July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5397 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Walsh Westmoreland Wolf XVIII, the Chair declares the House in question is on the resolution. Wamp Whitfield Young (AK) the Committee of the Whole House on Weldon (FL) Wicker Young (FL) The question was taken; and the Weldon (PA) Wilson (NM) the State of the Union for the consider- Speaker pro tempore announced that Weller Wilson (SC) ation of the bill, H.R. 2389. the ayes appeared to have it. NAYS—168 b 1225 Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, on Abercrombie Hinojosa Owens IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE that I demand the yeas and nays. Ackerman Holden Pallone The yeas and nays were ordered. Allen Holt Pascrell Accordingly, the House resolved Andrews Honda The vote was taken by electronic de- Payne itself into the Committee of the Whole Baird Hooley Pelosi House on the State of the Union for the vice, and there were—yeas 257, nays Baldwin Hoyer Pomeroy consideration of the bill (H.R. 2389) to 168, not voting 7, as follows: Barrow Inslee Price (NC) Bean Israel amend title 28, United States Code, [Roll No. 383] Rangel Becerra Jackson (IL) Rothman with respect to the jurisdiction of Fed- YEAS—257 Berman Jackson-Lee Roybal-Allard Bishop (NY) (TX) eral courts over certain cases and con- Ruppersberger Aderholt Foxx Miller (FL) Blumenauer Jefferson troversies involving the Pledge of Alle- Rush Akin Franks (AZ) Miller (MI) Boswell Johnson, E. B. Sabo giance, with Mr. LATOURETTE in the Alexander Frelinghuysen Miller, Gary Boucher Jones (OH) Sa´ nchez, Linda chair. Baca Gallegly Mollohan Brady (PA) Kanjorski T. Bachus Garrett (NJ) Moran (KS) Brown (OH) Kaptur The Clerk read the title of the bill. Baker Gerlach Murphy Brown, Corrine Kennedy (RI) Sanchez, Loretta The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the Barrett (SC) Gibbons Musgrave Butterfield Kildee Sanders rule, the bill is considered read the Bartlett (MD) Gilchrest Myrick Capps Kilpatrick (MI) Schakowsky Barton (TX) Gillmor Neugebauer Capuano Kind Schiff first time. Bass Gingrey Ney Cardin Kucinich Schwartz (PA) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Beauprez Gohmert Norwood Cardoza Langevin Scott (GA) BLUNT) and the gentleman from New Berkley Goode Nunes Scott (VA) Carnahan Lantos York (Mr. NADLER) each will control 30 Berry Goodlatte Nussle Carson Larsen (WA) Serrano Biggert Gordon Ortiz Case Larson (CT) Shays minutes. Bilbray Granger Osborne Clay Lee Sherman The Chair recognizes the gentleman Bilirakis Graves Otter Cleaver Levin Skelton from Missouri. Bishop (GA) Green (WI) Oxley Clyburn Lewis (GA) Slaughter Bishop (UT) Green, Al Pastor Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield Conyers Lipinski Smith (WA) Blackburn Green, Gene Paul Cooper Lofgren, Zoe Snyder myself such time as I may consume. Blunt Gutknecht Pearce Costa Lowey Solis As we approach this bill today, Mr. Boehlert Hall Pence Costello Lynch Spratt Chairman, I want to make the point Boehner Hart Peterson (MN) Crowley Maloney Bonilla Hastings (WA) Peterson (PA) Stark that clearly the Pledge of Allegiance is Cummings Markey Strickland Bonner Hayes Petri Davis (AL) Matsui well understood by this body and the Bono Hayworth Pickering Stupak Davis (CA) McCarthy Tauscher Members of this body. It is repeated Boozman Hefley Pitts Davis (FL) McCollum (MN) Taylor (MS) here every day. The words of the Boren Hensarling Platts Davis (IL) McDermott Thompson (CA) Boustany Herger Poe DeFazio McGovern Pledge are words that we have learned Thompson (MS) Boyd Herseth Pombo DeGette McNulty since our childhood: Tierney Bradley (NH) Higgins Porter Delahunt Meehan ‘‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Brady (TX) Hobson Price (GA) DeLauro Meek (FL) Towns Brown (SC) Hoekstra Pryce (OH) Dicks Meeks (NY) Udall (CO) the United States of America, and to Brown-Waite, Hostettler Putnam Dingell Michaud Udall (NM) the Republic for which it stands, one Ginny Hulshof Radanovich Doggett Millender- Van Hollen nation under God, indivisible, with lib- Burgess Hunter Rahall Vela´ zquez Doyle McDonald erty and justice for all.’’ Burton (IN) Hyde Ramstad Engel Miller (NC) Visclosky Buyer Inglis (SC) Regula Eshoo Miller, George Wasserman When Congress passed the bill adding Calvert Issa Rehberg Etheridge Moore (KS) Schultz the words ‘‘under God,’’ Congress stat- Camp (MI) Istook Reichert Farr Moore (WI) Waters ed its belief that those words in no way Campbell (CA) Jenkins Renzi Fattah Moran (VA) Watson Cannon Jindal Reyes Filner Murtha Watt run contrary to the first amendment, Cantor Johnson (CT) Reynolds Frank (MA) Nadler Waxman but recognize ‘‘only the guidance of Capito Johnson (IL) Rogers (AL) Gonzalez Napolitano Weiner God in our national affairs.’’ Carter Johnson, Sam Rogers (KY) Grijalva Neal (MA) Wexler Two words, ‘‘under God,’’ in the Castle Jones (NC) Rogers (MI) Harman Oberstar Woolsey Chabot Keller Rohrabacher Hastings (FL) Obey Wu Pledge helped define our national her- Chandler Kelly Ros-Lehtinen Hinchey Olver Wynn itage as the beneficiaries of a Constitu- Chocola Kennedy (MN) Ross Coble King (IA) Royce NOT VOTING—7 tion sent to the States for ratification ‘‘in the year of our Lord,’’ as the ratifi- Cole (OK) King (NY) Ryan (WI) Evans Harris Ryan (OH) Conaway Kingston Ryun (KS) Ford McKinney cation statement said, 1787, by a found- Cramer Kirk Salazar Gutierrez Northup ing generation that saw itself as guided Crenshaw Kline Saxton Cubin Knollenberg Schmidt b 1223 by a providential God. These two words Cuellar Kolbe Schwarz (MI) were added to the Pledge in the 1950s, Culberson Kuhl (NY) Sensenbrenner So the resolution was agreed to. and at that time President Eisenhower Davis (KY) LaHood Sessions The result of the vote was announced made the point that in those days of Davis (TN) Latham Shadegg as above recorded. Cold War, those days after World War Davis, Jo Ann LaTourette Shaw A motion to reconsider was laid on Davis, Tom Leach Sherwood II, that it was important that we real- the table. Deal (GA) Lewis (CA) Shimkus ize that there was something bigger Dent Lewis (KY) Shuster f Diaz-Balart, L. Linder Simmons than ourselves and that our country Diaz-Balart, M. LoBiondo Simpson GENERAL LEAVE was guided by that. Doolittle Lucas Smith (NJ) For decades children have been recit- Drake Lungren, Daniel Smith (TX) Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I ask Dreier E. Sodrel unanimous consent that all Members ing the Pledge of Allegiance in class- Duncan Mack Souder may have 5 legislative days in which to rooms across America. The Pledge of Edwards Manzullo Stearns revise and extend their remarks on Allegiance is an important civic ritual. Ehlers Marchant Sullivan It binds us together as Americans. But Emanuel Marshall Sweeney H.R. 2389. Emerson Matheson Tancredo The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there last year that daily ritual was halted English (PA) McCaul (TX) Tanner objection to the request of the gen- in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Everett McCotter Taylor (NC) The court actually told teachers and Feeney McCrery Terry tleman from Missouri? Ferguson McHenry Thomas There was no objection. children in Alaska and Arizona, in Fitzpatrick (PA) McHugh Thornberry f California and Hawaii, in Idaho and Flake McIntyre Tiahrt Montana, in Nevada, Oregon, and Foley McKeon Tiberi PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 Washington that they could not recite Forbes McMorris Turner Fortenberry Melancon Upton The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- the Pledge of Allegiance as they had Fossella Mica Walden (OR) ant to House Resolution 920 and rule for decades in their classrooms.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5398 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006 The Court’s reasoning? The words it was against his or her religion. In been able to find any other case like ‘‘under God’’ constituted a violation of 1943, the Supreme Court in West Vir- this. They report, ‘‘We found one in- the establishment clause of the first ginia Board of Education v. Barnette stance of a bill, a joint resolution, be- amendment. According to the court, it held that children, in that case Jeho- tween the 100th Congress and the cur- was unconstitutional to lead students, vah’s Witnesses, had a first amendment rent Congress, in which a committee even voluntarily, in the Pledge of Alle- right not to be compelled to swear an specifically voted not to report a meas- giance because it included the phrase oath or recite a pledge in violation of ure that was later considered by the ‘‘under God.’’ their religious beliefs. House.’’ That measure was a 1996 agri- Any of the phrases in the Pledge do This legislation would, of course, culture bill that was rejected in com- not need to be subject to this kind of strip those families of the right to go mittee and later folded into a rec- court interpretation. The Pledge of Al- to court and to defend their religious onciliation bill. legiance, an act of Congress, modified liberty. Schools would be able to expel Now the Republican majority exceeds by the Congress in 1950s, still continues children for acting according to the to be the Pledge of Allegiance said by dictates of their religious faith, and even that arrogance. We are asked to school students and Members of this Congress will have slammed the court- vote on a bill that guts our system of body and others all over the country house door in their faces. government and guts the protection of today. Judges should not be able to re- As dangerous as this legislation is, our individual rights when the com- write the Pledge. Passing this bill will even for an election season, it is part of mittee tasked with the consideration protect the Pledge from Federal judges a more general attack on our system of of this bill rejected it. It must be an and will strike an important blow for government which includes an inde- election year. self-government. pendent judiciary whose job it is to in- To return to Justice Jackson and the This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is in terpret the Constitution even if those flag salute case, he observed that, and the spirit of the first judiciary act, the decisions are unpopular. It is their job I quote because it is very apposite here, Judiciary Act of 1789, drafted by indi- to protect individual rights, even if the ‘‘The very purpose of the Bill of Rights viduals who had drafted the Constitu- exercise of those rights in given in- was to withdraw certain subjects from tion, voted on by Members who had stances are unpopular. Sometimes we do not like what the the vicissitudes of political con- been at the drafting of the Constitu- court says. I don’t like that the Su- troversy, to place them beyond the tion, all willing to define the role of preme Court struck down part of the reach of majorities and officials and to the Federal courts and to narrow the Violence Against Women Act, or that establish them as legal principles to be role of the Federal courts, as this bill they struck down part of the Gun Free applied by the courts. One’s right to proposes to do. Safe Schools Zones Act, or that they life, liberty and property, to free I look forward to the debate. speech, a free press, freedom of worship Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance are misapplying, in my opinion, the commerce clause and the 11th amend- and assembly and other fundamental of my time. rights may not be submitted to vote. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield ment in order to gut some of our civil rights laws. I really didn’t like it that They depend on the outcome of no elec- myself such time as I may consume. tions.’’ Mr. Chairman, I really hate to be an Republican-appointed justices tra- ‘‘I told you so,’’ but when, in 2003, we versed, perverted justice in order to But now some would strip the courts considered legislation to strip the Fed- put someone in the White House who of any ability to protect these indi- eral courts of jurisdiction, in that case got more than half a million votes less vidual rights against a temporarily in- to hear cases challenging the Defense than the other candidate who really tolerant majority. of Marriage Act, I warned that there won the election. As to the complaints about unelected I don’t hear my colleagues on the would be no end to it. judges, I would refer my colleagues other side screaming about judicial ac- In fact, when we first marked up this back to their high school civics text- tivism by unelected judges in these bill, I asked my friend, the chairman of books. We have an independent judici- the Constitution Subcommittee, cases. As wrong as I believe the current Su- ary precisely to rule against the wishes whether there would be other court- of the majority, especially when it stripping bills. He assured me that this preme Court to be on many issues, I understand that we cannot maintain comes to the rights of unpopular mi- and the marriage court-stripping bill norities. That is our system of govern- were the only ones ‘‘so far.’’ As we our system of government and espe- cially our Bill of Rights if the inde- ment and it is a good one and we know, he was being, as always, truth- should protect it. ful. pendent judiciary cannot enforce those Our former colleague Bob Barr, the rights, even if the majority doesn’t like As Alexander Hamilton said in Fed- author of the Defense of Marriage Act, it. eralist Number 78, ‘‘The complete inde- whose legislation Congress was pur- Again, I will refer to the Soviet Sta- pendence of the court of justice is pe- porting to protect in that case, said, no linist Constitution of 1936, which had culiarly essential in a limited Con- thanks. many rights in it, freedom of speech, stitution. By a limited Constitution, I He wrote: ‘‘This bill will needlessly freedom of association, freedom of the understand one which contains certain set a dangerous precedent for future press, freedom of religious and specified exceptions to the legislative Congresses that might want to protect antireligious propaganda, as they authority; such, for instance, as that it unconstitutional legislation from judi- quaintly put it. But, of course, it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex cial review. During my time in Con- wasn’t worth the paper it was written post facto laws, and the like. Limita- gress, I saw many bills introduced that on because they had no judicial en- tions of this kind can be preserved in would violate the takings clause, the forcement of it, and if you tried to practice no other way than through the second amendment, the 10th amend- bring a lawsuit to enforce your right, medium of courts of justice, whose ment, and many other constitutional they shot you before they brought you duty it must be to declare all acts con- protections. The fundamental protec- to court. Any constitutional right trary to the manifest tenor of the Con- tions afforded by the Constitution without the ability to enforce it in stitution void. Without this, all res- would be rendered meaningless if oth- court is no right. ervations of particular rights or privi- This House appears infected with ers followed the path set by this bill.’’ leges would amount to nothing.’’ hostility toward the rule of law. This Z! EXT .033 ...HOUSE... K19JY7 PER- Where would this bill leave religious bill is a perfect example. Even more SONAL COMPUTERJ049060-K19JY7-033- liberty? The Republicans tell us State egregious is the way it has reached the *****-*****-Payroll No.: -Name: -Folios: courts can protect those rights. What floor. The Judiciary Committee twice - -Date: mmddyy -Subformat: would this mean? It would mean that voted against reporting this bill to the your rights might be protected in one b 1230 House. The ‘‘no’’ vote was bipartisan. State, but not in another. I thought Bob Barr was right. Today it is the Now the Republican majority is abus- the 14th amendment to our Constitu- turn of the religious minorities. ing its power to bring it to the floor tion settled that issue. Once upon a time in this country a anyway. student could be expelled from school Neither the Parliamentarian nor the One of the reasons we have a Su- for refusing to cite the Pledge because Congressional Research Service has preme Court is so that the Federal

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5399 Constitution means the same thing in Well, what does that mean, if some- the court will ultimately decide that New York as in California or Mis- body really wants to make a claim that the Pledge is unconstitutional. sissippi or Minnesota. This country the Pledge is unconstitutional? It The simple fact is that we need to re- must be one country, not 50 separate means that they go to their local State spect the Constitution and the right of countries. courts, with the ultimate decisions courts to decide whether the Pledge is We are really playing with fire here. being made in 50 separate supreme constitutional or not. But the majority Do you really hate unpopular religious courts and a court here in the District will not do that. H.R. 2389 is a court- minorities so much that you are will- of Columbia. So that is the reason for stripping bill as the bill does not ad- ing to destroy the first amendment? I why we need to pass the Pledge Protec- dress the substance of the arguments urge my conservative colleagues espe- tion Act. pro and con, it just prohibits Federal cially to shape up and act like conserv- It seems a bit ironic that some people courts, including the Supreme Court, atives for once. We live in a free soci- will complain about the fact that we from deciding the case. ety that protects unpopular minorities, have no respect for the Constitution This bill is a blatant attempt to pre- even if the majority hates them or and that we are eroding the separation vent the judicial branch from doing its hates the expression of their opinion. of powers, and yet it is the very Con- job. The foundation of our democracy If someone doesn’t want to recite the stitution that gives Congress the au- rests on the principle of checks and Pledge of Allegiance or doesn’t feel thority and the responsibility to stand balances of power among three coequal conscientiously able to recite the up to the Court when they are misusing branches, and this bill is a flagrant dis- words ‘‘under God,’’ that is their privi- the Constitution. If you claim you re- regard of that principle. In addition, lege. Our Constitution protects it, our spect the Constitution, part of that is this bill will result in unprecedented civil liberties protect it, this country the first amendment, and the first confusion as each State court will de- should protect it, and I urge the defeat amendment to the Constitution is cide how to interpret the Federal Con- of this bill. about free speech. It is not about cen- stitution. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance sorship. It also sets a poor precedent that at of my time. To say that a child cannot say the any time we are considering a bill that Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 Pledge of Allegiance is a form of cen- might be found unconstitutional by the minutes to the principal sponsor of the sorship. The Court has already ruled courts, we might just prohibit the bill, my colleague from Missouri (Mr. that no child has to say the Pledge. courts from saying so by taking away AKIN). But now the Court wants to go the their right to hear the case. Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to in- other step and say no, we are going to Mr. Chairman, this bill would strip troduce the Pledge Protection Act and use the first amendment about free Federal courts from their ability to just to give a quick and brief history as speech to say that you cannot say the hear cases that are clearly within Fed- to why it is important. We have heard Pledge. We must step in. eral jurisdiction because those cases some discussion that this is really not Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield address Federal constitutional rights necessary, that we can rest assured 7 minutes to the distinguished gen- and individual liberties guaranteed that the words of the Pledge of Alle- tleman from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT). under the Bill of Rights, and many giance will just stand firm forever. Un- Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair- rights may be involved because the bill fortunately, that is not what our re- man, anytime we consider legislation is not limited to cases addressing the cent history shows. like this, one can be assured that vet- words ‘‘under God.’’ The recitation of First of all, three judges on the Ninth erans benefits have either just been cut the Pledge may in some situations im- Circuit Court in California ruled that or are about to be cut. Instead of ad- plicate the right of free speech, the the words ‘‘under God’’ are unconstitu- dressing the real issues of patriotism, right of freedom of association, the tional. They were supported by the en- such as the adequacy of health care right to free exercise of religion, the tire Ninth Circuit. funding for veterans or the fact that establishment clause protections, all The case went to the Supreme Court, the number of veterans waiting for guaranteed under the first amendment and I was there at the hearing at the benefit determinations has increased of the Constitution. Supreme Court. The President’s attor- by approximately 80,000 since last year The passage of this bill will mean ney there argued that the Supreme alone, we are going to use this bill to that there will be no Federal law on a Court should kick the case out because divert attention from those more press- Federal constitutional question, not the person, Mr. Newdow, bringing the ing issues. even a supreme law of the land to guide case did not have standing. The re- Mr. Chairman, this bill is aimed at other Federal or State courts on the sponse of one of the Judges was, as a the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals matter or to definitively state the law Supreme Court we never kick a case case, Newdow v. U.S. Congress, which when there are inconsistent decisions out based on standing, because we as- held that the words ‘‘under God’’ in the in different States. So a Federal con- sume the lower courts have already Pledge are unconstitutional in the con- stitutional right could be applied in- taken care of that. text of public school recitations. I hap- consistently to American citizens sim- Why did the Supreme Court do this? pen to disagree with that decision and ply because they live in different parts They could easily have ruled that the I agree with the dissent in that case of the country. Pledge is just fine, that it is com- which stated, ‘‘Legal world abstrac- The need for a Federal review of pletely constitutional. Is that their tions and ruminations aside, when all many different rights that may be in- ruling? No. They kicked the case out is said and done, the danger that ‘under volved is not speculative. For example, based on standing. God’ in our Pledge of Allegiance will Mr. Chairman, even before the words So we believe that there are not five tend to bring about a theocracy or sup- ‘‘under God’’ were in the Pledge, the Judges on the Court, which is what it press someone’s belief is so miniscule Supreme Court in 1943 held in West would take to uphold the Pledge of Al- as to be de minimis. The danger that Virginia Board of Education v. legiance. Hence we use a constitutional the phrase represents to our first Barnette that a compulsory flag salute authority granted to us from the amendment’s freedoms is picayune at and accompanying Pledge were uncon- Founders that wrote the Constitution best.’’ stitutional when required of a public to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. I agree with that language, Mr. school student in violation of the stu- That constitutional authority is Chairman. So as we discuss the con- dent’s religious beliefs. known as Article III, section 2. stitutionality of ‘‘under God’’ in the In that case, the lawsuit was origi- What we do is we create a very sim- Pledge, we must recognize that every nally filed in Federal Court and was ple fence around the Federal court sys- bill that is introduced, every hearing never considered in State court. If this tem. We say just regarding the Pledge we have, every vote that we take on legislation passes, State courts won’t of Allegiance, that no Federal Court the issue enhances the importance of even have to follow prior Supreme has authority to hear a claim that the this issue and these actions serve to Court precedents. The reason that Pledge is unconstitutional. So we put a chip away at the de minimis argument State courts are prohibited from ignor- fence around the Federal court system. and actually increase the chance that ing Supreme Court precedent is if they

