[Pages H4078-H4112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RESTORING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
453, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States restoring religious
freedom and ask for its consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The joint resolution is
considered read for amendment.
The text of House Joint Resolution 78 is as follows:

H.J. Res. 78

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years after
the date of its submission for ratification:

``Article --

``Section 1. To secure the people's right to acknowledge
God according to the dictates of conscience: The people's
right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs,
heritage, or traditions on public property, including
schools, shall not be infringed. The Government shall not
require any person to join in prayer or other religious
activity, initiate or designate school prayers, discriminate
against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on
account of religion.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 453, the
amendment recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the
joint resolution is adopted.
The text of House Joint Resolution 78, as amended pursuant to House
Resolution 453, is as follows:

H.J. Res. 78

[[Page H4079]]

``Article --

``To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according
to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor
any State shall establish any official religion, but the
people's right to pray and to recognize their religious
beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property,
including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United
States nor any State shall require any person to join in
prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers,
discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a
benefit on account of religion.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the joint
resolution, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further
amendment printed in House Report 105-563 if offered by the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) or his designee, which shall be considered
read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will now control 1 hour for debate on the
joint resolution.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).

General Leave

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on House Joint Resolution 78.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, today the House considers House Joint Resolution 78,
the Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment, a measure which
responds to the public's valid concern that certain court rulings have
been hostile to religion, have erected barriers to religious expression
and exercise, and have attempted to remove religious influences from
the public arena.
In the past 3 years, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
Committee on the Judiciary has held a total of seven hearings in
Washington and across the country examining the issues that are
addressed by this amendment.
We conducted hearings in Harrisonburg, Virginia; Tampa, Florida; New
York City; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The subcommittee heard
testimony from 74 witnesses.
The record of our hearings is clear: There is a fundamental and
widespread misunderstanding of what the Constitution requires with
respect to the prohibition on the government's establishment of
religion. This misunderstanding is so significant and pervasive that a
constitutional amendment promises to be the most effective means of
providing a meaningful remedy.
Americans are a religious people, and opponents of this amendment are
fond of citing church attendance statistics to support their argument
that there is no problem with the free exercise of religion in America.
Although the first amendment was certainly designed to protect worship
in a church, temple or synagogue from governmental interference, the
protection afforded by the free exercise of religion in the first
amendment was intended to reach much further than that. Yes, we are a
profoundly religious country, and we do enjoy great freedom in America
today, but we must not be complacent while that freedom is eroded.
Many State and Federal courts have misinterpreted the first amendment
under the flawed notion that the Constitution requires a wall of
separation between church and State. By the wall of separation, they do
not mean that the government should not interfere with the freedom of
churches and other religious organizations. We all agree with that
principle. What they mean is any religious influences should be removed
from the public sphere. That is what the proponents of the wall of
separation contend.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist condemned the Court's reliance on the
phrase ``the wall of separation between church and State'' and said in
a dissenting opinion over a decade ago, ``The greatest injury of the
wall notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual
intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. It is a metaphor
based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to
judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.''
In an effort to satisfy this extra-constitutional and extreme theory
of separation of church and State, courts have confused governmental
neutrality towards religion with the concept of required public
secularism, thus moving toward a public arena with no mention or sign
of religion at all.
The result of this distorted view of the first amendment is that,
wherever government goes, religion must retreat, and in our time there
are few places government does not go. Thus, religion is slowly being
eliminated from more and more of our public life.
Religious liberty that can only exist in one's private home is not
true religious liberty. It is far removed from the liberty the framers
of the first amendment embraced.
House Joint Resolution 78 seeks to correct this fundamental problem.
It reaffirms that government may not establish any official religion,
and I would ask the Members to pay particular attention to that
language in this amendment. This is an important part of the amendment
and, unfortunately, a part that many of the critics of the amendment
seem to ignore.
The amendment also prohibits the government from requiring ``any
person to join in prayer or other religious activity and from
prescribing school prayers.'' These provisions, taken together, ensure
that the coercive power of government will never be used to compel any
Americans under any circumstances to participate in any religious
activities against their will.
House Joint Resolution 78 protects the right of the people to pray
and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on
public property and prohibits government discrimination against
religion. It also forbids the denial by government of equal access to a
benefit on account of religion.
All of these provisions are designed to eliminate government
hostility toward religion and to recognize the historic role that
religion has played in our life as a Nation.
All too often, religious Americans of all faiths find that their
speech is curtailed specifically because of its religious character.
Under the prevailing understanding of the first amendment in many
quarters, there are scrupulous concerns to ensure that no person be
exposed to any unwanted religious influence but woefully inadequate
concern for the religious person whose expression of faith is not
publicly tolerated.
The first amendment was designed to foster a public sphere which gave
religious citizens, as Madison described, the ability to participate
equally with their fellow citizens in public life without being forced
to disguise their religious character and conviction.
Another form of government-sanctioned discrimination, besides that
affecting speech, is the denial of benefits to religious organizations
and individuals.
The benefits provision of the religious freedom amendment, greatly
misrepresented by some opponents of this proposal, merely states that
the government cannot use religion as a basis for preventing a
qualified organization or person from receiving governmental benefits.
Public programs should be open to all who meet the objective purposes
of the program. Equal access does not mean equal funding. Equal access
simply means receiving a fair chance.

Contrary to the claims of its critics, the religious freedom
amendment does not change the first amendment. The first amendment, as
written, needs no improvement. Unfortunately, however, the first
amendment, as interpreted by the courts and as widely understood by
many governmental officials, has strayed both with respect to the
meaning of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause and
the relationship between those two clauses. That is what House Joint
Resolution 78 is designed to correct.
As we debate this proposal, I would submit to the Members of this
House that it is important that we all recognize that people of good
faith can disagree on the merits of this particular proposal. I
understand that there are some people who feel very passionately that
this amendment is not the right public policy, and I can respect that,
although I vehemently disagree with

[[Page H4080]]

their position. But I think it is also important that we all recognize
that there is a problem that urgently demands our attention.
Now, today as we stand here in this Chamber of the House of
Representatives, the people's House, we stand under the words ``In God
We Trust.'' They are inscribed on the wall. I would submit to the
Members of this House that, as we stand here under those words, there
is a problem when students in this country are told they cannot carry
their Bibles to school, and there is a problem when students in this
country face the threat of being fined by a Federal judge if they
mention God, so much as mention God, in a commencement speech.
Now, things like that are happening in America today. The opponents
of this amendment will claim that many of the things that are happening
that we find troubling can easily be corrected, but the fact of the
matter is, there is a persisting pattern of these sorts of problems. We
discovered that in the hearings that were conducted by this
Subcommittee on the Constitution all across the country, where we heard
from so many different people who told of the personal experiences
where they had been subjected to discrimination simply because of their
religious faith.
Now, things like this are happening in America today, and it is
simply not right. It is an infringement of the free exercise of
religion, and it is an injustice.
This amendment, which is before the House today, gives this House an
opportunity to protect the free exercise of religion and to put an end
to the injustices that are being done in the name of the first
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Madam Speaker, this constitutional amendment would have dire
consequences if ever ratified. As a former member of the Virginia
General Assembly, I take great pride in Virginia's religious freedom
tradition. This country's very first religious freedom statute was
drafted by Thomas Jefferson and enacted by the Virginia General
Assembly in response to a failed system of government-sanctioned
religious practices very similar to that which would occur if this
amendment is ratified.
The mistakes made and corrected in Virginia became the foundation for
the religious freedoms included in the United States Constitution, and
it is because of our Bill of Rights that we have enjoyed centuries of
peace, free from the religious divisions that continue to mar the lives
of millions of people across the globe.
H.J.Res. 78 is touted by its supporters as a restorer of religious
freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First of all, we already have religious freedom. This freedom has
existed for over 200 years in the form of the first amendment to the
United States Constitution. Unfortunately, the words that protect us
from religious persecution, that is that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, those words are under attack by this proposed
amendment.
The language in the proposed amendment ends the church-State
separation by allowing religious groups to be directly funded by the
government. So what happens when the Catholics must compete with the
Baptists for limited school funding? How much safer will society be if
only people willing to practice certain religions are able to get
treatment for drug addiction? Which religious groups would and would
not be funded? How safer will our schools be when children begin
fighting over which prayers will be said or which religious expressions
should or should not take place before each class day? How much better
off will churches be once they become dependent on government funding?

{time} 1245

Although the answers to these questions are not at all clear, we know
for sure that, if this amendment is ever ratified, the religious
freedoms that protect all Americans would be transformed into a
divisive manifestation of the very problems the first amendment was
designed to protect us from. If the amendment is ratified, it would
recklessly disrupt the religious tranquility that we have, that we have
appreciated for hundreds of years.
This amendment strips the individual of his or her right to pick his
or her own prayer or to practice his or her own religion without having
to subject their beliefs to the manipulation or interference by
arrogant majorities.
I am specifically referring to the language in the proposed
amendment's first sentence. The effect of this language would be to
overturn the Supreme Court cases on religious expression and schools.
Nothing in this amendment would stop schools or classrooms from
choosing by majority vote to actively recite certain prayers or express
certain religious beliefs that are most popular in the school or
classroom.
So what happens to the losers of these popularity contests? That is
why the National Education Association and the American Federation of
Teachers oppose this amendment, because of the potential disruption
that will occur when 40 percent of the students are not able to express
their beliefs while they are subjected to the beliefs other than their
own. This amendment will not encourage religious freedom; and, in fact,
it invites religious divisiveness.
Despite the assertions of this amendment's proponents, school prayer
is alive and well. It is often said that, as long as there are math
tests, there will be prayer in public schools. In fact, children
praying in school is not now prohibited. What is prohibited is making
those who want to pray pursuant to a different religion or not pray at
all to be subjected to someone else's prayer.
In fact, a broad coalition of religious and civil liberties groups,
including both proponents and opponents of the Istook amendment,
prepared a document entitled ``Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint
Statement of Current Law'' to make it clear that religious expression
is permitted in schools.
Madam Speaker, we should not be misled by inaccurate anecdotes. The
proponents of H.J. Res. 78 often mention incidents where children are
told they cannot bring bibles to school or say grace before eating
lunches. These are clearly permissible under current law.
In fact, it is this kind of anecdotal evidence, of a need for a
constitutional amendment, that is misleading in large part because
most, if not all, of the examples used by the proponents of this
amendment result from misstatements of fact or misinterpretations of
current law.
That is why we need to preserve our Bill of Rights. That is why we
need to join many religious groups in opposing this amendment. Those
groups include the American Baptist Churches, the United Church of
Christ, the National Churches of Christ, the Presbyterian Church, the
Episcopal Church, the Southern Leadership Conference, and many other
groups. Let us join these religious organizations to preserve religious
freedom by opposing this attack on our first amendment.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the sponsor of the amendment
under consideration.
Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I rise not only on behalf of myself but
over 150 Members of this body who are cosponsors of the Religious
Freedom Amendment because we are tired of seeing what the Supreme Court
has done to change the first amendment. We cherish the first amendment
of the United States of America. It has been attacked and twisted and
warped by the U.S. Supreme Court.
For some people who say, oh, all these problems can just be corrected
with a phone call, before I even talk about some of the Supreme Court
decisions, let me tell my colleagues the story of Zacharia Hood, a
first grader in Medford, New Jersey.
He was told, because they had a reading contest in school, you get to
read the story you want to, to class. He said great. He said, I want to
read this story about two brothers that reunited after being apart. He
wanted to read the story of the reunion of Jacob and Esau from his copy
of the Beginners Bible. The story does not even mention the word God.
But his teacher said, oh, horrors. We have been told there is
separation of church and State. You cannot read it.
This disappointed six-year-old told his parents, and they tried
making

[[Page H4081]]

these phone calls. No good. They tried going to the school and the
school board. No good. They said, this is an infringement on religious
liberty; we are going to exercise our right in court.
The Federal judge, just a few months ago, said, oh, no, under all
these cases from the U.S. Supreme Court, the schools can tell us we
cannot read a story from the Beginners Bible no matter what it says or
does not say; that, rather than the first amendment, all they pay
attention to is what somebody said. Oh, it is separation of church and
State.
What does that mean? As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) said,
it has been condemned, using that phrase as a substitute for what the
Constitution really says and was meant to say. The Chief Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court, the one that is sitting right over there in the
Supreme Court chambers right now, has said that is wayward. That is
wrong. That diverts people from knowing what the Constitution really is
and what it is supposed to be.
Yet, that Supreme Court, with him dissenting and with a number of
other judges dissenting, has embarked upon a pattern of attacking
people and saying, if we are trying to express a prayer, same way we
started Congress, but if we are trying to express a prayer on public
property, we are going to be limited. We are going to be restricted.
Other things, hey, do what we want. They protected Nazi Swastikas on
public property. They have protected burning crosses. Supreme Court
decisions.
But in 1962, they said, even when it is voluntary, for children
during the school day to pray together is against the Constitution.
In 1980, they said, if the 10 Commandments is posted on the wall of a
school, it is unconstitutional, because students might read them and
might obey them. Imagine, in an era when guns, knives, and drugs are
common in public schools, we are told the 10 Commandments is not
welcome if not permitted.
In 1985, the law from the State of Alabama said we can have a moment
of silence; and one of the many purposes to which you can apply this,
if we choose, is silent prayer. The Supreme Court said, nope, that is
unconstitutional to permit silent prayer.
In 1992, they said, to have a minister, in this case it was a Jewish
Rabbi, to come and speak at a school graduation was unconstitutional
because there might be some students there that would disagree with the
prayer, and they would not want to be expected to be respectful with
something with which they disagree. That is what the Supreme Court
said; fortunately, not all of them.
What we are doing today in the Religious Freedom Amendment is taking
what the justices who disagreed with the rest of them, taking what
Supreme Court justices said ought to be the policy, what the intent was
of the Founding Fathers, and we have put that into the Religious
Freedom Amendment.
As in several of these cases I have cited, they were 5/4 decisions.
One of them was the graduation prayer case. I want to read what four
Supreme Court justices wrote about prayer in this case, which was Lee
v. Weisman (1992).
Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, White, and Thomas wrote this about the
proper interpretation of the first amendment, had the Supreme Court not
gone awry. They said, ``Nothing, absolutely nothing, is so inclined to
foster among religious believers of various faiths a toleration, no, an
affection for one another than voluntarily joining in prayer together
to the God whom they all worship and seek. Needless to say, no one
should be compelled to do that. But it is a shame to deprive our public
culture of the opportunity and, indeed, the encouragement for people to
do it voluntarily. The Baptist or Catholic who heard and joined in the
simple and inspiring prayers of Rabbi Gutterman was inoculated from
religious bigotry and prejudice in a manner that cannot be replicated.
To deprive our society of that important unifying mechanism in order to
spare the nonbeliever what seems to be the minimal inconvenience of
standing or even sitting in respectful nonparticipation is senseless.''
That is what we say in the Religious Freedom Amendment: It is
senseless to say that everyone else must be censored and silenced
because someone chooses to be intolerant. Prayer is not divisive.
Prayer is unifying. What is divisive is for people to teach that we
should not respect the prayer of another person or that we should not
respect prayer in general. If you teach your children that, shame on
you. But if we want people to be united, give them the chance to come
together and express things positively.
The Religious Freedom Amendment does that. No compulsion. Government
cannot dictate anything. Government cannot say we must pray. Government
cannot tell us what our prayer must be. But government has to get out
of the censorship business.
The Pledge of Allegiance is the proper standard. The Supreme Court
has ruled, in the late 1940s, no one can be compelled to say the Pledge
of Allegiance. I agree. But they did not permit someone who did not
want to say it to censor and stop the rest of the students in that
classroom who did want to join together.
That is the proper standard for prayer in public schools. If we want
to do it, it is permitted. If we do not want to, we do not have to. But
we do not have the right to shut people up and censor them just because
we choose to be thin-skinned and intolerant when someone else is trying
to express their faith.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Istook
resolution because I cherish the first amendment.
Under the First Amendment, students and citizens are not prohibited
from the opportunity for religious expression. Students are free to
pray privately or at school. Constitutional protections now are
sensitive both to the needs of those who practice various religions,
and to those who choose to remain silent. It should be quite telling
that scores of religious organizations are strongly opposed to this
legislation.
First amendment protections on expression of religious beliefs are
available, have served our country well for many years and are
appropriate to allow religious expression to thrive without improper
government interference. We have not had to be worried about government
favoritism of a particular religion or of conflict between religious
organizations for government resources. This legislation would change
all that.
This amendment is an extreme attempt to dismantle the protections so
carefully drawn between church and state. I urge my colleagues to
protect the religious freedom of all in our nation and oppose this
unnecessary harmful legislation.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
Today, I speak as the product of two generations of Lutheran clergy
and as an active member of my congregation. I speak also as a life
partner of your former colleague, Walter Capps, a professor of
religious studies for over 30 years at the University of California.
Last year, my husband, Walter, made a strong statement in opposition
to this legislation; and I quote him in part from the statement. He
said, ``I believe I understand what the framers of this amendment have
in mind, but I truly believe that the consequences of what this
amendment does will place religion not in freedom but in bondage and
under great threat. If we imperil religion in this country, we
undermine indispensable articles of faith. Indeed, we commit grave
injustices to the life of the human spirit.''
As a school nurse for over 20 years, my concern is what this bill
would do in our schools. For example, it would permit students to use
the school intercom to lead captive classroom audiences in prayer,
creating a host of troubling questions, such as whose prayer will be
prayed?
I firmly support the current constitutionally protected role of
religion in our schools. Students can now pray and read the Bible
privately, say grace at lunch, distribute religious materials to their
friends, and join voluntary religious clubs.
The Religious Freedom Amendment would go much further and turn public
schools into arenas of religious coercion and conflict. In short, the
Istook amendment is unneeded and would harm religious liberty in
America. It is contrary to the heritage of religious freedom in this
country.

[[Page H4082]]

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Religious
Freedom Amendment, and I commend my good friend, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for introducing this important legislation.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the Founding
Fathers, therefore, took steps to ensure that the individual's freedom
of religion would always be protected. Unfortunately, recent trends
have infringed on this important freedom, and children and adults
nationwide are finding that their rights have been suppressed.

{time} 1300

I think that the Founding Fathers would be sorely disappointed. Today
we have the opportunity to ensure that Americans are once again able to
freely express their religious beliefs by passing the Religious Freedom
Amendment. The amendment does not infringe on anyone's rights. It
simply protects the individual's right to pray and to express his or
her religious belief. In my opinion, it is the key to restoring true
religious freedom in America.
In closing, please allow me to share an excerpt from a 1995 article
by Jeff Jacoby about the Founding Fathers' sentiments on religion and
freedom:

In linking religion to American liberty, Adams and
Jefferson were not simply bowing to the political correctness
of their time, or verbalizing empty sentiment that no one was
expected to take seriously. They were articulating a core
principle of American nationhood: Religious faith, and the
civic virtues it gives rise to, is as indispensable to a
democratic republic as freedom of speech or the right to own
property. Religion can survive in the absence of freedom, but
freedom without religion is dangerous and unstable.

I urge my colleagues to remember the wisdom and wishes of our
Founding Fathers, and to take steps to ensure that free expression of
religion once again reigns in America. Support the Religious Freedom
Amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
Mr. WEXLER. Madam Speaker, I rise with great trepidation to oppose a
bill or a resolution that purports to restore religious freedom, but
this bill does nothing of the sort.
If I thought for one moment, one moment, that thousands of American
teenagers, because of a 15-second or a 30-second school-sponsored
prayer, were going to stop taking drugs or stop being involved in teen
relationships or stop using alcohol, I might vote for this bill.
If I thought for one moment that a 2-minute prayer exercise at a
commencement program is going to take guns out of the hands of kids
across America, I might just vote for this.
If I even thought that thousands of kids in America would come home
after this school-sponsored prayer, come home and simply hug their
mother or hug their father and say, ``Mom, I honor you,'' just like the
Ten Commandments say, I just might vote for this.
But let us really think, outside of the constitutional context, what
will really happen to children across America? Let us think about those
thin-skinned children that the sponsor spoke of, that courageous young
child that will be in a high school football game after this one-size-
fits-all prayer is said by the majority will of the students, and since
when is our First Amendment determined by majority will? There is no
such thing as majority will built into the First Amendment. But that is
what we will have.
What will that young, courageous child be subjected to, that thin-
skinned child? They will be humiliated. They will be scorned. In the
worst-case scenario, they will be beaten up and involved in fights.
Why? Because they had the courageousness of their convictions to say
that one of the most beautiful things about being an American is that
no matter how powerful or influential a person or a group is, you
cannot tell me how to pray, and you also cannot tell me to sit down or
shut up, and do it respectfully, while somebody else tells me how they
are going to pray at their school, at their commencement.
I love being an American. I cherish being an American, because as an
American we have an opportunity to say that we and our family will
learn religion the way our family wants it to be learned. We have an
opportunity to pray or not pray the way our families have prayed for
thousands of years, because of a thing called the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is not determined by the majority, it is not
determined by a political whim, it is determined by the greatness of
our Founders; that little children will have the opportunity to stand
and pray as they choose, without consideration of whether the school
said they sponsored it or not sponsored it, and without the
consideration of whether they happen to be in the majority or the
minority.
Do not, do not change the Bill of Rights. Do not change the First
Amendment. It is one of the things that makes this country so great,
and which most Americans cherish until they will have the opportunity
not to, if this amendment were in some way passed today.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Madam Speaker, I want to first compliment my friend, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). The gentleman has spent so many long hours,
so many days working on this, and working with so many people,
constitutional scholars and others. I want to also thank the committee
for their hard work.
This is a good piece of legislation. For 150 years we in this Nation
understood and we practiced a restraint of government against the
pattern that we had seen, our Founding Fathers had seen and found
aberrant in so many other cases where governments imposed religion on
people.
Our Founding Fathers understood that the role of the government in
this right, as in all other human rights, was to recognize and honor
and appreciate that these rights are given to man by God Almighty, and
that it is the role of the State to protect those rights.
But beginning in the fifties and then in the sixties, we saw what
anybody that had any common sense understanding of personal liberty and
religious conviction would understand to be bizarre decisions made in
the courts, and sometimes, in fact, in regulations by the Federal
Government.
For example, in San Francisco, after 63 years, a cross that had stood
in a public place was declared unconstitutional, while in nearby San
Jose, $400,000 of taxpayers' money was used to erect a statue to an
ancient Aztec God.
In April last year a minister was arrested by police for praying on
the steps of the Supreme Court. In 1988, a South Carolina man was told
by his county government to stop his weekly Bible study in his own home
because it violated zoning ordinances.
Last year, a Florida student was suspended for handing out religious
literature before and after school hours. Two students in Texas were
told by their principal they could not wear their rosaries, because he
thought it meant they were part of a gang; and maybe they were, part of
God's gang. But rosaries?
An elementary student received a zero because she wrote a thesis on
her hero, and her hero happened to be Jesus, and that offended
somebody. A district judge was told by another court that he could not
display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. And in Stowe, Ohio,
recently, a court ordered a cross removed from its seal, as had
happened in Edmond, Oklahoma. It took a congressional action to block
proposed Federal regulations which would have regulated what on-the-job
workers could or could not mention about religion.
Nobody, nobody with any common sense can believe that it is the role
and the function or legitimately acceptable by agencies or courts of
the Federal Government to impede people's ability to practice their
faith in their home, in their school, in their job, as long as they do
so freely and voluntarily. That is what this is about. It is about
respect. It is about respect for any person of any faith in this Nation
to be protected, and their right and their ability to express that
faith.

