[House Report 112-47]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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:
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. Sec. 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:
LDear 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.
LYou 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:
LI approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on
that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See 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.
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 Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence .
. . pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our
sacred Honor.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The Declaration of Independence (1776).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\4 U.S.C.A. Sec. 4 (historical notes).
\4\Bruce Frohnen, The American Republic 69 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Speeches of the American Presidents 181 (Steven Anzovin & Janet
Podell eds., The H.W. Wilson Co. 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Public Papers of the Presidents, F.D. Roosevelt, 1940, Item 149,
Office of Fed. Reg. (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Ronald Reagan told the American people ``We are a
nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be
free.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Speeches of the American Presidents 749 (Steven Anzovin & Janet
Podell eds., The H.W. Wilson Co. 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795; 70 Stat. 732, codified at 36
U.S.C. Sec. 302.
\2\See, 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.'').
\3\The 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 3(b).
II. LH. 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 with each other, but rather reinforce
religious liberty in different ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .'' U.S. Const.
amend. I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Letter 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).
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Attorney General Levi Lincoln
(Jan. 1, 1802), id. at 164.
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
\8\Id. at 612-13 (citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592 (1992).
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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).
\11\McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky,
545 U.S. 844 (2005); cf. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
\12\Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 716 (1984) (O'Connor, J.
concurring).
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 37 (2004)
(O'Connor, J. concurring) (2004) (citations omitted).
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Tr. 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).
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Id. at 35 (Statement of Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)).
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Id. at 40 (Statement of Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583-84 (1987).
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.
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.