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5400 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006 do so, the Supreme Court is there, JUNE 14, 2006. the First Amendment, protect the minor- ready and willing and able to reverse Protect Separation of Powers and Religious ity—those persons who march to their own the State court’s decision. But no more Minorities’ Longstanding Constitutional drummers. It is they who need the protec- under this bill. We may well end up Rights; Oppose Final Passage of H.R. tion afforded by the Constitution and it is 2389. the responsibility of federal judges to ensure with 50 interpretations and applica- that protection.’’ Circle School v. Pappert, tions of a single Federal constitutional DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: We, the under- signed religious, civil rights, and civil lib- 381 F.3d 172, 183 (3d Cir. 2004). right. erties organizations, urge you to oppose H.R. H.R. 2389 would undermine the long- For over 200 years, since Marbury v. 2389, the ‘‘Pledge Protection Act,’’ misguided standing constitutional rights of religious Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court has legislation that would strip all federal minorities to seek redress in the federal been the final arbiter of what is con- courts, including the Supreme Court, from courts in cases involving mandatory recita- stitutional and what is not. So while hearing First Amendment challenges to the tion of the Pledge. As a result, this legisla- Congress has the power to regulate ju- Pledge of Allegiance and from enforcing tion will seriously harm religious minorities longstanding constitutional rights in federal and the constitutional free speech rights of risdiction of Federal courts, the court- countless individuals. stripping language of H.R. 2389 grossly court. The signatories to this letter include orga- H.R. 2389 also raises serious legal concerns exceeds that power in violation of the nizations that supported the court challenge about the violation of the principles of sepa- principles of separation of powers. to the constitutionality of including ‘‘under ration of powers, equal protection and due process. The bill undermines public con- b 1245 God’’ in the Pledge of Allegiance, organiza- tions that opposed that challenge, and orga- fidence in the federal courts by expressing If this court-stripping idea had been nizations that took no position on the mat- outright hostility toward them, threatens around in 1954, Congress could have ter. We are united, however, in believing the legitimacy of future congressional action prohibited the Supreme Court from that H.R. 2389 threatens the separation of by removing the federal courts as a neutral hearing issues involving student as- powers that is a fundamental aspect of our arbiter, and rejects the unifying function of signment to public schools. We never constitutional structure. Beyond this, while the federal judiciary by denying federal the legislation ostensibly responds to the courts the opportunity to interpret the law. would have had the decision of Brown We strongly believe that this legislation as v. Board of Education, or it could have controversy surrounding ‘‘under God’’ in the Pledge of Allegiance, this legislation sweeps drafted will have broad, negative implica- passed in the 1960s, and the decision in far more broadly, with potentially severe tions on the ability of individuals to seek en- the Federal court in Loving v. Vir- constitutional implications for religious mi- forcement of previously constitutionally ginia, to overrule the will of the people norities who are adversely affected by gov- protected rights concerning mandatory reci- of Virginia and require Virginia to rec- ernment-mandated recitation of the Pledge. tation of the Pledge. We therefore urge, in ognize racially mixed marriages, might First and foremost, we are opposed to H.R. the strongest terms, your rejection of this not have ever happened. 2389 because this legislation, by entirely misguided and unwise legislation. stripping all federal courts, including the Sincerely, The judges in those decisions were American Civil Liberties Union. described just as judges are described Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over a par- ticular class of cases, threatens the separa- American Humanists Association. today: liberal, rogue, unelected, life- tion of powers established by the Constitu- American Jewish Committee. time appointed activist judges. But tion, and undermines the unique function of Americans for Democratic Action. they made the right decisions in those the federal courts to interpret constitutional Americans United for Separation of Church cases. The truth is that we rely on Fed- law. This legislation deprives the federal and State. eral courts to determine and enforce courts of the ability to hear cases involving Anti-Defamation League. our constitutional rights. religious and free speech rights of students, Baptist Joint Committee. parents, and other individuals. The denial of Buddhist Peace Fellowship. America is more politically and reli- Central Conference of American Rabbis. giously diverse than it was in 1943, but a federal forum to plaintiffs to vindicate their constitutional rights would force plain- Disciples Justice Action Network (Disci- instead of embracing that diversity, tiffs out of federal courts, which are specifi- ples of Christ). this bill would jeopardize our funda- cally suited for the vindication of federal in- Equal Partners in Faith. mental rights. We should instead ad- terests, and into state courts, which may be Federation of Jain Associations in North here to the wisdom of the Supreme hostile or unsympathetic to these federal America (JAINA). Court in the Barnette case which said, claims, and which may lack expertise and Friends Committee on National Legisla- and I quote, ‘‘The very purpose of a Bill independent safeguards provided to federal tion. judges under Article III of the Constitution. Human Rights Campaign. of Rights was to withdraw certain sub- Jewish Council For Public Affairs (JCPA). jects from the vicissitudes of political In addition, as drafted, the bill would deny access to the federal courts in cases to en- Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. controversy and place them beyond the force existing constitutional rights for reli- Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal reach of majorities and officials, and to gious minorities. Over sixty years ago, the Defense and Education Fund). establish them as legal principles to be Supreme Court decided the case of West Vir- National Council of Jewish Women. applied by the courts. One’s right to ginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, National Council of Negro Women, Inc. life, liberty and property, to free 319 U.S. 624 (1943). In Barnette, the Supreme National Family Planning and Reproduc- speech, a free press, freedom of worship Court struck down a West Virginia law that tive Health Association (NFPRHA). mandated schoolchildren to recite the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. and assembly, and other fundamental People For the American Way. rights may not be submitted to vote; Pledge of Allegiance. Under the West Vir- ginia law, religious minorities faced expul- Secular Coalition for America. they depend on the outcome of no elec- sion from school and could be subject to Sikh Coalition. tions.’’ prosecution and fined, if convicted of vio- The Interfaith Alliance. Mr. Chairman, there are numerous lating the statute’s provisions. In striking The Workmen’s Circle/ Arbeter Ring. legal, civil rights and religious organi- down that statute, the Court reasoned: ‘‘To Union for Reform Judaism. zations opposed to this legislation, in- believe that patriotism will not flourish if Unitarian Universalist Association of Con- cluding the American Bar Association, patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spon- gregations. Woodhull Freedom Federation. the ACLU, the American Jewish Com- taneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal mittee, the Anti-Defamation League, JUNE 9, 2006. the Baptist Joint Committee, the Con- of our institutions to free minds . . . If there is any fixed star in our constitutional con- Oppose the ‘‘Pledge Protection Act,’’ H.R. stitutional Project, the Leadership stellation, it is that no official, high, or 2389. Conference on Civil Rights, Legal Mo- petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, mentum, the National Women’s Law politics, nationalism, religion, or other mat- Washington, DC. Center and People for the American ters of opinion.’’ 319 U.S. at 639–40. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: We, the under- Way. Moreover, a panel of the U.S. Court of Ap- signed organizations dedicated to protecting Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous peals for the Third Circuit, holding unconsti- women’s reproductive health and rights, consent to insert those letters into the tutional two provisions of a Pennsylvania write to urge you to oppose H.R. 2389, the so- law mandating recitation of the Pledge, said, called ‘‘Pledge Protection Act.’’ The implica- RECORD at the appropriate time, and ‘‘It may be useful to note our belief that tions of this bill go far beyond the context of there are other organizations, of most citizens of the United States willingly the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill would set course, that are opposed to the bill. I recite the Pledge of Allegiance and proudly a dangerous precedent that would disrupt urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on sing the national anthem. But the rights em- the traditional separation of powers and un- this legislation. bodied in the Constitution, most particularly dermine the longstanding role of the federal

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5401 judiciary in safeguarding constitutional For decades, the judicial branch has often reach of majorities and officials and to es- rights, including the right of reproductive been the sole protector of the rights of mi- tablish them as legal principles to be applied choice. nority groups against the will of the popular by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and H.R. 2389 would deny all federal courts—in- majority. Any proposal to interfere with this property, to free speech, a free press, free- cluding the U.S. Supreme Court—the juris- role through ‘‘courtstripping’’ proposals dom of worship and assembly, and other fun- diction to hear any cases concerning the in- would set a dangerous precedent that would damental rights may not be submitted to terpretation or constitutionality of the harm all Americans. Allowing the court- vote; they depend on the outcome of no elec- Pledge of Allegiance. The bill would irrep- house doors to be closed to any minority tions.’’ 319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943). arably alter the relationship between the ju- group, as H.R. 2389 would do to religious mi- Moreover, the result of any particular case dicial branch and the two other branches of norities, is not only unnecessary in itself, does not undermine the important role of the the federal government by depriving the fed- but will also set a dangerous precedent that judiciary. The misnamed ‘‘Pledge Protection eral courts of their traditional role as inter- will undermine the rights of other minority Act’’ represents a dangerous attack on our preters of the U.S. Constitution. Even more groups that may need to turn to the courts tradition of religious freedom, on the con- disturbing, unlike other previous versions of for justice. stitutional separation of powers and indeed court-stripping legislation, H.R. 2389 de- Further, H.R. 2389 threatens the separation our system of government. It represents an prives even the U.S. Supreme Court of juris- of powers established by the Constitution, unwarranted attempt to restrict the power diction, divesting the Court of its historical and undermines the unique function of the of the federal judicial system. role as the final authority on the U.S. Con- federal courts to interpret constitutional Whatever the motivation, there is insuffi- stitution. law. It deprives federal courts of the ability cient basis to depart from a long-standing We are deeply concerned about legislation to hear cases involving religious and free congressional custom against using jurisdic- like H.R. 2389 that strips federal courts of speech rights of students, parents, and other tion-stripping to control the federal courts. their important role in safeguarding con- individuals. The denial of a federal forum to Federal judicial review has consistently sup- stitutional rights and freedoms. While the plaintiffs to vindicate their constitutional ported the proper separation of church and target today is a controversial view of the rights would force them out of federal state so vital to all Americans, and we must Pledge of Allegiance and the separation of courts, which are specifically suited to hear trust that the courts will continue to do so. church and state (a view that the Supreme such cases, and into state courts, which may We ask the Judiciary Committee to reject Court has not endorsed), there can be no be hostile or unsympathetic to these federal H.R. 2389. doubt that anti-choice lawmakers and their claims and which may lack the expertise and Sincerely, allies in Congress intend to use this strategy independent safeguards that distinguish Ar- J. BRENT WALKER, to achieve other policy goals that they are ticle III courts. Executive Director. unable to accomplish without toppling the In West Virginia State Board of Education K. HOLLYN HOLLMAN, delicate constitutional balance of powers v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the Supreme General Counsel. that has served this country for more than Court recognized the importance of pro- 200 years. In the past, Republican leadership tecting the religious beliefs of all Americans, UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST has discussed ‘‘jurisdiction stripping’’ meas- by striking down a West Virginia law that ASSOCIATION OF CONGREGATIONS, ures to achieve other social policy goals. required schoolchildren to recite the Pledge Washington, DC, June 6, 2006. While they have claimed that the time is of Allegiance. The Court reasoned: ‘‘To be- DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of more ‘‘not quite ripe’’ to apply this legislative tac- lieve that patriotism will not flourish if pa- than 1,050 congregations that make up the tic to the issue of abortion, in fact, anti- triotic ceremonies are voluntary and sponta- Unitarian Universalist Association, I urge choice lawmakers have already made the at- neous instead of a compulsory routine is to you to oppose H.R. 2389, the ‘‘Pledge Protec- tempt—in 2002, when considering the Federal make an unflattering estimate of the appeal tion Act’’. As a tradition with a deep com- Abortion Ban. Although that particular ef- of our institutions to free minds.’’ H.R. 2389 mitment to religious pluralism, we believe fort failed, passage of H.R. 2389 would set a would slam the federal courthouse doors to that this legislation would seriously under- dangerous precedent for future attempts to all religious minorities trying to do nothing mine the First Amendment protections of strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear more than vindicate a fundamental, existing the Constitution, and particularly the rights cases regarding reproductive choice. The fed- constitutional right that they have had for of religious minorities, by stripping federal eral courthouse doors should not be closed to over 60 years. courts, including the Supreme Court, of ju- women seeking to vindicate their right to LCCR urges you to vote against H.R. 2389 risdiction over cases concerning the Pledge obtain critical reproductive health services. because of the dangers it poses to constitu- of Allegiance. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose tional protections and to the enforcement of In resolutions dating back to 1961, the H.R. 2389. civil rights laws. If you have any questions, highest policy-making body of the Unitarian Sincerely, please feel free to contact Rob Randhava, Universalist Association has repeatedly af- Center for Reproductive Rights. LCCR Counsel or Nancy Zirkin, LCCR Dep- firmed the right of all Americans to reli- Choice USA. uty Director. Thank you for your consider- gious freedom, including the right of reli- Feminist Majority. ation. gious minorities in public schools to not re- Legal Momentum. Sincerely, cite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme NARAL Pro-Choice America. WADE HENDERSON, Court has agreed in the case of West Virginia National Abortion Federation. Executive Director. State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 National Council of Jewish Women. NANCY ZIRKIN, U.S. 624 (1943) that the Pledge cannot be National Family Planning and Reproduc- Deputy Director. mandatory for public school students. tive Health Association. Despite the Barnette ruling, we know from National Organization for Women. BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE experience that the practice of mandatory National Partnership for Women & Fami- FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, recitation continues. By eliminating the lies. Washington, DC, June 6, 2006. mechanism for religious minorities to seek National Women’s Law Center. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: The Baptist Joint relief from this practice through appeals to a Planned Parenthood Federation of Amer- Committee (BJC) urges members of the Judi- federal court, H.R. 2389 would have the prac- ica. ciary Committee to vote no on H.R. 2389, the tical effect of all but eliminating the right Sexuality Information and Education so-called ‘‘Pledge Protection Act,’’ when itself. As a result, we believe that this legis- Council of the U.S. (SIECUS). considered during markup tomorrow. The lation will seriously harm religious minori- BJC is a 70–year-old organization committed ties and the constitutional free speech rights LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE to the principle that religion must be freely of countless parents and children, many of ON CIVIL RIGHTS, exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by whom are members of Unitarian Universalist Washington, DC, June 7, 2006. government. We oppose any legislation that congregations and are involved in our reli- Re Oppose the ‘‘Pledge Protection Act of seeks to strip the federal courts of their fun- gious education programs. 2005’’ (H.R. 2389): It Threatens Constitu- damental role in protecting individual lib- By undermining the power of federal tional Protections and Civil Rights. erties. courts to protect constitutional rights af- DEAR JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBER: On The existence of an independent judiciary, firmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, we be- behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil free from political or public pressure, has lieve that H.R. 2389 would weaken the sepa- Rights (LCCR), the nation’s oldest, largest, been essential to our Nation’s success in pro- ration of powers in a way that we find deeply and most diverse civil rights coalition, we tecting religious liberty for all Americans. troubling. urge you to vote against H.R. 2389, the Indeed, the role of the federal courts has The congregations of the Unitarian Univer- ‘‘Pledge Protection Act of 2005.’’ LCCR long been recognized as essential in the bat- salist Association collectively affirm and strongly opposes any proposal that would tle for full religious liberty. As Justice Jack- promote the right of conscience and the use eliminate access to the federal judiciary for son stated in the case of West Virginia State of the democratic process in society at large. any group of Americans. H.R. 2389 would do Board of Education v. Barnett: ‘‘The very We are committed to the ideals of the found- just that: it would deny constitutional rights purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw ers of this nation, including religious liberty to religious minorities by stripping the certain subjects from the vicissitudes of po- and religious pluralism, as well as the bal- courts of jurisdiction to hear some cases. litical controversy, to place them beyond the ance of powers that protects such rights.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5402 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006

I urge you to preserve the rights of reli- NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, cases involving mandatory recitation of the gious minorities, as well as the constitu- New York, NY, June 6, 2006. Pledge. As a result, this legislation will seri- tional separation of powers, by opposing the Hon. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, ously undermine constitutional guarantees ‘‘Pledge Protection Act.’’ Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, of freedom of speech and religion. Coercing In Faith, Washington, DC. students to say the Pledge of Allegiance is ROBERT C. KEITHAN, DEAR CHAIRMAN SENSENBRENNER: I am contradictory to the very principles of con- Director. writing on behalf of the 90,000 members and science which both our Constitution and the supporters of the National Council of Jewish Pledge of Allegiance itself represent. Stu- Women (NCJW) in opposition to the ‘‘Pledge dents’ First Amendment rights were pro- RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER Protection Act of 2005’’ (H.R. 2389) which tected in the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark OF REFORM JUDAISM, would strip all federal courts, including the decision in West Virginia State Board of Washington, DC, June 6, 2006. Supreme Court, from hearing First Amend- Education v. Barnett, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the ment challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance (striking down a West Virginia law that Union for Reform Judaism, whose more than and from enforcing longstanding constitu- mandated schoolchildren to recite the 900 congregations across North America en- tional rights in federal court. Pledge of Allegiance), and, more recently, in compass 1.5 million Reform Jews, and the NCJW is a volunteer organization, inspired the decision of a federal appellate court in Central Conference of American Rabbis by Jewish values, that works to improve the Circle School v. Pappert, 381 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. (CCAR), whose membership includes more quality of life for women, children, and fami- 2004) (holding that a Pennsylvania law man- than 1,800 Reform rabbis, I ask you to oppose lies and to ensure individual rights and free- dating the recitation of the Pledge, even H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act, when it doms for all. As such we must oppose the when it provided a religious exception, vio- is marked up by the House Judiciary Com- passage of any legislation that threatens re- lated the Constitution because it violated mittee tomorrow. ligious liberty and an individual’s access to the free speech of the students). H.R. 2389 contradicts these significant decisions by re- As you know, the bill would strip federal the judicial process. This bill threatens the separation of pow- moving from the federal courts the jurisdic- courts, including the Supreme Court, of their ers that is a founding principle of our nation tion to hear these types of cases. authority to hear First Amendment cases For all of these reasons, the American and a key source of our liberties. In addition, pertaining to the Pledge of Allegiance. By Jewish Committee urges you to vote against it would impose religious and ideological supporting this legislation, you risk compro- this misguided and unwise legislation. conformity regardless of individual con- mising the traditional—and vital—system of Thank you for your consideration of our science, by preventing dissenting voices from checks and balances upon which our govern- views on this important matter. appealing to the courts. ment was founded. In addition, the bill Respectfully, This attempt to restrict access to the threatens the ability of members of religious RICHARD T. FOLTIN, courts is part of a larger campaign to roll minorities to seek the protection of the fed- Legislative Director and Counsel. back political and religious freedom by crip- eral courts in cases where they feel coerced pling the ability of the judicial branch of into reciting the Pledge. THE INTERFAITH ALLIANCE, government to defend civil and individual Washington, DC, June 9, 2006. What this legislation places at stake is rights. If this bill moves forward, it would DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: As the president of nothing less than the principle of the separa- undermine constitutional rights and the ju- the Interfaith Alliance, I am writing to urge tion of powers that has allowed our nation to diciary. you vote ‘‘No’’ on passage of the ‘‘Pledge flourish for more than two centuries. Ameri- As Jews, we know that the power of the Protection Act’’ (H.R. 2389). The Interfaith cans of all religious backgrounds, and of majority can become the tyranny of the ma- Alliance is a nonpartisan, clergy-led organi- none, hold differing views about the inclu- jority if left unchecked. H.R. 2389 would un- zation that represents over 150,000 members. sion of the phrase ‘‘under God’’ in the Pledge dermine the longstanding constitutional We are committed to promoting the positive of Allegiance. The Movement I have the rights of religious minorities to seek redress and healing role of religion in public life and honor of representing, for example, took no in the federal courts in cases involving man- challenging those who employ religion to position when the Supreme Court heard a datory recitation of the Pledge. promote intolerance. case concerning the Pledge two years ago. Sincerely, If passed, H.R. 2389 would strip all federal Yet H.R. 2389 is not about that contentious PHYLLIS SNYDER, courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, issue. By removing cases involving the President. from hearing any cases that have to deal Pledge from the jurisdiction of the federal with the Pledge of Allegiance. The Interfaith courts, Congress would undermine the abil- THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE, Alliance has not taken a position either for ity of those courts to interpret constitu- Washington, DC, June 7, 2006. or against the inclusion of the phrase ‘‘under tional law, the very core of the courts’ func- Re Pledge Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 2389). God’’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. We will ad- tions. Plaintiffs seeking to have their federal DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the vocate, however, for the right of any person rights upheld should not be forced to defend American Jewish Committee, the nation’s of faith or of no faith at all to receive a fair those rights in state courts. oldest human relations organization with hearing by the federal courts if they feel over 150,000 members and supporters rep- their Constitutional rights have been vio- In addition, H.R. 2389 threatens the rights lated by this or any other imposition of sec- of members of religious minorities, such as resented by 33 regional offices nationwide, I urge you to oppose the Pledge Protection tarian religious references in public places. Mennonites, Buddhists, and others who in No citizen’s rights or opportunities should the past have been adversely affected by Act of 2005 (H.R. 2389). While AJC has not taken a position on the depend on religious beliefs or practices. being forced to recite the Pledge in violation This bill is not only an assault on the free- constitutionality of including ‘‘under God’’ of Supreme Court rulings. Were H.R. 2389 to dom of conscience guaranteed by our Con- in the Pledge of Allegiance, we believe that become law, elementary school students who stitution; it also undermines the federal the federal courts must be available to hear are punished for declining to participate in courts’ role of providing access to justice to cases in which individuals contend that their the recitation of the Pledge based on their those who are in the religious minority and First Amendment rights have been violated. religious teachings would not be able to have those in religious majorities who believe H.R. 2389 would strip all federal courts, in- their rights upheld in federal court. Under that religious choices should be couched in cluding the Supreme Court, of the jurisdic- H.R. 2389 as currently drafted, even the Su- freedom and never imposed by law. If passed, tion to hear First Amendment challenges to preme Court would not be allowed to hear H.R. 2389 would slam the courthouse door the Pledge. This legislation threatens the the case and uphold the child’s rights. As a and reduce the phrase ‘‘Equal Justice under separation of powers that is a fundamental people who have long known the dangers in- Law’’ to just a hollow phrase above a court- aspect of our constitutional structure and herent in limiting the protections afforded house that is off-limits to those who fall out- has potentially severe constitutional impli- religious minorities, we are particularly sen- side of the Judeo-Christian tradition. cations for religious minorities and others sitive to this effort to restrict courts from It is time for congress to stop trying to who are adversely affected when the govern- protecting such minorities. curtail the power of the federal judiciary, a ment impermissibly seeks to mandate the fundamental component of our nation’s sys- The dangers of Congressional tampering recitation of the Pledge. tem of checks and balances. The efforts to with the jurisdiction of the federal courts Furthermore, this legislation would under- prevent the courts from hearing cases on gay and restricting their ability to uphold the mine public confidence in the federal courts, marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance, rights of religious minorities could not be threaten the legitimacy of future congres- among others, appear to be nothing more graver. The very values upon which our na- sional action by removing the federal courts than an attempt to pander to a political tion was founded—separation of powers and as a neutral arbiter, and reject the unifying base. religious liberty—are threatened by H.R. function of the federal judiciary by denying Americans of all faiths—Buddhists, Hin- 2389. I strongly urge you to oppose this per- federal courts the opportunity to interpret dus, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and Jews— ilous legislation. the law. and those who profess no faith—must have Sincerely, Finally, as drafted, the bill would deny ac- the right to practice their religions and raise MARK J. PELAVIN, cess to the federal courts—even the Supreme challenges when they feel that there is a spe- Associate Director. Court—when individuals seek redress in cific violation of the clause in the First

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5403 Amendment which guarantees that ‘‘Con- ing legislation that restricts court jurisdic- self-restraint and instead choose short-term gress shall make no law respecting an estab- tion over particular types of cases. political gain at the expense of judicial inde- lishment of religion.’’ How strange the times 4. Legislatures should refrain from re- pendence. The independence of our judiciary when the democratic process founded to pro- stricting access to the courts and should is, as Chief Justice Rehnquist described, tect the rights of minorities is being used to take necessary affirmative steps to ensure ‘‘one of the crown jewels of our system of jeopardize or abolish the rights of minorities adequate access to the courts for all Ameri- government.’’ in the name of religion. cans. Although this legislation most directly af- Specifically, our Task Force was unani- In conclusion, while Article III of our Con- fects those who do not adhere to the main- mous in its view that there are some con- stitution gives Congress the power to regu- line religious traditions in our nation, in stitutional limits on the authority the legis- late federal court jurisdiction, this power is truth it diminishes any of us who see reli- lature to restrict court jurisdiction in an ef- not unlimited, and Congress should not—and gious liberty as a non-negotiable part of our fort to control substantive judicial decisions. in some instances may not —use its power to American democracy. H.R. 2389 is bad for the In particular, separation of powers, due proc- restrict federal court jurisdiction in ways Constitution. It is bad for religion. ess, and other constitutional provisions limit that infringe upon separation of powers, vio- If there is anything that we at The Inter- such authority. Task Force members had dif- late individual rights and equal protection, faith Alliance can do to assist you in this fering views about the scope and source of or offend federalism. H.R. 2028 is poised to do important matter, please do not hesitate to the constitutional limit on the legislature’s all three by stripping federal courts—includ- contact Preetmohan Singh, Senior Policy power in this area. For instance, some be- ing even the U.S. Supreme Court—of the au- Analyst. lieved that restrictions on jurisdiction be- thority to hear cases involving the Pledge of Sincerely, come unconstitutional when they undermine Allegiance, even when such cases involve Rev. Dr. C. WELTON GADDY, the essential role of the Supreme Court. Oth- First Amendment issues of free speech and President, The Interfaith Alliance, Pastor of ers relied on a reading of the Vesting Clause freedom of religion. It sets the dangerous Preaching and Worship, North Minister of Article III, which places judicial power— precedent of transferring questions of federal Baptist Church (Monroe, LA). the power to decide cases—in the hands of and constitutional law exclusively to state the courts alone. Nonetheless, all believed courts and preventing American citizens THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT, that constitutional limitations exist. Washington, DC, September 21, 2004. Apart from the constitutionality of laws from seeking protection of fundamental HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, restricting federal court jurisdiction, the rights in federal court, and it threatens the The Capitol, Task Force was also unanimous in its view critical and unique role that the federal Washington, DC. that legislative acts stripping courts of juris- courts play in constitutional balance of pow- DEAR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REP- diction to hear particular types of cases in ers, interpreting and enforcing constitu- RESENTATIVES: I write on behalf of the Con- an effort to control substantive judicial deci- tional law, and providing legal certainty. stitution Project to urge you to oppose H.R. sions are undesirable and inappropriate in a For these reasons, as well as those detailed 2028, the ‘‘Pledge Protection Act of 2003.’’ democratic system with co-equal branches of our Task Force’s findings and recommenda- The Constitution Project, based at George- government. Legislative restriction of juris- town University’s Public Policy Institute, tions, the Constitution Project urges you to diction in response to particular substantive oppose H.R. 2028. Thank you for your consid- specializes in creating bipartisan consensus decisions unduly politicizes the judicial eration. on a variety of legal and governance issues, process, and attempts by legislatures to af- Sincerely, and promoting that consensus to policy- fect substantive outcomes by curtailing judi- KATHRYN A. MONROE, makers, opinion leaders, the media, and the cial jurisdiction are inappropriate, even if Director, Courts Initiative. public. We have initiatives on the death pen- believed constitutional. (Indeed, it was strik- alty, liberty and national security, war pow- ing that members reflecting a broad ideolog- ers, and judicial independence (our Courts ical range—from, for example, Leonard Leo AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Initiative), among others. Each of our initia- of the Federalist Society to Steven Shapiro Washington, DC, July 18, 2006. tives is directed by a bipartisan committee of the American Civil Liberties Union— Re H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of of prominent and influential businesspeople, agreed that restrictions on jurisdiction to 2005. scholars, and former public officials. achieve substantive changes in the law are Our Courts Initiative works to promote DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: We understand unwise and undesirable policy.) public education on the importance of our The Task Force was also unanimous that that the House is scheduled to consider H.R. courts as protectors of Americans’ essential legislation that restricts access to the courts 2389 tomorrow. We are writing to express our constitutional freedoms. Its co-chairs are the and precludes individuals from using a judi- opposition to this legislation, which would Honorable Mickey Edwards, John Quincy cial forum to enforce rights is undesirable strip from all federal courts jurisdiction to Adams Lecturer at the John F. Kennedy and unconstitutional. Rights are meaning- hear constitutional challenges to the inter- School of Government at Harvard University less without a forum in which they can be pretation of, or the validity of, the Pledge of and former chair of the House of Representa- vindicated. Therefore, access to the courts at Allegiance. tives Republican Policy Committee (R–OK), both the federal and state levels is essential and the Honorable Lloyd Cutler, a prominent Our views on H.R. 2389 are informed by our in order for rights to have effect. Legisla- Washington lawyer and White House counsel long-standing opposition to legislative cur- tures have the duty to ensure meaningful ac- to Presidents Carter and Clinton. tailment of the jurisdiction of the Supreme In 2000, the Courts Initiative created a bi- cess to the courts and legislative actions Court of the United States and the inferior that preclude this are undesirable and un- partisan Task Force to examine and identify federal courts for the purpose of effecting basic principles as to when the legislature constitutional. Our Task Force reached these conclusions changes in constitutional law. The ABA has acts unconstitutionally in setting the powers taken no position on the underlying issues and jurisdiction of the judiciary. The Task and recommendations rightly. From its be- ginning, our system of constitutional democ- regarding recitation of the Pledge of Alle- Force was unanimous in its conclusion that giance in public schools; instead, our strong some legislative acts restricting courts’ pow- racy has depended on the independence of the judiciary. Judges are able to protect citi- opposition to H.R. 2389 and other pending ers and jurisdiction are unconstitutional. legislation that would strip the federal The Task Force also concluded that some zens’ basic rights and decide cases fairly only courts of jurisdiction to hear selected types legislative actions, even if constitutional, if free to make decisions according to the of constitutional cases is based on our con- are undesirable. (The Task Force’s findings law, without regard to political or public cern for the integrity of our system of gov- and recommendations are published in Un- pressure. Similarly, the judiciary can main- certain Justice: Politics and America’s tain the checks and balances essential to ernment. Courts 2000.) preserving a healthy separation of powers This legislation would authorize Congress Our Task Force arrived at seven bipartisan only if able to resist overreaching by the po- to use its regulatory power over federal ju- consensus recommendations, including the litical branches. Indeed, the cornerstone of risdiction to advance a particular legislative American liberty is the power of the courts following, which are relevant to the legisla- outcome by insulating it from constitutional to protect individual rights from momentary tion at hand: scrutiny by the federal judiciary. In addition excesses of political and popular majorities. 1. Congress and state legislatures should to being constitutionally suspect, this legis- heed constitutional limits when considering In recent years, as part of the polarization lation would establish a dangerous precedent proposals to restrict the powers and jurisdic- and posturing that increasingly characterize if enacted. As a matter of policy, Congress tion of the courts. our national and state politics, threats to ju- 2. Legislatures should refrain from re- dicial independence have become more com- should not jettison our foundational prin- stricting court jurisdiction in an effort to monplace. Attacks on judges for unpopular ciples because of current dissatisfaction with control substantive judicial decisions in a decisions, even those made in good faith, a controversial decision of the Supreme manner that violates separation of powers, have become more rampant. Politicians are Court or lower federal courts by perma- due process, or other constitutional prin- responding to unpopular decisions and liti- nently stripping the jurisdiction of the fed- ciples. gants by attempting to restrict courts’ pow- eral courts to hear certain categories of 3. Legislatures should not attempt to con- ers in certain kinds of cases. However, Amer- cases. Rather than strengthening its legisla- trol substantive judicial decisions by enact- icans have much to lose if we do not exercise tive role, Congress, by pressing its own

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5404 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006 checking power to the extreme, imperils the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over the very Please do not hesitate to contact Terri entire system of separated powers. sort of claim they were established to hear— Schroeder at (202) 675–2324 if you have any If enacted, H.R. 2389 would restrict the role governmental conduct that violates a con- questions. of the federal courts in our system of checks stitutional right—is an extreme attack on Sincerely, and balances and thereby limit the ability of the role of federal courts in our system of CAROLINE FREDRICKSON, the federal courts to protect the constitu- checks and balances. It strikes at the very Director. tional rights of all Americans. Indeed, this intent of the Founders. TERRI A. SCHROEDER, legislation would leave the state courts as While the supporters of this bill see it as Legislative Analyst. the final arbiters of federal constitutional an appropriate response to recent court deci- law, creating the possibility that some state sions that they dislike concerning the words AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION judges might choose not to follow Supreme ‘‘under God’’ in the Pledge, the impact of OF CHURCH AND STATE, Court precedents. Because the legislation H.R. 2389 would NOT be limited merely to Washington, DC, June 7, 2006. would nullify the Supremacy Clause in cer- that issue. This bill would remove jurisdic- Reject Efforts to Slam Federal Courthouse tain classes of cases, the Constitution could tion over ALL constitutional claims, related Doors on Religious Minorities and Vote mean something different from state to to the pledge, from ALL federal courts. This ‘‘No’’ on H.R. 2389 state; and, contrary to the expressed inten- could potentially undermine decades of well- DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: Americans United tions of the Framers, our fundamental rights established Supreme Court precedents by de- for Separation of Church and State urges and the balance of power among the nying access to the federal courts in cases you to vote ‘‘No’’ on passage of H.R. 2389, the branches would be subject to evanescent ma- brought to enforce existing constitutional ‘‘Pledge Protection Act,’’ which is being jority opinion. rights for religious minorities. For example, marked up by the House Judiciary Com- At a time when Congress is accusing the over sixty years ago, the Supreme Court de- mittee this week. Americans United rep- federal courts of overstepping their constitu- cided the case of West Virginia State Board resents more than 75,000 individual members tional role and calling for judicial restraint, of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). throughout the fifty states and in the Dis- we urge you to likewise exercise legislative In Barnette, the Supreme Court struck down trict of Columbia, as well as cooperating restraint and demonstrate your continued a West Virginia law that mandated school- houses of worship and other religious bodies commitment to the doctrine of separation of children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. committed to the preservation of religious powers and a government composed of sepa- Under the West Virginia law, religious mi- liberty. H.R. 2389 is an extreme and unwise rate but coequal branches by voting to de- norities faced expulsion from school and proposal that will undermine the crucial sep- feat passage of H.R. 2389. could be subject to prosecution and fined, if aration of powers at the heart of our govern- If you have any questions regarding our convicted of violating the statute’s provi- ment and deny religious minorities from position, please have your staff contact sions. In striking down that statute, the seeking enforcement of their longstanding Denise Cardman, Deputy Director of the Court reasoned: ‘‘To believe that patriotism constitutional rights in the federal courts. Governmental Affairs Office. will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are H.R. 2389 would deprive all federal courts— Sincerely, voluntary and spontaneous instead of a com- including the U.S. Supreme Court—of their pulsory routine is to make an unflattering ROBERT D. EVANS ability to hear cases involving the Pledge of estimate of the appeal of our institutions to Allegiance and to enforce longstanding con- free minds * * *. If there is any fixed star in AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, stitutional rights against coerced recitation our constitutional constellation, it is that Washington, DC, June 6, 2006. of the Pledge. Americans United firmly be- no official, high or petty can prescribe what Re Don’t Shut the Federal Courthouse Doors lieves that the text, history and structure of shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, to Religious Minorities; Oppose H.R. 2389 the Constitution, together with important religion, or other matters of opinion.’’ 319 policy considerations, should lead the Judi- DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: The American Civil U.S. at 639–40. ciary Committee to soundly defeat this dan- Liberties Union strongly urges you to oppose In 2004, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals gerous and misguided bill, as well as any H.R. 2389, ‘‘the Pledge Protection Act of for the Third Circuit held that a Pennsyl- other court-stripping proposal. 2005.’’ H.R. 2389 is an extreme measure that vania law mandating recitation of the THE PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT IS would remove jurisdiction from all federal Pledge, even when it provided a religious ex- UNCONSTITUTIONAL courts, including the Supreme Court, over ception, violated the Constitution because it any constitutional claim involving the violated the free speech rights of the stu- Article III, Section I of the United States Pledge of Allegiance or its recitation. dents. Circle School v. Pappert, 381 F.3d 172 Constitution creates the Supreme Court and H.R. 2389 would slam shut the federal court (3d Cir. 2004). In Pappert, the court found provides the Congress with the power to es- house doors to religious minorities, parents, that: ‘‘It may be useful to note our belief tablish ‘‘such inferior Courts as the Congress schoolchildren and others who seek nothing that most citizens of the United States will- may from time to time establish.’’ Section 2 more than to have their religious and free ingly recite the Pledge of Allegiance and of Article III delineates sets of cases that the speech claims heard before the courts most proudly sing the national anthem. But the federal courts may hear, provides for areas of uniquely suited to entertain such claims. rights embodied in the Constitution, particu- original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Further, by entirely stripping all federal larly the First Amendment, protect the mi- Court, and also provides for the appellate ju- courts of jurisdiction over a particular class nority—those persons who march to their risdiction of the Supreme Court in other of cases, H.R. 2389 raises serious legal con- own drummers. It is they who need the pro- areas ‘‘with such Exceptions, and under such cerns, violating principles of separation of tection afforded by the Constitution and it is Regulations as the Congress shall make.’’ Under Section 2, Congress may have some powers, equal protection and due process. the responsibility of federal judges to ensure degree of authority to limit the Supreme The bill undermines public confidence in the that protection.’’ Pappert, 381 F.3d at 183. federal courts by expressing outright hos- First comes marriage then comes the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, as well as the tility toward them, threatens the legitimacy Pledge . . . Where will it end? Passage of jurisdiction of lower federal courts. Al- of future congressional action by removing H.R. 2389 would set a dangerous precedent for though the extent of this congressional au- the federal courts as a neutral arbiter, and responses by Members of Congress to court thority is in dispute and has been the subject rejects the unifying function of the federal decisions with which they disagree. In the of academic commentary over the years, judiciary by denying federal courts the op- 109th Congress alone, Congress is considering there are clear limits to this authority—and portunity to interpret the law. H.R. 2389 court-stripping legislation related to the these limits are also found in the Constitu- would deny the U.S. Supreme Court its his- Pledge of Allegiance, marriage, govern- tion. With the Pledge Protection Act, Con- torical role as the final authority on resolv- mental acknowledgement of God, and im- gress makes its limited—and disputed— ing differing interpretations of federal con- peachment of judges for considering certain power in Section 2 more important than the stitutional rights. As a result, each of the 50 religion cases. fundamental due process rights of citizens state supreme courts would be a final au- Over the years, Congress has considered and the fundamental notion of separation of thority on these federal constitutional ques- legislation designed to strip court jurisdic- powers underlying our government. tions. This would potentially create a situa- tion on the issues such as public school bus- THE PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT WOULD VIOLATE tion where we could have as many as 50 dif- ing, voluntary prayer and abortion. Fortu- DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND UNDERMINE THE ferent interpretations of any relevant federal nately, none of those proposals was adopted SEPARATION OF POWERS constitutional question. by Congress because legislators understood Basic due process demands an independent It is in apparent recognition of many of that setting a precedent for stripping the judicial forum capable of determining federal these concerns that no federal bill with- courts of their jurisdiction over a particular constitutional rights. This legislation de- drawing federal jurisdiction in cases involv- issue might, in the future, be used by some prives the federal courts of the ability to ing fundamental constitutional rights has other group of advocates, when in the major- hear cases involving fundamental free exer- become law since the Reconstruction period. ity, to establish its views as the law of the cise and free speech rights of students, par- Federal courts were established to interpret land, safely out of the reach of the courts. ents, and other individuals. Congress’ denial federal law and to ensure that the states and We urge members of this Committee to op- of a federal forum to plaintiffs in a specified the government did not violate the protec- pose passage of H.R. 2389 and not to abandon class of cases would force plaintiffs out of tions in the federal constitution. An effort to this tradition of thoughtfulness and re- federal courts, which are specially suited for deny the federal courts, particularly the U.S. straint. the vindication of federal interests, and into

