99–009 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–47 

REAFFIRMING ‘‘IN GOD WE TRUST’’ AS THE OFFICIAL MOTTO OF THE 

UNITED STATES AND SUPPORTING AND ENCOURAGING THE PUBLIC 

DISPLAY OF THE NATIONAL MOTTO IN ALL PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PUBLIC 

SCHOOLS, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS 

MARCH 31, 2011.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Con. Res. 13] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 13) reaffirming ‘‘In God We Trust’’ 

as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public 

buildings, public schools, and other government institutions, having 

considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment 

and recommends that the concurrent resolution be agreed to. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 5 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 5 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 5 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 5 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 5 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 5 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 6 

Purpose and Summary 

H. Con. Res 13’s resolution clause provides that: 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress reaffirms ‘‘In God We Trust’’ as 

the official motto of the United States and supports and 

encourages the public display of the national motto in all 

public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

H. Con. Res. 13 was introduced by Rep. Randy Forbes on January 26, 2011. It has 64 cosponsors. It was referred to the Constitution Subcommittee on February 7, 2011. 

The national motto ‘‘In God We Trust’’ was officially adopted as 

the United States’ national motto by a law passed by the 84th Congress. Public Law 84–851 (36 U.S.C. § 302) provides that ‘‘‘In God 

we trust’ is the national motto.’’ 

The history of ‘‘In God We Trust’’ is described as follows by the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury: 

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United 

States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the 

Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the 

United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. 

From Treasury Department records, it appears that the 

first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 

1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. 

Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania. . . . 

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in 

a letter dated November 20, 1861: 

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the 

strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust 

of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. 

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and 

tersest words possible this national recognition. 

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 

1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be 

placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant 

that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for 

new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to 

Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the 

designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR 

TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter 

to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase 

stated: 

I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that 

with the Washington obverse the motto should begin 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 

1See U.S. Department of the Treasury, ‘‘History of ‘In God We Trust,’ ’’ available at http:// 

www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx. 

with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND 

OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it 

should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST. 

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and 

authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins 

for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST 

first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin. 

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary’s approval, to 

place the motto on all gold and silver coins that ‘‘shall 

admit the inscription thereon.’’ Under the Act, the motto 

was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle 

coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the 

silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 

1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 

12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary may cause the 

motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins 

as shall admit of such motto. . . .’’ 

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin 

since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has 

appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 

1908. 

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84–851) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President 

approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United 

States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper 

money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver 

certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing was converting to the dry intaglio 

printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.1

The Senate Chamber in the U.S. Capitol is inscribed with the 

words ‘‘In God We Trust,’’ and the same motto also appears directly 

behind the Speaker’s chair in the House Chamber. 

H. Con. Res. 13 reaffirms ‘‘In God We Trust’’ as the official motto 

of the United States and provides Congress with the opportunity 

to renew its support of a principle that was venerated by the 

Founders of this country, and by its Presidents, on a bipartisan 

basis. 

In our Declaration of Independence, the Founders declared, ‘‘We 

. . . the Representatives of the United States of America . . . appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World . . . do . . . with a firm 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
4 

2The Declaration of Independence (1776). 

3 4 U.S.C.A. § 4 (historical notes). 

4 Bruce Frohnen, The American Republic 69 (2002). 5 2 James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 546 (Bureau of National Literature, Inc.). 6 Robert Cord, Separation of Church and State 53 (1982). 7Speeches of the American Presidents 181 (Steven Anzovin & Janet Podell eds., The H.W. Wilson Co. 1988). 8Public Papers of the Presidents, F.D. Roosevelt, 1940, Item 149, Office of Fed. Reg. (2003). 9 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 448 (1962) (dissenting opinion) (discussing quotes from Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Cleveland, Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy). 10Speeches of the American Presidents 749 (Steven Anzovin & Janet Podell eds., The H.W. 

Wilson Co. 1988). 

Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence . . . pledge to each 

other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.’’ 2

George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, declared, ‘‘Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the 

honest can repair; [this] event is in the hand of God!’’ 3 Moreover, 

after Washington became President of the United States, he issued 

the first Thanksgiving Proclamation calling on ‘‘Americans to acknowledge God’s role in bringing them through the Revolution to 

the founding of their free government.’’ 4

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, declared while he 

was president ‘‘a day of thanksgiving and of . . . acknowledgments 

to Almighty God.’’ Madison said in his declaration that ‘‘No people 

ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the 

Great Disposer of Events and of the Destiny of Nations than the 

people of the United States.’’ 5 Madison issued at least four Thanksgiving Proclamations while he was president.6

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln counseled Americans to 

have ‘‘a firm reliance on [God] who has never yet forsaken this favored land’’ and recognized that it is God’s pleasure to ‘‘give us to 

see the right.’’ 7

More recently, America’s Presidents have reaffirmed these same 

principles. 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ‘‘In teaching this democratic faith to American children, we need the sustaining, buttressing aid of those great ethical religious teachings which are the 

heritage of our modern civilization. For not upon strength nor upon 

power, but upon the spirit of God shall our democracy be founded.’’ 8

President Kennedy said, ‘‘The world is very different now . . . 

And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears 

fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights 

of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand 

of God.’’ 9

And Ronald Reagan told the American people ‘‘We are a nation 

under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free.’’ 10

This Congress can now show that it still believes and recognizes 

those same eternal truths by approving a resolution that will allow 

today’s Congress, as representatives of the American people, to reaffirm to the public and the world our Nation’s national motto, ‘‘In 

God We Trust.’’ 

Hearings 

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Con. 

Res. 13. 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 

Committee Consideration 

On March 17, 2011, the Committee met in open session and ordered the resolution H. Con. Res. 13 favorably reported without 

amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there were 

no recorded votes during the Committee’s consideration of H. Con. 

Res. 13. 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee advises that the 

resolution contains no measure that authorizes funding, so no cost 

estimate nor comparison for any measure that authorizes funding 

is required. 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H. Con. Res. 13, will 

reaffirm ‘‘In God We Trust’’ as the official motto of the United 

States and support and encourage the public display of the national 

motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government 

institutions. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H. Con. Res. 13 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as 

defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

H. Con. Res. 13 reaffirms ‘‘In God We Trust’’ as the official motto 

of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, 

and other government institutions. 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 

1 Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795; 70 Stat. 732, codified at 36 U.S.C. § 302. 

2See, e.g., Kidd v. Obama, No. 10–5006, 387 Fed.Appx. 2, 2010 WL 2930162 (D.C. Cir. July 

21, 2010) (‘‘Appellant has not demonstrated that appellees violated the First Amendment by 

printing the national motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ on United States currency.’’). 3The 107th Congress, in another enterprise with no apparent legal effect, passed a bill that 

inter alia reaffirmed that ‘‘‘In God we trust’ is the national motto.’’ Pub. L. No. 107–293, § 3(a), 

116 Stat. 2061 (2002). To clarify that this provision was not intended to be a substantive amendment, but merely an attempt to ratify current law, the Act specifically directed the Office of 

the Law Revision Counsel to ‘‘make no change in section 302, title 36, United States Code, but 

shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact 

language that has appeared in the Motto for decades.’’ Id. at § 3(b). 4 ‘‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 

exercise thereof. . . .’’ U.S. Const. amend. I. 

Dissenting Views 

Today we face the highest budget deficit in our Nation’s history, 

a national unemployment rate of nearly 9%, and an ongoing mortgage foreclosure crisis. American forces are deployed in combat on 

several fronts, while our children who—by the very circumstances 

of their birth—are placed into a cradle-to-prison pipeline. We are 

also in the midst of reacting to a natural disaster of unimaginable 

proportions that recently occurred in Japan and the resulting nuclear disaster, which may have worldwide import. Yet, instead of 

addressing any of these critical issues, and instead of working to 

help American families keep a roof over their heads and food on 

their tables, we are debating whether or not to affirm and proliferate a motto that was adopted in 1956 and that is not imperiled 

in any respect. 

Without question, the Judiciary Committee has many important 

and time-sensitive matters within its purview. The Majority, however, seems intent on diverting the Committee’s time, resources, 

and attention to a measure that has no force of law, only reaffirms 

existing law, and further injects the hand of government into the 

private religious lives of the American people. 

By aggressively pursuing a vehicle that places the government in 

the position of making an affirmatively religious statement, the 

Majority has transgressed the clear line between government and 

religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First 

Amendment. We regret that the Judiciary Committee has needlessly wandered into these dangerous waters, and we respectfully 

dissent. 

