[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4069-H4077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 78, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 
                      RESTORING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 453 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 453

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 78) proposing an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States restoring religious 
     freedom. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the joint resolution shall be considered as adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two 
     hours of debate on the joint resolution, as amended, equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, which may be offered only by 
     the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H4070]]

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
modified closed rule to House Joint Resolution 78. The rule provides 
that H.J. Res. 78 shall be considered in the House, shall be considered 
as read, and that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, now printed in the joint 
resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
  The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the joint resolution, as amended, and on any further 
amendment thereto prior to final passage, without intervening motion 
except as specified.
  The rule provides for 2 hours of debate on the joint resolution, as 
amended, equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The rule provides for consideration of a further amendment printed in 
the report of the Committee on Rules, which may be offered only by the 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall 
be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided between the 
proponent and an opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not take amending the Constitution lightly. In 
fact, I do not think we should even have to amend our Constitution to 
permit students and teachers to pray. Unfortunately, though, activist 
judges have prevented the acknowledgment of God in public. Our only 
remedy is to let the American people decide whether or not they want to 
allow prayer in schools.
  Let me make one thing clear. If this resolution passes both the House 
and the Senate by a two-thirds majority, it is passed along to the 
State legislatures. To become part of our Constitution, the amendment 
then must be approved by three-fourths of the States.
  A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote to let the American 
people decide whether there should be prayer in our schools. Each local 
community has the right to discuss the issue and decide for themselves 
what they would like to do. No one is forced to do anything.
  Our schools should be places where children can grow in character. 
When judges keep God out of our schools, they prevent our children from 
maturing both emotionally and spiritually. Others may disagree, but I 
firmly believe that the Founding Fathers of this Nation did not intend 
to prevent our children from praying in school.
  Opponents of this amendment will claim that we should not tinker with 
the Constitution, as if the drafters of the First Amendment meant to 
exclude God from our public life. God is a part of our public life. 
``In God We Trust'' is on our money and here in our Chamber above the 
Speaker's chair.
  To such critics I would respond that we honor the Constitution when 
we use its time-honored amending process to clarify the intent of its 
framers.
  H.J. Res. 78 clearly protects the right of each and every American to 
recognize their God without government interference. The plain wording 
of the amendment forbids the establishment of any state religion and 
forbids any coercion on the basis of religion.
  The intent here is not to force God on anyone. The amendment simply 
clarifies that we are all free to engage in voluntary prayer in public 
places. In doing so, the amendment enhances religious freedoms for all 
of us.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and allow the debate on 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The rule we are considering today would permit a vote on an amendment 
to the United States Constitution dealing with the subject of school 
prayer. Let me begin this debate by reading these words:

       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

  For 206 years these words in the Bill of Rights have protected 
religious freedom and religious liberty in our Nation. Now some in this 
body seek to amend the First Amendment to alter this basic and 
fundamental section of the Constitution.
  The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wisely 
crafted a very straightforward protection for religious liberty in our 
land. Why then do some wish to amend our Bill of Rights for the first 
time in our history?

                              {time}  1045

  Thirty-six years ago, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of 
Engel v. Vitale, interpreted the first amendment to bar a New York 
school board's requirement that students join in prayer composed by the 
State regents. A year later, in the case of Abington School District v. 
Schemp, the Supreme Court specifically disallowed State sponsorship of 
daily devotions which involved oral readings from the Bible and the 
unison recital of the Lord's Prayer.
  I attended public schools in Fort Worth, Texas, in the decade 
preceding the Engel and Abington decisions. While we did not have an 
official regents prayer in Fort Worth, we did have daily Bible readings 
over the public address system. Sometimes those Bible readings were 
from the Old Testament, and sometimes they were from the New Testament. 
It did not make any difference to the school that there were dozens of 
students there who did not follow the New Testament, or that there may 
have been some who adhered to the teachings of the Koran. The Bible 
readings blared out over the public address speaker system every single 
day.
  Mr. Speaker, we have traveled some distance since those days in the 
1950s, and the most blatant religious practices are no longer followed 
in our schools. There is a fine line today between permitting students 
to observe their own faith and interfering with the observation of the 
faith of someone else. We should not cross that line by enacting the 
amendment presented to us today.
  The Clinton Administration has issued guidelines on religious 
practices in our schools that make abundantly clear where that line is. 
As these guidelines make clear, public school students are free to 
voluntarily pray privately and individually at school. Students have a 
right to say grace at lunchtime. They have the right to meet in 
religious groups on school grounds and use school facilities like any 
other school club. They have the right to read the Bible or any 
religious text during study hall or other free class time. Similarly, 
people who wish to engage in religious expression on public property 
have the same rights as people who wish to engage in comparable non-
religious expression.
  Not only is a new constitutional amendment unnecessary, Mr. Speaker, 
H.J. Res. 78 would, in a variety of ways, undermine the religious 
freedom we now cherish. It would embroil State and local governments in 
years of divisive and costly debate and litigation over its meaning, 
and we should all be aware it could well require American taxpayers to 
provide financial support to churches, parochial schools and other 
religious institutions.
  For over 200 years, the first amendment has protected our right to be 
as religious as we choose. Congress should not tamper with this most 
precious liberty. The first amendment should not be rewritten.
  Mr. Speaker, some advocates of this constitutional amendment will 
argue that the amendment is the answer to dealing with our growing 
problem of school violence. I recently met with a group of public 
school teachers and administrators in my congressional district to 
discuss this very important problem. It was clear from that meeting 
that the real solutions to dealing with our problem of escalating 
school violence are smaller class sizes, repairing our deteriorating 
older schools, more counselors and the stationing of law enforcement 
officers on our middle school and high school campuses. This 
constitutional amendment will not solve the very serious problem of 
school violence.
  There are millions of people of faith in this Nation. Religion, 
however, is a uniquely private matter. We draw strength from our faith, 
but we should

