[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 124 (Thursday, September 26, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6771-H6773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crenshaw). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Jones) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the 
staff that I will not take the full hour. That I am sure is good news 
because they work awfully hard, and many times the staff is here at 
11:00 at night. I will keep my word to be not much longer than 20 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am on the floor again, I have been every week for the 
last month, talking about an issue that, to me, if we are talking about 
September 11, we are talking about the war on terrorism, we are talking 
about our troops in Afghanistan. Part of the reason they are there is 
to protect our freedom. There is no question about it, and our national 
security.
  The reason I come to the floor is because a year or so ago it was 
brought to my attention by a minister in my District that he was 
prohibited from talking about a political issue or candidate during the 
2000 election in the months of September and October. So I took it upon 
myself to, along with my staff, to research this issue, and I found out 
that in 1954 Lyndon Baines Johnson had the H.L. Hunt family opposed to 
his reelection, and the H.L. Hunt family had established two 501(c)(3) 
think tanks.
  So Johnson, being the majority leader and a very powerful man, and I 
think very arrogant man quite frankly, but anyway that is my opinion. 
He put an amendment on the revenue bill that was going through the 
Senate that was never debated, no debate, and basically what this 
debate said that if a company is a 501(c)(3) then they may not have 
political speech.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason that bothers me so greatly is that prior to 
the Johnson amendment, any pastor, priest or rabbi or cleric in this 
country had the right to talk about any issue that they and the 
congregation chose for that minister to talk about. The Johnson 
amendment put the IRS, because his amendment went on a revenue bill, 
into our churches, and they are what we call the speech patrol.
  That is not what this great Nation is about. This great Nation is 
about freedom, and the first amendment is cherished by all of us, and I 
would always do any and everything I can as a Member of Congress and as 
a citizen to protect the first amendment rights of the people of this 
country, and that includes our preachers, priests and rabbis.
  So we put a bill in as H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Political 
Speech Protection Act, and I am pleased to tell my colleagues, as of 
tonight, we have about 134 cosponsors. We are picking up some from the 
other side of the aisle, some Democrats. I am delighted that the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement) came on this week. He has joined 
us in this fight to return the freedom of speech to our churches and 
synagogues, and I want to read a couple of quotes at this time.
  This is a quote from the former Congressman George Hansen from Idaho 
who served 12 terms, and this is his quote, ``It is impossible to have 
religious freedom in any Nation where churches are licensed to the 
government.'' In my opinion, if the government is going to influence 
what a person can and cannot say within a church, then that is the 
government, in my opinion, that might as well as be licensed to 
churches, if they are going to stop them from talking about the moral 
and political issues of the day, because many of the biblical issues 
are today the political issues of the day. So the churches should be 
free to have those sermons and those discussions if the minister 
chooses to do so.
  In addition, Martin Luther said, ``The church must be reminded that 
it is neither the master nor the servant of the State but, rather, the 
conscience of the State.''
  Mr. Speaker, what happened in the year 2000 and actually throughout 
the election cycle in the year 2000, Barry Lynn of the Americans United 
for Separation of Church and State, he sends a letter to the religious 
leaders, both front page and back, and I am just going to read one 
paragraph because I want to make a point with this one paragraph. He 
says, ``Dear Religious Leader, another election year is upon us, and 
questions about the appropriate role of houses of worship in the 
political process have arisen.''
  The second paragraph is the one that I really find intriguing quite 
frankly

[[Page H6772]]

because he says in the first sentence of the second paragraph, he 
acknowledges what I am saying tonight is that our churches are 
guaranteed freedom of speech by the Constitution, and this is what Mr. 
Lynn says to begin this second paragraph.
  ``The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of 
pastors and church leaders to speak about on religious, moral and 
political issues.'' That is exactly what I am saying. Exactly what I am 
saying. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech in our 
churches and synagogues and mosques throughout this country. However, 
and that is the word he uses, the second part of that paragraph or the 
second sentence in that paragraph is exactly what I am talking about 
tonight, the Johnson amendment.
  He says, ``However, houses of worship, as nonprofit entities under 
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Code, are barred 
from endorsing or opposing candidates for any public office and may not 
intervene directly or indirectly in partisan campaigns.''
  That is because of the Johnson amendment. If I go back to Mr. Lynn's 
first sentence, very seldom do I agree with him, but I do agree with 
him and he is exactly right, ``The first amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution protects the right of pastors and church leaders to speak 
out on religious, moral and political issues.''

