[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 88 (Thursday, June 27, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4121-H4125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 463

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of Thursday, June 27, 2002, for the Speaker 
     to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     relating to the resolution (H. Res. 459) expressing the sense 
     of the House of Representatives that Newdow v. U.S. Congress 
     was erroneously decided, and for other purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I consume.
  H. Res. 463 provides that it shall be in order at any time on the 
legislative day of Thursday, June 27, 2002, for the Speaker to 
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating to the 
resolution, H. Res. 459, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that Newdow versus U.S. Congress was erroneously 
decided.
  Yesterday was a sad day for the millions and millions of Americans 
who understand and appreciate the significance of the Pledge of 
Allegiance.
  Incredibly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to overturn a 
1954 act of Congress, which added the phrase ``under God'' to the 
Pledge of Allegiance, ruling that these two words violated the 
Constitution's Establishment Clause which requires the separation of 
church and state.
  This fatally-flawed ruling, taken to its logical endpoint, would 
indicate that our currency, which contains the phrase ``In God We 
Trust,'' is unconstitutional. Clearly, that is not true, but, in the 
meantime, the Ninth Circuit has issued this inexplicable ruling.
  This decision, if not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, will 
force a number of Western States to remove this important phrase from 
the Pledge of Allegiance.
  I am proud to stand with my colleagues today on both sides of the 
aisle as we fight to protect our American heritage. In bringing the 
underlying legislation, H. Res. 459, to the floor, we are reaffirming 
our commitment to bedrock values and beliefs that have made the United 
States of America the greatest country on Earth. I firmly believe that 
the Pledge of Allegiance should continue to include the entire phrase 
``One Nation Under God.''
  I want to thank the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his leadership in 
bringing this important legislation to the House floor so quickly, 
given that the Ninth Circuit's ruling was handed down only yesterday 
afternoon.
  I urge my colleagues and fellow Americans getting ready to celebrate 
the birth of our country next week to remember the spirit that made us 
a great Nation.
  The phrase ``One Nation Under God'' reflects a spiritual belief that 
was so important to our forefathers, a belief in God that was 
instrumental to the founding of our country. I believe we, as members 
of Congress, we have a duty and an obligation to express our vigorous 
disagreement with this ruling, rather than simply allow it to stand 
unchallenged.
  On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, in 1976, in the Georgia legislature, 
my friend, Tommy Tolbert, and I provided an amendment to the education 
bill that required every class in Georgia to make available at some 
point during every day the Pledge of Allegiance for the students in 
those classes throughout Georgia; and now some clown from the Ninth 
Circus, as it has been called, decides that the Congress did not know 
what it was doing in 1954.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and then 
supporting the underlying legislation which will allow the House to go 
on record in regard to this out-of-touch ruling.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), for yielding me the customary time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of H. Res. 459 
under suspension of the rules. The underlying resolution expresses the 
sense of this House that Newdow versus U.S. Congress was erroneously 
decided.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support 
the underlying resolution.
  Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals 
ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. It is 
difficult to describe that decision as anything but just plain dumb.
  I strongly support the separation of church and State, and I strongly 
support the provision in the first amendment that prohibits government 
from establishing State-sponsored religion. The first amendment 
protects American citizens from government interference in their 
spiritual lives. It allows people to worship as they wish, and it 
allows them to refuse to worship at all.
  The Pledge of Allegiance hardly rises to the level of a mandated 
national religion. The phrase ``One Nation Under God'' is similar to 
``In God We Trust'' on our currency or ``God Bless America'' sung at 
high school graduations or even sung on the floor of this House. These 
invocations of God have more to do with tradition and heritage than

