Pledge Protection Act of 2004

PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - September 23, 2004)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 781 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2028.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

POINT OF ORDER

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman was referencing activities as far as the other body is concerned, naming a Senator by name. Is that not out of order by this body?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, the gentleman from Florida was referencing a provision in a conference report that was adopted by this body as well as by the other body and became law.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All Members should refrain from improper references to Members of the other body.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, with our troops in harm's way and a deteriorating situation in Iraq and with our country facing the clear and present danger of terrorism, there are grave and great issues that Congress must address.

But what are we doing here today? Are we debating the 9/11 Commission recommendations to secure our Nation? Are we providing health insurance to millions of Americans who have lost their insurance under this President, providing jobs to the millions of unemployed Americans and fully funding our schools?

No, Mr. Chairman. Instead, we are gathering here to once again debate undermining the Constitution of the United States and dishonoring the oath of office that we take to protect and defend the Constitution.

The bill before us claims to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. But protect the Pledge from what? Our Supreme Court has not undermined the constitutionality of the Pledge.

With the reversal of the Newdow case, there is only one major appeals court decision that has addressed the constitutionality of the Pledge; and that court, the seventh circuit, has upheld the Pledge.

This is a piece of legislation in search of a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Millions of Americans daily and proudly pledge "one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Let me be clear. I defer to no one in my defense of the voluntary recitation of the Pledge. I strongly believe that the phrase "under God" and the Pledge itself is an uplifting expression of support for the United States. I love the Pledge.

The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary referenced the Civil War in response to a statement made by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and said it was not the Supreme Court that increased freedom in our country for all Americans; it was the Civil War and the amendments that followed it. That certainly was an important part of it. But absent the Brown v. The Board of Education decision, we would not be enjoying the freedoms we have for all Americans today.

But since the gentleman referenced the Civil War, I want to call to our colleagues' attention a quote that is familiar to all of them. It is from Lincoln's second inaugural address: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in, to bind up our Nation's wounds." President Lincoln called upon God.

Another of my favorite inaugural addresses is that of President Kennedy and his inaugural address. He said: "With good conscience our only reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help and knowing that here on Earth God's work must truly be our own."

So evoking God's will and calling upon Him to guide us in our work is something that is very important to all Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I resent the comments made by some that there is anything less than that commitment on both sides of the aisle.

This bill not only does not protect the Pledge; it violates the spirit of the Pledge by professing a lack of faith in the constitutional framework. It has been a settled principle since Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison that "it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." The Federalist Papers, subsequent decisions of the Court, and the judicial branch's role as a co-equal branch all strongly suggest that Congress cannot prohibit courts from determining constitutional questions.

There is no question that this bill does not pass constitutional muster. But that does not deter the bill's proponents. The gentleman from Indiana, the author of the last court-stripping bill and a key advocate for this bill, has even outdone his statement 2 months ago that 200 years of precedent in Marbury v. Madison establishing judicial review was "wrongly decided." The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) amazingly asserted in the markup of the bill last week that "the notion of an independent judiciary is a flawed notion ..... the notion of an independent judiciary does not bear out actually in the Constitution."

The notion of an independent judiciary is not contained in our Constitution? This is a principle that we as a power of example of our country try to convey to emerging democracies that central to democracy is an independent judiciary. And advocates for this legislation say that that is not contained in our Constitution.

Is this what the leadership of this House and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary really believe? I suggest that they read James Madison and Alexander Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers. This radical concept is completely counter to our history and our values.

Two months ago, some assured us that the court-stripping efforts would stop once they got their wanted Defense of Marriage Act. But as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), distinguished dean of the House, so eloquently warned us in July, "We should expect to see this dangerous approach repeated on a wide range of other legislation."

Today his prediction has come true, and there is no pretense that this will end. What is next? Voting rights? Laws that prohibit racial discrimination? Civil liberties? Our rights to privacy?

As we consider this bill, we must remember our history and protect our Constitution to ensure our liberty. We must protect the ability of the Federal judiciary to safeguard our freedoms and ensure access to the courts by all.

This bill is an assault on our cherished Constitution and the independent judiciary for its part for partisan purposes, and it is an attempt to distract the American people from the Republicans' record of failure.

Mr. Chairman, let us honor the pledge by keeping faith with its spirit. Let us pledge to be one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This bill has been brought to the floor to embarrass some Members, so I respect whatever decisions they have to make in light of the motivation behind it. I just want the record to show why I so strongly oppose this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT