[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 17, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6298-H6301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ENSURING FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shuster). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Jones) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and the 
staff that I will not take that much time. That might be the best news 
I can give.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few minutes of this hour to talk 
about an issue that I think, as my friend from New Jersey feels that 
the issue he is talking about, prescription drugs, is important, and I 
would agree it is important, but I want to talk about freedom of 
speech.
  I think that there is nothing except the Bible that is more sacred to 
the American people than the Constitution. It is second only, again, to 
the Bible.
  Tonight I want to talk a little bit about H.R. 2357. This is a bill 
that I introduced about 2 years ago. I actually have 130 sponsors, and 
I believe you, Mr. Speaker tonight in the Chair, are a cosponsor of 
this also.
  In this country we have our men and women in uniform that right now 
are overseas in Afghanistan, and they could be called on to be in other 
parts of the world to defend the national security of this country, and 
the national security of this country includes our constitutional 
rights and our freedoms, the things that we cherish. We really 
appreciate those who have given their life for this country in the past 
and what they have done to ensure that we would have the freedoms that 
we enjoy in this great, great Nation, blessed by God Almighty.
  I would like to give a little bit of the history of this bill that I 
put in. If this was 1953, Mr. Speaker, I would not even be on the 
floor, because there would be

[[Page H6299]]

no issue. In 1953, the churches, synagogues and other houses of worship 
had no restriction on what they might say in their church. But in 1954, 
Lyndon Baines Johnson, the United States Senator from Texas and the 
majority leader, was very offended that there was a 501(c)3 group that 
was opposed to his reelection by the name of the H.L. Hunt family. 
These were not churches. These were think tanks, as we know them today, 
and they were opposed to his reelection.
  So what Lyndon Johnson did, he put an amendment on a revenue bill 
going through the Senate in 1954 that was never debated. There was no 
debate at all. The Republican minority accepted what they call a UC, a 
unanimous consent, so therefore it became the law. It gave the 
authority to the Internal Revenue Service that the Internal Revenue 
service would be able to, if you will, evaluate what could and could 
not be said in a church, synagogue or mosque.
  Mr. Speaker, I am of the firm belief that those men who came to this 
country along with their wives years and years and years ago came to 
this country for religious freedom. They came here to build a new 
nation, a nation that would be and still is blessed by God Almighty.
  Mr. Speaker, my problem is, and the reason I introduced H.R. 2357, 
that I believe that spiritual leaders of this country must have the 
freedom to talk about the issues of the day, whether they be about 
political issues of the day or whether they be about the moral issues 
of the day, and sometimes those sermons in those churches have to touch 
on the political issues of the day.
  I will give an example of that, because it happened in my district. A 
very dear friend of mine who happens to be a Catholic down in New Bern, 
North Carolina, whose name is Jerry Shield, Jerry asked his priest, 
Father Rudy at St. Paul's Catholic Church in New Bern, in the year 2000 
to just make one little comment the Sunday before the Tuesday election. 
He said, ``Father, how about just saying that George Bush, who is a 
candidate for President of the United States, is pro-life?''
  Believe this or not, Mr. Speaker, the priest said, ``Jerry, I cannot 
say that. If I do, I will violate the 501(c)3 status of this church and 
we might lose that status.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you that I am offended that any 
clergy in this country, our spiritual leaders that talk about morality, 
that talk about the political issues of the day as they see fit to talk 
about those issues, that they should have any restriction at all on 
them.
  What I wanted to do tonight, I was on the floor last week and I 
talked about a few of the national leaders who are supportive. Again I 
want to say we have 130 cosponsors of this bill. I am pleased to tell 
you that in the last couple of weeks we have picked up three additional 
Democrats. I want to pick up more.
  I am reaching out to my friends on both sides of the aisle to ask 
them to please look at this as nothing more. It is not a political 
issue, it is not a party issue, it is just an issue of freedom of 
speech, because, again, I cannot say it too much, that if this was 
1953, I would not be on the floor.