[[Page H4071]]

never attempt to impose our religious beliefs on any other person, no 
matter how well-meaning our actions may be.
  Ours is a great Nation, in no small way because of the truly 
magnificent language of our Bill of Rights which creates a separation 
between church and State. We should not alter that historic guarantee 
of religious liberty by passing the constitutional amendment presented 
to the House today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as we begin this important debate on the 
steps of this historic Capitol, religious leaders from all across 
America have gathered to voice their strong opposition to the Istook 
amendment, which would, for the first time in our Nation's history, 
amend the Bill of Rights.
  People of deep faith, because of their respect for the importance of 
religion in their individual lives, are standing with James Madison and 
Thomas Jefferson and all of the evidence of human history, which proves 
that the best way to ruin religion is to politicize it.
  If one believes that the way to protect religious liberty is to get 
government, the Federal Government, involved in private matters such as 
children's prayers with their God, allow judges to push their personal 
political views through the use of their offices and positions, and to 
actually use taxpayer dollars to fund religious organizations, if 
people believe that is the way to protect religious liberty, I think 
they are sadly mistaken.
  Mr. Speaker, whether one supports or opposes the Istook amendment, 
and I vehemently oppose it, the fact is that this process, this rule, 
does a great disservice to that cherished document we call the Bill of 
Rights.

  Whereas Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson debated this very issue for 
over 10 years in the Virginia legislature, the Committee on Rules last 
night, with many of the Members not even present, decided to send the 
most important issue in this country, the issue of religious freedom, 
to this floor with such a limited unfair rule that each of the Members 
of this House, both for and against Istook, will have less than 13 
seconds to express their deep convictions on the important issue of 
religion and religious liberty.
  Again, whether you are for or against the Istook amendment, I would 
suggest that a vote against this rule would be a vote in respect of the 
importance of the Bill of Rights. Whether 5 years or 50 years from now, 
it will set a terrible precedent to have such an important issue, an 
issue that we have not voted on in 27 years in this House, come to the 
floor after only one day of hearings in the full Committee on the 
Judiciary this year, and come to the floor of this House with a rule 
that only allows 12 to 13 seconds of debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, my 
friends on both sides of the issue, I would urge you to search your 
conscience and think about the precedent we are setting when we say 
that we have such a cavalier respect for the Bill of Rights, and even 
the first amendment, and even the first 16 words of that Bill of 
Rights, that we think it is wise and smart to bring this amendment to 
the floor, prohibiting Members the opportunity to speak out from the 
heart of their conscience. That is wrong.
  We will debate in the hours ahead why I believe and why many 
religious leaders believe that the Istook amendment is wrong, but, for 
the moment, I would urge my colleagues to cast a vote of respect for 
our Constitution, cast a vote of respect for the Bill of Rights, and 
say that none of the Members should be gagged in their opportunity to 
express their conscience.
  If there is any right we ought to respect in this historic body, it 
should be our right and our responsibility as the voice for the nearly 
600,000 people we represent in our respective districts to speak out 
for those people of our district, to speak out for the beliefs we hold 
deep and dear. Vote no on this rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify by reading the language in 
this amendment exactly what we are talking about here today. This 
simply says, ``To secure the people's right to acknowledge God 
according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor 
any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right 
to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or 
traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be 
infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any 
person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school 
prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a 
benefit on account of religion.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is all there is to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, if the President were to say that there are 
grave problems within the Executive Branch, we would be wise to listen. 
If the Speaker were to say that there are grave problems within the 
Congress, we would be wise to listen. If the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court said there were problems with what that Court was doing, 
we would be wise to listen.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice has said so. The rulings of the 
Supreme Court over the last 36 years have used the first amendment not 
to protect freedom of religion but to attack it; to say that rather 
than freedom of religion, it is freedom from religion.
  I am proud to say that Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as well as 
many other justices, has been a steady voice in dissenting from what 
the other justices have done. He has been a steady voice in saying that 
the Court is going in the wrong direction; that it is undermining our 
religious liberty, rather than protecting it. Because in 1962 the court 
began an attack that says, well, if you are on public property, other 
people have a right to censor you if you want to pray or otherwise 
express your religion. That is not freedom of religion. That is not 
even free speech. As so many Supreme Court justices have said over the 
years in dissent, their brethren have gone the wrong way.
  It is incumbent upon us, Mr. Speaker, because the Supreme Court has 
not corrected it, it is incumbent upon us to correct it, through the 
only way that works. No presidential guideline makes any difference 
when the Supreme Court claims something is unconstitutional. No 
regulation can make a difference. No statute can make a difference. The 
only remedy left to us is the one that was established within the 
Constitution itself, for a constitutional amendment.
  Previously, for example, the 13th amendment was one of a number of 
amendments that have been adopted when the Supreme Court went in the 
wrong direction. When the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott 
decision that neither the Congress nor the States could put an end to 
slavery, we passed the 13th amendment. After that terrible bloody Civil 
War, we put an end to slavery, but it took a constitutional amendment 
to do it, and we followed the process that has been established to 
correct things when the Supreme Court goes in the wrong direction.
  That is what we are doing today, because the Supreme Court in 1962 
ruled that even when it was voluntary, if it was during the school day, 
children could not come together and say a prayer together. They ruled 
in 1980 that the Ten Commandments could not be posted on the wall of a 
public school, because the Supreme Court said children might read them 
and obey them. Well, in an era when we have guns and knives and drugs 
in school, maybe the Ten Commandments and prayer would not be as bad.
  In 1985, the Supreme Court took a law from the State of Alabama that 
made a moment of silence permissible and said, no, that is 
unconstitutional because it permits silent prayer.
  In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that a prayer offered in this case 
by a Jewish Rabbi at a graduation ceremony was unconstitutional 
because, they said, it is wrong to expect children to be respectful of 
something with which they might disagree. Since when, Mr. Speaker, are 
we teaching our children disrespect, rather than respect?
  As a number of Supreme Court justices have said in dissenting from 
these decisions, and many of them were the narrowest decisions, 5-4 
margins, as a number of them have indicated, the way to unite people is 
to bring them

