to achieve a 
temporary, I might even say a political, goal in the Pledge of 
Allegiance.
  The supporters of H.R. 2389 will come to regret this day when they 
are being quoted by some future liberal Congress in order to strip the 
Court of a decision made to protect our liberties.
  Mr. Chairman, let us consider the long-term consequences of our 
actions and let us look before we leap. I would suggest that we vote 
``no'' on this. That is the Reagan and conservative position.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. Chairman, with respect, religion in the United States is rightly 
pluralistic. We are or in no way should we be theocratic at all. As a 
matter of fact, one of the great threats in the world today, jihadism, 
is born out of theocracy.
  That doesn't mean, though, that this country should be godless. One 
of my greatest, one of the great sayings I love is if there is no God, 
nothing matters. But if there is a God, nothing else matters. We should 
remember that today.
  Abraham Lincoln said we do not claim to have God on our side, but we 
strive to be on his. We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore 
our spiritual heritage. It surrounds us. It cries out for our country 
to honor God and to seek and supplicate His will in our country's life.
  Today the people from my State of Tennessee would listen to this 
debate, or even talk about a reference to God on our money or in the 
Halls of Congress or in our Pledge and say, please, let common sense 
and logic win the day and prevail versus legal mumbo jumbo.
  In closing, let me just thank God, on the floor of the House, for not 
turning away from us even though we seem to be turning away from Him.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the ranking chairman of the Constitutional 
Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, for yielding to me. I commend him for the 
incredible work that we have done to try to bring understanding to how 
difficult and unworkable this so-called Pledge Protection Act is.
  Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hands this letter that has just come in to 
the Judiciary Committee from the American Bar Association, their 
Governmental Affairs Office.
  The controlling sentence is this: ``As a matter of policy, Congress 
should not jettison our foundational principles because of current 
dissatisfaction with the controversial decision of the Supreme Court or 
lower Federal courts by permanently stripping the jurisdiction of the 
Federal courts to hear certain categories of cases. Rather than 
strengthening its legislative role, Congress, by pressing its own 
checking power to the extreme, imperils the entire system of separated 
powers.''
  Ladies and gentlemen, this unconstitutional court-stripping bill, and 
it would be found unconstitutional if enacted, is only the latest 
attempt by a Congress to force a pluralist society into a one-size-
fits-all set of beliefs. This is a remarkable violation of the 
separation of powers and the establishment clause.
  If the act were to become law, it would clearly be held 
unconstitutional. Only State courts would be able to constitutionally 
challenge the Pledge, and so we would therefore end up with a 50-State 
collection of views as to what the free exercise clause, the 
establishment clause, meant in this context.
  In addition, think of what this means to those groups that depend on 
this provision of our law not to be able to bring their issues to the 
court. This legislation would strip all Federal courts, including the 
Supreme Court, from hearing first amendment challenges to the Pledge of 
Allegiance and from enforcing longstanding constitutional rights in the 
court, and would slam the Federal courthouse door on religious 
minorities trying to do nothing more than enforce a fundamental 
constitutional right that they have had for over 60 years.
  Please, let us turn this Pledge Protection Act down this afternoon.

                                         American Bar Association,


                                    Government Affairs Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 2006.
     Re H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005.

       Dear Representative: We understand that the House is 
     scheduled to consider H.R. 2389 tomorrow. We are writing to 
     express our opposition to this legislation, which would strip 
     from all federal courts jurisdiction to hear constitutional 
     challenges to the interpretation of, or the validity of, the 
     Pledge of Allegiance.
       Our views on H.R. 2389 are informed by our long-standing 
     opposition to legislative curtailment of the jurisdiction of 
     the Supreme Court of the United States and the inferior 
     federal courts for the purpose of effecting changes in 
     constitutional law. The ABA has taken no position on the 
     underlying issues regarding recitation of the Pledge of 
     Allegiance in public schools; instead, our strong opposition 
     to H.R. 2389 and other pending legislation that would strip 
     the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear selected types of 
     constitutional cases is based on our concern for the 
     integrity of our system of government.
       This legislation would authorize Congress to use its 
     regulatory power over federal jurisdiction to advance a 
     particular legislative outcome by insulating it from 
     constitutional scrutiny by the federal judiciary. In addition 
     to being constitutionally suspect, this legislation would 
     establish a dangerous precedent if enacted. As a matter of 
     policy, Congress should not jettison our foundational 
     principles because of current dissatisfaction with a 
     controversial decision of the Supreme Court or lower federal 
     courts by permanently stripping the jurisdiction of the 
     federal courts to hear certain categories of cases. Rather 
     than strengthening its legislative role, Congress, by 
     pressing its own checking power to the extreme, imperils the 
     entire system of separated powers.
       If enacted, H.R. 2389 would restrict the role of the 
     federal courts in our system of checks and balances and 
     thereby limit the ability of the federal courts to protect 
     the constitutional rights of all Americans. Indeed, this 
     legislation would leave the state courts as the final 
     arbiters of federal constitutional law, creating the 
     possibility that some state judges might choose not to follow 
     Supreme Court precedents. Because the legislation would 
     nullify the Supremacy Clause in certain classes of cases, the 
     Constitution could mean something different from state to 
     state; and, contrary to the expressed intentions of the 
     Framers, our fundamental rights and the balance of power 
     among the branches would be subject to evanescent majority 
     opinion.
       At a time when Congress is accusing the federal courts of 
     overstepping their constitutional role and calling for 
     judicial restraint, we urge you to likewise exercise 
     legislative restraint and demonstrate your continued 
     commitment to the doctrine of separation of powers and a 
     government composed of separate but coequal branches by 
     voting to defeat passage of H.R. 2389.
       If you have any questions regarding our position, please 
     have your staff contact Denise Cardman, Deputy Director of 
     the Governmental Affairs Office.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert D. Evans.

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished majority whip for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pledge Protection Act 
and commend its author, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for his 
yeoman's work on this thoughtful legislation.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I admire my colleagues on the

[[Page 15067]]

other side of the aisle for their intellectual acumen and their 
commitment to their view and their philosophy of government. But while 
each of us may have a different philosophy of government, we don't get 
to have different facts.
  The clear policy of Article III, section 2 of the United States 
Constitution reads, ``In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme 
Court shall have developed jurisdiction, but it is the law and the fact 
with such exceptions and under such exceptions as the Congress shall 
make.'' It is black letter law in the Constitution of the United States 
of America that this body, this Congress, shall have the authority to 
set the jurisdiction of the courts.
  So if I may say, respectfully, let us stop with all the conversation 
about anticonstitutional action being taken. In fact, restricting the 
Federal courts' jurisdiction is a common practice in the House of 
Representatives, and a long litany of recent legislation, like the 
Black Hills National Forest, the recent Class Action Fairness Act, 
attests to that.
  But we are here about the business of protecting the contents of the 
Pledge of Allegiance, which some Federal courts have either resolved as 
unconstitutional or left unresolved.
  We stand here today to say those words, which appear above you, Mr. 
Chairman, in the phrase ``in God we trust'' in our national model, 
words which were reflected in our founding documents that speak of a 
Nation that believes its rights are endowed by our Creator, and words 
that President Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, that this is one 
Nation under God, be protected and vouchsafed in our Pledge.
  Let us take this jurisdiction away, which is our constitutional power 
to do, and leave that power with the people of the United States and 
the States severally.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2389, the Protect the 
Pledge Act.
  I strongly support the Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, in the 107th 
Congress I introduced H.J. Res. 103, an amendment to the Constitution 
that would affirm that the Pledge of Allegiance in no way violates the 
First Amendment.
  Unfortunately, Congress did not pass the resolution before it 
adjourned for the 107th Congress.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2389, I believe it is necessary to 
protect the Pledge of Allegiance from unnecessary court battles, but 
without infringing on the rights of the people.
  Article III of the Constitution states that Congress has the power to 
define jurisdiction of Federal district and appellate courts.
  This bill still allows for our system of checks and balances to work 
as it has for over 200 years.
  The Pledge of Allegiance is an important symbol of the privileges and 
rights that our Founding Fathers fought so desperately to preserve.
  It deserves protection from those trying to remove the words ``under 
God.''
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. The other side?
  The CHAIRMAN. They have 13\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the majority whip for yielding. I 
especially thank Mr. Akin for bringing this bill before this Congress. 
When we first met, he approached me with this bill, and I said, oh yes, 
Article III, section 2, I will sign on. Then we got to know each other 
after that. So it is a proud moment for me to stand here and stand with 
the gentleman from Missouri and God-fearing and God-loving people 
across this country.