                              {time}  2000

  He is right. The problem is the second sentence, the Johnson 
amendment, ``however.'' That is right, Mr. Lynn and I agree, the 
Constitution does guarantee that right to our preachers, priests, and 
rabbis throughout this country.
  There was a hearing held, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) 
has certainly been interested in this issue. He has a separate bill 
from mine. They are not competing. Mine just takes a different approach 
than his, but I want to praise the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) 
for taking on this issue for a number of years, and I look forward to 
working with him in the months and years ahead. One day I hope that 
President Bush will sign a bill that says to the churches and 
synagogues of this country that they have total free speech in that 
church. That is what the cosponsors who have joined us on this bill, 
H.R. 2357, want.
  Tonight I am not going to take the time to list all of the spiritual 
leaders that have written letters of support and made telephone calls.
  Dr. D. James Kennedy from Florida testified before the oversight 
subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, and brought petitions 
signed by 60,000 people from around this country in support of this 
legislation. That same day we had a former Member of Congress from 
Washington, D.C., and a vice mayor of Washington, D.C., Pastor Walter 
Fauntroy testified on behalf of this legislation at the same time Dr. 
D. James Kennedy testified, and the attorney who helped me draft this 
legislation, Mr. Kobe May of the American Center for Law and Justice. 
Mr. May has been in the courts many times trying to protect the first 
amendment rights of people throughout this country.
  What I want to share is a response. There were two representatives 
from the Internal Revenue Service. One is Mr. Hopkins, and one is Mr. 
Miller. I found the whole testimony intriguing, quite frankly, but just 
a couple of points I would like to bring forward. In response to a 
question the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) asked Mr. Miller, ``As 
a rule, do you monitor the activities of churches during the political 
season?''
  Mr. Miller with the Internal Revenue Service, ``We do monitor 
churches. We are limited in how we do that by reason of section 7611 
and because of lack of information in the area because there is no 
annual filing.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is the point that I want to make clearly. The last 
part of his answer, Mr. Miller to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis), and this is what I wanted to stress, ``So our monitoring is 
mostly receipt of information from third parties who are looking.''
  Mr. Speaker, third parties that are looking to see what the church 
and the pastor in that church is talking about and if he is violating 
the 501(c)(3) status, the Johnson amendment, then he is in violation 
and can lose the 501(c)(3) status. For those who talk about the 
separation of church and state, if they really are concerned, why do 
they want the government dictating what a minister might or might not 
be able to say within the church?
  Let me go just a little bit further. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) also is on that committee, and I want to read a couple of his 
questions and the answers. This gives a better example I think to my 
colleagues here in the House. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) 
asked a question of Mr. Miller of the Internal Revenue Service. Can the 
from the pulpit and not be in violation of the tax status that 
candidate is pro life or candidate why is pro choice? The answer was 
that becomes more problematic can speak to issues of the take but to 
the extent they start tying it to particular candidates and to a 
particular election, it begins to look more and more like either 
opposition to a particular candidate or favoring a particular 
candidate.
  Basically he is saying they are in violation of the Johnson 
amendment. The preacher cannot do that. That is exactly what he is 
saying that.
  Let me go to another question that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) asked. He asked, ``and would the Crane and Jones legislation 
clarify the law to allow for that type of statement?
  Mr. Miller answers, ``I believe so.''
  That is what this is all about. I think if this country is to remain 
morally strong, our spiritual leaders throughout the country should 
have the right to talk about these issues. They had it prior to 1954. I 
am going to give evidence of that in just a moment.
  Another question from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) to 
another agent who was in attendance, Mr. Hopkins. He says, ``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 or her arm around that particular 
candidate and says, this is the right candidate. I urge you to support 
this candidate. Is that allowable under current law?''
  Mr. Hopkins with the Internal Revenue Service, ``No, that would not 
be allowable under current law. That would clearly be political 
campaign activity. It would be protected, however, under the two bills 
that are the specific subject of the hearing.'' So it would be 
protected under my bill and the Crane bill.
  Some people might say why should the churches get involved in 
political campaigns. Let me give another example. Down in my district 
during the year 2000, Jerry Shield, a friend of mine who is Catholic, 
went to his priest, Father Rudy at St. Paul's in New Bern, North 
Carolina, the Sunday before the Tuesday and he said to Father Rudy, 
Would you please say to the congregation George Bush is pro-life. The 
priest said, I cannot do that. It will violate the tax status of this 
church.
  Let me give an example on the other side. There is a wonderful former 
Member of Congress, Floyd Flake, whom all of us love. He is Dr. Floyd 
Flake, a minister, and has a very large church in New York City. Mr. 
Flake had Al Gore in his church, and when Mr. Gore completed his 
speech, Reverend Flake went up and did exactly the same thing that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) asked the IRS about. He stood up 
there and said I believe this is the right man to lead this Nation. He 
is trying to say that he believes as a spiritual man that he believed 
Al Gore is the right man. He got a letter of reprimand from the 
Internal Revenue Service; a third party turned him in.
  Mr. Speaker, this is America. Freedom rings in this great country. 
Our men and women are serving this Nation across the sea to guarantee 
that freedom, and we have a responsibility to not let Lyndon Johnson 
get by with an amendment that was not even debated. That is what 
happened. So after 48 years, 48 years of the Federal Government 
influencing and threatening what can be said in our churches and 
synagogues, we now have an opportunity to pass legislation to get this 
debate started.
  I want to thank even some who do not agree with me on this issue, 
thank you for allowing, after 48 years, for this

