[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 81 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                RELIGION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, and because there is no designee 
of the majority leader, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to discuss the 
important issues relating to the attack on people of faith being 
carried out by high officials in the Democrat Party. I think we need to 
address many of these issues, and I have with me colleagues tonight who 
are prepared to do that, and I would like to yield to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] who has been a leader in addressing 
this issue of the EEOC guidelines on religion, and I would like to 
allocate such time as he may wish to share with us to him for his 
thoughts on that subject.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] for putting together this 
special order and addressing this subject. I think he has done an 
outstanding job on many occasions with these special orders in bringing 
to the public's attention a number of concerns. The one that I am 
speaking on this evening is the EEOC regulations that were promulgated 
last October, and made known through a hearing period, and in effect 
have been recognized by companies in this country so strongly that many 
of the private companies have issued regulations dealing with those 
proposed EEOC regulations. They issued rules for their companies.
  Now what would these EEOC rules do? First of all, they would say that 
in the work place, under the guise of religious harassment, under title 
7, that we could not have any mention of religion, either positive or 
negative, and that is essentially what the company that issued its 
regulations has said. That would include jewelry, artifacts, potential 
conversations of employees dealing in this area.
  Now this is as much a question of first amendment protection as it is 
anything else. It is not the necessity to sponsor any religion under 
any particular name. It is not the necessity to be against any religion 
under a name. It is to say that the Framers of the Constitution gave us 
a Bill of Rights and that first amendment protected us in the area of 
religion. It was not that we wanted a state religion. On the contrary. 
The Framers of the Constitution had seen that experience before and 
wanted nothing to do with the state of religion, but they did want 
religion in the state. And over the 200 years of our history in this 
country we have recognized that fact.

  And here comes today bureaucrats that have devised rules that say, 
``No, this is wrong. This is something that we cannot tolerate. It will 
be harassment if you mention any sort of religious activity, invite 
someone to Sunday school, do something else in the work place. That 
will be harassment.''
  Now this could have been stopped. The President with one phone call 
could have stopped this months ago. The President could have said, 
``This is wrong. This is something I don't want to see. It seems to be 
encouraging rather than discouraging, and let's see what the effect 
is.''
  Yesterday I met with a group of NASCAR drivers. They said they could 
have had a truckload if they had had time to put it together. But we 
had seven or eight come down and point out one of the things that 
concerns them about the EEOC regulations. They pointed out that each 
Sunday, since that is the day of the race at the track, they have a 
minister who has a special service for the drivers. Now they are about 
to get in about a four by four space of solid metal. It is about 140 
degrees on a summer day out there, and they are going around laps 
between 100 and 200 miles per hour risking their life in a sport they 
love. If they want to have a special service conducted by a minister on 
Sunday morning before they start the race, who are we to say that they 
cannot? Who are we to tell the fans, the hundred thousands or so that 
are going to be watching that race, ``I'm sorry. We can't have that 
race because we think there might be some religious harassment going on 
here in the stadium before the sports race starts''?
  The necessity and the reason we have the freedom of a Bill of Rights 
is to let everyone make up their own mind in these areas, to let 
everyone have the freedom to do as they please in these areas. The 
government in my district, people recognize, would mess up a one-car 
funeral, and yet we are calling on them to devise regulations and tell 
us how to micromanage our lives in this most sensitive of areas. It is 
absolutely ridiculous that we are getting to this point.

  I had a marine write a letter, an officer in the Marines. He said, 
first of all, we are going to have to change the Marine motto if this 
goes on because semper fidelis is just part of the motto. The motto is: 
Always faithful to God and country. Now we will have to remove God 
obviously because that will not be allowed in our workplace, and the 
chaplain may not be able to minister either in the battlefield or in 
the barracks because that is the workplace of those individuals.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is a situation where with each step we get more 
and more ridiculous.
  I served on committees with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] who has put together this special order, and I maintain that 
the depths of dumb cannot be fathomed in Washington, DC. That does not 
mean there are not good people here. I served with intelligent people 
in the House and in the Senate, people whose character is above 
reproach. But somehow, as we pass legislation and it becomes 
promulgated into ever finer regulations on the American people, all of 
us who have human weaknesses and fallacies are going to make the 
errors, and that is passed on and put on the American people as onerous 
rules and regulations.