                              {time}  1315

  The question about the constitutionality of court-stripping Article 
III, section 2, I think Mr. Pence addressed it very well. Black-letter 
language in the Constitution was such exceptions and under such 
regulations as the Congress shall make, and those exceptions are 
legion.
  In fact, the landmark case is Ex parte McCardle 1869 where Congress 
had authorized Federal judges to issues writs of habeas corpus, and 
they purported to be acting under its authority under Article III, 
section 2 to make those exceptions.
  But in reviewing the statutes the Supreme Court's jurisdiction 
granted, they were not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the 
legislature. We can only examine its power under the Constitution. In 
fact, the majority decision on the Supreme Court said this: ``Without 
jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction 
is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only 
function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and 
dismissing the cause. And this is not less clear upon authority than 
upon principle.'' Ex parte McCardle, 1869.
  And I would point out that Justice Scalia in the Hamdan case so 
recently wrote in his opinion, albeit in dissent, he said that ``the 
Court . . . cannot cite a single case in the history of Anglo-American 
law . . . in which a jurisdiction-stripping . . . was denied immediate 
effect in pending cases.'' But ``by contrast, the cases granting such 
immediate effect are legion . . . they repeatedly rely on the plain 
language of the jurisdictional repeal as an `inflexible trump,''' and 
we know in our current experience in Congress, we have done this 
several times, particularly the Daschle case with Blackhawk Timber.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished majority whip 
for yielding. I certainly thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas 
Jefferson, once wrote: ``Can the liberties of a Nation be thought 
secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the 
minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?''
  Now, I have heard Democrat after Democrat saying that we should not 
be debating the Pledge Protection Act here today. Apparently, whether 
the phrase ``one Nation under God'' is stripped from our Pledge by 
activist judges is of little importance to them, but it is to most 
Americans, and it should be to our Democrat colleagues as well.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are debating here today is nothing short of our 
very liberty. What could be more worthy of this body than a debate 
about our liberty?
  When our forefathers gave birth to this new Nation, they also gave 
birth to a radical, revolutionary idea in history, the idea that our 
rights do not emanate from the State, that they are granted to us from 
the Almighty.
  Who among us have forgotten the words enshrined in our Declaration of 
Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain 
unalienable rights? The answer appears to be some of our Democrat 
colleagues.
  Nothing is more central to the foundation of our very liberty than 
the acknowledgment of God in public life, not the Christian God, the 
Jewish God or the Muslim God, but God, the Creator, as broadly defined 
and acknowledged and worshipped in many faiths and traditions.
  But, Mr. Chairman, there is now a concerted effort among some, 
including apparently the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to chase God 
from the schoolhouse, the courthouse and the statehouse, not to mention 
our very Pledge of Allegiance.
  Through H.R. 2389, using our powers under Article III, section 2, we 
should stop them and protect liberty by enacting the Pledge Protection 
Act.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my very good friend, the 
distinguished majority whip, for yielding time, and I congratulate my 
friend from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for having shown his very strong 
commitment to the U.S. Constitution. As we all know, the specificity is 
Article III, section 2.

[[Page 15068]]

  As I was talking to a friend of mine in Los Angeles yesterday, he was 
asking, what are you bringing up in the Rules Committee today? When I 
told him that we were bringing this measure to deal with the Ninth 
Circuit Court's decision, basically throwing out the use of ``one 
Nation under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, he, like most people, 
was horrified. He said, let us look at the natural extension of the 
Ninth Circuit Court's decision.
  Well, for starters, in the County of Los Angeles, Mr. Chairman, we 
have already seen the removal of the cross from the seal of the County 
of Los Angeles. It seems kind of silly, and there obviously is a lot of 
outrage in southern California about that.
  But then one must conclude that the natural extension of this, when 
we have dealt with the seal of the County of Los Angeles, let us look 
at some of the cities in California: The City of Angels, Saint Francis, 
San Francisco, San Diego, another saint. I found that my city that I 
reside in, the city of San Dimas, is the name for the reformed saint of 
thieves, San Dismas.
  But one must come to the conclusion that if we are going to continue 
down this road, that the west coast would become what many in the 
country probably already believe it is, and that would be the lost 
coast, and I find that to be a very troubling sign, that we are moving 
in the direction to overturn that wise decision that was made by the 
United States Congress in the 1950s when President Eisenhower was here.
  I think that we should realize that common sense needs to be applied 
when we look at an instance like this. The Ninth Circuit Court in 
California clearly overreached, Mr. Chairman, and as we look at how far 
they could go, I find the direction to be very, very troubling.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, the concern about the Constitution is 
certainly worthwhile, but when it says very clearly Article III, 
section 2, that in all other cases except those specified or mentioned, 
the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and 
fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress 
shall make, it also allows us to set the jurisdictions of the local 
courts.
  So, clearly, this is something that is constitutional to take up. As 
an old judge and a former chief justice of an appellate court, those 
things are important to us.
  Our friend from New York indicated that it seems like some of us do 
not have much faith in the Supreme Court, and he is right, some of us 
do not. I would submit to you that while they are lingering under this 
infirmity or disability of being prepositionally challenged, that this 
is a good issue to take up and to remove jurisdiction on.
  For example, in the 10th amendment it says all the things not 
specified are reserved to the States and to the people. The Supreme 
Court seems to think that means reserved from the States and from the 
people. They are prepositionally challenged. They think freedom of 
religion means freedom from religion.
  There is so much rewriting of history, the separation of church and 
state. It is not in the Constitution. That is in a letter that Thomas 
Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists about not specifying a specific 
denomination, and at the same time Madison wrote the first amendment, 
Jefferson wrote those words in a letter, they came to church, a 
nondenominational Christian church, right down the hall in Statuary 
Hall. For about 60 years there was a church down there.
  So the question before us is, is this an issue we want to remove from 
the Supreme Court's consideration until they remove or are able to 
overcome the disability of being prepositionally challenged? I 
certainly think it is.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes just to say 
that this debate clearly, once again, emphasizes the responsibility of 
the Congress to decide the jurisdiction of the courts.
  It does not decide who has to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It does 
not decide separate but equal. In fact, separate but equal was decided 
by the Supreme Court just like the Dred Scott case was decided by the 
Supreme Court, which is why Abraham Lincoln, in his inaugural address, 
specifically talked about the danger of the Congress and the country 
letting the Court be the sole decision of these kinds of issues.
  This is an issue that clearly resonates to the heart of what we are 
about as a country. It is the heart of what we are about as a people. 
All of our documents, our coins, our institutions, the Constitution, 
the Declaration of Independence, all have recognized a being superior 
to ourselves.
  We think that protection for that phrase and other phrases in the 
Pledge is appropriate. Certainly we have not anticipated that State 
courts, who, by the way, were also recognized by the early Congress as 
appropriate determiners of some Federal laws, and early congressional 
determination in an early Supreme Court decision was that Federal laws 
that have been upheld by the State courts would not be subject to 
Federal review. This is in line with our responsibilities. It would be 
a responsibility some would like to suggest is different than it is, 
but it is our responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, every word that we have heard uttered on this floor by 
the majority side has, as Mr. Scott said, increased the likelihood of 
the courts ordering that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of 
Allegiance cannot be recited in a public, in a school situation where 
there is an imputation of coercion or pressure because the students 
are, in fact, under the direction of the State agent, namely, the 
teacher.
  As someone who very deeply believes in God, I think it is insulting 
to say that the words ``under God'' are not important, and yet that is 
the defense that is offered in court because the Constitution says 
there should be no establishment of religion. Well, saying that 
schoolchildren must recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words 
``under God'' is not an establishment of religion. The defense is, no, 
it is not because this is de minimis; it is not important; it is minor. 
I do not believe the words ``under God'' are minor or de minimis, 
unimportant. I think that it is an insult to religion.
  But that whole question is for the courts, not for us, and here we 
are seeing another bill to strip the courts of jurisdiction. We are 
getting to a point where it is becoming boilerplate in any 
controversial issue to say the courts shall not have jurisdiction.
  Consider this, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Pledge, we passed the 
bill a few weeks ago on the floor here saying that no funds should be 
expended to enforce a court order in some court in Indiana because we 
do not like what the courts do, or we think we might not like what the 
court will do; we will strip them of jurisdiction.
  This is a danger to all our constitutional rights. The only thing 
that protects our rights as Americans, that protects our freedom of 
speech, religion, press, assembly, et cetera, is the ability to go to 
court and tell the President or the Governor or whoever, you cannot do 
that, you cannot force them to do that, you cannot put them in jail for 
not doing it. Without the protection of the court, rights are 
meaningless.
  There is a maxim in law: There is no right without a remedy. What we 
are doing here is saying to people who are unpopular, to people who may 
not want to recite the words ``under God,'' they may be wrong and 
unpopular, but we are saying you cannot go to court to defend yourself 
and assert your constitutional rights. It is very dangerous. As was 
pointed out before, if we had done that before, we would still have 
segregation in this country because in every State we would have 
stripped the Supreme Court of the ability to declare separate but equal 
schools unconstitutional. The State courts would have soon said it is 
fine, and we would still have Jim Crow.
  Almost lastly, we should not have a separate law in every State. We 
should not have the Constitution mean different things in New York and 
New

[[Page 15069]]

Jersey. We should be one country. That is why the Supreme Court is 
vested with jurisdiction to rule on appeals from the State supreme 
courts.
  Finally, this bill is itself unconstitutional. Someone said that the 
courts have upheld Congress' ability to limit jurisdiction. Sure, they 
have. Every single case has upheld limitations to jurisdiction, 
regardless of subject matter, never with regard to constitutional 
claims, not one case in the history of the Republic.
  At a hearing that was held 2 years ago on a similar bill, the 
majority witness, the Republican witness, professor of constitutional 
law, said the following: ``The due process clause of the fifth 
amendment requires that a neutral, independent and competent judicial 
forum remain available in cases in which the liberty or property 
interests of an individual or entity are at stake. The constitutional 
directive of equal protection restricts congressional power to employ 
its power to restrict jurisdiction in an unconstitutionally 
discriminatory manner,'' which is what this bill does.
  There is no ability, for example, to constitutionally provide that 
Republicans, but no one else, may have access to the Supreme Court. No 
one will think Congress could do that. This bill is clearly 
unconstitutional for the same reason.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by quoting a person who 
I believe is the founder, or at least acknowledged as the father, of 
the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson. His words encased in stone on 
his monument read: ``The God that gave us life gave us liberty.'' It 
goes on to say: ``Can the liberties of a people be secure if we remove 
the conviction that those liberties are the gift of God?''
  The author of our Declaration well understood that it is impossible 
to assert that we have inalienable rights and at the same time ignore 
the person that gave us the inalienable rights, the God that provided 
those rights itself.
  This question goes to the heart of what America has always stood for 
and always fought for. We believe that there is a God that gives basic 
rights to all people, and it is the job of the government to protect 
those rights. If the courts come to the decision that we cannot 
acknowledge God, then we have ripped the heart out of the logic of what 
makes America, the fact that our rights come from God Himself, and we 
have thumbed our nose at Thomas Jefferson and our Declaration and our 
300-plus years of history.
  Now we have good reason to fear that the Court will not be content to 
ignore just the fifth amendment and say that you can take private 
property from people and redistribute it without a public purpose, but 
that they may also decide to take the first amendment and turn it 
upside down and use it as a sword of censorship rather than an oasis of 
free speech.
  I am not persuaded by the pious hand-wringing of liberal activists 
who flinch not at the courts' unfettered march to create some imagined 
utopia at the expense of the separation of powers in the Constitution 
itself.
  It is time for the Congress to reassert our legislative authority. It 
is time for the Congress to signal an end to the courts' freewheeling 
forays of unchecked legislative license.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005. This legislation is important 
to ensuring that over-zealous Federal courts do not strike down the 
U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. In Newdow, Ninth Circuit ruled that the 
pledge was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 
Newdow decision based not on the substance of the issue, but rather 
because it found that Newdow did not have standing. The Supreme Court 
did not address the underlying question regarding whether the phrase 
``under God'' was constitutional. The Ninth Circuit is expected to rule 
on this issue in March 2007.
  The bill before us would prohibit Federal courts from ruling on 
issues related to the Pledge of Allegiance. Article III, Section 2, 
Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to 
set such limits. The Constitution states:

       In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers 
     and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the 
     supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other 
     Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have 
     appellate Jurisdiction, both as to law and Fact, with such 
     Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall 
     make [emphasis added].

