[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5182-H5185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE OHIO
MOTTO IS CONSTITUTIONAL
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 494) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Ohio State motto is constitutional and urging
the courts to uphold its constitutionality.
The Clerk read as follows:
Whereas the official motto of the State of Ohio--``With God
All Things Are Possible''--has been the State motto for 41
years, since October 1, 1959;
Whereas the motto is a powerful expression of hope and
humility for all the people of Ohio;
Whereas the motto does not establish, promote, endorse,
advance, or discriminate against any specific set of
religious beliefs;
Whereas the motto is consistent with the American tradition
of seeking spiritual guidance in matters of public affairs;
Whereas faith in God was a founding principle of the Nation
and the State of Ohio;
Whereas the motto helps promote positive values and
citizenship in the youth of Ohio;
Whereas several States or territories and the United States
have mottoes or seals making explicit reference to God or
Providence;
Whereas the Declaration of Independence and the
constitutions or preambles of 45 States make explicit
reference to a divine power;
Whereas since 1864, United States coins have borne the
motto ``In God We Trust'', which Congress made mandatory on
all gold and silver coins in 1908 (35 Stat. 164, Chap. 173)
and on all United States coins and currency in 1955 (69 Stat.
290, Chap. 303);
Whereas in 1956, Congress declared the national motto of
the United States to be ``In God we trust'' (70 Stat. 732,
Chap. 795); and
Whereas Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the
Constitution and vigilantly do so in the performance of their
legislative duties: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
(A) the Ohio State motto and other long-standing mottoes
which make reference to God or Providence do so as long-
accepted expressions consistent with American tradition and
rooted in the sentiments of the American people;
(B) such mottoes are ``those references to God that we
accept in ceremonial phrases or in other contexts that assure
neutrality'', Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 717 (1984)
(Brennan, J., dissenting), and State and Federal courts
should uphold them as such; and
(C) the decision of a three-judge panel of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit striking down
the Ohio State motto is a misinterpretation and
misapplication of the United States Constitution; and
(2) the House of Representatives--
(A) finds repugnant all misinterpretations and
misapplications of the Constitution by Federal courts which
disregard those references to God which are well within the
American tradition and within the Constitution;
(B) supports the decision of the Governor and the Attorney
General of the State of Ohio to appeal the ruling; and
(C) affirms its support for the Ohio State motto and other
State mottoes making reference to a divine power.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
General Leave
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.Res. 494.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of House Resolution 494, expressing the sense
of the House of Representatives that the Ohio State motto is
constitutional. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley), who will be speaking shortly, for introducing this legislation.
``With God, all things are possible.'' Those are the offending words,
words that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 vote, held
to be unconstitutional because, according to the majority judges, they
constitute a government endorsement of religion.
Mr. Speaker, 41 years ago the State of Ohio was looking for a new
motto, one that expressed both the unbending optimism and quiet
humility of the people of our State. A 10-year-old schoolboy submitted
his choice, a passage that said simply, with God, all things are
possible. The selection was easy; and in 1959, the new Ohio motto was
adopted.
Mr. Speaker, 38 years passed without controversy until 1997 when then
Governor George Voinovich, decided to place the motto carved in stone
in front of the State House, in Columbus, our capital. This apparently
caused a great deal of alarm. The Sixth Circuit has ruled that this
passage comes directly from the Gospel according to Matthew and
therefore must be stricken as Ohio's creed. Other scholars in Ohio
dispute this and have traced its non-Christian origins back to Homer's
epic poem ``The Odyssey'' and point out its prevalence as an
inspirational catch phrase throughout the history of Western
literature, before Christ and after.
The official motto of the United States is, ``In God We Trust.'' We
have it right up there in front of us. As I am looking here today it
says, in very large letters, ``In God We Trust,'' here on the floor of
the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court of the United States
heralds the beginning of every session with the words, ``God save this
honorable court.'' We in Congress pause each morning for a prayer that
calls upon guidance from God.
