[Pages H6912-H6920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 2230
HOUSES OF WORSHIP POLITICAL SPEECH PROTECTION ACT

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2357) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit
churches

[[Page H6913]]

and other houses of worship to engage in political campaigns.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2357

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Houses of Worship Political
Speech Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS, ETC.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``and which does not'' and inserting
``except in the case of an organization described in section
508(c)(1)(A) (relating to churches), which does not'', and
(2) by inserting before the period ``and, in the case of an
organization described in section 508(c)(1)(A), no
substantial part of the activities of which is participating
in, or intervening in (including the publishing or
distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf
of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to expenditures made after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Hart). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Lewis) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of legislation
introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) to protect
the first amendment rights of men and women of faith across America.
Our Nation's pastors, priests, rabbis and clerics should be free to
express their political opinions just as every other American is free
to do so.
Unfortunately, many church leaders today are afraid to voice their
political opinions because they fear that the IRS may revoke their tax-
exempt status. This is exactly what happened to a church which
criticized the views of then Governor Bill Clinton in 1992. Should any
American have to forfeit their first amendment freedom of speech just
because they have a religious affiliation? I certainly hope not.
The legislation before us attempts to recognize the need for an
appropriate separation of church and state while not silencing the
opinions of religious leaders in the process. Many conservative church
leaders in particular have voiced concerns that they may be targeted by
the IRS if they simply inform their parishioners of a candidate's
position on an issue. These religious leaders point out that the IRS
has recently investigated a number of conservative groups while leaving
unscathed liberal churches which actively promote a candidate or
political party.
Madam Speaker, this is wrong. During the 2000 election campaign,
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a liberal
special interest group, sent letters to houses of worship across the
country warning them against distributing Christian Coalition voter
guides lest they be in danger of losing their tax-exempt status. This
type of action has a chilling effect on political speech due to the
current ambiguity of the Federal Tax Code.
The gentleman from North Carolina's (Mr. Jones) bill will go a long
way towards clarifying the tax law with respect to religious
institutions and their participation in the political process.
Madam Speaker, at a time when our society can most benefit from a
wide diversity of views informed by faith and conscience, we should be
doing everything we can to promote freedom of speech by both religious
and secular institutions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
From the outset, Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear that this
piece of legislation that we are considering tonight never was voted
out of the subcommittee or the full committee of the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House. There was only a hearing in the Subcommittee on
Oversight.
Madam Speaker, the sponsor of this bill will have us believe that
they are merely protecting free speech, but do not be fooled. This
legislation has one purpose and one purpose only, to allow our houses
of worship to become vehicles for partisan political activity.
As someone who stood alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the
other great leaders of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, I can
tell my colleagues that they would be dismayed by this legislation.
During the civil rights movement, we fought to end legal segregation
and break down barriers to political participation. The church was the
heart and soul of our efforts because ministers had the moral authority
and respect to stand against immoral and indefensible laws, bad laws,
bad customs, bad tradition.
Ministers who led the civil rights movement did not select political
candidates and operate our churches like political action committees.
Although their churches and leaders faced violence and hatred for their
efforts to protect human rights and human dignity, they were free and
even protected by the Constitution to speak out on these issues. At no
time did we envision or even contemplate the need for our houses of
worship to become partisan pulpits.
Make no mistake, partisan politics has its place. President John F.
Kennedy once said that both major parties today serve the national
interest, but when party and officeholder differ as to how the national
interest is to be served, we must place first the responsibility we owe
not to our party or even to our constituents, but to our individual
consciences.
Madam Speaker, in this matter we owe our allegiance to our individual
consciences, and we owe it to those ministers and the other religious
leaders and churches and institutions who speak out on the issues to
protect them. Our religious organizations should continue to be places
that ministers, priests and rabbis, and imams give moral and spiritual
guidance. We should not allow them to be transformed into institutions
that tell their members and their parishioners how to vote.
If this legislation is allowed to stand or pass, we can have a
minister, a priest, a rabbi or a mosque coming in the pulpit saying
vote against so and so, or God told me vote against so and so, taking
up offerings in the church, in the synagogue, in the temple, in the
mosque, tax-exempt organizations.
Finally, Madam Speaker, if my colleagues think that ministers and
religious leaders are muzzled politically and are clamoring for this
legislation, look at the list of more than 200 mainstream churches and
religious organizations who are opposed to this bill: the African
Methodist Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Church, the American
Jewish Congress, the Islamic Supreme Council, Evangelical Lutherans,
Presbyterians, Buddhists, Quakers, and the list goes on and on.
We cannot allow supporters of this measure, however well-intended
they may be, to influence us to recklessly discard the time-tested
system we now have in place or substitute it with a dangerous
experiment in mixing religion with partisan politics.
This bill before us tonight, Madam Speaker, threatens not only our
quest for meaningful campaign finance reform, but threatens the very
integrity and independence of our churches and others houses of
worship. Any time the wall of separation between church and State is
breached, religious liberty is threatened. The wall between church and
state must be solid. It has guided us for 220 years. It must not be
breached for any reason. I urge my colleagues to protect our tradition
of religious liberty and vote against this bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman
from California for yielding me the time, and certainly the gentleman
from Georgia, who I have great respect for, as well as the gentleman
from Texas. And what makes this great body, what it is, is the freedom
that we all enjoy to disagree and many times agree.
Let me talk a little bit about the history of this issue. If this was
1953, we would not be debating this issue because it would not be an
issue. The