  Mr. Chairman, today, by passing this law, we are making those 
exceptions.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation and urge my colleagues 
to join me in support of it.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2389--
the Pledge Protection Act--a bill which does not protect the Pledge of 
Allegiance, but instead endangers the constitutional balance between 
the legislative and judicial branches.
  I believe in the Pledge of Allegiance. In the wake of the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Newdow v. U.S. Congress in 2002, 
the House acted swiftly to affirm our support of the Pledge as it has 
existed since 1954. I voted in favor of a resolution that disagreed 
with the court's opinion that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge 
violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
  My opinion today remains the same: the Pledge of Alliance is a 
simple, eloquent statement of American values. Each morning millions of 
school children pledge allegiance not only to the flag but to the 
Nation and our values and our principles. This act, like the prayer 
that opens each session of the House and the call that brings the 
Supreme Court to order, reminds us all of the greater context of our 
purpose.
  I oppose this legislation, not because I do not support the Pledge of 
Alliance, but because I know that this legislation does not achieve its 
goal. This legislation takes a bold step towards a radical concept 
which undermines the constitutional checks and balances so crucial to 
our system of Government. We have taken steps to protect the Pledge and 
we will continue to do so--but this is not the way.
  This bill proposes to strip the courts of their just jurisdiction. 
While the Congress is granted the power to create and establish Federal 
courts and this jurisdiction, this power has always been used to 
promote judicial efficiency. It has not, and should not, be used to 
stifle debate on any issue regarding fundamental rights and liberties.
  Since the Supreme Court decided the case of Marbury v. Madison in 
1803, the judiciary has performed its unique role of interpreting laws 
of this country. This bill is unconstitutional because it would fly in 
the face of 200 years of our constitutional tradition. I cannot imagine 
our democracy could long endure a system in which the Congress may take 
from the courts the ability to hear cases regarding the freedom of 
speech, the freedom of religion, civil rights, or privacy.
  The 108th Congress considered this legislation, and the Senate 
refused to pass this measure. Indeed, in this Congress the House 
Judiciary Committee refused to favorably report the bill to the full 
House.
  The courts are now properly continuing to review constitutional 
challenges regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court has 
dismissed a case regarding the Pledge, and the Ninth Circuit is again 
reviewing this matter. Congress has gone on record in support of the 
Pledge.
  It is important that the courts remain as the neutral decision makers 
in constitutional cases. The Founders wisely enshrined the concept of 
judicial independence into the Constitution. Federal judges are given 
lifetime tenure, and Congress is prohibited from reducing their pay 
during their service in office.
  Congress has indeed considered whether to intrude on the province of 
the Federal courts throughout the history of this country. Congress 
wisely rejected President Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan to ``pack the 
court'' by increasing the size of the Supreme Court. In the 1970s 
Congress considered, but rejected, effort to strip jurisdiction away 
from the courts in the areas of civil rights and privacy cases, as a 
result of Supreme Court decisions of the 1950s and 1960s.
  In many ways, this type of legislation is a thinly-veiled attempt to 
circumvent Article V of the Constitution, which gives Congress the 
ability to propose an amendment to the Constitution, and therefore 
overturn a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court. Congress and 
ultimately the states have the ability to amend the Constitution at 
their discretion, but under Article III of the Constitution the courts 
have the obligation to interpret the law and Constitution when ``cases 
or controversies'' arise in a lawsuit that is properly brought by 
parties before the court.

[[Page 15070]]

  This bill would close the door to Federal courts. When there is no 
court to hear a case, then there is no liberty. A law without a venue 
for debate is a law without moral force. As the Ranking Member of the 
Helsinki Commission, I have seen too many countries run by dictators 
whose first actions are to shut down the independence courts and make 
them answerable to what the executive and the legislature wanted them 
to do. We cannot go down this path in the United States, and undermine 
our citizens' confidence in an independent judiciary that will decide 
cases without fear or favor.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and attack on the 
independence of the judiciary, and oppose this legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, at best this bill is a mistake. 
At worst, it is a cynical political stunt. Either way, it should not 
pass.
  It seeks to end the ability of Federal courts--including the Supreme 
Court--``to hear or decide any question pertaining to the 
interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the 
Pledge of Allegiance'' as the pledge is now worded.
  It responds to a 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit that both the 1954 law that added the words ``under God'' to 
the pledge and a local school district's policy of daily recitation of 
the pledge as so worded were unconstitutional. (The ruling later was 
modified to apply only to the school district's recitation policy.)
  The Supreme Court reversed that decision because the plaintiff did 
not have legal standing to challenge the school district's policy. But 
the Republican leadership evidently finds the possibility of a similar 
lawsuit so alarming--or maybe they think it presents such a political 
opportunity--that they back this bill to keep any Federal court from 
hearing a lawsuit like that.
  I cannot support such legislation.
  It mayor may not be constitutional--on that I defer to those with 
more legal expertise than I can claim. But I have no doubt it is not 
only unnecessary but even misguided and destructive.
  I have no objection to the current wording of the Pledge of 
Allegiance. After the Ninth Circuit's decision, I voted for a 
resolution--approved by the House by a vote of 416 to 3--affirming that 
``the Pledge of Allegiance and similar expressions are not 
unconstitutional expressions of religious belief'' and calling for the 
case to be reheard.
  But this bill is a different matter. It may be called the ``Pledge 
Protection Act,'' but that is inaccurate and even misleading--because 
it not only fails to protect the pledge but also would undercut the 
very thing to which those who recite the pledge are expressing their 
allegiance.
  It doesn't protect the pledge because even if it becomes law people 
who don't like the way the pledge's current wording would still be able 
to bring lawsuits in state courts. So, even if Colorado's courts upheld 
the current wording, the courts of other States might not. And the bill 
says the U.S. Supreme Court could not resolve the matter.
  That would mean there would no longer be a single Pledge of 
Allegiance, but different pledges for different States--and the 
Constitution's meaning would vary based on State lines. That would 
directly contradict the very idea of the United States as ``one 
Nation'' that should remain ``indivisible'' and whose defining 
characteristics are devotion to ``liberty and justice for all.''
  And that would be completely inconsistent with the idea of the 
Republic (symbolized by the flag) to which we pledge allegiance when we 
recite what this bill pretends to ``protect.''
  How ironic--and how pathetic.
  As national legislators, as U.S. Representatives, we can and should 
do better. We should reject this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2389. 
Here we are again considering needless court-stripping legislation that 
would destroy our constitutional system of checks and balances. This 
time we wrap it in the flag and call it the Pledge Protection Act.
  We dealt with this same legislation two years ago, and it failed to 
become law. I ask my colleagues, why are we bringing this same 
legislation up for consideration again 2 years later?
  Could it be an election year? Could my colleagues in the majority 
want to rally a certain part of their base? The real question is 
whether the majority will put election year political concerns ahead of 
the good of the Nation? Unfortunately, with this action, it looks like 
the answer is yes.
  This is another extraordinary piece of arrogance on the part of the 
House of Representatives to pass legislation which would strip American 
citizens of their right to access the Federal courthouse. Can you 
imagine anything more shameful than telling an American citizen you 
cannot go into court to have your concerns addressed, heard by the 
courts of your Nation?
  The right for a citizen to access the courts to decide questions of 
policy is as old as the Magna Carta, and it is important to us as 
anything else in the Constitution. Here we calmly say, ``You cannot 
have access to the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court.'' 
Shame, shame, shame, shame.
  This is a precedent which is going to live to curse us, and we are 
going to live to regret this day's labor because other precedents will 
be following this, wherein we strip the rights of citizens under the 
Second Amendment, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments.
  The Congress has considered these kinds of questions before. It is to 
be anticipated if this works, we can look to see this kind of abusive 
legislation considered in this body again. And you can be certain that 
somebody is sitting out there now thinking of new rights we can strip 
because we disagree with them.
  I do not believe that we should strip the Federal courts of 
jurisdiction when it comes to issues related to the Equal Protection 
Clause of the Constitution. It drastically interferes with the 
separation of powers between the three branches of our government.
  While I will always defend the autonomy and the power of the 
legislative branch, the principle of judicial review that Chief Justice 
John Marshall set out in the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison is law. 
This landmark case established that the Supreme Court has the right to 
pass on the constitutionality of an act of Congress. To whittle away 
one of the bedrock powers of the judicial branch is wrong for the Union 
and wrong for our citizenry.
  Tinkering with the foundation of our judicial branch could come back 
to haunt us. You can be almost certain with the passage of this 
legislation that there are interests out there deciding what other 
rights can be stripped of American citizens because we disagree with 
them. Maybe a future Congress will want to strip court challenges to 
gun control legislation by gun owners or sportsmen.
  Mr. Chairman, we live in one Nation, under God, with liberty and 
justice for all. If we pass this bill, we begin to hollow out the true 
meaning of the pledge, the Constitution and what it means to live in 
this great Nation.
  Like I did 2 years ago, I strongly oppose this legislation and urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2389, which 
would strip from the federal courts and the Supreme Court the ability 
to hear any cases related to the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill 
eliminates the basic principle of judicial review that was established 
by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison back in 1803.
  This bill should not have come to the floor today because it seeks to 
make a dangerous change to our Nation's system of checks and balances. 
For that reason, this bill was rejected by the House Judiciary 
Committee. Yet, the Majority has brought it up today to intentionally 
divide the House. This is not the first time. We have seen this before. 
In September two years ago, we had this same vote, and I opposed it 
then.
  The judiciary was designed to be the one branch of the federal 
government that is insulated from political forces. This independent 
nature enables the federal judiciary to thoughtfully and objectively 
review laws to ensure that they are in line with the Constitution. 
Throughout the development of our Nation, this check has been vital to 
protecting the rights of minorities.
  Although the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the 
jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and the appellate jurisdiction of 
the Supreme Court, I am certain that the founding fathers did not 
intend for Congress to use this power to shape the jurisdiction of the 
courts along ideological lines. This legislation will set a dangerous 
precedent by allowing Congress to avoid judicial review so that it can 
pass legislation that it thinks may be unconstitutional. This is a 
clear abuse of Congressional authority and a cynical attempt to 
question the patriotism of Members of this institution.
  Like every Member of this body, I am proud to recite the Pledge of 
Allegiance as a way to express my loyalty to this Nation and its 
founding principles. I make it a point during my town meetings in New 
Jersey to lead my constituents in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I 
share the view of many Members that the current text of the Pledge of 
Allegiance is constitutional including the phrase ``under God''. I 
expressed my support for the Pledge in its current form when I joined 
many of my colleagues in voting for a resolution that urged the Supreme 
Court to recognize the constitutional right of children to recite the

