99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–659

TO REAFFIRM THE REFERENCE TO ONE NATION UNDER 

GOD IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

SEPTEMBER 17, 2002.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2690] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(S. 2690) to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the 

Pledge of Allegiance, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as 

amended do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 4

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 4

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 8

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 8

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 8

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 9

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 9

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 9

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 9

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 10

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 10

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 14

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 14

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, 

the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: ‘‘Having undertaken, 

for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of 

2

our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts 

of Virginia,’’. (2) On July 4, 1776, America’s Founding Fathers, after appealing to the ‘‘Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God’’ to justify their separation from Great 

Britain, then declared: ‘‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men 

are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’’. (3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation’s third President, in his work titled ‘‘Notes on the 

State of Virginia’’ wrote: ‘‘God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm 

basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift 

of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble 

for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.’’. 

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: ‘‘If 

to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!’’. 

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment 

Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed 

the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands 

northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: ‘‘Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, 

schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.’’. 

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of 

Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, ‘‘a day of public 

thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, 

the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and 

happiness.’’. 

(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: ‘‘It is rather for us to 

be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last 

full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not 

have died in vain—that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall 

not perish from the earth.’’. 

(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 

States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were 

allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: ‘‘The First 

Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall 

be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, 

the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency 

one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State 

and religion would be aliens to each other—hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious 

groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would 

violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making 

Thanksgiving Day a holiday; ‘so help me God’ in our courtroom oaths—these 

and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public 

rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious 

atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court 

opens each session: ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court.’ ’’. 

(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed 

into law a statute that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the 

Constitution of the united States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to 

read: ‘‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to 

the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty 

and justice for all.’’; 

(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national motto of the 

United States is ‘‘In God We Trust’’, and that motto is inscribed above the main 

3

door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States. 

(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 

States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which 

compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: ‘‘But untutored devotion to the concept 

of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not 

simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the 

Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular 

and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only 

not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact 

that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many 

of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious 

teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.’’. 

(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 

States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city government’s 

display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, 

writing for the Court, stated: ‘‘There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American 

life from at least 1789 . . . [E]xamples of reference to our religious heritage are 

found in the statutorily prescribed national motto ‘In God We Trust’ (36 U.S.C. 

186), which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 

U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language ‘One Nation under God’, as 

part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by 

many thousands of public school children—and adults—every year . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 

16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has 

long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, 

and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very 

chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a 

notable and permanent—not seasonal—symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten 

Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious 

worship and meditation.’’. 

(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 

States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment 

of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O’Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court’s holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words ‘‘under God,’’ stated ‘‘In my view, the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 

172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with ‘the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.’ ’’. 

(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th 

Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 

437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district’s policy for voluntary recitation 

of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words ‘‘under God’’ was constitutional. 

(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. 

Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the Pledge of Allegiance’s use of the express religious reference ‘‘under God’’ violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district’s policy and practice of teacherled voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. 

(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow 

would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution’s use of the express religious reference ‘‘Year of our Lord’’ in Article VII violates the First Amendment 

to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district’s policy and practice 

of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional. 

SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD. 

(a) REAFFIRMATION.—Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended to 

read as follows: 

4

1 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002). 

2See id. at 609. 

‘‘§ 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery 

‘‘The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the 

United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under 

God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’, should be rendered by standing at 

attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform 

men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it 

at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.’’. 

(b) CODIFICATION.—In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision 

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

reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Pledge for decades. 

SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO. 

(a) REAFFIRMATION.—Section 302 of title 36, United States Code, is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘§ 302. National motto 

‘‘ ‘In God we trust’ is the national motto.’’. 

(b) CODIFICATION.—In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision 

Counsel shall 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.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of S. 2690, introduced and passed by the Senate on 

June 27, 2002, by a vote of 99–0, is to reaffirm Congress’ commitment to the Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto, ‘‘In God 

we trust.’’

