[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 126 (Tuesday, October 1, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6912-H6920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2230
           HOUSES OF WORSHIP POLITICAL SPEECH PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2357) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 
churches

[[Page H6913]]

and other houses of worship to engage in political campaigns.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2357

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Houses of Worship Political 
     Speech Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL 
                   CAMPAIGNS, ETC.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and which does not'' and inserting 
     ``except in the case of an organization described in section 
     508(c)(1)(A) (relating to churches), which does not'', and
       (2) by inserting before the period ``and, in the case of an 
     organization described in section 508(c)(1)(A), no 
     substantial part of the activities of which is participating 
     in, or intervening in (including the publishing or 
     distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf 
     of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenditures made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Hart). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Lewis) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of legislation 
introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) to protect 
the first amendment rights of men and women of faith across America. 
Our Nation's pastors, priests, rabbis and clerics should be free to 
express their political opinions just as every other American is free 
to do so.
  Unfortunately, many church leaders today are afraid to voice their 
political opinions because they fear that the IRS may revoke their tax-
exempt status. This is exactly what happened to a church which 
criticized the views of then Governor Bill Clinton in 1992. Should any 
American have to forfeit their first amendment freedom of speech just 
because they have a religious affiliation? I certainly hope not.
  The legislation before us attempts to recognize the need for an 
appropriate separation of church and state while not silencing the 
opinions of religious leaders in the process. Many conservative church 
leaders in particular have voiced concerns that they may be targeted by 
the IRS if they simply inform their parishioners of a candidate's 
position on an issue. These religious leaders point out that the IRS 
has recently investigated a number of conservative groups while leaving 
unscathed liberal churches which actively promote a candidate or 
political party.
  Madam Speaker, this is wrong. During the 2000 election campaign, 
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a liberal 
special interest group, sent letters to houses of worship across the 
country warning them against distributing Christian Coalition voter 
guides lest they be in danger of losing their tax-exempt status. This 
type of action has a chilling effect on political speech due to the 
current ambiguity of the Federal Tax Code.
  The gentleman from North Carolina's (Mr. Jones) bill will go a long 
way towards clarifying the tax law with respect to religious 
institutions and their participation in the political process.
  Madam Speaker, at a time when our society can most benefit from a 
wide diversity of views informed by faith and conscience, we should be 
doing everything we can to promote freedom of speech by both religious 
and secular institutions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  From the outset, Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear that this 
piece of legislation that we are considering tonight never was voted 
out of the subcommittee or the full committee of the Committee on Ways 
and Means of the House. There was only a hearing in the Subcommittee on 
Oversight.
  Madam Speaker, the sponsor of this bill will have us believe that 
they are merely protecting free speech, but do not be fooled. This 
legislation has one purpose and one purpose only, to allow our houses 
of worship to become vehicles for partisan political activity.
  As someone who stood alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the 
other great leaders of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, I can 
tell my colleagues that they would be dismayed by this legislation. 
During the civil rights movement, we fought to end legal segregation 
and break down barriers to political participation. The church was the 
heart and soul of our efforts because ministers had the moral authority 
and respect to stand against immoral and indefensible laws, bad laws, 
bad customs, bad tradition.
  Ministers who led the civil rights movement did not select political 
candidates and operate our churches like political action committees. 
Although their churches and leaders faced violence and hatred for their 
efforts to protect human rights and human dignity, they were free and 
even protected by the Constitution to speak out on these issues. At no 
time did we envision or even contemplate the need for our houses of 
worship to become partisan pulpits.
  Make no mistake, partisan politics has its place. President John F. 
Kennedy once said that both major parties today serve the national 
interest, but when party and officeholder differ as to how the national 
interest is to be served, we must place first the responsibility we owe 
not to our party or even to our constituents, but to our individual 
consciences.
  Madam Speaker, in this matter we owe our allegiance to our individual 
consciences, and we owe it to those ministers and the other religious 
leaders and churches and institutions who speak out on the issues to 
protect them. Our religious organizations should continue to be places 
that ministers, priests and rabbis, and imams give moral and spiritual 
guidance. We should not allow them to be transformed into institutions 
that tell their members and their parishioners how to vote.
  If this legislation is allowed to stand or pass, we can have a 
minister, a priest, a rabbi or a mosque coming in the pulpit saying 
vote against so and so, or God told me vote against so and so, taking 
up offerings in the church, in the synagogue, in the temple, in the 
mosque, tax-exempt organizations.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, if my colleagues think that ministers and 
religious leaders are muzzled politically and are clamoring for this 
legislation, look at the list of more than 200 mainstream churches and 
religious organizations who are opposed to this bill: the African 
Methodist Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Church, the American 
Jewish Congress, the Islamic Supreme Council, Evangelical Lutherans, 
Presbyterians, Buddhists, Quakers, and the list goes on and on.
  We cannot allow supporters of this measure, however well-intended 
they may be, to influence us to recklessly discard the time-tested 
system we now have in place or substitute it with a dangerous 
experiment in mixing religion with partisan politics.
  This bill before us tonight, Madam Speaker, threatens not only our 
quest for meaningful campaign finance reform, but threatens the very 
integrity and independence of our churches and others houses of 
worship. Any time the wall of separation between church and State is 
breached, religious liberty is threatened. The wall between church and 
state must be solid. It has guided us for 220 years. It must not be 
breached for any reason. I urge my colleagues to protect our tradition 
of religious liberty and vote against this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from California for yielding me the time, and certainly the gentleman 
from Georgia, who I have great respect for, as well as the gentleman 
from Texas. And what makes this great body, what it is, is the freedom 
that we all enjoy to disagree and many times agree.
  Let me talk a little bit about the history of this issue. If this was 
1953, we would not be debating this issue because it would not be an 
issue. The