[[Page H4083]]

We protect the American people in many ways, in many ways that are
important to us: our fortunes, our families, our health, our safety,
our security, our nourishment. Is not our faith, each and every one of
us, individually, separately, and in our own way, as important a
dimension of our life as our food, shelter, clothing, nourishment,
health?
Does this government not have even more so a sacred responsibility to
protect the practice of religion, and to restrain itself from prurient
impulses, derived out of thinking that can be called nothing other than
sophistry, to repress people's practice of their faith? It is time we
set this straight. In doing so, we will have the ability to understand
the faith of our Founding Fathers, the decency to respect it, and the
courage to require it for our children.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this amendment. I recognize
that in opposing this amendment, that there are good intentions on both
sides.
I am the grandson of the chairman of the deacon board, and I strongly
believe in prayer. This is the graduation season. I have spoken to a
lot of students about the importance of spirituality and faith in their
lives. But the fact remains that despite its good intentions, this
amendment will not work, and will in fact lead to an infringement on
the rights of others.
I had the opportunity to discuss this amendment with the sponsor, who
is very sincere and well-intentioned. But when we got to the fine
points of how this would be implemented, when we got away from the
general language we all agree on, we came down to some fundamental
questions, questions such as who decides on what day who gets to pray
for how long, and who gets a turn? What about the satanists? Do they
get a turn? Personally, I do not think I should be subjected to that,
nor should my child be subjected to that.
This is not philosophy. This is not a question of exposing people to
other philosophies. This is religion. Religion is a very personal,
perhaps the most personal of all rights and all beliefs. People have
the right to protect that and not be exposed. They have the right not
to hear or be forced to hear beliefs with which they disagree. This is
not an academic exercise. This is religion, this is faith.
We have in our current system the ability to pray in schools, not
just because of math exams. We have the right to pray before school,
during lunchtimes, after school. The Department of Education has issued
regulations making it clear that students can say grace, students can
meet in religious groups, students can use all school facilities to
exercise their religious rights, like any other club or group. There
are over 10,000 religious clubs in America, and I think that is a good
thing. I think they ought to exercise their rights on school property.
But as we used to say when I was in law school, the exercise of your
right stops at my doorstep. I do not believe we should have a system
that infringes on my rights so you can exercise your rights. I urge us
to reject this amendment. It is well-intentioned, but it is wrong and
it is unworkable.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Riley).
Mr. RILEY. Madam Speaker, a government that silences its people and
denies them their religious beliefs should be considered nothing less
than oppressive. We would expect this behavior from a nation where
freedom is neither respected nor revered. We would expect it in a
nation where the Almighty is the state and faith is a dirty word.
However, we would never expect this in the United States.
Nevertheless, with increasing hostility and insensitivity, our courts
have systematically stripped us of our First Amendment right to the
basic and fundamental right of religious expression. It is time we
reversed this trend of suppressing religious expression. It is time we
pass a new constitutional amendment that retains and strengthens the
Constitution's original intent.
Government should neither compel nor control religious expression. We
must pass this amendment so no other generation will ever be deprived
of its constitutional right of religious expression due to some extreme
and overly zealous Supreme Court justices.
Mr. Speaker, a 5 to 4 majority in today's court should never overrule
220 years of constitutional authority. If this amendment passes, it
never will again.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, I would respond to a couple things that have been
said. Several anecdotes have been given, and I think we need to respond
to them a little as we go.
One suggested that a student could not read the Bible in class. The
court held in that case that the student could read the Bible all he
wanted, but could not proselytize religion to a captive audience. It
also concerned itself with what would happen if other students wanted
to practice the same freedom in religions that their parents were not
interested in having them listen to.

{time} 1315

So that was the holding in that case. Not that they could not read
the Bible, but they could not read it to a captive audience and they
did not want other religions being given the same, all religions
including Satanism and everything else, being given the same freedom.
Also, the F that was received because someone wrote on the topic of
Jesus Christ, both the Federal court and appeals court found that the F
was not because of the religious discrimination but, quote, her refusal
to comply with the requirements of the teacher, including changing her
paper topic without permission and choosing a topic which she was
already familiar with, and the assignment was to do something they were
not already familiar with.
The first amendment already protects the student's right to address
religious topics in homework if relevant and otherwise complying with
the assignment.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, for more than 200 years the Bill of
Rights has protected our liberties and has served as an example to the
world of how democracy can work. The United States is the most
religiously diverse and the most religious Nation in the world.
Fifty percent of Americans go to church at least once a week or more.
Our religiosity, our religious quality makes us a strong Nation. The
separation of church and State spelled out so eloquently in the Bill of
Rights by our Founding Fathers has allowed people with very, very
diverse views to live together in peace and to flourish for hundreds of
years. But now for the first time in our Nation's history we have an
amendment that would change the Bill of Rights.
Children can pray in school right now any time they like, so long as
the prayer is not organized by the school. They can hold a prayer
group, a Bible study class during lunch, recess or study hall or in a
classroom at the end of the day. They can close their eyes and they can
pray silently right at their desk or any time that they wish. And, yes,
they can even pray before a math test.
There are Bible clubs and prayer clubs all over this country. The
Istook amendment would jeopardize that freedom and dangerously
politicize religion. This amendment would, for the first time in our
Nation's history, allow for government-sponsored religion. It would
allow for the imposition of government into our citizen's private
religious beliefs. It would allow town councils to set an official
prayer. It would allow government to fund religious activities.
That is why we have such a broad coalition of mainstream religious
groups who oppose this amendment: The National Council of Churches of
Christ in the U.S.A.; the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.; the Episcopal
Church; the United Church of Christ; the United Methodist Church; the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the Religious Action Center of
Reformed Judaism, and many others.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support religious freedom.

[[Page H4084]]

Support the flourishing of religion in America in the proud tradition
fostered by the first amendment. Support the Bill of Rights and vote
against the Istook amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 78,
the Religious Freedom Amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook). I would like to commend the gentleman for offering this
much-needed constitutional amendment.
Madam Speaker, in the last few decades courts throughout the United
States have twisted the traditional understanding of the first
amendment to require the government to favor the nonreligious over the
religious. The courts have pitted the Constitution's establishment
clause against the free exercise clause rather than reading them as
equal parts of the same first amendment. This misinterpretation has led
to the government, whether it be through teachers, judges or public
officials, placing barriers on all types of religious expression.
Abusive courts are using the first amendment as the club to drive
anything with even the slightest religious overtone out of the public
sphere. Religious expression now enjoys no more protection in our
culture than obscenity or libel. According to the courts, flag burning
is protected by the first amendment, pornography is protected by the
first amendment, but posting the Ten Commandments on a public school
wall is not.
Madam Speaker, where is the common sense? Religious expression, the
one form of expression specifically carved out for protection by the
first amendment, is the one form of expression under the heaviest
attack. We clearly have a problem in this country when children are
told they cannot sing Christmas carols or Chanukkah songs at school,
when students in our schools are not allowed to have open prayers, even
observe moments of silence.
The Religious Freedom Amendment does not amend the first amendment,
it restores it. This amendment merely restates the understanding of our
Founding Fathers and the vast majority of the American people today
that government should protect the religious freedom of its citizens,
not infringe upon it.
The Religious Freedom Amendment protects the rights of Americans to
express their religious views in the same way that Americans currently
enjoy the right to express nonreligious views. It does not permit the
government to compel prayer to occur or to compel participation in
religious activities. It simply permits prayer or other religious
activity to occur on a voluntary basis among those individuals who
choose to participate.
Madam Speaker, as Americans, we should encourage the open expression
of our many religious backgrounds and the knowledge and tolerance that
can be gained from the sharing of our religious histories. We should
once again embrace our Nation's diverse religious heritage, not reject
it.
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this important amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to one
of the things that was said.
Madam Speaker, in ``Wallace v. Jaffree'' the Court held that the
government may give objective instruction about religion in public
schools and provide for religiously neutral moments of silence, permit
students to engage in private, nondisruptive prayer during the school
day, and impose no barrier to organized, student-initiated religious
clubs under the Equal Access Act. That is a 1985 decision.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana
(Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON. Madam Speaker, I need no sanction from the United States
Congress to confirm my abiding faith and do not need congressional
authority to pray when and where I desire.
The unanimous Declaration of Independence of July 1776 says that when
in the course of human events, to paraphrase it, it becomes necessary
to exercise a vote of solemn conscience to uphold and defend the
Constitution, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires a
declaration of the causes which impel the stand, that vote, in the
service of the oath of this high office of our Congress. Our vote to
uphold what our forefathers so eloquently wrote, that Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.
These are the very first words of the very first change of the
fundamental document at the root, the base of our scheme of government:
the first amendment to the United States Constitution.
Much has been said in support of this proposal to amend, that it will
redress and resolve a crisis endangering religious freedom. It is also
urged that our moral decline or even school gun violence will be
arrested by amending the Constitution. Yet crisis often helps faith to
flower. In this time of asserted crises our citizen of all walks of
life are everywhere engaged in religious pursuits, praying,
worshipping, building churches, helping those less fortunate to find
comfort and faith and nourishment.
The crisis that was the life of cruel deprivation suffered by so many
who worked so hard and gave so much to make America so great worked
wonders in the creation of our Nation, and religious worship survived
and came to flourish.
There is written in the book of Matthew:

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and
when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in
secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward
thee openly.

Mother Teresa was once quoted as saying that,

Prayer is needed for children. Children need to learn to
pray, and they need to have their parents pray with them.

Madam Speaker, I recognize that the vote that we cast here today, the
way we vote today will come under rigid political scrutiny. I commend
those who, like Paul, remain unmovable and unshakable in our abounding
belief in the Constitution as it now stands.
I will cast my vote to uphold the Constitution as it now stands. I
would encourage my colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Istook
for his leadership on this issue; and I want to commend him for being
willing to change his proposal from last session. He has put some new
safeguards in there. It sounds as if some of the Members are arguing
against his proposal from last session and that they have not read this
one.
Frankly, it is quite unfortunate that we must even have this debate
today here in America, the most free country of the world. Yet it has
come to the point that a primary aspect of our freedom, our right to
practice the religion of our choice, is no longer afforded to everyone.
We are talking here about free speech protection for students; and we
are talking about student-initiated, not teacher-initiated, not
government, not school-sponsored prayer, but voluntary, student-
initiated right to free religious speech. Just as they have protection
on political speech or philosophical speech, they should have the right
to the protection for religious speech.
What we have proclaimed throughout the world now must be practiced
here in the United States. Madam Speaker, the Religious Freedom
Amendment is needed today to correct and clarify 36 years of Supreme
Court decisions which have warped the plain and simple meaning,
original meaning, of the Constitution as far as religious rights being
protected under the first amendment are concerned.
The Religious Freedom Amendment simply states that individuals in
this land have a constitutional right to acknowledge God according to
the dictates of their conscience. It states specifically, and I quote,
``neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official
religion,'' end quote. Yet although the United States cannot establish
an official religion, neither should it prevent its people from this
free exercise; and that is why people of all faiths can support this
amendment.
This amendment would in no way infringe on an individual's rights to
pray or not to pray. The amendment would, however, support the
opportunity that people in this country have to practice

[[Page H4085]]

their beliefs and even to recognize their religious heritage or
traditions on public property.
Even though the Religious Freedom Amendment allows students to
initiate school prayer explicitly, it does not permit the government or
its agents to dictate that a prayer be given or dictate any contents of
a prayer. Schools should be able to simply permit prayer, voluntary
prayer, to occur, much like that which is practiced in this body, right
here in this Chamber.
The Religious Freedom Amendment follows the same standard which the
Supreme Court applied to the Pledge of Allegiance. That is, no student
can be compelled to take part, but those who do not want to participate
are not permitted to censure and silence those who do.
Madam Speaker, this goes to the heart of the first amendment rights.
It goes to the heart of who we are as a people in America. We are,
after all, one nation under God.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge the Members to support this
amendment which would practice freedom of religion, not freedom from
religion.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for
yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I have two principal objections.
First of all, this amendment legitimizes the Supreme Court's
application of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the
States.
I should note that it was not applicable to the States from 1791
through 1947. In fact, many States had established religion at our
Nation's founding. Massachusetts, for example, paid the salaries of the
Congregational ministers in that State until 1833, 42 years after the
ratification of the first amendment.
Indeed, it was proposed but rejected by Congress to directly apply
the religious clauses of the first amendment to the States.
In 1876, 8 years after ratification of the 14th amendment, Congress
considered a constitutional amendment introduced by Senator James
Blaine of Maine. The Blaine amendment read, quote, ``no State shall
make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof,'' end quote. This amendment was debated at
length and defeated in the Senate.
Madam Speaker, if this amendment is ratified, our States will forever
lose their ability to define the appropriate level of public expression
of religion.
My second objection to the amendment is in its apparent definition of
``establishment.'' The language of the RFA suggests that any action
beyond ``acknowledgment'' or ``recognition'' of God may be in violation
of establishment.

{time} 1330

Indeed, the entire amendment is prefaced on the mere right to
``acknowledge.'' Does this mean that 30 years from now we will be told
by the Supreme Court that mentioning the Bible or wearing a cross or
crossing oneself is prohibited by the RFA because it goes beyond
acknowledgment and into the particular? Does this mean that school
prayers which go beyond simple recognition will be forbidden? What
about worship?
Time will tell. Or maybe, I should say, a future Supreme Court will
tell. The First Amendment is not the problem. The Constitution is not
broken. I do not believe that the RFA will restore true religious
freedom in America today.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia for yielding me the time.
I support the religious freedom amendment, and I thank my friend, the
gentleman from Oklahoma, for introducing the legislation. For 200 years
our Constitution was interpreted as allowing for the free expression of
religion. It was not until 1962 that a liberal Supreme Court changed
Thomas Jefferson's meaning of the wall of separation between church and
State.
The right to free speech is one of the most highly revered rights in
our Constitution, but the Constitution does not protect freedom from
religion. It guards against having one religion imposed on us all. The
drafters of the First Amendment did not intend to bar religious speech
and actions. This amendment requires that those who express their
religious beliefs receive the same treatment as those who express
nonreligious views.
For instance, it will prohibit discrimination against student
religious groups and provide them the same opportunities nonreligious
groups now enjoy. This amendment will allow public prayers to be
offered but it will not require any student to participate. A single
student will no longer be able to silence the prayers of others.
I urge my colleagues to support the religious freedom amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for
yielding time to me.
I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment. It is uncomfortable to
be opposing it because I think a lot of Members on both sides of the
aisle, on both sides of this issue, feel uncomfortable in talking about
prayer because prayer has often been such a private matter. I believe
in the power of prayer and I know it works, and that is why it is
uncomfortable to be opposing it because I worry, just like my colleague
from Indiana, that the Istook amendment goes much further and does
things that maybe they do not realize.
Frankly, we already have prayer in our schools. My district, I have a
number of public school districts in my district and my wife is a high
school teacher. She has been teaching since 1969. She teaches math. And
in the last 3 years, ever since the Department of Education sent out
their guidelines, ``Dear Superintendent,'' I have this here, if there
is a school board member or administrator that is watching today or if
some Members want this, they need to ask the Department of Education,
August 10, 1995, where it takes the guidelines from the court opinions
and where we do have prayer in our schools.
At my wife's high school, Aldine High School, there is Bible study
for teachers on their own time. It is voluntary. In the mornings,
around the flag pole, that is one of those 10,000 at my wife's high
school, 10,000 student groups around the country have the ability to
pray every morning voluntarily. There is not an administrator, there is
not a teacher there, but it is organized.
I have been honored for a number of years to give prayers at our
football games because in the district my kids went to school in, we
have four high schools. Obviously, in Texas football is important so we
obviously pray for a win. But I have been honored to do. We have prayer
at our schools. I worry the Istook amendment goes much further than we
want.
The Washington Post on May 7, an article talked about in public
schools, religion thrives. We have religious expression in the public
schools. That is why it is so important that we defeat the Istook
amendment today.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, could the Chair advise us of the time
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) has 29\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 38 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, religion is important to every single
Member in this House. I think that this is a real healthy debate
because Members on both sides of the issue have concerns.
My friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), I would say that
when it comes to not shying away from being religious or right, the
Black Caucus, regardless if we agree on fiscal issues or not, always
stand out in front for their beliefs. I laud especially the Black
Caucus. For that they take second to no one in this body. I think
because of those reasons and those concerns, I think this is a healthy
debate.

[[Page H4086]]

But there has been, my concern is that there have been abuses. My
wife is a principal in an elementary school. I do not think it is wrong
to be able to have a Christmas tree at Christmas, but at the same time
I do not think it is wrong to celebrate Hanukkah or any other religion.
When I was dean of a college, one of my staff members, his name was
Mostafa Arab, he was on the Shah's Gold Cup soccer team, came to me and
said, ``Can I pray to my God at the school?'' And his God happened to
be Allah. I said absolutely. Would I want him to conduct lessons in the
Koran? No. But if he wanted to offer a prayer prior to an event, I
would say yes.
Maybe that is why this is so much of a problem, is that people do not
know what is yes, what is no. But there have been abuses. I support the
Istook amendment because I think it clarifies our position. Let us
clear up the abuses and support the freedom of religion.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this proposed
constitutional amendment, which is in the guise of expanding religious
freedom but will actually narrow religious freedom for all Americans.
First, there is simply no need for this legislation because the First
Amendment to the Constitution already protects religious freedom and
expression, including in our public schools and public institutions.
But I think more importantly I am in some respects offended by what
this amendment seeks to do.
I deeply value the role that religious and moral beliefs have in
shaping the history of this Nation and they continue to have today. As
a person of faith I personally believe that it is my obligation and
right to pass on these beliefs to my children as I see fit, and as do
millions of parents across the country.
But I abhor the belief that the State should usurp my authority as a
parent to make such a choice, and that is exactly where this amendment
is headed. I am offended by those who would seek to impose their will
on my children absent my consent. Each of us is less free when a
government is given the power to intrude upon this right.
I oppose the amendment, and hope my colleagues would do the same.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate being given this opportunity to
talk on this very important issue. Essentially stripped of all the
verbiage, this amendment seeks a couple of things: basically to permit
and to guarantee a right to pray in schools and, secondly, to afford
equality of treatment between faith-based social service providers and
treat them the same as secular ones.
So reduced to its simplest terms, this amendment provides more free
speech by removing prayer in a public space from the list of
constitutionally forbidden conduct. It recognizes the value to our
society, as the founders and framers did, of religiously-based
providers of social services.
So it expands free speech. It does not narrow it. It restores free
speech to the original dimensions that we find in the Declaration of
Independence, where God is mentioned four times. That must drive some
people crazy when they go by the Archives, knowing that in that
building is the Declaration of Independence, our country's birth
certificate, that talks about the Creator and nature and nature's God
in four different places. It certainly would not pass muster with the
Supreme Court today.
So this expands free speech and seeks to correct constitutional
distortions that have crept into our jurisprudence as a result of a
series of misbegotten court decisions.
Now, our Nation, we all agree, was founded by people searching for
freedom. The First Amendment, properly interpreted, guarantees the free
exercise of religion and at the same time prohibits the government from
establishing a religion or showing any preference toward any sect or
particular religious faith. The aggressive secularism that now
constitutes our establishment was never intended by those who drafted
and who ratified our Constitution.
It is unfortunate that we must amend the Constitution to repair the
damage done to our liberties by foolish and ill-considered
interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, but this is
the situation we find ourselves in today. Basic liberties are being
infringed because of judicial wrong-headedness and, frankly, secularist
bias.
Today we must seek to restore the equality and genuine neutrality
with respect to religion that inspired our founders and framers.
Neutrality towards religion, not hostility, is the ideal we seek. That
is what the Religious Freedom Amendment is intended to repair.
This amendment preaches more than mere tolerance. It says equal
protection of the law applies to religious expression with the same
force as it does to secular expression. In a word, it preaches
equality.
This is not a perfect vehicle, but it makes a statement that I share
and am proud to associate myself with.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
Mr. WISE. Madam Speaker, I do not question the sincerity of anyone on
either side of this issue because people of faith are on both sides of
this issue.
I believe in prayer. I believe in God. I believe in the importance of
prayer. But I do not believe that the best thing to do is to amend the
Constitution of the United States.
Can children pray in school? They are praying every day. They can
pray quietly or silently at any time. Bow your head right now, if you
want, and say a prayer to your Lord. They can say grace. They can go to
a prayer club like thousands are now in schools.
Madam Speaker, my faith, I want to get personal for a minute, comes
from my heart. I seek, and I know many do, God in many ways, and we
each find him in our own way through our parents, through our churches,
through our community groups, through our pain, through our joy,
through our many errors. That is how we find God. I take comfort in
Matthew, Chapter 6 and Verse 6, ``and when thou prayest, pray to thy
father in private and he shall hear you.'' I think those are important
words because that is the prayer that the Lord hears.
Madam Speaker, I have great respect for everyone in this Chamber, men
and women devoted to their government and to doing right. But with all
due respect, I want this Chamber writing laws, I want us writing
budgets, I want us writing resolutions. I do not want politicians
writing my children's prayers. Let my children find God as we all must
find God, through ourselves and our churches and our communities and
our parents and our upbringings and our many experiences.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

{time} 1345

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment. It is both unwise and unnecessary.
We have heard time and time again anecdotal evidence from the
proponents of this amendment. That evidence only highlights the need to
set the record straight as far as what the establishment clause
currently allows in the United States Constitution.
There were hearings held on this issue as identified in the committee
report. One of them was held in my hometown of Tampa in which some
children were under the misunderstanding they could not carry their
Bibles to school, which of course is incorrect.
Our focus here should be on educating principals, teachers, parents
and students about what rights they currently enjoy to protect their
religious freedom in schools. The United States Department of Education
has issued guidelines which clearly state that students have the
opportunity to voluntarily pray privately and individually in school,
to say grace at lunchtime, to