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

It is an accepted legal principle that government acknowledgment of the religious heritage of the United States of America is 

consistent with the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the 

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, although there 

has been much legal uncertainty throughout the last half century 

regarding the parameters of the Establishment Clause, the United 

States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that government acknowledgment of our Nation’s religious heritage is entirely consistent with, and in fact may in some circumstances be required by, 

the Establishment Clause. Yet, on June 26, 2002, a three member 

panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

held unconstitutional, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, a California 

school district’s policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, concluding that the use of the 

phrase ‘‘one Nation under God’’ violates the Establishment Clause 

of the First Amendment.1

Writing for the 2–1 majority, Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin 

stated that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, that ‘‘impermissibly takes a position with respect 

to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of 

God,’’ and places children in the ‘‘untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting.’’ 2

Yet, this conclusion is contrary to the vast weight of U.S. Supreme Court authority recognizing that the mere mention of God 

in a public setting is entirely consistent with the First AmendVerDate Sep 04 2002 22:42 Sep 17, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR659.XXX HR659
5

ment’s Establishment Clause. The Pledge of Allegiance is not a religious service or prayer, but is a statement of historical beliefs. It 

is a recognition of the fact that many Americans believe in God, 

and it acknowledges the value that our culture has traditionally 

placed on the role of religion in our founding and our culture. Thus, 

the Supreme Court has recognized that governmental entities may, 

consistent with the First Amendment, recognize the religious heritage of America. Although the United States Congress recognizes 

the right of those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the 

Pledge to refrain from its recitation, the Newdow ruling is troubling from a jurisprudential standpoint because its analysis appears to reflect the belief that any religious reference presents an 

inherent danger to individuals who hear it, the result of which 

would be the banishment of all such references from the public 

arena. Clearly, this is inconsistent with any reasonable interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

Immediately following the Newdow ruling on June 27, 2002, the 

House of Representatives passed H. Res. 459, introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. expressing 

the sense of the House of Representatives that the Newdow case 

was erroneously decided by the Ninth Circuit and that the court 

should agree to hear the ruling en banc. H. Res. 459 passed the 

House of Representatives by a 416–3 vote. By passing S. 2690, the 

House of Representatives will join the Senate in reaffirming its 

commitment to our Nation’s pledge of allegiance as ‘‘one Nation 

under God’’ and our Nation’s motto, ‘‘In God we trust.’’

Historical References to and Acknowledgment of America’s Religious 

Heritage 

Our Nation’s history of civic and political discourse is sprinkled 

with extensive references to God. On November 11, 1620, prior to 

embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the 

Mayflower Compact that declared, ‘‘Having undertaken, for the 

Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and 

honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony 

in the northern parts of Virginia.’’ On July 4, 1776, America’s 

Founding Fathers, after appealing to the ‘‘Laws of Nature, and of 

Nature’s God’’ to justify their separation from Great Britain, then 

declared, ‘‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are 

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the 

Pursuit of Happiness.’’

In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation’s third President, in his work titled 

‘‘Notes on the State of Virginia’’ wrote, ‘‘God who gave us life gave 

us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when 

we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds 

of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they 

are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my 

country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep 

forever.’’ On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the 

Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared, ‘‘If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us 

6

3 343 U.S. 306 (1952).

4 Id. at 312.

raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the 

event is in the hand of God!’’ On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the 

United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for 

a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, 

which declared, ‘‘Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools 

and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.’’ On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by 

declaring, ‘‘a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed 

by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably 

to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.’’ On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his 

Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared, ‘‘It is 

rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion 

to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have 

died in vain—that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth 

of freedom—and that Government of the people, by the people, for 

the people, shall not perish from the earth.’’ On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the 

United States in Zorach v. Clauson,3 in which school children were 

allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances 

and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the 

Court, stated: 

The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and 

all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. 

Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in 

which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on 

the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise 

the State and religion would be aliens to each other—hostile, 

suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be 

permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. 

Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship 

would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; 

the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; 

‘‘so help me God’’ in our courtroom oaths—these and all other 

references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the 

supplication with which the Court opens each session: ‘‘God 

save the United States and this Honorable Court.’’ 4

On June 15, 1954, Congress passed, and President Eisenhower 

signed into law a statute, that was clearly consistent with the text 

7

5 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

6 Id. at 306 (Goldberg, J., concurring). 7 465 U.S. 668 (1984).

8See 31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982). 

and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended 

the Pledge of Allegiance to read, ‘‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag 

of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it 

stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice 

for all.’’ On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national 

motto of the United States is ‘‘In God We Trust,’’ and that motto 

is inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair 

of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States. 