I. H. CON. RES. 13 IS UNNECESSARY. 

H. Con. Res. 13 addresses a problem that does not exist. For 

more than 50 years, the National Motto has been the law of the 

land.1 While some have questioned its constitutionality, none of 

these challenges has succeeded.2 We wonder, therefore, why the 

Majority believes this precatory intervention by Congress is so necessary.3

II. H. CON. RES. 13 VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT’S PROHIBITION AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. 

We are concerned that H. Con. Res. 13, its apparent purpose, 

and the manner in which it has been put forward, raises serious 

constitutional issues. The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment 4 exist to protect religious liberty. They are not in conflict 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 

5Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association (Jan. 1, 1802), reprinted 

in Jefferson & Madison on the Separation of Church and State, at 163 (Lenni Brenner ed., 

2004). 6Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Attorney General Levi Lincoln (Jan. 1, 1802), id. at 164. 

7Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). 

8 Id. at 612-13 (citations omitted). 

9Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592 (1992). 

with each other, but rather reinforce religious liberty in different 

ways. 

The Establishment Clause not only prohibits the government 

from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government 

actions that favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the 

government from preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. The Establishment Clause protects the private 

rights of conscience of all Americans from governmental interference or involvement in religious affairs. 

Thomas Jefferson maintained that this prohibition extended far 

beyond the establishment of an official religion, as was the case 

under the British Crown. He wrote, ‘‘I contemplate with sovereign 

reverence that act of the whole American people which declared 

that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus 

building a wall of separation between Church and State.’’ 5 He further clarified, in a letter to Attorney General Levi Lincoln, his 

view: 

The Baptist address, now enclosed, admits of a condemnation of the alliance between Church and State, 

under the authority of the Constitution. It furnishes an occasion, too, which I have long wished to find, of saying 

why I do not proclaim fastings and thanksgivings, as my 

predecessors did.6

The Supreme Court has devised a three part test, the so-called 

‘‘Lemon Test,’’ to determine whether a governmental action violates 

the Establishment Clause.7 In Lemon, the Court held that ‘‘[f]irst, 

the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its 

principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor 

inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive 

government entanglement with religion.’ ’’ 8

Where the governmental act is coercive, the Supreme Court has 

also held that it violates the Establishment Clause. For example, 

with respect to an invocation offered at a graduation exercise, the 

Court explained: 

As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public 

schools. Our decisions . . . recognize, among other things, 

that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular 

risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited 

to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. 

What to most believers may seem nothing more than a 

reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.9


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
8 

10Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). 11McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005); cf. 

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005). 12Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 716 (1984) (O’Connor, J. concurring). 13 Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 37 (2004) (O’Connor, J. concurring) 

(2004) (citations omitted). 14 Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 292 U.S. 597, 606 (1992) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 

668, 687–688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). 

While the Supreme Court has found that certain religious acts by 

government, such as the appointment by the legislature of a chaplain,10 or the placement of the Ten Commandments on public property under certain narrowly confined circumstances,11 not to violate 

the Constitution under the rubric of ‘‘ceremonial deism,’’ 12 the contours of this exception are not unlimited. As Justice O’Connor explained: 

The constitutional value of ceremonial deism turns on a 

shared understanding of its legitimate nonreligious purposes. That sort of understanding can exist only when a 

given practice has been in place for a significant portion of 

the Nation’s history, and when it is observed by enough 

persons that it can fairly be called ubiquitous. By contrast, 

novel or uncommon references to religion can more easily 

be perceived as government endorsements because the reasonable observer cannot be presumed to be fully familiar 

with their origins. As a result, in examining whether a 

given practice constitutes an instance of ceremonial deism, 

its ‘history and ubiquity’ will be of great importance.13

Under the endorsement test, we must ask whether the resolution 

is an unconstitutional endorsement of one view of religion over another. In fact, H. Con. Res. 13 does prefer religion over non-religion, which violates the Constitution. Second, it endorses a specific 

type of religion, monotheism, over other religions, which likewise is 

unconstitutional. When the government endorses a religion, as Justice O’Connor observed, it ‘‘sends a message to non-adherents that 

they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, 

and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, 

favored members of the political community.’’ 14

We must remember that the United States is comprised of people 

of many faiths, as well as those who do not hold any religious beliefs, as is their right. The passage of this Resolution would, as Justice O’Connor warned, send a message to the American people that 

our government favors religion, and specifically one type of religion 

over another, in violation of the endorsement test. 

