[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 128 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1746]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           HOUSES OF WORSHIP POLITICAL SPEECH PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DAVID VITTER

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, October 1, 2002

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer my strong support H.R. 2357, the 
Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. This bill, a much-
needed change in current law, would once again offer First Amendment 
freedoms to our nation's churches without the fear of a heavy-handed or 
politicized IRS or federal government.
  Since 1954, our nation's religious institutions have been silenced. 
Prior to that time, religious leaders spoke freely about issues. Civil 
rights had a great moral and religious component to it. Abolition had a 
great moral and religious component to it. And so issues today continue 
to have their moral and religious components. Yet churches are told, 
many times under an inconsistent system that is only selectively 
enforced, to silence themselves or face losing tax-exempt status. This 
is the greatest disservice to some of our greatest institutions.
  Sadly, there has even been an attempt to intimidate churches from 
speaking out on issues. One liberal organization devoted to their own 
version of the First Amendment actually mailed over a quarter million 
letters in 2000 to houses of worship warning them about speaking out on 
political issues. The chilling effect of this clear attempt to muzzle 
our nation's pastors, priests, ministers, rabbis and other clergy, must 
not stand.
  This legislation has been well thought out and thoroughly reviewed by 
committees so that new campaign loopholes are not created, and no new 
avenues of soft money are allowed--both things I would oppose. We are 
merely asking to go back to the laws that existed for the first one 
hundred fifty years of our nation, which simply allowed freedom of 
expression for religious organizations.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 2357.

                          ____________________