[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3696-H3698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H3696]]
AUTHORIZING USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR WASHINGTON FOR JESUS 1996 PRAYER
RALLY
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 166) authorizing the use of the
Capitol Grounds for Washington for Jesus 1996 prayer rally.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 166
Whereas One Nation Under God, Inc. has sponsored two
previous prayer rallies entitled Washington for Jesus in the
city of Washington and plans a third such event over a two-
day period on April 29 and 30, 1996;
Whereas public assembly for giving thanks and praying for
the United States is a tradition in this Nation dating from
before the Nation's founding and commemorated each year by a
national Thanksgiving holiday; and
Whereas the Washington for Jesus prayer rally provides for
the peaceable assembly and public expression of peoples of
all faiths to pray and give thanks for the United States:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),
SECTION. 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR WASHINGTON FOR JESUS
1996 PRAYER RALLY.
(a) In General.--One Nation Under God, Inc. (in this
resolution referred to as the ``sponsor'') shall be permitted
to sponsor a public event (in this resolution referred to as
the ``event'') over a two-day period on April 29 and 30, 1996
(plus one day before and one day after the event to fully
accommodate for setup, takedown, and cleanup).
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The event shall be free of any
admission charge to the public and arranged so as not to
interfere with the needs of Congress, subject to conditions
to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the
Capitol Police Board. The sponsor shall assume full
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to
all activities associated with the event.
(c) Structures and Equipment.--For the purposes of this
resolution, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the
Capitol Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and
related structures and equipment as may be required to
conduct the event, subject to approval of the Architect of
the Capitol.
(d) Additional Arrangements.--The Architect of the Capitol
and the Capitol Police Board are authorized to make any such
additional arrangements as may be necessary to carry out the
event consistent with good order, public health, safety, and
protection of the Capitol and the Capitol Grounds.
SEC. 2. SPONSORSHIP OR ENDORSEMENT.
Nothing contained in this resolution shall be construed as
an endorsement of the sponsor or the event (or any related
activities or expressions, religious or otherwise). The
sponsor shall not represent either directly or indirectly
that this resolution or any activity carried out under this
resolution in any way constitutes approval or endorsement by
the United States Government, or any of its agencies, of any
activity or expression, religious or otherwise, of the
sponsor or the event.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Oberstar] will each be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 166; a
resolution to authorize the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 1996
prayer rally.
The first rally took place in 1980 and drew approximately 750,000
people. The second one in 1988 was somewhat smaller at approximately
500,000 people.
Both of these rallies took place on the Mall and were conducted under
permits issued by the National Park Service.
The Capitol Police Board has notified the organization that because
of the extent of the event, Congressional authorization this time is
necessary.
On April 18, 1996, Congressman Stockman introduced House Concurrent
Resolution 166 which would authorize the use of Capitol Grounds for the
1996 prayer rally. Pursuant to the resolution the sponsor, would be
authorized to sponsor an event on the Capitol Grounds on April 29, and
April 30. This would include 1 day before and 1 day after the event for
set up, take down, and clean up.
The event would be conducted without any admission charge to the
public and would be arranged so as not to interfere with congressional
activities. It would be subject to the conditions prescribed by the
Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.
The resolution would require the sponsor to assume full
responsibility for the expenses and liabilities associated with the
event. The resolution would also authorize the sponsor to erect stage,
and sound amplification devices, and related structures and equipment
required to conduct the rally, subject to the approval of the Architect
of the Capitol.
The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board would be
authorized to make any additional arrangements necessary to carry out
the event in order to protect order, public health, safety, and
property.
Finally, the resolution states that the resolution does not either
directly or indirectly, endorse the sponsor or any related activities
or expressions, religious or otherwise. Further, the sponsor may not
represent that the resolution or any activity carried out under it
constitutes endorsement by the U.S. Government or any of its agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I support the concept underlying this resolution, the
principle that any group, including religious organizations, should
have the same rights to use the Capitol grounds to express their views
as other organizations.
I do not have a problem with the basic purpose of the resolution
under consideration. But I do have very serious concerns about process,
about lack of process, and that is the reason that I objected, or said
I would object, to the proposal to bring up this resolution under
unanimous consent procedures.