[[Page H6773]]

bill to get to the floor for a debate. We will see what might happen 
when this bill might come forward.
  Let me take 5 or 6 more minutes and then I will close. There is a 
professor at Purdue University named Dr. James Davidson. I had read a 
report. He is well known. He is a psychologist at Purdue University. I 
talked to Dr. Davidson yesterday. He has spent a lot of time writing 
books and articles about churches and religion in America. I want to 
read this to Members. This is the beginning of his research on the 
issue of the freedom of churches to talk about political issues. ``The 
ban on electioneering has nothing to do with the first amendment or 
Jefferson's principle of separation of church and state. The first 
amendment speaks of religious freedom. It says nothing that would 
preclude churches from aligning themselves with or against a candidate 
for political office,'' and he cites certain court rulings. I will not 
recite those because of time.
  ``The courts also have never used Thomas Jefferson's celebrated 1802 
metaphor about a wall of separation between church and state to stifle 
church's support or opposition to a political candidate.''
  Another paragraph, ``From a Constitutional perspective then, American 
churches have had every right to endorse or oppose political 
candidates. They have not participated in all elections, but they have 
been actively involved in some. For example, many Protestant churches 
and church leaders delivered sermons and published religious literature 
opposing Al Smith's bid to become the Nation's first Catholic President 
in 1928.''

                              {time}  2015

  He cites some references there. Constitutional principles have not 
changed since 1928. Churches still have a constitutional right to 
endorse or oppose political candidates. However, then he gets into the 
issue of the Johnson amendment. What he is saying, that up until the 
Johnson amendment, there were no restrictions of speech, right or 
wrong. The preacher, the priest, the rabbi, the cleric had every right 
to talk about issues they thought were important to their church, to 
their State and to this Nation.
  I just wanted to read that because this man, Dr. Davidson, is an 
expert on this issue. I wanted to cite that for the record tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a couple of more minutes now 
to say that the left has tried to say that if my bill or the bill of 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) passed, then you are allowing 
the churches to get into the fund-raising business for political 
candidates. That is total hogwash. The bill that the Congress and the 
Senate passed, the 2002 campaign finance reform laws, says that if you 
are a nonprofit entity, which is a 501(c)(3), you cannot raise hard or 
soft money. So that is just a bogus argument from the extreme left that 
does not want to have the preachers to have the right to talk about 
these issues in their churches, synagogues and mosques.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff and you for giving me this 
time. I want to say that the strength of America depends, quite 
frankly, on our spiritual leaders being able to talk about the issues 
of the day, whether they be moral issues or political issues. I believe 
that the strength of this country is dependent on the fact that our 
spiritual leaders have total freedom of speech no matter what the issue 
might be. That is the best hope for this country. The spiritual leaders 
that I have met in the last year and a half I really believe are my 
brothers in Christ and I have great respect for them.
  I want to say that this legislation is supported by such people as D. 
James Kennedy, Dr. Tim LaHaye and his wife Beverly, by also Ray Flynn, 
the former Ambassador to the Vatican and also Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a 
wonderful man of God from the west coast. I talked to him two or three 
times on this issue. Again, these spiritual leaders and I would say 
that probably the majority of the spiritual leaders maybe would not 
even want to discuss these issues in front of their congregation. Maybe 
they would choose to say, well, I don't want to talk about a political 
candidate here or there. But my point is, they should have the right to 
make that decision. They now do not have that right.
  There is one other problem with this law. The IRS admitted during the 
hearing that they cannot enforce this law. As I said earlier, they are 
dependent on a third party, a spy, if you will, to turn somebody in. I 
do not believe that that is what this great Nation stands for. Let me 
also say that they acknowledge that they cannot enforce this law 
adequately across the board. They have and they did admit they have 
been somewhat selective as to certain churches. I gave you an example 
of Floyd Flake who again is a wonderful man of our Lord in New York. 
All he did was to say to his congregation that he believes that Al Gore 
is the right man to lead this Nation. Then again I want to go back to 
the priest down in my district, there was a request made by a 
parishioner, Just say that George Bush is pro-life. These are just 
simple words. They have a right to say it. They should have that right. 
That is acknowledged by Davidson and even in Barry Lynn's letter, the 
first sentence. He is exactly right. They do have that right. Johnson 
took it away from them.
  I also want to say that this country, I think, is a Nation, and some 
people will not agree with this, but it was founded on Judeo-Christian 
principles. That is the foundation of America and if America is going 
to remain strong, then we have got to be sure that our spiritual 
leaders have the freedom to talk about the biblical, the moral, and the 
political issues of the day. They must have that right.
  Mr. Speaker, I always close when I come to the floor in a certain 
way. I spoke this morning and I close this way everywhere I go, because 
I think we are so fortunate to have our men and women in uniform who 
are protecting our national security and also protecting the first 
amendment, the second amendment and all the guarantees that we have in 
the Constitution. I close this way by saying, I 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, I ask God to please bless the men and 
women who serve in the United States House and the United States 
Senate, I ask God to please bless the President of the United States so 
that he might make the right decisions for this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I close this way by saying three times, I ask God: 
Please God, please God, please God, continue to bless America.

                          ____________________