accomplished except perhaps to create some friction between state and federal judiciaries.

VII. Conclusion

Any citizen who cares deeply about public affairs and the role of government in the life of the nation will experience frustration from time to time with decisions handed down by the federal courts. And when the citizen is a Member of Congress, it will be tempting to promote legislation that will eliminate the jurisdiction of the courts to hear cases raising the particular issue. But the temptation should be resisted.

One reason it should be resisted is that Congress has always resisted it in the past. Over the last half-century, there have been numerous bills to curtail the jurisdiction of the federal courts on a wide spectrum of constitutional issues, including prayer in the schools, criminal procedure, abortion, and many others. Some of these bills have had substantial support. But none has been enacted.

This history has established a tradition almost as strong as the one that Chief Justice Rehnquist discussed in his chapter on the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase. This tradition has served the country well. It has helped to maintain a system of judicial independence that is the envy of civilized nations throughout the world.

Ours is a pluralistic nation, closely divided on many issues. Depending on the time and the circumstances, anyone can be part of a minority. The availability of an independent federal court, with power to hear everyone's constitutional claims, is a source of reassurance to all. Congress should adhere to that tradition and should reject H.R. 3799 in its entirety.

Mr. SMITH. Representative Dannemeyer.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, 1979 TO 1992

Mr. DANNEMEYER. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I think we need to really recognize what the issue is today: Do the political leaders of this country, you elected Members, have the courage to acknowledge that God exists as the means whereby we teach the next generation in this country in our public schools?

Now, that acknowledgment of God is totally different from a religion. A religion is man's effort to reach God; but God's effort to reach us and his word, the Bible, which is the basis upon which this Nation was founded, was the philosophy that our political leaders followed until about a little after World War II. And, today, we have a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, sadly for all of us, who really have established a religion for America called secular humanism which says there is no God.

That is why we are here. And you Members have the authority under article III, section 2, to cut it out, and to tell those nine distinguished folk across the street where the line is. And the line is that America's a people who says that God exists who created rules for man to live by. Not a religion, but an acknowledgment of basis of God, the basis of Judaism, Muslim, and Christianity, throughout history. We should be able to come together on that affirmation.

Now, among the papers that I've filed with you is a letter signed by representatives of 27 organizations across this country that really are asking Congress to adopt legislation of the type now pending before you. I won't take my time to read all the names, but believe me, almost all of the people active in the evangelical community of this country are asking Congress to adopt this legislation.

As to article III, section 2, there is nothing novel about it, also in this packet of information that I filed with this Committee. Congress used this authority 12 times in the last Congress. One of note is, of course, by Senator Daschle of South Dakota that used it as a means of cutting down some trees assertedly to assist one of his colleagues in his reelection campaign. He was wise enough to understand that Congress can pass the law, but the moment somebody doesn't like it, they go to a Federal court and get an injunction; and so he put a provision in that bill that says this cannot be taken to the Federal court.

Now, I have passed out to you a book who I believe is one of the greatest scholars on this issue is David Barton of Texas. He has worked on a group called Americans for Voluntary School Prayer, was co-chairman of that group. He has written a book, and I have got a copy here that I have left with you. And on page 9 to 11, if you have time, you can read, court rulings that have really prevented the free exercise of religious thought in this country. And also on pages 11 to 14, decisions by public officials prohibiting the free exercise by people, among them the valedictorian of a public high school, graduating class, should be able publicly to State his or her religious convictions, whatever they happen to be, even though they may be out of synch with some Federal judge in this

area.

And then, lastly, let me just say that, you know, the American people are totally with us by a big majority. This may come to a shock to my friend from California, Mr. Berman. About 75 percent of the American people want this legislation to be adopted. And the questions for all of you who are elected Members of Congress: Why are we taking so long to get it done?

So that's the pitch that I want to share with you today, and I thank you very much for this time.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Representative Dannemeyer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dannemeyer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:

Thomas Jefferson is generally recognized by most historians as the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and James Madison as the father of the U.S. Constitution. Our founding fathers created a federal system of three branches-executive, legislative and judicial. The system was not designed to be efficient; on the contrary, the checks and balances of these branches of government, as they struggled for power, were designed to provide the best chance of preserving freedom for the people of America.