On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the 

United States in Abington School District v. Schempp,5 in which 

compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: 

But untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to 

invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of 

that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious 

which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, 

hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited 

by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore 

the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, 

and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the 

First Amendment may require that it do so.6

On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the 

United States in Lynch v. Donelly,7 in which a city government’s 

display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: 

There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all 

three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789. . . . [E]xamples of reference to our 

religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto ‘‘In God We Trust,’’ which Congress and the President mandated for our currency,8 and in the language ‘‘One 

Nation under God,’’ as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the 

American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of 

public school children—and adults—every year. . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings 

of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one 

religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last 

Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in 

which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated 

with a notable and permanent—not seasonal—symbol of reliVerDate Sep 04 2002 22:42 Sep 17, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR659.XXX HR659
8

9 465 U.S. at 674.

10 472 U.S. 38 (1985). 11 Id. at 78 n.15 (O’Connor, J., concurring). 12 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992). 

gion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long 

provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.9

On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the 

United States in Wallace v. Jaffree,10 in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was 

held unconstitutional, Justice O’Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court’s holding would 

render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress 

amended it in 1954 to add the words ‘‘under God,’’ stated, ‘‘In my 

view, the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge, as codified at 36 U.S.C. 

172, serve as an acknowledgment of religion with the legitimate 

secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing 

confidence in the future.’’ 11 On November 20, 1992, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21,12 held that a school district’s 

policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including 

the words ‘‘under God’’ was constitutional. 

Clearly, America has a rich history of referring to God in its political and civic discourse and acknowledging the important role 

faith and religion have played throughout our Nation’s history. 

Thus the Ninth Circuit’s analysis in the Newdow ruling cannot be 

supported by any reasonable interpretation of the Establishment 

Clause as their holding is inconsistent with the meaning given the 

Establishment Clause since America’s founding. It is important to 

note that under Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988), Congress, by approving S. 2690 which calls for the re-codification of 

section 4 of title 4 of the United States Code, could be presumed 

to have adopted previous interpretations of this provision, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ interpretation of section 4 

of title 4 of the Unites States Code in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 

292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002). The Committee wishes to make clear 

that it is not the intent of Congress to adopt any previous judicial 

interpretations of this provision, particularly that given to it by the 

Ninth Circuit in the Newdow ruling. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were held on S. 2690. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September, 10, 2002, the Committee met in open session and 

ordered favorably reported the bill S. 2690, with amendment, by 

voice vote, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

1. Mr. Nadler and Mr. Scott offered an amendment to S. 2690 to 

clarify that section 4 of title 4’s requirement that men, who are not 

in uniform, ‘‘remove their headdress with their right hand and hold 

it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart’’ prior to recitVerDate Sep 04 2002 22:42 Sep 17, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR659.XXX HR659
9

ing the pledge only applies to a ‘‘non-religious’’ headdress. The 

amendment was agreed to by a voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

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

House of Representatives, the Committee reports 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. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

S. 2690 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c) of rule 

XII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 

expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

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

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, S. 2690, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 12, 2002. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2690, an act to reaffirm the 

reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DAN L. CRIPPEN, Director.

Enclosure

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

S. 2690—An act to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God 

in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

S. 2690 would reaffirm the current language of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the national motto. CBO estimates that 

enacting this legislation would result in no cost to the Federal Government. Because S. 2690 would not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. The act contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 

10

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets 

of State, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford, who can be reached 

at 226–2860. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

S. 2690 reaffirms the reference to one Nation under God in the 

Pledge of Allegiance. 

Section 1. Findings. In paragraph (1) Congress finds that on November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the 

Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared, ‘‘Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant 

the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia.’’