Like these other reflections upon faith, the Ohio motto does not seek
to promote a certain religion or endorse one set of religious beliefs
over another.
{time} 1115
Ohio's Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, has said and I
quote, ``The motto implies a challenge for self-betterment, and that
solid ethics must be at the root of all our actions as individuals and
communities. It inspires and instructs that with faith and hard work,
any challenge can be met.'' That is what our Secretary of State, J.
Kenneth Blackwell, said.
George Washington said, and I quote, ``Reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle.''
I am inclined to agree with the father of our country, the man who,
against all odds, led an army of untrained farmers to victory against
the most powerful army in the world. I am also inclined to think that
he would certainly approve of our motto.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Let me just note, Mr. Speaker, that I am here at the request of the
ranking minority member. This particular resolution, while it was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, was not acted on by the
committee. I am here in the absence of the ranking minority member to
express the fact that he has no objection to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I am proud
to be a cosponsor of this important legislation with the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and others.
Mr. Speaker, this bill expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Ohio State motto is constitutional, and urges
the courts to uphold its Constitutionality.
Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the Sixth United States
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ohio's State motto ``With God all
things are possible'' was unconstitutional. The two-to-one decision was
based on a belief that that motto expressed a particular affinity
towards Christianity.
I find it a real stretch to interpret the Ohio State motto as
supporting a specific religion. In one instance the Koran reads, ``Know
you not that God is able to do all things?'' Mr. Speaker, the United
States has been using the
[[Page H5183]]
phrase ``In God we trust'' on all our coins since 1864, and Congress
made this saying, which has been held constitutional which by the
courts, mandatory on all gold and silver coins in 1908 and on all U.S.
currency in 1955. Clearly, legal precedents in these cases support the
conclusion that Ohio's State motto should be upheld.
On a personal note, God can do all things. I would urge all Member to
support this resolution.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the principal sponsor of this
resolution.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, while I am proud to join my good friend, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), and 54 of our colleagues on both
parties in supporting this resolution, I want to particularly thank my
good friend, the gentleman from Cincinnati (Mr. Chabot), for his work
as well. I am troubled by the misinterpretation of the Constitution
that has compelled us to introduce it and bring us here today.
Two months ago, with a 2-to-1 decision, a three-judge panel in the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Ohio's official State motto,
``With God all things are possible.'' The court sided with the ACLU in
declaring that the motto expresses a particular affinity towards
Christianity and thus violates the establishment clause of the
Constitution.
While the phrase does appear in the Gospel according to Matthew, it
actually predates Christianity by almost 1,000 years. The line ``With
the gods all things are possible'' appears in Homer's Odyssey. Similar
lines appear throughout other ancient Greek works and in the writings
of Cicero, all of which were written before Matthew's counsel.
According to the Council on American-Islamic relations, a similar
phrase appears throughout the Koran.
Mr. Speaker, certainly this simple phrase of optimism and faith is
not offensive to anyone. These six words make no reference to Jesus
Christ in this context, and cannot be said to promote the Christian
faith in any way. The court's action is nothing more than political
correctness run rampant.
Four other States and American Samoa mention God in their mottos.
Ohio's expression of faith in God is no different from any of these
references. Together with ``In God we trust,'' these mottos stand as a
testament to the religious foundation of this great country.
While the courts have upheld the biblically-based ``In God we trust''
as the Nation's motto time and time again, the Sixth Circuit panel
ignored precedent and struck down Ohio's similar expression of faith.
In fact, the 10-year-old boy who suggested the phrase as Ohio's motto
more than 40 years ago was not even aware of its Biblical origin. He
said it was something his mother and grandmother would say to him all
the time. Despite the ACLU's position, I doubt that this 10-year-old
set out to establish Christianity as Ohio's official religion.
Mr. Speaker, I have received many letters on this issue from my
constituents in Ohio and from all across the Nation, each one
supporting Ohio's right to keep the motto as it is. People around the
country are tired of having their religious freedom squelched by fringe
groups in the name of separation of church and State.
