[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.
____________________