[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 26, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7356-H7364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2679, VETERANS' MEMORIALS, BOY
SCOUTS, PUBLIC SEALS, AND OTHER PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS OF RELIGION
PROTECTION ACT OF 2006
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1038 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1038
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2679) to amend the
Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the
chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression
of religion by State and local officials that results from
the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and
attorney's fees. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1038 is a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of
debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives
all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides
that the amendment in the nature of a substitute as reported by the
Committee on the Judiciary shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 1038
also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, as you and many others may have noticed, if you look up
from the front podium, in the center of the molding above the gallery
is a sculpture of Moses, the man who freed the slaves in Egypt and
introduced God's law to man. Moses is at the forefront of all of the
great legal scholars depicted in this Chamber because of his
responsibilities as both a religious leader and the custodian of God's
law.
The Ten Commandments are the foundation of common law and the
``rights endowed by our Creator.'' However, in recent decades, the Ten
Commandments, religious symbols, and religious liberties in general
have been under attack. More specifically, they have been under attack
by the same interests that claim to represent civil liberties and free
speech.
On July 19, 2005, a month after the Supreme Court ruled on the two
Kentucky Ten Commandments cases, United States District Court Judge
William O'Kelley ruled in my home State of Georgia that the courthouse
in Barrow County, my daughter-in-law's home, had to remove a framed
poster of the Ten Commandments and awarded the American Civil Liberties
Union, the ACLU, $150,000.
Mr. Speaker, small counties like Barrow cannot afford these costly
lawsuits; and my daughter-in-law's parents, Emory and Pat House of
Winder, Georgia, experienced an increase in their taxes to help pay for
these court costs and the legal fees.
This past July, we had a debate over legislation to preserve the
Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, from having
to remove a cross. Mr. Speaker, one can only wonder how those Korean
War veterans, many of whom gave their lives for this country, might
have felt had that cross been removed from their memorial cemetery.
Thankfully, Mr. Hunter's legislation passed and was signed into law,
but I am stunned at how far our society has fallen when people are
compelled to sue a major city to have a cross removed from, of all
places, a memorial cemetery.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow frivolous and, frankly,
unwarranted lawsuits to stifle the beliefs and self-determination of
our great communities. This is a textbook example of an issue that
needs to be addressed by this Congress.
I have always believed that one man's rights end where another man's
rights begin, and we need to draw the line to clarify our first
amendment and ensure impartiality for legal challenges.
The rule we are debating today would allow for the consideration of
H.R. 2679, the Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other
Public Expressions of Religion Act of 2006. I want to thank Mr.
Hostettler for sponsoring this legislation and Chairman Sensenbrenner
for the opportunity to discourage frivolous obstruction to our
constitutional rights of religious expression.
The Public Expression of Religion Act would prevent Federal courts
from
[[Page H7357]]
awarding monetary relief to parties claiming violations based on the
constitutionally prohibited ``establishment of religion.'' In addition,
H.R. 2679 would prevent plaintiffs who have won such claims from being
awarded attorneys' fees and so-called court expenses.
However, what is more concerning is when a defendant decides, a city
or county like Barrow and Winder, Georgia, to settle without
challenging the frivolous accusations not because they could not win
but because they cannot match the challenger's legal war chest. H.R.
2679 will ensure that each party in an Establishment Clause lawsuit
shoulders its own costs.
Mr. Speaker, beyond the issue of religious expression, this is an
issue about lawsuit reform. We need to move away from this current sue-
or-be-sued society, which offers little to no repercussions for those
seeking financial gain or the advancement of some personal or political
agenda.
As many of my colleagues know, before being elected to this Congress,
I had a career as an OB/GYN physician. Most of my patients thought I
was a successful, good doctor, but I was in constant fear of medical
liability lawsuits, like many of my colleagues, and struggled to make
these exorbitant malpractice insurance payments. As a result, one of my
primary objectives as a retired doctor now and Member of Congress is to
help pass medical malpractice reform and, as a direct result, reduce
the cost of health care. What we have with the Establishment Clause
litigation is very similar, because the multiple lawsuits tie up our
court system and they affect everybody.