                              {time}  1950

  Somehow, that comes about, and we continue to pile these on the 
American people day after day. We issue between 60,000 and 100,000 
pages of regulations in the Federal registry every year. Those are 
regulations like the EEOC regulations that have to be recognized and 
obeyed as the law of the land.
  One last comment I would like to make, and I know the gentleman from 
California is a cosponsor of this, and that is we have legislation, our 
amendment tomorrow, that will deny the EEOC funding to enforce the 
religious regulations that it has, and I hope that amendment will pass. 
It will give us a year to go in and change those regulations, abolish 
those regulations, if the House sees fit, and to correct that problem.
  But what about the future? The gentleman has cosponsored with me a 
piece of legislation that would require whenever rules and regulations 
or whenever the bill is passed, and then goes to the appropriate 
bureaucracy for rules and regulations to be promulgated, they would 
have to come back to this House to be examined by this House and then 
approved or disapproved.
  We could save the American people an enormous amount of grief and 
trouble if we would pass that regulation and if we pass that law and 
keep those regulations from being put on the public until we get a 
chance to assess them.
  I want to tell the gentleman again how much I appreciate him and our 
colleagues for this program on the family and the threat to the family.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman, who has been a leader in this 
Congress in fighting for the rights of Americans. The bill you just 
mentioned is an outstanding piece of legislation that would probably, 
more than almost any other single piece of legislation that we might 
enact, do more to impact the average American. Because all of a sudden, 
the Congress would have to pass judgment before any of these 
regulations take effect. And there are thousands and thousands of pages 
of regulations, especially under this President, and it is just 
devastating.
  I would like to ask the gentleman before he goes, because this is 
such an important issue, do you mean to say that under what the EEOC is 
doing, that conceivably an employer could be ruled in violation of the 
regulations for harassment because, for example, he might have a Bible 
on his bookshelf, or might wear the little pin, you know, the fish pin 
or maybe a cross, or might allow an employee to have one? Or maybe an 
employee has religious pictures at his desk, or maybe in the coffee 
room an employee witnesses to another about his or her faith? Are those 
the types of things that are conceivably are prohibited under these 
guidelines?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Exactly. Or offers of scripture for 
someone who lost a family member that could bring some relief, or 
invites them to a service during the week for some relief. All of that 
would be prohibited, and the employer could be held liable for 
harassment in that particular circumstance.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. So what we are really facing is every employer in this 
country, what do we have, 6 million small businesses, give or take, 
every employer in this country could be the subject of an official 
governmental action against him, and have the privilege of paying $15, 
$20, $50, or $100,000 in attorney's fees to validate his first 
amendment rights? Is that what we are talking about?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. That is exactly what we are talking 
about. I hope in this body tomorrow we are going to be able to give 1 
year's relief. It will not solve the problem. We need to follow with 
legislation to change or abolish the regulations. But this will say we 
get a year's relief from the regulations that have already been 
promulgated, and we will not have to live under them.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. The gentleman has done great work in this area, and we 
are anticipating a favorable result here in the House tomorrow. I thank 
the gentleman for taking the time to come down to the floor to explain 
this very important aspect of the attack on people of faith relative to 
the actions of the Clinton administration's EEOC.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, we have a number of issues to talk about, and we 
have here my colleague from the East Bay in California, Mr. Bill Baker, 
whom I would like to allocate some time to.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. 
Doolittle from California. It was a very big surprise to me when I came 
here to Washington and discovered that the problem was that the 
religious right was taking over. And here all the time my constituents 
and I thought that a weak national defense, a $4 trillion national 
debt, an arts program that has gone absolutely haywire, goals for 
education that have no relationship to the future or to science and 
math and hard subjects, and I learned it is not those things that are a 
problem, but we are on a witch hunt trying to find whether the 
religious right has taken over Washington.
  Russia has recently undergone real change, and their leaders, John, 
have said that we need more faith in our country. And they are passing 
out Bibles in their schools and are teaching their children to respect 
God, to respect themselves, and to have faith.
  Now, this is in a country that formerly was highly alcoholic, people 
were bored to tears. There was no productivity increase because 
everyone was working for that nameless, faceless state.
  Now that they are individuals again, and now that they have become 
free, they are talking about how to rebuild their country. And the way 
to rebuild their country is to rebuild their people. And the way to 
rebuild the people is to restore faith.
  So they have gone back to the Bible and gone back to faith, at the 
same time the Clinton administration here in Washington is telling 
people, don't have a show of religious faith. Don't have any religious 
symbols in the workplace. Don't wear a crucifix or a Star of David. 
Don't show that you care about anything but the state.
  We are repeating the mistakes of the last 70 years. The EEOC now is 
promulgating regulations for the workplace. This is reminiscent of 
taking over health care. We are having a health care fiasco here where 
the health care providers are not being asked what can we do to provide 
increased health care. What we are asking is how can we provide more 
bureaucracy and government control over health care. So you know 
whatever comes out of Washington is not going to say how can you get 
through your doctor's office faster, how can you have a procedure at a 
hospital cheaper and better.
  What they are saying is how can a regional health alliance control 
what kind of insurance you can have. How can a national health board 
control how much money is spent on health care. How can we fix 
pharmaceutical rates and hospital rates so no money will be invested in 
new plant and equipment and future wonder drugs.
  The question here in Washington is over political control. It is not 
over faith, it is not over producing better quality medical care for 
the people, it is not even over the citizens themselves and how they 
can live better by keeping more of their income in their pockets. It is 
about government control.
  So this whole battle is about whether they are going to control your 
life, John, and your faith.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. So if I understand the gentleman, the gospel of 
bureaucracy, governmental control, spending by the government, and 
taxes, is favored under this administration, it would appear. But for 
people to profess faith or live by the values of the family is 
apparently disfavored, at least so far as we can tell by the actions of 
the Clinton Justice Department in supporting the EEOC regulations 
referenced by Mr. Taylor, which pose a threat to every employee in the 
country, and certainly to every employer, and other examples that we no 
doubt will cite later on here.
  But the gentleman mentioned the health care plan. You know, it is 
interesting to me, we talk about the attack on people of faith. We have 
been branded the religious right. You know, it seems to me basically it 
is just whatever the ultra liberals who run this country don't like, 
they want to put an ugly name on it. To their way of thinking, what 
could be uglier than the religious right? What is so bizarre is, of 
course, look how many good people in this country, Democrats and 
Republicans, are people of faith. Are they all to be branded by the 
Democrat leadership religious right, and therefore cast aside?

  Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will yield, you mention the religious 
right and it has been mentioned in the previous statement by Mr. Baker 
about the attack being on our religion. And I think it goes much deeper 
than that. The attack is not just on religious freedom and the fact 
that conservative religious people have decided to become involved 
politically because they see our country going down the drain. It also 
stretches out into many other areas. Some of the groups which have been 
attached to the radical right are groups such as National Taxpayers 
Union, a taxpayers watchdog group which oversees how every taxpayer's 
dollars are spent in this Federal bureaucracy.
  It also reaches out to groups like Citizens Against Government Waste, 
who is a watchdog group who watches over wasteful government programs.