[[Page H6914]]

churches in this country had the freedom to talk about the issues of
the day, whether they be political issues or nonpolitical issues. There
was no restriction from the beginning of the churches in this country.
There was never a restriction until Lyndon Johnson put an amendment
on a revenue bill going through the Senate with no debate, and Mr.
Johnson was opposed to the H.L. Hunt family, who were working against
his reelection, and they had established two 501(c)(3)s, and so Mr.
Johnson put an amendment on without any debate that said if an
organization is a 501(c)(3), they may not have political speech.
Let me tell my colleagues that most of the experts, and I am
certainly not an expert, most of the experts have said in analyzing
this issue, and it has been analyzed by many researchers through the
years; that probably Lyndon Johnson did not mean to stifle the churches
or synagogues in this country, and let me explain that.
Lyndon Johnson was the VP on the ticket with John Kennedy in 1960,
and the churches in Texas, many of the churches, were opposed to John
Kennedy being a Catholic, being the first Catholic in the White House.
So those who have researched this issue say that if Johnson had
intended for the churches to be stifled in speech, that probably Mr.
Johnson, being a powerful man, would have picked up the phone and
called the Internal Revenue Service and said they need to look into
this church. Johnson never made any call or any complaints. So the
experts, which I am not one, have said that they believe that Mr.
Johnson did not intend to put the muzzle on the churches and synagogues
throughout this country.
Let me make a couple of other points real quickly. The letter that
the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) made reference to that was
sent out by Barry Lynn, this is how this came to my attention, quite
frankly. I had a Baptist minister in my district ask me to speak in
September of the year 2000 to his adult men's class, and I went, and he
showed me a letter, this is a copy of it, from Barry Lynn that went to
over 285,000 churches, and it is a warning to the minister that he not
violate the 501(c)(3) status known as the Johnson amendment.
Let me tell my colleagues what really interests me, because I do not
agree with Mr. Lynn on much, and he does not agree with me, and that is
what makes America the great Nation it is. But let me read this first
sentence to my colleagues because this tells it better than I can tell
it.
``The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of
pastors and church leaders to speak out on religious, moral and
political issues.'' He acknowledges that is what the Constitution
guarantees, but his second sentence is, however, houses of worship, as
a nonprofit entity under section 501(c)(3), cannot have political
speech.
So my point is I do agree with what he said, and he was right, the
Constitution does guarantee this, and Lyndon Johnson took it away from
them. Maybe he did not intend to, but the churches in many places, in
my opinion, the priests, the rabbis and the clerics have not had the
freedom to speak about the moral and political issues of the day, and
many times the moral issues become political issues, and the political
issues moral issues, and we all know that.
I tell my colleagues what really concerns me even more is that Mr.
Lynn, about a month later, sent out a press release. I checked with the
Internal Revenue Service yesterday. We have over 880,000 houses of
worship. Mr. Lynn, in 2000, sent out a press release that said, we plan
to mail it to approximately 285,000 houses of worship. I am confident
that every church targeted by the coalition will receive this letter.
My question to Mr. Lynn and to those who believe this is a good law,
maybe we ought to hire 880,000 inspectors to represent the Internal
Revenue Service at every church and every synagogue and every mosque in
this Nation during the months of September and October. If we want to
make the law fair so it applies to everybody, then make it fair for
everybody. Do not just single out certain groups and target certain
groups.
The last point I would like to make on this issue is that when we had
the hearing, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Houghton), even though he does not agree with the legislation, he did
hold a hearing that was very bipartisan, and I am going to wait until
the next round to go into details of the testimony, but I am pleased to
tell my colleagues that two great men of God came to testify, Dr. D.
James Kennedy and Pastor Walter Fauntroy right here in Washington,
D.C., a former Member of Congress that we all served with.
Again, I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis), and I have great respect for Pastor Fauntroy, and I know he
marched with my colleague to bring civil rights to this country, to the
people of this country so they could enjoy equal rights and civil
rights. I applaud them, and I applaud Walter Fauntroy and certainly
Martin Luther King.
In addition, I am pleased to tell my colleagues that I had a long
conversation with Floyd Flake. Mr. Flake was one of the finest Members
of Congress. He is a man of God. He is a man I respect. We might not
politically always agree, but a man I fully respect.

{time} 2245

And he is very supportive of this legislation, along with numerous
other men and women of faith who are spiritual leaders.
With that I will wait until my next round.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), chairperson of the Subcommittee
on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis) for yielding me this time.
I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Jones) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger). I just
happen to disagree with them on this particular issue, and let me tell
my colleagues why. This is really a tax consideration, and all tax
bills really should go through the Committee on Ways and Means, and
this has not. I have been on the Subcommittee on Oversight of the
Committee on Ways and Means. We reviewed this in May. We had a good
meeting. There was no consensus on the part of the religious community
for Tax Code change. So the whole concept of the 501(c)(3) which
includes religious groups, United Way, hospitals, so on and so forth,
they receive tax preferential treatment, and there is a trade-off. For
that there are no political campaign activities. And today churches are
free to talk about the issues in any way they want, but they cannot use
the church resources on a tax deductible basis to campaign for a
candidate. I think that makes perfectly good sense. They can do what
they want, but they should not use the Tax Code the way no one else can
use the Tax Code for this political purpose.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
honorable gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my friend and colleague.
Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, from the time I was a small child my
parents taught me that our church was a sacred house of worship, a
spiritual place where people of faith could meet, honor God and thank
Him for our many blessings. Now as a father, it is my hope that my two
young sons will have the same sense of reverence for our church and all
houses of worship.
Based on those values, it is my opinion that this bill demeans
religion and demeans houses of worship by converting them into
political campaign organizations. According to the bill itself, its
purpose is ``to permit churches and other houses of worship to engage
in political campaigns.'' Madam Speaker, this bill would go so far as
to even allow churches to endorse political candidates and to
contribute church funds to political campaigns.
If I had a malicious intent to import divisiveness into our churches,
I could find no better way to do it than to pass this ill-conceived
bill into law. That is why this is not just a bad bill, it is a
dangerous bill.
Think about life under this bill. Our churches, synagogues, and
mosques could cut back on their spiritual worship time so they could
hear from their campaign committee. Then rather than

