Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2028, Pledge Protection Act of 2004
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2028, PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - September 22, 2004)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 781 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 781
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2028) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
The resolution before us is a well-balanced, structured rule providing 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.
It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.
It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. They shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Finally, it waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and its underlying legislation, the Pledge Protection Act of 2004. This legislation offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) follows up and improves upon the work that the House has already accomplished on behalf of protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from those whose ultimate goal is to undermine and devalue the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance by stripping the words "under God" from it.
Since June 27, 2002, the House has voted three times to protect the Pledge from those fringe and radical elements in our country who dislike its content and its meaning as it is currently written. Twice the House has overwhelmingly voted through House resolutions to express its opinion that the 9th Circuit Court's decision in Newdow v. The United States Congress is incorrect, and once to limit the use of Federal funds from enforcing this onerous judgment.
Today, Congress has the opportunity to once again stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance and the values that it imparts to the millions of patriotic Americans who recite it every day by supporting this carefully crafted resolution.
H.R. 2028 would amend the Federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any court established by an act of Congress to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the first amendment of the Constitution. This legislation would prevent Federal judges from legislating from the bench and striking down the historic and heartfelt meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance.
My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), has clearly stated, "A remedy to abuses by Federal judges has long been understood to lie, among other places, in Congress's authority to limit Federal Court jurisdiction."
I too understand this, as my father was a Federal judge for many years, and I know that not all judges are interested in legislating from the bench, but there are those occurrences and abuses that do occur. I believe that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) is correct.
Mr. Speaker, the choice posed by this legislation is stark and it is very clear: Should Congress allow those activist judges to decide by fiat how patriotic Americans across our great country may pledge their allegiance to our country; or should Congress, which is directly accountable and speaks to and for the people of this great Nation, exercise its authority to act as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution as envisioned by our Founding Fathers?
I believe that this choice is simple. It is very important for every Member of the House to place themselves on record as sharing the values of the majority of Americans in our country that believe that America is one Nation under God and that the opinion of a few liberal judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can never change that fact.
There may be some who come to the floor today to argue that Congress is not competent enough to address this issue. They will argue, I am sure, in an attempt to confuse the issue, that only Federal courts can decide on constitutionality and that this legislation represents some kind of affront to the separation of powers doctrine which our government is based upon.
This attempt to divert attention from the real matter is not only deceptive, I believe it would be patently wrong. The Pledge of Allegiance Act does not dictate how the courts should come to a decision. Instead, it carefully limits the jurisdiction of the Federal courts clearly within the constitutional powers of the Congress to hear a case calling into question the pledge's constitutionality.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to protect this very important right that we have in our country to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and to stand up for values upon which our great Nation was founded by supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a very eloquent opportunity to hear from the gentleman from Florida as he spoke about his desire not to support this legislation. We should also remember that there are many judges around this country who have the same opinion that the gentleman has, and they would wish a case to come forth to them where they could change this Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America, one Nation under God, indivisible. And this is one of the reasons why this is an important issue.
The gentleman correctly talked about the things which we have now achieved or not achieved, in his opinion, for the last year-and-a-half of this Congress, the 108th Congress. We had votes on taxes. We had votes on opportunities to limit lawsuits, lawsuit abuse. And every single time, we have had an opportunity to vote on these very important issues. So I am proud of what we have done. But I would also say that the Pledge of Allegiance is something that is worth fighting for on the floor of the House of Representatives and to protect.
So I know and recognize that there are my friends in the other party that do not agree with us on this, that they would call it un-American that we would not allow some Federal judge to hear a case and then to legislate against the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe that is what Congress is here to do, and I believe that judges are there to rule on the law, not to make law. That is why we offer this bill, this very important bill, that we have here tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the sponsor of this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We had the opportunity to hear from the gentleman from Missouri to enunciate not only what was in his heart about this Pledge of Allegiance, and I believe he supported very strongly the belief of exactly why we are here today for the Flag Protection Act. I think that there are many people in the United States that simply do not like the Pledge of Allegiance and would wish and choose to change that.
We have heard the gentleman from Florida suggest that the world and this country will be much different in the future, and while I cannot argue with the gentleman that I think change is incumbent and will always happen, I think that there are some things that are worthy of keeping, that we should hold dear and important to this Nation. And one of them is the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
I think it is one of the reasons why, when new citizens come to this country and they become citizens, that tears stream down their eyes as they raise their hand, as a Federal judge or a Federal magistrate will administer their oath, and then they will say the Pledge of Allegiance. And people who are today fighting terrorism and represent our United States military, they stand up at attention before our flag. They understand that the United States of America is not perfect, and there may be changes in our future. But I believe that they also believe that one thing should not change, and that is the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Every day, when we open the United States Congress, we respectfully give our thanks not only to God, and certainly the words right over your head there, Mr. Speaker, "in God we trust" are stated from the podium up front, but also we say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
This body has been used as an attempt to publicize and perhaps politicize the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I think that it is a right thing that we will stand up for the Flag Protection Act. I think it is the right thing to do, and I encourage all of my colleagues to not only stand up for this flag but for this wonderful legislation, for traditional American values and our Founding Fathers' intent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.