John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 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. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5010, the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Appropriations bill. This is an open and fair rule that will allow the House to work its will on the Defense Appropriations bill. Over the past decade, the Armed Forces of this country have excelled beyond our expections. Since 1991, the U.S. military has been involved in over 40 different conflicts around the globe--nearly four times the number of engagements than the previous four and a half decades! Yet this government, more specifically the previous Administration, has asked our men and women to perform more of these duties with increasingly less support. I believe that time has come to put an end to this policy, and to provide the support our men and women in uniform deserve. That is why I rise in support of H.R. 5010. This legislation represents the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, and provides a 4.1 percent increase in pay for our military personnel, adequate funding to maintain our current defense systems, and provides support for new, innovative systems, including full funding for the F- 22. The F-22, built primarily by the dedicated men and women of Lockheed Martin in my home state of Georgia, will revolutionize our nation's Air Force, save the lives of American pilots, and ensure that the United States retains its dominance over the skies. In addition to the best possible equipment, this legislation also ensures our support for the best possible training for our increasingly called-upon military reservists, such as funding for flight training devices for the 94th Airlift Wing at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia. As an individual who has served in U.S. Air Force myself, I am pleased to see this Administration and this Congress realize the significance of our military to freedom and democracy. I have worked closely with my good friend, Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis, to provide the best for our nation's military, and I thank him not only for his leadership on this legislation, but also for his commitment to defending the citizens of this country. This past January, President Bush stood before this House and announced his intention to rebuild our military, to lead this nation against the scourge of international terrorism, and to root out those who seek to harm the citizens of this country. He has delivered on his promise, Mr. Chairman, and it is now time for us to deliver on ours. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule, vote for the underlying legislation, and give our men and women in uniform the support, dedication, and commitment that they have given to us.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have had an interesting debate here. We had a parade of female Democrats march down citing the mantra that this bill does nothing for senior women. In fact, not one of them spoke with any particularity to the bill. We had the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) step up right after that and list time after time after time where this was of benefit for women across the country and most particularly low- income women. Women have been abused by our social service programs from Social Security through Medicare. This is the first time that any party or any Congress has made an effort to fix that. This is a genuine improvement on this current circumstance. Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. It was a fact that, some time ago, the Democrats controlled this body for 40 years and controlled the White House from time to time in the midst of that and never once put forth this important program. It was a fact that when I came here in 1993 they had overwhelming majorities and a President who was enthusiastic about taking over the health care system. But they did not ever put on the floor for a discussion or debate any prescription drug program for either side to consider. It is a fact that the Democrats had an opportunity to put forth a program that fit within the budget agreement that was passed by this House, a discipline that this body and this side of the House took seriously. We put forth a bill that fit within the discipline. They did not. This is our proposal. This is our rule. We urge support for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out a couple of things in the previous statement. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gingrich did not ever say Medicare would wither on the vine. This was played out on CNN very clearly when they played the whole statement, not the botched statement the Democrats have been running. He said if we bring competition into the system, the Health Care Financing Administration would wither on the vine. Secondly, I will point out that the Democrats had a majority here for 40 years. When I first came here, they had a huge majority in both bodies, and the President was a Democratic; and they did not even offer one. I think it is fair to say that the Republicans are making the effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart). (Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). (Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield? She is misquoting something I said, and I would like to respond to it.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. That was some of the gentleman's more interesting prose. I am sure there is a kernel of thought in there, but I did not detect it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LINDER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. LINDER. She referred directly.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my friend from Michigan that, about 10 years ago, they had the power to change it with overwhelming majorities in both bodies and the Presidency, and they chose not to do it then, too. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).