[[Page H6915]]

taking time to praise God, our congregations could entertain divisive
partisan political debates as to which local, county, State, and
Federal candidates to endorse each year. Active political partisans in
each house of worship could then fight over candidates and whether one
or the other is truly the faithful one. Perhaps church committees could
have religious litmus tests for candidates, thus thrusting aside the
spirit of article 6 of our Constitution which prohibits religious tests
for positions of public trust.
After acrimonious endorsement debates for dozens of candidates, then
our houses of worship could each year determine which mission fund or
program for the poor could be scrapped on the alter of political
contributions.
Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that so many religious organizations
are opposing this bill, and I hope the national press and American
people wake up to the quiet, but dangerous, effort, well intentioned or
not, in this Congress that would basically interject government and
politics into our churches and into our personal faith.
For example, with charitable choice legislation pending in Congress,
an administration could dole out literally billions of dollars directly
to preferred houses of worship; and then with the Jones bill, those
same houses of worship could endorse in the next election the
administration that has just given them those tax dollars, thus
obliterating the wall of separation between church and State.
If I had planned a lifetime to undermine religious liberty and
tolerance in America and to demean houses of worship, I could not have
ever devised a more effective plan than to combine charitable choice
legislation with this bill. Thankfully through the wisdom of Mr.
Madison and Mr. Jefferson, the first amendment places religion on a
pedestal far above the reach of politics and politicians. To drag
religion down from that lofty pedestal of protection into the quagmire
of political endorsements is to demean religion, not protect it; and
Madam Speaker, for any bill that deals with the fundamental
constitutional principles of church and State to be brought to this
House floor under a suspension calendar late at night with only a
handful of Members present is a disservice to this House and to the
profound importance of religious liberty.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with my position on this bill, I
would remind all of us that religious liberty is a gift of God and that
for over 200 years our Bill of Rights has protected that divine gift
for all our citizens and that any congressional action that treats the
fundamental issue of church and State and religious liberty with less
than the greatest of careful deliberation puts at risk America's
historic legacy of religious freedom and tolerance.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 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 thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise today in strong support of the Houses of Worship Political
Speech Protection Act and commend the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Jones) for sponsoring this important piece of legislation.
H.R. 2357 seeks to allow our churches and religious institutions to
address the moral and political issues of the day, as they have for the
first 300-plus years of America's history, without fear of the IRS
imposing financial penalties or revoking their tax-exempt status
altogether. This legislation frees our clergy to speak their
consciences from the pulpit on all issues, even those which may stem
from the political arena, without the chilling effect that the Tax Code
has on our houses of worship. As the French author, Alexis de
Tocqueville, observed in 1835 in his published accounts of life in
American society: ``Religion in America takes no direct part in the
government of society but it must be regarded as the first of their
political institutions for if it does not impart a taste for freedom,
it facilitates the use of it.''
Our clergy and religious institutions have played a significant role
in our Nation's political life from the earliest days of our Republic.
A clear example can be found right here in the Capitol. The statue of
Reverend John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg depicts him removing his
clerical robes to reveal the uniform of a military officer following
his farewell sermon to his Virginia congregation on January 21, 1776.
From the pulpit Muhlenberg declared that ``there is a time to fight,
and that time has now come.'' Reverend Muhlenberg's rousing sermon led
300 men from his congregation to join him that day in America's war for
independence. Reverend Muhlenberg was not interested in the endorsement
of a political candidate. He preached the overthrow of the government
of the colonies.
While this illustrates only one incident in our Nation's past, it
still leads one to consider what the fabric of American society would
look like today without our past clergymen and women denouncing the
evils of tyranny, slavery, and segregation.
H.R. 2357 simply attempts to return our houses of worship to the role
they have historically held as an active participant in the political
process, addressing the important issues of the day. This bill assures
that those who hold to fundamental truths are not divorced from the
arena of ideas simply because they happen to be standing behind a
pulpit.
I urge my colleagues to support the Houses of Worship Political
Speech Protection Act.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), my friend and colleague.
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I want to first say that I was deeply
impressed by the presentation made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards), and I could feel his pain as he spoke on this legislation and
against it because I believe he is a deeply religious man. And this is
an awkward issue for us, but we need to speak plainly about it. I too
strongly oppose H.R. 2357, the House of Worship Political Speech
Protection Act, because I believe it flies in the face of our campaign
finance laws and more importantly would create a large soft money
loophole. I also have serious concerns the legislation would erode the
separation of church and State, a bedrock value of our Nation and one I
strongly support.
Religious institutions should be able to speak out on issues, and
current law already gives these institutions the absolute right to use
their pulpit to address an issue they wish. One has to wonder,
therefore, why this legislation is necessary. What religious
institutions cannot do is use their tax-exempt donations to contribute
to a candidate's political campaign.
H.R. 2357 would allow religious organizations to maintain their
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, which allows them to receive tax-
deductible contributions while permitting them to contribute to
politicians and political campaigns. This legislation does not extend
the same privilege to nonreligious 501(c)(3) organizations.
In February, this body demonstrated a strong commitment to reforming
our campaign finance laws when it voted to ban the use of soft money,
corporate treasury money, union dues money, and unlimited sums from
individuals. H.R. 2357 would be a major step backward. This
legislation, if enacted, would permit big-dollar political donors,
corporate, union, or individual, to funnel soft money through partisan
incorporated religious organizations and fund sham issue ads, really
campaign ads with these funds.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2357. We should
not allow tax-exempt institutions to make campaign contributions.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and I also want to
thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones), for his efforts. We are here on the floor again with some deep
differences of people who share very strong commitments on this issue
and of the role of how we work through as Christians and people of
multiple and diverse faiths in America, how we work through the role of
those who have deeply felt views and how they can express those and
participate.
I do want to correct a couple of things on the record from the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) because I think there is a little
bit of overparanoia.