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5405 state courts, which may be hostile or unsym- the responsibility of federal judges to ensure ‘‘Nor does it seem likely that the [Con- pathetic to federal claims, and which may that protection.’’ Circle School v. Pappert, stitutional] Convention would have devel- lack expertise and independent safeguards 381 F.3d 172, 183 (3d Cir. 2004). oped the Exceptions Clause as a check on the provided to federal judges under Article III The Pledge Protection Act is an attack on Supreme Court in such a manner that an ex- of the Constitution. It is in apparent rec- our very system of government. Americans ercise of power under the Clause to remove ognition of this concern that no federal bill United strongly urges you to leave the inde- Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction would withdrawing federal jurisdiction over cases pendence of the federal judiciary in tact, . . . vest [the power] in the state courts. involving fundamental constitutional rights protect longstanding constitutional rights of Hamilton regarded even the possibility of with respect to a particular substantive area religious minorities in the federal courts, multiple courts of final jurisdiction as unac- has become law in decades. and respect free speech rights of countless ceptable.’’ Political frustration with controversial individuals by rejecting this misguided legis- In addition, H.R. 2389 expressly sets the court decisions during the second half of the lation. precedent for future Congresses to com- twentieth century provoked Congress to pro- If you have any questions regarding this pletely bar U.S. citizens from raising any ju- pose a number of court-stripping measures legislation or would like further information dicial challenge to federal action. State designed to overturn court decisions touch- on any other issues of importance to Ameri- courts can only assert jurisdiction over the cans United, please do not hesitate to con- ing on a wide variety of issues, including: federal government if it consents to be sued. tact Aaron D. Schuham, Legislative Direc- anti-subversive statutes, apportionment in Failing that consent, individuals would be tor, at (202) 466–3234, extension 240. state legislatures, ‘‘Miranda’’ warnings, bus- left without recourse to unconstitutional ac- Sincerely, ing, school prayer, abortion, racial integra- tions of the Congress or the executive REV. BARRY W. LYNN, tion, and composition of the armed services. branch. Unreviewable federal power to in- Executive Director. All of these measures failed to pass Congress. fringe on fundamental individual rights of In each instance, bipartisan concerns over American citizens is alien to our republic. PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY, threats to the American system of govern- Finally, H.R. 2389 threatens to disrupt the Washington, DC, June 7, 2006. ment and constitutional order gave way to a framework of checks and balances on govern- House of Representatives, recognition of these court-stripping meas- mental power embodied in the U.S. Constitu- Washington, DC. tion through the separation of powers by set- ures for what they truly were: attempts to DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBER: On behalf of the circumvent the careful process required for ting the precedent for Congress to remove more than 900,000 members and activists of legislation from constitutional review by the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As People For the American Way, we write to judicial branch. For all practical purposes, Professor Michael J. Gerhardt stated in his urge you to oppose H.R. 2389, the ‘‘Pledge Congress could become the sole arbiter of testimony regarding the ‘‘Constitution Res- Protection Act of 2005,’’ when it comes be- constitutionality on any subject within its toration Act of 2004’’ before the Sub- fore the Committee today, June 7. This legis- powers—or indeed outside its powers since it committee on Courts on September 13, 2004: lation would violate the First Amendment, could legislate away any challenge to con- ‘‘Efforts, taken in response to or retaliation and would set a terrible precedent against gressional interpretation of its own author- against judicial decisions, to withdraw all the separation of powers embodied in our ity. Litigation over the meaning of Article federal jurisdiction or even jurisdiction of Constitution that protects the fundamental III, a necessary part of the inevitable court inferior federal courts on questions of con- rights of all Americans. stitutional law are transparent attempts to H.R. 2389 would eliminate any role for the challenge to H.R. 2389, could in of itself re- influence, or displace, substantive judicial federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme sult in a constitutional crisis deeply dam- outcomes. For several decades, the Congress, Court, in challenges concerning the constitu- aging to the separation of powers. for good reason, has refrained from enacting tionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. This H.R. 2389 would set a terrible precedent for such laws.’’ Like so many failed court-strip- would have an immediate and dramatic im- separation of powers and protection of indi- ping measures that have come before it, the pact on the ability of individual Americans vidual rights. We urge you to reject the Pledge Protection Act represents yet an- to be free from government-coerced speech premise that Congress is above the Constitu- other illegitimate short cut to amending the or religious expression. For example, this tion and vote no on this legislation. Constitution, is against the weight of his- legislation would bar the federal courts from Sincerely, tory, and must fail. enforcing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1943 deci- RALPH G. NEAS, President. THE PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT IS EXTREME, sion in West Virginia State Board of Edu- TANYA CLAY, UNWISE, AND REPRESENTS MISGUIDED POLICY cation v. Barnette, which barred a local Director, Public Policy. As drafted, the bill would slam the court- school district from forcing children to re- cite the Pledge of Allegiance over their reli- house doors to religious minorities trying to SECULAR COALITION FOR AMERICA, gain protection for their fundamental con- gious objections. Apart from being unwise as a matter of Washington, DC, June 9, 2006. stitutional religious and free speech rights. policy, H.R. 2389 appears to be an unconstitu- DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: The Secular Coali- Over sixty years ago, the Supreme Court de- tional overreach of Congress’ power under tion for America urges you to oppose H.R. cided the case of West Virginia State Board Article III regarding the federal judiciary, 2389, the so-called Pledge Protection Act. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). particularly in light of the Fifth Amend- Passage of this act would curtail the ability In Barnette, the Supreme Court struck down ment’s due process clause and the Four- of the judiciary to make Constitutional de- a West Virginia law that mandated school- teenth Amendment’s equal protection terminations. It would interfere with the children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. clause. Further, it would contradict common current protection of checks and balances Under the West Virginia law, religious mi- sense, and more than 200 years of constitu- provided by having three independent norities faced expulsion from school and tional history, to allow Congress to cir- branches of government. could be subject to prosecution and fined, if cumvent the words ‘‘Congress shall make no It is up to the U.S. Senate to approve or convicted of violating the statute’s provi- law’’ by eliminating effective enforcement of disapprove of federal judges. Thus the elect- sions. In striking down that statute, the the First Amendment by the courts and the ed legislative body has both the right and Court reasoned: ‘‘To believe that patriotism U.S. Supreme Court. We agree with U.S. Sen- the duty to ensure that our judiciary is of will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are ator Barry Goldwater who stated about a the highest quality. Once they are seated, it voluntary and spontaneous instead of a com- similar attempt to strip federal courts of ju- is essential that the judicial branch main- pulsory routine is to make an unflattering risdiction over fundamental rights more tain its independence. By allowing the judi- estimate of the appeal of our institutions to than twenty four years ago: ‘‘If there is no ciary to be free of political pressures and ma- free minds . . . If there is any fixed star in independent tribunal to check legislative or jority rule, minorities in our nation gain the our constitutional constellation, it is that executive action all the written guarantees protections afforded by the First Amend- no official, high, or petty can prescribe what or rights in the world would amount to noth- ment freedom of religion. This protection shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, ing.’’ has allowed members of minority religions religion, or other matters of opinion.’’ 319 Nor are state courts the appropriate sole (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses) as well as non- U.S. at 639–40. and final venue for enforcement of federal religious Americans to be free of government Moreover, a panel of the U.S. Court of Ap- constitutional rights. Indeed, H.R. 2389 raises required religious exercises. Individuals have peals for the Third Circuit, holding unconsti- the prospect of 50 different interpretations of been free to exercise their own decisions of tutional two provisions of a Pennsylvania the First Amendment. Guarantees of such conscience in public schools and govern- law mandating recitation of the Pledge, said, fundamental rights as freedom of religion, mental bodies. ‘‘It may be useful to note our belief that freedom of speech and freedom from govern- Nontheists oppose the 1954 change to the most citizens of the United States willingly mental religious coercion should not and Pledge of Allegiance, which turned that pa- recite the Pledge of Allegiance and proudly cannot properly be relegated to such juris- triotic exercise into a statement of reli- sing the national anthem. But the rights em- prudential uncertainty. We note that the giously-based division of Americans and used bodied in the Constitution, most particularly Reagan Administration, hardly an opponent religion as a tool for political gain and the- the First Amendment, protect the minor- of federalism, rejected historical and textual ism as a litmus test for patriotism. By in- ity—those persons who march to their own arguments for removing jurisdiction over serting religion into government, Americans drummers. It is they who need the protec- federal constitutional questions to state who do not believe in God are relegated to a tion afforded by the Constitution and it is courts: second-class citizenship. Regardless of

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5406 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006 whether or not individuals support the revi- cess federal courts to challenge a piece of tered: ‘‘For under God, we are deter- sion of the pledge however, it is up to the ju- legislation. mined that wheresoever, whensoever, dicial branch to enforce the Constitution, in- In the past Congress has rejected attempts or howsoever we shall be called to cluding the Bill of Rights. to withdraw controversial issues from the make our exit, we will die free men.’’ Our nation has respected the separation of scope of federal courts and the AHA encour- powers which our founders so wisely created ages you to do so again at this important Our Founding Fathers uttered simi- to prevent anyone branch from gaining too juncture. We urge you to defend due process lar statements time and time again, much power. Congress must not encroach on and separation of powers and vote no on the my colleagues, yet perhaps never more the judiciary’s power to resolve constitu- Pledge Protection Act. eloquently than the Declaration of tional issues. If Congress passes constitu- Sincerely, Independence when even Thomas Jef- tional laws, they should be upheld on judi- MEL LIPMAN, ferson penned the famous lines that cial review. If Congress passes laws deemed AHA President. ‘‘we hold these truths to be self-evi- to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of the Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, yielding dent: that all men are created equal; judiciary to overturn such laws. Without myself 15 seconds, I would like to point such checks and balances, the rights of mi- that they are endowed by the Creator norities guaranteed in the Bill of Rights out that clearly this is in absolute with certain unalienable rights; that would be meaningless; the Constitution agreement with Marbury v. Madison. among these are life, liberty and the could not be enforced; and a tyranny of the Even in that case, the Chief Justice pursuit of happiness.’’ majority would ensue. dismissed cases later when the Federal This same man who first wrote about Passage of HR 2389 creates a slippery slope courts had not been granted jurisdic- separation of church and state also ac- that would leave the judicial branch con- tion. knowledged, ‘‘The God who gave us strained to address only those issues of Granting jurisdiction is the constitu- which Congress approves. Any time the judi- life, gave us liberty at the same time.’’ cial branch makes a decision unpopular with tional job of this body. And so over the years our Nation’s 1 Congress, it could simply pass legislation Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 ⁄2 minutes to leaders have freely expressed their be- taking away the court’s jurisdiction. Passing the gentleman from Florida (Mr. liefs in a higher providence for this this type of court-stripping legislation would STEARNS). country. subvert the will, not only of the people, but (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given In our darkest hour, President Lin- of the founders of our great nation. permission to revise and extend his re- coln during the Civil War and later Sincerely, marks.) President Kennedy during the civil LORI LIPMAN BROWN, Esq., Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rights movement reaffirmed that this Director, Secular Coalition for America. thank my distinguished colleague from Nation was founded under God, and AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, Missouri for yielding me time. that all men and women living here are Washington, DC, June 8, 2006. The question was posed by the gen- entitled by God to equal liberty. Re Oppose H.R. 2389, the ‘‘Pledge Protection Act tleman from New York and others is Even more recently, in the midst of of 2005.’’ this Pledge Protection Act, H.R. 2389, the Cold War, my colleagues, President DEAR REPRESENTATIVE, The American Hu- constitutional? Is the whole concept of Reagan argued that ‘‘freedom prospers manist Association (AHA) stands in opposi- ‘‘under God’’ part of our Pledge con- when religion is vibrant and the rule of tion to H.R. 2389, the ‘‘Pledge Protection Act stitutional? I submit this humble of 2005,’’ which would prevent all federal law under God is acknowledged.’’ courts from hearing cases challenging or in- penny with Abraham Lincoln’s picture So the whole idea of under God has terpreting rights granted by the First on it. Do you know what it says on the been passed on from generation to gen- Amendment as they relate to Pledge of Alle- side? ‘‘In God We Trust.’’ eration. We are blessed by this concept. giance cases. We urge you to vote against Behind the Speaker’s chair, ‘‘In God The Constitution was drafted to guard this bill, which would compromise long held We Trust.’’ our liberties, obviously, our God-given American legal principles of due process and At the Supreme Court they pray liberties, and wisely established a sys- separation of powers by shutting the federal every day, asking for God’s blessing. So tem of checks and balances for our gov- courthouse doors to large numbers of Ameri- Surely when we have a pledge, we cans. ernment structure. Mr. AKIN pointed If passed, the Pledge Protection Act would should be able to use the word ‘‘under these out. The power of Congress to set a dangerous precedent by stripping fed- God.’’ Throughout our history this con- limit jurisdiction of the courts is one eral courts of judicial independence and pav- cept, as the United States being a prov- of those primary checks on the power ing the way to preventing federal judges idential Nation, has been the corner- of the judiciary. So this is all accord- from ruling on other controversial social stone of our success. ing to procedures that our Founding issues from abortion and gun control to Would our Founding Fathers, if they Fathers established. school vouchers and school prayer. As we were here today, decide to take ‘‘under Article III, section 2 grants Congress warned with the Marriage Protection Act of God’’ from the Pledge? I do not think 2005 (H.R. 1100), attempts by Congress to the power to limit the jurisdiction of strip the judiciary of their power to review so. In fact, let’s go and look at what Federal courts. So what we are doing legislation are inequitable and will open the the Founding Fathers talked about. today is according to the Constitution. door to more of the same. If the Pledge Pro- This belief in our Nation being under The Pledge Protection Act invokes tection Act passes it will fuel the fires for God is a central part of our heritage. the constitutional powers and removes similar bills. History bears this out. the Pledge from the jurisdiction of Denying access to the federal court system Even before independence, a central Federal courts. I ask you to support is unacceptable to religious and Humanist theme among all forefathers was that this act. I urge my colleagues for fu- minorities who have a due process right to our liberty flowed from our Creator. have their cases heard. ture generations to acknowledge our The Pledge Protection Act presents a seri- Josiah Quincy was one of these leaders. providential point in history. ous separation of powers concern. Federal Not a lot of people know who he was. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gen- courts are uniquely prepared to interpret He was a charismatic leader in the tleman is commenting and his entire federal constitutional concerns and to serve American Revolution and outstanding speech was about the desirability or as a check on the constitutionality of ac- lawyer. He wrote a series of anonymous the worth of the words ‘‘under God,’’ tions of Congress and the Executive branch. articles for the Boston Gazette in which I think almost everybody agrees That’s why constitutional concerns are which he opposed the Stamp Act and raised when an attempt is made to block the with. The issue in this bill is court- courts from reviewing and interpreting the other British colonial policies. He, stripping. Do we take away from the constitutionality of a single act. along with John Adams, bravely de- courts the right to decide, to protect Congress should not disrupt the balance of fended the British soldiers at a trial for people’s rights? power intended by our Founding Fathers. the Boston Massacre, to show the Mr. Speaker, Mr. STEARNS may be Restricting the federal courts’ ability to pro- world that the colonialists valued the right in everything that he is saying, tect First Amendment rights severely under- rule of law above all. but he does not seem to have the con- mines the American judicial system. In 1774, he was sent as an agent to Humanists are particularly concerned fidence that the courts will agree with about this bill because it would violate judi- argue the colonial cause for independ- him, because if he did, he would not be cial independence in order to undermine ence in England. He perished on the supporting this legislation. American citizens, in this case those of a mi- journey over. Yet, before he left, these Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will nority faith or no religion, the right to ac- are his immortal words that he ut- the gentleman yield?

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5407 Mr. NADLER. I yield myself 10 sec- Virginia school board ruled that way, it violated the 14th amendment of the onds so I can yield to the gentleman the individual’s right to exercise their Constitution, there are many States in from Florida. religious principles by keeping their this country where every State court Mr. STEARNS. Would you agree that skull cap on when they are outside and would have affirmed that separate is we here in Congress can have the right in this public arena is trumped by the equal, is compliant with the 14th in the separation of powers to overrule school board’s policy. amendment, and in many of those the Supreme Court? Should the U.S. Supreme Court be States, the voters in those States Mr. NADLER. To overrule the Su- able to take that case on appeal that would have been quite happy with that preme Court? Certainly we do not have compels a decision that a State court, decision. that. that compels the recitation of the You have eliminated the Supreme Mr. STEARNS. Not to overrule, but Pledge in a way that violates the fun- Court’s ability to review fundamental to pass laws here to check the balance damental free exercise of religion of a decisions involving first amendment of the Supreme Court? student? That is my question. rights. Mr. NADLER. We have the right, but Mr. BLUNT. If my friend is yielding Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will I do not believe we have the right, to me, the principal sponsor of the bill, yield the gentleman 30 seconds, and given the fact that the Bill of Rights Mr. AKIN, has said he would like to re- yield for an answer to how he would postdates the grant of the jurisdiction- spond to that. If that is appropriate, I have prevented, under this bill, all the setting authority in the Constitution, I would like for that to be our response. States from negating the Supreme do not think we have the right to take Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield Court’s Brown v. Board of Education away from the Supreme Court the abil- to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. ruling. ity to protect constitutional rights. AKIN) 1 minute of the remaining time I Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 seconds to have. b 1300 the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, as the gen- SCOTT). tleman made the scenario, let’s assume Mr. AKIN. Well, the situation is that Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair- the bill passes that we are discussing you are dependent on this bill with the man, when I listed the organizations now, is signed by the President. various checks and balances on the Su- opposed to the bill, I inadvertently left Mr. BERMAN. My assumption is this preme Courts in the States. That is, off Americans United for Separation of bill is now law. those justices could be impeached for Church and State and the National Mr. AKIN. Now is law. What happens violating the Supreme Court. Council of Negro Women. then is you are going to a particular Mr. BERMAN. And the voters of that Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield State, you are saying West Virginia. State. 5 minutes to the gentleman from Cali- And what happens is that a school Mr. AKIN. And the voters of that fornia (Mr. BERMAN). board or something like that in the State. It depends on the State laws. Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank State decides to just basically go Mr. BERMAN. The first amendment the gentleman for yielding me time. against what is already established Su- was to protect the exercise of religion, As the gentleman pointed out, the preme Court policy. even if the majority didn’t like that re- gentleman from Florida gave a very From 1944, the Supreme Court made ligion. compelling argument for why it is ap- the ruling that nobody is required to Mr. AKIN. The bottom line is we propriate to have ‘‘under God’’ in the say the Pledge of Allegiance. We have have a system of republics. We have a Pledge of Allegiance, and therefore no interest in changing that. We think system of federalism. We have 51 estab- concludes that since he thinks that is that is good policy. lished republics, one federated and 50 in jeopardy, based on the court case Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, re- States. now moving through the judicial sys- claiming my time. Because under this Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 tem arguing for stripping away the ju- bill, they can decide to violate that Su- minutes to my neighbor from Arkansas risdiction of the court to decide that preme Court decision, and the West (Mr. BOOZMAN). issue. Virginia Supreme Court, now the final Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I But the bill before us goes far beyond arbiter of it, says, we did not like that come to the floor today to support this the issue of under God, and that is why decision in the first place, and now the legislation that will preserve Amer- I would like to ask if the majority Supreme Court cannot take jurisdic- ica’s Pledge of Allegiance. This Con- whip, I would like to use my time to tion of this case, so they decide to re- gress is working to strengthen America make sure that you and I have the verse, for West Virginia purposes, the to taking steps to continue job cre- same understanding of the purpose of Barnette case that the Supreme Court ation, keeping our economy growing, this bill. decided in 1944, and this bill strips providing the tools that we need to Let’s say, for example, that a school away the jurisdiction of the Supreme fight the war on terrorism and address board in West Virginia decides that Court to say, you did not follow our the problems that are leading to high every student in the school system precedent. energy prices. must recite the Pledge of Allegiance at Mr. AKIN. What you are saying is, However, we also have a responsi- the beginning of the school day. And a first of all, you are making, obviously bility to take a few minutes today to Jehovah’s Witness family goes to you are taking this to a pretty extreme reinforce the spirit and unity of the court, to State court, after this bill is situation. You are saying a whole se- American people by protecting our passed and says, it is a violation of our ries of courts in West Virginia are Pledge. The Pledge of Allegiance is not religious principles to pledge alle- going to overturn Supreme Court pol- just a statement that our kids rehearse giance to anyone other than God. We icy on the fact that people have to say in schools, it is an expression of we as are prepared to make all kinds of state- the Pledge. Americans. ments with respect to our regard for So first of all, they are going com- The American people are united by the country, but we cannot pledge alle- pletely against what the Federal courts devotion, not just to our flag but to our giance to anyone but God. have already established. They then ex- country. Our devotion is not just to our And then that case goes to the State pose themselves to the checks and bal- public, but to our principles, including courts, and the West Virginia Supreme ances within that State. In at least 45, liberty and justice for all. Our shared Court decides that, no, the school probably more, of the States, there are Pledge of Allegiance should not be re- board is right. They have the right to provisions where those judges can be written on a whim by a few judges compel every student in that school removed by the people of that State. against the will of the overwhelming system to recite the pledge, even if it Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time. majority of American public. violates their religious principles. Or If you had stripped away the right of That is why this legislation is so im- maybe it is telling an Orthodox Jewish the U.S. Supreme Court, of the Federal portant, and I appreciate Mr. BLUNT’s child that they have to remove their courts to decide whether segregated and Mr. AKIN’s leadership on this issue. skull cap for the recitation of the schools, whether the doctrine of sepa- The Pledge Protection Act, which has Pledge, and they say, no, if the West rate and equal should stand or whether 197 cosponsors, passed the House in the