[[Page H4072]]

together in prayer, not to isolate one another and claim that prayer in 
school is somehow a threat, rather than a unifying force.
  It should never be mandatory, Mr. Speaker, but it should be 
permitted.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and 
consideration of this resolution. We are amending the Constitution. We 
have only had one hearing on this amendment. There have been several 
hearings during this Congress on religious issues, but only one on this 
amendment.
  Last night we were still slapping the thing together. The final 
version of the amendment was being drafted after the hearing on the 
rule itself. This would be the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. 
Every word is important, and here we are at the last minute still 
putting together the final version that we will consider on the floor 
today.
  The First Amendment to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, has 
saved us from the religious strife that other countries have suffered 
through. We need to know exactly what this amendment would do. How is 
it different from our present First Amendment? What difference does it 
make? We should not be misled by inaccurate anecdotes and political 
pressure into changing the Bill of Rights.
  We have heard the question about the moment of silence. Many States 
have moments of silence, moments for silent prayer. To direct people to 
pray during that moment of silence has been ruled unconstitutional, but 
a moment of silence has been sustained. So we ought not be misled by 
inaccurate anecdotes into amending the Bill of Rights for the first 
time in our history.
  Mr. Speaker, let us protect our religious freedom that we have 
enjoyed for over 200 years, and let us defeat this amendment.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I never thought that an occasion would occur when I 
would have to rise and ask my colleagues to refrain from gutting the 
First Amendment to the Constitution. One would expect that after 200 
years the Bill of Rights would have garnered a little respect in 
Congress, but gutting the First Amendment is exactly what this bill 
would do today.
  This religious freedom amendment is dangerous in that it breaches the 
constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and State, thereby 
reducing religious liberty and equality. Moreover, it would allow 
official school prayer and government funding of religious 
institutions.
  The most tragic results of this amendment, though, is that it sows 
the seeds of strife and divisiveness that the Bill of Rights was 
designed to protect us from. Listen to the level of debate that has 
occurred lately.
  A few weeks ago one of my colleagues rose on the floor and said that 
those of us who oppose this amendment would be heading likely to hell. 
I quote from the Record:

       Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a 
     special place in hell for a number of Federal court judges, 
     as I am sure there will be for Members of Congress.

  This level of debate denigrates both the Bill of Rights and this 
institution, and it also threatens the notion of religious tolerance 
that has made our country unique. That is why religious groups such as 
the American Baptist Churches USA, the Baptist Joint Committee, the 
Presbyterian Church USA, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church in America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Reform Jewish 
Movement, and virtually the entire Jewish community are opposed to this 
measure.
  Proponents of this measure would have us believe that we are 
attacking religious expression, and that is nonsense. Students 
currently enjoy the right to religious expression in our Nation's 
public schools. They have the right to pray individually or in groups, 
to say grace before meals, to discuss religion with other interested 
students, to read religious books in their spare time, and to pray 
before, during, and after tests.
  When James Madison and the other early American leaders drafted the 
First Amendment, they knew full well the capacity of the majority to 
subjugate the minority when it came to matters of religion. We see it 
today.
  I have just returned from 7 days in the former Yugoslavia, where tens 
of thousands of people are dead because three governments with 
different religions decided to impose their will on people who did not 
believe as they did. That is the path that our Founding Fathers sought 
very carefully to avoid.
  Amending the Constitution is not a matter to be taken lightly. The 
separation of church and state, and the protections enshrined in the 
First Amendment so that we are free to practice our religion as we 
wish, having to answer to no man or no government, has helped to make 
the United States one of the most religiously diverse nations in this 
world.
  Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``Religion is a matter which lies solely 
between man and his God that he owes account to none other for his 
faith or worship, that the legislative powers of government reach 
actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence 
that act of the whole American people which declared that their 
legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion 
or,'' most importantly, ``prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus 
building a wall of separation between church and State.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to reflect on its words and defeat this 
rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, one of the previous speakers 
said that there had not been hearings on this particular issue. There 
were seven hearings on the issue that is addressed by this amendment. 
There were 74 witnesses that were heard from at that time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot of things today 
about what this amendment does, what it says. I would encourage our 
colleagues to read the amendment. There is nothing in the amendment 
that allows funding of religious institutions. There is nothing in the 
amendment that establishes a church that has particular access to 
government monies. There is nothing in the amendment that requires 
anybody to participate.
  What this amendment does is restore the Constitution to its practices 
for the first 175 years. We certainly want to look at the intent of the 
Founders of the Constitution; and when we look at the intent of the 
Founders of the Constitution, we do see that they did not want to 
establish a church. What we also see is that they clearly did not want 
to remove religion, did not want to remove God from our public 
discourse, from our public ceremonies, from our public institutions.
  In fact, right here in this House this morning, as has been the case 
every day since the Congress began, we started with prayer. We started 
with prayer, and now we have a debate as to why we could not have 
prayer at high school graduations. We started with prayer, and now we 
have a debate as to why we could not have a prayer before a football 
game. We started with prayer, and now we have a debate as to why we 
want to not allow city councils to do that same sort of thing in their 
public institutions.
  ``In God We Trust'' is emblazoned above your head, Mr. Speaker, as we 
debate every day in this House. We cannot go back to the writings of 
the people who wrote the Constitution, we cannot go back to what George 
Washington did as our first President, in putting in our public 
discourse and our public ceremonies the clear understanding that 
religion and morality were cornerstones for the kind of government we 
wanted to have, and not see that that was their intent.
  In fact, it was their intent until 1962 when the Supreme Court, on a 
series of decisions that were, as often as not, five-to-four. A five-
to-four decision means that even the Supreme Court was not very certain 
as to what they were doing and wondered what the Constitution might 
have said. In 1962 the Supreme Court began to say these things that for 
175 years we believed the Constitution to say and we believed the 
Constitution to allow, it no longer would allow, beginning at that 
time.