[[Page H6916]]

One is that in the idea that charitable choice is somehow going to be
tied in with this, as the gentleman knows, while the bill passed the
House, it is pending in nowhere. We have agreed with a compromise, and
many of us here tonight have agreed with compromise, and then the
Senate developed a compromise and there will be no charitable choice
grants coming through, authorized by Congress. They are working through
some of those things in the executive branch, but we have worked out
that we have shared concerns about the Federal Government getting it
directly into funding and what that could mean to the separation of
church and State if churches become dependent on Federal funding.
Furthermore, the statement that we are doing this late at night is
because of the death of our friend and colleague, Patsy Mink, we had a
waiver. This was originally scheduled to occur much earlier in the
evening. We had a 2-hour debate tonight and that pushed it later in the
evening. This in fact would have been debated in prime time. It is near
prime time in much of the country anyway. But this is, first, a
fundamental disagreement about what the bill is. I do not believe nor
do any of the people who wrote the bill nor do most people who do not
have a position that is overtly against the conservative churches
basically being able to speak out believe this affects money. This
affects endorsement. I do not believe it changes campaign finance one
wit. And I was talking with my dear friend, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) because I share his concern about churches
having, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), my friend, said,
taking up collections for political campaigns. That would be
horrendous.

{time} 2300

That is not what this bill does. We have fundamental disagreements
even about what the bill does. This is supposed to be able to clarify
Internal Revenue Code that pastors who speak on behalf of the church
can say what they believe.
We know in America that many churches in fact do that. In fact, in
the civil rights movement had brave people not been willing to stand up
and register in churches, and Reverend Jesse White is getting a statue
in Fort Wayne for his work. He was active through his church in
registering voters, bringing in candidates, endorsing candidates
because he felt that was the only way in my home area to change some of
the civil rights areas.
In the Vietnam War era, pastors were endorsing candidates in liberal
churches. There are many conservative Christians in this country who
deeply feel in the fundamental part of their heart, and we can see it
in which groups are backing this, that conservative churches, once they
got active, and most denominations like mine are very separatist and
would never endorse from the pulpit and believe in that separation.
But many churches believe, including those churches that do not
endorse, that there has been a difference in America; and when the
conservative churches started to get politically involved, the Clinton
administration came down on them. And that belief is deeply felt. That
is what we are trying to address.
We believe that all people ought to be created equally. There should
not be direct funding. That is covered in campaign finance law. There
should not be church funds intermingled. That is the point of (c)(3)s
and (c)(4)s. But when there are deeply felt issues like abortion that
conservatives feel deeply about; the pastor should be allowed to say
this is what we believe. These are candidates who share those views.
They should not be able to use church funds to promote that view. That
is the point of (c)(3)s. They can have their voter guides outside the
sanctuary, and they can do other things with nonchurch money; but they
ought to be allowed, when a Christian world view is fully
comprehensive, the beliefs of Jesus Christ are not just faith, they are
also works. If one believes they are works, a pastor whether he sees
civil rights or war or abortion or pornography, he ought to be allowed
to speak out and the congregation ought to be allowed to speak out.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is not one thing in the present code that would
prohibit ministers, religious leaders, rabbis, any church organization
from speaking out on the great issues of our time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Once again
we are here debating a very controversial bill with profound
constitutional implications which has bypassed the regular order in the
committee of jurisdiction, has been placed on the suspension calendar
late at night with limited time for debate and no amendments allowed.
I do not know what the supporters of the bill think it does, but this
bill is in fact a tax bill and describes what a church can do and still
maintain its tax exemption. The legislation before us allows a
religious tax-exempt organization to engage in political activities,
partisan political activities, while using tax-exempt resources so long
as those activities are not more than an ``insubstantial part'' of
their activities.
Pursuant to the Tax Code, that means anywhere from 5-15 percent of an
organization's budget can be used for partisan political activities.
For a church with a $1 million budget, that is 50,000 to $150,000 in
campaign cash.
Mr. Speaker, we also have to consider the bill in light of
legislation that has already passed the House, and that is H.R. 7, the
so-called Charitable Choice bill, which allows the church to be
directly funded with government contracts. This bill will allow those
churches to show their appreciation to the government officials that
helped them with campaign contributions amounting to 5-15 percent of
the grant. This gives a new meaning to the idea of tithing.
Contrary to assertions, churches and other houses of worship can and
do speak out on issues of the day. When the gentleman from California
says they cannot speak, it is true, they cannot take out a paid
political ad paid for with tax-deductible money. But under current law,
churches can host candidate forums, can issue unbiased voting guides,
engage in lobbying activities on legislation, endorse or oppose
referendums, constitutional amendments or other ballot initiatives, and
they can certainly speak out on the moral issues of the day, whether it
be civil rights, universal health care, or education.
Furthermore, ministers or religious leaders in their private capacity
can and do endorse political candidates and even become candidates
themselves. In fact, my representative in the Virginia Senate is a
pastor of a Baptist church. The difference is they cannot use the
resources of a tax-exempt church in a partisan political campaign.
Churches, like other tax-exempt organizations, are prohibited from
using tax-exempt church contributions for candidates. They cannot
create PACs or solicit or provide financial support to a candidate.
That would change under this legislation, which specifically allows our
houses of worship to funnel tax-exempt funds to candidates in political
parties. There are other issues that we have to consider as we debate
this measure.
For example, houses of worship are exempt from certain Internal
Revenue filings; and, therefore, we will never know whether they are
spending 5 percent or 50 percent of their funds on political activities
unless the supporters expect the IRS to be auditing church finances.
In addition, unlike other organizations exempt under section 501(c),
churches do not have to file for incorporation. Essentially any
organization claiming to be a church gets automatic tax-exempt status
from the IRS. As a result, during election cycles we might see the
formation of new churches formed for the express purpose of political
activity on behalf of a candidate or political party.
Mr. Speaker, current law treats our houses of worship and secular
nonprofits with respect to partisan political activity equally. Neither
can use tax-exempt resources for partisan political activities. If they
want their organizational resources to be used for partisan political
activities, they can. They just cannot get tax deductions and use tax-
deductible resources for that purpose. Should this legislation pass,
our houses of worship may risk becoming sham political organizations.