[[Page H6914]]

churches in this country had the freedom to talk about the issues of 
the day, whether they be political issues or nonpolitical issues. There 
was no restriction from the beginning of the churches in this country.
  There was never a restriction until Lyndon Johnson put an amendment 
on a revenue bill going through the Senate with no debate, and Mr. 
Johnson was opposed to the H.L. Hunt family, who were working against 
his reelection, and they had established two 501(c)(3)s, and so Mr. 
Johnson put an amendment on without any debate that said if an 
organization is a 501(c)(3), they may not have political speech.
  Let me tell my colleagues that most of the experts, and I am 
certainly not an expert, most of the experts have said in analyzing 
this issue, and it has been analyzed by many researchers through the 
years; that probably Lyndon Johnson did not mean to stifle the churches 
or synagogues in this country, and let me explain that.
  Lyndon Johnson was the VP on the ticket with John Kennedy in 1960, 
and the churches in Texas, many of the churches, were opposed to John 
Kennedy being a Catholic, being the first Catholic in the White House. 
So those who have researched this issue say that if Johnson had 
intended for the churches to be stifled in speech, that probably Mr. 
Johnson, being a powerful man, would have picked up the phone and 
called the Internal Revenue Service and said they need to look into 
this church. Johnson never made any call or any complaints. So the 
experts, which I am not one, have said that they believe that Mr. 
Johnson did not intend to put the muzzle on the churches and synagogues 
throughout this country.
  Let me make a couple of other points real quickly. The letter that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) made reference to that was 
sent out by Barry Lynn, this is how this came to my attention, quite 
frankly. I had a Baptist minister in my district ask me to speak in 
September of the year 2000 to his adult men's class, and I went, and he 
showed me a letter, this is a copy of it, from Barry Lynn that went to 
over 285,000 churches, and it is a warning to the minister that he not 
violate the 501(c)(3) status known as the Johnson amendment.
  Let me tell my colleagues what really interests me, because I do not 
agree with Mr. Lynn on much, and he does not agree with me, and that is 
what makes America the great Nation it is. But let me read this first 
sentence to my colleagues because this tells it better than I can tell 
it.
  ``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.'' He acknowledges that is what the Constitution 
guarantees, but his second sentence is, however, houses of worship, as 
a nonprofit entity under section 501(c)(3), cannot have political 
speech.
  So my point is I do agree with what he said, and he was right, the 
Constitution does guarantee this, and Lyndon Johnson took it away from 
them. Maybe he did not intend to, but the churches in many places, in 
my opinion, the priests, the rabbis and the clerics have not had the 
freedom to speak about the moral and political issues of the day, and 
many times the moral issues become political issues, and the political 
issues moral issues, and we all know that.
  I tell my colleagues what really concerns me even more is that Mr. 
Lynn, about a month later, sent out a press release. I checked with the 
Internal Revenue Service yesterday. We have over 880,000 houses of 
worship. Mr. Lynn, in 2000, sent out a press release that said, we plan 
to mail it to approximately 285,000 houses of worship. I am confident 
that every church targeted by the coalition will receive this letter.
  My question to Mr. Lynn and to those who believe this is a good law, 
maybe we ought to hire 880,000 inspectors to represent the Internal 
Revenue Service at every church and every synagogue and every mosque in 
this Nation during the months of September and October. If we want to 
make the law fair so it applies to everybody, then make it fair for 
everybody. Do not just single out certain groups and target certain 
groups.
  The last point I would like to make on this issue is that when we had 
the hearing, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton), even though he does not agree with the legislation, he did 
hold a hearing that was very bipartisan, and I am going to wait until 
the next round to go into details of the testimony, but I am pleased to 
tell my colleagues that two great men of God came to testify, Dr. D. 
James Kennedy and Pastor Walter Fauntroy right here in Washington, 
D.C., a former Member of Congress that we all served with.
  Again, I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis), and I have great respect for Pastor Fauntroy, and I know he 
marched with my colleague to bring civil rights to this country, to the 
people of this country so they could enjoy equal rights and civil 
rights. I applaud them, and I applaud Walter Fauntroy and certainly 
Martin Luther King.
  In addition, I am pleased to tell my colleagues that I had a long 
conversation with Floyd Flake. Mr. Flake was one of the finest Members 
of Congress. He is a man of God. He is a man I respect. We might not 
politically always agree, but a man I fully respect.

                              {time}  2245

  And he is very supportive of this legislation, along with numerous 
other men and women of faith who are spiritual leaders.
  With that I will wait until my next round.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), chairperson of the Subcommittee 
on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis) for yielding me this time.
  I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Jones) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger). I just 
happen to disagree with them on this particular issue, and let me tell 
my colleagues why. This is really a tax consideration, and all tax 
bills really should go through the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
this has not. I have been on the Subcommittee on Oversight of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. We reviewed this in May. We had a good 
meeting. There was no consensus on the part of the religious community 
for Tax Code change. So the whole concept of the 501(c)(3) which 
includes religious groups, United Way, hospitals, so on and so forth, 
they receive tax preferential treatment, and there is a trade-off. For 
that there are no political campaign activities. And today churches are 
free to talk about the issues in any way they want, but they cannot use 
the church resources on a tax deductible basis to campaign for a 
candidate. I think that makes perfectly good sense. They can do what 
they want, but they should not use the Tax Code the way no one else can 
use the Tax Code for this political purpose.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
honorable gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, from the time I was a small child my 
parents taught me that our church was a sacred house of worship, a 
spiritual place where people of faith could meet, honor God and thank 
Him for our many blessings. Now as a father, it is my hope that my two 
young sons will have the same sense of reverence for our church and all 
houses of worship.
  Based on those values, it is my opinion that this bill demeans 
religion and demeans houses of worship by converting them into 
political campaign organizations. According to the bill itself, its 
purpose is ``to permit churches and other houses of worship to engage 
in political campaigns.'' Madam Speaker, this bill would go so far as 
to even allow churches to endorse political candidates and to 
contribute church funds to political campaigns.
  If I had a malicious intent to import divisiveness into our churches, 
I could find no better way to do it than to pass this ill-conceived 
bill into law. That is why this is not just a bad bill, it is a 
dangerous bill.
  Think about life under this bill. Our churches, synagogues, and 
mosques could cut back on their spiritual worship time so they could 
hear from their campaign committee. Then rather than