Mr. Speaker, the United States Constitution is a revolutionary and
sacred document on many levels. Our Founding Fathers had great
foresight when they designed our government. The first amendment is an
absolute right and should not be misinterpreted to allow these attacks
on our freedom of religion. The attack on our religious heritage is
just as wrong as denying a person the freedom to worship. The
Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
And it is my hope that with the passage of this legislation we can
prevent future Barrow County rulings and preserve our Nation's
heritage.
I ask my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the political season is upon us. There is
just 1 week left before we adjourn for the midterm elections. And what
does that mean? It means we will shove important issues to the side and
move the sound bite and wedge issues to the forefront. It means that
this Congress will become a place where trivial issues are debated
passionately and important ones not at all. The legislation before us
is not needed, will not be enacted by the Senate, and, quite frankly,
is a waste of our time.
The so-called Public Expression of Religion Act, which should really
be called the ``cheap political expression act,'' is simply another
wedge issue brought to the floor by the Republican leadership that will
be used as a political tool in the November elections. The bill bars
the award of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties asserting their
fundamental constitutional rights in cases brought under the
Establishment Clause of the first amendment. In other words, the Public
Expression of Religion Act will prevent lawyers from being paid for
representing people who believe that their religious freedoms have been
violated.
Now, there is a legal separation of church and State in this country,
and we have a court system designed to mediate any dispute over the
law, including legal disputes over the separation of church and State.
We have an independent judiciary, and they deserve to do the job the
framers intended them to do.
But this bill does not allow them to do the job the framers empowered
them to do. If this bill is enacted, attorneys will stop representing
people who feel that their rights are infringed upon because they won't
be compensated for doing their jobs.
The fact, Mr. Speaker, is that there are some on the other side of
the aisle who don't like some of the decisions the courts have handed
down in regards to the display of certain religious symbols; and since
they cannot win in court based on rights guaranteed in the Constitution
of the United States, my good friends on the other side of the aisle
are now attempting to rig the process in their favor.
Now, there are decisions the courts hand down that I do not agree
with, and I can think of a few that the Supreme Court has handed down
that I don't agree with. But I do not run to the floor of this House
with legislation overturning those decisions. Mr. Speaker, this is a
slippery slope that will ultimately cause real legal problems if this
bill is ever enacted into law.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, said it best during yesterday's hearing on this rule. He said,
``I don't understand what's broken.'' Well, let me tell you, Mr.
Speaker, what is really broken. The way we treat people who need the
most help in this country is broken. The way we protect our homeland is
broken. The independent
9/11 Commission has given us D's and F's in terms of implementing their
recommendations to protect the people of this country. It is a broken
process.
And the way we are perceived around the world is broken. We have
never, ever been held in such low esteem. The way the people of this
country view the United States Congress is broken. We have never had
lower ratings than we do right now, because people are fed up with the
things that are being brought to this floor.
Instead of addressing the more important and pressing issues, we are
forced by the Republican leadership to debate and vote on a bill
restricting attorneys' fees.
Where, Mr. Speaker, is a clean bill increasing the minimum wage? The
Federal minimum wage is stuck at $5.15 an hour, and 9 years ago was the
last time we raised the Federal minimum wage. Yet this Congress has
given itself nine pay increases. Where is the legislation implementing
the rest of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations? Where is the Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill?
Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't adjourn before we consider these bills; and
bringing up another bill, attacking lawyers for doing their job, does
nothing to address these problems.
I urge my colleagues to reject this partisan political legislation,
this legislation that is not needed, and instead demand that the
leadership of this House bring to the floor meaningful legislation. I
would also urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. It is another closed
rule. Democracy is dead in this House of Representatives. I cannot
remember the last time we had an open rule. There is no reason why this
should be a closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a number of letters from
individuals and organizations that are opposed to this legislation.
First, a letter signed by a number of religious and civil rights
organizations, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress,
the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee, People for the
American Way, the Interfaith Alliance, Unitarian Universalist
Association of Congregations, and a whole range of other organizations
opposed to this.
I would also like to insert in the Record a letter opposing this
legislation signed by the leaders of the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights.
Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights,
September 18, 2006.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, largest, and
most diverse civil and human rights coalition, we urge you to
oppose the ``Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals,
and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of
2006'' (H.R. 2679). H.R. 2679 would bar attorney's fees to
parties who prevail in cases brought under the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It
would also make injunctive and declaratory relief the only
remedies available in such cases.