[[Page H6917]]

As the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) explained, we would have
created a gaping loophole in our campaign finance laws. I strongly urge
rejection of this legislation.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just relate that a leading supporter
of this piece of legislation, a minister, is sending out fund-raising
literature, seeking tax-deductible contributions to support the
church's efforts in lobbying the Congress to pass H.R. 2357. What this
minister really wants and gets under the bill is the ability to use
unreported, unlimited charitable contributions to defeat or elect
someone in Congress or some place else.
Is this what we want happening in November, on November 5, or some
other time? Of course not. Churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques
are houses of worship. Let us keep them that way and not let politics
get in the way. Let us keep a separation of church and State. Keep that
wall solid and strong. If churches, synagogues, mosques and temples
want to go out and raise money and have their leaders preaching from
the pulpit, then they should form another organization or group. I ask
Members to vote against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), I agree totally with the
gentleman's statement. This is a separation of church and State. The
reason it is is that the State, being the Internal Revenue Service,
should not influence any statement or comment that the church pulpit,
the preacher, the priest, the rabbi might want to make.

{time} 2310

This way, because of the Johnson amendment, they do have influence as
to what can be said.
To the gentleman from Texas, whom I like very much, I want to say
that he is right. I agree with him up to 152 years, but the last 48
years since 1954, Lyndon Johnson's amendment put the Internal Revenue
Service into the churches as to restricting what they can and cannot
say. Prior to that time, he and I agree 100 percent.
Let me also say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) that
when churches qualified for the status of 501(c)(3)s, and I have
researched this, there is no restriction in the law as to what they
could and could not say when they became classified as 501(c)(3)s.
Let me also say that one of the biggest concerns that some people
have mentioned tonight, I cannot begin to tell you, when D. James
Kennedy came to testify, he brought over 60,000 petitions to present to
the committee. In addition to that, this past week over 4,500 ministers
throughout this country, some being Baptist, wrote and said they were
in strong support of this legislation.
Let me also say to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays), who is my friend, that under the Bipartisan Campaign Finance
Reform Act of 2002, which amends the Federal Election Campaign Act, all
corporations including tax-exempt churches and nonprofit corporations
are barred from making hard-money contributions or any direct or
indirect disbursement for electioneering communications. That is on
page 101 and 102 (A and B). I just want to get that on the record,
also.
Let me also say that, again, when you think about the fact that prior
to 1954 there were no restrictions of speech on our churches, and I am
pleased to say that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), for whom I
do have great respect, during the hearing with the Internal Revenue
Service, his question to Mr. Miller who worked with IRS is: As a rule
do you monitor the activities of churches during the political season?
Mr. Miller's answer to Mr. Lewis is: We do monitor churches. So our
monitoring is mostly as a recipient of information from third parties
who are looking in. That is Barry Lind looking in. What are you saying?
``I'm going to report you to the Internal Revenue Service.'' That is
not America. If a priest wants to say that George Bush is prolife, let
the priest say George Bush is prolife. If my dear friend and your dear
friend Floyd Flake wants to have Al Gore in his church, and when Al
Gore finishes speaking he puts his hand on his shoulder and he says,
``I think this is the right man to lead America,'' he should be able to
do it. He got a letter of reprimand from the Internal Revenue Service.
Somebody snitched on him because the Internal Revenue Service is
dependent on a third party to report because, quite frankly, I will be
honest with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), they cannot
enforce the law to begin with. That is an absolute joke. They cannot
enforce the law. So they are dependent on a third party.
That somewhat reminds me of my history about Germany, quite frankly,
somebody looking in on what the priest says or the preacher says or
what the rabbi might say. That in itself should be enough to offend all
of us on both sides of the aisle who raise our hand to defend the
constitutional rights of the American people, that we make sure that
anyone, whether they be a preacher, a priest, a rabbi or a cleric, that
they have a right to speak from their heart, and if they believe that
that is the right thing to say to educate their people in that
congregation, then they should say it.
Let me close this way from Floyd Flake, a great, great man of
spiritual faith and a spiritual leader. He says, ``It is unjust that
churches and clergy men and women are unfairly targeted when they
exercise their rights as American citizens. I am pleased to offer my
wholehearted support with sincere prayer for passage of this important
and liberating legislation. Floyd Flake.'' He is talking about H.R.
2357.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, under the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, Americans have the freedom of speech. In
the same amendment, our founding fathers declared Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.
Much to the dismay of many of my friends on the other side of the
aisle, the two concepts do not cancel out each other. They are not
mutually exclusive. Americans who believe in God ought not to have
their freedom of speech muzzled in the name of the law.
I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this legislation to stop harassing
churches and other places of worship when someone mentions politics.
Those of us who support this bill are not advocating turning religious
organizations into political parties. Rather, the legislation before us
would permit the occasional discussion of issues of importance to
congregations comprised of voting citizens.
The gag rule on pastors, priests, rabbis and other religious leaders
was not part of the Bill Of Rights. It was an amendment to a 19-54 tax
bill by Senator Lyndon Johnson. There were no hearings. Rather,
restrictions were imposed on people of faith as revolutionaries began
their quest to remove any reference to a Creator from our one nation
under God.
I don't believe Al Gore or Hillary Clinton should be banned from
speaking at Riverside Baptist Church just because it is a place of
religion. When the pastor invites them up to the pulpit during their
campaigns, he should not have to worry about breaking the law or losing
his tax-exempt status. But if this bill fails, the pastor will have no
choice but to say no.
Churches have integrity. They are sacred places, protected under law
and deserving of the liberties afforded to the rest of our great
nation.
The First Amendment rights of our constituents shouldn't be curtailed
because they happen to be sitting in a pew or on bended knee. I commend
the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on the bill and
urge my colleagues to support the Houses of Worship Political Speech
Protection Act.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Houses of Worship
political speech protection act. I believe that we must remove the Gag
that restricts our clergymen from discussing candidates for office or
political issues. Religious organizations are the moral compass for
tens of millions of Americans and I have no qualms about their leaders
articulating the pros and cons of a particular candidate for office or
issue.
While I strongly commend the gentleman from North Carolina for
advancing this issue, I do have some concerns with the way this
particular bill has been drafted. In my opinion, the substantiality
test in the code is entirely too ambiguous. It has not been defined by
Congress, the Treasury Department or the courts, so passage of this
bill will require that