[[Page H4073]]

  We had a high school class invite a Jewish Rabbi to pray at a 
graduation, and a student decided to sue, and suddenly prayer at high 
school graduation, one of the cornerstones of those ceremonies from the 
time we began to have high school graduation, is suddenly 
unconstitutional.
  Many of our schools, many of our communities have chosen, as in some 
ways we might even say the Congress has chosen, to ignore that 
prohibition. I encourage we support the rule and support this 
amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the time remaining on both 
sides, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman, I do want 
to acknowledge that, yes, there have been many hearings on prayer in 
school, but only one hearing on the Istook amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise with a completely different perspective, for I 
believe that it is important to tell the American people what we 
believe. We believe in the freedom of this Nation and the right to 
prayer and the right to express our religious beliefs.
  I am glad my colleague acknowledged that we in this House do pray. 
For that reason, we support the fact that Americans pray in whatever 
manner they so desire.
  But I want my colleagues to know that the Istook amendment has 
nothing to do with our right to pray. It really has a lot to do with 
the intrusive, oppressive conferring of some particular religion on 
many, and that religion may not be the religion of the many.
  When the flag rose and remained flying after the war in the 1800s, 
and the Star Spangled Banner was written, the one question asked: Was 
the flag still there? The reason for that was the flag symbolized 
freedom, freedom of expression, freedom to believe as we so desire to 
believe.
  The Istook amendment takes away from us our religious beliefs. It 
does not give them to us. For us to take away the obvious, what the 
First Amendment already provides, the freedom of religion, what Madison 
and Jefferson debated for some 10 years, we want to change in 2 or 3 
hours.
  I would simply ask my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
this is not a partisan issue. This goes to the very underpinnings of 
what this country stands for. Our children can pray. Our different 
faiths can be expressed, whether it is Allah or God or anyone else. We 
have the right to pray in this Nation.
  It is tragic that we take some very isolated incidences where court 
decisions may rule against what we would like and change the whole 
Constitution. Stand up for what is right. I pray that we do that.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, interesting debate. Constitution. The 
first Constitution allowed slavery. It treated women like property. It 
treated American native Indians like buffalos.
  The Congress, in its wisdom, changed the wrongs of the Constitution 
and did so by amending it. Now the judges have determined that school 
prayer is prohibited under the language of the Constitution.
  I submit that the Founders are rolling over in their graves, because 
they did want to separate church and State on a denominational basis, 
but they never intended to separate God and the American people.
  This legal mumbo jumbo is absolutely ludicrous, because of the fact 
that school kids used to have the three R's of reading, writing, and 
arithmetic; today there are four R's: rape, rifle, and Ritalin. Ladies 
and gentlemen, there is a fourth R. It is called run. Run as in run for 
your life.
  My position is very, very simple. I believe where God is omitted, 
then evil will be committed. Ladies and gentlemen, why is it 
unconstitutional for Congress to consider the opportunity to let a 
local school board make that decision?
  The Constitution prohibits it; that is what the Supreme Court said. 
Fine. Change the Constitution. This is the mechanism to do it. If it is 
a moment of silence, fine. If it is a prayer, it should not be any 
denomination that is, in fact, promoted.
  Ladies and gentlemen, there are several things I think must be 
understood here. On our bills, we say ``In God We Trust''. We open the 
session up with a prayer in the Congress. The Supreme Court opens up 
their session by asking God to preserve the court and preserve the 
Nation. But our school boards cannot make that decision. So what we 
have is rape, murder, mass murder, violence, killing, fear in our 
schools, but they are not allowed to have a prayer. Come on now.
  I can remember a debate we had where it was called political 
posturing to open the session of Congress with a pledge of allegiance 
to the flag. The motives of those who brought it forward were 
questioned. On all of these constitutional mumbo jumbo reasons we had 
these big debates. Now we have a pledge of allegiance. Quite frankly, I 
think we should.
  Quite frankly, the Congress opens the session with a prayer, and we 
are a bunch of hypocrites by not allowing a local school board to make 
that decision. Neither are all of the decisions in the Supreme Court. 
In America, the judges do not govern; the American people do. The 
American people want to allow prayer in our schools.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the gentleman from 
Ohio in his constitutional wisdom, and I am glad he is staying here for 
it.
  First of all, to my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), I would like to point out to him that no Supreme Court 
decision ever has prevented students from praying on their own.