[[Page 15071]]

pledge in school. That resolution was an appropriate way for me, as a 
Member of Congress, to express my belief in the constitutionality of 
the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Unfortunately, those who support this legislation seek to alter our 
delicate system of checks and balances and make their own decisions 
unchallengeable--as if they were infallible. They are attempting to 
alter the intended framework of our government, which has met the needs 
of a diverse population and allowed us to remain indivisible in times 
of crisis for more than 200 years. We should not make this dangerous 
change to upset the balance of power established by our Founding 
Fathers and enshrined in the Constitution.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2389, ``The 
Pledge Protection Act.''
  As I rise to address this body, I am reminded by the words above the 
Speaker's chair, ``In God We Trust'' and the significance those words 
hold for our great Nation. From the unalienable rights that Mr. 
Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence to the money that 
is minted just blocks from this Chamber, our Nation has and will 
continue to publicly recognize God's providence and guidance. However, 
the recognition of God contained within the Pledge of Allegiance has 
provided leverage for some courts to claim that reciting our Pledge is 
unconstitutional.
  In 1954, this body recognized the need to add the phrase ``under 
God'' to our Pledge and for 46 years this was hailed by Americans and 
remained uncontested. Yet in 2002, these two words were exploited by 
courts claiming that it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of 
Allegiance to remain a part of American life. Congress acted swiftly to 
reverse the damage caused by such a ruling and preserve the patriotic 
act of reciting the Pledge. In 2002, both Houses of Congress 
overwhelmingly supported resolutions rebuking the court and upholding 
the Pledge of Allegiance. However, Congress failed to invoke our 
authority to prevent activist courts from destroying the American 
institution that is the Pledge of Allegiance.
  The Pledge embodies our patriotism and must be preserved. It serves 
to remind this body, at the beginning of each daily session, of our 
devotion to country. Protecting the Pledge ensures that the ideals of 
America will continue for generations to come.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this 
bill to prevent the federal judiciary from hearing cases against the 
Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, today, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act.
  The phrase ``under God'' belongs in our Pledge of Allegiance to the 
Flag of the United States of America and the words In God We Trust 
belong on our currency. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a 
serious error in Newdow v. U.S. Congress when they declared our Pledge 
unconstitutional.
  When the phrase under God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 
1954, I was in elementary school and remember feeling the phrase 
belonged there. It appropriately reflects the fact that a belief in God 
motivated the founding and development of our great Nation.
  The Declaration of Independence states, ``We hold these truths to be 
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . .'' Our forefathers 
understood it was not they, but He, who had bestowed upon all of us 
those most cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness upon which our model of government is based.
  At Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln acknowledged we were a 
Nation under God and, during his Second Inaugural Address, he mentioned 
our Creator 13 times.
  Those historic speeches, the Pledge of Allegiance, our currency and 
the Declaration of Independence are not prayers or parts of a religious 
service. They are a statement of our commitment as citizens to our 
great Nation and the role God plays in it.
  Our founders envisioned a government that would allow, not discourage 
or punish, the free exercise of religion and we are living their dream.
  I oppose the Pledge Protection Act because I have faith in our 
Constitution and do not believe we should preclude judges from hearing 
issues of social relevance, simply because we may disagree with their 
ultimate decisions.
  While the courts may, from time to time, produce a ruling we 
question, the principle of judicial review is essential to maintaining 
the integrity of our system of checks and balances and I fear the path 
we appear to be on. We are a Nation under God, and in Him we trust.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2389, the 
Pledge Protection Act.
  While I strongly support the Pledge of Allegiance and the use of the 
term under God, I oppose this misguided legislation because it would 
strip all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of the 
jurisdiction to hear First Amendment challenges to the Pledge of 
Allegiance.
  In the process, this legislation would strip federal courts of their 
important role in safeguarding Constitutional rights and freedoms. It 
will also work to undermine public confidence in the federal courts by 
expressing outright hostility to their role as a neutral arbiter of 
constitutional claims.
  Through passage of this legislation, this body is endorsing the 
dangerous premise that Congress is above the Constitution. So in 
response, I ask my colleagues this question: do you believe our 
founding fathers designed the Constitution to protect the people from 
their government, or to regulate the conduct of its citizens?
  I submit that if we strip federal courts of their judicial 
independence, nothing stops Congress from preventing courts to rule on 
other freedoms protected in our Bill of Rights, including freedom of 
speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of worship and freedom to 
assemble. Is that really the precedent we want to establish?
  I believe we need our judicial system to protect our rights--and this 
bill prohibits the courts from doing just that. Indeed, I believe 
enactment of this legislation would have a dramatic impact on the 
ability of individual Americans to be free from government-coerced 
speech or religious expression.
  In our system of democracy, our government works on a system of 
checks and balances. Instead of stripping power from the courts, I 
believe we should follow the process prescribed in our Constitution--
consideration of a Constitutional amendment. In fact, as a member of 
the California Legislature, I passed a bill calling on Congress to pass 
a Pledge protection amendment, and I believe that is the appropriate 
way to address this issue.
  I happen to believe that the inclusion of the term under God in the 
Pledge is appropriate and constitutional. Further, should the Supreme 
Court ever rule that the term is unconstitutional, I would vote for a 
constitutional amendment to it ensure its presence. I support the 
Pledge because it is an important part of our American fabric, and an 
important symbol of the rights our founding fathers fought so 
desperately to preserve--liberty and justice for every American.
  But our justice is protected by our independent judiciary. Let us 
keep it that way for all Americans. Oppose this bill and support and 
protect our Constitutional rights.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the ``Pledge Protection Act'' 
because of its potential ramification for the judicial process. This 
legislation seeks to prohibit all federal courts, including the Supreme 
Court, from hearing any case that challenges the constitutionality of 
the Pledge of Allegiance.
  This legislation is a response to recent challenges in the 9th 
Circuit Court involving the statement ``under God.'' While I do not 
agree with the court's decision, we are heading down a slippery slope 
when we authorize Congress to use its power over the courts to limit 
jurisdiction of constitutional challenges.
  This seemingly bipartisan legislation is another attack on our 
principles of civil liberties and equal protection, just as we saw on 
yesterday's vote on the ``Marriage Protection Act,'' to please the most 
extreme of the Republican base. It is not worth undermining our system 
of checks and balances.
  Yesterday, the state's domestic laws; today, the Pledge of 
Allegiance; tomorrow . . .?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005.
  This bill precludes any Federal judicial review of any constitutional 
challenge to recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance--whether it be in 
the lower Federal courts or in the highest court in the land, the U.S. 
Supreme Court. Effectively, if passed, this extremely vague legislation 
will relegate all claimants to State courts to review any challenges to 
the pledge. This possibility will lead to different constitutional 
constructions in each of the 50 States.
  The only way to make this bill palatable is to adopt the Jackson-Lee 
amendment, which provides for an exception to the bill's preclusion for 
cases that involve allegations of coerced or mandatory recitation of 
the Pledge of Allegiance, including coercion in violation of the First 
Amendment or the Equal Protection clauses. Opposing the Jackson-Lee 
amendment is tantamount to endorsing the coercion of children to 
mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Closing the doors of the Federal courthouse doors to claimants will 
actually amount to a coercion of individuals to recite the pledge and 
its ``under God'' reference in violation of West Virginia State Board 
of Education v. Barnette.

[[Page 15072]]

In Barnette, the Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that 
mandated school children recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Under the 
West Virginia law, religious minorities faced expulsion from school and 
could be subject to prosecution and fines, if convicted of violating 
the statute's provisions. In striking down that statute, Justice 
Jackson wrote for the Court:

       ``To believe in patriotism will not flourish if patriotic 
     ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a 
     compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the 
     appeal of our institutions to free minds . . . If there is 
     any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is 
     that no official, high, or petty can prescribe what shall be 
     orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters 
     of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their 
     faith therein.''