[[Page H6918]]

we wait until the IRS prosecutes a church for a violation to learn what
substantial means.
Since the 104th Congress, I have introduced the Brightline Act that
clearly defines, using dollar limitations, the activities that
religious organizations may engage in while maintaining their tax-
exempt status. It is a clean, easy way for churches to know whether or
not they have run afoul of the Internal Revenue Code. I hope, that as
we continue to move this issue forward, the gentleman from North
Carolina will be willing to work with me to ensure that whatever we put
on the President's desk for signature provides churches with clear
rules so that this matter is not resolved by the courts.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to thank the
people who have worked so hard over the years to advance this issue.
First and foremost, I want to thank the millions of Americans at the
grassroots level who have contacted their members of Congress to get
their support. Second, and most importantly, I want to thank my good
friend Reverend Lou Sheldon for his tireless efforts to advance this
issue. Pastor Lou has led the change on this issue since 1994 and I
hope those who support this bill will recognize his hard work.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support
of the Houses of Worship Political Speech Act, introduced by my good
friend, Walter Jones. For too long, the separation of church and state
has been tilted too far towards one extreme and has restricted the free
speech rights of religious communities in America. HR 2357 attempts to
restore balance and reasonableness by amending the Internal Revenue
Code to permit churches and other houses of worship to fully
participate in the democratic political process.
I believe that the First Amendment's prohibition against the
establishment of an official religion akin to the Church of England in
the UK was never meant to mean that communities of faith were barred
from a robust participation in all aspects of our nation's political
life. America's system is weaker and less representative when important
voices are excluded from the political dimension.
Prior to 1954, pastors and religious leaders spoke freely about
candidates and political issues that directly affected the interests of
their congregations. The anti-slavery and abolitionist organizations
and the civil rights movement are examples of church-inspired political
agents of change in our society. In fact, churches played a central
role in dismantling the Jim Crow laws that so egregiously violated the
civil rights of African Americans. Our society would have been much
worse off if historically black churches and clergy were prohibited
from sermonizing or distributing materials.
The origins of current law, which this bill seeks to correct, are
very instructive. In 1954, Senator Lyndon Johnson added language to
pending tax legislation to prevent two non-profit groups that opposed
him in 1948 from speaking out against him in his 1954 re-election.
The vexing perception is that the IRS is empowered with sweeping
powers to strip a church's tax-exempt status if clergymen express
particular views on a candidate. That is clearly wrong and the framers
of the Constitution would be appalled at this abuse of power. Priests,
pastors, rabbis, or any religious leader should not be bullied into
silence by the IRS.
LBJ's capricious and punitive tax proviso has been used in an
arbitrary manner to silence political speech in America's houses of
worship. The Church at Pierce Creek in Vestal, New York, for example,
came under IRS' sanction when it published an ``open letter'' to then-
candidate Bill Clinton in 1992. The church took issue with Mr.
Clinton's stances on several compelling moral issues. Even though the
church leadership cited biblical passages to buttress its argument, the
IRS revoked its tax-exempt status in 1995.
The American Center for law and Justice, which represented the Church
at Pierce Creek, has subsequently documented more than 500 instances
where candidates had appeared before churches. Yet no enforcement
action was taken in those cases perhaps suggesting a double standard.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that these instances be made a part of the record.
Approximately two years ago, former President Bill Clinton stood in
the pulpit of the Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria,
Virginia--just a few miles from this building--and openly urged
parishioners to vote for then-Senator Chuck Robb and Vice President Al
Gore.
Mr. Speaker, why is it permissible for Bill Clinton to make partisan
speeches in churches, while other church leaders are gagged if they
critique Bill Clinton?
In a national poll conducted this summer by The Poling Company, 84
percent of men, and 77 percent of women agreed that the First Amendment
should protect religious leaders from being penalized for political
speech.
I want to remind my colleagues that the separation of church and
state stemmed from Americans' desire to have church and state operate
independently from one another, in order to avoid the establishment of
a state church. The affairs of states however often compare with,
contradict or comply with the moral imperatives found in Holy Writ.
Nothing in this legislation demands that a church get involved in the
political dialogue of our nation. Issues of war and peace and other
important issues shouldn't be the exclusive preserve of the political
elite. The Jones bill would simply allow them that opportunity should
they choose to speak about those matters, without the coercive power of