[[Page H4087]]

meet as religious groups on school grounds, and to read the Bible or
any other religious text during free class time or study hall. These
are rights we should jealously protect.
This amendment has the opposite effect. It will introduce the
government into policing and refereeing the competing faiths among
children in our schools. Far from clarifying the religious freedoms of
Americans, this amendment would lead to greater confusion, more court
cases, and further misinterpretation by schools and the courts. Is this
body ready to endorse the taxpayer funding of religious schools? Are we
here today voting to allow judges to lead a courtroom or a jury
inprayer before a trail? And ultimately, are we endorsing public school
prayers over public address systems? If so, how can we possibly
accommodate the diversity of faiths that exist in our society without
so diluting the prayer's content that it becomes a watered-down,
homogenized recitation? That indeed would trivialize religion and
ignore the robust tradition of religion and diversity which has
enriched and strengthened our Nation for over 200 years.
We do not need to inject the government into this very intensely
personal and private exercise on the part of each individual. We need
to use those rights we have, and we need to defeat this amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Dickey).
Mr. DICKEY. Madam Speaker, there is a story that comes from Pine
Bluff, Arkansas, that explains why I am for this amendment and want to
speak for it at this time.
Some 8, 10 years ago, there was an organization called the Fellowship
of Christian Athletes at Pine Bluff High School. A minister had been
over the years taking care of it. He got transferred out. He could not
find anybody, no faculty member, nobody else. He came to a group of us
adults and he said, Would you all take over the Fellowship of Christian
Athletes and just kind of monitor it and see if you can continue to do
the good that we have tried to do? We said yes.
We met once a week during school. We would have prayer, we would
provide prayer before ballgames, we would get the kids at the ballgames
to go get the other kids after the game and those that wanted to would
pray in the middle of the field, and we did those things.
We also did other things. We tried to raise funds in the community so
that we could go to national camp. At one time we sent 75 kids to
national camp. They all got together and they sold different things,
car washes, and everything else. We did things on the weekends. We
would have a hobo olympics on the weekends. No one objected to that.
But all of a sudden there started to come in some objections from
other areas. Not the parents or anything else. We had a lot of
minority. We would go into their churches when they would have times
when they were called to preach and so forth. We would all just kind of
converge on the churches of our members.
Then all of a sudden people started complaining. Well, what church is
behind this? Or how much is the school paying for this? We had to prove
these things and prove these things.
Then came a letter one day and it said, ``If you don't stop this,
we're going to take your school to court.'' We had to stop it.
Now, the reason I am here is to tell you that I could not answer the
question that came by phone after that. One of the athletes, he was not
a very good athlete, but he was an athlete which qualified him for this
organization, called me and said, ``Mr. Dickey, tell me, are we going
to have FCA next week?'' I said no.
He said that he had heard that. He said, ``How about the week after
that?"
``No,'' I said, ``we're not.''
And he said to me a question that I cannot answer. He said, ``Why
not? What have we done wrong?" I tried to answer him but I could not.
What I hope this amendment will do and what I trust this amendment
will do will answer that young man so that we can have organizations
like this across the Nation.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, if you listen to this debate, you would
think that if you oppose this amendment, you are against religion.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us who are believers
or have a belief do not wear it on our shirt. My belief is that if it
ain't broke, we don't need to fix it. This amendment fixes something
that isn't broke.
The thing that is most disturbing about it is this. If you look
around the world, at Northern Ireland, the Middle East, South Asia, the
Azerbaijanis and the Armenians, all of those are religious-based
conflicts. We have managed to avoid that in this country.
We have always had a party of fear. There was a party of fear called
the Know-Nothings, which was really the base of the Republican Party in
the 1850s. They did not like Catholics and they did not like anybody
who did not speak English. So they did not like Germans and they did
not like Irish immigrants. That is the nature of this debate.
There is an exhibit opening in the Library of Congress today about
the issue of religion in this country. My belief is we ought to pay
attention to Ignacius who said, ``Give me a boy to the age of 6. After
that, you can have him.''
You choose the prayer in his schools, you affect his life.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, under the first amendment, individuals have a
sacred right to religious expression. Students have the right to pray,
read the Bible, initiate prayer clubs, and distribute religious
materials.
The constitutional amendment before us would go far beyond the first
amendment by sanctioning organized prayer and display of religious
symbols. Instead of guaranteeing religious freedom, this amendment
would actually burden the religious rights of individuals.
Questions like this are presented by the amendment: Which prayer?
What symbols? What happens to those whose prayer and symbols are not
included?
How is everyone's religious freedom served by this amendment which
would allow a particular prayer to be organized, broadcast over the
school intercom and participated in by a teacher or other
administrator.
The first amendment protects the balance necessary to ensure
individual religious freedom. This constitutional amendment jeopardizes
that balance so carefully crafted by the founders of our Constitution.
Their wisdom prevails to this day and should not be rejected by passing
this amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. The Founding Fathers recognized that faith in God was critical to
this Nation and any Nation. Indeed, they said our inalienable rights
were God-given, not by the State, not by the king, but God-given.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that no government on earth is powerful enough
to exclude my God from any place that a person of faith raises their
voice to pray to my God. I believe that faith is critical.
But I also believe like the Act of Religious Toleration, passed in
Maryland in 1643 by a Catholic colony concerned that the majority of
Protestants in that colony would force them to practice the Protestant
religion rather than the Catholic religion.
Mr. Speaker, the concern here is to protect faith, to protect church,
to protect those who choose to pray and who choose to worship in their
own way. I believe that the first amendment was designed specifically
for that purpose.
Roger Williams, indeed a Baptist like me, was an antecedent to the
creation of the first amendment. I believe that we do not need to amend
this provision. But we do need to stress that faith in God and raising
our voices in prayer continues to be one of the most important things
that Americans can do.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this Nation rests on a
foundation of religious liberty. None of our freedoms are more
jealously guarded. I

[[Page H4088]]

would urge my colleagues to approach this amendment very cautiously,
because it could very well undermine the freedom we so cherish.
The truth is, this amendment is not about religious freedom, which is
already guaranteed in the United States of America. It is not about
religious expression in public places, which is permitted under current
law.
The amendment is about something else, about allowing one person's
religious commitment to encroach on another's, about letting a student
prayer leader use school microphones to lead class prayer, or letting a
judge lead jurors in prayer.
I am deeply concerned about the impact this amendment could have on
public education. This amendment could require public funding of
nonpublic religious schools and shifting dollars and resources from our
public system at a time when public schools are literally crumbling and
our education system is struggling to keep the resources in our
classrooms and keep our students at pace. I urge my colleagues not to
do this today.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cook).
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Religious Freedom
Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be
used as an argument against the very freedom of religious expression
that brought our earliest forefathers to this great land in the first
place.
In the last 20 years, our right to free, personal religious
expression has been virtually destroyed by misguided court rulings and
wrongheaded public policy. We now live in a world where birth control
devices can be dispensed at public schools but a voluntary moment of
silent worship is often forbidden.
We have become so afraid of personal religious expression in schools
and public places that in my State, ironically a State founded by those
fleeing religious persecution, and on a national level, teacher unions
are decrying a return to conservative values and, in particular,
personal religious expression. They say those values and those
religious expressions are a threat to public schools. Why? Because they
are liberals, and they are out of touch with 80 percent of the people
of my State and indeed this country, who believe that we should get
violence out of our schools and allow into our schools personal
religious expression. Religious speech is as free as any other form of
speech, yet the courts have regulated religious expression more
stringently than they regulate pornography. This amendment would return
our Nation to a balanced approach that says personal religious
expression shall be permitted, not restricted.
This clear, commonsense amendment does not limit. It does not ban. It
does not require. It does not proscribe or compel. It simply allows
people to exercise that most fundamental of human rights, the right to
acknowledge their God and their religious traditions and beliefs in all
places, according to the dictates of their own consciences, not just at
home, behind closed doors, but in public places, on public property and
in our schools.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I teach my daughter she can pray and anytime,
anywhere she wants, and my daughter does that. She has taught me a lot
of things about prayer. My wife knows she can pray anywhere she wants
at any time. I urge my colleagues to recognize that we already have
this right. All we need to do is fight for it. We do not need to change
the Constitution of the United States.
In a letter that was sent out to the Constituents of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) the Christian Coalition, said this amendment
would allow all Americans the freedom of religious expression in public
places and would ensure that school children are not punished for
creating a valentine to Jesus or for reading a Bible during free time.
They can do that right now. If someone seeks to punish them, they
should use their freedom of speech under the Constitution and protest,
however they have to protest.
Let's just fight for our rights under the Constitution, instead of
trying to change it.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Istook
amendment. I am really concerned that this amendment would have more
far-reaching and negative effects than most Americans realize.
First of all, the issue of prayer and religion in public schools
touches deep emotions in most Americans. It has spawned much heated
debate here in Congress, and in State legislatures across the Nation.
In 1978, the State of Maryland passed a moment of silence law allowing
schools in the State to incorporate voluntarily a daily moment of
silent meditation into opening exercises. A part of this law allows
teachers or students to pray or read silently from the Holy Scripture
during this moment of meditation. Other States have passed similar
laws.
Amending the Constitution is a serious business. Our Founding Fathers
were wise to set up a wall separating church from State matters. We
should not be rewriting the religious freedom provisions in the
Constitution. The establishment clause substantially protects the
religious freedom of every American. Under the establishment clause,
the bells of religious liberty ring in every corner of our Nation with
clarity, with harmony and without discrimination.
I urge my colleagues on behalf of all Americans to vote no on this
issue.

{time} 1400

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to lend my voice to allow every
American citizen the fundamental right to express their religious faith
on public grounds. The previous speaker from Maryland, my good
colleague, has indicated that the States are starting to do what we are
trying to do here in Congress. So the fever and the enthusiasm to have
voluntary prayer is spreading across this Nation already, and I think
it goes to the heart of the matter that we in Congress need to do this
on a national basis.
In fact, in a recent poll in which voters were asked about moral
issues that are confronting this Nation, almost 70 percent agree that
America needs a religious freedom amendment that would simply allow
voluntary prayer.
Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin rose during the gathering of the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 and stated, quote,
the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that
God governs the affairs of men, end quote. He went on to suggest at
that point that the Convention begin its very own sessions with prayer
``imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessings on our
deliberations.''
We pray in the Senate, we pray in the House. We are simply asking for
voluntary prayer today. Why can not schoolchildren rise today, just as
Benjamin Franklin did 211 years ago, and ask for God's providence and
assistance at the start of their day?
This amendment is simply the very essence of our Constitution and our
cultural history, to allow the free religious expression of the
American people that every American was able to enjoy for 190 years of
our Nation's existence.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think the Religious Freedom Amendment is very
important. It would eliminate the ambiguous constitutional question
that has been established as a standard for religious expression. This
amendment does not force religious choice on anyone who does not want
to participate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption.

Christian Coalition,

Capitol Hill Office,

May 28, 1998.

Protect Religious Freedom--Vote for the Religious Freedom Amendment

Dear Representative: On Thursday, June 4th, the House will
hold a truly historic vote. For the first time in 27 years,
you will consider an amendment to the United States
Constitution concerning the fundamental right of an American
citizen to publicly acknowledge his or her religious faith.
This constitutional amendment will guarantee the same First
Amendment protection to religious speech as for non-religious
speech, including voluntary school prayer. In a nation

[[Page H4089]]

that was founded on the principle of religious liberty, we
must take steps to restore the rights that our Founding
Fathers intended to protect. And in a recent poll in which
voters were asked about moral issues confronting the nation,
almost 70% agreed that America needed a Religious Freedom
Amendment that would allow voluntary school prayer. The
Christian Coalition strongly urge you to vote for the
Religious Freedom Amendment (H.J. Res. 78).
The most dramatic example of a religious freedom that has
been whittled away is the right to religious speech. The
right to free speech is one of the most highly revered and
protected rights in our Constitution. Yet, a series of
Supreme Court rulings over the past 35 years have
misinterpreted the Constitution to ban and censor free speech
when that speech is religious in nature. Specifically, the
Supreme Court has censored free speech in only three areas:
inciting violence and insurrection, obscenity, and religious
speech. It is absurd for the Supreme Court to equate the act
of expressing one's faith in God with expressions of
insurrection or obscenity.
This amendment would protect the right of school children
to organize prayer during the school day, while explicitly
reigning in the influence and participation of the government
in such activities. The government, represented by either a
teacher or a school administrator, would be prohibited from
requiring, writing or forbidding prayer.
With the protection of the Religious Freedom Amendment,
courts would no longer issue rulings such as the one in which
the judge upheld a teacher's decision to give a young
Tennessee student an ``F'' on a research paper simply because
the student decided to write her paper about Jesus. (Settle
v. Dickson County School Board). And the highest court in our
land would be required to enforce the right of a rabbi to
offer a non-sectarian prayer at a middle school graduation.
Enactment of the Religious Freedom Amendment is the only
effective means to truly restore our religious freedom. On
behalf of the Christian Coalition, I strongly urge you to
vote yes for final passage on Thursday, June 4th.
Sincerely,
Randy Take,
Executive Director.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman
from Florida, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution on which
I am very proud to serve, for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask those of our colleagues here today who argue
against this proposed amendment, ``What exactly is it that you fear?
What is it in this amendment that makes you so fearful of having the
American public debate and decide this issue, that causes you to deny
even the American people the right to debate and vote on this issue?''
Is it that perhaps, if the American people had the issue presented to
them through their legislatures in a clear-cut way what this amendment,
proposed amendment, will do, that they might actually in large numbers
all across America, not just in my district in Georgia which strongly
supports this but all over the country rise up and tell their
legislatures, yes, we do want America to return to its roots; yes, we
do want schoolchildren to know that perhaps the Bible and the
scriptures, the Old and New Testament and other religious writings are
better than guns to solve problems? Is that what they truly fear?
Because if it is, then I think this debate ought to really recognize
that and ought to highlight that here today. America truly is at a
crossroads.
Where we see schoolchildren taking up not the scriptures, not the Ten
Commandments, but guns to silence their colleagues, their friends in
school, their teachers, then something is wrong. Why are we not to try
some new approaches, which after all are not really new approaches at
all?
This is an old, old approach. It is an approach recognized by our
Founding Fathers, recognized through the greater part of our history
and in our schools and our community institutions all across America,
that in order to solve our problems here on this earth we ought to have
the option of recognizing that there is a power greater than ours to
which we ought to turn for guidance and for solutions to our problems.
All we are asking here today is for our colleagues to give the
American people what the American people not only want but have an
absolute right to, and that is a right to debate this issue. I urge
adoption of this so that the States can decide this important issue.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, freedom of religion is certainly a vital
cornerstone of this country. The right to pray, the right to seek
divine guidance should be unimpaired, and heaven only knows by watching
this Congress in action, or this year in inaction, we have more and
more to pray about every day.
But throughout recorded history our forebears have recognized the
importance not only of religious conviction but of religious freedom
and tolerance, for throughout recorded history there have been those
who, as Jonathan Swift so aptly put it, had just enough religion to
make us hate and not enough to make us love. And so it is this country
was founded on the concept of religious freedom, to respect the rights
of others, and that concept has served this Nation very well.
As we look around the world today we think of the divisions caused in
society over religion. We look to South Asia or to the Balkans or to
the Middle East. But indeed we have our own religious Ayatollahs right
here in this country. Some of them unjustly attacked our colleague the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and others like Jerry Falwell have
declared, ``I hope to live to see the day when there will be no public
schools. What a happy day that will be.''
That is what this amendment is all about, the movement to destroy
public education and to substitute religious arrogance for religious
freedom.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Edwards for his leadership
and for yielding this time to me, and it is interesting that he would
have the honor of presiding over this very important debate, for it was
in Virginia when those very able gentleman like Madison and Jefferson
debated for 10 years this whole concept of the freedom of religion,
something we do today in a mere 2 hours? What a tragedy that we have
failed to remember those who fled Europe to avoid persecution because
of their religion.
Although this H.J. Res. 78, has received so much attention and phone
calls are coming in, and it appears at first innocuous. Further, it
seems like it is something those of us who are believers would want to
stand up and say, ``Lord, we want to see this passed,'' or Allah or
whoever we might believe in. But yet it is something that denies the
freedom of religion. It interferes with the First Amendment that
respects that there should not be a federal establishment of one
religion over another. This freedom of religion in our Bill of Rights
is a fundamental and imperative part of who and what America is. Both
court decisions and the First Amendment have already allowed our
children to pray to whomever their ultimate religious guider is.
This is not running away from the freedom to pray. This is to
acknowledge what faiths from all over this country have said, like the
Baptist Joint Committee that stated, that this amendment is unnecessary
and would in fact completely upset the balance our founders provided
between the obligations of religion and those of government in a
religiously pluralistic society. The Union of American Hebrew
Congregations and the Central Conference of American Rabbis have said
that this amendment poses a grave danger to the American Jewish
community by seeking to radically rework the entire relationship of
government entities with religious faith.
I heard my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham)
and he knows that we have respected each others' differences, but yes,
we can pray in schools, 10,000 prayer groups around the country pray in
our schools, yes, students do gather to pray everyday they are
protected by the first Amendment. The question is, who do you want to
have dominate the prayer line if this amendment passes? Will you be
accepting of everyone's prayer? Or will you want your child to pray
quietly and be able to have the freedom of joining groups of like kind
and then going to their respective houses of worship, being trained and
loved by their

[[Page H4090]]

parents or guardians as they desire. These same children can read the
scripture wherever they might find it and pursuant to their conscience.
This is a bad amendment, and there are too many religious groups to
name who oppose it. I take special issue with the characterizations of
those of us who believe in the Founding Fathers' premise of the Bill of
Rights and the freedom of religion in the purest sense, so that we do
not develop a Bosnia or an Ireland who have fought all these years,
that we are unbelievers. We do believe and our faith is strong and that
faith is exercised under the first amendment.
I resent being accused of being nonreligious and nonspiritual. It is
a private issue. It is an issue that we have died for. It is an issue,
when our National Anthem was written, the one thing they looked for: Is
the flag still there? This flag protects the freedom of religion; H.R.
78 destroys it.
Mr. Speaker, I pray today that we do the right thing today.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House today to urge Members
to oppose H.J. Res. 78, the ``Religious Freedom Amendment.'' First
colleagues let me say that we already have Religious Freedom. It's
called the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that ``Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents the
government from funding religious ministries or entangling the
government in the affairs of religious institutions. In 1787, Thomas
Jefferson said to James Madison ``I do not like . . . the omission of a
bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of freedom of
religion.'' Jefferson also said in 1813 to Richard Rush that ``Religion
is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I
have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which
no man, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.'' These
constitutional safeguards provide religion with a great degree of
autonomy from the influences of government. Thus, the Establishment
Clause prohibits the government from funding sectarian institutions in
order to further a particular mission. H.J. Res. 78 would overrule this
fundamental provision of the Bill of Rights. I am always very wary of
any attempt to alter the Constitution of the United States. Amending
the Constitution is a serious undertaking. It should be reserved for
those rare instances where there is a compelling need to establish
rights that cannot be secured by other means. Moreover, it must be done
in a manner that expands the rights of all individuals--not that
expands the rights of some persons by diminishing the constitutional
rights and protection of others.
Although the language of H.J. Res. 78 appears at first to be
innocuous, it would, in fact, operate to weaken the First Amendment's
Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause, in conjunction with the
surrounding court decisions that have arisen from it, is a carefully
balanced set of rules to try to settle the tension between a religious
(or nonreligious) people's need to express their religion, and at the
same time be free from a Government that seeks to compel religion,
either religion generally or a particular religion. The Baptist Joint
Committee states that this amendment is unnecessary and would, in fact,
completely upset the balance our founders provided between the
obligations of religion and those of government in a religiously
pluralistic society.'' The Union of American Hebrew Congregations and
the Central Conference of American Rabbis have said that this amendment
``poses a grave danger to the American Jewish community by seeking to
radically rework the entire relationship of government entities with
religious faiths. The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the
USA state that this ill-conceived attempt to amend the First Amendment
is opposed by most of the mainline churches and synagogues in the
United States. They also state that a Congress that prides itself on
being somewhat conservative could do nothing more radical than amending
the First Amendment.
The National Council of Jewish Women believe that amending the
Constitution to protect religious expression is unnecessary. Currently,
students can pray silently at any time, and student-led religious clubs
can meet on school property to pray and study Scripture. They think
that this amendment goes too far. While proponents of this legislation
will likely argue that it is intended to bolster individual religious
freedom, the Istook amendment is both unnecessary and dangerous. H.J.
Res. 78 rests on the false premise that current law does not adequately
protect religious expression in public places. The courts, however,
continue to uphold religious freedom, making a constitutional amendment
unnecessary and duplicative. Recent court decisions have reaffirmed the
right of citizens to erect religious symbols in public areas and to
have access to public facilities for religious activities. Students
have the right to pray, read the bible, and distribute religious
materials to their friends.