As one of my constituents noted, ``Ours is a government of the people
and by the people, not of the ACLU and by the ACLU.'' To paraphrase
another of my constituents, ``We would be a very fortunate Nation if
the biggest threat our society had to face was a saying attributed to
Jesus Christ.''
I would urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan resolution
supporting Ohio's appeal of the court ruling, and upholding the right
of every State and Territory to affirm the Founders' faith that, with
God, all things are, indeed, possible.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Something bothers me, Mr. Speaker. In America, the
courts have ruled that we can burn our flag, communists can work in our
defense plants, murderers are entitled to cable television, including
the Playboy Channel, pornography has been ruled to be allowed not only
on television but now on the Internet, because we just cannot prove
that kids may watch it and adults may miss an opportunity to see such
tangos.
What is next? Will the Supreme Court allow students to trade in their
baseball cards for Playboy Magazines, Mr. Speaker? I think if these
decisions are not enough to make the Founders pray, something is really
wrong.
Think about it, the court ruled that school prayer is illegal. Prayer
before a football game is unconstitutional. That is getting heavy. God
is not even allowed to be mentioned on television. Some of the
television shows that refer to God, Touched by Angels, they want to
remove that. My God, America is talking about God.
Now we hear about the fact that the Ohio motto ``With God all things
are possible'' is the real killer. That is unbelievable to me. The
court allows students to learn about the devil, but not Jesus. The
court allows students to study devil worship, but not religion.
This bunch of overeducated nincompoops on the courts have not
interpreted the Constitution. They have become so politically correct
they are street stupid and miss the whole point. The Constitution and
the Founders designed the Constitution to make sure there was not one
State-sponsored religion. They did want to separate church and State,
but they never intended to separate God and the American people.
What is next? How about our currency, ``In God we trust''? Bring it
all back and print it. How about the Chamber, ``In God we trust''? Our
fine Speaker pro tempore, above him, ``In God we trust,'' that may be
unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I say let Ohio go, because with God, all things are
possible. Would the court ban a motto that said ``With the devil there
is a lot more fun''? I do not mean to be light on this, but we have a
Supreme Court established in this country. They seem to be acting like
some sort of supreme being.
I am going to ask Congress today a question that I think the American
people are asking: When will Congress grow some anatomy and stand up
for God and the principles on which our Founders initiated our great
Nation? I yield back all these harebrained, convoluted, nincompoop,
stupid rulings of the courts that have literally removed God from
America.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As usual, the gentleman from Ohio makes imminent sense. I compliment
him for his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from the Second District of Ohio (Mr. Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cincinnati for
yielding time to me. I also want to commend my friend, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for bringing this resolution to the floor.
As some have probably already heard in this debate, our State motto,
``With God all things are possible,'' was actually adopted in 1959 at
the suggestion of a 10-year-old. This 10-year-old was from my hometown,
Steve's hometown, of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Jim Mastronardo found out that the State did not have a motto. There
was no motto at all for Ohio. So this enterprising young man, and I
have a 10-year-old son and I think that is interesting that a 10-year-
old was that enterprising, came up with this motto.
Eventually the State adopted it. Then recently, during renovations to
our historic State House in Columbus, our then Governor, now Senator,
George Voinovich had this motto engraved in the granite plaza outside
the building. I think that is probably what resulted in the
controversy, and certainly what resulted in the specific complaint
being filed.
I want to commend little Jimmy Mastronardo at 10 years old and
Governor Voinovich for coming up with the idea, in one case, and then
allowing more Ohioans to understand that this was our motto, and its
significance.
I find the Sixth Circuit ruling to be headed in the wrong direction.
I think it establishes a precedent that is troubling. In essence, I
think what they are saying is that because ``With God all things are
possible'' is attributed to the Gospel of Matthew, that therefore it is
inappropriate.