government putting their tax-exempt status at risk.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Candidate Church Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 9/11/94...................... Sue V. Mills (P.G. Nat'l Church of God, Addressed church members
County, Exec.). Fort Washington, MD. from the pulpit.
2. 10/9/94...................... George Pataki (NY Gub. Abyssinian Baptist, Addressed church members
Cand.). Harlem, NY. from the pulpit.
3. 10/9/94...................... Carl McCall (NY State Abyssinian Baptist, Addressed church members
Comptroller). Harlem, NY. from the pulpit.
4. 9/8/94....................... Ron Simms (U.S. Senate First A.M.E. Church, Breakfast Forum, Debate.
candidate). Seattle, WA.
5. 9/8/94....................... Scott Hardman (U.S. First A.M.E. Church, Breakfast Forum, Debate.
Senate candidate). Seattle, WA.
6. 9/8/94....................... Mike James (U.S. Senate First A.M.E. Church, Breakfast Forum, Debate.
candidate). Seattle, WA.
7. 9/8/94....................... Jesse Wineberry (U.S. First A.M.E. Church, Breakfast Forum, Debate.
Senate candidate). Seattle, WA.
8. 10/10/94..................... All Candidates for City Bethlehem Missionary Meeting/Forum at church
Council. Baptist Church, open to public.
Memphis, TN.
9. 5/24/92...................... Gov. Clinton (Pres. Greater Paradise Miss., Addressed parishioners &
Cand.). Baptist Church. ``campaigning''.
10. 3/13/92..................... Gov. Clinton (Pres. Pleasant Grove Baptist Addressed parishioners
Cand.). Church, Chicago, IL. from pulpit.
11. 10/12/94.................... School Board Candidates.. Oak Falls Church, Candidates forum.
Sacramento, CA.
12. 9/30/94..................... All Candidates (600)..... Calvary Chapel, Costa Candidates results
Mesa, Ca. distributed to more
than 50,000 people.
13. 11/22/92.................... Pres. Clinton (President) St. Theresa's Catholic Jesse Jackson endorsed
Church, Little Rock, AR. Bill Clinton from the
pulpit.
14. 3/29/88..................... Jesse Jackson (Pres. Unknown, Flint, MI...... Addressed the
Cand.). parishioners.
15. 7/2/88...................... George Bush (Pres. Cand.) Greek Orthodox Ch., Mass Church dinner.
16-515. 1/31/88................. Jesse Jackson (Pres. St. Joseph's Cath. Ch., Collection for Jackson
Cand.). West Liberty IA. from all 500 churches.
Fellowship Missionary
Baptist Church,
Chicago, & 498 others.
516-518. 11/22/92............... Wyche Fowler (U.S. Senate 3 Black Churches, Gore spoke to 3 churches
run-off Cand.). Savannah, GA. supporting people
voting (Fowler ``got
help from'' Gore's
efforts).
519. 2/8/88..................... J. Jackson............... Lutheran Church, Jackson ``opposed''
Clinton, IA. there.
520. 2/25/92.................... B. Clinton............... A.M.E. Church, Memphis, Clinton gave a speech to
TN. delegates to the church
reception.
521. 4/26/87.................... Gary Hart (Pres. Cand.).. Antioch Baptist Ch., Hart took the pulpit to
Atlanta, GA. deliver combination
``stump'' speech &
sermon.
522. 1/20/93.................... Clinton/Gore............. A Small Meth.-Epis. Ch, Official inaugural
Washington, DC. church ceremony.
523. 1/93 (preinaug.)........... Clinton/Gore............. First Baptist Church, Private, preinaug.
Washington, DC. gathering for
supporters.
524. 1/16/94.................... Clinton.................. Temple of the Church of Delivered a speech from
God in Christ, Memphis, the pulpit.
TN.
525. 3/8/92..................... Clinton.................. Lyons Unity Church, After speech, he
Houston, TX. received congrats. from
church members.
526. 8/14/94.................... Clinton.................. Full Gospel A.M.E. Zion Speaking from the
Church, Temple Hills, pulpit, delivered a
MD. political speech.
527. 1/27/92.................... Tom Harkin (Pres. Cand.). Heritage United Church Delivered speech in
of Christ, Baltimore, church.
MD.
528. 9/25/94.................... Mario Cuomo.............. Bethel A.M.E. Church, Delivered praises to
Harlem, NY. Clinton from pulpit.
529. 9/25/94.................... Cuomo.................... Bethel A.M.E. Church, Clinton endorsed Cuomo &
Harlem, NY. told parishioners to
support him.
530. 4/5/92..................... Clinton.................. Bridge Street, A.M.E., Courted black voters w/a
Harlem, NY. speech to parishioners.
531. 5/10/92.................... Clinton.................. Unknown, S.F., CA....... Speeches at a church.
532. 5/10/92.................... Clinton.................. Unknown, S.F., CA....... Speeches at a church.
533. 8/14/90.................... Marion Barry, (D.C. Israel Baptist Ch., Attendance & a ``victory
Mayoral Cand.). Washington, D.C. dance''.
534. 8/19/88.................... Dukakis, (Pres. Cand.)... Sixth Ave. Bap. Ch., Spoke to a black church.
Birmingham, AL.
535. 11/8/86.................... Marion Barry............. NY Ave. Presby, Ch., Jesse Jackson endorsed
Washington, D.C. Marion Barry.
536. 1/15/89.................... Jesse Jackson............ Unknown, Harlem, NY..... Speech at a church.
537. 3/4/88..................... Jesse Jackson............ Westside Baptist Ch., His son delivered speech
St. Louis, MO. for him at the church.
538. 11/6/88.................... Dukakis/Bentsen.......... Macedonia Miss. Bapt. Endorsement by Jesse
Church, Flint, MI. Jackson from pulpit.
539. 3/18/88.................... Jesse Jackson............ Chapel Hill Bapt. Ch., Addressed the church's
Detroit, MI. ``rally''.
540. 1/15/90.................... Mayor Maynard Jackson.... Ebenezer Baptist Ch., Delivered speech at an
Atlanta, GA. ecumenical service.
541. 1/15/90.................... Mayor David Dinkins...... Unknown, New York, NY... Gave a speech at a
church.
542. 4/10/88.................... Jesse Jackson............ Abyssinian Bap. Ch., New Delivered speech to the
York, NY. church parishioners
demeaning two other
candidates.