H.J. Res. 78 would go much further and would permit organized prayer
and other sectarian activities in public schools. Any student would
have the right to lead the class in prayer or other form of worship,
because the school would not be able to ``discriminate'' against the
student's religious expression or exercise. The amendment would also
permit a teacher to join in the religious worship, because any attempt
to prohibit the teacher could be deemed ``discrimination'' against the
teacher's religious expression or beliefs. The Constitution currently
respects religious beliefs as a deeply personal manner. Under this
amendment, parents could no longer be certain that the religious
beliefs, ideas, and modes of prayer taught in the home would not be
undermined at public school. Whether a student is ostracized for
refusing to participate in the prayer practiced by the majority of his
or her classmates, or is pressured to participate in that prayer,
organized school prayer would burden the religious liberty of
individual students. H.J. Res. 78 would also have the effect of
allowing government funds to go to pervasively sectarian institutions
to finance thoroughly religious activities. The amendment would mandate
that the government directly fund religious schools, houses of worship,
and other ``pervasively sectarian'' institutions that can not be funded
under current law. If a government entity denies funding based on the
pervasively sectarian nature of an institution, the religious group
could claim ``discrimination'' under the amendment based on ``religious
belief, expression or exercise.'' The Founders of our great nation were
all too aware of the dangers of allowing government to promote
religion. Such a role on the part of the government would almost
inevitably result in the promoting of selected religions over others.
Because of that concern, the Establishment Clause prevents the
government from funding religious ministries or entangling the
government in the affairs of religious institutions. This measure is
the fifth amendment considered on the House floor so far this Congress
alone--represents a continuation of an unprecedented assault on our
Constitution and our civil liberties. It would significantly harm
religious liberty in America and is contrary to our heritage of
religious freedom that is ensured by our nation's current doctrine of
separation of church and state. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were
right two hundred years ago and the American public is right today. We
already have a religious freedom amendment; it's called the First
Amendment.
I have heard from several of my constituents on this issue. Ryan
Dickerson writes: ``I believe that the real effects of this amendment
go far beyond hat its supporters claim. The amendment would allow
government officials to make decisions in their jobs that favor one
particular faith.'' Anne Hanzel writes that, ``this legislation, if
enacted, would dismantle the existing constitutional separation of
church and state by allowing the promotion of prayer in schools, the
display of religious symbols on public property, and the use of tax
dollars to subsidize private religious schools. Congresswoman, she
writers ``these are dangerous steps.'' I leave you with the words again
of the great Thomas Jefferson who stated that ``I should indirectly
assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which
the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant,
too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority. Civil powers
alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no
authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.''
Let's listen to Jefferson and Madison and defer to the First Amendment.
Vote for religious freedom and liberty and Vote No on H.J. Res. 78.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 78, and I understand that the sponsors of this want to do
something positive. They want to help in terms of freedom of exercise
of religion.
The fact is that the existing language in the Establishment Clause
that this addresses is 16 words long. They propose about 85 words to
replace this, and they suggest that the court decisions revolving
around these 16 words have caused great consternation, and so they
propose to send to the Supreme Court and the other courts of this land
85 words to be involved with in terms of judicial review.
So I would just suggest to my colleagues, just on the basis of that
particular analysis, now I understand that there is over 200 years of
judicial review, and for a nonlawyer like myself

[[Page H4091]]

that represents a substantial amount of reading. So what they are
suggesting is to set that on the shelf and to add to it these 85 words,
and my concern is that in their zeal to in fact provide for greater
liberty and exercise of religious freedom they in fact may do something
very, very different, adding over five times the verbiage for the
courts to interpret.
I think that the fact is that if this is a solution, it is a mighty
peculiar problem that our colleagues are trying to deal with. I just
suggest that they stop and take a deep breath and look at what they are
doing in terms of this constitutional amendment.
This establishment provision in the Constitution, while sometimes
being interpreted incorrectly by some institutions and historically has
evolved in meaning by the courts, has in fact served us very well in
terms of trying to establish the proper balance, regards church and
state. I am very concerned that the language that is presented to us
today as a solution may in fact wrap our religious freedom around the
axle with regards to the exercise of religion an essential liberty. The
establishment clause in the Constitution is to establish that freedom,
and I hope the Members will vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 78
which undermines the first amendment and our religious liberties.
I rise today in opposition to the Constitutional Amendment, H.J. Res.
78. While I support the right to the free exercise of religion
guaranteed to all Americans by the First Amendment, I do not support
amending our basic document of governance, the U.S. Constitution, to
superimpose government sanction and regulation of religious activities.
This measure is completely unnecessary. The United States already has
a Religious Freedom Amendment, which has worked for the past 200
years--it is called the First Amendment! The First Amendment would be
undermined by the provisions in this measure, not enhanced. Struggles
in the colonies created a distaste about unions of church and state,
and fostered a movement to eliminate existing establishments.
Therefore, the very first Congress of the United States correctly laid
the groundwork for government neutrality in religious affairs.
One major point of contention with this legislation is the issue of
school prayer. I want to be absolutely clear about this. I support the
right of students to voice their beliefs in ways which do not interfere
or disrupt the rights of other students in a school setting. The First
Amendment certainly provides for the religious expression by students
while maintaining the people's freedom from government-sponsored
religion. This measure would tear apart that existing balance.
There are several ways that students express their religious beliefs
in schools. Student prayer and religious discussion groups are becoming
more common within such settings. Students may speak and express
opinions about religion, just as they would speak about political
opinions, or any other topics. Students may well express their beliefs
about religion in the form of chosen topics, written projects. artwork,
and other assignments or endeavors. Furthermore, schools today, with
the rights confirmed by the First Amendment, may not bar students from
expressing their personal religious views or beliefs solely because
they are of a religious nature. School authorities may not discriminate
against private religious expression by students. It is clear that the
First Amendment provides ample room for religious expression by
students, while at the same time maintaining freedom from government
sponsored religion.
Not only is this measure unnecessary, it represents a grave risk. The
language of this legislation would permit the government to fund
establishments such as churches, synagogues and parochial schools.
Rather than solve a problem, this creates new problems and undermines
an over 200 year old Constitutional balance.
First of all, it creates an entanglement of church and state.
Government funding leads, necessarily, to government monitoring.
Government-subsidized religion would invariably trigger battles among
legislators and religious groups about who gets a cut of the limited
money in the public purse. Inevitably, only majority religions would
prevail--religions that can, in essence maintain popular support!
This amendment has vast implications regarding school prayer and
school funding. Existing interpretations of the establishment of
religion clause clearly prohibit government-financed or government-
sponsored indoctrination in to the beliefs of a particular religious
faith. If the Religious Freedom Amendment were passed, private
elementary and secondary schools would be fully eligible for direct
government funding. The result? Tax dollars would be diverted to
religious school voucher programs. The public will is clear on this
point, ``public tax payer dollars should be used to support public
education''.
With some substantial effort, taxpayers already support a school
system. They can't and shouldn't be expected to support multiple
systems, some of questionable purpose and quality, most with a
religious mission, and others which are for the wealthy in our society.
The First Amendment to the Constitution has long served as a
protector of religious rights and provide a safeguard against using
public funds to establish a religion or advocate religious practices.
The amendment has served our nation well, and there is absolutely no
reason to alter it. H.J. Res. 78, a transparently politically inspired
measure, undermines our liberties. This legislation has been trumped up
for political purposes, not to expand the rights of American people but
rather to make virtue of force feeding extreme religious views to the
public, willing or not to accept those views. The effect would be to
dishonor and undermine both of our rights and our liberties concerning
religion and free expression. I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing H.J. Res. 78.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
(Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1415

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution was intended to guarantee
freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, but there are those who
have clearly been determined to drive out all traces of religion from
the public sphere. They have ignored the religious traditions upon
which this great Nation was founded.
When a small child in De Kalb County, Alabama, is subjected to two
restrictions on how, when and where they can pray, this is not freedom.
When tax dollars are used against people that will go to pay court-
appointed monitors to go into the schools, this is not freedom.
This amendment does not endorse any one religion, but it, rather,
states that religious expression such as prayer, which has deep-rooted
significance in the history of this Nation, should not be excluded from
the public square.
How can we promote integrity in our leaders and improve the moral
fiber of our people without a basis and some absolute standard? George
Washington, of course, the Father of our Country, probably said it best
in his farewell address when he said morality could not be maintained
without religion. His words were, ``National morality cannot prevail in
the exclusion of religious principle.''
As has been mentioned here today, we open each session with prayer in
this Chamber, the face of Moses looks down on us all as we stand here
this afternoon, and we should not deny that same privilege to our
children and the people of the United States of America.
This amendment reaffirms that we are a Nation dedicated to religious
liberty, and I am proud to stand here on the floor of the United States
House of Representatives to speak out in support of public religious
expression and against the proposition that religious values and people
of faith should be relegated to the back seat of public life.
I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), for
bringing this issue to the national attention, and I strongly urge my
colleagues to support religious freedom.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to
solve a problem that does not exist and then quietly create a very
serious problem.
There is no constitutional prohibition against children praying in
school. Yes, teachers have told children not to read the Bible on the
school bus or say grace before meals. Those teachers were wrong.
Teachers are not infallible. Children have the right to do that. At all
of those many moments during the school day when, without disrupting
the regular procedure, children are free to talk, to read, to decide
what to do, they may themselves pray, if they have been taught to do
so.
The real problem here, and I find this ironic from people who talk
about themselves as ``defenders of family values,'' is that there are
many in this country who do not think that the average family, left to
its own choices,

[[Page H4092]]

will inculcate enough religion in their children, because any
schoolchild who has been brought up to be religious will find
innumerable chances during the day in school, and certainly before and
after at school clubs that are sanctioned, as they should be, to pray.
They can read the Bible on the school bus. They can say grace before
they eat. They can say a prayer as they walk to class. They can say a
prayer in the school yard at recess.
But people think children, left to their own, will not do enough, so
this amendment seeks to allow us as a society to use the mechanism of
compulsory school attendance to inculcate in official settings more
religion in schoolchildren than they would learn at home.
Nothing now in the law prevents children from expressing themselves
religiously, if they have been told to. But people who think they
should be in charge of other people's religious instruction think that
this does not provide enough. They want to use the coercive school
mechanism, so that children who would not otherwise pray will be
pressured into doing so, or pressured into doing so in a certain way.
Religion does not need now, as it has not in the past, the help of
these self-appointed volunteers. Let us leave religion to the families
and to individual choice. That choice can be freely expressed in
school, as it can elsewhere, in the way that prayer has always been
meaningful.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask my friends, how has the first amendment
failed this country? I do not understand what we are doing here today.
How has the first amendment failed this great land?
As with other parts of the Bill of Rights, the Founders had the
foresight to set aside this precious area of individual religious
choice and belief as free and insulated forever from majority rule, a
terribly important central principle in a land as huge and as diverse
as ours.
What this amendment, if it were to pass and become part of the
Constitution, will do is to reverse that. It will make the use of
public places and public spaces for religion subject to majority rule.
For those of you who believe we should have prayer in those places,
including prayer in school and other religious observances, please
think for a moment again about how fragile this country of ours is in
matters of religious tolerance, how much care and work it takes to keep
its fabric together, keep it from coming undone.
If we take this step, if we say to our friends in this country who do
not share the majority faith, that you will be subjected, as will
inevitably happen if this were to become part of the Constitution, in
that most private and precious individual area of faith, to having your
beliefs subordinated to those of the majority in the public business in
this country, think again as to whether that really contributes to
keeping this country whole, to living up to that value of one out of
many. And reject this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, all year long we've been neglecting our work. There are
important measures the House should be taking up, to properly attend to
the people's business. But this is not one of them.
In fact, rewriting the bill of rights the way this amendment would do
is something we should not be doing--not today or any other day.
This proposal is unnecessary. It's also profoundly unwise. Its
adoption would undermine, not advance, our country's heritage of
religious freedom. Its adoption would be breaking faith with our proud
heritage of liberty.
Its supporters say that its primary purpose is to protect the ability
of students to join in voluntary prayers in a school setting. But in
fact, that's a problem that's already been addressed. Thanks to the
Equal Access Act, passed in 1984 and upheld by the Supreme Court in
1990, thousands of students are joining in prayers and other religious
expressions organized not by the state but by voluntary, student-run
clubs that meet before or after classes--just like other
extracurricular groups.
In fact, the free exercise of religion in America is alive and well
among students and adults alike--protected by the same First Amendment
whose establishment clause also protects against imposition of state-
sponsored religion.
But this amendment is not just unneeded. It's also a bad idea. By
revising the bill of rights, it would replace the familiar, balanced
protections of the First Amendment with new language, language that
hasn't been applied in any context or tested in any court. That means
this amendment, if adopted, will create new disputes; it will trade new
lawsuits for old ones. In other words, it's a prescription for new
controversies, not a recipe for resolving old disputes.
Also, the language isn't just new. It's also very sweeping. The first
part of the proposed amendment says ``the people's right to pray and to
recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public
property, including schools, shall not be infringed.'' Note that this
would establish a right that could be exercised on any public
property--not just in schools.
Whose right would this protect? Who are ``the people''? It could mean
anyone and everybody--it could be an individual right of any person. If
so, what would that mean?
Well, public school teachers and administrators are people, so
arguably this would mean that they stand and recite prayers in
classrooms, regardless of the wishes of the students or their parents.
Judges are people, and courtrooms are public property, so presumably
all judges could place symbols of their various faiths in their
courtrooms, regardless of how offensive this might be to people of
other faiths who are legally summoned to come to those courtrooms and
to comply with the rulings of those judges.
Sheriffs, prosecutors, and prison wardens are people, too, so
presumably they also could insist on offering prayers or displaying
religious symbols in their offices or in prisons, regardless of the
different religious beliefs of their deputies, the members of the
public with whom they come into contact, or the prisoners under their
control.
The doctors, nurses, and administrators of Veterans' hospitals are
people, and so are their colleagues in city-owned hospitals or similar
facilities--so, again, those public properties could be used to
emphasize or support one faith, regardless of the views of some of the
very taxpayers who support them or the patients they treat.
And the same goes for every other public employee and every public
official, great or small, in every community, and on every kind of
public property.
On the other hand, as a legal term ``the people'' often means people
acting through their governments, not as individuals. If that's what is
meant here, then this amendment may establish a new right for the
people of a community, acting through their state or local government,
to use public property to set up religious symbols or to otherwise give
official recognition to some religious traditions but not others.
So, whatever ``the people'' may mean, this amendment--even though it
starts out by saying that neither the federal government nor any state
government can establish any official religion--will have the
predictable effect of entangling religion and government throughout the
country, leading to exactly the ugly disputes and bitter resentments
that have so deeply divided so many other societies. Why would we want
that?
And that's not all. The proposed amendment also says ``Neither the
United States nor any State shall * * * deny equal access to a benefit
on account of religion.'' Again, this would be new language, untested
language. What could it mean?
Well, it could mean that religious institutions serving a particular
faith could insist on ``equal access'' to any program funded by any
taxes--local, state, or national. According to the many groups who form
the National Coalition for Public Education, it can be read to mean
``public schools being used to support religious education and * * *
tax dollars being diverted to religious schools''. Others may not agree
with that--but, again, this is new and untested language and so at a
minimum it means new controversies, new litigation, new divisions.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is not what we should be about. We
should get on resolving our problems, not adding to them. We should be
working together to meet our country's needs and enabling Americans to
improve their lives. We should not be doing things that will produce
new and unnecessary divisions and controversies. We should focus on
making the government work better, not on trying to revise the bill of
rights. We should reject this resolution.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment should really be labeled the
religious coercion amendment, or the establishment of religion
amendment, because it does so. It establishes religion according to the
tenets of the majority in a given local area in three ways:

[[Page H4093]]

First of all, it says it is a school prayer amendment, a coercive
school prayer amendment. Someone once said that there is plenty of
prayer in the public schools; that as long as there are math tests,
there will be prayer in the public schools. Of course, that sounds
funny, but it recognizes reality. Children are free to pray at any time
they want in the schools.
What nobody is free to do is to have organized prayer in a coercive
manner, to coerce someone to pray or to have to separate himself or
herself from the group and say, ``I am different and I do not want to
join in your prayer.'' That is coercive prayer. This amendment would
permit that. That is what the Supreme Court does not, and properly does
not, permit.
Secondly, this is far more than a coercive prayer amendment in two
ways. This amendment says the people's right to recognize their
religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including
schools, should not be infringed.
What does that mean? The people, collectively, through their local
city council or school district board or legislature, the people's
right to put a cross or a Star of David or a crescent or a centaurea
symbol above the judge's bench in the courtroom or in the school, will
not be infringed.
If you are a member of the minority and a member of a jury and you do
not want to be on the jury in front of a religious symbol that is not
yours, too bad. If you are a member of the minority in that town, if
you are a Catholic and they have a Protestant symbol, or vice versa,
and you do not want to be in the school room with that, too bad.
Because the right of the people, the majority, to bring their religious
beliefs, heritage or traditions into public property, including
schools, shall not be infringed.
Finally, what does it say? It says neither the United States nor any
State shall deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. What
does that mean? What that means is that you cannot deny access to a
benefit on account of religion.
Let us assume we establish, as we have, a hot lunch program for poor
people, and let us assume that a church wants to be the agent for
distribution of the hot lunch program and submits a grant proposal.
That is fine.
But let us assume that that church, as a condition of giving out the
hot lunches, wants to subject the people to proselytizing, to a
religious sermon or to a prayer first. Right now, they cannot do that.
You are entitled to the hot lunch if you qualify. But we cannot deny to
the church the benefit of distributing the hot lunches on account of
religion, so now we can have religious tests for getting benefits from
government. The church cannot be denied the right to religiously
proselytize in order to get the benefit of participating in the
government program.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a coercive reestablishment of religion
amendment, and I submit it is extraordinarily ill-advised.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers struggled
long and hard over the very issue that we are spending relatively
little time on here today on the floor, but I can say I think from
listening to this debate that the Members on both sides of the aisle
speak from deep conviction. Their comments today about their own
personal faith that they bring to this debate I think have made the
debate on this issue exemplary. I am particularly impressed by those
Members who perhaps do not talk about their religion on a regular basis
but who have today talked about their belief in God and the way in
which they attempt to communicate with their God through private
prayer.
But, unfortunately, I think the amendment we are voting on today is
unnecessary and, frankly, could do damage to the first amendment that
gives Americans the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose
and the protection, which we often overlook, of not having religion
forced upon them.
Our Founding Fathers were just as concerned about the people who came
to this country to practice their beliefs out from under organized,
government-sanctioned religion. This is not simply a concern about
religion influencing a secular world. We all believe that spiritualism
and prayer can infuse themselves into our public deliberations in a
private way, but we are also concerned about somehow government making
a determination as to what private prayer can be and what people can do
under the first amendment protection of Freedom of Religion.
I am convinced that all of us understand that while there have been
some decisions made at some levels of government that have confused or
confounded us about the appropriateness of public displays of religion
conviction, that the essential benefit of the first amendment of the
separation of church and State is ultimately a protection of those who
believe in religion and practice it daily.
So I am very hopeful that, despite the elevated nature of this debate
and the sincerity with which the positions are held, we will come to
the conclusion that it is not timely to abandon the first amendment of
the Constitution, now over 200 years old. Protect our rights and vote
against this misguided amendment which is so strongly opposed by most
of our nations organized religions.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to restore some
perspective on what we are discussing and what we are not. This is the
text of the Religious Freedom Amendment. ``To secure the people's right
to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the
United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but
the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs,
heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not
be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any
person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school
prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a
benefit on account of religion.''
That is what is at issue before us, and people that do not like it
seem to fall into, they say, one of two categories.

{time} 1430

Either those who say there is no problem or those who say, well,
there is just no solution. Those who say there is no problem, I have
gotten very tired of hearing people say, oh, they already have prayers
in school; because we have got math tests, we have got prayer in
school; or because we do have Bible clubs that are permitted to meet on
school grounds.
Ladies and gentlemen, read the law. Read what the Supreme Court said.
They are permitted to meet on school grounds before school or after
school. They are not permitted to meet during instructional time like
any other student club is: Spanish club, chess club, Future Teachers of
America, whatever it may be. They can meet during a recess. They can
meet during a lunch time. They can meet during a study hall. But not a
faith-based club.
Read the Supreme Court decision on the equal access law. Maybe some
are still doing it; they are practicing civil disobedience, and more
power to them, because, perhaps, the ACLU and the other groups that
oppose this amendment have not gotten around to filing suit there yet.
That is why we still have some prayer in different environments. They
have not yet filed all the suits.
Someone mentioned football game prayer. Great. I think it is fine.
They are suing in West Virginia to stop it. Look at Ohio, with the ACLU
suing to stop the use of the State motto, which is ``With God, all
things are possible.''
I mean, they are coming down on it right and left all over the
country. Do you say there is no problem, or do you say, well, there is
no solution? To those who say maybe there is a problem but this is not
the way to go about it, get your heads out of the sand. What are you
doing about it?
I could not believe I heard one Member earlier say that, yes, we have
a problem but we already have the right to do the same things that this
says, so just fight for it. If they seek to punish us, just protest and
fight.
What are they saying? Do they or do they not respect a court opinion
even if they disagree with it? Are they saying that the solution is for
people to go out

[[Page H4094]]

there and fight against what the Supreme Court has said, or use the
orderly process set up by the Constitution to fix it when the Supreme
Court has gone astray and has twisted and distorted the beautiful,
plain, simple words of the First Amendment? That is what we are trying
to do, use the peaceful process to resolve the disputes.
If my colleagues say, well, yes, there is a problem but we ought to
do something about it, then what is their solution, and why are they
not helping us?
I have heard persons say there is a problem but we do not want this
amendment. Those persons have not done diddly to help with this effort.
Vote for the RFA.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I had signed on to support this amendment,
and I started calling some of my friends that I had known for years.
For some 16 years I traveled all over this country and into Canada and
places, singing gospel music, and I have been in every kind of church
that my colleagues can imagine. I have been in the churches where their
religious beliefs led them to take up the serpent. I never did get into
that too much, but I have been in all kind of churches.
My grandfather started Happy Hill Baptist Church in Alabama, where I
am still a member. I went there last Sunday. About 40 people. People
got up and testified and talked about what God had done for them. Over
these 16 years that I traveled all over the country, I have seen every
type of religious philosophy.
You would think from some of the calls that we have had in our office
that only the people that support this amendment can be Christians. You
would believe, if you believe these calls that we are having, that
unless you support this amendment, that when you stand before the bar
of God and you stand before the bar of judgment, they are going to say,
``Sorry, you cannot come in here because you did not support the Istook
amendment. Sorry about that. You have been good. You have been a good
family man. You have supported your children. You have gone to church.
You have tithed. But you did not vote for the Istook amendment and you
cannot come in here.''
My good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who I have
known many years, there is not a better family man, a better moral man
in this body than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). When somebody
takes the liberty to send out a massive mailing that says that this man
is a bigot, and the author of this amendment last night on television
refused and would not say that he acknowledged that he was a bigot, he
would not deny it, and when they send out a letter this way and a card
and say this man is a bigot, that to my knowledge, and I do not judge,
but that is not Christian.
This is one of the finest family men, one of the most devoted men
that I have ever met. To say that he is a bigot and there is no place
for him in this Congress or in this country because he is against the
Istook amendment is wrong.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am leaving this body at the end of this year.
I have had threats, and most of the threats that I have had over the
years had to do with religious issues. The Christian Coalition is
sending out a letter that says this is going to be on the report card;
if Members vote against the Istook amendment, we are going to get them
in the next election.
Some of this posturing reminds me of the Pharisees when they stood in
the temple and said, ``Lord, look at me. I have given all this money,
and I have done all of this.'' The people that have labored in the
vineyard, that have helped the hungry and the needy, went about their
business of praying in private. Give me that crowd rather than the ones
that posture and try to make political mileage out of something that is
so precious to all of us.
I will say this today. I believe that when I stand before the bar of
judgment and God looks at my record, He is going to judge my record,
not only whether I voted for the Istook amendment, but He is going to
rate me on what I have done to obey His word and to do what I am
supposed to do for the most needy in this country. I will take my
chances on that.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, few issues are more difficult for a
legislative body to deal with than those that affect religion. At issue
today is the question of whether the First Amendment to the
Constitution should, in effect, be modified.
The approach brought forward today represents an attempt to ensure
that the faith which founds our lives as individuals and the religious
values that bind us together as a society can have free expression.
This is an honorable and most worthy motive and the only credible
grounds for opposition must be based on the assumption that the First
Amendment to the Constitution crafted by Jefferson and Madison is a
greater protection of prayer and worship than the approach brought
before us today.
The question this House must answer is thus whether expressions of
faith in America will be freer with or without this proposed amendment.
My view is that the Constitution as it currently is written, which
carries with it certain court decisions which at times are perplexing,
nevertheless better protects freedom of religion than the well-meaning
but potentially counterproductive language of the proposed amendment.
I reach this conclusion reluctantly, because I realize this amendment
is championed by individuals and groups which have the well-being of
our children, families, and Nation at heart.
I also realize we are considering this amendment at a time when a
seeming epidemic of lethal violence perpetrated in some instances by
children against children has led to deeply troubling questions as to
how and even whether the faith and values that have sustained this
country for over two centuries can be transmitted to the next
generation of Americans.
Yet I am convinced that faith will be freer and thus more meaningful
under the Constitution as it is now crafted than under the strictures
under consideration today.
Nowhere more than in the First Amendment is the genius of our
Nation's founders more clearly revealed. Its sixteen words--``Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof''--establish for the first time
in human history that coercion would be replaced with persuasion in the
religious life of a people.
The founders understood that citizens derive their values from faith,
but that faith should be practiced willingly, not on demand.
Proselytizing under the Constitution can only occur with permission,
not compulsion.
I believe Congress would be wise to validate the appropriateness of
moments of silent prayer or meditation in public schools, but for all
its good intentions, the amendment before us opens the door to the
authorization of majority-crafted spoken prayer in public schools. To
say that children need not participate and would, for example, be free
to leave the room is to deny the coercive power of peer pressure on
young people.
As a Member of Congress, I frequently visit schools. When the prayer
in school issue is raised, students are generally divided. But to the
question: ``Assuming prayer is required, would you prefer spoken prayer
or a moment of silence?'' every class I have spoken to has
overwhelmingly indicated a preference for silent prayer or meditation.
``Group prayer,'' one 9th grader told me, ``would embarrass too many of
my friends . . . It would be unfair.''
My advice to the students I talk to is to pray at home, pray in
church, pray in school and on the playground, but pray in your way,
alone with God, and don't forget to pray for tolerance and those of
differing faiths.
Moreover, no matter how carefully and sincerely stated, any prayer,
especially if written by an official or arm of the State--i.e.,
teacher, principal or school board--can too easily offend members of
one or another Christian denomination. For some, a ``non-
denominational'' prayer that makes no mention of Jesus Christ would
lack depth. For Protestants and Roman Catholics, the difference
regarding the status of Mary and the saints and the role of the church
hierarchy is profound.
For Jews and Christians, piety takes very different expressions. For
Muslims, prayer involves turning toward Mecca and prostrating one's
self. For Islam prayer is adoration of Allah, involving no requests and
asking no blessings, as most Christian prayers do. For the son or
daughter of Vietnamese-American Buddhists a ``voluntary'' prayer
satisfactory to Southern Baptists or the Eastern Orthodox is likely to
be unintelligible.
James Shannon, one of the most thoughtful theologians of our times,
points out that in