  H.R. 2389 would strip parents of their right to go to court and 
defend their children's religious liberty. If this legislation is 
passed, schools could expel children for acting according to the 
dictates of their faith and Congress will have slammed the courthouse 
door shut in their faces. When I was a child, I always wondered why, 
when the rest of the class recited the Pledge of Allegiance, one little 
girl always sat quietly. Today, I understand that it was because she 
was of the 7th Day Adventist faith and therefore reciting the ``under 
God'' provision would force her to undermine her religious faith. If 
H.R. 2389 were law back then, the school administrators could have 
forced her to say the pledge and she would have no recourse in the 
Federal courts.
  The problem with this bill is that it does not protect religious 
minorities, Mr. Chairman.
  Article III, Section I of the U.S. Constitution vests ``the Judicial 
Power of the United States . . . in one supreme court.'' The list of 
subject matter areas which the Federal courts have the power to hear 
and decide under section 2 of Article III establishes that, ``The 
Judicial power shall extend to all cases . . . arising under this 
Constitution.'' For over 50 years, the Federal courts have played a 
central role in the interpretation and enforcement of civil rights 
laws. Bills such as H.R. 2389 and the Federal Marriage Amendment we 
debated yesterday are bills to prevent the courts from exercising their 
article III functions and prohibiting discrimination. We cannot allow 
bad legislation such as this to pass in the House, and thereby 
eviscerate the Constitution and the values upon which this nation was 
originally founded. In the 1970s, some Members of Congress 
unsuccessfully sought to strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear 
desegregation efforts such as busing, which would have perpetuated 
racial inequality. We did not allow it then, and we should not allow it 
now.
  H.R. 2389, as drafted, insulates the Pledge of Allegiance as set 
forth in section 4 of title 4 of the United States Code from 
constitutional challenge in the Federal court. The Jackson-Lee 
amendment protects children from being coerced or forced into reciting 
the Pledge of Allegiance against their will.
  However, the statute and the pledge are subject to change by future 
legislation bodies. This means that if some future Congress decides to 
insert some religiously offensive or discriminatory language in the 
Pledge, the matter would be immune to constitutional challenge in the 
Federal courts.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a copy 
of a letter dated July 18, 2006 from the American Bar Association which 
supports my claims.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues vote to protect religious 
minorities, vote to protect judicial review, vote to protect separation 
of powers, and vote to protect access to the Federal courts. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against H.R. 2389.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I support our 
national Pledge of Allegiance 100 percent. I strongly believe the 
Pledge teaches America's children national pride and a sense of civic 
responsibility.
  However, I oppose H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge Protection Act.'' This bill 
is merely a reaction to one federal case: Newdow vs. U.S. Congress.
  The 9th Circuit Federal court in Newdow held that the Pledge of 
Allegiance violated the Established Clause of the Constitution. The 
court ruled that the phrase ``one nation under God'' within the Pledge 
impermissibly takes a position with respect to the identity and 
existence of God.
  I disagree with the 9th Circuit's ruling in the Newdow case. However, 
I don't believe the way to protect the Pledge of Allegiance is by 
banning all federal courts from hearing cases dealing with the Pledge, 
which is what H.R. 2389 does. H.R. 2389 goes way too far. In fact, it 
violates the Constitution and the very spirit of the Pledge itself.
  The federal courts, not the United States Congress, have the power to 
interpret and enforce rights protected under the Constitution. That is 
what the famous Marbury vs. Madison case was all about: separation of 
powers. But, H.R. 2389 violates the constitutional separation of powers 
principle, because it strips all federal courts of their power to make 
rulings on an individual's right to choose whether to recite the Pledge 
of Allegiance.
  To ensure that America remains an indivisible and proud Nation, it is 
very important that we protect the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is even 
more important that we do not violate the Constitution and undermine 
the federal courts to do so.
  Therefore, I oppose H.R. 2389.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2389, The Pledge Protection Act, offered by Representative Todd Akin.
  This legislation protects our Pledge of Allegiance by preventing 
radical judges and liberal lawyers from questioning the 
constitutionality of the phrase ``under God.''
  The preamble of the Declaration of Independence states: ``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.''
  Our national motto is: ``In God We Trust.''
  The opening announcement at the United States Supreme Court is: ``God 
save the United States and this honorable court.''
  Unless there is a law limiting the jurisdiction of Federal courts, we 
will continue to see lawsuits such as the one that is trying to ban the 
Pledge of Allegiance in schools because it mentions ``One nation under 
God.''
  The Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction 
of Federal courts in Article III, Section 2. Maintaining checks and 
balances on the power of the Judiciary Branch and the other two 
branches is vital to keep the form of government set up by our Founding 
Fathers.
  I am proud to be a co-sponsor of The Pledge Protection Act and will 
vote in favor of this legislation.
  God Bless America!
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
2389, the ``Pledge Protection Act.''
  This legislation represents an attempt by the Majority to strip the 
federal courts of jurisdiction over yet another important issue. The 
effect of H.R. 2389 would be to prevent individuals who have legitimate 
cases from ever reaching a courtroom. The U.S. Constitution clearly 
states that a separation of powers, ensured by a system of checks and 
balances established by our Founding Fathers more than 200 years ago, 
must exist among the three branches of government. What the proponents 
of this bill want to do is to tell the courts what cases they can and 
cannot hear.
  This bill is wrong and costs too high a price. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2389.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the Pledge of 
Allegiance. I believe ``under God'' should be in the Pledge of the 
Allegiance. But what I cannot support today is legislation that 
basically tells the third branch of our government, go home, no thanks, 
we don't need you anymore.
  Judicial review has been a part of our democracy in this 
constitutional government for over 200 years. And now with the fancy 
language embodied in this legislation and other pieces of legislation 
that have been pending, they are trying to disrupt that delicate 
balance of power, the checks and balances that exist that allow the 
Federal courts from time to time to take a look at the work that we are 
doing in the Congress to see whether or not we are complying with the 
highest law of the land, the United States Constitution. That is what 
judicial review is all about.
  What is so ironic about today's debate is that the courts have 
already weighed in and said that the Pledge is okay; ``under God'' is 
okay. So what are we doing here when we have anemic economic job growth 
in this country, rising health care costs, and tuition that is placing 
college out of the reach of students? We can do better by the American 
people.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
2389, the so-called Pledge Protection Act. H.R. 2389 would strip all 
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of their ability to hear 
cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
  The Pledge of Allegiance is a true expression of liberty and justice 
for all--cornerstones of our great Nation. However, H.R. 2389 would 
punish those who exercise that freedom. Basic due process demands an 
independent judicial forum capable of determining Federal 
constitutional rights. This legislation deprives the Federal courts of 
their ability to hear cases involving the fundamental free speech 
rights of students, parents, and other

[[Page 15073]]