                              {time}  1115

  Not a single decision of any court can be cited for the contrary 
proposition.
  Number two, in the 1962 Supreme Court case of Engel v. Vitale, which 
I am sure the gentleman has reviewed, it struck down only the practice 
of having government compose school prayer. In the Wallace case, which 
the gentleman may or may not be familiar with, it held, ``The 
government may give objective instruction about religion in public 
schools and provide for religiously neutral moments of silence, permit 
students to engage in private, non-disruptive prayer during the school 
day, and pose no barrier to organized student-initiated religious clubs 
under the Equal Access act.'' We are not hypocrites.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the legal decisions say that if a school 
board wants to have a school prayer, they are prohibited from doing so.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the Members, the judges in America do not 
govern, they interpret the Constitution. They interpret the law. They 
do that only. The people of the United States govern. When they see fit 
to change a constitutional mandate that has been interpreted counter to 
the wishes of the American people, it is up to the people and the 
Congress only to make that decision.
  I will say this, the gentleman is certainly more knowledgeable on all 
these decisions, but here is what I am saying. All those decisions the 
gentleman cited all add up to one thing: We do not allow for school 
prayer. I am saying that we should. That is what I do support.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I just wanted my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant),

[[Page H4074]]

who has left the floor, to understand that nothing prohibits voluntary 
prayers, from school boards, courts, or anything else. I am doing this 
in a friendly way. I am not emotional about it. But it is about time 
that we learn what the law is that we want to change. I thank the 
gentleman for his generosity.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment, which should really be 
referred to as the Religious Coercion Amendment, is an assault on the 
first freedom which has been protected for 200 years by the First 
Amendment.
  I am amazed at some of my conservative colleagues who do not trust 
the government to protect the environment or to build new schools in 
our communities or to regulate the railroads, but are perfectly willing 
to turn over to government bureaucrats the power to do everything short 
of actually declaring a State religion, or to involve those bureaucrats 
in shaping the moral and religious lives of our children.
  Many supporters of this constitutional amendment have been irate at 
the way some schools teach American history, but they are perfectly 
willing to delegate to those same schools the right to guide a child's 
religious education.
  This amendment, Mr. Speaker, makes a radical departure from our 
current constitutional framework. The First Amendment now prohibits any 
``law respecting an establishment of religion.'' The rewrite we have 
before us today would narrow that to prevent government only from 
establishing any official religion. Anything short of establishing an 
official church which favors one religion, that of the majority, over 
all others, would be allowed under this amendment.
  The amendment says, ``The people's right to recognize their religious 
beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, 
shall not be infringed.'' ``The people's right,'' that is a collective 
term, not an individual right; a radical departure from our 
constitutional tradition.
  What does it mean? It means that the people, ``the people,'' the 
majority, either by referendum or through council action or action of a 
local legislative body, a town council, a school board, a city council, 
could mandate that particular religious symbols, Presbyterian in one 
area, Catholic in an area, Muslim in a third, Centurian in a fourth, 
must be prominently placed in every schoolroom, in every courtroom, and 
that every litigant must do his case in front of that religious 
symbolism, even if it offends his conscience, and every child in every 
classroom, likewise.
  We can see evidence in the world today of the terrible harm which 
comes in the government meddling in religious affairs, of allowing some 
in the community to use the government to further their religious 
goals.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Today we are having a 
debate on a very serious problem that does deserve our attention. We 
can do this by supporting this rule.
  I am in entire agreement with the authors of this amendment in their 
concern for the systematic attack on religious expression throughout 
the country. There is no doubt hostility exists, especially against 
conservative religious expression. It is pervasive and routinely 
expressed in our courts.
  Those who attack religious values are, unfortunately, not doing it in 
the defense of constitutional liberty. Secular humanism, although 
equivalent to a religion, is passed off as being neutral with respect 
to spiritual beliefs, and yet too often used to fill the void by forced 
exclusion of other beliefs.
  This is indeed a problem deserving our close attention, but the 
approach through this constitutional amendment is not the solution. I 
was a cosponsor of the original version of the amendment, but after 
serious reconsideration, especially after the original version was 
changed, I now am unable to vote for it.
  The basic problem is that our courts are filled with judges that have 
no understanding or concern for the constitutional principles of 
original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, or property rights. 
As long as that exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will be 
likewise abused.
  This amendment opens the door for further abuse. Most of those who 
support this amendment concede that, quoting the authors of the 
amendment, ``Because government is today found everywhere, this growth 
of government has dictated a shrinking of religion.'' This is true, so 
the solution should be to shrink the government, not to further involve 
the Federal Government on how States and school districts use their 
property.
  This amendment further enables the Federal Government to do more 
mischief. The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new 
generation of judges and Congressmen who understand the constitutional 
principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and 
property rights. If we do this, the First Amendment, freedom of 
religious expression, will be protected.
  Another recourse, less complicated than amending the Constitution, is 
for Congress to use its constitutional authority to remove jurisdiction 
from the courts in the areas where the courts have been the most 
abusive of free expression. Unfortunately, this amendment encourages a 
government solution to the problems by allowing the Federal Government 
and Federal courts to instruct States and local school districts on the 
use of their property. This is in direct contrast to the original 
purpose of the Constitution, to protect against a strong central 
government and in support of State and local government.
  Until our judges and even our Congress have a better understanding of 
the current Constitution and a willingness to follow it, new 
constitutional amendments will do little to help and will more likely 
make things worse.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in our country the State is 
not to sponsor or sanction religious exercises. Neither is it to 
interfere with the free exercise of religion. That is a delicate 
balance that the Bill of Rights has protected for over 200 years. It is 
a delicate balance that the Istook amendment threatens to destroy.
  I want to make one point this morning, a quite simple and 
straightforward point: the prohibition against State-sponsored 
religious exercises in our country protects not only civic life but 
also, and more importantly, religious life. Mr. Speaker, it is no 
accident that a long list of religious communities and religious 
organizations are lined up in opposition to the Istook amendment.
  Amending the First Amendment to permit the State establishment of 
religion is a threat to our constitutional democracy, to be sure, of 
which freedom from religious coercion is a cornerstone. But even more, 
it is a threat to religious faith and practice.
  Mr. Speaker, religious liberty is not just freedom from coercion.
  Religious liberty is also freedom for the leading of the spirit, 
freedom to follow and obey God's will. Roger Williams, colonial 
America's foremost proponent of religious liberty, understood that the 
prohibition against the establishment of religion was more about 
protecting the church than it was about protecting the State. Religious 
freedom protects communities of believers, it protects the lonely 
conscience of the prophet, it protects the faithful individual.
  Mr. Speaker, central to our Christian and Jewish and Muslim 
traditions is the notion that we stand under God's judgment, that we 
are not to identify our power and our program with God's will, that we 
are all sinners and in need of forgiveness. That is central to all of 
our religious traditions.
  Religious faithfulness is a struggle. It is not something that we lay 
hold of easily or that someone in authority can achieve for us. The 
life of faith is a struggle for an individual and a community that 
cannot and must not be dictated or directed by the State. It is a 
struggle in which we must engage with freedom, as God gives us the 
light to find the right way.
  That is what religious freedom is about, and it is mainly for 
religious reasons that we must defend the First Amendment and rebuke 
those who