[[Page H4095]]

both the Hebraic and Christian traditions, specific modes of prayer,
going back to Mosaic and early Christian times, distinctly demarcate
the prayer lives of scripturally oriented Jews and Christians. The name
of God, Shannon notes, is so sacred in the Mosaic code that it is to be
used seldom in prayer or speech. Hence the preference in Hebraic
prayers for alternative expressions that praise the majesty and other
attributes of God without specifically mentioning the sacred name of
Yahweh. For Jews there are right and wrong ways to conduct a
conversation with God, and it is unlikely a public school board is a
competent institutional forum for developing modes of prayer
inoffensive to Jewish students.
At the same time, because prayer is the most intimate expression of
the human mind and heart, anything prepared with the specific intent of
being inoffensive to all would be form without substance, not prayer in
any genuinely spiritual sense.
Such an empty effort would be demeaning to sincerely religious
individuals and run the risk of leading children to view religion as
just another expression of the hypocrisy they already see in so much of
the adult world.
On a more mundane level, the amendment before us would permit--or by
some readings even require--the government to fund religious activities
on the same basis it does secular activities. This would violate the
constitutional principle that taxpayers not be forced to support
religious institutions. It would also open the door to an unseemly and
contentious competition between religious groups for public funds.
More importantly, government funding inexorably leads to government
regulation, which would precipitate a most pernicious unintended
consequence. Government regulation would undermine the autonomy of
religious organizations and in the process rob churches, synagogues,
mosques and temples of the vital prophetic role they play in America's
national life.
In the United States there is no state ``Church.'' But by recent
count there are thousands of organized religious groups which provide
solace and inspiration to the individual believers who belong to them.
Without intending to do so the amendment before us could undermine the
ability of these institutions to serve as independent, vibrant
witnesses to our nation on behalf of the values on which they are
founded.
Our founding fathers established a Nation ``under God,'' one in which
revolution against British authority was premised upon ``self-evident''
individual rights and an appeal to a higher law of conscience which
precedes the more mundane civil laws of society. But in appealing to
conscience to justify a revolutionary government, America's first
citizens labored carefully to construct, in Jefferson's terms, a wall
between church and state.
When erecting this Constitutional barrier between church and state,
the crafters of the Bill of Rights looked inward to well as outward and
turned a wary eye to the American as well as European experience. They
fully understood that it was religious authoritarianism in Europe that
drew many of the early settlers to our shores, but that upon arriving
in the New World, some like the Puritans invoked a rather exclusionary
discipline of their own, with witchcraft trials and stocks and
pillories used to coerce alleged nonbelievers. ``Who does not see,''
Madison warned, ``the same authority which can establish Christianity
in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same care,
any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?''
The strength of the haven we have provided for oppressed people the
world over comes from a tolerance for diversity rather than an enforced
conformity.
It is sometimes suggested by politicians that God has been excluded
from the public schools and that we must amend the Constitution to put
God back into our schools. Is this not blasphemy? Just as the Supreme
Court cannot keep God out of our schools, Congress cannot put Him back
in. God is not an object like a bicycle or candy bar. He is the Creator
of Heaven and Earth, and anyone--adult or child--may speak to Him from
the heart whenever and wherever they are moved to do so. As long as
human tribulations exist--whether caused by a math test or unreturned
glance--prayer will not be locked out of schools.
Twenty years ago, in the seminal decision of the Supreme Court
banning group prayer in public school, Justice Hugo Black wrote that
the Establishment Clause ``stands as an expression of principle on the
part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal,
too sacred, too holy, to permit its `unhallowed perversion' by a civil
magistrate,'' Justice Black went on to say of the faith in the power of
prayer which animated so many of the authors of the Constitution:

These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried to put
an end to government control of religion and of prayer, was
not written to destroy either. They knew rather that it was
written to quiet well-justified fears which nearly all of
them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the
past had shackled men's tongues to make them speak only the
religious thoughts that government wanted them to speak and
to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray
to. It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that
each separate government in this county should stay out of
the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and
leave that purely religious function to the people themselves
and to those the people choose to look to for religious
guidance.

Rather than stifling prayer or religious worship, the principal
purpose of the First Amendment is to preserve religion in the United
States from the inevitably corrupting influence of secular authorities.
Finally, that individual to whom Christians look first for religious
guidance, Jesus of Nazareth, warns in the Sermon on the Mount to
``beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them.'' He goes on to say in Matthew 6:6, ``When you pray, go into your
room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and
your Father who sees in secret will reward you.''
Prayer is an expression of the individual soul's longing for God as
the source of all that is true, good, and beautiful. As such, it is far
too central a part of life to be tampered with by any government body,
be it a local school board or the Congress of the United States.
While the arguments of those who would tamper with our Bill of Rights
are not persuasive to this Member, the premise of their arguments
cannot be lightly dismissed. America is indeed in need of a spiritual
awakening. Evidence mounts every day of the breaking down of family
bonds and governmental ethics. But to transfer to the state
responsibilities that historically have been the province of the church
and family is the ultimate in welfare statism. Americans must come to
understand that there are no easy panaceas to moral challenges and no
public substitutes for the inculcation of personal values at home.
As for public life, the best reflection of faith is that of example.
There is no substitute.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Canady) for the time. I rise in enthusiastic support of this
legislation today.
The Religious Freedom Amendment would not change the First Amendment
to the Constitution, nor has the First Amendment failed this Nation, as
some of my colleagues have said today. It is a narrow majority of the
United States Supreme Court that has inaccurately interpreted the First
Amendment. That is why we are here today.
The fact is that we do have emblazoned on the wall behind me the
words ``In God We Trust''. We do have a picture of Moses, one of the
great religious leaders of all times. We do begin each session of this
Congress with prayer. Oftentimes I might not agree with that prayer,
and oftentimes I might not agree with the religion represented, but
even so, that in itself is enlightening to me and I am glad for it.
But in auditoriums, gymnasiums and other public buildings around this
Nation, people are deprived of that same freedom of religious
expression, and that is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that this debate is not about
government-imposed prayer. It is about voluntary prayer. One of my
colleagues said he did not want the government writing a prayer for his
children. Go back and read this legislation. Nothing in this amendment
would allow a school to require prayer or to write a certain prayer for
a child. There is no coercion here.
But here is what our children need to know, Mr. Speaker, and this
message ought to be sent out from this Congress today: that faith and
religious beliefs have always been at the center of this Nation's
conscience; that faith-based convictions are an integral part of our
Nation today; and that there is no place in America for court-imposed,
government-sanctioned hostility to religious expression.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.
Religious freedom flourishes in America. Individuals already have the
right to pray, talk about their beliefs, express their spirituality,
and read scriptures, whether they are in a school, in a courthouse, or
on the street.
The most precious thing about that freedom is that it protects
individuality. It forces no leaders and demands no followers.

[[Page H4096]]

The so-called Religious Freedom Amendment would rob Americans of
their individuality. It would break down the barriers between church
and State and permit individuals to force their beliefs on others.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment allows the government to endorse a
particular religion by displaying certain symbols. It allows the
government to fund sectarian groups and creates the likelihood that
some groups will be excluded.
Recently conducted polls show that Americans are pleased about their
current religious freedom. More than 60 groups representing dozens of
faiths are speaking out against this bill. We cannot let one voice take
away our freedoms. We must not let the political right take away our
religious right. Vote against this.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair
concerning the amount of time remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Canady) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) has 7\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, much has been said in this very
interesting debate, and I would just like to put and enter into the
record part of what Justice Douglas opined in 1952 in a case entitled
Zorach v. Clauson.
Justice Douglas opined that the First Amendment does not say that in
every respect there should be a separation of church and state. He
wrote that ``it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in
which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the
other.'' That is what the Istook amendment continues to clearly define.
Douglas wrote ``That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise,
the State and religion would be aliens to each other, hostile,
suspicious, and even unfriendly.'' I do not think anyone in this body
would want to see us reach that result.
Douglas went on to write that ``We are a religious people and our
institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. When the State encourages
religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by
adjusting the schedule of public events'' or even prayer ``to sectarian
needs, it follows the best of our traditions.''
The Justice found that there was no constitutional requirement making
it necessary for government to be hostile to religion. In fact, he
found quite the opposite. ``The government'', he said, ``must remain
neutral when it comes to competition between sects.''
Justice Douglas said, ``We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a
philosophy of hostility to religion.''
The government remaining neutral is exactly what Mr. Istook has
drafted into this amendment. It allows for all people of religious
convictions to be able to pray.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Under existing law, if a student group wants to invite
a political figure to address their graduation, they may do so. I
remember my brother's graduation. Ramsey Clark was invited, and he gave
a political speech. If that same group of students invites a religious
person, however, that religious person may not give a prayer. That is
the Supreme Court ruling in 1992.
A second example: Right now, if a political group wants to hold a
meeting and express themselves at a public park, they may do so, and
there is no obligation that anybody else must be there to water down
what they say.

{time} 1445

Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Communist, Independent, all their
speech is permitted, with no obligation for anybody else to have to be
there to water down what they say. Yet, if a religious group wants to
put up a menorah at Chanukka time or a manger scene at Christmastime,
the Supreme Court has held it may not do so unless there are also items
of non-religious significance so surrounding the manger, so surrounding
the menorah, as to deprive it of its religious content.
This is what is known, rather sadly, as the infamous ``plastic
reindeer rule'' of the Supreme Court, that you can only put up a crib
at Christmastime if you have enough Frosty the Snowmen, candy canes,
snowflakes, and reindeer so as to deprive the religious component of
the message.
So I come to the conclusion that given the way the Supreme Court has
interpreted the first amendment, religious speech has less protection
under our Constitution than does political speech. I do not believe it
should have more, but it should not have less.
I quoted two recent Supreme Court opinions that apply in this area of
the law. There are others that recently were decided on a 5 to 4
decision going the other way, in fact, going the way that I think it
should be, but still, only by 5 to 4. One case dealt with a grant of
special education privileges to students who were in particular need of
physical rehabilitation, and whether that could be provided on the
premises of a parochial school.
The Supreme Court originally said no, I am sorry, you have to take
the children down to the fire station, with expense to the school
district or to the parents. That was in 1985. Just recently, the
Supreme Court eventually got around to reversing itself.
The other recent case is where the Supreme Court said, after a number
of years of contrary interpretation, that if a school pays money for
some student publications, then it ought also to have to pay money for
a school publication by students who have formed a group that is
religious in nature.
But look what I have just gone through--two Supreme Court opinions
that bind us today that are, in my judgment, quite wrong (that you may
only put up a Christmas scene if you have reindeer and that students
may not invite a religious speaker who chooses to pray at the
commencement address), and two other cases that could have been wrong,
but for one Justice.
What we do today is to protect the expression of religion, that it be
as fairly allowed in our country as the expression of a political point
of view, and we do it the constitutional way.
To those of my colleagues of very good intent who say we must never
amend the first amendment, I put to them, please, walk out of our
Chamber and look across the street, and they will see the Supreme Court
of the United States, where they amend the first amendment regularly.
What is wrong with us following the constitutional method, the
constitutional route, for doing so?
Let me conclude by saying what is tremendously right about this
amendment. If we do not vote for this amendment today, the only way for
the States to propose amendments to the Constitution is through a
constitutional convention, and then the entire Constitution is open,
whereas if we take the narrowly drawn restrictions of the amendment
before us today, that is all we put to the States.
We stand in the way of the States' consideration of this amendment. I
believe we should vote in favor, to allow the States to amend our
federal constitution to guarantee that religion will be on the same
level as political speech in our country.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in 1994 we got a new
majority in this body. They came saying that they were part of a
conservative revolution. They were going to be conservative. Who would
have ever guessed that that conservative group would have introduced
118 amendments to the United States Constitution? Who would have ever
guessed that that conservative group would have voted on 10 amendments
in one session, 10 amendments to the Constitution in one session of
Congress more than the whole 10 sessions of Congress leading up to it?
And they called themselves conservatives, protecting conservative
philosophy. They must believe that they are smarter than the Founding
Fathers.
So here we are today. We can either have George Washington or we can
have Istook. We can have Alexander Hamilton or we can have Istook. That
is the choice we have. They say they can draft it better, when our
Founding

[[Page H4097]]

Fathers said it in 10 words: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion.'' They take 86 words to say that they are
doing the same thing, using the same word, ``establish.''
If the Supreme Court is having trouble understanding what
``establish'' means in the existing Constitution, how are they going to
understand it any better in this Constitution? If the Supreme Court is
having trouble deciding what it means to discriminate under the
existing Constitution, how are they going to have less trouble
understanding it under this Constitution?
If the Supreme Court is going to have trouble understanding what it
means to deny equal access under the existing Constitution, how are
they going to find out, all of a sudden, because the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) drafted 86 words, and the words of our Founding
Fathers were not sufficient? It is a cavalier notion to think that we
somehow have a better insight into how to deal with this, with the same
words, I might say, than the Founding Fathers.
This is not a conservative proposition we are about, here. Amending
the Constitution of the United States is a revolutionary principle.
Amending the Constitution is a revolutionary proposition, so they can
be true to part of what they said. They said they were going to be a
revolution, and they can have a revolution, but if they are true to
their word that they are going to be part of some conservative
revolution, the principle there is to uphold the most conservative
document of our country, the United States Constitution.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has done such a lot of good
work on this amendment, and has taken a very courageous stand.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, America already has a religious freedom
amendment. It was not written by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook), and passed through this House after less than 1 day of
committee hearings and 2 hours of floor debate. Rather, it was written
by Mr. Madison of Virginia, after debating with Mr. Jefferson for well
over a decade, 200 years ago. Those 16 words that begin the first
amendment of our Bill of Rights have served this Nation extraordinarily
well. We should not change it for the first time today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the things I have
heard on the other side of this debate today. First, I have heard that
prayer and God have been taken out of our schools. In fact, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) this morning in a debate with me
said the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) wants to take God out of
our schools. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
and others that the God I deeply worship and pray to cannot be taken
out of any classroom, anyplace, anywhere in America, any time, not by
the Supreme Court, not by any Member of this Congress.
I have heard it said that we are talking about, as we change the Bill
of Rights, student-initiated prayer. I must wonder, that begs the
question, are we going to have committees of 8-, 9-, and 10-year-old
schoolchildren in the first, second, and third grade with the
responsibility to defend the constitutional rights of the other
children in that classroom? Children who have a hard time picking up
their toys at home are going to be laid with the burden of protecting
the constitutional rights of other children in their schoolhouses?
We heard this will be voluntary prayer. There is nothing voluntary,
Mr. Speaker, about an 8-year-old Jewish child who, because of his
faith, must leave a classroom every morning, since 99 percent of the
other children in that classroom and 99 percent of the prayers in that
classroom are Christian.
There is nothing voluntary about a Christian child having to leave
because his parents do not want him to be forced to listen in a
classroom that the law says he must attend, in most States, must listen
to an Islamic prayer, or some other prayer.
We have heard a lot about tolerance from the other side, Mr. Speaker.
Let me tell the Members about the kind of tolerance that has been
engendered by the supporters of the Istook amendment.
The Christian Coalition sent out this letter in my district: ``The
Edwards bigotry'', and they were saying my bigotry because I simply
opposed the Istook amendment, ``The Edwards bigotry directed at
Christians and other people of faith is outrageous and must be stopped.
His attitudes have no place in Texas or anywhere in America.''
Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would be accused of being un-American
because I stand with Jefferson and Madison in defense of that wonderful
Bill of Rights. That is not the kind of tolerance we should have. If
this is the kind of tolerance and respect we are going to have for
diverse religious and political views in every classroom across
America, that is the kind of divisiveness our schoolchildren do not
deserve.
I have heard that the modern day Supreme Court, the liberal Supreme
Court, has somehow prostituted the original intent of our Founding
Fathers. Let me first point out that seven of the nine Justices of the
modern day Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Presidents,
including that well known liberal, President Ronald Reagan.
Let me point out that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and I
do not have the right to change the Bill of Rights every time we
disagree with a court decision. Had we maintained that belief, there
would not be a Bill of Rights.
If we pass this today, what is next? Do we amend the freedom of
speech, the freedom of association? I ask Members to vote against the
Istook amendment. The Bill of Rights have served this Nation well for
207 years.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, we are closing the debate on general debate,
but we will have a further discussion about a proposed amendment in
just a moment. I think it is very important that we keep in mind, Mr.
Speaker, that I have heard many people say, we do not want majority
rule. That raises a lot of questions in people's minds, because most of
the Supreme Court decisions which will be corrected by the Religious
Freedom Amendment were decided by the narrowest of all possible
margins, 5 to 4 on the Supreme Court. But they refused to correct it.
They have refused to fix it.
So I guess they do not want the majority of Americans to rule, they
only want the slimmest possible majority on the Supreme Court to
dictate and say that, in today's era of political correctness, there is
not much worse than having somebody offer a prayer if there is someone
else in the room that does not want to hear it.
What a false standard. It is not just about freedom of religion, it
is about free speech. If we cannot say something to a group unless
everybody there agrees with us, we do not have free speech.

{time} 1500

And if we are told that we cannot offer a prayer when we are on
government property, and that is everywhere today, then we do not have
the right to pray and we do not have religious freedom, if we only have
it when we are in a confined area, selected for us by the U.S. Supreme
Court. We are not advocating government interfere with religion. We are
advocating that government stop interfering with religion and stop
dumping on the constitutional rights.
Now, I heard the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) say, how
will the Court understand this any better than the first amendment?
Because we have taken the same structure and said, do not have an
official religion, but this is what the people's rights are. And we
have spelled out what is permitted.
And I noticed, maybe it was a Freudian slip, the gentleman read the
first part of the first amendment, ``Congress will make no law
respecting the establishment of a religion,'' and he entirely

[[Page H4098]]

left out the next phrase, ``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
Because that is what the Supreme Court has done. They have left out the
second part of the first amendment.
They have only focused on there cannot be an establishment of
religion; and having a prayer in school is the same thing, the same
thing as having an officially chosen church for people in the country;
and they leave out the next part of the first amendment that says we
cannot not prohibit the free exercise of religion. They are so scared
that somebody will be offended that they forget that they have offended
almost everybody in the process.
How about the people that want to be able to pray in a group? The
Lord taught us not only to pray in private and singly but also to pray
together. And if my colleagues do not believe that, read the Sermon on
the Mount and see where He prayed with multitudes, not just singly or
in private.
Mr. Speaker, we believe in traditions of prayer that are both private
and public. They are both good. They are both positive. They are both
what should be protected by the Constitution of the United States of
America.
The Supreme Court has wrongly said we are only going to protect it
when it is private or in secret and nobody else knows about it. We want
to be able to come together. Come let us reason together. Come let us
pray together.
As four Justices in many of those 5-4 decisions wrote, nothing,
absolutely nothing is so inclined to foster among religious believers
of various faiths a toleration, no, an affection for one another, than
voluntarily joining in prayer together. Justices Rehnquist, Scalia,
Thomas and White. That is the standard we seek to apply.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Istook
Amendment. The First Amendment already guarantees the Nation religious
freedom. Do we really need another guarantee? The Istook amendment is
both unnecessary and dangerous. This Amendment is an attack on the
balance struck by two centuries of jurisprudence on the separation of
church and state. Indeed, this amendment would put American religious
liberty at risk.
It seems to me that the Founding Fathers thought a thing or two about
religion. And they felt so strongly about it being a good thing that
government should leave it alone--that it is a personal matter. Indeed,
they told us that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion.'' But today, proponents of this amendment
want to make some law on the subject by changing the Constitution. I
can only assume that many of the supporters of this language desire to
further the Founding Fathers' notion that religion is good. However,
that is where they part company.
The Founding Fathers realized that an important, if not the most
important aspect of any faith, is to have the freedom to pursue it as
one desires. Indeed, it is curious to me that advocates of the virtues
of this amendment would go about advancing religion in a fashion that
would effectively force religion on Americans in many settings,
including our students in their classrooms. Compulsion controverts
freedom. Freedom is vital to our democracy. And that freedom is what
has allowed religion to prosper here for all these years. Moreover,
what seems to be most religiously constructive is for an individual, if
at all, to come to a belief on one's own accord. This amendment would
permit an opposite result.
The result of this amendment would be that teachers, judges,
generals, and wardens could hold prayer sessions with their respective
audiences and limit such prayers to their own or the majority faith of
the surrounding community. And it doesn't take much to see that, under
this amendment, some actions would be permitted which heretofore have
been limited by other powers under the Constitution. For example, could
a group of high school students engage in sexual activity on school
grounds because their particular faith has taken a literal
interpretation of the Biblical passage in Genesis instructing humanity
to go forth and reproduce? The answer under current law is clear: No.
With the amendment, litigation could result because the students' acts
might be protected from ``infringement'' or ``discrimination'' by this
legislation.
On the matter of prayer in the classroom, government-supported school
prayer would make strangers of children who do not share the same
beliefs as are being prayed in their own schools. Religious minorities,
especially, would suffer. As a practical matter, it is nearly
impossible for students who wish not to participate to feel comfortable
leaving the classroom. Students will be whip-sawed: excuse yourself and
feel ostracized or stay and feel uncomfortable. The prayers could be
lead by government officials. Whose prayers could be required for your
children? Bahai, Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, liberal, conservative, or
Orthodox, Greek or Russian, Muslim, or Mormon.
Already, current law allows for prayer and other religious expression
in public schools. This amendment is unnecessary. Students' religious
rights are already protected. They can pray individually or in groups
and discuss religion in groups. In addition, under the Equal Access Act
Congress passed more than a decade ago, schools must give extra-
curricular student religious organizations ``equal access'' to space,
time, and resources that is provided to non-religious groups.
Regarding religious institutions, this amendment would permit, if not
require, government funding. This is not a proper role of government.
Government should not be medding in the affairs of institutions of
faith or religion. It would violate the conscience of the American
taxpayer who would not choose to support the religions that are aided
in such fashion. Already, organizations that are religiously
affiliated, like Catholic Charities, but which are not pervasively
sectarian, can and do receive government grants for social programs as
long as they do not advance religion or discriminate or the basis of
religion. The amendment would allow taxpayer resources to go to
persively religious institutions that would be able to use the funds
for their own purposes.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution should only be amended in rare
circumstances and only where necessary. My Republican colleagues view
matters differently and propose amendments like this one for political
purposes, after only one day of hearings. The reasoned and better
approach is not to dismantle our Founding Fathers' wisdom in the Bill
of Rights with this amendment. Ours is a proud experiment that has
permitted religious freedom to flourish in this country, and we should
not change that with a politically-motivated attack on that very
freedom.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose House Joint Resolution
78, the so-called ``Religious Freedom Amendment.'' This proposed
constitutional amendment would obliterate the separation of church and
state and would result in government-sanctioned worship, taxation to
benefit religion, and majoritarian oppression.
In order to serve its own interests, the radical right is overlooking
what is already current law. Religious expression is protected by the
First Amendment, and private religious expression is legal everywhere,
including public schools. Under the First Amendment, students can pray
silently at any time and even aloud in groups so long as they are not
disruptive. Student-led religious clubs can meet on school property to
pray and study Scripture. Religious speech in the public square already
abounds.
We learned at the beginning of this Republican-led Congress that the
government does not hand out money without strings attached. This
proposed Amendment to our Constitution goes much further by permitting
a wide array of government-sponsored religious expression. It would
allow state endorsement and financial support for religious activity
not only in schools, but on all public property, including government
offices, court houses, and military bases.
It is coercive and vain to impose religion, to require our government
to recognize or single-out one faith from another when it is one of
thousands of beliefs, faiths, doctrines, and creeds. Allowing
government to endorse religion in this way turns religion into a
political tool and sends the message that those who do not hold a
certain faith are outsiders--and not full members of the political
community.
Nearly every mainstream religious group, including the Baptists, the
Presbyterians, the Muslims, the Unitarians, the Episcopalians, the
Lutherans, and the entire Jewish community oppose this amendment. It is
clearly supported by a radical religious minority who seek public
endorsement of what should be a private affair.
Rather than promoting religious liberty, the ``religious freedom''
amendment presents a grave peril to the crucial principles protecting
religious liberty that are part of the framework of American law. What
is not broken needs no repair.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant
opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. I have always and
will always support voluntary school prayer. I believe the right of all
people to worship according to the dictates of conscience is
fundamental. Reviewing this amendment, however, I am not convinced
amending the Constitution is the right answer to bring prayer back to
our schools.
As some constituents in my congressional district have pointed out to
me, a Constitutional amendment could do more harm than good. It is
quite possible that, if enacted, this amendment could even be used to
force children to be subjected to religious briefs well out of the
mainstream. At the very worst, this amendment could be used to shoehorn
cult-beliefs into our schools. One thing is for certain, enacting this
amendment would result in