                              {time}  2000

  Those groups are being called radical right. You know what else is 
also called radical right? Term limits, U.S. term limits group, which 
has decided to get involved in educating people across this country 
about who is in favor of term limits and who is not. That is called 
radical right.
  If you look at the American people, and I have looked at polls, 
public opinion polls across this country, and you ask them about 
taxpayers and you ask them about the tax rates that our Federal 
Government imposes upon its citizens, they are not happy. If you ask 
them about wasteful government spending, they are not happy. But does 
that mean that every person who agrees with the National Taxpayers 
Union or Citizens Against Government Waste is somehow castigated as 
radical right?
  Mr. BAKER of California. They are just trying to paint any group that 
opposes the Great Society here in Washington as religious right. 
Imagine, we have two million employees we cannot even figure out when 
we steal 40 percent of a person's income that we are putting pressure 
on the family. And what are we spending that money on? Art that is 
obscene and of questionable value, a military that is now being 
demoralized because we have changed the standards of who gets in the 
military and what they can do when they are in the military. We are 
trying to destroy America from within, and we cannot even find out that 
overtaxation and overregulation are the cause for most of the people's 
lack of faith in their government. So is it strange that they turn 
their faith to a real God and to the Bible.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I consider it to be one of the greatest moral issues 
in this country today, the destruction of the American family by 
government through overspending, overregulation and overtaxation which 
is forcing both parents out into the workplace so they can earn enough 
money to pay their taxes. And because I believe that and because 
millions of Americans across the country believe that, we are branded 
as the dangerous radical right.
  Well, I just think people need to understand, we are not talking 
about a situation where someone is trying to impose their narrow 
religious views on everyone in this country. We are talking about 
fundamental notions in fairness, of what is appropriate for the 
relationship between the government and the people whom the government 
is supposed to serve. I think the gentleman from Tracy, from the 11th 
Congressional District, the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker] have both made excellent 
points that we need to just stand up and say, wait a minute, folks, do 
not put some label on us so that you can dismiss the work that we are 
trying to do.

  I think the American people need to understand what we are talking 
about. This is not an attack that is being waged in order to divert 
attention. Even in today's Roll Call, a Democrat author named Charles 
Cook wrote a very interesting article, if I might just presume upon my 
colleagues to quote this, because Roll Call is a little house liberal 
democrat newspaper that circulates up on Capitol Hill. And it serves as 
a vehicle for the Democratic congressional committee and others to use 
to put out their views.
  But even this paper thought they had gone overboard. Let me just 
quote them. ``Clearly, it is an expedient tactic for Democrats to 
employ,'' referring to this branding of the religious right or using 
that term, ``particularly as the prospects for health care reform look 
increasingly grim, as foreign policy developments suggest ineptitude on 
the part of the Administration''--can you imagine that, with Bill 
Clinton in the White House and Jimmy Carter helping him out in Korea? 
This country is in deep trouble. And they do not want you to focus too 
much on that. I am diverting from the quote. Let us go back.

       Ineptitude on the part of the Administration and as the 
     battle ranges with Republicans over Whitewater. In politics, 
     you always need a devil to beat on, and by reminding everyone 
     of the horror show of the 1992 GOP convention in Houston, 
     Democrats can conjure up a very convenient demon.

  I thought this thing about the demon was interesting, because I also 
read in People magazine, June 27, 1994, excerpts from this new book on 
the chaotic Clinton administration by Bob Woodward, very interesting 
book. I think it is called ``The Agenda.'' And in this, there is a 
little reference to this idea of demonization. It is talking about Mrs. 
Clinton and how she operates. It says, ``In an extraordinary White 
House meeting, she,'' meaning Mrs. Clinton, ``told Clinton's advisors, 
`we need to tell a story to sell our plan that has heroes and 
villains. You need to demonize things to sell something to people.'''

  Mr. BAKER of California. Pretty hard to make your doctor a demon.
  Could I just interject, after the Senate took one look at the EEOC 
guidelines, trying to overregulate the workplace and the people who 
work there, the Senate voted 94 to nothing to throw out the religious 
harassment guidelines. This is on June 17, 1994. So just very recently, 
after this was proposed, the Senate said, thank you, but no thank you. 
I am hoping that this House, Congressman Doolittle, will take the same 
well-reasoned approach to the overregulation of the workplace by a 
greedy Congress.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is 94 to nothing. I do not know if Ted Kennedy 
even voted for that, but I presume a lot of established liberal 
Democrats did.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tanner). Members should refrain from 
referring to individuals of the other body.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. I will just refer to 
the liberal Senators who no doubt voted for this.
  Still, though, the Clinton Administration has yet to direct its own 
bureaucrats in the EEOC to withdraw those, even after a 94 to nothing 
vote. We will have a vote offered by Mr. Taylor tomorrow on that and, 
hopefully, these people in the White House who say we are extreme, 
maybe they will get the message and will withdraw what I think to 
everyone but to them clearly is extreme.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Let me quote the author of the 94 to nothing 
amendment, a Democrat named Howell Heflin who said, ``It is a consensus 
on all sides of the political and religious spectrum that these 
guidelines as currently worded are seriously flawed at best.''
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. I am a little late joining your special order, as I 
promised I would, because I was watching Crossfire. I would not mention 
a show in competition with us right here except that it is off the air 
now, but the guests were Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican 
Party, and the distinguished Member from the other side of the aisle 
who is head of their Congressional Election Campaign Committee, Vic 
Fazio. And I was watching Vic, who is a good-natured person, smiling 
throughout the whole thing, trying to figure out if he really 
understands the Pandora's box that he has opened here.