In paragraph (2) Congress finds that on July 4, 1776, America’s 

Founding Fathers, after appealing to the ‘‘Laws of Nature, and of 

Nature’s God’’ to justify their separation from Great Britain, then 

declared, ‘‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are 

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the 

Pursuit of Happiness.’’

In paragraph (3) Congress finds that in 1781, Thomas Jefferson, 

the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation’s third President, in his work titled ‘‘Notes on the State of Virginia’’ wrote, ‘‘God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the 

liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their 

only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these 

liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but 

with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect 

that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.’’

In paragraph (4) Congress finds that on May 14, 1787, George 

Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to 

admonish and exhort the delegates and declared, ‘‘If to please the 

people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise 

and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!’’

In paragraph (5) Congress finds that on July 21, 1789, on the 

same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the 

Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for 

lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared, ‘‘Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the 

happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall 

forever be encouraged.’’ In paragraph (6) Congress finds that on September 25, 1789, the 

First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, ‘‘a day of 

11

13 343 U.S. 306 (1952). 14 Id. at 312. 

public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, 

with grateful hearts, the many favors of Almighty God, especially 

by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.’’

In paragraph (7) Congress finds that on November 19, 1863, 

President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on 

the site of the battle and declared, ‘‘It is rather for us to be here 

dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these 

honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which 

they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly 

resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.’’

In paragraph (8) Congress finds that on April 28, 1952, in the 

decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. 

Clauson,13 in which school children were allowed to be excused 

from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice 

William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: ‘‘The First 

Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects 

there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall 

be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the 

common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion 

would be aliens to each other—hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property 

taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire 

protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners 

into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers 

in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; ‘so help me God’ in our courtroom oaths—

these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our 

laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First 

Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to 

the supplication with which the Court opens each session: ‘God 

save the United States and this Honorable Court.’ ’’ 14

In paragraph (9) Congress finds that on June 15, 1954, Congress 

passed, and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute, that 

was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution 

of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to 

read, ‘‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, 

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’’

In paragraph (10) Congress finds that on July 20, 1956, Congress 

proclaimed that the national motto of the United States is ‘‘In God 

We Trust,’’ and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the 

Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States. 

In paragraph (11) Congress finds that on June 17, 1963, in the 

decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Abington 

12

15 374 U.S. 203 (1963). 16 Id. at 306 (Goldberg, J., concurring). 17 465 U.S. 668 (1984). 18See 31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982). 19 465 U.S. at 674. 20 472 U.S. 38 (1985). 

School District v. Schempp,15 in which compulsory school prayer 

was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: ‘‘But untutored devotion to the concept 

of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which 

partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement 

with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a 

brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or 

even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not 

compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited 

by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the 

significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in 

and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal 

values derive historically from religious teachings. Government 

must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.’’ 16

In paragraph (12) Congress finds that on March 5, 1984, in the 

decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lynch v. 

Donelly,17 in which a city government’s display of a nativity scene 

was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the 

Court, stated: ‘‘There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in 

American life from at least 1789. . . . [E]xamples of reference to 

our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto ‘In God We Trust,’ which Congress and the President 

mandated for our currency,18 and in the language ‘One Nation 

under God,’ as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American 

flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children—and adults—every year. . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National 

Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for 

example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, 

notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of 

Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others 

with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in 

which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a 

notable and permanent—not seasonal—symbol of religion: Moses 

with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels 

in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.’’ 19

In paragraph (13) Congress finds that on June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. 

Jaffree,20 in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for 

meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice 

O’Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court’s holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance 

unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the 

words ‘‘under God,’’ stated, ‘‘In my view, the words ‘under God’ in 

the Pledge, as codified at 36 U.S.C. 172, serve as an acknowledgment of religion with the legitimate secular purposes of solemVerDate Sep 04 2002 22:42 Sep 17, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR659.XXX HR659
13

21 Id. at 78 n.15 (O’Connor, J., concurring). 22 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992). 23 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002). 

nizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.’’ 21

In paragraph (14) Congress finds that on November 20, 1992, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. 

Community Consolidated School District 21,22 held that a school 

district’s policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance 

including the words ‘‘under God’’ was constitutional. 