[[Page H6915]]

taking time to praise God, our congregations could entertain divisive 
partisan political debates as to which local, county, State, and 
Federal candidates to endorse each year. Active political partisans in 
each house of worship could then fight over candidates and whether one 
or the other is truly the faithful one. Perhaps church committees could 
have religious litmus tests for candidates, thus thrusting aside the 
spirit of article 6 of our Constitution which prohibits religious tests 
for positions of public trust.
  After acrimonious endorsement debates for dozens of candidates, then 
our houses of worship could each year determine which mission fund or 
program for the poor could be scrapped on the alter of political 
contributions.
  Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that so many religious organizations 
are opposing this bill, and I hope the national press and American 
people wake up to the quiet, but dangerous, effort, well intentioned or 
not, in this Congress that would basically interject government and 
politics into our churches and into our personal faith.
  For example, with charitable choice legislation pending in Congress, 
an administration could dole out literally billions of dollars directly 
to preferred houses of worship; and then with the Jones bill, those 
same houses of worship could endorse in the next election the 
administration that has just given them those tax dollars, thus 
obliterating the wall of separation between church and State.
  If I had planned a lifetime to undermine religious liberty and 
tolerance in America and to demean houses of worship, I could not have 
ever devised a more effective plan than to combine charitable choice 
legislation with this bill. Thankfully through the wisdom of Mr. 
Madison and Mr. Jefferson, the first amendment places religion on a 
pedestal far above the reach of politics and politicians. To drag 
religion down from that lofty pedestal of protection into the quagmire 
of political endorsements is to demean religion, not protect it; and 
Madam Speaker, for any bill that deals with the fundamental 
constitutional principles of church and State to be brought to this 
House floor under a suspension calendar late at night with only a 
handful of Members present is a disservice to this House and to the 
profound importance of religious liberty.
  Whether one agrees or disagrees with my position on this bill, I 
would remind all of us that religious liberty is a gift of God and that 
for over 200 years our Bill of Rights has protected that divine gift 
for all our citizens and that any congressional action that treats the 
fundamental issue of church and State and religious liberty with less 
than the greatest of careful deliberation puts at risk America's 
historic legacy of religious freedom and tolerance.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise today in strong support of the Houses of Worship Political 
Speech Protection Act and commend the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Jones) for sponsoring this important piece of legislation.
  H.R. 2357 seeks to allow our churches and religious institutions to 
address the moral and political issues of the day, as they have for the 
first 300-plus years of America's history, without fear of the IRS 
imposing financial penalties or revoking their tax-exempt status 
altogether. This legislation frees our clergy to speak their 
consciences from the pulpit on all issues, even those which may stem 
from the political arena, without the chilling effect that the Tax Code 
has on our houses of worship. As the French author, Alexis de 
Tocqueville, observed in 1835 in his published accounts of life in 
American society: ``Religion in America takes no direct part in the 
government of society but it must be regarded as the first of their 
political institutions for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, 
it facilitates the use of it.''
  Our clergy and religious institutions have played a significant role 
in our Nation's political life from the earliest days of our Republic. 
A clear example can be found right here in the Capitol. The statue of 
Reverend John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg depicts him removing his 
clerical robes to reveal the uniform of a military officer following 
his farewell sermon to his Virginia congregation on January 21, 1776. 
From the pulpit Muhlenberg declared that ``there is a time to fight, 
and that time has now come.'' Reverend Muhlenberg's rousing sermon led 
300 men from his congregation to join him that day in America's war for 
independence. Reverend Muhlenberg was not interested in the endorsement 
of a political candidate. He preached the overthrow of the government 
of the colonies.
  While this illustrates only one incident in our Nation's past, it 
still leads one to consider what the fabric of American society would 
look like today without our past clergymen and women denouncing the 
evils of tyranny, slavery, and segregation.
  H.R. 2357 simply attempts to return our houses of worship to the role 
they have historically held as an active participant in the political 
process, addressing the important issues of the day. This bill assures 
that those who hold to fundamental truths are not divorced from the 
arena of ideas simply because they happen to be standing behind a 
pulpit.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Houses of Worship Political 
Speech Protection Act.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I want to first say that I was deeply 
impressed by the presentation made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), and I could feel his pain as he spoke on this legislation and 
against it because I believe he is a deeply religious man. And this is 
an awkward issue for us, but we need to speak plainly about it. I too 
strongly oppose H.R. 2357, the House of Worship Political Speech 
Protection Act, because I believe it flies in the face of our campaign 
finance laws and more importantly would create a large soft money 
loophole. I also have serious concerns the legislation would erode the 
separation of church and State, a bedrock value of our Nation and one I 
strongly support.
  Religious institutions should be able to speak out on issues, and 
current law already gives these institutions the absolute right to use 
their pulpit to address an issue they wish. One has to wonder, 
therefore, why this legislation is necessary. What religious 
institutions cannot do is use their tax-exempt donations to contribute 
to a candidate's political campaign.
  H.R. 2357 would allow religious organizations to maintain their 
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, which allows them to receive tax-
deductible contributions while permitting them to contribute to 
politicians and political campaigns. This legislation does not extend 
the same privilege to nonreligious 501(c)(3) organizations.
  In February, this body demonstrated a strong commitment to reforming 
our campaign finance laws when it voted to ban the use of soft money, 
corporate treasury money, union dues money, and unlimited sums from 
individuals. H.R. 2357 would be a major step backward. This 
legislation, if enacted, would permit big-dollar political donors, 
corporate, union, or individual, to funnel soft money through partisan 
incorporated religious organizations and fund sham issue ads, really 
campaign ads with these funds.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2357. We should 
not allow tax-exempt institutions to make campaign contributions.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and I also want to 
thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Jones), for his efforts. We are here on the floor again with some deep 
differences of people who share very strong commitments on this issue 
and of the role of how we work through as Christians and people of 
multiple and diverse faiths in America, how we work through the role of 
those who have deeply felt views and how they can express those and 
participate.
  I do want to correct a couple of things on the record from the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) because I think there is a little 
bit of overparanoia.

[[Page H6916]]

  One is that in the idea that charitable choice is somehow going to be 
tied in with this, as the gentleman knows, while the bill passed the 
House, it is pending in nowhere. We have agreed with a compromise, and 
many of us here tonight have agreed with compromise, and then the 
Senate developed a compromise and there will be no charitable choice 
grants coming through, authorized by Congress. They are working through 
some of those things in the executive branch, but we have worked out 
that we have shared concerns about the Federal Government getting it 
directly into funding and what that could mean to the separation of 
church and State if churches become dependent on Federal funding.
  Furthermore, the statement that we are doing this late at night is 
because of the death of our friend and colleague, Patsy Mink, we had a 
waiver. This was originally scheduled to occur much earlier in the 
evening. We had a 2-hour debate tonight and that pushed it later in the 
evening. This in fact would have been debated in prime time. It is near 
prime time in much of the country anyway. But this is, first, a 
fundamental disagreement about what the bill is. I do not believe nor 
do any of the people who wrote the bill nor do most people who do not 
have a position that is overtly against the conservative churches 
basically being able to speak out believe this affects money. This 
affects endorsement. I do not believe it changes campaign finance one 
wit. And I was talking with my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) because I share his concern about churches 
having, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), my friend, said, 
taking up collections for political campaigns. That would be 
horrendous.