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5408 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006 108th Congress by a wide margin. Arti- in order to strip the Court of a decision would be found unconstitutional if en- cle III of the Constitution gives Con- made to protect our liberties. acted, is only the latest attempt by a gress the authority to pass this legisla- Mr. Chairman, let us consider the Congress to force a pluralist society tion. We should use this authority with long-term consequences of our actions into a one-size-fits-all set of beliefs. restraint. and let us look before we leap. I would This is a remarkable violation of the But when it comes to protecting suggest that we vote ‘‘no’’ on this. separation of powers and the establish- America’s Pledge of Allegiance, we That is the Reagan and conservative ment clause. should take these thoughtful steps to position. If the act were to become law, it exercise the will of the American peo- Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 would clearly be held unconstitutional. ple. minutes to the gentleman from Ten- Only State courts would be able to con- Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield nessee (Mr. WAMP). stitutionally challenge the Pledge, and 21⁄2 minutes to the distinguished gen- Mr. WAMP. I thank the distinguished so we would therefore end up with a 50- tleman from California (Mr. ROHR- majority whip. State collection of views as to what the ABACHER). Mr. Chairman, with respect, religion free exercise clause, the establishment Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, in the United States is rightly plural- clause, meant in this context. I rise in opposition to this bill, and it istic. We are or in no way should we be In addition, think of what this means does pain me to be on the other side of theocratic at all. As a matter of fact, to those groups that depend on this a piece of legislation that so many of one of the great threats in the world provision of our law not to be able to my friends are advocating so sincerely today, jihadism, is born out of theoc- bring their issues to the court. This on the other side. racy. legislation would strip all Federal Mr. Chairman, I yield to no one in That doesn’t mean, though, that this courts, including the Supreme Court, country should be godless. One of my my commitment to the Pledge of Alle- from hearing first amendment chal- greatest, one of the great sayings I love giance, and the Pledge of Allegiance lenges to the Pledge of Allegiance and is if there is no God, nothing matters. that includes the words ‘‘under God.’’ from enforcing longstanding constitu- But if there is a God, nothing else mat- However, it does not follow that the tional rights in the court, and would ters. We should remember that today. slam the Federal courthouse door on appropriate way to deal with this issue Abraham Lincoln said we do not is to strip Federal courts of their juris- religious minorities trying to do noth- claim to have God on our side, but we ing more than enforce a fundamental diction to hear cases relating to the strive to be on his. We should not and Pledge of Allegiance. constitutional right that they have had cannot rewrite history to ignore our for over 60 years. First of all, I don’t believe that my spiritual heritage. It surrounds us. It colleagues who support H.R. 2389 real- Please, let us turn this Pledge Pro- cries out for our country to honor God tection Act down this afternoon. ize the consequences of this bill, even and to seek and supplicate His will in though we just had a discussion about AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, our country’s life. GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS OFFICE, what those consequences might be. Today the people from my State of H.R. 2389 does not strip State and local Washington, DC, July 18, 2006. Tennessee would listen to this debate, Re H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of courts from jurisdiction related to the or even talk about a reference to God 2005. Pledge, only the Federal courts, and on our money or in the Halls of Con- DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: We understand specifically strips the U.S. Supreme gress or in our Pledge and say, please, that the House is scheduled to consider H.R. Court of its ability to overrule State let common sense and logic win the 2389 tomorrow. We are writing to express our supreme courts in this matter. day and prevail versus legal mumbo opposition to this legislation, which would So, for example, if the highest court jumbo. strip from all federal courts jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the inter- in a State like Massachusetts rules In closing, let me just thank God, on that it is unconstitutional under the pretation of, or the validity of, the Pledge of the floor of the House, for not turning Allegiance. Constitution for the State schools to away from us even though we seem to Our views on H.R. 2389 are informed by our start their day with a Pledge of Alle- be turning away from Him. long-standing opposition to legislative cur- giance, including the words, ‘‘under Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I now tailment of the jurisdiction of the Supreme God,’’ H.R. 2389 would prohibit the U.S. yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Court of the United States and the inferior Supreme Court from overturning that ranking member of the Judiciary Com- federal courts for the purpose of effecting decision. Such a result would be iron- mittee, the gentleman from Michigan changes in constitutional law. The ABA has ically and supremely counter to the taken no position on the underlying issues (Mr. CONYERS). regarding recitation of the Pledge of Alle- stated goals of this bill’s proponents. Mr. CONYERS. I thank the ranking giance in public schools; instead, our strong But that is what would become the chairman of the Constitutional Sub- opposition to H.R. 2389 and other pending result of this language becoming law. committee, Mr. NADLER, for yielding to legislation that would strip the federal Members on my side of the aisle should me. I commend him for the incredible courts of jurisdiction to hear selected types seriously consider the consequences of work that we have done to try to bring of constitutional cases is based on our con- the precedents that are being set. understanding to how difficult and un- cern for the integrity of our system of gov- Republican support for court-strip- workable this so-called Pledge Protec- ernment. ping makes it that much easier for the This legislation would authorize Congress tion Act is. to use its regulatory power over federal ju- other side to someday strip a conserv- Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hands risdiction to advance a particular legislative ative Supreme Court of jurisdiction on this letter that has just come in to the outcome by insulating it from constitutional an issue paramount to our liberty. For Judiciary Committee from the Amer- scrutiny by the federal judiciary. In addition example, if our judges on the Court re- ican Bar Association, their Govern- to being constitutionally suspect, this legis- main devoted to the second amend- mental Affairs Office. lation would establish a dangerous precedent ment, rather than upholding a uni- The controlling sentence is this: ‘‘As if enacted. As a matter of policy, Congress versal gun ban that is put into place by a matter of policy, Congress should not should not jettison our foundational prin- a future President and Congress, and jettison our foundational principles be- ciples because of current dissatisfaction with a controversial decision of the Supreme the other party, they will accuse our cause of current dissatisfaction with Court or lower federal courts by perma- President of stripping the court in the controversial decision of the Su- nently stripping the jurisdiction of the fed- order to get their way. preme Court or lower Federal courts by eral courts to hear certain categories of Here we are neutering our ability to permanently stripping the jurisdiction cases. Rather than strengthening its legisla- have protections for the constitutional of the Federal courts to hear certain tive role, Congress, by pressing its own things we believe in the future, in categories of cases. Rather than checking power to the extreme, imperils the order to achieve a temporary, I might strengthening its legislative role, Con- entire system of separated powers. If enacted, H.R. 2389 would restrict the role even say a political, goal in the Pledge gress, by pressing its own checking of the federal courts in our system of checks of Allegiance. power to the extreme, imperils the en- and balances and thereby limit the ability of The supporters of H.R. 2389 will come tire system of separated powers.’’ the federal courts to protect the constitu- to regret this day when they are being Ladies and gentlemen, this unconsti- tional rights of all Americans. Indeed, this quoted by some future liberal Congress tutional court-stripping bill, and it legislation would leave the state courts as

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5409 the final arbiters of federal constitutional which were reflected in our founding gress shall make, and those exceptions law, creating the possibility that some state documents that speak of a Nation that are legion. judges might choose not to follow Supreme believes its rights are endowed by our In fact, the landmark case is Ex Court precedents. Because the legislation Creator, and words that President parte McCardle 1869 where Congress would nullify the Supremacy Clause in cer- had authorized Federal judges to issues tain classes of cases, the Constitution could Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, mean something different from state to that this is one Nation under God, be writs of habeas corpus, and they pur- state; and, contrary to the expressed inten- protected and vouchsafed in our ported to be acting under its authority tions of the Framers, our fundamental rights Pledge. under Article III, section 2 to make and the balance of power among the Let us take this jurisdiction away, those exceptions. branches would be subject to evanescent ma- which is our constitutional power to But in reviewing the statutes the Su- jority opinion. do, and leave that power with the peo- preme Court’s jurisdiction granted, At a time when Congress is accusing the they were not at liberty to inquire into federal courts of overstepping their constitu- ple of the United States and the States severally. the motives of the legislature. We can tional role and calling for judicial restraint, only examine its power under the Con- we urge you to likewise exercise legislative Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield restraint and demonstrate your continued to the gentleman from Texas for a stitution. In fact, the majority decision commitment to the doctrine of separation of unanimous consent request. on the Supreme Court said this: ‘‘With- powers and a government composed of sepa- (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked out jurisdiction the court cannot pro- rate but coequal branches by voting to de- and was given permission to revise and ceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is feat passage of H.R. 2389. extend his remarks.) power to declare the law, and when it If you have any questions regarding our ceases to exist, the only function re- position, please have your staff contact Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague for yielding. maining to the court is that of an- Denise Cardman, Deputy Director of the nouncing the fact and dismissing the Governmental Affairs Office. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. Sincerely, 2389, the Protect the Pledge Act. cause. And this is not less clear upon ROBERT D. EVANS. I strongly support the Pledge of Allegiance. authority than upon principle.’’ Ex Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 In fact, in the 107th Congress I introduced parte McCardle, 1869. And I would point out that Justice minutes to the gentleman from Indiana H.J. Res. 103, an amendment to the Constitu- Scalia in the Hamdan case so recently (Mr. PENCE). tion that would affirm that the Pledge of Alle- wrote in his opinion, albeit in dissent, (Mr. PENCE asked and was given per- giance in no way violates the First Amend- he said that ‘‘the Court . . . cannot cite mission to revise and extend his re- ment. a single case in the history of Anglo- marks.) Unfortunately, Congress did not pass the American law . . . in which a jurisdic- Mr. PENCE. I thank the distin- resolution before it adjourned for the 107th tion-stripping . . . was denied imme- guished majority whip for yielding. Congress. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup- diate effect in pending cases.’’ But ‘‘by As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2389, I be- contrast, the cases granting such im- port of the Pledge Protection Act and lieve it is necessary to protect the Pledge of commend its author, the gentleman mediate effect are legion . . . they re- Allegiance from unnecessary court battles, but peatedly rely on the plain language of from Missouri (Mr. AKIN) for his yeo- without infringing on the rights of the people. the jurisdictional repeal as an ‘inflexi- man’s work on this thoughtful legisla- Article III of the Constitution states that Con- ble trump,’’’ and we know in our cur- tion. gress has the power to define jurisdiction of rent experience in Congress, we have As a member of the Judiciary Com- Federal district and appellate courts. mittee, I admire my colleagues on the done this several times, particularly This bill still allows for our system of checks the Daschle case with Blackhawk Tim- other side of the aisle for their intel- and balances to work as it has for over 200 ber. lectual acumen and their commitment years. Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 to their view and their philosophy of The Pledge of Allegiance is an important minutes to the gentleman from Texas government. But while each of us may symbol of the privileges and rights that our (Mr. HENSARLING). have a different philosophy of govern- Founding Fathers fought so desperately to Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I ment, we don’t get to have different preserve. thank the distinguished majority whip facts. It deserves protection from those trying to for yielding. I certainly thank the gen- The clear policy of Article III, sec- remove the words ‘‘under God.’’ tleman from Missouri (Mr. AKIN) for tion 2 of the United States Constitu- Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how his leadership on this issue. tion reads, ‘‘In all other cases before much time do I have left? Mr. Chairman, the author of the Dec- mentioned, the Supreme Court shall The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has laration of Independence, Thomas Jef- have developed jurisdiction, but it is 31⁄2 minutes. ferson, once wrote: ‘‘Can the liberties the law and the fact with such excep- Mr. NADLER. The other side? of a Nation be thought secure when we tions and under such exceptions as the The CHAIRMAN. They have 131⁄2 min- have removed their only firm basis, a Congress shall make.’’ It is black letter utes. conviction in the minds of the people law in the Constitution of the United Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 that these liberties are the gift of States of America that this body, this minutes to the gentleman from Iowa God?’’ Congress, shall have the authority to (Mr. KING). Now, I have heard Democrat after set the jurisdiction of the courts. Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the major- Democrat saying that we should not be So if I may say, respectfully, let us ity whip for yielding. I especially debating the Pledge Protection Act stop with all the conversation about thank Mr. AKIN for bringing this bill here today. Apparently, whether the anticonstitutional action being taken. before this Congress. When we first phrase ‘‘one Nation under God’’ is In fact, restricting the Federal courts’ met, he approached me with this bill, stripped from our Pledge by activist jurisdiction is a common practice in and I said, oh yes, Article III, section 2, judges is of little importance to them, the House of Representatives, and a I will sign on. Then we got to know but it is to most Americans, and it long litany of recent legislation, like each other after that. So it is a proud should be to our Democrat colleagues the Black Hills National Forest, the re- moment for me to stand here and stand as well. cent Class Action Fairness Act, attests with the gentleman from Missouri and Mr. Chairman, what we are debating to that. God-fearing and God-loving people here today is nothing short of our very But we are here about the business of across this country. liberty. What could be more worthy of protecting the contents of the Pledge this body than a debate about our lib- of Allegiance, which some Federal b 1315 erty? courts have either resolved as uncon- The question about the constitu- When our forefathers gave birth to stitutional or left unresolved. tionality of court-stripping Article III, this new Nation, they also gave birth We stand here today to say those section 2, I think Mr. PENCE addressed to a radical, revolutionary idea in his- words, which appear above you, Mr. it very well. Black-letter language in tory, the idea that our rights do not Chairman, in the phrase ‘‘in God we the Constitution was such exceptions emanate from the State, that they are trust’’ in our national model, words and under such regulations as the Con- granted to us from the Almighty.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5410 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006 Who among us have forgotten the the United States Congress in the 1950s why Abraham Lincoln, in his inaugural words enshrined in our Declaration of when President Eisenhower was here. address, specifically talked about the Independence that we are endowed by I think that we should realize that danger of the Congress and the country our Creator with certain unalienable common sense needs to be applied when letting the Court be the sole decision of rights? The answer appears to be some we look at an instance like this. The these kinds of issues. of our Democrat colleagues. Ninth Circuit Court in California clear- This is an issue that clearly reso- Nothing is more central to the foun- ly overreached, Mr. Chairman, and as nates to the heart of what we are about dation of our very liberty than the ac- we look at how far they could go, I find as a country. It is the heart of what we knowledgment of God in public life, not the direction to be very, very trou- are about as a people. All of our docu- the Christian God, the Jewish God or bling. ments, our coins, our institutions, the the Muslim God, but God, the Creator, I thank my friend for yielding. Constitution, the Declaration of Inde- as broadly defined and acknowledged Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 pendence, all have recognized a being and worshipped in many faiths and tra- minutes to the gentleman from Texas superior to ourselves. ditions. (Mr. GOHMERT). We think that protection for that But, Mr. Chairman, there is now a Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, the phrase and other phrases in the Pledge concerted effort among some, including concern about the Constitution is cer- is appropriate. Certainly we have not apparently the Ninth Circuit Court of tainly worthwhile, but when it says anticipated that State courts, who, by Appeals, to chase God from the school- very clearly Article III, section 2, that the way, were also recognized by the house, the courthouse and the state- in all other cases except those specified early Congress as appropriate deter- house, not to mention our very Pledge or mentioned, the Supreme Court shall miners of some Federal laws, and early of Allegiance. have appellate jurisdiction both as to congressional determination in an Through H.R. 2389, using our powers law and fact with such exceptions and early Supreme Court decision was that under Article III, section 2, we should under such regulations as the Congress Federal laws that have been upheld by stop them and protect liberty by enact- shall make, it also allows us to set the the State courts would not be subject ing the Pledge Protection Act. jurisdictions of the local courts. to Federal review. This is in line with Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 So, clearly, this is something that is our responsibilities. It would be a re- minutes to the gentleman from Cali- constitutional to take up. As an old sponsibility some would like to suggest fornia (Mr. DREIER), the chairman of judge and a former chief justice of an is different than it is, but it is our re- the Rules Committee. appellate court, those things are im- sponsibility. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given portant to us. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance permission to revise and extend his re- Our friend from New York indicated of my time. marks.) that it seems like some of us do not Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank have much faith in the Supreme Court, myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, every word that we my very good friend, the distinguished and he is right, some of us do not. I have heard uttered on this floor by the majority whip, for yielding time, and I would submit to you that while they majority side has, as Mr. SCOTT said, congratulate my friend from Missouri are lingering under this infirmity or increased the likelihood of the courts (Mr. AKIN) for having shown his very disability of being prepositionally chal- ordering that the words ‘‘under God’’ in strong commitment to the U.S. Con- lenged, that this is a good issue to take the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be re- stitution. As we all know, the speci- up and to remove jurisdiction on. cited in a public, in a school situation For example, in the 10th amendment ficity is Article III, section 2. where there is an imputation of coer- As I was talking to a friend of mine it says all the things not specified are cion or pressure because the students in Los Angeles yesterday, he was ask- reserved to the States and to the peo- are, in fact, under the direction of the ing, what are you bringing up in the ple. The Supreme Court seems to think State agent, namely, the teacher. Rules Committee today? When I told that means reserved from the States As someone who very deeply believes him that we were bringing this meas- and from the people. They are preposi- in God, I think it is insulting to say ure to deal with the Ninth Circuit tionally challenged. They think free- that the words ‘‘under God’’ are not Court’s decision, basically throwing dom of religion means freedom from re- important, and yet that is the defense out the use of ‘‘one Nation under God’’ ligion. that is offered in court because the in the Pledge of Allegiance, he, like There is so much rewriting of his- Constitution says there should be no most people, was horrified. He said, let tory, the separation of church and establishment of religion. Well, saying us look at the natural extension of the state. It is not in the Constitution. that schoolchildren must recite the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision. That is in a letter that Thomas Jeffer- Pledge of Allegiance with the words Well, for starters, in the County of son wrote to the Danbury Baptists ‘‘under God’’ is not an establishment of Los Angeles, Mr. Chairman, we have al- about not specifying a specific denomi- religion. The defense is, no, it is not be- ready seen the removal of the cross nation, and at the same time Madison cause this is de minimis; it is not im- from the seal of the County of Los An- wrote the first amendment, Jefferson portant; it is minor. I do not believe geles. It seems kind of silly, and there wrote those words in a letter, they the words ‘‘under God’’ are minor or de obviously is a lot of outrage in south- came to church, a nondenominational minimis, unimportant. I think that it ern California about that. Christian church, right down the hall is an insult to religion. But then one must conclude that the in Statuary Hall. For about 60 years But that whole question is for the natural extension of this, when we there was a church down there. courts, not for us, and here we are see- have dealt with the seal of the County So the question before us is, is this ing another bill to strip the courts of of Los Angeles, let us look at some of an issue we want to remove from the jurisdiction. We are getting to a point the cities in California: The City of An- Supreme Court’s consideration until where it is becoming boilerplate in any gels, Saint Francis, San Francisco, San they remove or are able to overcome controversial issue to say the courts Diego, another saint. I found that my the disability of being prepositionally shall not have jurisdiction. city that I reside in, the city of San challenged? I certainly think it is. Consider this, the Defense of Mar- Dimas, is the name for the reformed Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield riage Act, the Pledge, we passed the saint of thieves, San Dismas. myself 11⁄2 minutes just to say that this bill a few weeks ago on the floor here But one must come to the conclusion debate clearly, once again, emphasizes saying that no funds should be ex- that if we are going to continue down the responsibility of the Congress to pended to enforce a court order in some this road, that the west coast would be- decide the jurisdiction of the courts. court in Indiana because we do not like come what many in the country prob- It does not decide who has to say the what the courts do, or we think we ably already believe it is, and that Pledge of Allegiance. It does not decide might not like what the court will do; would be the lost coast, and I find that separate but equal. In fact, separate we will strip them of jurisdiction. to be a very troubling sign, that we are but equal was decided by the Supreme This is a danger to all our constitu- moving in the direction to overturn Court just like the Dred Scott case was tional rights. The only thing that pro- that wise decision that was made by decided by the Supreme Court, which is tects our rights as Americans, that

