nize that the Establishment Clause has an important role in protecting all Americans and their right to exercise their religion or no religion at all.

Today, we will hear from Steven Rosenauer, whose experience, I believe, will illustrate the need to be mindful of the importance of the Establishment Clause as we consider the issue of religious expression at public events.

I am also very pleased that we have Reverend Brent Walker and Professor Melissa Rogers here this afternoon. Reverend Walker is with the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs and is an ordained Baptist minister. He understands the legal, practical, and theological dimensions of religious freedom. Professor Rogers was formerly with the Pew Forum on religion and public life, and currently a professor at Wake Forest University's Divinity School. She will give us insight into the legal and policy issues involved in this debate, which is as old as the republic itself.

Finally, I want to welcome our Senate colleagues on the first panel, of course, and Representative Chet Edwards of Texas, one of the most passionate defenders of religious liberty in the Congress and in our Nation.

In sum, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the First Amendment provides parameters that have been absolutely critical in protecting religious freedom and allowing Americans to thrive in and practice whatever religion they choose. These are parameters that have served our Nation well since its founding. Despite the title of this hearing, I believe that the First Amendment is alive and well in our country, as is religion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do look forward to the testimony. [The prepared statement of Senator Feingold appears as a submission for the record.]

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Feingold.

And, with that, we will turn to our distinguished panel and ask you, Senator Shelby, if you will lead off and make such statement as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD SHELBY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would ask that my entire written statement be made part of the record. Chairman CORNYN. Without objection.

Senator SHELBY. Chairman Cornyn, Senator Feingold, Senator Sessions, and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for holding this important hearing and for having me here to discuss briefly the Constitution Restoration Act. Joined by Senators Miller, Brownback, Allard, Graham, Bunning, Lott, and Inhofe, I introduced Senate bill 2323, the Constitution Restoration Act. Like millions of Americans, I believe that the courts have exceeded their power. This legislation recognizes the rights of the States and the people as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to acknowledge God. In short, this legislation goes to the very foundation of our country and the legitimacy of our system of Government.

Over the years, we have seen a disturbing and growing trend in our Federal courts to deny the rights of our States and our citizens

to acknowledge God openly and freely. These tortured legal decisions distort our Constitution, our Nation's history, and its tradition in an effort to secularize our system of Government and to divest morality from our rule of law.

Four years ago, Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court determined that students could not engage in voluntary prayer at a school football game. Last year, as you noted, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was unconstitutional to recite the words "one Nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. And a district court in my home State of Alabama ruled that it was unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments.

I believe it is unfortunate that there are so many examples to point to because the simple fact is our Government and our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values and a recognition of God as our Creator. The Declaration of Independence, by which we justify the very foundation of our political system, holds these truths to be self-evident, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights."

Our motto, Mr. Chairman, as you noted, is "In God We Trust." It is enshrined on our currency. Our national anthem recognizes our motto as “in God is our trust."

As Federal officials, we each took an oath of office swearing to uphold the Constitution, so help me God. The President takes a similar one. State and local officials and our military personnel all swear a similar oath. Jurors and witnesses in our State and Federal courts take an oath, as do witnesses before Congress, to tell the truth, so help me God.

Our courts, including the Supreme Court, recognize God in their official proceedings. Both the House and Senate acknowledge God through an opening prayer every morning. Our public buildings and monuments honor this heritage through various depictions of the basic moral foundations of our laws and our system of Government.

My point, Mr. Chairman, is this: that you simply cannot divest God from our country. Our country has no foundation without a basic recognition that God invests us at birth with basic individual rights, such as the blessings of liberty that we all enjoy as Ameri

cans.

There is no question that the courts have exceeded and abused their power, in my opinion. The Constitution Restoration Act recognizes the rights of the States and the people to acknowledge God as embodied in the Declaration of Independence that you referenced and the Constitutions of the United States and the individual States.

This recognition, I believe, Mr. Chairman, is the very basis for the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of an official church or religion. The Constitution Restoration Act further prohibits Federal courts from basing their opinions on foreign law, contrary to the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold.

The list of legal decisions abridging our right to acknowledge God is far too long. It is imperative that we exemplify how these decisions affect the lives of real people and that they are not just words on paper. I am pleased that the Committee under your leadership has taken this step and will hear testimony from individuals who

have had their rights abridged, and I look forward to their testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to appear here, and I look forward to the others. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Shelby appears as a submission for the record.]

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Shelby, for those thoughtful remarks and for your presence here today.

Senator Landrieu, we are delighted to have you here and would be happy to hear any opening statement you might care to make.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY LANDRIEU, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to be part of this important hearing this morning, and I ask that my entire text be submitted to the record.

Chairman CORNYN. Without objection.

Senator LANDRIEU. But for the purposes, I will try to shorten it. I thank my colleagues for being present as well.

I would like to begin my testimony with a quote from Benjamin Franklin, who we all think of as one of the foremost philosophers of democracy. He asked a very important question at the Constitutional Convention. "In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered." He asked, "Do we imagine we now no longer need his assistance?"