  Now, you are a Mormon in the time that I have known you. I have known 
you as a family man, a man of faith who loves his Mormon faith. Some of 
us on the floor are Catholic. I do not even know the religious 
affiliation of second, brandnew, shiniest Member.
  I usually do not know anybody's religious affiliation until years and 
years after I have served with them. But I can pick out very quickly, 
after 6 months of floor voting and debate, those who are concerned, as 
you just expressed it, about the destruction of the American family.
  I have here the transcript of our friend, Vic Fazio, at the National 
Press Club yesterday morning. And it is very revealing.
  The press, I am happy to say, really put him up against it with a 
long Q and A period to try and figure out where he was headed with all 
this. I think he is going to crash into a stone wall and take his party 
with him, if they do not follow the advice I gave Vice President Al 
Gore at the back of the Chamber yesterday, to back off this 
divisiveness and what I think is clear and simple Christian bashing, 
much broader than the narrow focus that Vic Fazio tried to give it on 
the Crossfire Show tonight.
  The Catholic article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, by Gerald 
Seed, who is not an ideologue in any way, I was told on the show by Bob 
Novak, he wrote an article, ``Catholic Voters May Be a Problem for the 
Clinton Team.'' And I put this article in the Record yesterday. It is 
in the Record under all of our chairs today.
  I think one of the things that I discussed with Speaker Foley 
yesterday, with Dick Gephardt and with Vice President Al Gore is they 
better understand how broad reaching this attack is.
  I said, ``Are you going to make a case to me that Pope John Paul the 
2d is part of the religious left?''

                              {time}  2010

  Or is he even some centrist moderate compromising group when he spoke 
in very forceful terms with the magisterian, the teaching authority of 
the Catholic Church behind him on homosexuality, on taking innocent 
human life in the womb and crushing it, killing it, flatlining it, 
stopping a heartbeat?
  Here is one of the things Vic said, Vic Fazio said in response to a 
question, that I think is revealing. The moderator for one questioning 
period said, ``So you would say that in their agenda,'' the Christian 
right, ``I mean, what would you classify as being radical?''
  Mr. Fazio responds, ``Well, I guess I fear the intolerance, as I said 
earlier, the intolerance of people.''
  ``Specifically,'' the moderator said, and Mr. Fazio, ``Well, as it 
comes down to books in the library, magazines and newspapers,'' and get 
the next line, ``things that relate to people's sexual preference,'' ah 
ha, ``places in which it is appropriate to express your faith,'' oh, 
you mean like praying here in the morning, praying at the Supreme 
Court, our brothers and sisters in the U.S. Senate opening every one of 
their days with a prayer?
  Then he says, ``The ways in which you might do it, express your 
faith. I certainly think these are kinds of things that trouble people 
who believe in the Constitution.'' You mean like the 56 men who signed 
the Declaration of Independence and they all lost their fortunes, that 
wrote their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, and ``with a 
firm reliance in Divine Providence'' went right before that?
  Then he says, ``And those that believe in the separation of church 
and state, that is a true protection for those of religious faith as 
well as for those in the country who choose to practice theirs in 
another way.''
  Let me just read six titles of articles and then we will discuss.
  Bob Novak today, a dynamite column: ``Doctor Elders Is Safe,'' safe 
from being fired, but Bob Novak writes a great column that this country 
is not safe from her attacks on Christianity.
  Joycelyn Elders, the sex guru general, ``Condoms to Nine-Years-
Olds,'' and here is where she is discussing, ``We had a girl in 
Arkansas who at eight gave birth to twins.'' I wonder if this is really 
true. I will take her at her word. ``We must teach them responsibility 
and make sure they have the availability of a condom,'' and that is an 
uninterrupted sentence.
  ``Condoms For Eight-Year-Olds,'' and that column is by my friend, 
Susan Fields, an excellent column.
  Here is from today's newspaper. ``Fazio Says Religious Right Is 
Pushing GOPs To Extreme.'' Of course, one of the things that everybody 
is questioning Vic about is, since when are we going to get all this 
free advice from Vic on how to save our Republican Party? He even talks 
in this Press Club Q and A period that he things if we are ever going 
to take the White House back, we have got to follow his advice. I know 
Vic wants us to take the White House back.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Will the gentleman yield? Who won seven of 
the last seven special elections in 30 percent Republican districts, 
the last two?
  Mr. DORNAN. And they were not always people who were pro-life. The 
Senator from Georgia got Christian Coalition help. He is pro-choice. So 
did the very talented Senator from Texas that won.
  Mr. BAKER of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, who 
won seven of the last seven elections?
  Mr. DORNAN. The Republican Party, and not every candidate was alike, 
and the Christian Coalition weighed in to help people that they did not 
agree with across the board.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is 
the Republican Party the only party where you can have an open 
discussion on issues like homosexuality and abortion, where both sides 
are represented?
  Mr. DORNAN. A darn good question, I would say to the gentleman, 
because when you try to get a discussion going like that in some 
Democrat groups across this country, you are shot down. There is only 
one viewpoint that is tolerated, and that viewpoint is pro-sodomy, and 
95 percent of the Democratic clubs across this country are aware of 
this in the debate. You are screamed down. You could not even talk on 
the Democratic Convention platform, if you were the Governor of one of 
the biggest States in this Union, and I am talking about a Democratic 
pro-life hero, Bob Casey, but seven Republicans were put up on the 
platform at the Democratic Convention who had never done anything to 
walk a Democratic precinct in their life. They were given a platform 
and the Governor of Pennsylvania was told, ``Get lost.''