individuals. In our Country, dissenting views are supposed to be 
valued, allowed and tolerated. To take away this fundamental freedom of 
expression is to dishonor America and all Americans.
  At this time when American soldiers continue to die every day in 
Iraq, with the Taliban and Al Qaeda making gains in Afghanistan, when 
millions of Americans are suffering because the minimum wage has not 
been raised in almost a decade, when millions more lack any health care 
coverage, and when gas prices are skyrocketing, the Republican majority 
has decided that the House should instead debate a bill that is 
unnecessary and, if passed, would only serve to undermine our 
democracy.
  I am not afraid of those Americans who oppose parts of the Pledge 
having an opportunity to express those views. Healthy, controversial 
debates and a free society able to challenge the status quo are what 
make our country so strong and so great. What is scary are those who 
seek to use bills, such as the one before us today, to advance their 
ideology at the expense of freedom and liberty. That is something we 
should all oppose in the strongest terms.
  As Members of Congress we owe our constituents better. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2389.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, today I voted against the Pledge Protection 
Act--H.R. 2389. I believe in the constitutionality of the Pledge and 
believe that the Pledge should contain the words ``under God.''
  Unfortunately, this bill does more to hurt the Pledge than help it. 
The bill strips Federal courts of jurisdiction over Federal 
constitutional claims, leaving the States to each decide issues 
regarding the Pledge. Some States may strike down the Pledge; others 
may modify it. The end result would be lasting damage to the Pledge. 
This is clearly a Federal, constitutional issue.
  I realize that, in 2002, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
reached a disturbing result by declaring that it was an 
unconstitutional establishment of religion to have students to recite 
the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Supreme 
Court overruled the ninth circuit on procedural grounds in 2004. 
Unfortunately, there was no clear opinion overruling the ninth circuit 
on substantive grounds.
  The ninth circuit's ruling has created confusion as to whether the 
decision must be followed within the boundaries of the circuit. At 
least one Federal district court in California has since ruled that it 
must. That case is on appeal now to the ninth circuit, and hopefully it 
will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court for a reversal.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2389, The 
Pledge Protection Act of 2005.
  As I said in 2004 when the House voted on the Pledge Protection Act 
in the 108th Congress, I strongly believe that the Pledge of 
Allegiance, including the phrase, ``under God'' is a constitutional 
expression of patriotism.
  Therefore, I--along with many of my colleagues--was outraged by court 
decisions that erroneously declared the Pledge of Allegiance 
unconstitutional. As a result, I consistently have voted in favor of 
legislation reaffirming the place of the Pledge of Allegiance in its 
entirety in our schools.
  In the 108th Congress, I voted in favor of H. Res. 132, which urged 
the Supreme Court ``to correct the constitutionally infirm and 
incorrect holding'' by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in its revised 
decision on the Newdow v. U.S. Congress case. This resolution also 
expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the recitation 
of the Pledge is a patriotic act--not a religious act, that the Pledge 
should retain the phrase ``One nation, under God,'' and that 
Congressional policy should encourage the voluntary recitation of the 
Pledge in public school classrooms. I also voted in favor of an 
amendment offered by Rep. Hostettler to H.R. 2799, the Commerce, 
Justice and State and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, which 
prohibited any funds appropriated by the bill being used to enforce the 
court's decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress.
  In the 107th Congress, I voted in favor of H. Res. 459, which 
expressed the view of the House of Representatives that the 9th Circuit 
Court of Appeals' original decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress to 
strike the words ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance was 
incorrectly decided. Similarly, I strongly supported S. 2690, 
legislation that reaffirmed the language of the Pledge of Allegiance, 
including the phrase ``one Nation under God.''
  However, as I stated last year, I am concerned that the passage of 
H.R. 2389 would threaten the separation of powers set forth in the 
United States Constitution. Historically, the United States Supreme 
Court has the final authority on questions regarding a Federal law's 
constitutionality. However, H.R. 2389 would allow future Congresses to 
enact laws that clearly violate basic constitutional principles, while 
at the same time barring these laws from review by the Supreme Court. 
This lack of checks and balances could undermine the strength of 
America's most fundamental founding document. Given these significant 
issues with H.R. 2389, I again plan on voting against this measure.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, on July 19, 2006, I voted against 
H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005.
  The American flag is a symbol of liberty and justice, of freedom of 
speech and expression, as well as the other freedoms we cherish which 
are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But even more important than the 
symbol are the ideals and principles that the symbol represents. I 
believe the best way to honor the American flag is not to wrap 
ourselves in it, but to respect and honor the values for which it 
stands. That our Nation can tolerate disrespect for our flag is proof 
of the enduring strength of our Nation. It is proof to me that ours is 
the greatest nation on earth.
  I served in the U.S. Army and Army Reserves. I know how deeply our 
veterans love and revere our flag. I share those feelings for our flag 
and all that it represents.
  Our democracy has withstood many tests over time, and has been 
strengthened as a result. There is no more important protection 
provided by the First Amendment than its protection of political speech 
and expression.
  In a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont dated May 18, 1999, 
former Secretary of State (then General) Colin L. Powell wrote to 
express his concerns regarding a constitutional amendment banning flag 
burning: ``The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech 
and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or 
disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend 
that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag 
will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away. . . . If 
I were a member of Congress, I would not vote for the proposed 
amendment. . . . ''
  I agree wholeheartedly with Colin Powell's statement, and believe it 
applies here as well. The Pledge of Allegiance is an invaluable part of 
our national heritage, but we must also bear in mind the immeasurable 
significance of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  Finally, I have deep concerns about current efforts to deny the 
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, the ability to review the 
constitutionality of our Federal laws. I believe preserving our three-
branch system of government is in our Nation's best interest.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my 
opposition to H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005. This 
legislation does nothing to address the real issues facing families in 
America today, and serves merely to distract and delay Congress from 
efforts to vote on issues that would actually impact the daily lives of 
our constituents.
  This bill failed to pass out of the Judiciary Committee, and yet, we 
are voting on it today on the Floor of the People's House, an event 
without precedence according to the Parliamentarian. The Majority is 
taking this extraordinary action not for an issue that will affect the 
daily lives of American families--but for a blatantly political debate 
in an election-year attempt to appeal to their base. My constituents 
are concerned about the conflict in the Middle East, earning a living 
wage, accessing affordable health care and relief from sky-rocketing 
gas prices. Minnesotans in the 4th District have made it clear that 
Congress should get to work on the priority issues of this country, 
rather than continue to play political games.
  H.R. 2389 would remove the Pledge of Allegiance from the jurisdiction 
of federal courts. This bill is an attempt by Republicans to strip our 
federal courts of their power to rule over issues of Constitutional 
relevance, and to tell our federal courts that their expertise on 
Constitutional freedoms is irrelevant. Our system of checks and 
balances was constructed by our Founders for this specific reason--to 
retain the independence of the Courts, and their ability to rule justly 
and uphold the rule of law in this great country. As Justice Sandra Day 
O'Connor stated last year, the effectiveness of the federal courts 
relies on the knowledge that they will not be subject to retaliation 
for their rulings.
  Representative Mel Watt offered an amendment today to this bill that, 
had it passed, would have allowed the Supreme Court to hear cases 
regarding the Pledge of Allegiance--in effect, reversing the negative 
damage this bill will inflict if it passes. I supported Mr. Watt's 
amendment, and am extremely disappointed that the majority of my 
colleagues did not do the same.

[[Page 15074]]

  This bill is likely unconstitutional and debating it on the floor of 
the House today is an outrage considering the real issues facing 
American families. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
legislation, upholding the system of justice our Founders intended, and 
return to debating the issues we were elected to resolve.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2389

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pledge Protection Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 99 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction

       ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no court 
     created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and 
     the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to 
     hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation 
     of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of 
     Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its 
     recitation.
       ``(b) The limitation in subsection (a) does not apply to--
       ``(1) any court established by Congress under its power to 
     make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory 
     of the United States; or
       ``(2) the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the 
     District of Columbia Court of Appeals;''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House Report 109-577. Each amendment may be offered only in 
the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Watt

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 109-577.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Watt:
       Page 2, lines 12 and 13, strike ``, and the Supreme Court 
     shall have no appellate jurisdiction,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 920, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, in many ways my amendment is quite simple. It 
simply preserves the authority of the United States Supreme Court to do 
its job. My amendment, however, is fundamental in its simplicity 
because it reflects the cornerstone of our constitutional framework, a 
framework that recognizes three coequal branches of government, each 
with its own area of responsibility, each serving as a check and 
balance on the others.
  For over 200 years, the separation of powers doctrine has worked 
well, vesting the legislative power with the Congress, the executive 
power with the President, and the judicial power with the Supreme Court 
and other inferior Federal courts. At the pinnacle of the judiciary is 
and has been the one Court mandated by the Constitution, the United 
States Supreme Court.
  I have offered this amendment before, and I offer it today because 
the very idea of Congress unilaterally cutting off all Federal court 
review of a constitutional issue is both unprecedented and likely 
unconstitutional, but it is also impractical and imprudent.
  Despite the substantial body of scholarship that suggests that 
Congress does not have the authority to strip the Supreme Court of this 
appellate jurisdiction in the manner proposed by this bill, let's for 
the sake of argument concede that it does have that authority, and let 
me address the imprudence of this bill.
  As legislators exercising the legislative power committed to us by 
the Constitution, the compelling question is: Why would we want to do 
what this bill would have us do? What could possibly motivate this 
Congress to adopt this bill as sound public policy? How does this bill 
do anything to protect the Pledge of Allegiance? What respect does it 
show for our venerable institutions? How does it unify us as a Nation?
  I suggest to you that this bill makes the Pledge far more vulnerable 
to assorted, distasteful interpretations than the current law that 
exists at present.
  I appeal to our common sense. Under the bill as drafted, the 
likelihood that different opinions on the Pledge will issue from State, 
territorial and the District of Columbia courts is either ignored or 
deliberately sheltered from challenge. Rather than protect the Pledge 
of Allegiance, this bill invites a patchwork of interpretations from 
all over the country.
  What if your State is the State that determines that your child can 
no longer recite the words ``under God'' in the Pledge? Will you move 
to a neighboring State? Move across the country? Wherever you find a 
friendly State interpretation? But what if there is no Federal 
constitutional determination, and State legislatures are left to change 
the law upon acquiring the appropriate majority. Would you become a 
nomad? Would you move from State to State in search of the right 
position for your child?
  The bill eliminates every single recourse that you have. It 
establishes a mechanism under which an individual's Federal rights 
would depend entirely on the happenstance of location. Ultimately 
coercing children to recite the Pledge without the language ``under 
God'' may be prohibited in one place but not another. Constitutional 
protections could be strong in one State and weak or nonexistent in 
another.
  My amendment would restore the obligation of the Supreme Court to 
exercise its role as the final arbiter of the Constitution. Even if the 
proponents of this measure believe the Federal, district, and circuit 
courts of appeal should be removed from the process, the role of the 
U.S. Supreme Court in establishing uniform standards to apply to all 
Americans wherever they reside should certainly be protected.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time and for his leadership on this issue.
  This issue that is in front of us today is an example of 
congressional restraint, congressional restraint with regard to a court 
that is out of control.
  The Ninth Circuit Court has thrown it back at this Congress time and 
time again, and the activism that has taken place out there in the 
ninth circuit brings me to some things that would be more drastic 
solutions to this than this very careful, very narrow, very gently 
defined legislation that we have before us. It only deals with the 
words ``under God'' in the Pledge.
  We could do far more. In fact, I voted to split the ninth circuit in 
half. I would vote to abolish them if they continue this kind of 
behavior, throwing this into the face of the American people. We are 
not doing that. We are very carefully, very narrowly addressing 
something that the American people are asking for, very well within the 
jurisdiction of the United States Congress. And any Member who votes 
against this legislation may have their opinions, as Mr. Watt does, 
that they are either knowingly or inadvertently or perhaps even 
willfully conceding some power and authority this Congress has to 
control the courts.