[[Page H7358]]
H.R. 2679 is unprecedented. It would, for the first time,
single out one area of constitutional protections under the
Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement. It would
greatly undermine the ability of citizens to challenge
Establishment Clause violations, as legal fees often total
tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, making it
difficult to impossible for most citizens to pursue their
rights without the possibility of recovering attorney's fees.
In addition, because a prevailing party would not even be
able to recoup court costs, it would prevent most attorneys
from even taking cases on a pro bono basis.
By deterring attorneys from taking Establishment Clause
cases, H.R. 2679 would leave many parties whose rights have
been violated without legal representation. As such, it would
effectively insulate serious constitutional violations from
judicial review. It would become far easier for government
officials to engage in illegal religious coercion of public
school students or in blatant discrimination against
particular religions.
If the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are to
be meaningful, every American must have full and equal access
to the federal courts to enforce them. The ability to recover
attorney's fees in successful cases has long been an
essential component of this enforcement, as Congress has
recognized in the past. As such, we strongly urge you to
oppose H.R. 2679.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any
questions, please contact Rob Randhava, LCCR Counsel, at 202-
466-6058 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson,
Executive Director.
Nancy Zirkin,
Deputy Director.
____
Oppose H.R. 2679, the ``Public Expression of Religion Act''
September 22, 2006.
Dear Representative: We write to urge you to oppose the
``Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005'' (H.R. 2679).
This bill would bar the award of attorneys' fees to
prevailing parties asserting their fundamental constitutional
rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This bill would
limit the longstanding remedies available under 42 U.S.C.
1988 (which provides for attorneys fees and costs in
successful cases involving constitutional and civil rights
violations) in cases brought under the Establishment Clause.
If this bill were to become law, the only remedy available to
plaintiffs bringing Establishment Clause lawsuits would be
injunctive and declaratory relief. As a result, Congress
would single out one area of constitutional protections under
the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement.
Religious expression is not threatened by the enforcement
of the Establishment Clause, but is protected by it. The
Establishment Clause promotes religious freedom for all by
protecting against government sponsorship of religion. While
the signers of this letter may differ on the exact parameters
of the Establishment Clause or even on the outcome of
particular cases, we all believe that the Establishment
Clause together with the Free Exercise Clause, protects
religious freedom. The purpose of this bill, however, is to
make it more difficult for citizens to challenge violations
of religious freedom. But with legal fees often totaling
tens--if not hundreds--of thousands of dollars, few citizens
can afford to do so. Most attorneys cannot afford to take
cases, even on a pro bono basis, if they are barred from
recouping their fees and out-of-pocket costs if they
ultimately prevail. The elimination of attorney's fees for
Establishment Clause cases would deter attorneys from taking
cases in which the government has violated the Constitution,
thereby leaving injured parties without representation and
insulating serious constitutional violations from judicial
review.
This bill raises serious constitutional questions and would
set a dangerous precedent for the vindication of all civil
and constitutional rights. If the right to attorney's fees is
taken away from plaintiffs who prove violations of the
Establishment Clause, other fundamental rights are likely to
be targeted in the future. What will happen when rights under
the Free Exercise Clause are targeted? Can we imagine a day
when citizens cannot enforce their longstanding free speech
rights, or bring a case under the constitution to challenge
the government's use of eminent domain to take their
property, simply because they cannot hire an attorney to
represent them? Surely, these and other fundamental rights
might not be far behind once Congress opens the door to
picking and choosing which constitutional rights it wants to
protect and which ones it wants to disfavor.
If the Constitution is to be meaningful, every American
should have equal access to the federal courts to vindicate
his or her fundamental constitutional rights. The ability to
recover attorney's fees in successful cases is an essential
component for the enforcement of these rights, as Congress
has long recognized. We urge you to protect the longstanding
ability of Americans to recoup their costs and fees when
faced with basic constitutional violations and urge you in
the strongest terms to oppose H.R. 2679.