                              {time}  2115

  There was no restriction. I have researched this issue and when the 
churches qualified by the law to become 501(c) status, there is no, no 
restriction of what they could or could not say.
  I want tonight to again just mention a few of the spiritual leaders 
of this country who support this legislation. Richard Land, the 
Southern Baptist Convention; James Dobson, we all know is the president 
of Focus on the Family; David Barton, director of the Wallbuilders. He 
has been such a strong supporter of this legislation. James Martin, 
president of the 60 Plus Association; Tim and Beverly LaHaye, the 
Concerned Women for America; Kent Synder, executive director for the 
Liberty Principle; Connie Mackey; William Murray, the chairman of the 
Religious Freedom Coalition; David Keene, chairman of the American 
Conservative Union; D. James Kennedy, President of Coral Ridge 
Ministries; and Ray Flynn, Mr. Speaker, the former ambassador to the 
Vatican is a strong supporter of this legislation, H.R. 2357, to return 
the freedom of speech to our churches and synagogues. In addition, 
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, and I have had the pleasure of talking to him twice 
now. What a wonderful man of God he is and he is a real inspiration to 
all of us who love God, there is no question about it. And James Bopp, 
the constitutional lawyer for the James Madison Center for Free Speech.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, I am very pleased to tell my 
colleagues tonight that a former Member of the United States House of 
Representatives, a man that was here my first session in the United 
States Congress, I had great respect for. I did not really get to know 
him, I wish I had. But he was a real leader on the Democratic side. His 
name is Floyd Flake. Dr. Flake is a minister, a former Member of 
Congress, and he is the pastor of the Greater Allen Cathedral in New 
York; and he wrote a very strong letter of support for this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, they held a hearing on this issue 
on May 14, and I am very pleased to tell my colleagues that Dr. D. 
James Kennedy came up from Florida to testify on behalf of this 
legislation. In addition, I am pleased to tell my colleagues that 
another former Member of the House, a Democrat, Walter Fauntroy, Pastor 
Walter Fauntroy came to testify on behalf of this legislation. Let me 
read the last paragraph of Dr. Flake's letter.
  It says: ``I am pleased to offer my wholehearted support with sincere 
prayer for passage of this important and liberating legislation.'' That 
is the key: liberating legislation. Our men and women of faith who are 
spiritual leaders should have every right they choose to talk about the 
issues of the day. I know that when Al Gore was running for the 
Presidency in the year 2000, he was in Dr. Flake's church and after Mr. 
Gore spoke, the minister said, Dr. Flake said, ``I think this is the 
right man to lead this Nation.'' Well, then he got a letter of 
reprimand from the IRS. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is what Dr. Flake 
felt and wanted to say that to his congregation, there should not have 
been any Federal Government overseeing what he said in that church.
  Then I gave the example earlier of my friend, Jerry Shield, down in 
New Bern to ask the priest just to say that George Bush is pro-life, 
let us support George Bush. These are the things that if this was 1953, 
they would be able to do it without any reservation at all. But Lyndon 
Johnson, who was an arrogant Member of the Senate at the time, and 
later became a President that I do not have much respect for his 
Presidency, quite frankly; but anyway, he put in an amendment without 
any debate, as I said earlier, that pretty much stifled the churches 
and synagogues of this country. They did hold a hearing on this 
legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton), the chairman of the committee, for holding that hearing, 
because what it did, it gave us a chance to talk about this issue.
  I want to read just a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker, because they 
had two representatives of the IRS to come talk about their authority 
given again by Lyndon Johnson to stifle the speech of the churches and 
synagogues in this country. I am not going to read all of the 
testimony, but I am going to read just a couple of minutes for the 
Record, if I could. Let me use for an example that one of the comments 
was of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who asked Mr. Miller, 
who represents the Internal Revenue Service at the hearing, and Mr. 
Lewis said, ``As a rule,'' again, to the IRS, ``do you monitor the 
activities of churches during the political season?'' The IRS 
representative, Mr. Miller says, ``We do monitor churches. We are 
limited in how we do that by reason of section 7611 and because of the 
lack of information in the area, because there is no annual filing.''
  But, Mr. Speaker, this is the point I want to make. He additionally 
said, ``So our monitoring is mostly receipt of information from third 
parties who are looking.''
  Well, I think that is a sad commentary on this great Nation that we 
have to have our churches and synagogues having a third party to look 
in to see what they are saying, because then that third party, if they 
believe they have violated the Johnson amendment, can report them to 
the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Speaker, that is

