Pledge Protection Act of 2005

PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005. This legislation does nothing to address the real issues facing families in America today, and serves merely to distract and delay Congress from efforts to vote on issues that would actually impact the daily lives of our constituents.

This bill failed to pass out of the Judiciary Committee, and yet, we are voting on it today on the Floor of the People's House, an event without precedence according to the Parliamentarian. The Majority is taking this extraordinary action not for an issue that will affect the daily lives of American families--but for a blatantly political debate in an election-year attempt to appeal to their base. My constituents are concerned about the conflict in the Middle

East, earning a living wage, accessing affordable health care and relief from sky-rocketing gas prices. Minnesotans in the 4th District have made it clear that Congress should get to work on the priority issues of this country, rather than continue to play political games.

H.R. 2389 would remove the Pledge of Allegiance from the jurisdiction of federal courts. This bill is an attempt by Republicans to strip our federal courts of their power to rule over issues of Constitutional relevance, and to tell our federal courts that their expertise on Constitutional freedoms is irrelevant. Our system of checks and balances was constructed by our Founders for this specific reason--to retain the independence of the Courts, and their ability to rule justly and uphold the rule of law in this great country. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated last year, the effectiveness of the federal courts relies on the knowledge that they will not be subject to retaliation for their rulings.

Representative MEL WATT offered an amendment today to this bill that, had it passed, would have allowed the Supreme Court to hear cases regarding the Pledge of Allegiance--in effect, reversing the negative damage this bill will inflict if it passes. I supported Mr. WATT's amendment, and am extremely disappointed that the majority of my colleagues did not do the same.

This bill is likely unconstitutional and debating it on the floor of the House today is an outrage considering the real issues facing American families. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, upholding the system of justice our Founders intended, and return to debating the issues we were elected to resolve.

http://thomas.loc.gov