                              {time}  2300

  That is not what this bill does. We have fundamental disagreements 
even about what the bill does. This is supposed to be able to clarify 
Internal Revenue Code that pastors who speak on behalf of the church 
can say what they believe.
  We know in America that many churches in fact do that. In fact, in 
the civil rights movement had brave people not been willing to stand up 
and register in churches, and Reverend Jesse White is getting a statue 
in Fort Wayne for his work. He was active through his church in 
registering voters, bringing in candidates, endorsing candidates 
because he felt that was the only way in my home area to change some of 
the civil rights areas.
  In the Vietnam War era, pastors were endorsing candidates in liberal 
churches. There are many conservative Christians in this country who 
deeply feel in the fundamental part of their heart, and we can see it 
in which groups are backing this, that conservative churches, once they 
got active, and most denominations like mine are very separatist and 
would never endorse from the pulpit and believe in that separation.
  But many churches believe, including those churches that do not 
endorse, that there has been a difference in America; and when the 
conservative churches started to get politically involved, the Clinton 
administration came down on them. And that belief is deeply felt. That 
is what we are trying to address.
  We believe that all people ought to be created equally. There should 
not be direct funding. That is covered in campaign finance law. There 
should not be church funds intermingled. That is the point of (c)(3)s 
and (c)(4)s. But when there are deeply felt issues like abortion that 
conservatives feel deeply about; the pastor should be allowed to say 
this is what we believe. These are candidates who share those views. 
They should not be able to use church funds to promote that view. That 
is the point of (c)(3)s. They can have their voter guides outside the 
sanctuary, and they can do other things with nonchurch money; but they 
ought to be allowed, when a Christian world view is fully 
comprehensive, the beliefs of Jesus Christ are not just faith, they are 
also works. If one believes they are works, a pastor whether he sees 
civil rights or war or abortion or pornography, he ought to be allowed 
to speak out and the congregation ought to be allowed to speak out.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not one thing in the present code that would 
prohibit ministers, religious leaders, rabbis, any church organization 
from speaking out on the great issues of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Once again 
we are here debating a very controversial bill with profound 
constitutional implications which has bypassed the regular order in the 
committee of jurisdiction, has been placed on the suspension calendar 
late at night with limited time for debate and no amendments allowed.
  I do not know what the supporters of the bill think it does, but this 
bill is in fact a tax bill and describes what a church can do and still 
maintain its tax exemption. The legislation before us allows a 
religious tax-exempt organization to engage in political activities, 
partisan political activities, while using tax-exempt resources so long 
as those activities are not more than an ``insubstantial part'' of 
their activities.
  Pursuant to the Tax Code, that means anywhere from 5-15 percent of an 
organization's budget can be used for partisan political activities. 
For a church with a $1 million budget, that is 50,000 to $150,000 in 
campaign cash.
  Mr. Speaker, we also have to consider the bill in light of 
legislation that has already passed the House, and that is H.R. 7, the 
so-called Charitable Choice bill, which allows the church to be 
directly funded with government contracts. This bill will allow those 
churches to show their appreciation to the government officials that 
helped them with campaign contributions amounting to 5-15 percent of 
the grant. This gives a new meaning to the idea of tithing.
  Contrary to assertions, churches and other houses of worship can and 
do speak out on issues of the day. When the gentleman from California 
says they cannot speak, it is true, they cannot take out a paid 
political ad paid for with tax-deductible money. But under current law, 
churches can host candidate forums, can issue unbiased voting guides, 
engage in lobbying activities on legislation, endorse or oppose 
referendums, constitutional amendments or other ballot initiatives, and 
they can certainly speak out on the moral issues of the day, whether it 
be civil rights, universal health care, or education.
  Furthermore, ministers or religious leaders in their private capacity 
can and do endorse political candidates and even become candidates 
themselves. In fact, my representative in the Virginia Senate is a 
pastor of a Baptist church. The difference is they cannot use the 
resources of a tax-exempt church in a partisan political campaign.
  Churches, like other tax-exempt organizations, are prohibited from 
using tax-exempt church contributions for candidates. They cannot 
create PACs or solicit or provide financial support to a candidate. 
That would change under this legislation, which specifically allows our 
houses of worship to funnel tax-exempt funds to candidates in political 
parties. There are other issues that we have to consider as we debate 
this measure.
  For example, houses of worship are exempt from certain Internal 
Revenue filings; and, therefore, we will never know whether they are 
spending 5 percent or 50 percent of their funds on political activities 
unless the supporters expect the IRS to be auditing church finances.
  In addition, unlike other organizations exempt under section 501(c), 
churches do not have to file for incorporation. Essentially any 
organization claiming to be a church gets automatic tax-exempt status 
from the IRS. As a result, during election cycles we might see the 
formation of new churches formed for the express purpose of political 
activity on behalf of a candidate or political party.
  Mr. Speaker, current law treats our houses of worship and secular 
nonprofits with respect to partisan political activity equally. Neither 
can use tax-exempt resources for partisan political activities. If they 
want their organizational resources to be used for partisan political 
activities, they can. They just cannot get tax deductions and use tax-
deductible resources for that purpose. Should this legislation pass, 
our houses of worship may risk becoming sham political organizations.

[[Page H6917]]

As the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) explained, we would have 
created a gaping loophole in our campaign finance laws. I strongly urge 
rejection of this legislation.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just relate that a leading supporter 
of this piece of legislation, a minister, is sending out fund-raising 
literature, seeking tax-deductible contributions to support the 
church's efforts in lobbying the Congress to pass H.R. 2357. What this 
minister really wants and gets under the bill is the ability to use 
unreported, unlimited charitable contributions to defeat or elect 
someone in Congress or some place else.
  Is this what we want happening in November, on November 5, or some 
other time? Of course not. Churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques 
are houses of worship. Let us keep them that way and not let politics 
get in the way. Let us keep a separation of church and State. Keep that 
wall solid and strong. If churches, synagogues, mosques and temples 
want to go out and raise money and have their leaders preaching from 
the pulpit, then they should form another organization or group. I ask 
Members to vote against this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), I agree totally with the 
gentleman's statement. This is a separation of church and State. The 
reason it is is that the State, being the Internal Revenue Service, 
should not influence any statement or comment that the church pulpit, 
the preacher, the priest, the rabbi might want to make.