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5411 protects our freedom of speech, reli- believe is the founder, or at least ac- Mr. Chairman, today, by passing this law, gion, press, assembly, et cetera, is the knowledged as the father, of the Demo- we are making those exceptions. ability to go to court and tell the cratic Party, Thomas Jefferson. His I rise in strong support of this legislation and President or the Governor or whoever, words encased in stone on his monu- urge my colleagues to join me in support of it. you cannot do that, you cannot force ment read: ‘‘The God that gave us life Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in them to do that, you cannot put them gave us liberty.’’ It goes on to say: opposition to H.R. 2389—the Pledge Protec- in jail for not doing it. Without the ‘‘Can the liberties of a people be secure tion Act—a bill which does not protect the protection of the court, rights are if we remove the conviction that those Pledge of Allegiance, but instead endangers meaningless. liberties are the gift of God?’’ the constitutional balance between the legisla- There is a maxim in law: There is no The author of our Declaration well tive and judicial branches. right without a remedy. What we are understood that it is impossible to as- I believe in the Pledge of Allegiance. In the doing here is saying to people who are sert that we have inalienable rights wake of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unpopular, to people who may not want and at the same time ignore the person opinion in Newdow v. U.S. Congress in 2002, to recite the words ‘‘under God,’’ they that gave us the inalienable rights, the the House acted swiftly to affirm our support may be wrong and unpopular, but we God that provided those rights itself. of the Pledge as it has existed since 1954. I are saying you cannot go to court to This question goes to the heart of voted in favor of a resolution that disagreed what America has always stood for and defend yourself and assert your con- with the court’s opinion that the words ‘‘under always fought for. We believe that stitutional rights. It is very dangerous. God’’ in the Pledge violate the Establishment there is a God that gives basic rights to As was pointed out before, if we had Clause of the Constitution. all people, and it is the job of the gov- done that before, we would still have My opinion today remains the same: the ernment to protect those rights. If the segregation in this country because in Pledge of Alliance is a simple, eloquent state- courts come to the decision that we every State we would have stripped the ment of American values. Each morning mil- cannot acknowledge God, then we have lions of school children pledge allegiance not Supreme Court of the ability to declare ripped the heart out of the logic of only to the flag but to the Nation and our val- separate but equal schools unconstitu- what makes America, the fact that our ues and our principles. This act, like the pray- tional. The State courts would have rights come from God Himself, and we er that opens each session of the House and soon said it is fine, and we would still have thumbed our nose at Thomas Jef- the call that brings the Supreme Court to have Jim Crow. ferson and our Declaration and our 300- order, reminds us all of the greater context of Almost lastly, we should not have a plus years of history. separate law in every State. We should Now we have good reason to fear that our purpose. not have the Constitution mean dif- the Court will not be content to ignore I oppose this legislation, not because I do ferent things in New York and New just the fifth amendment and say that not support the Pledge of Alliance, but be- Jersey. We should be one country. That you can take private property from cause I know that this legislation does not is why the Supreme Court is vested people and redistribute it without a achieve its goal. This legislation takes a bold with jurisdiction to rule on appeals public purpose, but that they may also step towards a radical concept which under- from the State supreme courts. decide to take the first amendment and mines the constitutional checks and balances Finally, this bill is itself unconstitu- turn it upside down and use it as a so crucial to our system of Government. We tional. Someone said that the courts sword of censorship rather than an have taken steps to protect the Pledge and we have upheld Congress’ ability to limit oasis of free speech. will continue to do so—but this is not the way. jurisdiction. Sure, they have. Every I am not persuaded by the pious This bill proposes to strip the courts of their single case has upheld limitations to hand-wringing of liberal activists who just jurisdiction. While the Congress is granted jurisdiction, regardless of subject mat- flinch not at the courts’ unfettered the power to create and establish Federal ter, never with regard to constitutional march to create some imagined utopia courts and this jurisdiction, this power has al- claims, not one case in the history of at the expense of the separation of ways been used to promote judicial efficiency. the Republic. powers in the Constitution itself. It has not, and should not, be used to stifle At a hearing that was held 2 years It is time for the Congress to reassert debate on any issue regarding fundamental ago on a similar bill, the majority wit- our legislative authority. It is time for rights and liberties. ness, the Republican witness, professor the Congress to signal an end to the Since the Supreme Court decided the case of constitutional law, said the fol- courts’ freewheeling forays of un- of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the judiciary lowing: ‘‘The due process clause of the checked legislative license. has performed its unique role of interpreting fifth amendment requires that a neu- Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I laws of this country. This bill is unconstitu- tral, independent and competent judi- rise in strong support of H.R. 2389, the Pledge tional because it would fly in the face of 200 cial forum remain available in cases in Protection Act of 2005. This legislation is im- years of our constitutional tradition. I cannot which the liberty or property interests portant to ensuring that over-zealous Federal imagine our democracy could long endure a of an individual or entity are at stake. courts do not strike down the U.S. Pledge of system in which the Congress may take from The constitutional directive of equal Allegiance. In Newdow, Ninth Circuit ruled that the courts the ability to hear cases regarding protection restricts congressional the pledge was unconstitutional. The U.S. Su- the freedom of speech, the freedom of reli- power to employ its power to restrict preme Court struck down the Newdow deci- gion, civil rights, or privacy. jurisdiction in an unconstitutionally sion based not on the substance of the issue, The 108th Congress considered this legisla- discriminatory manner,’’ which is what but rather because it found that Newdow did tion, and the Senate refused to pass this this bill does. not have standing. The Supreme Court did not measure. Indeed, in this Congress the House There is no ability, for example, to address the underlying question regarding Judiciary Committee refused to favorably re- constitutionally provide that Repub- whether the phrase ‘‘under God’’ was constitu- port the bill to the full House. licans, but no one else, may have ac- tional. The Ninth Circuit is expected to rule on The courts are now properly continuing to cess to the Supreme Court. No one will this issue in March 2007. review constitutional challenges regarding the think Congress could do that. This bill The bill before us would prohibit Federal Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court has is clearly unconstitutional for the courts from ruling on issues related to the dismissed a case regarding the Pledge, and same reason. Pledge of Allegiance. Article III, Section 2, the Ninth Circuit is again reviewing this matter. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress has gone on record in support of Congress the authority to set such limits. The the Pledge. b 1330 Constitution states: It is important that the courts remain as the Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other neutral decision makers in constitutional the balance of our time to the gen- public Ministers and Consuls, and those in cases. The Founders wisely enshrined the tleman from Missouri (Mr. AKIN). which a State shall be Party, the supreme concept of judicial independence into the Con- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all stitution. Federal judges are given lifetime ten- other Cases before mentioned, the supreme from Missouri is recognized for 2 min- Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both ure, and Congress is prohibited from reducing utes. as to law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and their pay during their service in office. Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would under such Regulations as the Congress shall Congress has indeed considered whether to like to start by quoting a person who I make [emphasis added]. intrude on the province of the Federal courts

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 9920 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5412 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006 throughout the history of this country. Con- But this bill is a different matter. It may be is sitting out there now thinking of new rights gress wisely rejected President Franklin D. called the ‘‘Pledge Protection Act,’’ but that is we can strip because we disagree with them. Roosevelt’s plan to ‘‘pack the court’’ by in- inaccurate and even misleading—because it I do not believe that we should strip the creasing the size of the Supreme Court. In the not only fails to protect the pledge but also Federal courts of jurisdiction when it comes to 1970s Congress considered, but rejected, ef- would undercut the very thing to which those issues related to the Equal Protection Clause fort to strip jurisdiction away from the courts in who recite the pledge are expressing their al- of the Constitution. It drastically interferes with the areas of civil rights and privacy cases, as legiance. the separation of powers between the three a result of Supreme Court decisions of the It doesn’t protect the pledge because even branches of our government. 1950s and 1960s. if it becomes law people who don’t like the While I will always defend the autonomy In many ways, this type of legislation is a way the pledge’s current wording would still be and the power of the legislative branch, the thinly-veiled attempt to circumvent Article V of able to bring lawsuits in state courts. So, even principle of judicial review that Chief Justice the Constitution, which gives Congress the if Colorado’s courts upheld the current word- John Marshall set out in the 1803 decision ability to propose an amendment to the Con- ing, the courts of other States might not. And Marbury v. Madison is law. This landmark stitution, and therefore overturn a constitu- the bill says the U.S. Supreme Court could not case established that the Supreme Court has tional decision of the Supreme Court. Con- resolve the matter. the right to pass on the constitutionality of an gress and ultimately the states have the ability That would mean there would no longer be act of Congress. To whittle away one of the to amend the Constitution at their discretion, a single Pledge of Allegiance, but different bedrock powers of the judicial branch is wrong but under Article III of the Constitution the pledges for different States—and the Constitu- for the Union and wrong for our citizenry. courts have the obligation to interpret the law tion’s meaning would vary based on State Tinkering with the foundation of our judicial and Constitution when ‘‘cases or controver- lines. That would directly contradict the very branch could come back to haunt us. You can sies’’ arise in a lawsuit that is properly brought idea of the United States as ‘‘one Nation’’ that be almost certain with the passage of this leg- by parties before the court. should remain ‘‘indivisible’’ and whose defining islation that there are interests out there decid- This bill would close the door to Federal characteristics are devotion to ‘‘liberty and jus- ing what other rights can be stripped of Amer- courts. When there is no court to hear a case, tice for all.’’ ican citizens because we disagree with them. then there is no liberty. A law without a venue And that would be completely inconsistent Maybe a future Congress will want to strip for debate is a law without moral force. As the with the idea of the Republic (symbolized by court challenges to gun control legislation by Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, the flag) to which we pledge allegiance when gun owners or sportsmen. I have seen too many countries run by dic- we recite what this bill pretends to ‘‘protect.’’ Mr. Chairman, we live in one Nation, under tators whose first actions are to shut down the How ironic—and how pathetic. God, with liberty and justice for all. If we pass independence courts and make them answer- As national legislators, as U.S. Representa- this bill, we begin to hollow out the true mean- able to what the executive and the legislature tives, we can and should do better. We should ing of the pledge, the Constitution and what it wanted them to do. We cannot go down this reject this bill. means to live in this great Nation. path in the United States, and undermine our Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong Like I did 2 years ago, I strongly oppose this citizens’ confidence in an independent judici- opposition to H.R. 2389. Here we are again legislation and urge my colleagues to do the ary that will decide cases without fear or favor. considering needless court-stripping legislation same. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation that would destroy our constitutional system of Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and attack on the independence of the judici- checks and balances. This time we wrap it in to H.R. 2389, which would strip from the fed- ary, and oppose this legislation. the flag and call it the Pledge Protection Act. eral courts and the Supreme Court the ability Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, at We dealt with this same legislation two to hear any cases related to the Pledge of Al- best this bill is a mistake. At worst, it is a cyn- years ago, and it failed to become law. I ask legiance. This bill eliminates the basic prin- ical political stunt. Either way, it should not my colleagues, why are we bringing this same ciple of judicial review that was established by pass. It seeks to end the ability of Federal legislation up for consideration again 2 years the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison courts—including the Supreme Court—‘‘to later? back in 1803. hear or decide any question pertaining to the Could it be an election year? Could my col- This bill should not have come to the floor interpretation of, or the validity under the Con- leagues in the majority want to rally a certain today because it seeks to make a dangerous stitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance’’ as the part of their base? The real question is wheth- change to our Nation’s system of checks and pledge is now worded. er the majority will put election year political balances. For that reason, this bill was re- It responds to a 2002 decision of the Court concerns ahead of the good of the Nation? jected by the House Judiciary Committee. Yet, of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that both the Unfortunately, with this action, it looks like the the Majority has brought it up today to inten- 1954 law that added the words ‘‘under God’’ answer is yes. tionally divide the House. This is not the first to the pledge and a local school district’s pol- This is another extraordinary piece of arro- time. We have seen this before. In September icy of daily recitation of the pledge as so word- gance on the part of the House of Represent- two years ago, we had this same vote, and I ed were unconstitutional. (The ruling later was atives to pass legislation which would strip opposed it then. modified to apply only to the school district’s American citizens of their right to access the The judiciary was designed to be the one recitation policy.) Federal courthouse. Can you imagine anything branch of the federal government that is insu- The Supreme Court reversed that decision more shameful than telling an American cit- lated from political forces. This independent because the plaintiff did not have legal stand- izen you cannot go into court to have your nature enables the federal judiciary to thought- ing to challenge the school district’s policy. But concerns addressed, heard by the courts of fully and objectively review laws to ensure that the Republican leadership evidently finds the your Nation? they are in line with the Constitution. Through- possibility of a similar lawsuit so alarming—or The right for a citizen to access the courts out the development of our Nation, this check maybe they think it presents such a political to decide questions of policy is as old as the has been vital to protecting the rights of mi- opportunity—that they back this bill to keep Magna Carta, and it is important to us as any- norities. any Federal court from hearing a lawsuit like thing else in the Constitution. Here we calmly Although the Constitution gives Congress that. say, ‘‘You cannot have access to the Federal the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal I cannot support such legislation. courts, including the Supreme Court.’’ Shame, judiciary and the appellate jurisdiction of the It mayor may not be constitutional—on that shame, shame, shame. Supreme Court, I am certain that the founding I defer to those with more legal expertise than This is a precedent which is going to live to fathers did not intend for Congress to use this I can claim. But I have no doubt it is not only curse us, and we are going to live to regret power to shape the jurisdiction of the courts unnecessary but even misguided and destruc- this day’s labor because other precedents will along ideological lines. This legislation will set tive. be following this, wherein we strip the rights of a dangerous precedent by allowing Congress I have no objection to the current wording of citizens under the Second Amendment, the to avoid judicial review so that it can pass leg- the Pledge of Allegiance. After the Ninth Cir- thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amend- islation that it thinks may be unconstitutional. cuit’s decision, I voted for a resolution—ap- ments. This is a clear abuse of Congressional author- proved by the House by a vote of 416 to 3— The Congress has considered these kinds ity and a cynical attempt to question the patri- affirming that ‘‘the Pledge of Allegiance and of questions before. It is to be anticipated if otism of Members of this institution. similar expressions are not unconstitutional this works, we can look to see this kind of Like every Member of this body, I am proud expressions of religious belief’’ and calling for abusive legislation considered in this body to recite the Pledge of Allegiance as a way to the case to be reheard. again. And you can be certain that somebody express my loyalty to this Nation and its

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 9920 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5413 founding principles. I make it a point during Newdow v. U.S. Congress when they declared enactment of this legislation would have a dra- my town meetings in New Jersey to lead my our Pledge unconstitutional. matic impact on the ability of individual Ameri- constituents in reciting the Pledge of Alle- When the phrase under God was added to cans to be free from government-coerced giance. I share the view of many Members the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, I was in ele- speech or religious expression. that the current text of the Pledge of Alle- mentary school and remember feeling the In our system of democracy, our govern- giance is constitutional including the phrase phrase belonged there. It appropriately reflects ment works on a system of checks and bal- ‘‘under God’’. I expressed my support for the the fact that a belief in God motivated the ances. Instead of stripping power from the Pledge in its current form when I joined many founding and development of our great Nation. courts, I believe we should follow the process of my colleagues in voting for a resolution that The Declaration of Independence states, prescribed in our Constitution—consideration urged the Supreme Court to recognize the ‘‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that of a Constitutional amendment. In fact, as a constitutional right of children to recite the all men are created equal, that they are en- member of the California Legislature, I passed pledge in school. That resolution was an ap- dowed by their Creator with certain inalienable a bill calling on Congress to pass a Pledge propriate way for me, as a Member of Con- rights . . .’’ Our forefathers understood it was protection amendment, and I believe that is gress, to express my belief in the constitu- not they, but He, who had bestowed upon all the appropriate way to address this issue. tionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. of us those most cherished rights to life, liberty I happen to believe that the inclusion of the Unfortunately, those who support this legis- and the pursuit of happiness upon which our term under God in the Pledge is appropriate lation seek to alter our delicate system of model of government is based. and constitutional. Further, should the Su- checks and balances and make their own de- At Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln preme Court ever rule that the term is uncon- cisions unchallengeable—as if they were infal- acknowledged we were a Nation under God stitutional, I would vote for a constitutional lible. They are attempting to alter the intended and, during his Second Inaugural Address, he amendment to it ensure its presence. I support framework of our government, which has met mentioned our Creator 13 times. the Pledge because it is an important part of the needs of a diverse population and allowed Those historic speeches, the Pledge of Alle- our American fabric, and an important symbol us to remain indivisible in times of crisis for giance, our currency and the Declaration of of the rights our founding fathers fought so more than 200 years. We should not make Independence are not prayers or parts of a re- desperately to preserve—liberty and justice for this dangerous change to upset the balance of ligious service. They are a statement of our every American. power established by our Founding Fathers commitment as citizens to our great Nation But our justice is protected by our inde- and enshrined in the Constitution. and the role God plays in it. pendent judiciary. Let us keep it that way for I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Our founders envisioned a government that all Americans. Oppose this bill and support Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in would allow, not discourage or punish, the free and protect our Constitutional rights. support of H.R. 2389, ‘‘The Pledge Protection exercise of religion and we are living their Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose Act.’’ dream. the ‘‘Pledge Protection Act’’ because of its po- As I rise to address this body, I am re- I oppose the Pledge Protection Act because tential ramification for the judicial process. minded by the words above the Speaker’s I have faith in our Constitution and do not be- This legislation seeks to prohibit all federal chair, ‘‘In God We Trust’’ and the significance lieve we should preclude judges from hearing courts, including the Supreme Court, from those words hold for our great Nation. From issues of social relevance, simply because we hearing any case that challenges the constitu- the unalienable rights that Mr. Jefferson may disagree with their ultimate decisions. tionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. penned in the Declaration of Independence to While the courts may, from time to time, This legislation is a response to recent chal- the money that is minted just blocks from this produce a ruling we question, the principle of lenges in the 9th Circuit Court involving the Chamber, our Nation has and will continue to judicial review is essential to maintaining the statement ‘‘under God.’’ While I do not agree publicly recognize God’s providence and guid- integrity of our system of checks and balances with the court’s decision, we are heading ance. However, the recognition of God con- and I fear the path we appear to be on. We down a slippery slope when we authorize tained within the Pledge of Allegiance has pro- are a Nation under God, and in Him we trust. Congress to use its power over the courts to vided leverage for some courts to claim that Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in op- limit jurisdiction of constitutional challenges. reciting our Pledge is unconstitutional. position to H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection This seemingly bipartisan legislation is an- In 1954, this body recognized the need to Act. other attack on our principles of civil liberties add the phrase ‘‘under God’’ to our Pledge While I strongly support the Pledge of Alle- and equal protection, just as we saw on yes- and for 46 years this was hailed by Americans giance and the use of the term under God, I terday’s vote on the ‘‘Marriage Protection Act,’’ and remained uncontested. Yet in 2002, these oppose this misguided legislation because it to please the most extreme of the Republican two words were exploited by courts claiming would strip all federal courts, including the Su- base. It is not worth undermining our system that it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of Alle- preme Court, of the jurisdiction to hear First of checks and balances. giance to remain a part of American life. Con- Amendment challenges to the Pledge of Alle- Yesterday, the state’s domestic laws; today, gress acted swiftly to reverse the damage giance. the Pledge of Allegiance; tomorrow...? caused by such a ruling and preserve the pa- In the process, this legislation would strip Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair- triotic act of reciting the Pledge. In 2002, both federal courts of their important role in safe- man, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2389, the Houses of Congress overwhelmingly sup- guarding Constitutional rights and freedoms. It Pledge Protection Act of 2005. ported resolutions rebuking the court and up- will also work to undermine public confidence This bill precludes any Federal judicial re- holding the Pledge of Allegiance. However, in the federal courts by expressing outright view of any constitutional challenge to recita- Congress failed to invoke our authority to pre- hostility to their role as a neutral arbiter of tion of the Pledge of Allegiance—whether it be vent activist courts from destroying the Amer- constitutional claims. in the lower Federal courts or in the highest ican institution that is the Pledge of Allegiance. Through passage of this legislation, this court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court. Ef- The Pledge embodies our patriotism and body is endorsing the dangerous premise that fectively, if passed, this extremely vague legis- must be preserved. It serves to remind this Congress is above the Constitution. So in re- lation will relegate all claimants to State courts body, at the beginning of each daily session, sponse, I ask my colleagues this question: do to review any challenges to the pledge. This of our devotion to country. Protecting the you believe our founding fathers designed the possibility will lead to different constitutional Pledge ensures that the ideals of America will Constitution to protect the people from their constructions in each of the 50 States. continue for generations to come. government, or to regulate the conduct of its The only way to make this bill palatable is Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join citizens? to adopt the Jackson-Lee amendment, which with me in support of this bill to prevent the I submit that if we strip federal courts of provides for an exception to the bill’s pre- federal judiciary from hearing cases against their judicial independence, nothing stops clusion for cases that involve allegations of co- the Pledge of Allegiance. Congress from preventing courts to rule on erced or mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, today, I urge my other freedoms protected in our Bill of Rights, Allegiance, including coercion in violation of colleagues to vote against H.R. 2389, the including freedom of speech, the right to bear the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Pledge Protection Act. arms, freedom of worship and freedom to as- clauses. Opposing the Jackson-Lee amend- The phrase ‘‘under God’’ belongs in our semble. Is that really the precedent we want ment is tantamount to endorsing the coercion Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United to establish? of children to mandatory recitation of the States of America and the words In God We I believe we need our judicial system to pro- Pledge of Allegiance. Trust belong on our currency. The Ninth Cir- tect our rights—and this bill prohibits the Closing the doors of the Federal courthouse cuit Court of Appeals made a serious error in courts from doing just that. Indeed, I believe doors to claimants will actually amount to a