[[Page H6300]]

not what this great Nation is about. That is not what these great men 
and women in uniform are willing to give their life for. They are 
willing to give their life for the national security of this country 
and the freedom of this Nation. But that is what Mr. Miller said: we 
are dependent on a third party to report the church for violating the 
Johnson amendment for speaking freely on the political and moral issues 
of the day.
  Then there is another question that Mr. Lewis asked and I want to 
read this for the Record: ``Do you have the ability or the capacity as 
an agency to monitor the activities of churches and other religious 
institutions?'' Mr. Miller with the Internal Revenue Service says, 
``The only thing we can rely upon again is who would be in that 
audience to report it.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think that is so tragic. We have a law in the land of 
this country that restricts freedom of speech in our churches and 
synagogues, and we have to depend on a third party to be there to 
report that to the Internal Revenue Service. That again is not what 
should be in this country. The spiritual leaders of this great Nation 
should have the right to choose whatever they feel that they must say 
from their heart and their God to their members who are in that 
congregation. But again, Mr. Miller has been very honest on the 
committee on May 14, and he acknowledged we are dependent on a third 
party to report churches and synagogues who might violate the law of 
the land. Well, my point there is that how in the world, with all of 
the churches and synagogues and mosques in this country, can we enforce 
this law? The law is unjustified, it is unneeded, and should never have 
been adopted. It was done in 1954 at night without any debate. We 
should pass H.R. 2357 and return the freedom of speech to our churches 
and synagogues.
  Just one more point on this, Mr. Speaker, and then I am going to work 
toward a close. Let me read this letter, and this is what really 
bothers me more than anything. This might better explain to the 
Congress what we are trying to say. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) was also on that committee that I mentioned that the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) served on, the oversight committee chaired by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) asked this question: ``So just to follow up on that, say 
you have a candidate who is a guest speaker, was in a church speaking 
from the pulpit, concludes his or her remarks, and the minister walks 
up, puts his hands or arms around the particular candidate and says, 
this is the right candidate; I urge you to support this candidate. Is 
that allowable under current law?'' That is the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) to Mr. Hopkins, who represents the Internal Revenue 
Service, and he says, ``No, that would not be allowable under law. That 
would clearly be political campaign activity. It would be protected, 
however, under the two bills that are specifically the subject of this 
hearing,'' a bill introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) 
and myself, Congressman Jones, H.R. 2357.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to this floor last week, and I am going to come a 
couple times this week and a couple of times next week, because I hope 
that the leadership of the House will bring this to the floor of the 
Congress to vote on. I believe sincerely that if this country is going 
to have a great future, and we are a Nation who cannot forget that this 
Nation has been blessed by God; if we are going to have a strong 
Nation, then our preachers, our priests, and our rabbis must have a 
right to talk about the issues of the day. And sometimes those moral 
issues of the day become political issues. I think that our ministers 
must have the right to talk about those issues of the day if this 
country is going to remain morally strong.