Sincerely,
ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights,
Alliance for Justice,
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC),
American Civil Liberties Union,
American Humanist Association,
American Jewish Committee,
American Jewish Congress,
Americans for Democratic Action,
Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
Anti-Defamation League,
Asian American Justice Center,
Asian Law Caucus,
Asian Pacific American Legal Center,
Baptist Joint Committee,
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,
Equal Justice Society,
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders,
Human Rights Campaign,
Japanese American Citizens League,
Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA),
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
Legal Momentum,
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF),
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP),
National Center for Lesbian Rights,
National Council of Jewish Women,
National Employment Lawyers Association,
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force,
National Lawyers Guild,
National Partnership for Women & Families,
National Senior Citizens Law Center,
National Women's Law Center,
National Workrights Institute,
People For the American Way,
Public Justice Center,
Secular Coalition for America,
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF),
The Impact Fund,
The Interfaith Alliance,
The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund,
The Urban League,
Union for Reform Judaism,
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
{time} 1045
Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said the
Constitution is a sacred document. I agree. And that is exactly why I
passionately oppose this ill-advised legislation, because it does a
disservice to the Constitution by making it more difficult to enforce
the first amendment to the Constitution, which is dedicated to
protecting our first freedom in America, religious freedom.
I am glad to join with faith-based groups, such as the Baptist Joint
Committee, the Interfaith Alliance, along with the American Jewish
Committee, in strong opposition to this bill. Why? Because this bill
would make it more difficult for ordinary Americans to denied their
religious freedom against intrusion by government. For over two
centuries, the first amendment of our Bill of Rights has protect
religious freedom for all Americans.
Listen with me to the words of Thomas Jefferson written in his 1802
letter to the Danbury Baptists: ``I contemplate with sovereign
reverence,'' sovereign reverence, ``that Act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should,'' and here he
quotes the Constitution, ``make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall
of separation between church and state.''
Today's amendment would not just chip away, it would chisel away, the
wall of separation of church and state. It would knock down the
fundamental part of that wall that was designed to keep government out
of our houses of worship and out of our own private religious faith.
Today's amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Time for maximum
political sound bites, I understand that, just prior to an election.
This bill claims to protect the public expression of religion, but it
does not do that. What it does is protect the power of government to
step on the individual rights of every American citizen when it comes
to the exercise of their religious freedom, and it allows the
government to inhibit the individual's right to exercise his or her
views of faith by using government power to force someone's religion on
someone else.
The truth is, this bill undermines the enforcement of the
establishment clause of the first amendment, which was designed exactly
to protect Americans from government intrusion into our faith. Now, Mr.
Madison and Mr. Jefferson knew that government intrusion into religion
is the greatest single threat to religious freedom.
[[Page H7359]]
And that is why they embedded into our Bill of Rights the fundamental
principle that government should not use its power to promote anyone's
religion upon anyone else. The principle of church-state separation has
been a magnificent bulwark for over 200 years against government
intrusion into our houses of worship and our private faith.
Unfortunately, this bill would make it more difficult for citizens to
protect that religious freedom by using our judicial system to enforce
the first amendment to the Constitution. In fact, this bill would go so
far as to say, even if a plaintiff, in defense of religious freedom in
the first amendment to the Bill of Rights, even if that plaintiff wins
the case before the United States Supreme Court, that party would not
be reimbursed for their legal fees.
Let me remind my friends of faith that should, for example, someone
not put a 2\1/2\ ton monument of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama
courthouse, but put a 2\1/2\ ton monument to Buddha in an Alabama or a
Georgia or a Texas courthouse, this bill would prohibit people of the
Christian faith, for example, from filing a lawsuit and then recovering
damages if the Supreme Court said, yes, it was wrong for that county
judge to put a 2\1/2\ ton statue of Buddha in that Alabama courthouse.
This bill does not protect public expression of religion, as its
title suggests. To the contrary, this bill should be called, let's not
enforce the first amendment to the Constitution, because that is
exactly what this legislation does. It makes it harder, if not
impossible, for many citizens to stop the intervention of government
into our religious faith and our lives.
By making it easier for government to step on the first amendment
religious rights of all Americans, this bill does damage to what
Jefferson called, with reverence, the wall of separation between church
and state.
Mr. Speaker, I believe America's greatest single contribution to the
world from our experiment in democracy is our system of protecting
religious freedom through the separation of church and state. Our
system, built upon the sacred foundation of the first amendment, has
resulted in a Nation with more religious freedom, vitality and
tolerance than any nation in the world. How ironic and sad it is that
while we are preaching democracy and church-state separation to the
Iraqis, right here today in the cradle of America's democracy some
would try to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.