It is precisely the distinction that the Supreme Court has drawn 

between permissible ceremonial deism, in which the religious nature of the statement is de minimis, and prohibited endorsements 

of religion that creates the constitutional infirmities in this Resolution, notwithstanding the fact the National Motto has withstood 

constitutional challenge. As Rep. Scott observed during the markup: 

[T]he importance that we have fixed to this resolution by 

holding this markup and having the debate increases the 

magnitude of the attention we give to the issue and subverts the argument that the resolution might be considered de minimis and in fact increases the constitutional 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
9 

15Tr. of markup of H. Con. Res 13, Reaffirming ‘‘In God We Trust’’ as the official Motto of 

the United States and Supporting and Encouraging the Public Display of the National Motto 

in All Public Buildings, Public Schools, and Other Government Institutions by the H. Comm. 

on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. at 22-23, 31 (2011) (remarks of Rep. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D– 

VA)) (unedited transcript). 16 Id. at 35 (Statement of Rep. Trent Franks (R–AZ)). 17 Id. at 40 (Statement of Rep. Mike Pence (R–IN)). 18 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583–84 (1987). 

vulnerability of the resolution. . . . The motto that has 

been around for 50 or 60 years can be in the same category 

as the Ten Commandments displays that have been there 

for decades and have been therefore approved. It is this 

resolution that is problematic.15

Statements by some of the proponents of this Resolution further 

reinforce this observation. For example, Rep. Trent Franks (R–AZ), 

Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, argued: 

Now, it may happen some day that an American generation will completely reject the notion that our ultimate 

trust is in the God who made us and gave this Nation as 

a gift to the world. But by passing the Forbes resolution 

today, we can proclaim to the world that that day has not 

yet come and there is still hope that it never will.16

Similarly, Rep. Mike Pence (R–IN) stated, ‘‘We are engaged in a 

national debate between the deep religious heritage and tradition 

the overwhelming majority of Americans practice to this day and 

in a rising tide of secularism, driving its way deeper and deeper 

into the public square, deeper into the laws of the land that tell 

us that we cannot make certain displays in public.17 The conclusion 

we must draw from the Court’s precedents, and from the flagrant 

appeals made by the sponsors to a more robust religious purpose, 

is that the resolution, while unnecessary, may itself call into question the claim that the National Motto is a permissible form of ceremonial deism. 

H. Con. Res. 13 also fails the coercion test, which examines 

whether individuals are coerced into being exposed to a religious 

message. The Resolution clearly supports and encourages the public display of the National Motto in all public buildings, public 

schools, and other government institutions, which conflicts with 

concerns expressed by the Supreme Court: 

[T]he Court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring 

compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary 

and secondary schools. Families entrust public schools 

with the education of their children, but condition their 

trust on the understanding that the classroom will not 

purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her 

family. Students in such institutions are impressionable 

and their attendance is involuntary.18

Similarly, the Resolution forcibly subjects individuals who must 

visit a government building to transact official business, such as 

acquiring a passport or social security card, to particular religious 

messages. It also, in effect, forces Americans to subsidize—through 

their hard-earned taxpayer dollars—the display of particular religious messages. 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
10 

H. Con. Res. 13 on its face lacks any secular or nonreligious purpose. In fact, the very language of the Resolution makes clear that 

it is intended to promote religious sentiment: it advances religion 

by preferring religion over non-religion and endorses a specific type 

of religion, monotheism, over other religions. By actively seeking to 

promote displays of the motto in public buildings, public schools 

and other government institutions, the Resolution creates unnecessary and excessive government entanglement with religion. 

III. CONCLUSION. 

While the proponents of H. Con. Res. 13 are correct when they 

observe that the vast majority of Americans are religious, and that 

many prominent figures in our history have spoken eloquently of 

the importance of faith, they fail to understand that the Establishment Clause does not protect government from religion, but religion from government. It is precisely because we place such a high 

value on religious freedom—our first freedom—that we must keep 

the heavy hand of government away from that precious liberty. H. 

Con. Res. 13, by interjecting Congress into the private right of conscience, threatens that important constitutional bulwark of our 

freedoms in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First 

Amendment. 

For these reasons, we respectfully dissent. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

JUDY CHU. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING