[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.

                          ____________________