  Mr. POMBO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER of California. I wonder if we could introduce our second 
newest Member?
  Mr. POMBO. Before we do that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] a question. He says that not all 
the candidates were alike, that they had different viewpoints. What was 
it that tied all the candidates together? What was the central theme 
behind all seven of those?
  Mr. DORNAN. To use Lee Atwater's big tent frame, one thing that 
brought all seven of these candidates together, and we have one of them 
right here with us, so we are going to give him the floor in a second, 
was the moral issue of passing massive debt on to our children and 
grandchildren and their children, massive debt. We have got into a 
bankruptcy type spending in this country that is so bad it is a moral 
issue. There is one.
  Crime was an issue that brought everybody together. The health care 
issue was discussed in most of these races, because I think every one 
of them but one, maybe all seven, came after the Hilary task force had 
weighed in with its 1,364 page report.
  Let us ask the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas] what are the key 
issue in his campaign and how broad was his support?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from California 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe if we actually take into consideration both of 
the House races, are we not nine for nine in major contests since 
election day in this country?
  Mr. DORNAN. We were talking about big State races; nine for nine.
  Mr. LUCAS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think quite 
clearly, and I suppose I should apologize to my colleagues, because 
from what I am able to gather and determine, a lot of this, whether you 
want to call it hysteria or this angle of attack that is now being 
used, really did not start to boil up to the top until after my 
election victory in the Sixth District of Oklahoma, and that of our new 
colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis]. So obviously we 
have gotten someone's attention.
  Pounding up and down the trail in the Sixth District of Oklahoma, a 
district that was and is 65 percent Democrat in registration, a 
district full of very conservative Christian Democrats in both an urban 
and rural environment, it was a joy for me to run as a candidate who 
opposed massive tax increases, who supported term limitations, a 
candidate who did not want to nationalize health care, a candidate who 
was opposed to further intrusions in our private lives, be it gun 
control or other things of that nature; a candidate who said up and 
down the trail that things like our agricultural industry and our 
energy industry were being ignored by the present administration in 
favor of short-term social goals.
  It was a pleasure campaigning out there because the people of western 
Oklahoma, of central Oklahoma, responded to me. Certainly I shared 
those conservative moral values and was never ashamed to say so, but 
they responded to me.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is such a thing as a radical right in western 
Oklahoma in the Sixth District of Oklahoma, then those are just the 
common folks who earn a living, who send their children to school, who 
care about the issues. So what if they happen to go to church on 
Sunday, happen to be God-fearing people? I am proud of them. I am a 
pleasured person to serve them, to be one of them.
  This statement that they are the radical whatever that sent Frank 
Lucas to Congress is just so unbelievable, so totally unbelievable, as 
to be laughable. I know out there that they know this.
  Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleagues for creating this mass 
hysteria among the other side in their efforts to lash out and try to 
put a different spin on things. Quite simply, my constituents, the salt 
of the earth, good, solid people who are still registered in the other 
party, are so because they are not ready to admit that they have been 
gone off and left in the political stream of life.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman a 
question. He was elected in a district, I believe, that has not had a 
Republican elected for over 20 years, is that correct?
  Mr. LUCAS. That is correct, 19 years.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK, 19 years. What is the Democrat registration in 
your district, I would ask the gentleman?
  Mr. LUCAS. Sixty-five percent Democratic. In fact, my home county, 
until a number of good people reregistered to help me in my primary, it 
was about 91 percent, 92 percent.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. When the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], head 
of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Mrs. Clinton, 
the First Lady, are out to ``demonize,'' as the evidence shows that 
that is what they are out to do, they are basically saying to all the 
good Democrats, not just the Republicans, to all the Democrats in the 
gentleman's district in Oklahoma, ``You are the religious right and we 
don't respect you.'' Is that what your impression is?
  Mr. LUCAS. The very people we are speaking of are the folks who are 
the backbone of my district, and I believe the backbone of this 
country.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. The overwhelming majority of the people in this 
country are God-fearing people. I think the statistics are that over 
half have prayer every week, go to church every week. So imagine the 
God-fearing people of this country, Republicans and Democrats, 
independents, all being labeled by the Democratic Party leadership as 
somehow less than worthy of full dignity because they are ``religious 
right.'' Shocking, really.
  Mr. DORNAN. Let me tell you again, looking at our colleague, Vic 
Fazio, in his long appearance at the National Press Club, and let me 
see if I can try and figure out what he is saying. He is saying, and he 
said it again on Cross Fire tonight, he would say to the people in the 
Sixth District of Oklahoma, ``Go ahead and practice your faith, go 
ahead and let your faith give you certain beliefs. But don't bring 
those beliefs or worries about values to the public marketplace in a 
voting situation and attempt to influence other people's opinions. If 
your value system is based on religion, keep your mouth shut. If your 
value system is just based on the simple law of the jungle that you do 
not want to be beaten up, so you want brutes put away in prison, well 
you can base it on that.''
  I think what is happening here, I said in my 1-minute today, read an 
article from the USA Today by Richard Benedetto, I am not that familiar 
with him, but I am starting to read a little of these news coverage 
stories just in the past month on other things other than religion. He 
says Clinton faces over the next 2 years, if he has any thoughts of a 
second term, he says he has ``very little wiggle room,'' as he says it, 
the fate of his health legislation, the results of the 1994 elections, 
I guess the long-term performance of the economy, the outcome of a 
sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas State 
worker, hearings in this Chamber and the U.S. Senate on the Whitewater 
land dealings and his ability to get a credible handle on foreign 
affairs. I added the word credible. He said get a handle on foreign 
affairs. Now if he has all of these worries, what can they come up with 
to divert, to stop this nine for nine onslaught against them of losing 
all of these elections? I think somebody without understanding at all, 
because they are not part of it, they are not part of the fear about 
the cultural meltdown and the worry about family values in this 
country, they thought that they could attack a segment of those who 
encourage voters to get out and vote, and attacked on a TV show Rev. 
Jerry Falwell, and former Rev. Pat Robertson. He wants to narrow it 
down to a few, and he does not understand, frankly. Two of my 
daughters, and I have three, but the two oldest ones who were married 
first have three kids each. They told me, ``Dad, as plain, run-of-the-
mill Roman Catholics who go to church every Sunday, we consider 
ourselves part of the religious right. We are part of that Christian 
coalition. We think government is making it hard for us to raise our 
children. We don't want condoms passed out in schools. We do not want 
value-free courses teaching sex such as straight old biology as though 
you are talking about animal husbandry.'' They said, ``Don't these 
people understand they are insulting us?''
  I know that there are Reagan Democrats, as they were called by the 
political pundits all across this country who rejected Bush for 
economic reasons and are now analyzing the common wheel, what is going 
on out there in the marketplace, and they are disgusted with the 
continual assaults upon the family. And they sit back and they say now 
let me see, was it the conservative philosophy that has caused this, 
the conservative judges, the conservative lawyers, the conservative 
district attorneys, the conservative movie producers or financiers, the 
conservative actors or actresses, the conservative show hosts, the 
conservative priests, the conservative rabbis, the conservative 
ministers, was it the conservative politicians who defended pornography 
down the line the last 30 years until they have turned our Nation into 
an open sewer in some cities? Who has defended abortion for all 9 
months for any reason and told young teenage girls, 13, 14, 15 that 
they could have an abortion behind their mother's back, and that we as 
a party will fight to get them Federal money, and tell those who think 
it is murdering innocent life to just take a walk, we are going to get 
you Federal funding for this? Who has said the Boy Scouts should take 
in homosexuals? Who other than Joycelyn Elders?

