A resolution expressing Support for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution expressing the strong disapproval of the Senate to the September 14, 2005, decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in the case of Newdow, et al. v. The Congress of the United States of America, et.al.

This decision is a prime example of why we need to put judges on the bench who will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. Judges are not politicians. They are on the bench to hear the cases in front of them, not to pursue their own personal political agendas. We need more judges that will decide each case based on the facts and the law, not legislate from the bench.

Like most Americans, those of us who are not serving on the Judiciary Committee have watched intently as President Bush's nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has stood up to the over 21 hours of questioning. Judge John Roberts has been asked nearly 500 questions, and his responses have added to the more than 76,000 pages of documents concerning his Federal Government service. The hearings themselves have proved to be an incredible civics lesson for the American public, and to some extent the Senate, on the role of judges.

I have been very impressed with Judge Roberts, both when we met and in his considerable response during these hearings. He is a modest and humble man who I believe will be a credit to our judicial system. As he stated in his opening remarks, ``[i]t is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.'' Judge Roberts believes in judicial restraint, adherence to the rule of law, as well as a posture of modesty and humility in a court.

I believe that Judge Roberts is the kind of judge that America needs--a fair, independent and unbiased judge committed to equal justice under the law. If confirmed, I am convinced that Judge Roberts will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. As he said yesterday, he does not come to the bench or to a case with an agenda or a platform. In fact, he reminded my colleagues that he was not

a politician, and he is not going to advocate positions on issues to win votes.

Returning to the case at hand, I call on my colleagues to support this resolution. The Pledge of Allegiance is a unifying force in this Nation. It draws all of us, regardless of race, religion, gender, or national origin, together in support of the common good. At a time when we should be uniting to support our troops in Iraq and our neighbors in the Gulf States affected by Hurricane Katrina, it is a shame that an activist court is seeking to divide based on the principle of ``I'' or ``me first,'' instead of pursuing the selfless principle of the common good. Just last Congress this body came together to support the current Pledge of Allegiance on a 94-0 vote. I hope that we will have the same bipartisan support again for this important issue, and I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 243, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, this resolution that we passed is a Senate resolution expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance. Because of the significance of this matter, I would like to read some paragraphs in the resolution and then the closing resolve section:

Whereas on June 26, 2002, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow v. United States

Congress that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of

Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause of the United

States Constitution when recited voluntarily by students in

public schools;

Whereas on March 4, 2003, the United States Senate passed a

resolution disapproving of the Ninth Circuit's decision in

Newdow by a vote of 94-0;

Whereas on June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United

States dismissed the case, citing plaintiff's lack of

standing.

Whereas on January 3, 2005, the same plaintiff and 4 other

parents and their minor children filed a second suit in the

Eastern District of California to challenge the words ``under

God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Whereas on September 14, 2005, the Eastern District of

California declined to dismiss the Newdow case, holding that

the Ninth Circuit's earlier ruling that the words ``under

God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment

Clause was still binding precedent . . .

Mr. President, the ``whereas'' clauses continue.

Resolved, That the Senate strongly disapproves of the

September 14, 2005, decision by the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California in Newdow, et

al. v. The Congress of the United States of America, et al.

Sec. 2. That the Senate authorizes and instructs the Senate

Legal Counsel to continue to cooperate fully with the

Attorney General in this case in order to vigorously defend

the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

This is an important Senate resolution, as is the one that follows this, S. Res. 244, which we will address shortly. Every morning in the Senate, we open with that pledge to the flag of the United States of America. It is an issue on which the Senate now speaks loudly in disagreement with the most recent findings.

The second resolution related to this issue is S. Res. 244.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about yesterday's court decision which ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. I am concerned, but certainly not surprised, with this decision. And I am very concerned with the decision's implications.

It is time for us to take a stand against activist judges who seek to circumvent the will of the American people and who issue judgments flying in the face of decency and common sense. With all that is going on in our world today, to attack the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains a reference to God is ludicrous.

Most Americans were outraged when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed the case. The Supreme Court said that the plaintiff in the Pledge of Allegiance case did not have standing. The Court found that, because he was not the custodial parent, he could not object to his daughter's reciting the pledge of allegiance in school.

When that decision came down, many people, myself included, knew that it would only be a matter of time before the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, would be back. We were right. Yesterday, the Court, looking to the previous ninth circuit decision, ruled that the use of the simple phrase ``under God'' was a religious act. The Court found that a school policy involving the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance had a coercive religious effect.

I strongly disagree that the pledge is coercive. I also strongly disagree with the court's decision. The Pledge of Allegiance, in addition to containing a statement of common values and patriotism, recognizes historic facts behind our Nation's founding. There are so many references in America to God, our Creator. Those references can be seen in our currency, on public buildings, even in the Declaration of Independence which is displayed a few blocks from the Capitol in the National Archives.

This recent decision further emphasizes our Nation's need for judges who are respectful of people of faith and for judges who understand that America's continued reference, and reverence, toward the Creator are very important to our common culture.