On Aug. 18, 1821, Jefferson wrote to Charles Hammond and expressed that of the three branches of government, the one he feared the most was the federal judiciary: "The federal judiciary is . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the states, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization).”

Decisions of the federal judiciary over the last half-century have resulted in the theft of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Here's a brief sampling:

Enacting "a wall of separation between church and state”; Everson vs. Board of Education, 1947.

• Banning nondenominational prayer from public schools; Engel vs. Vitale, 1962.

• Removing the Ten Commandments from public school walls; Stone vs. Graham, 1980.

• Striking down a "period of silence not to exceed one minute. . . for mediation or voluntary prayer"; Wallace vs. Jaffree, 1985.

Censoring creationist viewpoints when evolutionist viewpoints are taught; Edwards vs. Aguillard, 1987.

• Barring prayers at public school graduations; Lee vs. Weisman, 1992.

On Jan. 12, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave a speech at Fredericksburg, Va., in which he did a rare thing for a sitting justice: He publicly criticized decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts. The sense of his comments was that the courts have gone overboard in keeping God out of government. He cited the recent decision of Judge Alfred Goodwin of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals barring students in a public school from using the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Polling data shows overwhelmingly support for legislation that would prevent such prohibitions.

For example, in 1985, 69 percent of Americans supported school prayer; by 1991, that number had increased to 78 percent. Similarly, in 1988, 68 percent of Americans supported a constitutional amendment to reinstate school prayer; by 1994, that number had risen to 73 percent.

Furthermore, the public is strongly unified on the subject of spoken—not silent— prayer. In 1995, support for spoken prayers by students of all faiths was at 75 percent; by 2001, before the terrorist attacks, it was at 77 percent.

Congress can correct the wrong interpretation of the 1st Amendment by decisions of the federal judiciary in two different ways.

One method is a constitutional amendment which would apply to the federal judiciary and to the supreme courts of the states. This, of course, requires a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate and the approval of three-fourths of the states. It is a very daunting hurdle, to say the least.

The other alternative is a statutory approach. It would require a majority vote in the House and the Senate and the signature of the president. It would utilize Article III, Section 2.2 of the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes Congress to except certain subject matter from jurisdiction of the federal courts. This authority was used by the last Congress, the 107th, 12 different times.

Legislation using this approach has been introduced in Congress.

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., has introduced Senate Bill 1558 to allow display of Ten Commandments and to retain "God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" as national motto. It uses the Article III exception.

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., has introduced House Joint Resolution 46 with 95 cosponsors for a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary prayer in public schools. Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., has introduced House Resolution 3799, the Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004. A statute, it would allow voluntary prayer in public schools, the display of the Ten Commandments and keep God in the Pledge and in the National Motto. It utilizes Article 3 Sec. 2.2.

ATTACHMENTS

COALITION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT GOD EXISTS
AND TO ALLOW EXPRESSIONS OF FAITH

January 15, 2004

SUBJECT: REQUESTING CONGRESS TO ENACT LEGISLATION
NOW PENDING IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE

The current Congress has a unique and historic opportunity to correct a wrong interpretation of the First Amendment by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court which in the past half century have stolen our Judeo Christian heritage. Unique and historic because this is the first time since 1955 that both Houses of Congress and the White House are supportive of a political philosophy which is willing to acknowledge that God exists who created rules which all persons are to observe.

A brief sampling of some of these decisions is as follows:

Enacting "a wall of separation between church and state'
(Everson v. Board of Education, 1947)

Banning nondenominational prayer from public schools
(Engel v. Vitale, 1962)

Removing the Ten Commandments from public school walls

(Stone v. Graham, 1980)

Striking down a "period of silence not to exceed one minute...for mediation or voluntary prayer"

(Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985)

Censoring creationist viewpoints when evolutionist viewpoints are taught

(Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987)

Barring prayers at public school graduations

(Lee v. Weisman. 1992)

We believe that the principle problem facing America is a spiritual one. Since 9-11, our political leaders have been heard to publicly ask on many occasions "God Bless America." If we are honest with ourselves, why should God Bless America? For over two generations we have been teaching children in public schools the God does not exist.