[[Page H4122]]

with the government forcing people to believe or practice a certain 
type of faith.
  Every day in the well of this House a Member leads us in the Pledge 
of Allegiance. I had the honor of leading the Pledge of Allegiance just 
last week. The Pledge is a way for all of us come together, regardless 
of party or ideology, and express our love for this Nation and our 
commitment to our democracy. But we also have the right not to say the 
Pledge at all.
  As the Supreme Court ruled in 1963, it is unconstitutional to force 
people to say the Pledge. And the resolution before us states that the 
United States Congress recognizes the right of those who do not share 
the beliefs expressed in the Pledge to refrain from its recitation.
  But here come a panel of the often-overturned Ninth Circuit, 
interestingly enough led by an appointee of the Nixon administration, 
charging into a nonexistent breach, issuing a divisive and unnecessary 
ruling. There are so many important issues facing our Nation, and I can 
say honestly that I have never had a constituent rush up to me in 
Worcester or Attleboro or Fall River to demand that we remove ``under 
God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Indeed, yesterday's ruling only serves to trivialize the very real 
issues of church/state separation that deserve a full and fair hearing 
before all the branches of government. But the Constitution also 
protects the right of American citizens to have their day in court. 
That is what the plaintiff in this case has done; and because of the 
structure of our government, Congress cannot overturn that decision. We 
can only express our disapproval, which this resolution does in very 
clear and appropriate terms.
  It will be up to the full Ninth Circuit and possibly the Supreme 
Court itself to toss this ruling into the dustbin of history where it 
belongs. In the meantime, Congress has the right to call yesterday's 
decision what it was, a big fat mistake. I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and to support the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record today's editorials from the New 
York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times on this 
issue, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 27, 2002]

                        ``One Nation Under God''

       Half a century ago, at the height of anti-Communist fervor, 
     Congress added the words, ``under God'' to the Pledge of 
     Allegiance. It was a petty attempt to link patriotism with 
     religious piety, to distinguish us from the godless Soviets. 
     But after millions of repetitions over the years, the phrase 
     has become part of the backdrop of American life, just like 
     the words ``In God We Trust'' on our coins and ``God bless 
     America'' uttered by presidents at the end of important 
     speeches.
       Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
     Circuit in California ruled 2 to 1 that those words in the 
     pledge violate the First Amendment, which says that 
     ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion.'' The majority sided with Michael Newdow, who had 
     complained that his daughter is injured when forced to listen 
     to public school teachers lead students daily in a pledge 
     that includes the assertion that there is a God.
       This is a well-meaning ruling, but it lacks common sense. A 
     generic two-word reference to God tucked inside a rote civic 
     exercise is not a prayer. Mr. Newdow's daughter is not 
     required to say either the words ``under God'' or even the 
     pledge itself, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1943 case 
     involving Jehovah's Witnesses. In the pantheon of real First 
     Amendment concerns, this one is off the radar screen.
       The practical impact of the ruling is inviting a political 
     backlash for a matter that does not rise to a constitutional 
     violation. We wish the words had not been added back in 1954. 
     But just the way removing a well-lodged foreign body from an 
     organism may sometimes be more damaging than letting it stay 
     put, removing those words would cause more harm than leaving 
     them in. By late afternoon yesterday, virtually every 
     politician in Washington was rallying loudly behind the 
     pledge in its current form.
       Most important, the ruling trivializes the critical 
     constitutional issue of separation of church and state. There 
     are important battles to be fought virtually every year over 
     issues of prayer in school and use of government funds to 
     support religious activities. Yesterday's decision is almost 
     certain to be overturned on appeal. But the sort of rigid 
     overreaction that characterized it will not make genuine 
     defense of the First Amendment any easier.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, June 27, 2002]