As I look at it, and I know many other constitutional scholars other
[[Page H5184]]
than those on the court share this view, it is on its face a generic,
nondenominational, and definitely a ceremonial reference to God. I
think it is exactly an example of the kind of ceremonial deism that the
courts have accepted over the years. Beyond that, as the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and others have pointed out, it is something that
is positive for our State and our country.
I find the court ruling troubling, and I think it is appropriate that
Congress establish today, I hope through a strong bipartisan majority
of the House, that we also believe that this is a troubling precedent.
It does not advocate a particular religious stance. It does not promote
the establishment of a particular religion. I think it is very similar
to our national motto, In God we trust, which adorns this Chamber,
which adorns our currency, which is an example of the faith with which
our Founding Fathers created this great Nation over 200 years ago.
Instead of following the years of court precedent that upheld, again,
the ceremonial use of the references, this court of the Sixth Circuit
chose, I think, a very narrow First Amendment interpretation. As a
result, not only is this motto in danger, but of course the mottos of
other States. There are five other States and territories that have
``God'' in their motto. They are also endangered. In the end, the
national motto ``In God we trust'' is endangered.
This was, incidentally, added to our Nation's paper currency in 1954
at the urging of a fellow named Matthew Rothert, another Ohio
connection, because he was the father of our First Lady of Ohio, Hope
Taft, and Hope has spoken out on this issue, as well. I think she has
made a lot of sense in terms of her comments. Recently she summed it up
with a statement, ``You knock one down, and you are on to the next
one.''
I think both mottos, the national motto and the State motto, should
stay just as they are. I agree with Hope Taft. Our Founding Fathers did
envision a nation, Mr. Speaker, where there could be freedom of
religion, not the absence of any form of religious expression.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today to show their
support for the State of Ohio's motto, and I think also in doing so
show their support for our national motto, by voting in support of the
measure today offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, because this resolution had not come through the
Committee on the Judiciary process, I am at what I feel to be a
disadvantage in commenting on the court opinion, since I have not read
it. That may appear to me to be more of a disadvantage than some of my
colleagues think it is.
As I said, not having read the opinion, I am somewhat reluctant to
discuss it at great length, but I did want to say that I would disagree
with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, in the suggestion that
there is some danger that references to God will be removed from
television. People would be understandably very unhappy about that. I
want to allay their fears. The likelihood that there would be any
governmental action removing references to God from television is zero.
It would not be constitutional.
{time} 1130
It would not be constitutional; it would not be appropriate. No
official body is talking about it, whether that is people conducting
the services on television or programs.
So I do hope people will not unduly fear that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just in concluding, I remember hearing this decision
when it came over my car radio and just shaking my head and thinking of
all the other people in my State that are out there hearing this same
court decision. It is one of the things that I think makes people
wonder about their government and what is going on here. It is just
such a ludicrous decision. It is almost incomprehensible.
It is incomprehensible to me that every morning we can pray in this
Chamber before we start business here; that we can have a visiting
rabbi, a priest, a minister, people of many different religions who
come in here and start in the People's House the first session every
morning with prayer; that we can have on the wall in front of us right
now, ``In God We Trust''; that we could have on our money, the currency
that goes all around our country every day on behalf of our government
and says ``In God We Trust,'' yet it is somehow unconstitutional for
the State of Ohio to have a very similar phrase, ``In God All Things
Are Possible''; that that is unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is just incomprehensible. It makes
absolutely no sense. I certainly hope that the court's decision is
overturned by the higher level in the court system. I feel very
confident that it will be, but I think it is important that this House,
the People's House, does express a sense of the House of
Representatives that the Ohio State motto is constitutional. I think
that is appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley) for proposing this particular resolution.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today this body has the
opportunity to speak out against a grave injustice that occurred in our
country on April 25, 2000. For on April 25, 2000 the U.S. Court of
Appeals of the Sixth Circuit ruled that the state motto of Ohio, ``With
God all Things Are Possible'', is in violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, as we come to our Independence Day recess, I recall some
224 years ago we came together as a group to proclaim our independence
from Britain. And in our Declaration of Independence we stated that all
men ``are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.''