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 9920 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5414 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006 coercion of individuals to recite the pledge and Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to ances on the power of the Judiciary Branch its ‘‘under God’’ reference in violation of West place in the RECORD a copy of a letter dated and the other two branches is vital to keep the Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. July 18, 2006 from the American Bar Associa- form of government set up by our Founding In Barnette, the Supreme Court struck down a tion which supports my claims. Fathers. West Virginia law that mandated school chil- Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues vote I am proud to be a co-sponsor of The dren recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Under to protect religious minorities, vote to protect Pledge Protection Act and will vote in favor of the West Virginia law, religious minorities judicial review, vote to protect separation of this legislation. faced expulsion from school and could be sub- powers, and vote to protect access to the Fed- God Bless America! ject to prosecution and fines, if convicted of eral courts. I urge my colleagues to vote Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today violating the statute’s provisions. In striking against H.R. 2389. in strong opposition to H.R. 2389, the ‘‘Pledge down that statute, Justice Jackson wrote for Ms. LINDA T. SA´ NCHEZ of California. Mr. Protection Act.’’ the Court: Chairman, I support our national Pledge of Al- This legislation represents an attempt by the ‘‘To believe in patriotism will not flourish legiance 100 percent. I strongly believe the Majority to strip the federal courts of jurisdic- if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and Pledge teaches America’s children national tion over yet another important issue. The ef- spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine pride and a sense of civic responsibility. fect of H.R. 2389 would be to prevent individ- is to make an unflattering estimate of the uals who have legitimate cases from ever appeal of our institutions to free minds . . . However, I oppose H.R. 2389, the ‘‘Pledge If there is any fixed star in our constitu- Protection Act.’’ This bill is merely a reaction reaching a courtroom. The U.S. Constitution tional constellation, it is that no official, to one federal case: Newdow vs. U.S. Con- clearly states that a separation of powers, en- high, or petty can prescribe what shall be or- gress. sured by a system of checks and balances es- thodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or The 9th Circuit Federal court in Newdow tablished by our Founding Fathers more than other matters of opinion or force citizens to held that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the 200 years ago, must exist among the three confess by word or act their faith therein.’’ Established Clause of the Constitution. The branches of government. What the proponents H.R. 2389 would strip parents of their right court ruled that the phrase ‘‘one nation under of this bill want to do is to tell the courts what to go to court and defend their children’s reli- God’’ within the Pledge impermissibly takes a cases they can and cannot hear. gious liberty. If this legislation is passed, position with respect to the identity and exist- This bill is wrong and costs too high a price. schools could expel children for acting accord- ence of God. I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on H.R. ing to the dictates of their faith and Congress I disagree with the 9th Circuit’s ruling in the 2389. will have slammed the courthouse door shut in Newdow case. However, I don’t believe the The CHAIRMAN. All time for general their faces. When I was a child, I always won- way to protect the Pledge of Allegiance is by debate has expired. dered why, when the rest of the class recited banning all federal courts from hearing cases Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be the Pledge of Allegiance, one little girl always dealing with the Pledge, which is what H.R. considered read for amendment under sat quietly. Today, I understand that it was be- 2389 does. H.R. 2389 goes way too far. In the 5-minute rule. cause she was of the 7th Day Adventist faith fact, it violates the Constitution and the very The text of the bill is as follows: and therefore reciting the ‘‘under God’’ provi- spirit of the Pledge itself. H.R. 2389 sion would force her to undermine her reli- The federal courts, not the United States Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- gious faith. If H.R. 2389 were law back then, Congress, have the power to interpret and en- resentatives of the United States of America in the school administrators could have forced Congress assembled, force rights protected under the Constitution. her to say the pledge and she would have no SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. recourse in the Federal courts. That is what the famous Marbury vs. Madison This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pledge Pro- The problem with this bill is that it does not case was all about: separation of powers. But, tection Act of 2005’’. protect religious minorities, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 2389 violates the constitutional separa- SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION. Article III, Section I of the U.S. Constitution tion of powers principle, because it strips all (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 99 of title 28, vests ‘‘the Judicial Power of the United States federal courts of their power to make rulings United States Code, is amended by adding at . . . in one supreme court.’’ The list of subject on an individual’s right to choose whether to the end the following: matter areas which the Federal courts have recite the Pledge of Allegiance. ‘‘§ 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction the power to hear and decide under section 2 To ensure that America remains an indivis- ‘‘(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), of Article III establishes that, ‘‘The Judicial ible and proud Nation, it is very important that no court created by Act of Congress shall power shall extend to all cases . . . arising we protect the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme under this Constitution.’’ For over 50 years, even more important that we do not violate the Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to Constitution and undermine the federal courts hear or decide any question pertaining to the the Federal courts have played a central role interpretation of, or the validity under the in the interpretation and enforcement of civil to do so. Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as rights laws. Bills such as H.R. 2389 and the Therefore, I oppose H.R. 2389. defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recita- Federal Marriage Amendment we debated Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in tion. yesterday are bills to prevent the courts from strong support of H.R. 2389, The Pledge Pro- ‘‘(b) The limitation in subsection (a) does exercising their article III functions and prohib- tection Act, offered by Representative TODD not apply to— iting discrimination. We cannot allow bad leg- AKIN. ‘‘(1) any court established by Congress under its power to make needful rules and islation such as this to pass in the House, and This legislation protects our Pledge of Alle- giance by preventing radical judges and liberal regulations respecting the territory of the thereby eviscerate the Constitution and the United States; or values upon which this nation was originally lawyers from questioning the constitutionality ‘‘(2) the Superior Court of the District of founded. In the 1970s, some Members of of the phrase ‘‘under God.’’ Columbia or the District of Columbia Court Congress unsuccessfully sought to strip the The preamble of the Declaration of Inde- of Appeals;’’. courts of jurisdiction to hear desegregation ef- pendence states: ‘‘We hold these Truths to be (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of forts such as busing, which would have per- self-evident, that all Men are created equal, sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of petuated racial inequality. We did not allow it that they are endowed, by their Creator, with title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: then, and we should not allow it now. certain unalienable Rights, that among these H.R. 2389, as drafted, insulates the Pledge are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happi- ‘‘1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.’’. of Allegiance as set forth in section 4 of title ness.’’ The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to 4 of the United States Code from constitu- Our national motto is: ‘‘In God We Trust.’’ the bill shall be in order except those tional challenge in the Federal court. The The opening announcement at the United printed in House Report 109–577. Each Jackson-Lee amendment protects children States Supreme Court is: ‘‘God save the amendment may be offered only in the from being coerced or forced into reciting the United States and this honorable court.’’ order printed in the report, by a Mem- Pledge of Allegiance against their will. Unless there is a law limiting the jurisdiction ber designated in the report, shall be However, the statute and the pledge are of Federal courts, we will continue to see law- considered read, shall be debatable for subject to change by future legislation bodies. suits such as the one that is trying to ban the the time specified in the report, equal- This means that if some future Congress de- Pledge of Allegiance in schools because it ly divided and controlled by the pro- cides to insert some religiously offensive or mentions ‘‘One nation under God.’’ ponent and an opponent, shall not be discriminatory language in the Pledge, the The Constitution gives Congress the power subject to amendment, and shall not be matter would be immune to constitutional chal- to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in Arti- subject to a demand for division of the lenge in the Federal courts. cle III, Section 2. Maintaining checks and bal- question.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5415 AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. WATT issue from State, territorial and the something that the American people The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to District of Columbia courts is either are asking for, very well within the ju- consider amendment No. 1 printed in ignored or deliberately sheltered from risdiction of the United States Con- House Report 109–577. challenge. Rather than protect the gress. And any Member who votes Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an Pledge of Allegiance, this bill invites a against this legislation may have their amendment. patchwork of interpretations from all opinions, as Mr. WATT does, that they The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des- over the country. are either knowingly or inadvertently ignate the amendment. What if your State is the State that or perhaps even willfully conceding The text of the amendment is as fol- determines that your child can no some power and authority this Con- lows: longer recite the words ‘‘under God’’ in gress has to control the courts. Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. WATT: the Pledge? Will you move to a neigh- In the end, it is the Congress that Page 2, lines 12 and 13, strike ‘‘, and the boring State? Move across the country? controls the courts. It is not three sep- Supreme Court shall have no appellate juris- Wherever you find a friendly State in- arate but equal branches. In the end, diction,’’. terpretation? But what if there is no the congressional structure is set up The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Federal constitutional determination, for the Congress to determine the final Resolution 920, the gentleman from and State legislatures are left to authority over the judicial branch of North Carolina (Mr. WATT) and a Mem- change the law upon acquiring the ap- government through the pursestrings. ber opposed each will control 5 min- propriate majority. Would you become For all of our judicial courts and all of utes. a nomad? Would you move from State our appellate courts, everything is a The Chair recognizes the gentleman to State in search of the right position creature of Congress, except the Su- from North Carolina. for your child? preme Court, which is also a creature Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, in many The bill eliminates every single re- of Congress, but established by the di- ways my amendment is quite simple. It course that you have. It establishes a rective and the mandate of the Con- simply preserves the authority of the mechanism under which an individual’s stitution. United States Supreme Court to do its Federal rights would depend entirely Mr. Chairman, we have the authority job. My amendment, however, is funda- on the happenstance of location. Ulti- to do this. It is a very narrowly and mental in its simplicity because it re- mately coercing children to recite the carefully defined piece of legislation. flects the cornerstone of our constitu- Pledge without the language ‘‘under The Watt amendment is a gutting tional framework, a framework that God’’ may be prohibited in one place amendment. It kills the bill. It hands recognizes three coequal branches of but not another. Constitutional protec- this authority over to the Supreme government, each with its own area of tions could be strong in one State and Court, which is our very number one responsibility, each serving as a check weak or nonexistent in another. concern. We simply want to, with legis- and balance on the others. My amendment would restore the ob- lation, reflect the values of the Amer- For over 200 years, the separation of ligation of the Supreme Court to exer- ican people, reflect the values of the powers doctrine has worked well, vest- cise its role as the final arbiter of the history and the legacy of our Founding ing the legislative power with the Con- Constitution. Even if the proponents of Fathers, and our rights that come from gress, the executive power with the this measure believe the Federal, dis- God within this Pledge. I urge we op- President, and the judicial power with trict, and circuit courts of appeal pose the Watt amendment. the Supreme Court and other inferior should be removed from the process, Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield my- Federal courts. At the pinnacle of the the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in self the balance of my time. judiciary is and has been the one Court establishing uniform standards to Essentially what our bill does, if you mandated by the Constitution, the apply to all Americans wherever they want to put it in a simple word picture, United States Supreme Court. reside should certainly be protected. we are creating a fence. The fence goes I have offered this amendment be- I urge my colleagues to support my around the Federal judiciary. We do fore, and I offer it today because the amendment. that because we don’t trust them. We very idea of Congress unilaterally cut- Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance don’t trust them because of previous ting off all Federal court review of a of my time. decisions and because of the simple constitutional issue is both unprece- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s fact that there are not five votes on dented and likely unconstitutional, but time has expired. the Supreme Court to protect our be- it is also impractical and imprudent. Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to loved Pledge of Allegiance. And 80 per- Despite the substantial body of schol- claim the time in opposition to the cent to 90 percent of Americans would arship that suggests that Congress does amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to like to leave the Pledge of Allegiance not have the authority to strip the Su- the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. KING). the way it is. preme Court of this appellate jurisdic- Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I So what does this amendment do? tion in the manner proposed by this thank the gentleman for yielding this This amendment simply opens a big bill, let’s for the sake of argument con- time and for his leadership on this hole in the fence. So the gentleman cede that it does have that authority, issue. from Iowa was absolutely right: this is and let me address the imprudence of This issue that is in front of us today a gutting amendment. There is abso- this bill. is an example of congressional re- lutely no reason to pass the bill if this As legislators exercising the legisla- straint, congressional restraint with amendment were to pass. We simply tive power committed to us by the Con- regard to a court that is out of control. allow the Supreme Court to come in stitution, the compelling question is: The Ninth Circuit Court has thrown whenever they choose, turn the first Why would we want to do what this bill it back at this Congress time and time amendment upside down and simply would have us do? What could possibly again, and the activism that has taken say to kids, you are not allowed to say motivate this Congress to adopt this place out there in the ninth circuit the Pledge of Allegiance, and we are bill as sound public policy? How does brings me to some things that would be going to use the first amendment from this bill do anything to protect the more drastic solutions to this than this now on as a weapon instead of for free Pledge of Allegiance? What respect very careful, very narrow, very gently speech to censorship on the courts. does it show for our venerable institu- defined legislation that we have before So I am not persuaded by the pious tions? How does it unify us as a Na- us. It only deals with the words ‘‘under hand-wringing of liberal activists who tion? God’’ in the Pledge. flinch not at the courts’ unfettered I suggest to you that this bill makes We could do far more. In fact, I voted march to create some imagined utopia the Pledge far more vulnerable to as- to split the ninth circuit in half. I at the expense of the separation of sorted, distasteful interpretations than would vote to abolish them if they con- powers. It is time for us to do our job the current law that exists at present. tinue this kind of behavior, throwing as Congressmen. It is time to assert I appeal to our common sense. Under this into the face of the American peo- ourselves, that we will not give un- the bill as drafted, the likelihood that ple. We are not doing that. We are very checked legislative authority to the different opinions on the Pledge will carefully, very narrowly addressing courts. We have been too long rolling

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5416 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006 over to them. It is time to stand up and The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des- 6-year-old friend by the name of Hazel, say on the Pledge of Allegiance, ignate the amendment. who had a religious belief, whose fam- enough is enough. The text of the amendment is as fol- ily had a religious belief, who was al- Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today lows: lowed to sit silently in her seat when in support of the Watt Amendment, which Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. JACKSON- all of us stood to say I pledge alle- would restore the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction LEE of Texas: giance, that little girl, if forced by any over questions related to the Pledge of Alle- Page 3, line 2, insert after ‘‘recitation’’ the school system to do so, now has the giance. following: ‘‘, except in a case in which the courthouse door closed to her. claim involved alleges coerced or mandatory It means that we are ignoring the The Pledge of Allegiance is an important ex- recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, in- pression of our shared values, and it should cluding coercion in violation of the protec- West Virginia State Board of Edu- be preserved in its current form. I fully support tion of the free exercise of religion’’. cation versus Barnett case that man- the Pledge of Allegiance and urge my col- The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House dated that school children recite the leagues to do the same. Resolution 920, the gentlewoman from Pledge of Allegiance. This was done in The intent of this bill is good. In fact, I was Texas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE) and a Mem- West Virginia. Under West Virginia a cosponsor of this bill in the 108th Congress. ber opposed each will control 5 min- law, persons who on religious grounds However, that was before the provision was utes. refused to recite the Pledge faced ex- added to restrict the Supreme Court from The Chair recognizes the gentle- pulsion from school. But Justice Jack- hearing cases involving the Pledge of Alle- woman from Texas. son wrote, ‘‘To believe patriotism will giance. The bill we vote on today again strips Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over this im- Chairman, I would imagine that Mem- voluntary and spontaneous instead of a portant constitutional issue. bers across the campus in their offices compulsory routine is to make an un- I recognize that Congress clearly has the and maybe even committee rooms are flattering estimate of the appeal of our authority under Article III of the Constitution to moved by the impassioned pleas by my institution to free minds.’’ define the jurisdiction or the federal district friends on the other side of the aisle, so Mr. Chairman, I have said it is good and appellate courts. But constitutional schol- I want to make a pledge, and that is and good news to say the Pledge and to ars say there is no direct precedent for making that I have stood on the floor of the have our school children say the exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the House and acknowledged the impor- Pledge. This amendment is very clear. Supreme Court. tance of having our schoolchildren and It does nothing to this particular legis- I would caution my colleagues to think twice others of America acknowledge and say lation, other than to say that if your before tampering with authorities clearly grant- the Pledge of Allegiance every single grounds are religious based, based on ed in the Constitution. The issue today may be day. I stand by that statement. religion, based on your defined reli- the Pledge, but what if the issue tomorrow is What bothers me is when Members gious beliefs, why are you denying Second Amendment rights, civil rights, envi- come to the floor and vote, they will them the right to go into the court- ronmental protection, or a host of other issues look to the name of the proponent and house on religious beliefs only? that members may hold dear? they will simply vote ‘‘no.’’ They will That is the question that clergy are I would also ask my colleagues, do we real- not understand the crux of the debate. asking across America. That is the ly want 50 different versions of the Pledge of They will not understand the sheer question that the American Bar Asso- Allegiance? I certainly don’t think so. quarrel or the sheer amazement that ciation, representing lawyers of all po- The Watt amendment would restore to the we have with this particular legislation litical persuasions, are asking at this bill the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over ques- in the first place. time. tions related to the Pledge of Allegiance, This legislation deals with the idea of And I beg of my colleagues to under- changing the bill back to the way it was origi- protecting the Pledge of Allegiance by stand that we are protectors of liberty. nally introduced in the 108th Congress when denying access to the courthouse. My We are protectors of the first amend- I was a cosponsor. amendment is simple. It gives real ment. We are not to denounce the first I revere the Constitution and the Pledge of meaning to the Pledge of Allegiance amendment. We are not to ignoring the Allegiance. I believe that ‘‘Under God’’ are two and the patriotism that is felt when it first amendment. We are not to stomp of the most important words in the Pledge. I is recited by making it clear that no on the first amendment. And I would also believe that the Supreme Court should be one can be forced or coerced to recite beg to say that if we call ourselves pro- the final arbiter of all federal questions. That’s the Pledge of Allegiance or retaliated tecting the flag, the very flag that sol- why I urge you to support the Watt Amend- against for not reciting it in those diers in Iraq and Afghanistan are now ment to the Pledge Protection Act. cases where doing so violates one’s reli- on the battlefield shedding their blood, Mr AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back gious beliefs. veterans, and we would deny Ameri- the balance of my time. What is the hindrance of Members cans the right to utilize the constitu- The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to allow one to be able to ac- tional branch of government created by the amendment offered by the gen- cess the courts on the simple ground the Constitution and created by this tleman from North Carolina (Mr. that it violates one’s religious beliefs? body. WATT). Shame on us if we cannot accept the The question was taken; and the b 1345 entreaty of a little girl named Hazel, Chairman announced that the noes ap- In this way, my amendment ensures who sat next to me in a school a few peared to have it. that the Pledge of Allegiance is being short years ago, I might add, lonely, Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand recited freely, voluntarily and without unprotected, fearful, sitting isolated a recorded vote, and pending that, I coercion or fear of retaliation. In this while we stood to say the Pledge. I am make the point of order that a quorum way, a recited Pledge of Allegiance re- grateful that I had a teacher that un- is not present. mains sacrosanct, and our national derstood that we would not stigmatize The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause commitment to religious freedom is her, discriminate against her, and she 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on preserved. had her freedom. the amendment offered by the gen- Might I cite for my friends a quote This is an important amendment to tleman from North Carolina will be from President Reagan, the great com- ensure that all of our freedom is pro- postponed. municator himself, who said in 1983, tected. I ask my colleagues for a vote The point of no quorum is considered ‘‘The first amendment of the Constitu- for religious freedom and liberty and to withdrawn. tion was not written to protect the allow the Jackson-Lee amendment to AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON- people of this country from religious go forward. LEE OF TEXAS values, it was written to protect reli- Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to gious values from government tyr- desk. I thank the members of the Rules Com- consider amendment No. 2 printed in anny.’’ mittee for allowing this amendment to go for- House Report 109–577. What I would suggest is to close the ward. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. courthouse door is an example of gov- Mr. Chairman, my amendment gives real Chairman, I offer an amendment. ernment tyranny. It means that if my meaning to the Pledge of Allegiance and the