We are facing today what we faced when the proposal was made for
unanimous consent procedure as another example of the leadership in
this body steamrolling hastily drafted legislation through the House
without an opportunity for the legislation to be reviewed either by the
committee of jurisdiction or by the House itself. This has been the
rule, not the exception. I went back and checked. Of the 16 bills
considered under rules this year, 11, or 72 percent, have been brought
to the floor without any committee reporting them; 72 percent of bills
brought under a rule were brought to the floor without a committee
having considered them, and that includes the crime bill, two
continuing resolutions, and the constitutional amendment on taxation.
Mr. Speaker, the same pattern of bypassing the normal legislative
process is evident in unanimous consent requests. According to the
House Information Resources, which I asked to review this matter, of
the 25 measures brought to the House under unanimous consent during
this Congress, 21, 84 percent, were not reported by the committee of
jurisdiction. In fact, 16 of the 21 had no committee action at all.
Now, this is not, and I am not talking about a matter of committee
jurisdiction, I am not talking about a matter of turf. I am talking
about a matter that goes to the very essence of a deliberative body.
There ought to be free, fair, and open discussion of the matters that
come before the House. The committee is the filtering process, the
filtering organization where issues of state are aired and discussed
and given opportunity for people to ask questions, to find out who is
behind the legislation, what its purpose is, who are its sponsors.
We had no advance notice in this committee, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, which has jurisdiction over this
matter, about this issue. None of the sponsors of the organization came
before our committee, nor to me individually, nor do I know whether
they came, nor does it matter whether they came, to see the leadership
on the committee. The point is we have had before our committee matters
in which other organizations have wanted to use the Capitol grounds for
their purposes, had the Soap Box Derby, we had the Olympic Torch
organization.
{time} 1715
Mr. Speaker, we have had the stock car people that wanted to have a
display on the Capitol grounds. Those were all aired, they were
discussed, they were reviewed. We had questions, we raised those
questions. Members' concerns were satisfied. That is the way the
committee process should
[[Page H3697]]
work, an opportunity for all of us; not just us but through us, the
public, who will be affected by the legislation, to understand what
this legislation is, who is behind it and what is behind it.
When we do not have that process, all of us suffer as a result. I
have been very much a stickler for process, as members of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure know, for 20 years. This is not
something new. However, this example of bypassing the committee process
is unwarranted, unreasonable, and it is unnecessary. Frankly, I think
it is an abuse visited upon the chairman of the subcommittee, a very
fair, decent, scholarly, and thoughtful person. He did not have an
opportunity to discuss this matter in committee, to exercise his
jurisdiction.
Now we find out, Mr. Speaker, just in the last couple of days, that
it was known way back in February that this prayer rally would need a
resolution of Congress to waive limitations imposed by Capitol Police
regulations on use of the Capitol grounds. Why was the resolution not
introduced at that time? I am not asking the gentleman, I am just
raising the question. Why was the resolution not introduced then? If it
had been, the leadership knew this was a problem. We could have
followed the proper process of review, consideration, discussion, air
the matter.
Mr. Speaker, who is behind this? Who are the groups? Who are the
religious organizations? Who are they that want to use these grounds,
and for what purpose? We should have been informed right from the
beginning, when there would have been time to ask questions and inform
our Members, inform the public. Instead, nothing was done until a week
before the event, and then late last week, a proposal to bring this
resolution up by unanimous consent, and we had no knowledge of who is
behind it and what it is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I respect every person's right to pray in the way that
they wish to pray, and I respect wanting to use a public event for that
purpose. It is not my way, it is some other people's way, but that is
fine, and I respect it.
However, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the chairman of the subcommittee:
Will the rally be allowed to construct different structures than are
permitted by the regulations?
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I respect the concerns of the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] about the process, and I will try to
address some of those concerns. To specifically answer his question,
the rally will not be able to construct any structure that is not
permitted under the regulations.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman: Will the rally
or its members or its participants be permitted to sell goods on the
Capitol grounds?
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, no goods
will be able to be sold whatsoever on the Capitol grounds.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Will fundraising for the organizations involved be
permitted?
Mr. GILCHREST. There will be no fundraising activities involved under
this permit.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.
Will the rally be permitted to claim that in any way Congress
endorses the sponsoring organization or endorses the rally or its
purposes?
Mr. GILCREST. No. Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, the
rally will not be able to claim endorsement by the Congress for any of
their activities.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his responses.