  And there is a column by Novak where he quotes the cardinal of 
Washington DC's archdiocese, Cardinal Hickey, who says we must now 
accept that everything that Elders says is Bill Clinton speaking. He 
now must come forward and admit this is everything that he stands for, 
or he would not tell a cardinal twice in two letters to back off, that 
he is going to support Elders.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, 
the Attorney General has determined that we should not have 
multidistrict prosecution of child pornography. As the gentleman 
recognizes, child pornography is not a mom and pop industry. It is a 
large section of the organized crime, and in order to get rid of the 
Reagan administration attack where it had attacked in several districts 
at once in district courts, the Attorney General determined that we 
would not do that any longer.
  Also, instead of having standards that disallow children to be 
involved at all in child pornography, they said the child had to be 
nude and performing a sex act. It was not just enough that they were in 
it.
  This weakening of the child pornography laws was tossed out of court 
by a well-reasoned judge as she tried to get a conviction overturned so 
they could establish these new weaker standards.
  My question is do you not believe that the first year and a half of 
the Clinton administration, with the ridiculous appointments and the 
weakening of our laws toward the family is reestablishing the Reagan 
revolution, and these nine victories were because people do have 
character, they respect family failures, and they are going to get 
that, they are going to elect Frank Lewis in a 30 percent Republican 
seat?
  Mr. DORNAN. In direct answer to your question I would give names in 
the White House. When Christians and people of orthodox faith, and I 
have plenty of orthodox rabbis calling me, writing me, stopping me in 
the hall. I tell them, ``Don't whisper. We're in the majority around 
here. You wouldn't know it from the news media.''
  But when you look at appointments like Donna Shalala, Roberta 
Actenberg, Christine Gibby, Joycelyn Elders, Patsy Thomason, when you 
look at the trooper 4, the Rosegate law firm 4, money changers in the 
Arkansas temple 4, that is my name for them, the condom 4, the pro-
Hanoi 4, Strobe Talbot, Derek Shear, Sam Brown, and Morton Halperin, 
when you look at the Fab 4, James Carville, Paul Begala, Mandy 
Grunwald, and Stan Greenberg, and battered wife Stephanopoulos 
Christians who are worried about their children, and worried about 
what's happening in the schools look at this and they say, ``Where is 
our support?''
  Novak in his column says where is there one traditional, upstanding 
Catholic who identifies with Mother Teresa, who agrees with every 
single bishop in America on life issues, even the liberal and moderate 
bishops, where are these people?
  I want to get the exact words of Cardinal Hickey's spokesman, 
Monsignor William Lori. And he says, ``I'm speaking for Cardinal 
Hickey.
  ``One can only really conclude from both Clinton's letters, May 6 and 
June 3 this month, that Dr. Elders is truly speaking for the 
administration.''
  When I got back from Normandy, one of my sons said to me, ``Dad, is 
the press going to have the guts to question the President about what 
Elders said while he was gone?'' and I asked what that was. I did not 
hear it over there in Europe. Elders told the press that Clinton 
stopped her somewhere during the month of May and said, ``Joycelyn, I'm 
all for you. I'm backing you up. I love what you're doing. I'm with you 
all the way.''
  Then she says yesterday, ``I taught your President,'' she should have 
at least said hers, ours, she said, ``I taught your President an awful 
lot,' and got a standing ovation from about 300 lesbians.
  I mean, what is going on here? As I said this morning, why does my 
pal, Vic Fazio, who has a nice personality, think he can back up people 
who are insulting every Christian denomination in this country worthy 
of the name? I wish we had Ron Lewis here to join with Frank. The way 
he had been demonized, to use Hillary's word, in the press, I mean I 
was really looking forward to meeting a Christian bookstore owner from 
the great State of Kentucky. And here is just another good, hardworking 
Member who is worried about the country, worried about the massive 
accumulating debt, worried about the family, worried about his kids and 
whoever God has put in his care, and you would think by reading some of 
these columns that Frank here and Ron Lewis was the beginning of some 
sort of Middle Ages, Dark Ages takeover and crushing of the liberty of 
this country.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. DORNAN. The crushing and the oppression has been against the 
American family, not the other way around.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would like to inquire of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, how 
many minutes we have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tanner). The gentleman has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thirteen minutes. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DORNAN. If the gentleman will yield, do not rush. Because I 
follow that with 60 minutes. But I want to let the Speaker pro tem make 
it down to the chowder crabfest down at the White House. I may go down 
there myself and tell them about our special order, give them an 
autographed transcript of the Record tomorrow. But we have got plenty 
of time. Let us not rush this.
  Mr. BAKER of California. I think it is important to remember that 
when the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas] was sworn in, the first 
thing he did was sign, not the scriptures, but the A to Z withdrawal 
petition to cut government and to balance this budget.
  Mr. DORNAN. He did it before he spoke. He started to speak, went 
around and signed it, very dramatic moment, then came back and then 
made his introductory, very pleasant, remarks, to this Chamber.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Very radical; very radical.
  Mr. DORNAN. Let me get the reaction from everybody. My friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], was beating up on my friend Pat 
Buchanan, and they took a simple verbal slip of Pat Buchanan at the 
Republican Convention, and Vic used this again, said should we have a 
religious war in this country, and he starts beating up on one line of 
Pat Buchanan's at the Republican Convention. Here was Pat's line. Pat 
said, incorrectly, ``We have a religious war in this country.'' He 
meant, and he has corrected it and said it ever since, ``We have a 
spiritual war, a cultural war, in this country.''
  But Clinton went up to Notre Dame, very carefully had priests behind 
him with the good-looking Roman collars on, and he says, ``We do not 
need a war, one religion against another,'' and got a standing ovation 
from the Notre Dame student body that was there. Pat was not calling 
for Mormon against Presbyterian against Methodist against Catholic 
against our Jewish brothers. That is not what he was saying at all.
  What he was saying is we have a war of values, and do we. So here is 
Pat today, and let us everybody grab a piece of this.
  Buchanan's column starts off by saying, ``Bellicose barrage of 
Christian-bashing.'' Excuse me, this was last week. You would think 
that Vic Fazio's staff would have put this in front of his face and 
tipped him off he is heading in the wrong direction. Pat starts off: 
``Are you now or have you ever been a Christian? The way things are 
going, congressional committees are likely to be asking that question 
in a few years. What is the Christian-bashing all about? Simple. A 
struggle for the soul of America is under way, a struggle to determine 
whose views, whose values, beliefs, and standards will serve as the 
basis of law, who will determine what is right and wrong in America, 
and the intensifying assault on the Christian right should be taken as 
a sign that these folks, the Christians, are gaining ground and winning 
hearts.''
  Jump forward to his closing two paragraphs: ``If one would sit with 
these Christian folks and ask what they want for America, one would 
find that the answer is they simply want America to become again the 
good country she once was.'' Now, I think still is. ``They want the 
right to life of unborn, preborn children protected. They want the 
popular culture to reflect the values of patriotism, loyalty, bravery, 
decency,'' and it sounds like the Boy Scout oath, does it not? ``They 
want magazines, movies, and TV shows depolluted of raw sex, violence, 
and filthy language,'' and I know that Pat wants the marketplace to do 
that, not us in this Congress, ``just as they want rivers and beaches 
detoxified of raw sewage. They want the schools for which they pay 
taxes to teach the values in which they believe,'' the values, by the 
way, that Alexis de Tocqueville saw in this country in the 1830's. Pat 
continues, ``They want kids to have the same right to pray that they 
had, not a school-ordained prayer, kids' voluntary prayer from within 
the student body, and, yes, they do want chastity taught as morally 
right and traditional marriage taught as the God-ordained and natural 
norm. Is that so wicked and sinister an agenda?''