  Let me start closing by reading a letter; it will not take but just a 
couple of minutes. This is a minister who is an African American 
minister down in Raleigh, North Carolina, and I know him, I have talked 
to him by phone; and I have a great deal of respect for him. He is a 
strong man of God. I had read an article in a Raleigh paper; all the 
liberal press, Mr. Speaker, they just cannot understand this 
legislation. The liberals just cannot understand it. I guess they 
forget that they are protected by the Constitution and so should the 
ministers and priests and rabbis, as far as I am concerned.
  Let me read this. It is from Marian B. Robinson, minister of the St. 
Matthew AME Church in Raleigh, North Carolina, and it will not take but 
a moment.
  ``Dear Congressman Jones: I read with interest an article printed in 
Raleigh News and Observer as it pertained to H.R. 2157, the Houses of 
Worship Political Speech Protection Act. Thank you for introducing a 
bill that will give free speech to houses of worship on issues of moral 
and political significance without the fear of losing their tax exempt 
status. If the churches cannot do it, then who can?''
  Second paragraph: ``Secondly, the black church has always been a 
platform and forum to get the message out to our people since we have 
no other institution or places to go or turn to. The church continues 
to be the mouthpiece for informing and directing our people on most 
things. Part of our job consists of trying to keep families strong and 
together by instilling morals and values and the teachings of Christ. 
We need freedom of speech from the pulpits without fear of reprisals. 
This will help us carry out our tasks in a manner pleasing to God and 
meaningful to the people.''
  Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to read that letter is because this 
support is across the board. It is from people of faith, whether they 
be African American, whether they be Muslim, whether they be Catholic, 
Jew, or Protestant. They support this legislation because they fully 
understand, as I understand, that the strength of this country is the 
fact that our spiritual leaders have the freedom to talk about these 
issues.
  I must say that as Pastor Robinson asked me in this letter of 
support, Mr. Speaker, if they are not going to have the right to talk 
about these issues, then who is going to talk about them? What I say to 
the liberal press is, I do not have much respect for the liberal press. 
When it suits their needs, they support it; when it does not suit their 
needs, then they do not support it. But I will tell my colleagues that 
I never saw in 1953, and I have had my staff to do a lot of research, I 
never saw any editorial or any news article that took the churches to 
task for what they might have said of a political nature in 1953. None.
  So, Mr. Speaker, tonight as I close, I do want to mention this. The 
IRS also has what they call code words. They do not just have to say to 
the minister that just because you say that you want to support myself, 
Congressman Jones, or as the minister mentioned earlier, another 
candidate, that that would be a violation. That would be a violation 
was the answer to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). But this is 
what I want to start closing with tonight, Mr. Speaker, is that they 
print a publication that is called ``Election Year Issues,'' and they 
give an example of code words, C-O-D-E, code words. And these code 
words can, if used, can bring the IRS into looking into that church's 
activity.
  Let me just give an example of code words: liberal, pro-life, pro-
choice, anti-choice, Republican, Democrat, and there are others.

                              {time}  2130

  These are code words that the IRS can use if they think that there is 
a violation. They do not mention the candidate; but they might mention 
a code word, and the IRS can come in and threaten a church.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight as I close, and again, I am like many Members of 
Congress on both sides of this aisle, I have great faith in God. This 
is the greatest Nation in the world because we are a Nation that 
understands that we are blessed by God almighty.
  I just think and I hope that in the next couple of weeks that the 
leadership will give the Congress a chance to debate this issue, to 
vote on this legislation; and I hope the majority of the Members of 
this House will vote to pass this legislation.
  Again, I close by reminding the House that in 1953, and up to 1953, 
there were no restrictions on the churches and synagogues in this 
country. So let us return the freedom of speech to the spiritual 
leaders of this country so that they can do their job for our God.
  Mr. Speaker, I close this way because I have three military bases in 
my district: Cherry Point Marine Air Station,

[[Page H6301]]

Camp Lejeune Marine Base, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Every 
time I speak, and I spoke Monday night at the Christian Coalition 
banquet down in my district, and I was pleased to say that the 
Republican candidate for the United States Senate, Elizabeth Dole, was 
there and did a fantastic job of giving her testimony, I close this 
way, and I have ever since September 11.
  I first ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, I ask 
God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, and I 
ask God to please bless the President of the United States as he leads 
this Nation. I ask God to please bless the men and women who serve in 
the House and Senate.
  I ask God, and I say it three times, please God, please God, please 
God, continue to bless America.

                          ____________________