PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - September 23, 2004)
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe "under God" should be in the
Pledge of Allegiance. But what I cannot support today is legislation that basically tells the third branch of our government, go home, no thanks, we do not need you any more.
Judicial review has been a part of our democracy in this constitutional government for over 200 years. And now with the fancy language embodied in this legislation and other pieces of legislation that have been pending, they are trying to disrupt that delicate balance of power, the checks and balances that exist that allows the Federal courts from time to time to take a look at the work that we are doing in this Congress to see whether or not we are complying with the highest law of the land, the United States Constitution. That is what judicial review is all about.
What is so ironic about today's debate is that the courts have already weighed in and said that the Pledge is okay, "under God" is okay. So what are we doing here when we have anemic economic job growth in the country, rising health care costs and tuition that is placing college out of the reach of students. We can do better by the American people.