F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3988 under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3214) to amend the charter of the AMVETS organization.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3214, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3214 would amend the Federal charter for the American Veterans of World War II, Korea and Vietnam to American Veterans to more accurately reflect the membership of AMVETS. AMVETS membership now includes not only veterans from those three wars, but also anyone who served honorably after 1940, and the National Guardsmen and Reservists. At the AMVETS annual convention in 1998, the delegates voted for an official name change from American Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam to American Veterans to more accurately reflect the membership. Additionally, AMVETS has voted to change the structure of their governing body. This bill contains language to reflect the structure change in the statute. Finally, because AMVETS has moved the location of their headquarters from the District of Columbia to Lanham, Maryland, the ``Headquarters and principal place of business'' section of their charter needs to be changed to indicate that they are now located in Maryland. In order for these changes to be recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the AMVETS Federal charter must be amended, and this bill does that. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass H.R. 3214, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3838, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3838 would amend the Federal charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars to allow any member of the Armed Forces who received hostile fire or imminent danger pay to be a member of the VFW. The language would allow veterans from conflict areas such as Somalia or Kosovo to be eligible for membership in the VFW. Currently, VFW membership is limited to those who have honorably served in the Armed Forces and who have received a campaign medal for service or those who served honorably for a specific period on the Korean peninsula. Without this amendment, members of the Armed Forces who served under equally dangerous conditions, such as those experienced in the campaign medal service in Korea, are not eligible for VFW membership. The bill also adds the word ``charitable'' to the purpose of the VFW. VFW members volunteer millions of hours to local communities. Although volunteerism has always been a large part of the mission of the VFW, in some States the VFW is being denied qualification as a charitable organization because ``charitable'' is not included in their charter language. These amendments reflect the language of two resolutions approved by the voting delegates of the VFW at their national convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I urge the House to pass this bill to ratify the changes to the VFW Federal charter, which have been approved by the membership. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 459) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Newdow v. U.S. Congress was erroneously decided, and for other purposes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit disturbed that what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) seemed to have said was that Congress should never question a court decision that is based on constitutional grounds. Had he and I been in Congress before the Civil War when the Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott case, I am sure both of us would be asking the House of Representatives to go on record opposing that decision as being misguided. We are doing something similar to that today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I rise in strong support of this resolution and against the court's decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion is a complete misinterpretation of constitutional law. I would hope that this outrageous decision by this three-judge panel will be quickly overturned by the full Ninth Circuit Court or, if necessary, by the United States Supreme Court. Incredibly, while Americans are pulling together following the horrific events of September 11, a panel of liberal Federal judges has chosen to challenge the time-honored Pledge of Allegiance. Like most Americans, I reject the court's unconscionable decision and stand resolutely with my colleagues today as we vote overwhelmingly to oppose this attack on an American symbol that we all hold dear. Mr. Speaker, for all of the veterans who risked their lives for our country, for all the servicemen and servicewomen who serve today, and for all of our children who recite the Pledge every morning with respect and admiration, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and condemn the court's decision.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco topped itself, not an easy accomplishment for the court of appeals with the dubious record of being most likely to be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It did so by ruling in Newdow v. U.S. Congress that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and, thus, a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause. Immediately following this decision, I introduced House Resolution 459, expressing the sense of the House that the Newdow case was erroneously decided by the Ninth Circuit and the court should agree to rehear this ruling en banc. The Ninth Circuit ruling treated the word God as a poison pill. Rarely has any court, even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit, shown such disdain for the will of the people, an act of Congress and our American traditions. What is next, a court ruling taking ``In God We Trust'' off the money, which the dissenting judge expressed his concern about? Or how about banning the performance of God Bless America from 4th of July celebrations at local courthouses and in parks next week? Any fourth grader knows that the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer or a religious practice. Therefore, its recitation is not a religious exercise. Rather, as my resolution states, it is a verbal expression of support for the United States of America, and its effect is to instill support for the United States of America. In truth, yesterday's ruling is the latest in a string of rulings by misguided courts misinterpreting the Constitution's establishment clause. Under West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, cited by the Supreme Court in 1943 and which is still good law, individuals cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and in this case children were not compelled to say the Pledge. We recognize the right of those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge not to participate, but this ruling treats the mere reference to religion as inherently evil and coercive. It is simply a barefaced attempt to remove all religious references from the public arena by those who disagree. In effect, it is a heckler's veto. Our Nation's founders based their claim of independence upon the laws of nature and nature's God. The Founders of our Nation declared all men to be endowed with inalienable rights by their creator and urged their revolution relying upon the protection of divine providence. Thus, God is referred to or alluded to four times in the Declaration of Independence and countless times in other documents. In the years since the ratification of the Constitution, beginning with President George Washington's administration, religious services have been conducted in government buildings, including the halls of Congress. The Supreme Court begins each session with ``God Save the United States and this Honorable Court.'' The Supreme Court has upheld the offering of a prayer by a publicly-funded chaplain to open legislative sessions. Lower Federal courts continue to uphold the constitutionality of the Federal Government's Christmas holiday as well as the placement of In God We Trust on our currency. If the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, then certainly these traditions and even the Declaration of Independence are as well. The fact of the matter is that these statements of patriotism reflect the love Americans feel for their country and recognizes the fact that our Nation was founded by brave men who stood on the principle that all men possess inalienable rights endowed not by man but by God. This view continues to be shared by most Americans today. In this time of profound challenges facing our Nation, the last thing our citizens need is two irresponsible judges using the Pledge of Allegiance to promote what can only be characterized as an effort to purge the public arena of all religious references. Yesterday's ruling is dumb. It is an insult to the brave men that founded our Nation and preserved it for over 200 years, and we in Congress should do whatever it takes to void this laughable ruling. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that the Congress should not pass resolutions like this every time some of us disagree with a court decision. However, this court decision was so out of bounds in terms of basic American values as well as judicial precedent that I think that we would be remiss in our responsibilities as representatives in an equal branch of government not to express the fact that we strongly disagree with what the two judges that struck down the Pledge of Allegiance decided yesterday. So that is why this resolution is here before us. If we look at the consequences of this decision becoming law, they are just mind-boggling. We have heard about the currency being placed at risk. Maybe we ought to pay those two in rubles or euros or something that does not have the offensive motto ``In God We Trust'' on it. The Declaration of Independence refers to God either directly or indirectly in four separate places, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence called upon divine providence to support the revolution against the English crown. What if that is unconstitutional? Would Queen Elizabeth come back here to reclaim her sovereignty? I do not think so. But I think that it is important that while the Court has a chance to change its mind rather than writing something in that can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment, that we express ourselves, and that is exactly what we are doing in this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I could not believe the contorted logic that the two judges that were in the majority in the Newdow case used yesterday. They said that because all of the other kids except Mr. Newdow's daughter got up and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, they were coercing her to do the same. Now, that is ridiculous. The Court, since 1943, has said, you cannot compel everybody to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and those who voluntarily do not wish to participate are perfectly and legally able to sit down and not do so. But to use the logical extension of the Court's contorted thinking, it gives every heckler and every dissident a veto over what the majority would like to do and to do it in a way that does not coerce somebody who is not in the majority from doing something against their own principles or their own beliefs. This resolution tells the court that they were wrong, that they should review and reverse.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the cosponsor with me of this resolution.