From our nation's beginning we recognized the importance of God.
Mr. Speaker every day in this body before we begin our day we are led
in a prayer, we ask God to bless and guide us in our proceedings.
Before we begin our day we pledge allegiance to our country, and
proclaim that we are one nation under God. Mr. Speaker look around
these chambers at our ``lawgivers'' statues you will find two Popes and
one Biblical figure, Moses. These are the men who laid the foundation
of our American democracy.
Mr. Speaker for nearly 150 years our nation has lived under the motto
``In God We Trust.'' The mint places copies of this motto on every
nickel, dime, quarter, and paper money. The people of Ohio lived under
their motto for forty years. Now, the judicial system after 224 years
of foundation in our religious beliefs are trying to strike this down.
Mr. Speaker our nation has a strong heritage in our religious
beliefs. For the past 224 yeas, we as a nation have asked God for
leadership, guidance, and His blessing. I urge every member to stand
today and support Mr. Oxley's resolution H. Res. 494 and support the
motto of Ohio.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect the right of every member of this
House to take a stand of conscience on the subject of religion, but the
process of this resolution, in my opinion, does a disservice to the
Constitution and to this House.
If this is intended to be a serious resolution, then it subjects
matter of religious freedom in state mottoes deserves a full and open
debate in Judiciary Committee hearings and on this floor.
Let us be honest with our constituents. The Constitution in Article
III makes it absolutely clear that the Supreme Court--not the
Congress--has the power to determine what is or is not constitutional.
Let us be honest, the passage of this resolution will have absolutely
no impact upon whether the Supreme Court determines the
constitutionality of the motto, ``With God, all things are possible''.
No press releases today will change that fact.
If some members of this House envision this Congress as an advisory
body to the Supreme Court, I would suggest that declaring an action
constitutional, without any consideration of hearings on related court
cases, would make our advice so grievously superficial as to make it
ignored at best and counterproductive at worst.
I would hope that the Leadership of this House would honestly say to
the American people that only the Supreme Court--not Congress--
ultimately decides the constitutionality of an issue.
The first 16 words of the Bill of Rights have protected American's
religious liberty for over two hundred years. It is a shame the House
Republican leadership seems more interested in sound bite politics than
in respecting our Constitution.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my home state of Ohio
and its motto, ``With God All Things Are Possible.''
[[Page H5185]]
This motto was adopted by an act of the State Legislature in 1959 to
express an optimistic and poignant view of what it means to be a
resident of our great state. The motto embodies the belief that faith
and Providence have played an important role in the development of the
State of Ohio from pioneer times to the present day.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the motto is an
unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity because the motto is
derived from the Gospel of St. Matthew in the New Testament, yet
followers of Islam have stated publicly that they have no objection to
the motto since it simply references God.
The court's ruling is part of a disturbing trend to completely remove
religious symbolism from public forums. This was never the intention of
the Founding Fathers. The entire purpose behind the First Amendment was
to prevent the establishment of an official state-endorsed religion
like the Church of England and to protect the individual right to
worship without fear of persecution by the government.
I'm sure that the authors of our Constitution would truly be
perplexed at the way this straightforward constitutional matter has
been interpreted to mean that the name of God or a supreme creator is
never to be seen on a public document or inside a public building.
We have a state motto which states that the belief in God can inspire
Ohioans to accomplish even greater achievements in the future. If the
court's interpretation of the matter is allowed to stand we will soon
be faced with the unpleasant task of striking the words ``In God We
Trust'' from our currency, suspending prayer before the meetings of
virtually every elected town council and state legislature in the
nation, and eliminating the Prayer Room and the Office of the Chaplain
from the U.S. Congress.
Is this the reality that we want to create? Must God only be praised
in the voice of the individual and from private homes and established
houses of worship? I truly hope not.