                         One Nation Under Blank

       In the many battles over how high the church-state wall 
     should be, there has always been a certain category of 
     official invocations of God that has gone untouched. 
     Legislative prayer has been upheld by the Supreme Court, for 
     example. Court sessions begin by asking that ``God save this 
     honorable court.'' America's national motto says ``In God We 
     Trust.'' And the Pledge of Allegiance, since 1954, has 
     described this country as ``One nation under God, 
     indivisible.'' At least it did until yesterday--when a panel 
     of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the 
     words ``under God'' as an establishment of religion in 
     violation of the First Amendment.
       If the court were writing a parody, rather than deciding an 
     actual case, it could hardly have produced a more provocative 
     holding than striking down the Pledge of Allegiance while 
     this country is at war. We believe in strict separation 
     between church and state, but the pledge is hardly a 
     particular danger spot crying out for judicial policing. And 
     having a court strike it down can only serve to generate 
     unnecessary political battles and create a fundraising 
     bonanza for the many groups who will rush to its defense. Oh, 
     yes, it can also invite a reversal, and that could mean 
     establishing a precedent that sanctions a broader range of 
     official religious expression than the pledge itself.
       All of this might be justified if there were any real 
     question as to the constitutionality of the 1954 law that 
     added God to the pledge. But while the Supreme Court has 
     never specifically considered the question, the justices have 
     left little doubt how they would do so. Even former justice 
     William Brennan--a fierce high-waller--once wrote ``I would 
     suggest that such practices as the designation of `In God We 
     Trust' as our national motto, or the references to God 
     contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be 
     understood . . . as a form a `ceremonial deism' protected 
     from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have 
     lost through rote repetition any significant religious 
     content.'' Other justices have likewise presumed the answer 
     to the question, and no court of appeals should blithely 
     generate a political firestorm--one that was already 
     beginning yesterday--just to find out whether they meant what 
     they said.
       As Judge Ferdinand Fernandez pointed out in dissent, the 
     establishment clause tolerates quite a few instances of 
     ``ceremonial deism'': Is it okay to sing ``God Bless 
     American'' or ``America the Beautiful'' at official events? 
     Is American currency unconstitutional? The answer must be, as 
     Judge Fernandez argues, that in certain expressions ``it is 
     obvious that [the] tendency to establish religion in this 
     country or to interfere with the free exercise (or non-
     exercise) of religion is de minimis.'' Amen.
                                  ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, June 27, 2002]

                          A Godforsaken Ruling

       A panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled 
     2 to 1 that the Pledge of Allegiance--you know, ``I pledge 
     allegiance to the flag of the United States of America . . 
     .''--is unconstitutional. And the reason? Because of that 
     phrase ``under God'' inserted by Congress 48 years ago.
       The court said an atheist or holder of non-Judeo-Christian 
     beliefs could see these words as an endorsement of 
     monotheism, even though students can opt out.
       ``A profession that we are a nation `under God' is 
     identical, for establishment clause purposes, to a profession 
     that we are a nation `under Jesus,' a nation `under Vishnu,' 
     a nation `under Zeus' or a nation `under no god' because none 
     of these professions can be neutral with respect to 
     religion,'' wrote Judge Alfred Goodwin.
       It's a fundamentally silly ruling, which deserves to be 
     tossed out, as was the initial suit by a Sacramento atheist. 
     For now, erasing the pledge applies only to 9th Circuit 
     states--California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, 
     Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Implementation of the ruling 
     is suspended pending appeals.
       The original 1892 pledge didn't contain the phrase ``under 
     God,'' which was added after a vigorous debate during a 
     period of loyalty oaths and Red-baiting. The Cold War 
     insertion of the phrase in 1954 clearly was driven as much by 
     ideology as religion. That said, for all the overheated and 
     dire predictions voiced then, the ``under God'' phrase has in 
     no way led to establishment of an official state religion. 
     Further, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that it was 
     unconstitutional to force pledge recitations. Thus the 9th 
     Circuit decision is a cure without an ailment.
       In fact, references to the Almighty have long been an 
     integral part of everyday American life--honest to God. 
     That's not too surprising for a nation initially organized by 
     Europeans fleeing persecution for practicing their beliefs in 
     God. The pledge (``one nation under God, indivisible, with 
     liberty and justice for all'') is recited daily by millions, 
     with few, if any, enforcement problems over which words 
     someone mumbles or skips.
       When taking office, many government officials, including 
     judges, take an oath invoking God. Court witnesses swear to 
     tell the truth ``so help me God.'' In fact, the Supreme 
     Court, where this case should go with Godspeed, opens 
     sessions with a reference to God.
       And what about that oppressive song ``God Bless America'' 
     that the entire Congress sang on government property after 
     Sept. 11? Then there's the problem of U.S. currency,