                              {time}  2310

  This way, because of the Johnson amendment, they do have influence as 
to what can be said.
  To the gentleman from Texas, whom I like very much, I want to say 
that he is right. I agree with him up to 152 years, but the last 48 
years since 1954, Lyndon Johnson's amendment put the Internal Revenue 
Service into the churches as to restricting what they can and cannot 
say. Prior to that time, he and I agree 100 percent.
  Let me also say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) that 
when churches qualified for the status of 501(c)(3)s, and I have 
researched this, there is no restriction in the law as to what they 
could and could not say when they became classified as 501(c)(3)s.
  Let me also say that one of the biggest concerns that some people 
have mentioned tonight, I cannot begin to tell you, when D. James 
Kennedy came to testify, he brought over 60,000 petitions to present to 
the committee. In addition to that, this past week over 4,500 ministers 
throughout this country, some being Baptist, wrote and said they were 
in strong support of this legislation.
  Let me also say to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays), who is my friend, that under the Bipartisan Campaign Finance 
Reform Act of 2002, which amends the Federal Election Campaign Act, all 
corporations including tax-exempt churches and nonprofit corporations 
are barred from making hard-money contributions or any direct or 
indirect disbursement for electioneering communications. That is on 
page 101 and 102 (A and B). I just want to get that on the record, 
also.
  Let me also say that, again, when you think about the fact that prior 
to 1954 there were no restrictions of speech on our churches, and I am 
pleased to say that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), for whom I 
do have great respect, during the hearing with the Internal Revenue 
Service, his question to Mr. Miller who worked with IRS is: As a rule 
do you monitor the activities of churches during the political season?
  Mr. Miller's answer to Mr. Lewis is: We do monitor churches. So our 
monitoring is mostly as a recipient of information from third parties 
who are looking in. That is Barry Lind looking in. What are you saying? 
``I'm going to report you to the Internal Revenue Service.'' That is 
not America. If a priest wants to say that George Bush is prolife, let 
the priest say George Bush is prolife. If my dear friend and your dear 
friend Floyd Flake wants to have Al Gore in his church, and when Al 
Gore finishes speaking he puts his hand on his shoulder and he says, 
``I think this is the right man to lead America,'' he should be able to 
do it. He got a letter of reprimand from the Internal Revenue Service. 
Somebody snitched on him because the Internal Revenue Service is 
dependent on a third party to report because, quite frankly, I will be 
honest with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), they cannot 
enforce the law to begin with. That is an absolute joke. They cannot 
enforce the law. So they are dependent on a third party.
  That somewhat reminds me of my history about Germany, quite frankly, 
somebody looking in on what the priest says or the preacher says or 
what the rabbi might say. That in itself should be enough to offend all 
of us on both sides of the aisle who raise our hand to defend the 
constitutional rights of the American people, that we make sure that 
anyone, whether they be a preacher, a priest, a rabbi or a cleric, that 
they have a right to speak from their heart, and if they believe that 
that is the right thing to say to educate their people in that 
congregation, then they should say it.
  Let me close this way from Floyd Flake, a great, great man of 
spiritual faith and a spiritual leader. He says, ``It is unjust that 
churches and clergy men and women are unfairly targeted when they 
exercise their rights as American citizens. I am pleased to offer my 
wholehearted support with sincere prayer for passage of this important 
and liberating legislation. Floyd Flake.'' He is talking about H.R. 
2357.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, under the First Amendment to the 
United States Constitution, Americans have the freedom of speech. In 
the same amendment, our founding fathers declared Congress shall make 
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.
  Much to the dismay of many of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, the two concepts do not cancel out each other. They are not 
mutually exclusive. Americans who believe in God ought not to have 
their freedom of speech muzzled in the name of the law.
  I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this legislation to stop harassing 
churches and other places of worship when someone mentions politics. 
Those of us who support this bill are not advocating turning religious 
organizations into political parties. Rather, the legislation before us 
would permit the occasional discussion of issues of importance to 
congregations comprised of voting citizens.
  The gag rule on pastors, priests, rabbis and other religious leaders 
was not part of the Bill Of Rights. It was an amendment to a 19-54 tax 
bill by Senator Lyndon Johnson. There were no hearings. Rather, 
restrictions were imposed on people of faith as revolutionaries began 
their quest to remove any reference to a Creator from our one nation 
under God.
  I don't believe Al Gore or Hillary Clinton should be banned from 
speaking at Riverside Baptist Church just because it is a place of 
religion. When the pastor invites them up to the pulpit during their 
campaigns, he should not have to worry about breaking the law or losing 
his tax-exempt status. But if this bill fails, the pastor will have no 
choice but to say no.
  Churches have integrity. They are sacred places, protected under law 
and deserving of the liberties afforded to the rest of our great 
nation.
  The First Amendment rights of our constituents shouldn't be curtailed 
because they happen to be sitting in a pew or on bended knee. I commend 
the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on the bill and 
urge my colleagues to support the Houses of Worship Political Speech 
Protection Act.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Houses of Worship 
political speech protection act. I believe that we must remove the Gag 
that restricts our clergymen from discussing candidates for office or 
political issues. Religious organizations are the moral compass for 
tens of millions of Americans and I have no qualms about their leaders 
articulating the pros and cons of a particular candidate for office or 
issue.
  While I strongly commend the gentleman from North Carolina for 
advancing this issue, I do have some concerns with the way this 
particular bill has been drafted. In my opinion, the substantiality 
test in the code is entirely too ambiguous. It has not been defined by 
Congress, the Treasury Department or the courts, so passage of this 
bill will require that