[[Page 15075]]

  In the end, it is the Congress that controls the courts. It is not 
three separate but equal branches. In the end, the congressional 
structure is set up for the Congress to determine the final authority 
over the judicial branch of government through the pursestrings. For 
all of our judicial courts and all of our appellate courts, everything 
is a creature of Congress, except the Supreme Court, which is also a 
creature of Congress, but established by the directive and the mandate 
of the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, we have the authority to do this. It is a very narrowly 
and carefully defined piece of legislation.
  The Watt amendment is a gutting amendment. It kills the bill. It 
hands this authority over to the Supreme Court, which is our very 
number one concern. We simply want to, with legislation, reflect the 
values of the American people, reflect the values of the history and 
the legacy of our Founding Fathers, and our rights that come from God 
within this Pledge. I urge we oppose the Watt amendment.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Essentially what our bill does, if you want to put it in a simple 
word picture, we are creating a fence. The fence goes around the 
Federal judiciary. We do that because we don't trust them. We don't 
trust them because of previous decisions and because of the simple fact 
that there are not five votes on the Supreme Court to protect our 
beloved Pledge of Allegiance. And 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans 
would like to leave the Pledge of Allegiance the way it is.
  So what does this amendment do? This amendment simply opens a big 
hole in the fence. So the gentleman from Iowa was absolutely right: 
this is a gutting amendment. There is absolutely no reason to pass the 
bill if this amendment were to pass. We simply allow the Supreme Court 
to come in whenever they choose, turn the first amendment upside down 
and simply say to kids, you are not allowed to say the Pledge of 
Allegiance, and we are going to use the first amendment from now on as 
a weapon instead of for free speech to censorship on the courts.
  So I am not persuaded by the pious hand-wringing of liberal activists 
who flinch not at the courts' unfettered march to create some imagined 
utopia at the expense of the separation of powers. It is time for us to 
do our job as Congressmen. It is time to assert ourselves, that we will 
not give unchecked legislative authority to the courts. We have been 
too long rolling over to them. It is time to stand up and say on the 
Pledge of Allegiance, enough is enough.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Watt 
Amendment, which would restore the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over 
questions related to the Pledge of Allegiance.
  The Pledge of Allegiance is an important expression of our shared 
values, and it should be preserved in its current form. I fully support 
the Pledge of Allegiance and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The intent of this bill is good. In fact, I was a cosponsor of this 
bill in the 108th Congress. However, that was before the provision was 
added to restrict the Supreme Court from hearing cases involving the 
Pledge of Allegiance. The bill we vote on today again strips the 
Supreme Court's jurisdiction over this important constitutional issue.
  I recognize that Congress clearly has the authority under Article III 
of the Constitution to define the jurisdiction or the federal district 
and appellate courts. But constitutional scholars say there is no 
direct precedent for making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of 
the Supreme Court.
  I would caution my colleagues to think twice before tampering with 
authorities clearly granted in the Constitution. The issue today may be 
the Pledge, but what if the issue tomorrow is Second Amendment rights, 
civil rights, environmental protection, or a host of other issues that 
members may hold dear?
  I would also ask my colleagues, do we really want 50 different 
versions of the Pledge of Allegiance? I certainly don't think so.
  The Watt amendment would restore to the bill the Supreme Court's 
jurisdiction over questions related to the Pledge of Allegiance, 
changing the bill back to the way it was originally introduced in the 
108th Congress when I was a cosponsor.
  I revere the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe 
that ``Under God'' are two of the most important words in the Pledge. I 
also believe that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of all 
federal questions. That's why I urge you to support the Watt Amendment 
to the Pledge Protection Act.
  Mr AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 109-577.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 3, line 2, insert after ``recitation'' the following: 
     ``, except in a case in which the claim involved alleges 
     coerced or mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, 
     including coercion in violation of the protection of the free 
     exercise of religion''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 920, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that Members 
across the campus in their offices and maybe even committee rooms are 
moved by the impassioned pleas by my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, so I want to make a pledge, and that is that I have stood on the 
floor of the House and acknowledged the importance of having our 
schoolchildren and others of America acknowledge and say the Pledge of 
Allegiance every single day. I stand by that statement.
  What bothers me is when Members come to the floor and vote, they will 
look to the name of the proponent and they will simply vote ``no.'' 
They will not understand the crux of the debate. They will not 
understand the sheer quarrel or the sheer amazement that we have with 
this particular legislation in the first place.
  This legislation deals with the idea of protecting the Pledge of 
Allegiance by denying access to the courthouse. My amendment is simple. 
It gives real meaning to the Pledge of Allegiance and the patriotism 
that is felt when it is recited by making it clear that no one can be 
forced or coerced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or retaliated 
against for not reciting it in those cases where doing so violates 
one's religious beliefs.
  What is the hindrance of Members agreeing to allow one to be able to 
access the courts on the simple ground that it violates one's religious 
beliefs?

                              {time}  1345

  In this way, my amendment ensures that the Pledge of Allegiance is 
being recited freely, voluntarily and without coercion or fear of 
retaliation. In this way, a recited Pledge of Allegiance remains 
sacrosanct, and our national commitment to religious freedom is 
preserved.
  Might I cite for my friends a quote from President Reagan, the great 
communicator himself, who said in 1983, ``The first amendment of the 
Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from 
religious values, it was written to protect religious values from 
government tyranny.''
  What I would suggest is to close the courthouse door is an example of 
government tyranny. It means that if my 6-year-old friend by the name 
of Hazel, who had a religious belief, whose family had a religious 
belief, who was allowed to sit silently in her seat when

[[Page 15076]]

all of us stood to say I pledge allegiance, that little girl, if forced 
by any school system to do so, now has the courthouse door closed to 
her.
  It means that we are ignoring the West Virginia State Board of 
Education versus Barnett case that mandated that school children recite 
the Pledge of Allegiance. This was done in West Virginia. Under West 
Virginia law, persons who on religious grounds refused to recite the 
Pledge faced expulsion from school. But Justice Jackson wrote, ``To 
believe patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are 
voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an 
unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institution to free minds.''
  Mr. Chairman, I have said it is good and good news to say the Pledge 
and to have our school children say the Pledge. This amendment is very 
clear. It does nothing to this particular legislation, other than to 
say that if your grounds are religious based, based on religion, based 
on your defined religious beliefs, why are you denying them the right 
to go into the courthouse on religious beliefs only?
  That is the question that clergy are asking across America. That is 
the question that the American Bar Association, representing lawyers of 
all political persuasions, are asking at this time.
  And I beg of my colleagues to understand that we are protectors of 
liberty. We are protectors of the first amendment. We are not to 
denounce the first amendment. We are not to ignoring the first 
amendment. We are not to stomp on the first amendment. And I would beg 
to say that if we call ourselves protecting the flag, the very flag 
that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are now on the battlefield 
shedding their blood, veterans, and we would deny Americans the right 
to utilize the constitutional branch of government created by the 
Constitution and created by this body.
  Shame on us if we cannot accept the entreaty of a little girl named 
Hazel, who sat next to me in a school a few short years ago, I might 
add, lonely, unprotected, fearful, sitting isolated while we stood to 
say the Pledge. I am grateful that I had a teacher that understood that 
we would not stigmatize her, discriminate against her, and she had her 
freedom.
  This is an important amendment to ensure that all of our freedom is 
protected. I ask my colleagues for a vote for religious freedom and 
liberty and to allow the Jackson-Lee amendment to go forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I thank the members of 
the Rules Committee for allowing this amendment to go forward.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment gives real meaning to the Pledge of 
Allegiance and the patriotism that is felt when it is recited by making 
it clear that no one can be coerced or forced to recite the Pledge, or 
retaliated against for not reciting it in those cases where doing so 
violates one's religious beliefs. In this way, my amendment ensures 
that the Pledge of Allegiance is being recited freely, voluntarily, and 
without coercion or fear of retaliation. In this way, a recited Pledge 
of Allegiance remains sacrosanct and our national commitment to 
religious freedom is preserved.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment draws inspiration from President Reagan, 
the Great Communicator himself, who said in 1983:

       The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to 
     protect the people of this country from religious values; it 
     was written to protect religious values from government 
     tyranny.

  H.R. 2389 precludes Federal judicial review of any constitutional 
challenge to recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance--whether it be in 
the lower Federal courts or the U.S. Supreme Court. My amendment does 
not disturb this legislative judgment except in the limited instance of 
cases involving claims of coercion and mandatory recitation. In other 
words, my amendment is intended to protect religious values from 
government tyranny. Nothing less, nothing more.
  Mr. Chairman, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett, 
the Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that mandated 
schoolchildren recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Under West Virginia 
law, persons who, on religious grounds, refused to recite the Pledge 
faced expulsion from school and could be prosecuted and fined for 
violating the statute. In striking down that statute, the great Justice 
Robert Jackson wrote for the Court:

       To believe patriotism will not flourish if patriotic 
     ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a 
     compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the 
     appeal of our institutions to free minds . . . If there is 
     any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is 
     that no official, high, or petty can prescribe what shall be 
     orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters 
     of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their 
     faith therein.

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is important for another reason. H.R. 
2389, as drafted, insulates the Pledge of Allegiance from 
constitutional challenge in Federal court.
  However, the pledge itself is subject to change by future legislative 
bodies. This means that if some future Congress decides to revise the 
Pledge to include religiously offensive or discriminatory language in 
the Pledge, the authority of the government to compel a person to 
recite that Pledge could not be challenged in Federal court. None of us 
would want that to happen. My amendment ensures that it won't.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment protects religious minorities. My 
amendment protects judicial review. My amendment protects the 
separation of powers. My amendment strengthens the Pledge by ensuring 
that it recited voluntarily. My amendment ensures that the Pledge, like 
the oath all Members of Congress take, is ``given freely, without 
mental reservation or purpose of evasion.'' I urge all Members to 
support the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Arizona, Trent Franks.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, may I first remind all of us of 
words we each spoke not so long ago.
  ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution 
of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I 
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this 
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of 
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of 
the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.''
  Mr. Chairman, when we swore this oath, we did not say that we would 
protect the Constitution from everyone except rogue judges.
  The issue that brings us to the floor this day is an act on the part 
of the Ninth Circuit that ruled that the words ``under God'' in a 
voluntary Pledge of Allegiance by our school children is 
unconstitutional.
  It astonishes me, Mr. Chairman, that we even have to address such an 
insane conclusion. I truly believe that if we had lived in the days of 
the Founding Fathers and accused them of intending to outlaw school 
children from saying the words ``under God'' in their voluntary Pledge 
of Allegiance, they would have challenged us to a duel for impugning 
their honor in such an egregious and outrageous fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, when judicial supremacists on the bench desecrate the 
very Constitution that they are given charge, the sacred charge to 
defend, those of us in this Congress who have also made an oath to 
defend the Constitution must respond accordingly.
  The Constitution of the United States, Mr. Chairman, does not 
prohibit school children from saying the words ``under God'' in a 
voluntary Pledge of Allegiance. It is that fundamentally simple.
  Indeed, the Constitution does say that the Congress shall make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.
  Mr. Chairman, when the Ninth Circuit decision said school children 
cannot voluntarily say the words ``under God'' in their Pledge of 
Allegiance, these judges, sir, were prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof.
  This legislation would take such a decision away from such rogue 
judges.
  Mr. Chairman, if Congress forsakes their oath and their duty to 
defend the Constitution and allows this magnificent document to fall 
prey to activist judges, we relegate this Republic to an