Those are reassuring and very helpful.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Public Buildings and Economic Development of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have many of the same concerns that I
guess have been voiced by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
I have complete confidence in the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Gilchrest]. I am sure many of these issues he has made decisions that
are appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, the only thing I would like to say is that, even though
it is not a major event, there is a process that is involved. Once we
start to deviate from that process, there could be things that could
develop that may at some point come back to maybe embarrass the
Congress. So I am not going to stand in apposition, and I have complete
confidence that the gentleman from Maryland has probably reviewed this
well, and I can at this particular point accept this.
In the future, however, Mr. Speaker, I think the words of caution
from the gentleman from Minnesota should be well taken, not just on
this committee but on every committee. Once we start, no matter how we
look at any particular issue, some certainly much more serious in
nature and presenting more of a problem to the Congress than others,
nevertheless, there sometimes could be things developed that set a
precedent, and then people begin to talk about being treated
differently.
I am from the old school, and I think all people should be treated
alike. That is one of the reasons why Vince Lombardi was loved so much.
He treated everybody alike. Willie Davis said, ``He treated us all
alike; like dogs, but all alike.'' I think the Congress must do that
and ensure that we do that. We have a process. I think we should adhere
to that process.
Mr. Speaker, I have no opposition, I would say to the chairman of the
subcommittee. I would like to echo, though, and associate myself with
the remarks of the gentleman from Minnesota. I think it was wise
counsel. I hope in the future we could adhere to that counsel. I think
it makes a lot of sense.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue that the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Oberstar] raised. I would like to extend my concurrence with the
gentleman's sense of concern about the process not being followed.
I would also like to extend an invitation to work with both of the
gentlemen, starting right now, that the process for these kinds of
resolutions not be superseded, so that we get the information in a
timely fashion and the committee process can fully review some of these
reservations and some of these activities.
Mr. Speaker, this particular activity was brought to our attention
very recently. This particular activity, this prayer rally, is going to
happen, I believe, next Monday. So as a result of that, we have been
asked to expedite this process. When we were asked to do that, we
looked into a number of other activities that were very similar to this
activity over the years.
There have been numerous prayer rallies on the Capitol Grounds very
similar to this particular activity that is occurring next Monday. The
only difference is that this activity will go beyond 24 hours. As a
result of that extension of time, it is necessary for the permit to go
through the Congress, as opposed to the permit just going through the
Capitol Police.
In the future, however, Mr. Speaker, whenever an extension of time
like this is necssary, I would like to work with the gentlemen, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Oberstar], to make sure the process is not superseded, that we go
through the committee process, and all of the concerns the Members have
raised here today would be fully aired in this process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stockman].
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the gentleman that from what
I understand, the Capitol Police knew about the rally for 2 years, and
the organizers were not notified until February. They got ahold of us
soon thereafter. We were working on the legislation, so we expedited it
as quickly as we were notified by the Capitol Police. But from our
understanding, the Capitol Police knew about it for 2 years and they
did not tell them they had this requirement until February.
I agree with what some of what the Members said, in that we would try
to obey the process. We will ask also, too, for the record, that the
Capitol Police
[[Page H3698]]
set out policies in advance that are known to the organizers.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the rally is conducted in a way that will make
all of us proud.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Stockman]. I would simply observe that if it was known in
February, in our committee we work on a very bipartisan, cooperative
basis. Had our side known about this, and had the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] been fully informed about it at the time, we
could have long ago resolved this matter in an appropriate, proper
fashion.
I say this out of deep respect for the gentleman from Maryland, who
is scholarly and thoughtful, professorial, deliberative in all his
works, and for our full committee chair, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] who has endeavored mightily to be open and
fair and inclusive in the spirit of our committee over all of its
years. It is painful to see something like this happen, in derogation
of the committee process.
Again, to repeat, committees are supposed to be the filtering
mechanism in this body, to provide information through us to the
public, so people know and openly have an understanding of what we are
about to do and what legislation we are about to enact, what access we
are about to provide for this very precious Capitol Grounds.
I am glad that we have had this discussion. It would have been better
to have had it in committee. We could have brought the bill to the
floor, I think, knowing what we know now, under that unanimous consent
procedure that was proposed, but I appreciate the gentleman from
Maryland's willingness to make the effort in the future. I think the
leadership of the House needs to operate in the same way.
In closing, I wish the sponsors of the rally a prayerful success.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res.
166.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________