Mr. Chairman, we would do well to ask ourselves Mr. Franklin's question again today. The rituals all around us indicate that we do need God's assistance for our great experiment in democracy to work. We opened the Senate today with a prayer, led by our chaplain. It has been a tradition followed from the beginning of our Nation, over 200 years, and the Senate and our Nation are stronger for it.

We are stronger because we acknowledge a higher power than our selfish interest. We are stronger because we honor the free practice of all religions. Our Nation is stronger because our Government does not endorse one religion over another. But while we maintain a separation between church and state, we do not separate God from our state.

Mr. Chairman, this hearing could not be more timely. The United States Supreme Court is expected to announce a decision very quickly in the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow before the end of this current session.

As Members of this Subcommittee know, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the phrase "under God" was not constitutional. The Pledge has been part of American life since 1942, and Congress added "under God" to the Pledge in 1954.

Like many of my colleagues, I was shocked by the Ninth Circuit decision. The day the decision was announced in June of 2002, I introduced a constitutional amendment that simply says that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency do not effect an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. It has been reintroduced in the 108th Congress as

Senate Joint Resolution 7. Other Senators have cosponsored it with me, and I would ask that a copy of this resolution be placed in the record of this hearing.

Chairman CORNYN. Without objection.

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Chairman, you do not need to be a legal scholar to know that this decision is an affront to common sense. References to God are found in every one of our founding documents, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution itself, as well as the Pledge of Allegiance. President James Madison, who we appropriately acknowledge as the Father of the Constitution, wrote to the Virginia General Assembly, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of Government. Far from it. We have staked the future of our political institutions upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Those of you on the Committee who have studied the writings of the Founders understand that there was broad difference among them about the nature of God and the role that religion played in their personal lives. But I do not think you could find anyone present at the creation of our Nation that doubted that Divine Providence played a role in our victory and in the crafting of the document that binds us together as the United States.

So when we acknowledge that history with the phrase "under God," we do little more than reiterate something that our Founding Fathers accepted as a fundamental truth. Only something greater than ourselves could have created America. Something more significant than self-interest was needed to make E Pluribus Unum. They thought that something was the power of the divine. The Founders have almost never given us reason to doubt their wisdom. And so because of that, the Founding Fathers wanted us to only amend the Constitution when it was absolutely necessarily, I believe, and just using an extraordinary remedy. So what I have done by introducing this acknowledges that, and I do not propose this change lightly. However, the Ninth Circuit simply went too far. The separation of church and state was intended to ensure neutrality between faiths by our Government, not to eliminate all references to God and religion from public life.

Mr. Chairman, the Pledge of Allegiance has been part of the fabric of our country for 50 years. It has not been a tool of religious persecution, and no harm has come from it. I hope the Supreme Court uses common sense when it decides this case this month. If it decides to overrule the lower court and upholds the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, then my amendment, S.J. Resolution 7, would not be necessary. I hope that that ends up being the

case.

If the Court, however, decides to uphold the lower court's decision, the Congress can and, in my opinion, should begin the process of restoring the proper balance between church and state and to restore the historical purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance by amending the Constitution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu, and the text of S.J. Res. 7, appear as submissions for the record.]

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much, Senator Landrieu, for being here today with the Subcommittee and for those remarks.

Congressman Chet Edwards of Texas is here, and we welcome you to the Subcommittee and would be glad to hear any statement you might have.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHET EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Representative EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Senator Feingold, Senator Sessions, thank you for the chance to testify before you.

I support Senator Landrieu's amendment, but let me just say right up front that this hearing today is not about who is for God and who is against God, who is for prayer and who is against prayer. And I think it is important for all of us on both sides of this issue not to try to suggest that division, directly or indirectly.

While, yes, our Founding Fathers referenced Divine Providence in the Declaration, I would challenge any Member of the Subcommittee or anyone in this room to show me where the reference to God is made in the Constitution. They purposely chose not to put God in the Constitution, not because of disrespect to God but out of total respect to God and Divine Providence. Our Founding Fathers in their wisdom understood that secular Government should not have power over American citizens' souls and religious faith, and that is what the Establishment Clause is all about.

One cannot fully discuss the issue of religion in the public square without first addressing the fundamental question: What is the proper relationship between church and state? Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson thought the question so important that they debated it for a decade in the Virginia Legislature. Our Founding Fathers placed so much importance on the question of church and state that they chose to put their answer to that question not just anywhere, but in the first 16 words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In his letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802, Mr. Jefferson said the intent of this constitutional principle was to build a wall of separation between church and state. Perhaps America's greatest single contribution to the world from our experiment in democracy has been the religious freedom and tolerance that have resulted from the principle of church/state separation. In fact, I would ask anyone to show me any nation where direct government funding or entanglement with religion has resulted in more religious freedom or tolerance than we have in America today.

As a person of faith, a lifelong Methodist, and a son-in-law of a Baptist minister, I thank God that we live in a Nation where our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to put religion and religious freedom on a pedestal far above the reach of politicians. Our Founding Fathers understood the lesson of human history that three things happen when Government and politicians get involved in religion: first, the rights of religious minorities are limited; second, politicians cannot withstand the temptation to use religion as a means to their own political ends; and, third, Government fund