[[Page H4099]]

even more litigation on religious questions going before the same
liberal-leaning judiciary.
I have long supported refining the law to allow maximum room for
religious expression. You may remember the House of Representatives
passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 with my positive
vote. But I have been repeatedly dismayed by judicial decisions on
religious questions, most recently by the Supreme Court decision in
Boerne vs. Flores which overturned the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act. I am pleased, however, with the results of the Equal Access Act of
1984 and at least one 1990 Supreme Court decision which got it right.
As a result, we now have thousands of voluntary student prayer groups
flourishing around the country in public schools as a result.
This is a subject which is very important to me, and I have given it
a great deal of thought. It is with reluctance I can not support House
Joint Resolution 78, an amendment to the Constitution. Nevertheless, I
will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to find statutory
remedies for mistaken decisions of the courts regarding religion.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 78, the Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment. This
amendment, which proposes to dramatically alter the First Amendment to
the Constitution, is simply unnecessary.
Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about preserving the complete
freedom of religious expression that is part of what makes this nation
great. I also believe that the First Amendment of our Constitution has
safeguarded this freedom for over 200 years, and continues to do so
today. The First Amendment maintains the delicate balance between the
church and state established by the Founding Fathers, and House Joint
Resolution 78 threatens this hard-won balance by unnecessarily amending
the Bill of Rights of the first time in our nation's history.
However, I do recognize the concerns of several of my colleagues
about the impact of certain court decisions on religious expression.
Unfortunately, no court can be completely free of human error when
interpreting the Constitution. I believe, as do most of my colleagues,
that religious expression does have a place in public life. Prayer
should not be prohibited in graduation ceremonies. Valedictorians
should not be prevented from mentioning God in their speeches. Children
should be allowed to engage in voluntary prayer in schools, or anywhere
else. By passing House Joint Resolution 78 would not protect religious
liberty any more effectively than the First Amendment already does.
Ironically, House Joint Resolution 78 does more to restrict religious
freedom than it does to preserve it. By forbidding federal and state
governments from denying ``access to a benefit on account of
religion'', House Joint Resolution 78 encourages religious
organizations to complete for government funding. Because all groups
cannot be funded equally, the awarding of government funds represents
unofficial government sponsorship of religious organizations. This is
the very situation the First Amendment was enacted to prevent.
Government funding of religious groups allows government hands into the
workings of these groups, makes them financial dependent on government
funds, and is just as bad idea.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that House Joint Resolution 78 needlessly
tampers with out nation's strong tradition of the protection of
religious liberty. We do not need to amend the Bill of Rights for the
first time in our nation's history to protect religious freedom in this
country, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. CLAY, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure because
its clear intent is not to ensure the freedom to engage in religious
activity on public property, but rather to open the door to the
diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars from public schools to
private religious schools.
I find it ironic that after three failed attempts to get school
voucher legislation enacted during this Congress, the Republican
majority is now pushing a constitutional amendment that would make
public funding of religious schools lawful. We repeatedly told the
majority it was unlawful during the floor debates on the various
voucher bills, but they rejected our claim and the court decisions that
supported it. I am pleased the majority now admits that their voucher
scheme was legally flawed, but I continue to oppose direct Federal
funding of religious institutions.
The amendment before us states that neither the Federal Government
nor any State could deny equal access to a benefit on account of
religion. This would mean that whenever public funds are being
dispensed to a non-sectarian organization for a program or activity, a
religious organization would be entitled to make a claim to the same
funding. The religious organization would be free, however, to
integrate their philosophy and practices with its service delivery--
something that many taxpayers seeking services might find
objectionable. But, as a result of this amendment, these organizations
would have a constitutionally protected right to do so, no matter
whether the focus of the program or activity is education, health care,
housing, or criminal justice.
Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers did not believe it appropriate for
the Government to subsidize religious activity. I believe that, today,
this remains a wise policy. The first amendment to the Constitution has
served the Nation well for over 200 years by protecting religious
expression while also prohibiting Government entanglement in religious
practices. This delicate balance should not be disturbed.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 78 which would amend the constitution to allow prayer in
public buildings, including prayer in public schools.
Of the thousands of issues I have debated and cast votes on as a
Congressman, none has been more volatile and contentious, nor has any
decision been more agonizing than this, because it touches on religious
beliefs and practices which are at the very core of our lives. And it
is precisely because of the great importance of this issues, to me and
to my constituents, that I must oppose this constitutional amendment.
There are three reasons for my opposition.
First, the language of H.J. Res. 78 is seriously flawed, will not
accomplish what its authors intend, and may in fact invite the very
result--government intrusion into private religious beliefs and
practices--which its supporters hope to outlaw. Two distinguished
constitutional scholars, whose legal and conservative credential are
unquestioned, submitted testimony at House Judiciary Committee hearings
held on this resolution last summer, and each drew the same conclusion:
H.J. Res. 78 is fundamentally and, in their view, fatally flawed.
Consider the observations of Professor Michael W. McConnell of the
University of Utah College of Law, ho said: ``. . . the supporters of
this amendment are to be commended for continuing to focus public
attention on the importance of religious freedom . . . [but] the
multiple ambiguities in the current proposal make it an unacceptable
vehicle for accomplishing its intended purpose.'' And the statement of
Michael P. Farris, a constitutional lawyer and President of the Home
School Legal Defense Association, who said: ``I am in full accord with
the principle goals of [the resolution's] supporters. I want to fully
invigorate the right of the free exercise of religion. I simply point
out that I do not believe this language achieves the goals of its well-
intentioned supporters in either the free exercise or establishment
arena.''
Second, three recent Supreme Court decisions have substantially
strengthened the freedoms at issue in this debate: The Court held that
private religious speech is a right entitled to as much constitutional
protection as private secular speech (Capitol Square Review & Advisory
Board v. Pinette (1995)); that it is unconstitutional for a public
institution to deny benefits to an otherwise eligible student
organization on account of the religious viewpoint of that
organization's publications (Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the
University of Virginia (1997)); and that its earlier decision
forbidding certain types of educational assistance to children
attending religiously affiliated schools should be reversed (Agostini
v. Felton (1997)). According to Prof. McConnell, the reach of these
decisions, along with similar rulings in the U.S. Court of Appeals,
``represent a major step forward, and in fact solve a majority of the
problems with [this] constitutional doctrine . . . '' In short, the
resolution's broad and ambiguous language would, if adopted, threaten
the reasonable gains which these recent Court decisions embody.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, though, I believe that any
constitutional amendment--but especially one such as this which is so
central to who we are as a nation and as individuals--should endure
debate, examination and scrutiny of the most rigorous standard before
it is ratified by lawmakers and the people we represent.
It is no accident that, despite hundreds of attempts, the
Constitution of this beloved nation has been amended a mere 27 times
since its ratification in 1789, and 10 of those were ratified at once
as the Bill of Rights. The original authors understood the importance
of this document, and possessed the wisdom to write it as a timeless
testament to freedom from oppression and tyranny, political and
religious. As I reflect on this blessed history, I harbor no doubt
whatsoever that each and every one of those men beseeched his God--the
same God to whom we turn every day for guidance--to bestow on him the
wisdom to understand the profound historic moment they were creating
with His helping hand. That guidance served them well then, serves us
well now, and requires no constitutional amendment upon which to draw
its strength and purpose.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, after much reflection and careful
consideration, I must rise

[[Page H4100]]

in opposition to this resolution, a constitutional amendment intended
to preserve the freedom of religious expression. This is not a decision
I make lightly, and because of the complexity of this issue, I feel
compelled to share with my colleagues my thoughts and concerns.
Like most Americans, and I am sure like all of my colleagues, I
believe very deeply in our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
Amending this document and altering in any way its fundamental
principles, which have guided this nation through centuries of growth
and change, is something to be done only in the rarest of
circumstances. I have been extremely reluctant to tamper with the
delicate balance of political and moral tenets embodied in the
Constitution, and I am not prepared to do so today.
For 200 years, the First Amendment has guaranteed the protection of
all Americans from government intrusion on religious freedom. Under
this amendment, students currently enjoy significant opportunities for
religious expression within the school environment. School children are
free to say grace before lunch, pray privately, read the Bible during a
study period, distribute religious materials to their friends and join
voluntary religious clubs. I strongly support a moment of silence in
schools, during which students could pray, reflect or meditate
according to their own beliefs and desires. However, Representative
Istook's amendment would go much further by permitting organized prayer
and other sectarian activities in public schools, as well as in other
public arenas such as courtrooms and government offices. We cross a
dangerous line when we move from respecting a student's right to pray
in private to imposing a particular kind of prayer or expression of
faith on a group of students regardless of personal choice.
Under the First Amendment, government is not permitted to entangle
itself in the affairs of religious institutions. This is a fundamental
safeguard which has allowed many religions to flourish in this nation
and has provided religion with a large measure of autonomy from
government influence. Rather than preserve this separation, the Istook
amendment would permit, or even require, the government to fund
religious activities on the same terms as secular activities. It would,
in essence, allow the use of tax money to advance particular religions,
without regard for the personal, spiritual beliefs of individual
taxpayers. Furthermore, once religious organizations begin to receive
government assistance, they become subject to government restrictions,
further infringing upon the fundamental guarantees of the First
Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, my faith and religious convictions are deeply held. I
unequivocally support the right of all Americans to practice and
express their personal religious beliefs and the right of all students
to worship privately in a school setting. However, I believe that we
already have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which guarantee these
freedoms. We must remain vigilant and ensure that government continues
to respect and protect the freedom of religious expression that has
been enjoyed in America for over 200 years. But we must not allow
government to become entangled with religion in such a way that the
delicate balance constructed by our Founding Fathers is upset. I will
therefore vote against this amendment, secure in the conviction that
the deeply personal choices inherent in religious faith should remain
not with government, but with the individual where they belong.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 78,
the Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment. I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of this bill and would like to thank the author,
Congressman Istook, and Judiciary Chairman Hyde for their hard work on
this critically important issue.
President Reagan once remarked, ``The First Amendment of the
Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from
religious values; it was written to protect religious values from
government tyranny.'' President Reagan recognized that the Founding
Fathers did not intend for the First Amendment to limit or prohibit all
religious expression in public life, which has been the unfortunate
interpretation of liberal courts and high-minded bureaucrats. The
courts and bureaucracies have systematically eroded our First Amendment
right, which is why the legislation before us today is so necessary.
One of the most glaring injustices resulting from liberal court
rulings is the restriction of voluntary school prayer. It is a disgrace
that the law actually discourages children from religious expression. I
have authored a Constitutional Amendment, H.J. Res. 12, to reaffirm the
right to voluntary school prayer, and H.J. Res. 78 would also achieve
this important goal.
I urge a strong yes vote on the Religious Freedom Constitutional
Amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res.
78, a Constitutional Amendment restoring religious freedom, of which I
am a cosponsor, because I believe strongly that it is necessary to
restore the rights of individuals to freely express their religious
convictions wherever they may be: the workplace, a school, or on
government property.
It is essential that we ensure the religious liberties guaranteed in
the Constitution to all Americans. I believe that in many instances,
the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction and, in response to
fears of lawsuits, government and school officials have been overly
restrictive and, in many cases, have denied individuals their
Constitutional rights to express their religious views in the public
sphere. Also, in the workplace some employers have silenced religious
expression because of fear of lawsuits by employees who are intolerant
of religious expression.
It is wrong for a teacher to give a child a failing grade because the
child chose to write their school assignment on Jesus Christ. It is
also wrong to stop a child from saying a blessing over their meal at
the school cafeteria. Also, it was wrong for the courts to rule that a
moment of silence at public school is unconstitutional because it could
be used by students for silent prayer. These acts have silenced
religious expression and run counter to the First Amendment.
This Constitutional Amendment declares that people have a right to
pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, traditions, and heritage
on governmental property and in schools. In addition, it states that
the government cannot require people to participate in religious
activities, discriminate against religion, initiate or designate school
prayers, or deny equal access to a benefit because of a religious
affiliation. I rise in full support of this amendment which will remedy
the damage done by past court decisions that have silenced religious
expression.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution
offered by my good friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Istook. Our first Congress
carefully drafted the First Amendment of the Constitution to include
special protections for religious freedom. The government may not
impose or establish religion, nor may the government restrict
individuals from practicing their religion.
I believe that the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act
adequately protect religious liberty in public schools and other public
places. The Supreme Court already permits voluntary, individual prayer
in public schools. Given the degree to which American school children
and their teachers enjoy the right to freedom of religion, the proposed
constitutional amendment seems entirely unnecessary.
My opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment does not
reflect hostility toward religion. To the contrary, I am sure that all
citizens treasure the religious freedom we enjoy in our country. For
well over 2000 years, the First Amendment has guaranteed our right to
worship as we choose, while at the same time guaranteeing our right to
be free from religious coercion, We already have a ``Religious
Freedom'' amendment, it is the First Amendment, and it has served our
nation well.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Istook
Amendment. I believe prayer, reflection and spiritual observation are
important individual liberties--liberties that are already protected by
the First Amendment. Our First Amendment freedoms are the basis of our
democratic institution. It is precisely because of these
constitutionally protected freedoms that our country has flourished.
At a time when most Americans want the government to leave them
alone, the Istook Amendment injects the federal government into an
argument where it is not needed--to regulate prayer in our nation's
classrooms. The Religious Freedom Amendment would authorize government-
sponsored prayer; I think this sets a very dangerous precedent. The
government should not be in the business of approving or disapproving
specific prayers in public places--including schools. The government
instead should be working to keep our constitutionally-protected right
to freedom of religion. Today, America's school children can and do
pray in their own schools, during recess, at breaks and before and
after they go to school. The lesson to pray is one taught by their
parents at home, not by their public school teacher.
The Istook Amendment is a threat to preserving our freedom to worship
as we see fit and without government interference. Will schools and the
government begin to decide which prayers and which religions are
``good'' for our children? In my opinion, this opens the flood gates
for community division based on religious beliefs. If a school has a
class of Catholic, Muslim, Baptist and Jewish students, what time do
each of them pray? Are some students excused so that an organized
section of school time can be set aside for a specific religion's
prayer? These children now pray as they are allowed under the First
Amendment. Nothing more is necessary.
I can think of few issues other than school prayer which create such
a debate on this

[[Page H4101]]

House floor and across the Nation. I would like to point out again we
already have voluntary prayer in schools. Quiet moments or periods of
reflection, before school meetings and after-school religious clubs
have been protected by our courts and by Congress. Thousands of
students across the country are exercising their right to express and
debate their religious views at school.
I am also concerned that this amendment could mandate the use of
public funds to support private schools. We have many problems in our
education system. We will have many more if we allow limited tax
dollars to be diverted to nonpublic education. Rather than siphoning
money away from public education, we should focus on fixing the
problems so that all school children will benefit. It is bad public
policy to abandon our federal commitment to public education. What will
happen to students left behind in public schools when their resources
are given away?
Mr. Speaker, America's children have all of the protection they need
without further government oversight of school prayer. I urge my
colleagues to vote no on the Istook Amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this
amendment because I understand the motivation behind the Religious
Freedom Amendment, or RFA, and share its supporter's frustration with
the Supreme Court's misguided applications of the First Amendment.
But the RFA is the wrong means to instruct the Court. In fact, I fear
that should the RFA be ratified, supporters of religious freedom will--
for a short-term gain--jettison the very heritage they seek to protect.
My colleagues, the RFA is not a clarification of the First Amendment,
it is a new amendment.
This becomes clear when we consider the establishment clause of the
First Amendment, which we are today seeking to amend.
The establishment clause states, as it has since 1791, that
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.''
This clause is not without meaning.
Let us first take the term ``Congress''.
This term clearly limits the application of the clause to the federal
legislature, not to the states. In fact many states had established
religion at our nation's founding. Massachusetts, for example, paid the
salaries of the Congregational ministers in that state until 1833--42
years after the ratification of the First Amendment.
Indeed, it was even proposed but then rejected by Congress to
directly apply the religious clauses of the First Amendment to the
States.
In 1876, eight years after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Congress considered a constitutional amendment introduced by Senator
James Blaine of Maine.
The Blaine amendment read: ``No state shall make any law respecting
an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
* * *'' This amendment was debated at length and defeated in the
Senate.
With this clear legislative precedent, one must wonder how the
establishment clause came to be applied to the States.
Well, the fact is that it did not occur until 1947.
In that year, the Supreme Court--for the first time--decided that the
establishment clause should apply to the states.
The Court found--despite a complete lack of historical evidence--that
the phrase ``liberty'' in the Fourteenth Amendment included, or in
their words ``incorporated'' the establishment clause. Keep in mind,
the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified eight years prior to the Blaine
amendment's failed attempt to apply establishment principles to the
states.
Since 1947, the Court--with its newfound power over the states--has
prohibited all 50 states from allowing prayer, Bible reading, and the
posting of the Ten Commandments.
What has the Supreme Court's application brought us? A severe
curtailing of the public expression of religion.
As Mr. Istook has pointed out, in nearly every state of the nation
our local and state officials have come under the control of the
Supreme Court not only out of touch with the Constitution, but also a
Supreme Court with its own policy agenda.
And herein lies my first objection to the RFA.
Rather than keep the control over the public expression of religion
with state and local government--as did the First Amendment until
1947--the RFA legitimizes the Supreme Court's control.
If this amendment is ratified, our states will forever lose their
ability to define the appropriate level of public expression of
religion.
The RFA is not a clarification, it is a new amendment.
So what did the establishment clause prohibit Congress from doing? It
says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion.''
What is an establishment?
Clearly, it refers to the appropriate level of expression of religion
either on public property, by public officials, or through public
funds.
What level of public expression of religion constitutes an
establishment has been the subject of much debate.
Opinions currently range from those, on the one hand, like Justice
Joseph Story in 1833 and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in
1853 and 1854, who believed that establishment means a national church
or denomination, to, on the other hand, the current Supreme Court which
believes that any government action that might advance religion
constitutes establishment.
Whatever the historical meaning of the term ``establishment,'' I have
reservations about the RFA's apparent re-interpretation of that term.
The language of the RFA suggests that any action beyond
``acknowledgment'' or ``recognition'' of God is in violation of
establishment.
Indeed the entire amendment is prefaced on the mere right to
``acknowledge.''
Does this mean that thirty years from now we will be told by the
Supreme Court that mentioning the Bible, or wearing a cross, or
crossing yourself, is prohibited by the RFA because it goes beyond
acknowledgment and into the particular?
Does this mean that school prayers which go beyond simple recognition
will be forbidden?
What about worship?
Time will tell.
Or maybe I should say, a future Supreme Court will tell.
The First Amendment is not the problem. The Constitution is not
broken.
The problem we face is with judicial misinterpretation, or
misapplication, which Congress could address, if it had the will.
What we are really doing here, my friends, is redefining the meaning
of religious freedom which was cherished and flourished until 1947--
when a Supreme Court on its own agenda--ventured into the policy arena.
We are limiting religious freedom under the RFA to the right to
merely acknowledge or recognize.
I do not believe that the RFA will restore true religious freedom in
America.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Resolution
78, the Religious Freedom Amendment. This bill will guarantee that
individuals may recognize and express their religious beliefs, heritage
or traditions anywhere in America, including public schools.
Let me point out that H.J. Res. 78 does not mandate religious worship
in public schools, allow the government to promote religion, or force
people to pay taxes to support religion. In fact, it specifically
states that ``the government shall not require any person to join in
prayer or other religious activity.''
The Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of religion, not freedom
from religion. I find it very disturbing that while the courts support
the rights of everyone from flag burners to Klansmen, activist judges
continue to restrict religious expression anywhere and everywhere in
America.
The Amendment we are debating today is very simple. We are not just
protecting any particular religion or set of beliefs. This amendment
protects the very foundation this nation was built on and it should be
supported by every Member of this body. Mr. Speaker, this is a subject
of deep personal conviction for me. Again, I rise to support the
Religious Freedom Amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). All time for general debate has
expired.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop:
Page 3, line 18, strike ``acknowledge God'' and insert
``freedom of religion''.
Page 4, beginning in line 1, strike ``discriminate against
religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of
religion'' and insert ``or otherwise compel or discriminate
against religion''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 453, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Canady) each will control 30 minutes.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that everyone
understands, the amendment that is offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), which is very worthy of consideration, actually
has two different topics that are addressed in it. I believe under the
Rules of the House that it is proper to request a division when it
comes time to vote so we will have separate vote on the first issue and
then a separate vote on the second one.