In paragraph (15) Congress finds that the 9th Circuit Court of 

Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress,23 that the 

Pledge of Allegiance’s use of the express religious reference ‘‘under 

God’’ violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, 

therefore, a school district’s policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. 

In paragraph (16) Congress finds that the erroneous rationale of 

the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the 

absurg result that the Constitution’s use of the express religious 

reference ‘‘Year of our Lord’’ in Article VII violates the First 

Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district’s policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the 

Constitution itself would be unconstitutional. 

Section 2. One Nation Under God. 

Subsection (a) amends section 4 of title 4, United States Code, 

to read as follows: ‘‘§ 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of 

delivery 

‘The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ‘‘I pledge allegiance to the 

Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which 

it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’’, should be rendered by standing at attention facing the 

flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men 

should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand 

and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and renders the 

military salute.’ ’’. 

Subsection (b) directs that in codifying this subsection, the Office 

of the Law Revision Councel shall make no change in section 4, 

title 4, 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 Pledge for decades. 

Section 3. Reaffirming That God Remains in our Motto. 

Subsection (a) amends section 302 of title 36, United States 

Code, to read as follows: ‘‘§ 302. National motto 

‘In God we trust’ is the national motto.’’. 

Subsection (b) provides that in codifying this subsection, the Office of Law Revision Councel shall 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. 

14

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

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

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

SECTION 4 OF TITLE 4, UNITED STATES CODE 

§ ø4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery 

øThe Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, ‘‘I pledge allegiance to 

the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for 

which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and 

justice for all.’’, should be rendered by standing at attention facing 

the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform 

men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold 

it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in 

uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military 

salute.¿

§ 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery 

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ‘‘I pledge allegiance to the 

Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which 

it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’’, should be rendered by standing at attention facing the 

flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men 

should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand 

and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the 

military salute.

SECTION 302 OF TITLE 36, UNITED STATES CODE 

ø§ 302. National motto 

ø‘‘In God we trust’’ is the national motto.¿

§ 302. National motto 

‘‘In God we trust’’ is the national motto.

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order, and 

a working quorum is present. 

15

[Intervening business.] 

Finally, pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill, S. 2690, a bill 

to reaffirm the reference to ‘‘One nation under God’’ in the Pledge 

of Allegiance for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. 

Without objection the bill will be considered as read, open for 

amendment at any point. My lengthy statement talking about what 

a great bill this is will be put in the record, without objection. All 

Members statements may be put in the record at this point without 

objection. 

[The bill, S. 2690, follows:]

16


I2690A.eps
17


I2690B.eps
18


I2690C.eps
19


I2690D.eps
20


I2690E.eps
21


I2690F.eps
22


I2690G.eps
23


I2690H.eps
24


I2690I.eps
25


I2690J.eps
26


I2690K.eps
27

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? The gentlemen from New York. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My lengthy statement 

about how superfluous a bill this will also be placed in the record. 

I have two amendments. I would like to offer them one after the 

other. One is by me and one is by myself and Representative Scott. 

Take up the one by me first. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to S. 2690 offered by Mr. Nadler. On 

Page 9, line 9, omit ‘‘erroneously.’’ On Page 9, line 16, omit ‘‘erroneous.’’

[The amendment follows:]

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will take less; probably half a 

minute. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe it is the business or the proper role 

of Congress to say that a decision of a court is erroneous. If we 

don’t like the decision of a court, we can pass a bill, we can initiate 

a constitutional amendment. But I don’t think it is the business of 

one branch of Government to say that another branch of Government, to say officially—as individuals we can say anything we 

want—but we don’t pass resolutions saying the President is wrong 

or the courts are wrong. 

Now, the points that are made on Page 9 in findings 15 and 16 

flow just as well if you omit the words ‘‘erroneously’’ and ‘‘erroneous.’’

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made the decision saying this 

and the rationale of the court, if followed, would lead to the following conclusion. I just don’t think we should label a court decision erroneous. I don’t think it is the business of the Congress to 

characterize a court decision officially as a coordinate branch of 

Government. 

Therefore, the amendment would simply remove the words, ‘‘erroneously’’ and ‘‘erroneous.’’ The same points will be made in the 

findings as is made with those words. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 

is not agreed to. 