[[Page H4075]]

would put the State's power behind particular religious beliefs or 
practices. The Istook amendment threatens not only civil liberty but 
also religious faithfulness, and for that reason we should defeat it 
today.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to something the previous speaker 
said about the Supreme Court's making a statement that they never came 
out against school prayer. That was not the case at all. If we look at 
the Engel v. Vitale case in 1962, a pertinent portion of this debate 
was when Engel stated, and I quote, ``Neither the fact that the prayer 
may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the 
part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the 
limitations of the establishment clause, as it might be from the free 
exercise clause of the First Amendment, both of which are operative 
against the State by virtue of the 14th Amendment.''
  So clearly there is a case where the Supreme Court has said that even 
voluntary prayer is a problem in terms of their interpretation of the 
Constitution. Because of that, because of their extreme approach on 
this, I do support this rule and the Istook amendment.
  I think one of the questions, as we get bogged down here, and 
clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is not a black and white issue, there are 
some grays in this issue, and I echo the words of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul), a lot of these items boil down to the size of 
government, an intrusive Washington command-and-control, one-size-fits-
all government approach to everything and every solution.
  I still think some of these things do have to be handled on a local 
level. I think it does not harm society to have some local decisions on 
things like this.
  But we do have to ask ourselves a bigger question. We can all play 
lawyer here today. It is clear, listening to the debate, that everybody 
is trying to be lofty and historical and so forth. But let us just ask 
ourselves some basic questions: Is society better served by having a 
religious society? Is it more good or more harmful to have a prayer at 
graduation? Is it more good or harmful to have a prayer at a football 
game?