[[Page H4102]]

I want to make a parliamentary inquiry if that is correct and if it
is at this time or a later time that I need to make the request for the
division.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may make that request now.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I request that when the vote is called upon
the amendment now before the House, that the question be divided so
that we may vote separately on the first part relating to the mention
of God, and the second part separately relating to benefits.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if this is permissible under the
rule that was adopted for the consideration of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule does not prohibit a division of the
question for the purposes of voting on the amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I request that division.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question on adopting the amendment will
be divided between the first instruction to strike and insert on page 3
and the second instruction to strike and insert on page 4.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very serious and profound amendment. And
as all of the speakers thus far indicated, this is not to be taken
lightly.
I offer an amendment to the Istook amendment. While I am a cosponsor
of Istook, I do believe that Istook can be improved upon to meet some
of the objections raised by the critics. But before I get into the
details of my amendment, I would like to make some general comments.
Many years ago in England, Charles Dickens wrote in his book, A Tale
of Two Cities, that it was the best of times and it was the worst of
times. Today, here in America, I am reminded of those words, for we,
too, have the best yet the worst of times.
On the one hand, times are good. The economy is booming; the stock
market is soaring; employment is up; wages are up; inflation down;
interest rates down; corporate profits up. The deficit is coming down.
The budget is on the way to being balanced. The major crime rate is
down. More people are healthier and have access to health care than
ever before. Things appear to be going well.
But, on the other hand, there are strong indicators that our morals
have decayed and that too many of our children are not learning and
living the high moral values and do not have the respect for human life
and human property.
Youth crime and violence is up. Children are breaking and entering
and stealing guns and ammunition and opening fire on their teachers and
their students, and youngsters angry at parents set fire to the beds
that they are sleeping in, killing them without remorse.
Drive-by shootings in urban and rural areas killing rap stars and
innocent babies persist. Drugs, dropouts, hopelessness, 12- and 13-
year-olds fully believing that they will not live to see their 21st
birthday. Yes, it may be the best of times, but it is also the worst of
times.
When I was a boy growing up in Mobile, Alabama, each and every day
for 12 years I started school with The Lord's Prayer, the Twenty-third
Psalm, the Pledge to the Flag, and My Country Tis of Thee. The stated
moral values that are repeated day in and day out in those passages of
the respect for the flag, the patriotism learned from the pledge and
the song gave generations of students, including me, a foundation of
character, patriotism and love for our country.
That is not so today. For over 30 years with the series of Supreme
Court decisions, the pendulum has swung away from the freedom of
religion that was envisioned and embraced by the Founding Fathers, to a
wall of separation, of hostility and of contempt for the expression of
religious faith in public places, including our schools.
There is now more protection for nude art and pornographic literature
than there is for religious expressions in public places. That, Mr.
Speaker, is simply not right.
So I congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for
leading the effort to restore religious freedom to our public life. I
am a cosponsor of the Istook amendment, and I intend to vote for it.
But I believe that it can be perfected and it can be made just a little
bit better.
The first portion of my amendment, which has been asked to be
divisible, would establish as the amendment's purpose to secure the
people's right to freedom of religion, as opposed to the committee's
version, which would secure the people's right to acknowledge God.
Because God is a term that is used in western religions to refer to a
deity, but other religious faiths use other terms rather than God, such
as Allah or Vishnu or Shiva or Brahma, in the case of Hinduism, or
Kami, in the case of Shintoism. And some such as Taoism do not center
themselves about a deity.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in order to make the Istook amendment
more ecumenical so that it will not be targeted to those of us who
share the Judeo-Christian faith but rather open to reflect the
diversity of all of America's religions, I believe that it would be
appropriate for us to amend that language.
The second part of my amendment would simply remove some of the
language that has been criticized by speaker after speaker today, and
that is the language that is called the equal advice language that
would remove the denied equal advice to a benefit language and prohibit
the United States or any State from requiring any person to join in
prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayer or
otherwise compel or discriminate against religion.
This would eliminate a lightning rod for litigation or what would
constitute equal access. Here we are dealing with something that is
obviously going to cause reasonable minds to disagree. Rather than fret
over that, if we can protect religious expression and carefully
crafting the language so as not to invite disagreement, I believe we
can accomplish the purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have all of the answers to what is happening in
our society today. But I believe that the values that I learned day in
and day out for 12 years reciting those passages of scripture, the
prayer, pledging to the flag and singing My Country Tis of Thee helped
give me a grounding in values and respect that seems to be devoid with
today's generation.
It is my hope that by the adoption of the language in the Bishop
amendment that we would be able to accomplish the purpose of restoring
the right of people to stress their religious heritage and faith in
public places, including schools, without discrimination and without
the ethnocentric or Judeo-Christian emphasis on an anthropomorphic God.
I would ask the Members of this House to consider if they do not feel
comfortable voting for the Istook amendment as drafted, here is
something that they can vote for. It answers the problems that many of
the critics have raised, and it still accomplishes the purpose.
If this amendment is adopted, our Constitution would simply have
these additional words: to secure the people's right to freedom of
religion according to the dictates of conscience, neither the United
States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the
people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs,
heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not
be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any
person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school
prayers or otherwise compel or discriminate against religion.
Here we have it. Fully balancing the right to participate and to
express religious traditions and faith or not to do so. Not tipping the
balance one way or the other.
I would like to ask that Members consider this is not coercive, this
is not a religious test for benefit of government. In fact, we remove
the benefits language altogether. It is clear that there will be no
establishment of a religion. It is clear that people will be allowed to
recognize their beliefs and heritage on public property, including

[[Page H4103]]

schools and that that will not be infringed.

{time} 1515

How will that happen? People say we do not want to embarrass a child.
This will foster diversity. One of the beautiful things about America
is that we have a diverse population. And as early in life as school
children can learn that there are differences that need be respected,
the better we will be and the better they will be as adults. So if they
can learn to hear dissenting or differing views in the proper context
on an equal basis, that would, I believe, stimulate the democratic
principle of diversity and would help us to have a much more congenial
society, helping us to be able to disagree agreeably.
I believe that if we adopt this language, this will take place.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to
acknowledge that the gentleman who is proposing this amendment has been
a supporter of the underlying proposal and I appreciate his support for
this proposal. I respect his motivation in offering these amendments. I
understand that he believes that this is a way to improve and perhaps
make the amendment somewhat less controversial, but I must strongly
oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia,
notwithstanding my respect for his intentions.
I would just ask that the Members focus on exactly what the proposal
of the gentleman from Georgia would do. It essentially has two
provisions, as he has explained. I think if we look at these two
provisions, we should conclude that this amendment is not worthy of
adoption by the House.
The first provision in this amendment would simply remove the
reference to God in the phrase ``to secure the people's right to
acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience.'' It would
take that reference to God out of this proposed amendment to the United
States Constitution.
The other provision that the gentleman has proposed would eliminate
the prohibition on the denial of equal access to benefits on account of
religion that is contained in the amendment.
I believe that both of these proposals would move the amendment in
exactly the wrong direction. I would simply ask Members of the House to
consider, what is the problem with recognizing the people's right to
acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience? I am afraid
that this amendment that the gentleman is proposing fits in with the
prevailing politically correct view that it is somehow inappropriate or
offensive to mention God in our public life. That is one of the things
that we are attempting to combat with this particular amendment.
Again, I am struck by the irony that we would be considering a
proposal to remove God from the underlying amendment as we stand here
in this Chamber debating, when on the wall inscribed above the
Speaker's chair are the words ``in God we trust.''
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is aware that nowhere in our
existing Constitution now does the word ``God'' appear, not even in the
First Amendment. And while we recognize that on our money and in the
Constitutions of most States the word ``God'' does appear, not in the
supreme law of the land, our United States Constitution.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I understand
the gentleman's point, but I think that the fact is that I believe in
all 50 State Constitutions reference to God is made. In our Declaration
of Independence reference is made to the Creator. Throughout our life
as a Nation references have been made to God in public documents and
public events. So to attempt to cleanse the underlying amendment of the
word ``God'' I think is simply moving in the wrong direction and is
inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of this amendment.
I would just suggest to the Members that they look at what this
amendment would do and judge it in light of the history of our Nation
and in light of the 50 State Constitutions.
Turning to the second part of the amendment, which would remove the
prohibition on the denial of benefits on account of religion, I would
simply ask, why should anyone, any individual or any institution, be
denied a benefit on account of religion? Why should we allow that to
take place?
Why should any person or any institution be subjected to a
disadvantage because of that person or institution's religious nature
or religious activity? It seems to me to allow such a policy of
disadvantaging people and institutions simply because they are
religious is the antithesis of our goal of protecting the free exercise
of religion. Indeed, to deny a benefit on account of religion is to
punish the free exercise of religion.
I am not suggesting that the gentleman from Georgia intends to punish
the free exercise of religion. I do not believe that is his intention.
But I would have to submit to the gentleman and to the Members of the
House that I believe that that would be the result, the unintended
result of the adoption of the proposal that he is advancing.
It makes no sense to deny someone or some institution a benefit on
account of religion. That is not what the First Amendment was intended
to do. It is a perversion of the First Amendment that we see court
decisions and other governmental decisions that have had that impact,
and I believe that the underlying amendment, in its provision
prohibiting the denial of equal access to benefits on account of
religion, is very much on target in correcting a very real problem that
exists. I would suggest that we would be stepping very much in the
wrong direction to adopt the gentleman's proposal on this point.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman spoke to the striking of the portion that refers to
God. It is clear that we have more religions in this country, we have a
very diverse country, and that there are a number of religions where
the deity is referred to by a name other than God.
The gentleman and I share a common religious heritage and of course
God is certainly appropriate in our faith. However, there are other
religions which we are duty bound as upholders of the Constitution, in
providing equal protection of all of our laws, to support. For example,
the term Allah in the religion of Islam, which they believe means the
one and only God; or Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma in the case of the religion
of Hinduism; Kami in the religion of Shintoism. Then there is the
religion of Taoism which is not centered around a deity at all.
And with the complete diversity that our country now shares, it would
seem totally inappropriate for us to introduce for the first time into
the supreme law of the land, our Constitution, the word ``God'' to the
point that it would discriminate against all of these other religious
heritages and traditions. For that reason, for that reason only, we
want to make it sectarian, neutral and ecumenical, so that rather than
saying to secure the people's right to acknowledge God, that we say to
secure the people's right to freedom of religion and that protects
whatever that person's religious heritage might be.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's amendment is going to make
some technical changes that are going to make an objectionable bill a
little bit better. It is going to delete provisions saying that
governments cannot deny equal access to benefits on the basis of
religion. But still, in the underlying bill, as it was in 1960 for
President Kennedy, as it is for us today and for the Founding Fathers
when this country was established, there has been a belief in a
separation of the church and State which is absolute.
This amendment is in search of a problem. It is based on the false
premise that the Constitution merely prohibits the establishment of a
national religion. In fact, the first Congress considered and rejected
earlier drafts of the First Amendment that would have simply prohibited
a national religion. So this amendment would effectively permit the
government to sponsor religious expression.

[[Page H4104]]

The Bishop amendment is going to go to make these technical changes,
but the underlying amendment to the Constitution that is being proposed
is an amendment that would effectively permit the government to sponsor
religious expression. Whose prayer will be used? If prayers are read
over the intercom, where do students go who object to prayer going on
during that time? Would the government be required to financially
support religions, and which ones?
The fact remains that religion has not been shut out of the public
square or public school. Court decisions have reaffirmed the right of
private citizens to erect religious symbols in public areas and to have
access to public facilities for religious activities. Under the
Constitution as it stood for the last 200 years, individuals in public
schools and other public places clearly have the right to voluntarily
pray privately and individually, say grace at lunchtime, hold meetings
of religious groups on school grounds, use school facilities like any
other school club, and read the Bible or any religious text during
study hall, other free class time or breaks.
This amendment, the underlying amendment to amend the Constitution,
in fact would significantly harm, not help, religious liberty in
America, and is contrary to our heritage of religious freedom that has
ensured our Nation's current separation of church and state. It seems
very ironic, Mr. Speaker, that in 1960 when President Kennedy was going
around trying to make sure that people understood that there was a
separation, that we seem to be trying to embrace it today.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this
bill to the floor. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
More than 100 years ago our young Nation faced the first great test
in its dedication to the principle that all men are free. In that Civil
War more than 600,000 soldiers gave up their lives, more casualties
than any other war in our country's history, for the moral cause of
ending slavery and securing freedom.
During that war, the abolitionist Julia Ward Howe visited a Union
camp near Washington, and amidst the carnage of war, the valor and
courage she saw there inspired her to write one of our Nation's
favorite songs, the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The final stanza of
this hymn is particularly moving to me:
``In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, with a
glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me. As he died to make men
holy, let us die to make men free, while God is marching on. Glory,
glory, hallelujah.''
Today in this Congress we fight a new moral battle. Through this
battle we will determine whether or not our sons and daughters will be
free to practice their faith in accordance with their conscience and
whether the constitutional guarantees that our Founding Fathers wrote
into that document of religious freedom will live on or will perish.
Over the last 30 years, the Supreme Court has failed to apply the
true meaning of the First Amendment. In case after case the court has
chosen to support not freedom of religion but freedom from religion. It
rulings seek to systematically wipe out any manifestation of faith from
every part of the public sphere.
For example, one of the most endearing memories that I have in my
first term of Congress was when I spoke to a graduating class in Triton
High School at Shelby County, Indiana. Every graduating senior said a
prayer for his or her classmates that day, yet the Supreme Court would
not let them have a minister come and say an invocation.

{time} 1545

That is freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.
In another part of my district, in Parker City, Indiana, the Indiana
Civil Liberties Union sued the local school district to stop a 30-year-
old tradition of staging a live nativity scene during the Christmas
holidays. The court in that case forbade the children from
participating in the nativity scene during school hours and banned the
nativity scene from the school grounds. Again, this is not freedom of
religion, it is freedom from religion.
These battles continue today. In Elkhart, Indiana, the Indiana Civil
Liberties Union is suing once again, this time to remove the 10
Commandments from a pillar that was erected as a monument to World War
II 40 years ago. Again, freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.
The monument in question was donated to the city by the Fraternal
Order of Eagles in a Memorial Day ceremony in 1958. In that ceremony,
local protestant, Catholic and Jewish clergy all spoke and endorsed the
monument. It happens to include two Stars of David, a Pyramid with an
Eye, a Christian Kairos symbol, an eagle and a flag.
What do the opponents have against the 10 Commandments? Is it the
first commandment, ``You shall have no other gods before me''? Or the
second commandment, ``You shall make for yourself no graven image''? Or
the third commandment, ``You shall not take the name of the Lord your
God in vain''? Or is it the fourth commandment, ``Remember the sabbath
day and keep it holy''? Or the fifth commandment, ``Honor your father
and your mother''? Or the sixth, ``Thou shalt not kill''? Or maybe the
seventh commandment, ``You shall not commit adultery.'' Is it the
eighth commandment, ``You shall not steal''? Or the ninth, ``You shall
not bear false witness against your neighbor''? Or maybe the 10th
commandment, ``You shall not covet your neighbor's property.'' What is
it that they oppose from having that posted on that pillar?
America was founded so that all men and women would be free to
worship God. The future of that freedom is at stake in today's vote.
My colleagues, I ask you for a moment, let us put politics aside.
Above us are the words ``in God we trust.'' I ask you to search your
heart and decide whether you will be on the side of freedom or the side
of repression. Will you make the same commitment today that the Union
soldiers of the Civil War made 140 years ago to the freedom of all
human beings?
Let us all, Republicans and Democrats, put aside politics and vote
for the freedom of religion amendment. Let us restore freedom of
religion and not freedom from religion in the Constitution. Let us vote
yes so that when we look back on this day, it will one day be said,
``As He died to make men holy, we lived to make men free.''
God bless you all.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bishop amendment. I do so
because I have basically been taught that the true mark of
statesmanship is to seek common ground and find it, and then
proliferate it and show it so that others can see it.
I believe that that is exactly what the Bishop amendment attempts to
do. It attempts to put in broad perspective the freedoms that we have
in this country to worship as each individual determines. I listened to
the last speaker talk about the idea of freedom to make men holy, to
make men free, to allow each and every individual to do in a way his
own kind of worshiping. The only thing that I have heard today that
actually would do that would be the Bishop amendment.
I would urge my colleagues, those who are in favor, those who are
against the main idea, to look at the Bishop amendment as a way of
providing something for everybody in America relative to religious
freedom. I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit confused. The Istook
amendment I would like if only the Baptists were protected and we can
set the prayer and whatever. But that is not what we are talking about.
But the way I understand it, and I hope the gentleman from Florida is
listening, he objects to taking out the word ``God'' in this amendment.
If you do that, do you exclude the Muslims, do you exclude the
Buddhists or what have you, which is not something that is high on my
agenda, I do not understand those religions, but if the amendment is to
have a freedom of religion,

[[Page H4105]]

and these are classified as religions, they can only have a prayer that
says ``God.''
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, no one is excluded from this
protections of the amendment any more than people or ideas are excluded
by the words ``in God we trust'' here on the wall of this Chamber.
Mr. HEFNER. The point I am trying to get at, we spend lots of money
to get elected to come here. We do not have to come for the Pledge of
Allegiance or whatever. But in these other areas where you are talking
about, these children come and some of their parents are Muslim, all
different kinds. In that context, if the word ``God'' is in there, then
you are excluding some people. It seems to me that you would say that
you will not infringe on the religious beliefs.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, I simply think
the gentleman is mistaken about the impact of the language. No one
would be excluded from the protections of this amendment. All religions
would be protected, all people of faith, and, quite frankly, people not
of faith are protected.
The problem we are trying to get at in this amendment is there has
been a desire to kind of exclude people of faith from the public arena
and any reference to God or faith in the public arena. That is what we
are trying to address. I understand the gentleman's concerns. I simply
do not think they are well founded.
Mr. HEFNER. What I am getting at, a Muslim child or their parents are
Buddhist, they could not say the prayer, could they?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Again, if the gentleman will yield, that is
simply not accurate.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have to point out in response to the gentleman from Florida that it
is clear from the wording of the first sentence of this amendment that
everything that follows is prefaced as its purpose upon securing the
people's right to acknowledge God. This is a technical amendment. I am
trying to help the committee's amendment and the Istook amendment by at
least making sure that no one is discriminated against, that any
religious tradition or belief is protected, not just those people who
want to acknowledge God, whom I would want to acknowledge, but there
are Muslims, there are Taoists, there are Shintos, there are Hindus,
there are Buddhists, there are Zoroasters. All of these religions
deserve the same protections if they are practiced by people who have
the protections of our Constitution.
Unless this language is changed, I believe that this amendment will
be fatally flawed, because it is targeted solely at those people who
believe in God. All I want to do through my amendment is to broaden it
to the point where it protects the freedom of religion, whatever that
religious tradition might be, whether it is the practice of worshiping
God, as I do, or Allah or any of the other of the world's recognized
religions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to start off by saying I have great respect and sincerity for
my friend from Georgia, but I disagree with him on this particular
issue in terms of using the word ``God.'' I think removing the word
``God'' is not just a casual suggestion or a technical correction. It
is a very meaty change to the gist of this.
In fact, what many people want to do is acknowledge God, not to the
exclusion of other religions but to say that God is the head,
regardless of what you call him. We think God is great. We think God is
good. We want to have the word God in there. Guilty as charged.
The words up here that I look at, in God we trust, should we say in
blank we trust? Or maybe instead of saying God Bless America in the
great song, maybe we should say fill-in-the-blank bless America. Or in
the Pledge of Allegiance, one Nation under fill-in-the- blank with
liberty and justice for all.
At some point, you have to say, enough is enough.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have lots of constitutional scholars. People
are coming out of the woodwork as constitutional experts today. I am
glad. I did not know we had 435 of them in this Chamber. It is going to
be something good for all issues from here on out.
But whenever you bring out something simple, like allowing children
in a school to have a student-led prayer for somebody who has a sick
mother or before a football game or before a graduation, you get all
these experts in there. You know, are these things really to be feared?
A prayer before graduation? A prayer before a football game? Somebody's
mother gets sick and you say, let us all pray for Susie's mother who
was in a horrible car wreck. Are these things to be feared?
These prayers will not be headed by the teachers. The school cannot
endorse a religion. The school will not be funding religions. But the
rhetorical terrorists who are against this and generally against school
prayer would have you believe that we are trying to publicly finance
religion. It is not the case.
Vote down this amendment. Vote for the legislation. Let us give our
school kids the right to enjoy prayer before football games.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment of my colleague from Georgia.
However, I must respectfully disagree with him. This is a very
fundamental question of tolerance and fairness.
I think that the intent of this amendment is good. The intent of the
Istook amendment is good. I certainly intend to vote for the amendment,
because I think it is high time that we protect religious freedom.
However, the only way that we can protect religious freedom is to
protect everyone's right to worship in his or her tradition. This use
of the word capital G-o-d, God, is a term that is used in the Judeo-
Christian tradition. It is not used in the Muslim tradition or the
Hindu tradition or the Buddhist tradition or the Taoist tradition or
the Shinto tradition.
For that reason, if we are going to be the land of the free, the home
of the brave, if we are going to allow equal opportunity for all to
enjoy the protections of this amendment and not just those people who
believe in God, then we ought to say, ``In order to secure the people's
right to freedom of religion,'' whatever that religion may be.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Bishop) has 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Inglis) has 17 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP. Do I have the right to close, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No, the gentleman from South Carolina has
the right to close.
Mr. BISHOP. On my amendment, sir?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).
(Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Bishop). He has talked eloquently about a very, very sensitive subject.
There is no question that this amendment improves the bill. However, it
does not change the basic premise of it, that is, a bill which I
basically oppose.
It is hard to sort out the issues here, because both sides claim they
are on the side of the righteous. Since 1995, we have had a religious
equality amendment and a religious liberty amendment, and now we have
got a religious freedom amendment. What are we trying to do? Who are we
trying to help? What are the facts?