The First Amendment of the Constitution was created to protect
religious freedoms, not to restrict the right of an individual state to
determine its own motto. This ruling is a misguided attempt to negate
the democratic process which allowed the motto to be established.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``present'' today on this bill,
not because I do not personally believe in the motto adopted by the
State of Ohio, but because to do otherwise would be a disservice to my
elected office, the judicial branch of our federal government, and the
Constitution upon which our government is based.
This body has no authority to act in an advisory capacity to the
courts of this land. The separation of powers embodied in the
Constitution establishes separate and co-equal branches of government
each possessing a unique role in the governance of the nation. Congress
is authorized to enact laws, and the courts--under Article III as
administered by the Supreme Court--are authorized to determine the
constitutionality of those laws.
Congress should not purport to advise the courts regarding the
constitutionality of a ruling of a particular court involving a
particular matter. Such action is well beyond the scope of our
constitutional role. The bill brought today is a knee-jerk reaction to
a court decision that many Members disagree with. While I respect their
opinions and their right to express themselves, I cannot support their
attempt to influence this nation's courts in this manner and by this
process.
I am disturbed that a bill that claims to express this body's well-
reasoned and deliberative judgment over the constitutionality of a
state motto was brought to the floor using the suspension of the rules
process. This bill was never fully researched and no committee hearing
was held. Instead, it was rushed to the floor with no opportunity for
amendment, scrutiny or serious discussion.
As a Member of this great body, I have sworn to uphold the
Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, I must abstain from
voting on this measure which was blatantly brought to the floor for the
sole purpose of trying to score cheap political points during an
election year.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
resolution.
``With God, all things are possible.'' If we could teach our children
only one thing, it should be that with hard work, perseverance, and
faith in themselves, all things are possible with God. I can think of
no better message to send our future generations than to tell them that
nothing is beyond their reach.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, by ruling that the motto of the
state of Ohio is unconstitutional, is keeping the people of Ohio from
sharing this message. No branch of government should strip Ohioans of
this, their expression of hope and optimism.
Certainly, I believe strongly in the First Amendment, which protects
individuals' freedom of religion but also prohibits government
establishment of religion. I for one believe that we cannot be
overzealous to the point of discouraging expression: historic,
traditional, time-honored expression that has defined us as a state and
nation for generations.
Let us be clear: The motto of the State of Ohio does not establish
any particular religion nor does it express any religious belief.
Rather, the Ohio motto simply represents an expression of American
optimism--one that for over 200 years has served to help steer this
great nation.
I urge you to support the people of my home state, and the people of
our nation, by supporting the resolution.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 494.
``With God All Things Are Possible.'' This phrase, the Ohio State
motto, represents optimism in the human spirit.
The motto suggests that Ohioans should be optimistic and hopeful
about the future. Although the motto is a Biblical reference, its
meaning extends beyond the scope of religion. In fact this phrase was
expressed in many ancient Greek texts such as The Odyssey.
Since the founding fathers of this great nation created a ``more
perfect Union,'' the concepts of god and country have been deeply
intertwined. Observe the Great Seal, which dates back to 1782, on the
back of our dollar bill. The ``All Seeing Eye'' above the pyramid
suggests the importance of divine guidance in favor of the American
cause. A closer look on the back of the dollar reveals America's
intimacy with spirituality: The Latin phrase ANNUIT COEPTIS, which is
also inscribed in this very chamber, means ``He (God) has favored our
undertakings,'' and refers to the many instances of Divine Providence
during our Government's formation. Even our own Pledge of Allegience
mentions that the United States is ``One Nation Under God,'' which is a
prime example of America's relationship with spirituality.
My fellow colleagues, it's clear to me that the Ohio State motto is
analogous to the beloved phrase ``In God We Trust''--our national
motto, displayed prominently above the seat of our own Speaker of the
House of Representatives. With God all things are possible, especially
the United States of America.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 494.
The question was taken.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________