The second amendment? 


A2690A.eps
28

Mr. NADLER. I call up the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to S. 2690 offered by Mr. Nadler and 

Mr. Scott: On Page 10, Line 12, before ‘‘headdress’’ a, strike ‘‘their’’

and b——

[The amendment follows:]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the provision of existing law that says on how to deal with the flag ‘‘When 

not in uniform, men should remove their headdress with their right 

hand and hold it at their left shoulder, the hand being over the 

heart.’’

This was passed, I think, in a less sensitive era. The fact is there 

are religions which demand that people wear headdress. Orthodox 

Judaism says people have to wear something on their heads, 

whether a hat or a yarmulke. Sikhs have to wear turbans. Certain 

Muslims have to wear other things. So, I just think it should say 

when not in uniform men should remove their non-religious head

dress. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. NADLER. Yes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I think the gentleman makes a good 

point on this one. I am prepared to accept the amendment. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, have you called the question on this 

amendment? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Question? Without objection, the 

amendment is agreed to. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I come from a State that has a long 

tradition of supporting religious freedom. In fact, it was Thomas 

Jefferson of Virginia who wrote the Virginia Statute of Religious 

Freedom which preceded the First Amendment to the Constitution. 

Today’s exercise is certainly gratuitous in that if this is a constitutional issue, when the courts have finished with it, nothing we 

can do can change that. 

The court in its dissent said that the Pledge of Allegiance should 

be constitutional because the ‘‘under God’’ in the Pledge of Allegiance was de minimus. The danger the phrase represents to our 

First Amendment freedoms is picayune at best. Our actions today, 


A2690B.eps
29

however, may cause the court to review that sentiment because if 

the Court looks at the importance that we have affixed to that 

phrase because of this legislation, the idea that they may consider 

it de minimus will be less and unconstitutional, more. 

Today’s action may also cause them to take another look because 

under the Lemon Test the law violates Establishment Clause if it 

has no secular purpose. For example, in cases involving a moment 

of silence in public schools, laws have been upheld if the law allows 

silent prayer as one of many activities which can be done in silence, but have stricken laws in which a moment of silent prayer 

is added to an existing moment of silence because that law has no 

secular purpose. 

Because this legislation’s sole purpose is religious, not secular, 

the bill is vulnerable to that same constitutional attack. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to quote finally the editorial from the 

Christian Century, a nondenominational Protestant weekly which 

said, ‘‘To the extent ’under God’ has real religious meaning, then 

it is unconstitutional. The phrase is constitutional to the extent 

that it is religiously innocuous. Given that choice, we side with the 

9th Circuit. We see no need, especially for Christians, to defend 

hollow references to innocuous God.’’ Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include for the record 

the entire editorial and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:]

30


TCC.eps
31


VAStat1.eps
32


VAStat2.eps
33

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support S. 2690. I will 

briefly state my conclusions on this legislation. My understanding 

of the First Amendment argues against and prohibits the establishment of religion by this nation. 

I would argue that the re-inclusion of the language or the re-emphasis of the language ‘‘One nation under God’’ is in fact not an 

establishment of religion and as well still allows those who find offense or find that it offends their religious practices or their nonreligious practices the ability and discretion to make the choice of 

reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in its totality, of not reciting it 

and reciting it without such words in it. 

I believe what this legislation simply does is restate statutory 

language and provides the opportunity for choice to be made and 

not in establishment of religion by the nation as the First Amendment prohibits. 

I yield back and ask my colleagues to support it, as I know they 

might be doing. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. The question is on reporting the bill, S. 2690 favorably as amended. 

All those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes 

have it. The motion to report favorably is adopted. Without objection the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of 

a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the 

amendment adopted here today. 

Without objection the Chairman is authorized to move to go to 

conference pursuant to House rules. 

Without objection the staff is directed to make any technical and 

conforming changes. 

All Members will be given 2 days as provided by House rules in 

which to submit additional dissenting supplemental or minority 

views. 

The chair thanks the Members for their patience and their indulgence. A lot of people didn’t think we would get through the agenda. We did and the Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:52 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