[[Page H4123]]

     which may now be unconstitutional because it says, ``In God 
     We Trust.'' The appeal should come swiftly. God willing, it 
     will.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this 
rule and the underlying resolution. Also, I rise today in outrage and 
indignation over yet the latest manifestation of an ongoing assault on 
the rights of Americans who cherish their beliefs and their commitment 
to God.
  This is not just about the Pledge of Allegiance, although forcing 
people to excise God from this voluntary oath is bad enough. A liberal 
left coalition has been trying to do their best for decades to neuter 
American traditions that is based on God, beliefs and traditions that 
Americans have held dear for two centuries.
  We see it in the attack on the rights of the Boy Scouts to have God 
in their scout oaths and have a high moral standard. We see it in our 
schools when they preempt Christmas programs and instead make them 
holiday programs. We see it at city halls when all of a sudden a manger 
scene or some recognition of Hanukkah are left out during those holy 
months. We see it when the courthouse takes down the Ten Commandments; 
and we see it when the National Endowment for the Arts subsidizes art 
works, supposed, so-called art work that attacks Christianity but then 
passes when it comes to religious works.

                              {time}  1430

  Yes, getting God out of the Pledge of Allegiance is bad; but it is 
part of an attempt, an overall attempt to use the judicial system to 
attack our fundamental liberties, especially the liberties of those of 
us who believe in God.
  This is one reason why many of us are so concerned about who controls 
the United States Senate, because it will be the United States Senate 
who controls who is on the Supreme Court. No one has ever been forced 
to pray or to acknowledge God, but the liberal coalition that is 
involved in taking this Pledge and eliminating God from the Pledge are 
using our courts to attack the freedom of those who do believe in God 
and attack our rights to our expression.
  Today, those of us who believe in God, those of us who cherish 
liberty need to unite to make sure that those who would use our court 
system, especially on to the Supreme Court, are defeated in their 
attempts to neuter America of its traditional recognition of God. I for 
one stand for liberty, and together we will keep God in our Pledge of 
Allegiance; and we will defeat this war to sever America and Americans 
from our religious traditions, and we will protect our people's 
precious rights to have their faith in God and to express it; and at 
the same time, we will protect those who do not believe in God.
  This is, as I say, a fundamental attack by atheists as part of a 
liberal left coalition to attack the rights of us who do believe in God 
to express that, and we need to unite with believers and nonbelievers 
together for human liberty, which is what America is all about.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and of the 
underlying resolution. I, like all of my colleagues and the entire 
American people, are outraged at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 
who have declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of 
the words ``under God.''
  Mr. Speaker, patriotism is at an all-time high in rise since 
September 11 as we stand united behind our Commander in Chief and as we 
stand behind those brave men and women who wear the uniform daily and 
are fighting the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and across the world.
  This decision could not have come at a worse time. This decision was 
ill advised. It was ridiculous, and we need to send a clear message 
that we are going to stand as a Congress to see that the words ``under 
God'' stay in the Pledge of Allegiance, or what will be next?
  Mr. Speaker, above the Chair's head, ``In God We Trust.'' Will that 
be the next thing to be attacked? Our currency, ``In God We Trust.'' 
Will that be the next to be attacked? We need to stand united and send 
a clear message that we are not going to adhere to this ridiculous 
decision, and I hope it will be overturned as quickly as possible.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to proudly support the rule and 
this resolution. One Nation under God, indivisible. If we look in this 
great Chamber, behind the Speaker, ``In God We Trust.'' My colleagues 
may not be able to see, but right in front of me, lining this Chamber, 
there are historical figures. The most central historical figure is 
Moses, the 10 Commandants. If we look to the symbol of our Nation, the 
eagle, under the eagle are the words ``e pluribus unum,'' ``for many 
there is one.''
  This Pledge has united school children across our country for 
generation after generation. It is a uniting force, indivisible. It is 
not a force of division in our country. It recognizes that our country 
under God, our liberty under God, our unity under God.
  We need to make sure that this out-of-control court is put back in 
place and that our traditions and our expressions are maintained, 
whatever it takes.
  The dissenting judge in this case says, In God we trust or under God 
have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress 
anyone's exercise or nonexercise of religion except in the fevered eye 
of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of 
religion out of the public life. The dissenting judge goes on to say 
that by this logic ``America the Beautiful,'' ``God Bless America,'' 
``The Star Spangled Banner,'' our currency would be wiped away.
  We must stop it now. We must stop it today, and we must reestablish 
that our country is one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and 
justice for all.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, this resolution, 
and the Pledge of Allegiance. Yesterday, a Federal court ruled that the 
recitation of the Pledge is unconstitutional and all because it 
contains the words ``under God.'' Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this 
ruling, and I know that I speak for my constituents when I say that the 
court should reverse itself or the Supreme Court should overrule it. If 
they do not, then this Congress should act to protect the Pledge of 
Allegiance.
  For decades, Americans have said the Pledge of Allegiance as a way to 
show their respect and love for this country. We say it every day we 
are in session here on the floor of the people's House. The pledge is a 
statement reaffirming our belief in our country and the values for 
which it stands. Now more than ever those values, liberty, justice, 
equality, are so needed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to support the 
Pledge.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my friend.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, we ought to thank the court. It brought us 
together, Democrats and Republicans, in unanimity, something that is 
seldom seen around here.
  Actually, though, the court's decision embarrasses us. We have been 
living in a dream world. Back in the Mayflower Compact in 1620, first 
sentence, ``in the name of God, amen.''
  If we go on through that to the Declaration of Independence, ``We 
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal 
and are endowed by their creator, with certain inalienable rights, 
among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' Our human 
rights are the endowment from the Creator. That is a fundamental 
premise of America, and it is in our birth certificate, the Declaration 
of Independence.
  The Treaty of Paris, which resolved the Revolutionary War, mentions 
God.

[[Page H4124]]

  Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863, in a cold, windy little 
cemetery in Pennsylvania asked a very haunting question, whether this 
Nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all 
men are created equal, can long endure, and the end of that greatest 
speech in American literature, he says that we here highly resolve but 
that these dead shall not have died in vain and that this Nation, under 
God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the 
people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the 
Earth.
  So we are embarrassed by the decision. We have been barking up the 
wrong tree. We thought it was a good thing to acknowledge the 
fatherhood of God, to acknowledge our debt to Providence and to do so 
in a public way. The Supreme Court in 1892, in a case called Church of 
the Holy Trinity versus the U.S. said, ``This is a religious Nation.'' 
That same court in 1951, in a case called Zorach said, We are a 
religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being.
  So this decision by these three judges, two of the three judges in 
the Ninth Circuit, is based on a total lack of respect, if not 
knowledge, of American history, of American culture, of American 
tradition. It is an embarrassment; and we as a coequal branch of 
government ought to rise up and say no, no, it is wrong, and 
acknowledge, continue to acknowledge the primacy of the supreme being 
who has blessed this country for more than 225 years.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  I rise here in support of this resolution. I am a graduate of 
Cleveland public schools, and I can remember as a little girl at Miles 
Standish Elementary School learning the Pledge of Allegiance to the 
flag and it being so important to me. In third grade, we learned 
French, and we even learned how to say the Pledge of Allegiance in 
French in that third grade class; and here I stand 53 years old, and I 
am still able to remember that I said: Je jure fidelite au drapeau des 
Etats -Unis d'Amerique et a la Republique qu'il represente, une Nation 
sous Dieu, and so forth. We learned it in French and it was very 
important to me as I thought about it.
  I too am embarrassed by the Ninth Circuit Court. I am embarrassed 
that this court would take a pledge, when we make allegiance to our 
country, and try and take it out of context and move on; but I am even 
more disappointed today in the United States Supreme Court, because I 
come from the great city of Cleveland.
  Today this United States Supreme Court made the decision that 
vouchers were not unconstitutional, that vouchers in the establishment 
clause could be used to pay for religious education with public 
dollars. I was very interested in the decision. It said that parents 
have a choice to where they send their children, that the dollars go to 
the parents, and so, therefore, it is not a violation of the 
establishment clause.
  The dissenting justices, who I agree with, said but it is clear based 
on the facts in this case that 96.6 percent of the students of the 
Cleveland public schools go to religious institutions and there are 
very few other options other than religious institutions for these 
children to go to.
  Many of my colleagues know that before I came to this body I served 
as a judge, and I was very proud to be a judge, and I am very proud of 
the profession of judges that I sat with and that I served with. But I 
have to say that these two decisions yesterday, decision in regard to 
the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America and today's 
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to vouchers has 
disappointed me.
  The last thing I would say, Mr. Speaker, is as we talk about the 
importance of this Pledge of Allegiance to the United States, lest we 
not remember that portion which says with liberty and justice for all, 