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 9920 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5417 patriotism that is felt when it is recited by mak- Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to There would be nothing left to us at ing it clear that no one can be coerced or claim the time in opposition to the that point but to board up the windows forced to recite the Pledge, or retaliated amendment. in this building and go home and quit against for not reciting it in those cases where The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is pretending to be defenders of the doing so violates one’s religious beliefs. In this recognized for 5 minutes. United States Constitution or rep- way, my amendment ensures that the Pledge Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 resentatives of the greatest Republic in of Allegiance is being recited freely, volun- minutes to my distinguished colleague the history of humanity. tarily, and without coercion or fear of retalia- from Arizona, TRENT FRANKS. Mr. Chairman, it is not too late. I tion. In this way, a recited Pledge of Alle- Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair- urge this amendment be rejected, and giance remains sacrosanct and our national man, may I first remind all of us of the bill be passed as written. commitment to religious freedom is preserved. words we each spoke not so long ago. Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield Mr. Chairman, my amendment draws inspi- ‘‘I do solemnly swear that I will sup- back the balance of my time. ration from President Reagan, the Great Com- port and defend the Constitution of the The CHAIRMAN. The question is on municator himself, who said in 1983: United States against all enemies, for- the amendment offered by the gentle- The First Amendment of the Constitution eign or domestic; that I will bear true woman from Texas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE). was not written to protect the people of this faith and allegiance to the same; that I The question was taken; and the country from religious values; it was written take this obligation freely, without Chairman announced that the noes ap- to protect religious values from government any mental reservation or purpose of peared to have it. tyranny. evasion; and that I will well and faith- Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. H.R. 2389 precludes Federal judicial review fully discharge the duties of the office Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. of any constitutional challenge to recitation of on which I am about to enter, so help The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause the Pledge of Allegiance—whether it be in the me God.’’ 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on lower Federal courts or the U.S. Supreme Mr. Chairman, when we swore this the amendment offered by the gentle- Court. My amendment does not disturb this oath, we did not say that we would pro- woman from Texas will be postponed. legislative judgment except in the limited in- tect the Constitution from everyone Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. stance of cases involving claims of coercion except rogue judges. Chairman, in the spirit of reflection of and mandatory recitation. In other words, my The issue that brings us to the floor this disastrous bill, I ask unanimous amendment is intended to protect religious this day is an act on the part of the consent to withdraw my rollcall vote values from government tyranny. Nothing less, Ninth Circuit that ruled that the words only because I believe that we would nothing more. ‘‘under God’’ in a voluntary Pledge of denigrate the protection of religion Mr. Chairman, in West Virginia State Board Allegiance by our school children is un- even further by subjecting my very of Education v. Barnett, the Supreme Court constitutional. good amendment to a rollcall vote. It struck down a West Virginia law that man- It astonishes me, Mr. Chairman, that should be already included in this. dated schoolchildren recite the Pledge of Alle- we even have to address such an insane The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, giance. Under West Virginia law, persons who, conclusion. I truly believe that if we the gentlewoman’s request for a re- on religious grounds, refused to recite the had lived in the days of the Founding corded vote is withdrawn, to the end Pledge faced expulsion from school and could Fathers and accused them of intending that the amendment stands rejected by be prosecuted and fined for violating the stat- to outlaw school children from saying voice vote. ute. In striking down that statute, the great the words ‘‘under God’’ in their vol- There was no objection. Justice Robert Jackson wrote for the Court: untary Pledge of Allegiance, they So the amendment was rejected. To believe patriotism will not flourish if would have challenged us to a duel for AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MR. AKIN patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spon- impugning their honor in such an egre- The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to taneous instead of a compulsory routine is to gious and outrageous fashion. make an unflattering estimate of the appeal consider amendment No. 3 printed in Mr. Chairman, when judicial su- House Report 109–577. of our institutions to free minds . . . If there premacists on the bench desecrate the is any fixed star in our constitutional con- Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an stellation, it is that no official, high, or very Constitution that they are given amendment. petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in charge, the sacred charge to defend, The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des- politics, nationalism, religion, or other mat- those of us in this Congress who have ignate the amendment. ters of opinion or force citizens to confess by also made an oath to defend the Con- The text of the amendment is as fol- word or act their faith therein. stitution must respond accordingly. lows: Mr. Chairman, my amendment is important The Constitution of the United States, Mr. Chairman, does not pro- Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. AKIN: for another reason. H.R. 2389, as drafted, in- Add at the end the following: hibit school children from saying the sulates the Pledge of Allegiance from constitu- SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. words ‘‘under God’’ in a voluntary tional challenge in Federal court. This Act and the amendments made by However, the pledge itself is subject to Pledge of Allegiance. It is that fun- this Act take effect on the date of the enact- change by future legislative bodies. This damentally simple. ment of this Act and apply to any case means that if some future Congress decides Indeed, the Constitution does say that— to revise the Pledge to include religiously of- that the Congress shall make no law (1) is pending on such date of enactment; fensive or discriminatory language in the respecting an establishment of religion or Pledge, the authority of the government to or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (2) is commenced on or after such date of compel a person to recite that Pledge could Mr. Chairman, when the Ninth Cir- enactment. not be challenged in Federal court. None of us cuit decision said school children can- The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House would want that to happen. My amendment not voluntarily say the words ‘‘under Resolution 920, the gentleman from ensures that it won’t. God’’ in their Pledge of Allegiance, Missouri (Mr. AKIN) and a Member op- Mr. Chairman, my amendment protects reli- these judges, sir, were prohibiting the posed each will control 5 minutes. gious minorities. My amendment protects judi- free exercise thereof. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim cial review. My amendment protects the sepa- This legislation would take such a the time in opposition. ration of powers. My amendment strengthens decision away from such rogue judges. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman the Pledge by ensuring that it recited volun- Mr. Chairman, if Congress forsakes from New York will control the 5 min- tarily. My amendment ensures that the Pledge, their oath and their duty to defend the utes in opposition. like the oath all Members of Congress take, is Constitution and allows this magnifi- The Chair recognizes the gentleman ‘‘given freely, without mental reservation or cent document to fall prey to activist from Missouri. purpose of evasion.’’ I urge all Members to judges, we relegate this Republic to an Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, could I just support the Jackson-Lee amendment. arrogant judicial oligarchy. It is an ab- ask, is the other side going to be speak- Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance rogation of our oath of office and it ing on the amendment? of my time. tramples on the blood of our Founding The CHAIRMAN. Mr. NADLER has The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman’s Fathers and the soldiers who died to claimed the 5 minutes in opposition, so time has expired. give us America and her rule of law. I assume he is going to speak.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE H5418 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 19, 2006 Mr. AKIN. That is a good assump- This is the time for this Congress to Supporters of this bill have candidly tion. stand up, to be strong, and to take no- said they disagree with the Supreme Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this tice of the fact that the Court will no Court, and that, in their opinion, the amendment and the reason it was longer be making these forays of abso- Supreme Court has gone beyond its added, to some degree in a last-minute lutely unchecked legislative decision- powers, and that we, in effect, should nature, was because of the Hamden de- making. And it is time for us to stand overrule it and prevent them from rul- cision. The Hamden decision, a major- up and say no to a Court that is effec- ing in these cases. We have heard this ity of the Supreme Court on an Article tively trying to create their own set of before. Look at the notorious ‘‘South- III, section 2 question said that because rules instead of reading the U.S. Con- ern Manifesto’’ against the Supreme a particular issue, in this case it was stitution. Court decision in the Brown v. Board of Gitmo, was being considered in the Mr. Chairman, I think that there is Education 50 years ago: ‘‘We regard the courts, that the article III, section 2 good evidence from the way that the decisions of the Supreme Court in the language didn’t apply. Court has handled the fifth amendment school cases as a clear abuse of judicial Now, this is completely inconsistent in allowing the redistribution of pri- power. It climaxes a trend in the Fed- with all previous rulings of the Su- vate property willy nilly, without a eral judiciary undertaking to legislate, preme Court. But we thought, just to government purpose, I think there is in derogation of the authority of Con- be safe, that what we would do here good reason to be concerned as the gress, and to encroach upon the re- would be to add language that makes it Court has taken to itself a power to served rights of the States and the peo- clear that not only does this bill con- tax, which is unconstitutional. There is ple.’’ sider any future cases that are brought good reason for us to be concerned That is what we hear whenever peo- before the court, the Federal courts, about the Court’s overrunning their ple disagree with the Supreme Court, but also existing cases, in this case, constitutional bounds. in the school desegregation cases and again, the challenge to the Pledge that It is time for us to show the back- now. And this amendment makes the is already in the Federal court system bone to stand up to the Court. It is point of the bill explicit. and is before the Ninth Circuit out in time for us to say no to this unregu- The sponsors are afraid of what the California and some of the States in lated, general legislative authority. Supreme Court may do in a pending the West. So that was the reason for Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal- case on this subject that may come be- this technical and perfecting amend- ance of my time. fore them and therefore explicitly strip ment, certainly to clarify, just simply Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the Federal courts of jurisdiction even to clarify that this bill would apply not myself such time as I may consume. over a pending case. This is Congress only to future legislation but cases Mr. Chairman, we are now down to saying to a specific plaintiff, we do not that are currently before the Court. the heart of the matter. This entire approve of your claim of a violation of Along those lines, I think it is very spectacle is aimed at a possible deci- your constitutional right; so we are important for us to once again affirm sion by one Court that the directed going to shut the courthouse door in the importance of our discussion and recitation by school children under the your face. our debate here today. It is ultimately instruction of their teacher of the This is a dangerous enterprise. I re- the job of the legislative branch and phrase ‘‘under God’’ may violate the spect my friend’s concerns and his the executive branch to provide some first amendment rights of those chil- right to disagree with the courts, but check and balance on the Supreme dren. we must not destroy our Constitution Court. Let’s be clear. Nowhere in the United and the one independent bulwark of There would be no argument from me States is the use of the phrase ‘‘under our liberty. I urge defeat of this bill. if the Supreme Court based all of their God’’ prohibited in the public schools. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose decisions on the rules, that is the U.S. In the only two cases in which the of making a unanimous consent re- Constitution. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the directed recita- quest to the distinguished ranking Court has gone beyond that increas- tion of the phrase ‘‘under God’’ vio- member of the Judiciary Committee, ingly, and it is our concern that they lated the establishment clause, the Su- Mr. CONYERS. will go well beyond the U.S. Constitu- preme Court vacated one ruling, and (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given tion in considering this case. has issued a stay preventing the second permission to revise and extend his re- We have every reason to believe that ruling from interfering with the recita- marks.) we do not have five Justices that will tion of the Pledge. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise support the Pledge. We have every rea- For this we need to take a chain saw today to oppose this amendment and son to believe that the Pledge could to the Constitution? For this we need am against any amendment that would easily be struck, and it is for that rea- to endanger the religious liberty of re- throw out any case currently pending son that this bill has been introduced. ligious minorities like the Jehovah’s in the Court. Now, some would say that, in fact I Witnesses, who were thrown out of This amendment would add language mak- believe the minority leader called what school because their religion barred ing it explicit that this already unconstitutional is going on on this floor a charade. I them from saying the Pledge? bill is effective immediately and applies to all think that is a rather harsh way of de- Only the Supreme Court protected pending and future litigation. As it currently scribing people that have a genuine in- their rights in violence against Jeho- stands, this bill does nothing to protect reli- terest in the Pledge of Allegiance, have vah’s Witnesses that ensued. gious minorities from being coerced into recit- a genuine interest in the heart of what This bill would not only prevent the ing the Pledge, in violation of their First this good Nation was based on, the idea Supreme Court from ruling on the con- Amendment right of free speech. This amend- that there is, in fact, a God that grants stitutionality of directing school chil- ment would effectively throw out any case that basic inalienable rights to all people, dren to recite the phrase ‘‘under God,’’ is currently pending in court in which a child’s and that the job of government is to it would also overturn the 1943 Su- right to be free from religious persecution is protect those basic rights. preme Court Jehovah’s Witnesses case being vindicated, and would slam the court- Part of that U.S. Constitution in- and allow the punishment or expulsion house door shut in their faces. cludes the first amendment, and the of school children for refusing to recite H.R. 2389 as a whole is premature and first amendment has to do with free a pledge that violates their religion or should not be on our list of priorities. speech. I can understand the use of the their conscience. What I find particularly troubling about this first amendment to say to someone, bill, setting aside all of the concerns that I you are not required to give an oath b 1400 have already stated, is its timing. It seems that that you don’t believe in. But I cannot We may be endowed, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues in the majority have lost sight understand how you can look at free by our Creator with certain of our priorities. At a time of record budget speech as a tool to censor school chil- unalienable rights, but people can, and deficits and gasoline prices, when we are en- dren across America from saying that routinely do, violate and take away gaged in a quagmire in Iraq, when more than they cannot, they are going to censor those rights. That is why we need a Su- 45 million people are uninsured in this nation, the Pledge of Allegiance, they cannot preme Court, to protect these rights and every day workers are seeing their pen- say the Pledge of Allegiance. even when political majorities will not. sions and health care benefits jeopardized,

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 9920 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5419 surely we can find better things to do with our REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER (1) the successful completion of the Space time as a congress than bash the courts. AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 3044 Shuttle Discovery’s STS–121 mission; and Why then is something as arbitrary as a bill (2) its pioneering work in space exploration Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask which is strengthening the Nation and bene- that would strip our Federal courts of their au- unanimous consent to remove my thority to hear an issue that the highest court fitting all Americans. name from cosponsorship of H.R. 3044. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- in our land has never spoke on at the top of The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there ant to the rule, the gentleman from our list of ‘‘things to do’’? Need I remind my objection to the request of the gen- California (Mr. CALVERT) and the gen- colleagues that the Supreme Court has never, tleman from Michigan? since the inclusion of the words ‘‘under God’’ There was no objection. tlewoman from Texas (Ms. JACKSON- LEE) each will control 20 minutes. into the Pledge of Allegiance back in 1954, f discussed or ruled on its constitutionality? The Chair recognizes the gentleman Why then do we need this legislation at all? ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER from California. Why then do we need to offer this legislation PRO TEMPORE GENERAL LEAVE now? It is our rights as individuals that are at The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask stake right now—not the sanctity and preser- ant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair unanimous consent that all Members vation of the Pledge. will postpone further proceedings may have 5 legislative days to revise I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on this today on motions to suspend the rules and extend their remarks and to in- amendment. on which a recorded vote or the yeas clude extraneous material on H. Con. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how and nays are ordered, or on which the Res. 448, the concurrent resolution now much time do I have left? vote is objected to under clause 6 of under consideration. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman rule XX. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 1 from New York has 1 ⁄2 minutes. RECORD votes on postponed questions objection to the request of the gen- Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will will be taken later today. tleman from California? not use the 11⁄2 minutes. I will simply f There was no objection. say that this amendment is dangerous Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the same reason that the bill is COMMENDING NASA ON COMPLE- myself such time as I may consume. dangerous. We should not say, in the TION OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE’S Mr. Speaker, today I rise in hearty case of this amendment, to someone SECOND RETURN-TO-FLIGHT MIS- support of H. Con. Res. 448, which com- who is a plaintiff in a court in a pend- SION mends the National Aeronautics and ing case, we are going to shut the Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I move Space Administration for its successful courthouse door in your face because to suspend the rules and agree to the completion of the space shuttle’s sec- we are afraid the Supreme Court might concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 448) ond return-to-flight test mission. issue a decision. It has not done it yet, commending the National Aeronautics NASA gave the United States a birth- but we are afraid the Supreme Court and Space Administration on the com- day present and the best fireworks might issue a decision that we disagree pletion of the Space Shuttle’s second show imaginable with the breathtaking with. We do not trust the courts. We do Return-to-Flight mission. launch of the Discovery mission, also not agree with them. Never mind that The Clerk read as follows: known as STS–121, on the Fourth of George Bush has appointed two new H. CON. RES. 448 July this year. members of the Court. We still do not Whereas, on July 4, 2006, the National Aer- The shuttle Discovery spent nearly 13 agree with it, and, therefore, we are onautics and Space Administration per- days in orbit, 9 of which were spent going to try to strip them of their ju- formed a successful launch of the Space docked to the international space sta- risdiction. Shuttle Discovery; tion. During the 18th shuttle mission Whereas this mission, known as STS–121, That way strips the protection of our to the international space station, the liberties from us. We need the courts to marks the second Return-to-Flight mission; Whereas the crew of the Discovery con- STS–121 crew members delivered over protect our liberties. Our constitu- 28,000 pounds of equipment and supplies tional rights can only be vindicated by sisted of Colonel Steve Lindsey, Commander Mark Kelly, Piers Sellers, Ph.D, Lieutenant and transported one additional crew the courts stepping in when the polit- Colonel Mike Fossum, Commander Lisa member to the station for a 6-month ical branches of government violate Nowak, Stephanie Wilson, and Thomas stay. The astronauts also performed the rights of unpopular minorities. Reiter; three successful space walks to test That is what the courts have done Whereas the STS–121 mission tested Space equipment and to conduct mainte- Shuttle safety improvements, building on throughout our history, and we need nance. that protection to continue. And that findings from Discovery’s flight last year, in- cluding a redesign of the Space Shuttle’s Ex- This Discovery mission is an essen- is why this bill is not only subversive tial building block for the Vision for of our constitutional rights, but uncon- ternal Tank foam insulation, in-flight in- spection of the shuttle’s heat shield, and im- Space Exploration to the Moon, Mars, stitutional. proved imagery during launch; and Beyond. NASA is already fast at The bill ought to be defeated. The Whereas the STS–121 mission re-supplied work on preparation for the next shut- amendment ought to be defeated. the International Space Station by deliv- Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal- tle launch, with a window that begins ering more than 28,000 pounds of equipment on August 28, just a little more than a ance of my time. and supplies, as well as added a third crew The CHAIRMAN. The question is on member to the International Space Station; month away. This mission will resume the amendment offered by the gen- Whereas, due to the overall success of the the assembly of the international space tleman from Missouri (Mr. AKIN). launch and on-orbit operations, the mission station with the delivery of two truss The amendment was agreed to. was able to be extended from 12 to 13 days, sections and a set of solar arrays. Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move allowing for an additional space walk to the NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, that the Committee do now rise. two originally scheduled; the Discovery crew, and the men and The motion was agreed to. Whereas the success of the STS–121 mis- women of NASA deserve accolades Accordingly, the Committee rose; sion is a tribute to the skills and dedication from the American public for a suc- and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. of the Space Shuttle crew, the National Aer- cessful STS–121 mission and for effec- onautics and Space Administration, and its MARCHANT) having assumed the chair, industrial partners; tively reviving America’s space pro- Mr. LATOURETTE, Chairman of the Whereas all Americans benefit from the gram to the heights of its glory. These Committee of the Whole House on the technological advances gained through the astronauts represent the best of hu- State of the Union, reported that that Space Shuttle program; and mankind. As the President stated upon Committee, having had under consider- Whereas the National Aeronautics and the return of the Discovery crew on ation the bill (H.R. 2389) to amend title Space Administration plays a vital role in Monday: ‘‘Your courage and commit- 28, United States Code, with respect to sustaining America’s preeminence in space: ment to excellence have inspired us all, Now, therefore, be it the jurisdiction of Federal courts over Resolved by the House of Representatives (the and a proud Nation sends its congratu- certain cases and controversies involv- Senate concurring), That it is the sense of lations on a job well done. America’s ing the Pledge of Allegiance, had come Congress that the National Aeronautics and space program is a source of great na- to no resolution thereon. Space Administration be commended for— tional pride.’’

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Nov 16, 2006 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORDCX\T37X$J0E\H19JY6.REC H19JY6 CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with CONG-REC-ONLINE