                              {time}  1130

  If a child comes into school and her mother is sick and a student 
suggests, as the students get concerned and show concern, can they bow 
their heads and pray for the young lady's mom, is that harmful? I think 
if we look at the measure of the results of this, that it would be more 
helpful to have a more religious society, one that is tolerant and one 
that respects each other, rather than have these religion-free zones in 
public buildings, public institutions, whereby if we say anything that 
is religious, we are the perpetrator of some horrible crime, rather 
than somebody who is trying to take everyday life to a higher level so 
that we can acknowledge a Creator and a Higher Being.
  I believe if we ask ourselves those questions, we are going to 
realize that this amendment is not going to solve all the problems; the 
current situation we have does not solve all the problems, but we have 
to continue to support religion as a country and in public.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends and fellow Members to support the 
Istook amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is a very perilous path we tread. No 
one knows where this will lead, this vaguely worded amendment, not even 
the most well-intentioned supporter. There are more unanswered 
questions than there are answered questions.
  There is a presumption of whose religion it will be, and that 
presumption even goes further. It is a presumption that it will be a 
Christian religion, and it is a presumption on the part of many that it 
will be their form of Christian religion. That is not set by this. It 
can be any cult claiming to be a religion.
  Mr. Speaker, that happened to my State. We have a 20-day voter cutoff 
in our State because a cult, the Rajneeshis, tried to take over a 
school board, and we were afraid they would bus people in from outside 
the State to take over that school board and impose their cult on the 
children of that rural town. That would be allowed under this 
amendment.
  We will fight a pitched battle, community by community, county by 
county, State by State, over where the tax dollars will flow because 
this allows tax dollars to flow to private religious activities and 
institutions. And some support that. Despite the desperate straits of 
our public schools, some support that.
  But, guess what? This amendment also in all probability allows for 
the first time in our history the taxing of religious institutions. 
Now, I think many who support the tax dollars for private religious 
schools will be aghast when they receive a tax bill for their 
previously-exempt institutions.
  There are those who are proposing that somehow this is an answer to 
the violence in our schools. I live in Springfield, Oregon. No one is 
closer today to that question than I am. And those who bring forward 
the simplistic answer that if we only had had an established prayer in 
that school, a very conservative town that I live in, that we would not 
have had that violence, that is an insult.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a complex problem which goes to many things. 
This is not a simple solution. It raises more problems than it answers, 
and it potentially threatens the stability of this Nation.
  Do we want to be Bosnia? Do we want to be Northern Ireland? Do we 
want to be India and Pakistan and have a nuclear war over religious 
issues? Vote no on this amendment.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Istook 
amendment.
  Let me say that I have been concerned in recent years that in our 
society there seems to be a great deal of legal pressure on our people 
not to express their religious convictions. And I know that some people 
honestly are afraid that some religion might be imposed on someone 
officially, and I think that is what is motivating this.
  But what has really happened, the outcome of this is the nature of 
our society has changed in that, before, our Founding Fathers thought 
that the expression of religious faith was a very positive thing. This 
is something that worked to the benefit of our country throughout our 
history. It gave a solid foundation to the young people of our country 
because people, whether it was the President of the United States on 
down, we have ``In God we trust'' right over here in Congress. These 
expressions were seen as benevolent and positive things in our society.
  But, in recent years, we have seen the phrase ``separation of church 
and State,'' by the way, which is something that is not in our 
Constitution. That phrase is not in the Constitution. It is ``the 
establishment of a religion'' is the phrase that is within the 
Constitution. But that phrase of ``separation of church and State'' has 
been used to justify all kinds of legal pressures and restrictions on 
Christians and Jews and other people of religious faith from uttering 
their belief.
  This is wrong. This is wrong, and the only people who are being 
imposed upon are not people who do not believe in religion or God, but 
the people who are being imposed upon are the people of religious 
faith, whatever that faith may be.
  Mr. Speaker, worse than that, we have now evolved into a society 
where Jesus Christ can be taken and can be put into a bottle of urine 
and called art and it can be subsidized with tax dollars. With people 
who are sincerely Christian, this is a violation of their sacred 
beliefs when they complain they are being told this is separation of 
church and State and they cannot have anything to say about that.
  But we actually subsidize a tax of these people's religion while, at 
the same time, if somebody wants to put a manger scene in front of city 
hall during Christmas season, they are told, oh, no, that is separation 
of church and State.
  The Istook amendment I think goes back to what our country is based 
on.

[[Page H4076]]