[[Page H6918]]

we wait until the IRS prosecutes a church for a violation to learn what 
substantial means.
  Since the 104th Congress, I have introduced the Brightline Act that 
clearly defines, using dollar limitations, the activities that 
religious organizations may engage in while maintaining their tax-
exempt status. It is a clean, easy way for churches to know whether or 
not they have run afoul of the Internal Revenue Code. I hope, that as 
we continue to move this issue forward, the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be willing to work with me to ensure that whatever we put 
on the President's desk for signature provides churches with clear 
rules so that this matter is not resolved by the courts.
  Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to thank the 
people who have worked so hard over the years to advance this issue. 
First and foremost, I want to thank the millions of Americans at the 
grassroots level who have contacted their members of Congress to get 
their support. Second, and most importantly, I want to thank my good 
friend Reverend Lou Sheldon for his tireless efforts to advance this 
issue. Pastor Lou has led the change on this issue since 1994 and I 
hope those who support this bill will recognize his hard work.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support 
of the Houses of Worship Political Speech Act, introduced by my good 
friend, Walter Jones. For too long, the separation of church and state 
has been tilted too far towards one extreme and has restricted the free 
speech rights of religious communities in America. HR 2357 attempts to 
restore balance and reasonableness by amending the Internal Revenue 
Code to permit churches and other houses of worship to fully 
participate in the democratic political process.
  I believe that the First Amendment's prohibition against the 
establishment of an official religion akin to the Church of England in 
the UK was never meant to mean that communities of faith were barred 
from a robust participation in all aspects of our nation's political 
life. America's system is weaker and less representative when important 
voices are excluded from the political dimension.
  Prior to 1954, pastors and religious leaders spoke freely about 
candidates and political issues that directly affected the interests of 
their congregations. The anti-slavery and abolitionist organizations 
and the civil rights movement are examples of church-inspired political 
agents of change in our society. In fact, churches played a central 
role in dismantling the Jim Crow laws that so egregiously violated the 
civil rights of African Americans. Our society would have been much 
worse off if historically black churches and clergy were prohibited 
from sermonizing or distributing materials.
  The origins of current law, which this bill seeks to correct, are 
very instructive. In 1954, Senator Lyndon Johnson added language to 
pending tax legislation to prevent two non-profit groups that opposed 
him in 1948 from speaking out against him in his 1954 re-election.
  The vexing perception is that the IRS is empowered with sweeping 
powers to strip a church's tax-exempt status if clergymen express 
particular views on a candidate. That is clearly wrong and the framers 
of the Constitution would be appalled at this abuse of power. Priests, 
pastors, rabbis, or any religious leader should not be bullied into 
silence by the IRS.
  LBJ's capricious and punitive tax proviso has been used in an 
arbitrary manner to silence political speech in America's houses of 
worship. The Church at Pierce Creek in Vestal, New York, for example, 
came under IRS' sanction when it published an ``open letter'' to then-
candidate Bill Clinton in 1992. The church took issue with Mr. 
Clinton's stances on several compelling moral issues. Even though the 
church leadership cited biblical passages to buttress its argument, the 
IRS revoked its tax-exempt status in 1995.
  The American Center for law and Justice, which represented the Church 
at Pierce Creek, has subsequently documented more than 500 instances 
where candidates had appeared before churches. Yet no enforcement 
action was taken in those cases perhaps suggesting a double standard. 
Mr. Speaker, I ask that these instances be made a part of the record.
  Approximately two years ago, former President Bill Clinton stood in 
the pulpit of the Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, 
Virginia--just a few miles from this building--and openly urged 
parishioners to vote for then-Senator Chuck Robb and Vice President Al 
Gore.
  Mr. Speaker, why is it permissible for Bill Clinton to make partisan 
speeches in churches, while other church leaders are gagged if they 
critique Bill Clinton?
  In a national poll conducted this summer by The Poling Company, 84 
percent of men, and 77 percent of women agreed that the First Amendment 
should protect religious leaders from being penalized for political 
speech.
  I want to remind my colleagues that the separation of church and 
state stemmed from Americans' desire to have church and state operate 
independently from one another, in order to avoid the establishment of 
a state church. The affairs of states however often compare with, 
contradict or comply with the moral imperatives found in Holy Writ.
  Nothing in this legislation demands that a church get involved in the 
political dialogue of our nation. Issues of war and peace and other 
important issues shouldn't be the exclusive preserve of the political 
elite. The Jones bill would simply allow them that opportunity should 
they choose to speak about those matters, without the coercive power of 
government putting their tax-exempt status at risk.