{time} 1545

Well, the facts are, as I see them, these:
This is a constitutional amendment. It will alter the First
Amendment's religious clause for as long as we can see; and, thirdly,
it expands government's involvement in religious activities, and

[[Page H4106]]

is this really what we want? When I was elected here in 1986, one of
the premises on which I came down here was to try to get government out
of peoples' lives.
I received a letter 2 days ago from an 83-year-old lady in my
district, and let me just read you part of it:

I remember when there was mandatory prayer in my public
school. Before the prayer, which was recited by the teacher,
those who were non-Christians had to leave the room and stand
in the hall until the prayer was over. I am a Christian, but
I decried this practice then and I do now 60 years later. The
Supreme Court did not take God out of our schools. Parents
have taken God out of their children's lives by not praying
with them. People are screaming to get the government off our
backs, but they turn around now and want the government to
tell our children how to pray, a function which is only
between them and God.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would hasten to point out that there is nothing in the
Istook amendment nor the Bishop amendment that would require that any
school child have to stand outside because they disagreed with a prayer
that was being said. Nothing in this amendment would require such
nonsense, and if it were ever implemented in such a way that require
such nonsense, then I would be the first to urge the ACLU and every
opponent to take the necessary steps to see that those school boards
discontinue such practice.
Mr. Speaker, that would be nonsense to do that, and neither this
amendment, the Bishop amendment, nor the Ishtook amendment would
countenance such conduct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, we are taking an extraordinary and an
unprecedented step even though we are not actually confronted with any
problem. Every study demonstrates that Americans are by far the most
religious people in the industrial world. Students can voluntarily pray
and study scripture in school and other public facilities. Religious
education at church and parochial schools and home is thriving. The
United States remains a beacon and a sanctuary for those seeking
religious freedom.
It simply is untrue to say that students are prohibited from praying
in school. Indeed, Time Magazine just recently devoted an article to
the explosive spread of voluntary student prayer clubs.
Now I understand the sentiments that motivate people in support of
this amendment. Many of us have the feeling that families have
weakened, that morality is not what it once was, that society has
become more violent. But these problems cannot be addressed by
eliminating basic constitutional protections.
Let us not allow legitimate concerns about morality to curdle into an
effort to restrain religious freedom. Americans are already God-fearing
people. There is no reason to make them fear their Constitution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. EDWARDS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, as we debate this
fundamental issue dealing with whether the word ``God'' should be in
our Constitution and the issue of whether there should be funding of
religious organizations with taxpayer dollars, that fundamental issue,
do I understand that under the rules of this bill, that Democrats who
would respect the point of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) but
who would oppose his amendment were not given any block of time? Is
that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time was divided under the rule.
Mr. EDWARDS. So under the rule on this fundamental issue dealing with
the Constitution and the First Amendment, Democrats were not given a
block of time to even debate this issue which, regardless of one's
point of view, is an extremely important debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It was not directed to any one side. It was
divided between the proponent of the amendment and a Member opposed.
Mr. EDWARDS. I understand. Mr. Speaker, I think that makes my point.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important amendment because really it
goes right to the heart of what we are talking about here. What the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) would like to do is strike out the
words ``to acknowledge God'' and to replace them with a more generic
sounding series of words, and really that is sort of the nub of the
issue about this amendment. I think that this is why the underlying
language is the better language rather than the proposed amendment.
The reason for that is this: I think the Founding Fathers fully
anticipated that there would be a public expression of a private faith.
They did not want a public expression of a public faith. They had
experience with that, with the king, and they did not like that. It
turned out to be a corrupt system, really more corrupting the church
than the state.
But they did not want that. They did not want a public expression of
a public faith, but they surely expected a public expression of a
private faith, and that is what we are here debating, is the ability of
Americans to express their private faith publicly, to go to the public
square and to have the rights that everyone else has in the public
square.
Now I think if the Founding Fathers were here present they would
think, now this is rather strange that they are taking time on the
floor to discuss this because surely this is what we intended, a public
expression of a private faith. Why do they need to reiterate this?
Well, the reason is unfortunately a series of decisions and a whole
milieu that is created out of those decisions makes it so that we have
to reiterate this.
The last speaker at this podium said something about the explosive
growth of prayer groups in schools and the ability of students to pray.
Well I think it is interesting. Yesterday I met with a recent graduate
of Riverside High School in Greenville, South Carolina, a young man
named Allan Barton. Allan formed a Bible club at school, and as my
colleagues know, in what some would consider the shiny buckle on the
Bible Belt, that is, my hometown, they were not allowed to meet.
In fact, the principal of the school said, ``Oh, my goodness,
horrors. No, we couldn't do that.'' The school board said they could
not do that, and it took this high school student, Allan Barton,
courageously and not in a militant way, but rather in an appropriate
and a respectful way going before the school board repeatedly to say,
``Please, let us get together as a group of students and study our
Bibles just like the chess club can get together.''
As my colleagues know, it is interesting that again in what some
people would consider the shining buckle in the Bible Belt, it was a
split decision at the school board. It was a close vote as to whether
this student would be allowed to have a Bible club at Riverside High
School. Well, thankfully we won, and yesterday I presented him with a
certificate thanking him for his work on establishing the principle of
religious freedom in Greenville, South Carolina, at Riverside High
School.
Now what I think this indicates is we have come a long way. This
started out saying the Founding Fathers thought we had a public
expression of a private faith. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop)
wants to take out those words and make it more generic so that
basically we are not acknowledging God, we are sort of acknowledging
something generic.
Well, I think that is a mistake because what we are trying to do here
is say clearly to Allan Barton at Riverside High School, ``Allan,
you're right. You obviously have a right to meet equal to the right of
the chess club.''
Now thankfully the school board in Greenville decided to go along
with him, but that was after the Rutherford Institute threatened to
sue, and it should not be that it takes a threat of a lawsuit in order
to enforce our constitutional rights. In fact, we should be able to
exercise those rights without seeking redress to the courts. These are
rights under the Constitution.
So I would ask my colleagues to vote against the Bishop amendment and

[[Page H4107]]

vote for the underlying language because we need to reestablish this
principle.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker apparently is a little bit confused
in suggesting that we would in our amendment take out the word ``God''
and acknowledge something generic. All we are trying to acknowledge in
the language that would be substituted is the title of the very
amendment that we are voting on, the Religious Freedom Amendment, and
we are saying that the purpose is to secure freedom of religion. It is
titled the Religious Freedom Amendment, RFA.
Why that would be ironic or contrary to the desires of people who
want to have the Religious Freedom Amendment passed, I do not know. It
seems to me to make good sense. It is ecumenical. It will support and
protect the religious traditions of all people, not just those people
who believe in the God, capital G-O-D. It would reflect those who
believe in any other deity or no deity.
I personally am Christian. I believe in God, in Jesus. However there
are others who do not, and I respect their right under this
Constitution of the United States to that belief.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on the words
behind you, and I sure do not want to change it to ``In Religious
Freedom We Trust.'' It has the word ``God'' in it. And Lewis Farrakhan,
time after time I have heard him refer to God. When I was in Egypt
President Sadat said, ``Intrahlah,'' which means, ``In God we trust,''
and that was out of his own words ``in God.'' Mostafa Arab on my staff
at National University came to me and asked me, said, ``Duke, can I
pray to my God?'' which was Allah, and I think that is correct. I think
by using the word God, if the gentleman were saying Jesus Christ, then
maybe he would have a point, but we use God for all different
religions, and from what I have heard all different religions use God.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I will yield him
back the same amount of time I consume.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cunningham) has expired.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
In the context of this amendment it is spelled capital G-O-D, which
is specific, as opposed to the context in which the conversation the
gentleman had where it was used, it was a small g-o-d; to my god, it
would be a small g-o-d. In that context it is not universal.
In the context that we want to put it in the Constitution it should
be universal, and that is why we are asking to substitute that language
of the Religious Freedom Amendment, to protect, to secure freedom of
religion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Bishop) has expired.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In Vietnam even Buddhists dispense with the ``God'',
and I do not know of any religion that uses ``God'' with a little G. To
all of us it is a big G just like it is up here, and let us not change
this to religious freedom. Let us keep it ``In God We Trust.''

{time} 1600

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, in Islam, the god is Allah, which means the
one and only god, with a small ``g.''
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the participants for this debate
today. I think this is a very important debate.
Just the other night, all of us were invited to a presentation by the
local public television station. They are doing a three-part series on
the Face of Russia. It was interesting, because the public television
group has gone over there. They spent 5 years making this film. And on
the cover of this invitation, there is a picture, a replication, of the
Holy Icon of Vladimir.
Now, they also asked us to watch an 18-minute video which talked
about Russian culture. In that video, fully two-thirds of the time was
taken talking about the influence of religion on the Russian culture.
Perhaps I was the only one in that audience, knowing that we were going
to have this debate later on this week, who saw the irony, that you
cannot talk about the culture of Russia without a serious discussion of
the effects of religion on that culture. Yet here in the United States
we are almost barred today from having an honest discussion of the
influences religion has had in our culture.
That is why I think this is an important debate.
We can debate, and I think the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop)
is, in effect, saying, yes, it is time that we have this debate; the
courts have gone too far. And we can argue about the language, and
perhaps this amendment will not pass today, but this is not the end,
this is the beginning of a very important debate to return some form of
balance to our public discourse and the influence that religion has on
our culture.
Let me also suggest it was about a year ago that his All Holiness,
Bartholomew, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, came to this
Capitol and received the Congressional Gold Medal. When he gave his
remarks after receiving that medal, he said some very important things.
He talked about religion in the Eastern European continent,
particularly in Russia, and what an influence religion had had.
When his All Holiness closed his remarks that day, he closed with a
very powerful statement, because he said that he had been following the
religion and the effects of communism on religion in the Eastern Bloc,
and he said this, and we ought to all be reminded. He said, ``Faith can
survive without freedom, but freedom cannot long survive without
faith.''
I think that is important for us to discuss as we discuss this
important amendment. This is a very important discussion. It is time
for us to restore balance in the public square and the influence that
religion has had upon our culture.
I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward, and I
thank the gentlemen for the debate.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, thank the committee for
giving us this opportunity to debate this very, very important issue. I
would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his
courage in bringing the matter forward. I would like to thank the
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and his
staff, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and his staff for
the courtesies they have offered to me in helping us get to the floor
with this, as well as the chair of the Committee on Rules and the
Committee on Rules for their kindness and courtesy in helping us
fashion this debate so that we could have a full and thorough
discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I return back to my opening remarks, that it is the best
of times, yet it is the worst of times. We have a great economy, things
are going well, but we also have a society that has deteriorating moral
values. Our youth seem not to have the values of generations past, and
unless we try to recapture those values, our society will be lost.
I believe the 30 years of Supreme Court rulings that have erected
this artificial wall between our religious faith and traditions and our
public life and our schoolchildren has led us down a primrose path to
destruction, and I regret that very much. I hope that through the
passage of this amendment, perfected by the Bishop amendment, that we
will be able to stem that tide and we can move America into the next
millennium with a glorious and bright future.
As I prepare to take my seat and close, I do not know whether this
amendment will pass or not, but I leave you with the words that come
from one of the Hebrew writers in the Book of Chronicles: ``If My
people which are called by My name shall humble themselves and pray and
seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from
heaven, will forgive their sins, and will heal their land.''

[[Page H4108]]

Let us pass a religious freedom amendment. Let us pass the best
possible religious freedom amendment, and hopefully it, in part, along
with our other efforts, will help to heal our land.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). The gentleman from Oklahoma is
recognized for 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, let me begin with the highest words of
praise for the chief Democratic cosponsor of this legislation, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). I have the highest, highest
opinion of his courage, his commitment, his dedication, his efforts.
I know it has been a difficult experience, some of the experiences
which the gentleman has gone through on this, and I appreciate his
efforts to try to make sure that this legislation is in the best
possible form.
As we all know, we are part of the process that includes
consideration of the constitutional amendment not only by the House but
by the Senate, and we go through a perfecting process, trying to listen
at every stage, trying to learn from that.
When I began efforts on this amendment about 4 years ago, we
frequently had meetings with 40 or 50 people at a time to try to get a
multitude of opinions, and some did not necessarily support the effort.
I met with them privately. I met with people who were adamantly in
favor of the status quo and did not want anything done. I still met
with them.
I even went to the national convention of the group which has
financed and pushed so many of these lawsuits. It is a kind of an
offshoot of the ACLU called Americans United for Separation of Church
and State. I accepted an invitation they were gracious enough to extend
to speak to them at their national convention. It was not exactly a
friendly reception. But we have all sought to listen and learn, and the
lesson ought to be that we ought to understand to be tolerant.

As the Supreme Court justices who dissented from these decisions
said, if we will listen to one another, we will develop not just a
tolerance but an affection for each other's faith, rather than trying
to conceal the fact that there are some differences.
Justice Potter Stewart dissented from the original school prayer
cases, saying you cannot conceal the fact that there are differences,
and if you try to conceal it and keep it out of the schools, all you
will do is make the problem worse. And the problem has become worse,
with people saying, I have a right to shut you up because I do not like
the way you may pray or maybe I do not like prayer at all.
Now, the amendments of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), I do
not favor them, but I told the Committee on Rules and everyone for
years, I support his right to offer those and make sure important
issues are addressed.
I believe that we should do what every State in the Union does, which
is have an expressed reference to God in the Constitution. In 42 of the
50 States, they do not say ``creator,'' they do not say ``supreme ruler
of the universe,'' they say either ``God'' or ``Almighty God,'' and I
think that it is proper and in tune with the best traditions of this
country to say the same thing.
There is no functional difference between this and the language of
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), but I do think there is an
important thing that resonates with the American people. Regarding the
language should government benefits be denied to someone on account of
religion, should they? We already have Supreme Court decisions that
permit it. But the Supreme Court has been going back and forth on it.
We have hundreds of millions of dollars each year that go into social
service programs run by churches, including over $1 billion a year to
Catholic Charities, USA. We have Pell grants, student loans and GI
benefits that go not only to public universities and colleges but also
to church ones, whether it be the university where I attended, Baylor
University, or Georgetown or Notre Dame or Southern Methodist or
whatever it might be.
This is nothing new or different. We are not talking about funding
religious activity. But there have been a series of court attacks, and
the court's rulings have been one of these precarious 5-4, and this
time 5-4 in favor of it, and we wanted to preserve that, lest the court
go off and say, we are going to start saying if your group is connected
with a religion you are disqualified from any sort of Federal benefit
program.
So I know that it invites people to try to claim that we are
financing churches, which is not the case whatsoever. We are not
requiring any money to go to any group. We are just saying if the
government funds some activity for some public purpose, then you do not
disqualify somebody from participating just because they may be related
to church.
It might be useful to look at the cover story of Newsweek Magazine
this week, which is about this very thing, how groups fighting crime,
fighting drugs, fighting teenage pregnancy have such higher success
rates if they are based in churches and they are faith-based.
We want those programs to be able to continue, because they are good
and because they work, and they work so much better because they appeal
to values. That is why some people, perhaps, are afraid of prayer in
school, because they say, my goodness, the idea of talking about values
is threatening.
Sure, parents ought to be talking about it. But do we say that
parents, you do your job at home and, by the way, we are going to take
your child away for most of the day and put him in school, where they
do not have the possibility of the same influences and the same values
that you taught at home?
That is the captive audience; not the ``captive audience'' so-called
of someone who says, ``I do not want to hear a prayer; therefore, these
court decisions give me the right to make you stop it.''
What has happened to our society as that has happened? Look at the
guns, the knives, the drugs, the teenage pregnancies in public schools,
and you tell me we do not need to make sure that values are repeated
every time we can?
And you cannot separate them. You cannot separate them from the moral
basis, and you cannot separate a moral basis from a religious basis.
Government should never insist, never, never, never, never, never, that
people have a particular faith or they be compelled to pray, and this
amendment makes sure they never will. But it stops the practice of
government interfering and silencing people.
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to present this. I
urge Members, with or without the Bishop amendments, to vote for the
Religious Freedom Amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for the debate on the amendment has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 453, the previous question is ordered on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
The question on adopting the amendment has been divided between the
first instruction to strike and insert, on page 3 of the joint
resolution, and the second instruction to strike and insert, on page 4
of the joint resolution.
The question is on the first divided portion of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Without objection, after this 15-minute vote on the first divided
portion of the Bishop amendment, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the
minimum time for any electronic vote on the second divided portion of
the amendment.

There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 6, nays
419, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 198]

YEAS--6

Bishop
Davis (IL)
Fawell
Hoyer
Jefferson
Lantos

[[Page H4109]]

NAYS--419

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Furse
Gonzalez
Lewis (GA)
McDade
McKinney
Mollohan
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen

{time} 1633

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Messrs. OXLEY, ANDREWS,
BILBRAY and SOUDER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. Jefferson changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the first divided portion of the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). The question is on the second
divided portion of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a five-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 23,
noes 399, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 199]

AYES--23

Berry
Bishop
Boucher
Clayton
Clyburn
Danner
Ehrlich
Fawell
Fowler
Green
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Klink
Lazio
Martinez
Ortiz
Paul
Payne
Scott
Spratt
Tanner
Watt (NC)
Wynn

NOES--399

[[Page H4110]]

Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Brown (OH)
Dreier
Furse
Gonzalez
Hunter
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McDade
Mollohan
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen

{time} 1643

Mrs. ROUKEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the second divided portion of the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 1645

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the joint resolution, as amended.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Scott

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Scott moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J. Res.
78 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to
all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States within seven years after the date of its submission
for ratification:

``Article --

``Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) will
each be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit simply restates the
first amendment to the Constitution which, as we know, says: Congress
shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Any further amendments to our
Constitution in the guise of protecting religious liberty are
unnecessary.
Mr. Speaker, under current law, students can pray and read the Bible
privately; they can say grace at lunch and distribute religious
materials to their friends and join voluntary religious clubs. The
United States Department of Education has issued guidelines on
religious expression that have been mailed to 15,000 public school
districts in the Nation making it clear that schools are not religious-
free zones.
In those few instance where a student's religious speech has been
unfairly denied, the law already has sufficient remedy. Education is
the key to correcting the mistakes of teachers and educators, not an
attack on the Bill of Rights.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, Congress shall make no laws respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. For
207 years those eloquent words embedded in our Bill of Rights have
protected America's religious freedom. Perhaps the single greatest
contribution of our experiment as a Nation and democracy is the
contribution of the freedom, the religious freedom that we have ensured
to all of our citizens from all backgrounds as a result of these very
words.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have heard Members say they admire the Bill of
Rights. We have heard Members say they cherish the Bill of Rights. We
have heard Members say they respect the Bill of Rights. Well, now all
the Members of this House today will have the right to vote for the
Bill of Rights; and not only the Bill of Rights, but the first 16 words
of the first amendment dealing with religious liberty.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very clear vote. It is very simple. If Members
vote for this motion to recommit, they are voting to endorse the first
16 words of the first amendment. If they vote no and then vote for the
Istook amendment, they are voting to change the Bill of Rights for the
first time in our Nation's history.
But what I would suggest at this moment that the Bill of Rights needs
is not just respect or just those who cherish it or admire it, but the
Bill of Rights deserves Members of this House voting for it. I urge a
vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the first amendment to
the Constitution and the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights have
never been amended. They have served us well for over 200 years. This
first amendment offers us all the protection we need against religious
discrimination and to avoid the strife which has saddled other areas of
the world with religious strife, killings, murders for many years.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and to
reaffirm our belief in the first amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has indicated,
the motion to recommit would simply result in the reenactment of
language that is already in the Constitution in the first amendment to
the Constitution.
As we have discussed repeatedly throughout this debate, those of us
who are in support of the underlying proposal find no fault with the
first amendment to the United States Constitution. We believe that the
framers of the first amendment were wise in the words they chose. The
problem we have is with the interpretation that the courts and various
other government officials have placed on those words of the first
amendment.
Now, the truth of the matter is, if the motion to recommit were to be
adopted, it would simply endorse the status quo. It would simply
endorse all of the decisions that have trampled on the free exercise of
religion in this country. It would endorse a situation which we are
faced with in this country today where students giving commencement
addresses are faced with the prospect of being fined by a Federal court
if they mention the name of God. That is what is going on. That is what
courts in this land are doing, and it is not right.
It is not what the Founders intended. It is not what the framers of
the first amendment intended. It is wrong, it is an injustice, and we
have a responsibility to correct it.
The Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the
Judiciary held hearings all over this country. We heard from more than
70 witnesses. Many of those people who came to testify before the
subcommittee told us of the ways in which their religious freedom had
been trampled on under the status quo, and we need to do something
about it.
Mr. Speaker, we are the people's House. We have a responsibility to
ensure that the rights of the people, the free exercise of religion are
respected in this country. And people who want to reinforce protection
for religious freedom will reject the status quo. They will reject this
motion to recommit and will support the bill.

[[Page H4111]]

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, a vote for the motion to recommit is a vote
for the status quo. It is a vote for all the court decisions that have
restricted religious liberty. It is a vote for the Stone v. Graham case
whereby, 5 to 4, the Supreme Court said the Ten Commandments cannot be
on the wall of a public school. Four justices said they could stay; 5
said they have to come down. If Members vote yes, they are voting they
have to stay down.
A vote for this is a vote for the Lee v. Weisman decision, where they
said that a Jewish rabbi's prayer at a school graduation was
unconstitutional, a 5-4 decision. If Members vote for the motion to
recommit, they are voting for the five Justices that said the rabbi
could not pray with these kids at that graduation. If they vote against
it, they are voting for the four Justices that said it was wrong.
We have had a lot of court decisions. If Members vote for this motion
to recommit, they are endorsing each and every one of them.
They are endorsing the decision where Judge DeMint in Alabama ruled
in Federal court that the schools are permanently enjoined, Members
would be endorsing the court interpretation under which he issued an
order which reads that the schools are permanently enjoined from
permitting prayers, biblical and scriptural readings and other
presentations or activities of a religious nature at all school-
sponsored or school-initiated assemblies and events including, but not
limited to, sporting events, regardless of whether the activity takes
place during instructional time, regardless of whether attendance is
compulsory or noncompulsory and regardless of whether the speaker is a
student, school official, or nonschool person.
That is what they are doing under the misinterpretations of the first
amendment. That is why we need the Religious Freedom Amendment.
If Members want to keep with the current court decisions, tell that
to this first grader, Zachariah Hood, who was told he could not read a
story from the Beginner's Bible that did not even mention God but was
told by a Federal judge he cannot read that story at school. Not
because there is really anything religious about the particular story
he chose but simply because it came from the Beginner's Bible.
That is what the courts are doing and twisting and distorting the
first amendment and what is meant to be a guarantee of religious
freedom in the United States. That is why Members should vote no on the
motion to recommit and yes for the Religious Freedom Amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of
passage of the joint resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 223, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 200]

AYES--203

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--223

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Furse
Gonzalez
Lewis (GA)
McDade
Mollohan
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen

{time} 1714

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). The question is on the passage
of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H4112]]

Recorded Vote

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 203, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 201]

AYES--224

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--203

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Tauscher
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--7

Furse
Gonzalez
Lewis (GA)
McDade
Mollohan
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen

{time} 1724

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Mollohan for, with Ms. Furse
against.

So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the joint
resolution was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________