 It is not separation of church and State. No one wants to impose 
religion on someone else. What we are talking about, the basis of our 
country is freedom of religion. Freedom of religion, especially freedom 
of religious expression. And that is what the Istook amendment is all 
about.
  We have got all of our priorities haywire here. We are now justifying 
the separation of religious utterances when it is a benevolent thing 
and has been throughout the history of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the Istook amendment and the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time to 
stand today to oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked for an amendment to be considered last night in 
the Committee on Rules because I share some of the concerns of the 
proponents of this amendment, although I oppose the Istook amendment. 
The amendment I asked for would actually go further toward what Thomas 
Jefferson, George Mason and James Madison had said and used in a lot of 
our State Constitutions, to make sure we do have freedom of expression. 
But the Committee on Rules said, no, we cannot improve on this except 
for one case offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposing this rule and opposing the Istook 
amendment. It is hard to stand up here, Mr. Speaker, to do that because 
my religious beliefs are really important to me and my family. We do 
not need to wear them out here on the floor of the House to talk about 
how important religion is to our family and to us individually.
  I seem to remember growing up in Sunday school and in church as 
always part of my life and learning that we do not need to yell from 
the street corners our religion, that we should go into a room and pray 
on our own and not necessarily have to do it like we are doing it 
today.
  So people of faith can stand up here and oppose this amendment, even 
though I heard in a special order the other night one of my colleagues, 
the gentleman from Georgia, who said there is a special place in hell 
for Justices and Members of Congress who oppose this. Thank goodness he 
is not making that decision. He is putting his place in the place of 
God.
  That is why this amendment is wrong. We need to have religious 
freedom. We have it right now. The Department of Education has said we 
have religious freedom. My wife teaches in public school. I have given 
prayers at football games. We have Bible studies. We have prayer every 
morning in our public school around the flagpole. We have prayer in our 
schools. It is not the prayer that the school board wants the students 
to say, because that is what the Constitution never said. It is prayer 
that our students want on their own, that their parents provide them 
the guidance.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we should oppose this amendment. We have 
prayer in the schools right now. Let us not make it worse by the Istook 
amendment.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) 
just mentioned about yelling from the corner about one's religious 
convictions. The fact is that we respect the right of people to raise 
their voice and shout about political things and we respect people's 
rights to raise their voice and shout about religious things as well.
  Certainly we do not want people to get in somebody else's way, nor do 
we want to force somebody to participate in a chant. But I think that 
again demonstrates the sort of haywire priority that we have here. 
That, yes, people have religious convictions and they have a right to 
express it, but all of a sudden there seems to be this pressure on 
religious people not to make these public utterances. There is nothing 
wrong with someone shouting out for the glory of God, if that is how 
they feel.
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with that. They have that 
right. But they do not have the right to stand up in an algebra class 
and do it. But they have the right to pray on their own. And so we have 
to have some reasonableness applied to it. We have prayer in the public 
schools now.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, but they do not 
have a right to have a little group meeting of that.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
constitutional amendment. Freedom of religion and freedom from 
religious coercion has been at the core of American democracy for over 
200 years. I believe that the first amendment has served all of us of 
every religion extremely well.
  The separation of church and State does not require the separation of 
spiritual values from secular affairs. In fact, I believe strongly that 
private morality and public conscience must guide the formation of our 
Nation's public policy. But no one individual or individual religion 
may be permitted to impose one set of religious beliefs on the rest of 
us.
  The American people do not want this Congress telling them how and 
when to pray. In fact, this amendment is entirely unnecessary. Although 
the Supreme Court has upheld the separation of church and State, the 
Court has also clearly stated that all American citizens are free to 
exercise their religious beliefs in public schools.
  In the words of President Clinton: Schools are not religion-free 
zones. Students can pray privately and individually whenever they wish. 
They can say grace before lunch. They can form religious clubs and 
those clubs can and should be treated like any other extracurricular 
activity. And students reading to themselves have every right to read 
the Bible or any other religious text they want.
  So what would this amendment change? Well, it could allow public tax 
dollars to be spent on religious schools, shifting scarce resources 
from public schools and setting up competition among faiths. It would 
allow mandatory prayers in schools, and it could allow a local school 
board to endorse certain religious traditions and ignore others.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a reason this amendment is opposed by most of 
the churches, synagogues, and religious organizations in the United 
States, including the National Council of the Churches of Christ, the 
Baptist Joint Committee, the American Jewish Committee and the 
Presbyterian Church of the USA.
  I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as a woman of the Jewish faith, my 
personal religion and the right to pray is important to me and my 
family and that is why I oppose this amendment.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My great grandfather came to this country fleeing religious 
persecution in the Old World. He was a peddler in East Texas. I would 
like to quote from the grandson of a peddler from Arizona that some 
Members on the other side will recognize, the late Senator Barry 
Goldwater.
  In 1994, when Senator Goldwater was asked about his views on a school 
prayer amendment, he replied,

       It is a waste of time. There is nothing in the law that 
     says people can't have a moment of silence in schools to do 
     what they want, pray or cuss someone out.

  Barry Goldwater was a very wise man. I did not agree with him on 
every issue. He spoke his mind and he spoke it very clearly on this 
fundamental issue of our Constitution and what should be done with our 
Constitution and what should not be done with our Constitution.

[[Page H4077]]

  We do not need to alter the Bill of Rights. It has stood for 206 
years and served this country well. It would be a mistake for us to 
pass the Istook amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no when this matter comes to the floor 
later today.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  The amendment that we will be debating today provides for equal 
treatment of discussion about religion, equal to the treatment that we 
give for discussion on political matters.
  The First Amendment protects political speech under our Constitution. 
Indeed, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as 
permitting students to speak on political matters even contrary to the 
policy of the school board. I am thinking particularly of the case of 
Tinker v. Des Moines during the Vietnam War. But it does not afford 
that same protection to students who on their own wish to discuss or 
raise issues about religion.
  It is important under the First Amendment that we respect religion 
while we are not respecting an establishment of religion. The First 
Amendment reads that Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, but it goes on to point out the importance 
of not prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
  The way that the law is today, the Supreme Court has given greater 
protection for political speech than it has for religious speech. Those 
of us who support this amendment today are not asking for any 
preference for religion. We are merely asking that the right of the 
people to express their religion be given as much protection as the 
right the people presently have to express their political point of 
view.
  Those who have expressed great concern about amending the First 
Amendment must also be responded to. I also share that concern. But 
what is wrong about using the constitutional process for amending the 
Constitution, which we attempt to do here today?
  The Supreme Court has amended the Constitution regarding the First 
Amendment at least 14 different times. The First Amendment says 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 
abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has added, ``except 
for speech that advocates the imminent overthrow of the United 
States,'' and ``except for slander and libel,'' and ``except for 
obscenity.'' ``Except for'' added by the Supreme Court is every bit as 
much as an amendment to the Constitution as what we propose today.
  With these points in mind, I urge support of the rule and support of 
the amendment.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248, 
nays 169, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 196]

                               YEAS--248

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

                               NAYS--169

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Ensign
     Fawell
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Herger
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Mollohan
     Payne
     Skaggs
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Talent
     Thurman

                              {time}  1210

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Messrs. BALDACCI, MEEKS of New York, and MANTON 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BAESLER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




                          ____________________