                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date                        Candidate                   Church                   Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  9/11/94......................  Sue V. Mills (P.G.         Nat'l Church of God,      Addressed church members
                                    County, Exec.).            Fort Washington, MD.      from the pulpit.
2.  10/9/94......................  George Pataki (NY Gub.     Abyssinian Baptist,       Addressed church members
                                    Cand.).                    Harlem, NY.               from the pulpit.
3.  10/9/94......................  Carl McCall (NY State      Abyssinian Baptist,       Addressed church members
                                    Comptroller).              Harlem, NY.               from the pulpit.
4.  9/8/94.......................  Ron Simms (U.S. Senate     First A.M.E. Church,      Breakfast Forum, Debate.
                                    candidate).                Seattle, WA.
5.  9/8/94.......................  Scott Hardman (U.S.        First A.M.E. Church,      Breakfast Forum, Debate.
                                    Senate candidate).         Seattle, WA.
6.  9/8/94.......................  Mike James (U.S. Senate    First A.M.E. Church,      Breakfast Forum, Debate.
                                    candidate).                Seattle, WA.
7.  9/8/94.......................  Jesse Wineberry (U.S.      First A.M.E. Church,      Breakfast Forum, Debate.
                                    Senate candidate).         Seattle, WA.
8.  10/10/94.....................  All Candidates for City    Bethlehem Missionary      Meeting/Forum at church
                                    Council.                   Baptist Church,           open to public.
                                                               Memphis, TN.
9.  5/24/92......................  Gov. Clinton (Pres.        Greater Paradise Miss.,   Addressed parishioners &
                                    Cand.).                    Baptist Church.           ``campaigning''.
10.  3/13/92.....................  Gov. Clinton (Pres.        Pleasant Grove Baptist    Addressed parishioners
                                    Cand.).                    Church, Chicago, IL.      from pulpit.
11.  10/12/94....................  School Board Candidates..  Oak Falls Church,         Candidates forum.
                                                               Sacramento, CA.
12.  9/30/94.....................  All Candidates (600).....  Calvary Chapel, Costa     Candidates results
                                                               Mesa, Ca.                 distributed to more
                                                                                         than 50,000 people.
13.  11/22/92....................  Pres. Clinton (President)  St. Theresa's Catholic    Jesse Jackson endorsed
                                                               Church, Little Rock, AR.  Bill Clinton from the
                                                                                         pulpit.
14.  3/29/88.....................  Jesse Jackson (Pres.       Unknown, Flint, MI......  Addressed the
                                    Cand.).                                              parishioners.
15.  7/2/88......................  George Bush (Pres. Cand.)  Greek Orthodox Ch., Mass  Church dinner.
16-515.  1/31/88.................  Jesse Jackson (Pres.       St. Joseph's Cath. Ch.,   Collection for Jackson
                                    Cand.).                    West Liberty IA.          from all 500 churches.
                                                              Fellowship Missionary
                                                               Baptist Church,
                                                               Chicago, & 498 others.
516-518.  11/22/92...............  Wyche Fowler (U.S. Senate  3 Black Churches,         Gore spoke to 3 churches
                                    run-off Cand.).            Savannah, GA.             supporting people
                                                                                         voting (Fowler ``got
                                                                                         help from'' Gore's
                                                                                         efforts).
519.  2/8/88.....................  J. Jackson...............  Lutheran Church,          Jackson ``opposed''
                                                               Clinton, IA.              there.
520.  2/25/92....................  B. Clinton...............  A.M.E. Church, Memphis,   Clinton gave a speech to
                                                               TN.                       delegates to the church
                                                                                         reception.
521.  4/26/87....................  Gary Hart (Pres. Cand.)..  Antioch Baptist Ch.,      Hart took the pulpit to
                                                               Atlanta, GA.              deliver combination
                                                                                         ``stump'' speech &
                                                                                         sermon.
522.  1/20/93....................  Clinton/Gore.............  A Small Meth.-Epis. Ch,   Official inaugural
                                                               Washington, DC.           church ceremony.
523.  1/93 (preinaug.)...........  Clinton/Gore.............  First Baptist Church,     Private, preinaug.
                                                               Washington, DC.           gathering for
                                                                                         supporters.
524.  1/16/94....................  Clinton..................  Temple of the Church of   Delivered a speech from
                                                               God in Christ, Memphis,   the pulpit.
                                                               TN.
525.  3/8/92.....................  Clinton..................  Lyons Unity Church,       After speech, he
                                                               Houston, TX.              received congrats. from
                                                                                         church members.
526.  8/14/94....................  Clinton..................  Full Gospel A.M.E. Zion   Speaking from the
                                                               Church, Temple Hills,     pulpit, delivered a
                                                               MD.                       political speech.
527.  1/27/92....................  Tom Harkin (Pres. Cand.).  Heritage United Church    Delivered speech in
                                                               of Christ, Baltimore,     church.
                                                               MD.
528.  9/25/94....................  Mario Cuomo..............  Bethel A.M.E. Church,     Delivered praises to
                                                               Harlem, NY.               Clinton from pulpit.
529.  9/25/94....................  Cuomo....................  Bethel A.M.E. Church,     Clinton endorsed Cuomo &
                                                               Harlem, NY.               told parishioners to
                                                                                         support him.
530.  4/5/92.....................  Clinton..................  Bridge Street, A.M.E.,    Courted black voters w/a
                                                               Harlem, NY.               speech to parishioners.
531.  5/10/92....................  Clinton..................  Unknown, S.F., CA.......  Speeches at a church.
532.  5/10/92....................  Clinton..................  Unknown, S.F., CA.......  Speeches at a church.
533.  8/14/90....................  Marion Barry, (D.C.        Israel Baptist Ch.,       Attendance & a ``victory
                                    Mayoral Cand.).            Washington, D.C.          dance''.
534.  8/19/88....................  Dukakis, (Pres. Cand.)...  Sixth Ave. Bap. Ch.,      Spoke to a black church.
                                                               Birmingham, AL.
535.  11/8/86....................  Marion Barry.............  NY Ave. Presby, Ch.,      Jesse Jackson endorsed
                                                               Washington, D.C.          Marion Barry.
536.  1/15/89....................  Jesse Jackson............  Unknown, Harlem, NY.....  Speech at a church.
537.  3/4/88.....................  Jesse Jackson............  Westside Baptist Ch.,     His son delivered speech
                                                               St. Louis, MO.            for him at the church.
538.  11/6/88....................  Dukakis/Bentsen..........  Macedonia Miss. Bapt.     Endorsement by Jesse
                                                               Church, Flint, MI.        Jackson from pulpit.
539.  3/18/88....................  Jesse Jackson............  Chapel Hill Bapt. Ch.,    Addressed the church's
                                                               Detroit, MI.              ``rally''.
540.  1/15/90....................  Mayor Maynard Jackson....  Ebenezer Baptist Ch.,     Delivered speech at an
                                                               Atlanta, GA.              ecumenical service.
541.  1/15/90....................  Mayor David Dinkins......  Unknown, New York, NY...  Gave a speech at a
                                                                                         church.
542.  4/10/88....................  Jesse Jackson............  Abyssinian Bap. Ch., New  Delivered speech to the
                                                               York, NY.                 church parishioners
                                                                                         demeaning two other
                                                                                         candidates.

[[Page H6919]]