[[Page H6919]]

543. 4/16/84.................... Jesse Jackson............ Second Bapt. Ch., Speech.
Columbia, MD.
544. 8/21/92.................... Clinton/Gore............. Olivet Instit. Bap. Speeches at a rally.
Chur., Cleveland, OH.
545. 10/26/92................... Gore..................... Black Church, Atlanta, Speech to parishioners.
GA.
546. 10/26/92................... Gore..................... Black Church, Atlanta, Speech to parishioners.
GA.
547. 1/10/93.................... Clinton.................. Immanuel Bapt. Ch., Speech (took to the
Little Rock, AR. podium bade farewell).
548. 9/10/94.................... Kathleen Brown (CA 1st Church of God in Attending.
Gubernt, Race). Christ, Los Angeles, CA.
549. 9/10/94.................... Kathleen Brown (CA Bethel A.M.E. Ch., Los Attending.
Gubernt. Race). Angeles, CA.
550. 9/10/94.................... Kathleen Brown (CA Mount Tabor Miss. Attending.
Gubernt. Race). Baptist Church, Los
Angeles, CA.
551. 9/10/94.................... Kathleen Brown (CA 1st A.M.E. Church, Los Attending.
Gubernt. Race). Angeles, CA.
552. 9/10/94.................... Kathleen Brown (CA West Angeles Ch. of God, Attending.
Gubernt. Race). Los Angeles, CA.
553. 9/3/94..................... Ken Connor (FL Gub. Coral Ridge Presby., Ft. Attending.
Cand.). Lauderdale, FL.
554. 3/1/92..................... George Bush.............. 1st Baptist Church, Attending.
Atlanta, GA.
555. 4/9/90..................... Ann Richards............. Various churches, Visited.
Dallas, TX.
556. 4/9/90..................... Jim Mattox............... Various churches........ Visited.
557. 10/23/94................... Charles Robb............. Trinity Baptist Church, Speech to parishioners
Richmond, VA. from pulpit.
558. 10/23/94................... Charles Robb............. Trinity Baptist Church, Wilder endorsed Robb
Richmond, VA. from pulpit.
559. 10/23/94................... Oliver North............. Cedar St. Baptist Introduced by minister,
Church, Virginia. gave brief remarks (not
political).
560. 10/18/94................... Phil Bredesen (TN Gub. Greater Second Baptist Addressed TN Baptist
Cand.). Ch., Chattanooga, TN. Missionary and
Education Convention.
561. 3/8/94..................... Clinton.................. Southern Churches....... Courted black votes.
562. 3/8/94..................... Tsongas.................. Southern Churches....... Courted black votes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for
this legislation and to thank my colleague Representative Walter Jones
for his leadership on this important issue. Passage of H.R. 2537, the
Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act is vital to ensure
that churches and synagogues are free to speak out on the many moral
and political issues affecting our nation.
For the first 178 years in our nation's history, America's religious
leaders had the right to speak their conscience on issues of politics
and morality. Then, in 1954, an amendment was added to a revenue bill
that extended the reach of the Internal Revenue Service into our
nation's houses of worship. That amendment has had the effect of
restricting freedom of speech, by threatening to revoke the tax-exempt
status of any house of worship whose ministers speak out on moral and
political concerns.
Since that time, the IRS has used the church tax exemption to
discourage members of the clergy from communicating even the
fundamental principles of their faith in anyway that might be viewed as
``partisan political issues'' during an election period. And the scope
of the ban goes well beyond a prohibition on active political
campaigning. The restrictions bans all forms of political expression,
which has prompted some churches to avoid distributing voter guides and
from taking positions on issues that are debated in political
campaigns.
Mr. Speaker, this prohibition on free speech has limited the ability
of houses of worship to exercise their freedom of speech, as guaranteed
under our Constitution. It burdens the free exercise of religion by
telling houses of worship how they can and cannot practice their
religion. And the ban has been enforced in a way that prevents
religious leaders from speaking on religious issues that are also
political, for fear that such speech might be viewed as support for a
candidate or party. Any member of the clergy, for example, who takes a
position against defense spending or abortion during a campaign season
may have their speech and tax-exempt status scrutinized by the IRS.
That is simply not right--not in America.
I strongly support this bill because I believe churches and
synagogues have a right, based on the First Amendment, to speak about
issues they believes are important to our nation. Additionally, I do
not think churches should be scrutinized by the IRS for freely
expressing political views--a form of speech that is protected in every
other venue. Quite simply, our houses of worship should be places free
from government control.
Finally, I want to point out that this is not a partisan issue. I am
proud to work with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--to
pass this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to help restore
freedom of speech to churches, synagogues and other houses of worship
by voting yes on this critical legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2357, the
Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act.
This bill is an assault on the Constitution's fundamental separation
between church and state. It was crafted with the single purpose of
giving right-wing religious groups--like the Christian Coalition--a
special advantage in the political process. It would allow them to
promote their narrow political agenda while exploiting the tax-exempt
status traditionally reserved for non-partisan religious and charitable
organizations.
Various types of organizations are allowed to be tax exempt because
they do not engage in or sponsor partisan political activity. This bill
would grant religious organizations a special right to maintain that
tax-exempt status while freely engaging in partisan politics.
Supporters of H.R. 2357 have cloaked the real intent of the bill in
the blatant falsehood that religious leaders cannot speak on moral and
political issues. This right is freely exercised and clearly protected
by the Constitution.
In addition to speaking freely from the pulpit, members of the clergy
can endorse partisan candidates, publicly express their opinion on
political issues, and contribute their time and money to any political
campaign they choose. Under their current tax-exempt status, religious
organizations are allowed to work in a non-partisan capacity to
register voters, provide voter education, and encourage people to go to
the polls on Election Day.
A wide array of religious leaders have spoken out in opposition to
this bill because they don't want the integrity of their institutions
undermined by partisan politics. This bill puts partisanship ahead of
piety in the nation's churches, synagogues, and mosques. It allows
religious institutions to endorse political candidates, broadcast issue
ads, conduct voter mobilization, and engage in political fundraising.
This would blow a gaping hole through the landmark campaign finance
reform law enacted this year. In allowing tax-exempt and tax-deductible
money to be given for political purposes, churches would now be allowed
to launder soft-money contributions. Many churches--those that are not
incorporated--would be exempt from campaign finance laws altogether.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this cynical scheme to breach the
separation of church and state and give special interests a blank check
to undermine our democracy. Vote no on H.R. 2357.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of honest discussion on an
issue that was so important that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson debated
it for 10 years in the Virginia Legislature, I am wondering if it would
be within the rules of the House for me to now ask for unanimous
consent to have 3 minutes of discussion with the author of the bill so
I can clarify what the direct impact of this bill would be. If I do
have that parliamentary right, I would like to make that unanimous-
consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. By unanimous consent, there would have to be
3 minutes equally divided.
Mr. EDWARDS. That would be fine.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object to that for this
reason. I respect the man, and this just continues this debate.
Obviously I would have liked to have been here earlier this afternoon.
I was hoping we would be here earlier. But at 11:15 at night, I think I
know your position, which I respect, and you know my position, so I
object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger) that the House suspend the rules and pass the
bill, H.R. 2357.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

[[Page H6920]]

____________________