  And, my colleagues, this very day, the Governor of Hawaii, because he 
thought his tourism was being threatened, had the guts to sign a law 
that bans same-sex homosexual lesbian marriage. He signed it. Now, it 
is probably going to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
  Whose values will be reflected in those decisions, the values of the 
majority of Americans or the values of something that 10, 20, 30 years 
ago would have been considered bizarre and radical to the extreme, 
unworthy of public discourse?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. That was the Governor of Hawaii? Is that what the 
gentleman said?
  Mr. DORNAN. That is right.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. He is a Democrat, is he not?
  Mr. DORNAN. He is a Democrat.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. So the Governor of Hawaii, which has to be one of the 
Nation's most liberal States if not the most liberal State----
  Mr. DORNAN. Patsy Mink told me, by way of helpful help, she said you 
had better rebuild your party in the State. There is no Republican 
Party in Hawaii. None.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. So he has just been branded by the Democrat leadership 
in the White House, basically, as religious right because he has signed 
something into law that does not agree with their values? Now that is 
exactly the point we are making, that to brand people religious right 
simply to ``demonize'' them, and I believe that was Mrs. Clinton's term 
in People magazine or, as Mr. Cook explained, that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio] and the Democrat leadership is doing.
  That is smearing them. That is basically using a personal attack in 
order to divert attention from the issues.
  Let me tell you if supporting the line-item veto like I do, if 
supporting the balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution like 
I do, if supporting term limits like I do, if supporting private-
property rights like I do, if supporting smaller government, less 
regulation, tax cuts for families, capital-gains cuts for jobs, strong 
family values, if supporting love of country and of God like I do, if 
that is to be deemed religious right, I plead guilty, and so do the 
vast majority of the people of this country, and it just goes to show 
you how vastly out of touch the Democrat leadership and the Clinton 
administration are to think they can get away with this kind of a smear 
campaign being waged across the national media and think that we are 
just going to sit back like little puppy dogs and take it and not 
strike back, because, Mr. Speaker, there are too many good people in 
this country who care deeply about these things, and they know that 
this is no kookie, far-right fringe set of values that we are talking 
about. This is mainstream America. Sadly, mainstream America is not 
represented very strongly in the United States House of 
Representatives.