 
543.  4/16/84....................  Jesse Jackson............  Second Bapt. Ch.,         Speech.
                                                               Columbia, MD.
544.  8/21/92....................  Clinton/Gore.............  Olivet Instit. Bap.       Speeches at a rally.
                                                               Chur., Cleveland, OH.
545.  10/26/92...................  Gore.....................  Black Church, Atlanta,    Speech to parishioners.
                                                               GA.
546.  10/26/92...................  Gore.....................  Black Church, Atlanta,    Speech to parishioners.
                                                               GA.
547.  1/10/93....................  Clinton..................  Immanuel Bapt. Ch.,       Speech (took to the
                                                               Little Rock, AR.          podium bade farewell).
548.  9/10/94....................  Kathleen Brown (CA         1st Church of God in      Attending.
                                    Gubernt, Race).            Christ, Los Angeles, CA.
549.  9/10/94....................  Kathleen Brown (CA         Bethel A.M.E. Ch., Los    Attending.
                                    Gubernt. Race).            Angeles, CA.
550.  9/10/94....................  Kathleen Brown (CA         Mount Tabor Miss.         Attending.
                                    Gubernt. Race).            Baptist Church, Los
                                                               Angeles, CA.
551.  9/10/94....................  Kathleen Brown (CA         1st A.M.E. Church, Los    Attending.
                                    Gubernt. Race).            Angeles, CA.
552.  9/10/94....................  Kathleen Brown (CA         West Angeles Ch. of God,  Attending.
                                    Gubernt. Race).            Los Angeles, CA.
553.  9/3/94.....................  Ken Connor (FL Gub.        Coral Ridge Presby., Ft.  Attending.
                                    Cand.).                    Lauderdale, FL.
554.  3/1/92.....................  George Bush..............  1st Baptist Church,       Attending.
                                                               Atlanta, GA.
555.  4/9/90.....................  Ann Richards.............  Various churches,         Visited.
                                                               Dallas, TX.
556.  4/9/90.....................  Jim Mattox...............  Various churches........  Visited.
557.  10/23/94...................  Charles Robb.............  Trinity Baptist Church,   Speech to parishioners
                                                               Richmond, VA.             from pulpit.
558.  10/23/94...................  Charles Robb.............  Trinity Baptist Church,   Wilder endorsed Robb
                                                               Richmond, VA.             from pulpit.
559.  10/23/94...................  Oliver North.............  Cedar St. Baptist         Introduced by minister,
                                                               Church, Virginia.         gave brief remarks (not
                                                                                         political).
560.  10/18/94...................  Phil Bredesen (TN Gub.     Greater Second Baptist    Addressed TN Baptist
                                    Cand.).                    Ch., Chattanooga, TN.     Missionary and
                                                                                         Education Convention.
561.  3/8/94.....................  Clinton..................  Southern Churches.......  Courted black votes.
562.  3/8/94.....................  Tsongas..................  Southern Churches.......  Courted black votes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for 
this legislation and to thank my colleague Representative Walter Jones 
for his leadership on this important issue. Passage of H.R. 2537, the 
Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act is vital to ensure 
that churches and synagogues are free to speak out on the many moral 
and political issues affecting our nation.
  For the first 178 years in our nation's history, America's religious 
leaders had the right to speak their conscience on issues of politics 
and morality. Then, in 1954, an amendment was added to a revenue bill 
that extended the reach of the Internal Revenue Service into our 
nation's houses of worship. That amendment has had the effect of 
restricting freedom of speech, by threatening to revoke the tax-exempt 
status of any house of worship whose ministers speak out on moral and 
political concerns.
  Since that time, the IRS has used the church tax exemption to 
discourage members of the clergy from communicating even the 
fundamental principles of their faith in anyway that might be viewed as 
``partisan political issues'' during an election period. And the scope 
of the ban goes well beyond a prohibition on active political 
campaigning. The restrictions bans all forms of political expression, 
which has prompted some churches to avoid distributing voter guides and 
from taking positions on issues that are debated in political 
campaigns.
  Mr. Speaker, this prohibition on free speech has limited the ability 
of houses of worship to exercise their freedom of speech, as guaranteed 
under our Constitution. It burdens the free exercise of religion by 
telling houses of worship how they can and cannot practice their 
religion. And the ban has been enforced in a way that prevents 
religious leaders from speaking on religious issues that are also 
political, for fear that such speech might be viewed as support for a 
candidate or party. Any member of the clergy, for example, who takes a 
position against defense spending or abortion during a campaign season 
may have their speech and tax-exempt status scrutinized by the IRS. 
That is simply not right--not in America.
  I strongly support this bill because I believe churches and 
synagogues have a right, based on the First Amendment, to speak about 
issues they believes are important to our nation. Additionally, I do 
not think churches should be scrutinized by the IRS for freely 
expressing political views--a form of speech that is protected in every 
other venue. Quite simply, our houses of worship should be places free 
from government control.
  Finally, I want to point out that this is not a partisan issue. I am 
proud to work with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--to 
pass this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to help restore 
freedom of speech to churches, synagogues and other houses of worship 
by voting yes on this critical legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2357, the 
Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act.
  This bill is an assault on the Constitution's fundamental separation 
between church and state. It was crafted with the single purpose of 
giving right-wing religious groups--like the Christian Coalition--a 
special advantage in the political process. It would allow them to 
promote their narrow political agenda while exploiting the tax-exempt 
status traditionally reserved for non-partisan religious and charitable 
organizations.
  Various types of organizations are allowed to be tax exempt because 
they do not engage in or sponsor partisan political activity. This bill 
would grant religious organizations a special right to maintain that 
tax-exempt status while freely engaging in partisan politics.
  Supporters of H.R. 2357 have cloaked the real intent of the bill in 
the blatant falsehood that religious leaders cannot speak on moral and 
political issues. This right is freely exercised and clearly protected 
by the Constitution.
  In addition to speaking freely from the pulpit, members of the clergy 
can endorse partisan candidates, publicly express their opinion on 
political issues, and contribute their time and money to any political 
campaign they choose. Under their current tax-exempt status, religious 
organizations are allowed to work in a non-partisan capacity to 
register voters, provide voter education, and encourage people to go to 
the polls on Election Day.
  A wide array of religious leaders have spoken out in opposition to 
this bill because they don't want the integrity of their institutions 
undermined by partisan politics. This bill puts partisanship ahead of 
piety in the nation's churches, synagogues, and mosques. It allows 
religious institutions to endorse political candidates, broadcast issue 
ads, conduct voter mobilization, and engage in political fundraising.
  This would blow a gaping hole through the landmark campaign finance 
reform law enacted this year. In allowing tax-exempt and tax-deductible 
money to be given for political purposes, churches would now be allowed 
to launder soft-money contributions. Many churches--those that are not 
incorporated--would be exempt from campaign finance laws altogether.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this cynical scheme to breach the 
separation of church and state and give special interests a blank check 
to undermine our democracy. Vote no on H.R. 2357.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of honest discussion on an 
issue that was so important that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson debated 
it for 10 years in the Virginia Legislature, I am wondering if it would 
be within the rules of the House for me to now ask for unanimous 
consent to have 3 minutes of discussion with the author of the bill so 
I can clarify what the direct impact of this bill would be. If I do 
have that parliamentary right, I would like to make that unanimous-
consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. By unanimous consent, there would have to be 
3 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. EDWARDS. That would be fine.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object to that for this 
reason. I respect the man, and this just continues this debate. 
Obviously I would have liked to have been here earlier this afternoon. 
I was hoping we would be here earlier. But at 11:15 at night, I think I 
know your position, which I respect, and you know my position, so I 
object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) that the House suspend the rules and pass the 
bill, H.R. 2357.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

[[Page H6920]]



                          ____________________