let us make sure that all get liberty and justice.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he might 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, George Washington was quoted as saying, 
``An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support,'' and I 
think that that person that brought this lawsuit forward, I do not 
think, I know, he has got the right to feel like he does; but it is 
also our right to detest that particular point of view.
  We stand here today, I do not care if someone is a Christian, Muslim, 
Jew, I think to denounce that decision that was made in Ninth Circuit 
Court, and I would tell my colleagues, there was a time in my own life, 
I was raised in a Christian family, had to go to church every Sunday. 
When I got out on my own, I could not say that I actually knew that 
there was a God at one time.
  On May 10, 1972, over the skies of Vietnam, my aircraft was hit with 
a surface-to-air missile and the airplane started going out of control, 
and it actually rolled upside down; and like many people, the only time 
I would ever ask for God's help was when I was in trouble. I remember 
thinking, God, get me out of this, I do not want to be a prisoner of 
war or die. The airplane righted itself as I took the stick and put it 
to the left side, and I remember thinking, God did not have anything to 
do with this, it was just my superior flying skills that righted this 
airplane; but about that time, the airplane went back upside down, and 
I remember thinking, God, I did not mean it, get me out of here.
  I will tell the people that are atheist or do not support this 
resolution, all they have to do is get on their knees and say a prayer 
and I do not care what religion they are, somebody is going to listen.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time and also 
for the very fine presentation that he made today. I think he clarified 
the debate that will be framed even more as we move into general 
debate.
  I would like to just briefly, though there is much that I can say 
from the patriotic perspective and my love for this country, but more 
importantly the great honor I take in saying the Pledge to the United 
States of America every day, and would encourage the young people of 
America to take as much pride in pledging loyalty to their Nation. But 
I do want to speak to the appropriateness of the resolution as it is 
constructed, and that is a disagreement with the context and the 
decision of the particular court.
  I am very much respectful of the independence of the three branches 
of government, the executive, the judiciary and the legislative; and so 
it is appropriate that the context is such that we express 
disagreement, but I will expand more in terms of debate and discussion 
on the language that is in this court opinion that suggests that our 
children will be put in untenable positions of choosing between 
participation in an exercise with religious context or protesting. That 
is not accurate.
  In fact, what actually occurs is the right of freedom of religion and 
speech. The speaker has freedom of speech under the first amendment, 
and the individual who chooses not to say the Pledge of Allegiance has 
the freedom of religion. Therefore, I am unsure of the line of analysis 
that the court has made to suggest that one is protesting and that it 
is untenable. That individual is expressing their freedom of religion 
by their decision as to not express themselves through the Pledge of 
Allegiance to the United States of America.
  I would hope that as this decision makes its way through to the 
Supreme Court we will once and for all understand the context of the 
first amendment, that is the freedom of expression, the freedom of 
religion, and the choice to do so.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would close by urging my colleagues to support this rule and 
support the underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to support the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H4125]]

  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________