  Mr. BAKER of California. If the gentleman will yield, may I conclude 
by suggesting that the Democrat Party has brought us this majority 
coalition back together again that George Bush let slip through his 
fingers, and I would like to thank Vic Fazio and wife of the President 
for focusing the public's attention on just what is wrong here in 
Washington, and that majority brought us Frank Lucas from Oklahoma, in 
an overwhelming vote in a special election. Frank, it is great to have 
you with us.
  Mr. LUCAS. My colleagues have summed up. You are entirely right.
  In my district where I, too, read in all the publications in the 
Washington area about how it was such a great religious right-wing 
whatever, it flabbergasts me, but those are the same issues I 
campaigned up and down the trail, balanced-budget amendment, line-item 
veto, and my opposition to nationalized health care, my opposition to 
further tax increases, and the people responded, and they responded 
because they are not the radical Christian right. They are not the 
radical anything. They are just the average citizens out there who work 
for a living, who care about this country, who care about the Lord, who 
want to be able to prosper and to do well and to have Uncle Sam, in 
whatever guise that it might be, stay out of their life, stay out of 
their church, stay out of their pocket.
  And when I spread that message across the Sixth District of Oklahoma, 
people responded, no matter what their skin color was or their economic 
background or which particular church they attended or whatever they 
did, because it is the views that reflect the good folks of the Sixth 
District of Oklahoma.
  I think obviously in the other eight races they are the views that 
reflect this country, and the people who do not share those views had 
probably better spend more time focusing on why they are out of sync 
than just simply calling names as a way to cover their deficiencies.
  Otherwise what has started with those nine races will continue 
through the summer and the fall, and we will see a different process 
here next year, because the people will speak just as they have already 
spoken nine times.
  I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to participate in this 
discussion before this esteemed group this evening.
  Mr. DORNAN. I say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], 
before you yield back your time, can I get in one line here from the 
Washington Post? I keep referring to yesterday. Actually the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Fazio] made this speech Tuesday morning, on June 
21. Here is the Washington Post, the liberal paper of record, one of 
America's three largest newspapers, here in the District of Columbia, a 
reporter whose political beliefs are unknown to me, which is the sign 
of a good reporter, Don Balz, and sometimes I like what I am reading 
when he reports, other times I do not. But he seems like a fair 
reporter. Here is what he says.

                              {time}  2040

  Here is what he says, and he quotes Vic Fazio directly. ``The 
Republicans accept the religious right and their tactics at their own 
peril,'' again here is Vic helping us ``For these activists are 
demanding their rightful seat at the table.'' Did he mean to say it 
that way? Why not?, ``And that is what the American people fear most.'' 
That is what Fazio said. Vic Fazio is telling us that the greatest fear 
Americans have is that religious people are demanding their rightful 
seat at the table. Then Don Balz goes on to write, ``Democrats are 
worried about major losses in the fall elections and Fazio's speech 
indicated that he and other Democrats hope to shift the focus away from 
public dissatisfaction with incumbents in Congress by raising questions 
instead about what kind of candidates the Republicans will be 
offering.'' Outstanding candidates like Frank here.
  ``Although Fazio lumped a number of groups into what he called the 
radical right,'' and by the way that is what he has been saying for 2 
days, the radical right, not any religious right. Then he slipped over 
and over and keeps saying the religious right. The article goes on, 
``His principal target was the role of religious conservatives in the 
Republican Party.'' That is me, that is including my five grown 
children. It is that entire section of the Catholic faithful that you 
can call ``loyal.''
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Nothing wrong with being religious, basically.
  Mr. Speaker, let me yield to the gentleman from California in a few 
minutes we have left.
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the 
gentleman taking out the time tonight for this special order to talk 
about what is going on in this country today and what the agenda should 
be for this country and this government today.
  I, like every other Member of this body represent about 575,000 
people. In my district my constituents, the people that I live with, my 
neighbors, my friends, they all have a lot of fears. They have a lot of 
fears about this country and what is going on today. Their fears are 
not about the radical right or the religious leaders who have spoken in 
this country. Their fears are about the runaway deficit, their fears 
are that taxes seem to increase every year, and they have to work 
harder, longer hours just to continue on for the standard of living 
that they have.
  The fears that they have are that their children are not going to 
have the same opportunities that they had; that they are not going to 
be able to hand their children and grandchildren a better world. That 
is what they are afraid of. But if we want to work together as a 
Congress, we need to look at what the real fears are and stop this 
fearmongering and finger-pointing that is going on right now. I thank 
the gentleman.

                          ____________________