[[Page 15077]]

arrogant judicial oligarchy. It is an abrogation of our oath of office 
and it tramples on the blood of our Founding Fathers and the soldiers 
who died to give us America and her rule of law.
  There would be nothing left to us at that point but to board up the 
windows in this building and go home and quit pretending to be 
defenders of the United States Constitution or representatives of the 
greatest Republic in the history of humanity.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not too late. I urge this amendment be rejected, 
and the bill be passed as written.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be 
postponed.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of reflection 
of this disastrous bill, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
rollcall vote only because I believe that we would denigrate the 
protection of religion even further by subjecting my very good 
amendment to a rollcall vote. It should be already included in this.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman's request for a 
recorded vote is withdrawn, to the end that the amendment stands 
rejected by voice vote.
  There was no objection.
  So the amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Akin

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 109-577.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Akin:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and apply to any case 
     that--
       (1) is pending on such date of enactment; or
       (2) is commenced on or after such date of enactment.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 920, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York will control the 5 minutes 
in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask, is the other side going to 
be speaking on the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nadler has claimed the 5 minutes in opposition, so 
I assume he is going to speak.
  Mr. AKIN. That is a good assumption.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment and the reason it was 
added, to some degree in a last-minute nature, was because of the 
Hamden decision. The Hamden decision, a majority of the Supreme Court 
on an Article III, section 2 question said that because a particular 
issue, in this case it was Gitmo, was being considered in the courts, 
that the article III, section 2 language didn't apply.
  Now, this is completely inconsistent with all previous rulings of the 
Supreme Court. But we thought, just to be safe, that what we would do 
here would be to add language that makes it clear that not only does 
this bill consider any future cases that are brought before the court, 
the Federal courts, but also existing cases, in this case, again, the 
challenge to the Pledge that is already in the Federal court system and 
is before the Ninth Circuit out in California and some of the States in 
the West. So that was the reason for this technical and perfecting 
amendment, certainly to clarify, just simply to clarify that this bill 
would apply not only to future legislation but cases that are currently 
before the Court.
  Along those lines, I think it is very important for us to once again 
affirm the importance of our discussion and our debate here today. It 
is ultimately the job of the legislative branch and the executive 
branch to provide some check and balance on the Supreme Court.
  There would be no argument from me if the Supreme Court based all of 
their decisions on the rules, that is the U.S. Constitution. However, 
the Supreme Court has gone beyond that increasingly, and it is our 
concern that they will go well beyond the U.S. Constitution in 
considering this case.
  We have every reason to believe that we do not have five Justices 
that will support the Pledge. We have every reason to believe that the 
Pledge could easily be struck, and it is for that reason that this bill 
has been introduced.
  Now, some would say that, in fact I believe the minority leader 
called what is going on on this floor a charade. I think that is a 
rather harsh way of describing people that have a genuine interest in 
the Pledge of Allegiance, have a genuine interest in the heart of what 
this good Nation was based on, the idea that there is, in fact, a God 
that grants basic inalienable rights to all people, and that the job of 
government is to protect those basic rights.
  Part of that U.S. Constitution includes the first amendment, and the 
first amendment has to do with free speech. I can understand the use of 
the first amendment to say to someone, you are not required to give an 
oath that you don't believe in. But I cannot understand how you can 
look at free speech as a tool to censor school children across America 
from saying that they cannot, they are going to censor the Pledge of 
Allegiance, they cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance.
  This is the time for this Congress to stand up, to be strong, and to 
take notice of the fact that the Court will no longer be making these 
forays of absolutely unchecked legislative decision-making. And it is 
time for us to stand up and say no to a Court that is effectively 
trying to create their own set of rules instead of reading the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that there is good evidence from the way that 
the Court has handled the fifth amendment in allowing the 
redistribution of private property willy nilly, without a government 
purpose, I think there is good reason to be concerned as the Court has 
taken to itself a power to tax, which is unconstitutional. There is 
good reason for us to be concerned about the Court's overrunning their 
constitutional bounds.
  It is time for us to show the backbone to stand up to the Court. It 
is time for us to say no to this unregulated, general legislative 
authority.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are now down to the heart of the matter. This entire 
spectacle is aimed at a possible decision by one Court that the 
directed recitation by school children under the instruction of their 
teacher of the phrase ``under God'' may violate the first amendment 
rights of those children.
  Let's be clear. Nowhere in the United States is the use of the phrase 
``under God'' prohibited in the public schools. In the only two cases 
in which the Court ruled that the directed recitation of the phrase 
``under God'' violated the establishment clause, the Supreme Court 
vacated one ruling, and has issued a stay preventing the second ruling 
from interfering with the recitation of the Pledge.
  For this we need to take a chain saw to the Constitution? For this we 
need to endanger the religious liberty of religious minorities like the 
Jehovah's Witnesses, who were thrown out of school because their 
religion barred them from saying the Pledge?
  Only the Supreme Court protected their rights in violence against 
Jehovah's Witnesses that ensued.
  This bill would not only prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the 
constitutionality of directing school children to recite the phrase 
``under God,''

[[Page 15078]]

it would also overturn the 1943 Supreme Court Jehovah's Witnesses case 
and allow the punishment or expulsion of school children for refusing 
to recite a pledge that violates their religion or their conscience.

                              {time}  1400

  We may be endowed, Mr. Chairman, by our Creator with certain 
unalienable rights, but people can, and routinely do, violate and take 
away those rights. That is why we need a Supreme Court, to protect 
these rights even when political majorities will not.
  Supporters of this bill have candidly said they disagree with the 
Supreme Court, and that, in their opinion, the Supreme Court has gone 
beyond its powers, and that we, in effect, should overrule it and 
prevent them from ruling in these cases. We have heard this before. 
Look at the notorious ``Southern Manifesto'' against the Supreme Court 
decision in the Brown v. Board of Education 50 years ago: ``We regard 
the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse 
of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal judiciary 
undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, 
and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the 
people.''
  That is what we hear whenever people disagree with the Supreme Court, 
in the school desegregation cases and now. And this amendment makes the 
point of the bill explicit.
  The sponsors are afraid of what the Supreme Court may do in a pending 
case on this subject that may come before them and therefore explicitly 
strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction even over a pending case. This 
is Congress saying to a specific plaintiff, we do not approve of your 
claim of a violation of your constitutional right; so we are going to 
shut the courthouse door in your face.
  This is a dangerous enterprise. I respect my friend's concerns and 
his right to disagree with the courts, but we must not destroy our 
Constitution and the one independent bulwark of our liberty. I urge 
defeat of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, 
Mr. Conyers.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this amendment and 
am against any amendment that would throw out any case currently 
pending in the Court.
  This amendment would add language making it explicit that this 
already unconstitutional bill is effective immediately and applies to 
all pending and future litigation. As it currently stands, this bill 
does nothing to protect religious minorities from being coerced into 
reciting the Pledge, in violation of their First Amendment right of 
free speech. This amendment would effectively throw out any case that 
is currently pending in court in which a child's right to be free from 
religious persecution is being vindicated, and would slam the 
courthouse door shut in their faces.
  H.R. 2389 as a whole is premature and should not be on our list of 
priorities.
  What I find particularly troubling about this bill, setting aside all 
of the concerns that I have already stated, is its timing. It seems 
that my colleagues in the majority have lost sight of our priorities. 
At a time of record budget deficits and gasoline prices, when we are 
engaged in a quagmire in Iraq, when more than 45 million people are 
uninsured in this nation, and every day workers are seeing their 
pensions and health care benefits jeopardized, surely we can find 
better things to do with our time as a congress than bash the courts.
  Why then is something as arbitrary as a bill that would strip our 
Federal courts of their authority to hear an issue that the highest 
court in our land has never spoke on at the top of our list of ``things 
to do''? Need I remind my colleagues that the Supreme Court has never, 
since the inclusion of the words ``under God'' into the Pledge of 
Allegiance back in 1954, discussed or ruled on its constitutionality? 
Why then do we need this legislation at all? Why then do we need to 
offer this legislation now? It is our rights as individuals that are at 
stake right now--not the sanctity and preservation of the Pledge.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 1\1/2\ minutes. I will 
simply say that this amendment is dangerous for the same reason that 
the bill is dangerous. We should not say, in the case of this 
amendment, to someone who is a plaintiff in a court in a pending case, 
we are going to shut the courthouse door in your face because we are 
afraid the Supreme Court might issue a decision. It has not done it 
yet, but we are afraid the Supreme Court might issue a decision that we 
disagree with. We do not trust the courts. We do not agree with them. 
Never mind that George Bush has appointed two new members of the Court. 
We still do not agree with it, and, therefore, we are going to try to 
strip them of their jurisdiction.
  That way strips the protection of our liberties from us. We need the 
courts to protect our liberties. Our constitutional rights can only be 
vindicated by the courts stepping in when the political branches of 
government violate the rights of unpopular minorities. That is what the 
courts have done throughout our history, and we need that protection to 
continue. And that is why this bill is not only subversive of our 
constitutional rights, but unconstitutional.
  The bill ought to be defeated. The amendment ought to be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Marchant) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2389) to 
amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of 
Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the 
Pledge of Allegiance, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________