If anyone thinks government is a friend of religious freedom, then
vote for this dangerous, ill-advised legislation during the middle of
campaign season. However, I would challenge any Member, Mr. Speaker, to
show me one nation, show me one nation in the history of the world
where government endorsement and involvement in religion has resulted
in more religious freedom than we have in America.
I would be glad to yield any time for any Member who can show me one
nation where that has been the case. Aside from the clear lessons of
history that have shown just the contrary, that government is a danger
to religious freedom, one only has to look at the Middle East today to
find out the danger we have when we allow government to use its power
and its money to force religion or anyone's religious views on any
other citizen.
Church-state separation does not mean keeping people of faith out of
government, but it does. And it should, and I pray it always will mean
keeping government out of our faith. That is what the establishment
clause of the first amendment is all about. That is why that principle
was written into our Bill of Rights. And not only the Bill of Rights,
but the first 16 words of the first amendment thereof. That is how
important Mr. Madison thought, and the Founding Fathers thought, this
principle of church separation was to our Republic.
Mr. Speaker, if I must choose today between standing on the side of
campaign sound bite politics, or standing with Mr. Madison, Mr.
Jefferson and the Bill of Rights, I will proudly stand with our
Founding Fathers and our Constitution.
Religious freedom is a gift from God. And our Bill of Rights has been
a magnificent steward of that precious gift for over two centuries. Let
us not tamper with that divine gift in election season. Vote ``no'' on
this bill.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talking about the rights of people
to sue, and that this bill would discourage that right because we are
taking away the ability to recover monetary damages or legal fees and
court costs, the American Civil Liberties Union probably files most of
these lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs. They have said very clearly
that their motivation is not fees, is not compensation. If there were
no fees involved, they would continue to file these lawsuits even
though in many cases of course there are tremendous legal fees and
court costs awarded, monetary damages.
I want to just, Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous speaker,
list a few examples of what I am talking about. I mentioned already in
my home State of Georgia, Barrow County of the $150,000 cost. And that
small struggling county elected to defend themselves. And that is what
it ended up costing them.
Another example. The ACLU received $950,000 in a settlement with the
city of San Diego in a case involving the San Diego Boy Scouts. The
ACLU received $121,000 in Kentucky in a case to remove a Ten
Commandments monument outside of the capitol.
The ACLU and two other groups received nearly $550,000 in an Alabama
case to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse. I could go on
and on and on. But in regard to rights, this case as we will hear, I am
sure, from the author of the legislation as we discuss the bill, is not
about removing anybody's rights under the establishment clause, not at
all.
But we are talking about the rights of these small counties and
cities, which represent a lot of people, and their ability to defend
themselves when they have not violated the Constitution at all. The
Constitution calls for a separation of church and state and a freedom
from the imposition of a state religion, but it does not call for the
total elimination of religion and the removal of a cross from a
veterans cemetery in San Diego.
Mr. Speaker, if we continue down this line, pretty soon Moses will be
removed from this Chamber based on the same argument. So I say to my
friend from the other side that we need a balancing of rights. That is
what this is all about. Let's level the playing field. We are not
eliminating anybody's constitutional rights under the establishment
clause.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my friend
from Georgia that this legislation, that if one reads it, says that
even if a party has prevailed in the United States Supreme Court in an
enforcement of the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, that that
party would be denied legal fees.
That is why I say this should be entitled, ``let's not enforce the
Bill of Rights legislation.'' And again, groups such as the Baptist
Joint Committee strongly oppose this. Why? Because what if that
courthouse in Alabama had had a judge that put a 2\1/2\ ton statue of
Buddha in there. Would one not give the citizens of that community the
right to respond?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me read a line from a letter that was sent to all
Members of Congress from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious
Freedom.
They write: ``The protections of the first amendment, however, are
not self-enforcing. If someone is forced to sue the government to enjoy
their constitutional rights, justice and fundamental fairness dictate
that they be able to recover the legal fees expended to do so.''
Baptist Joint Committee for
Religious Liberty,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2006.
Dear Representative: The Baptist Joint Committee for
Religious Liberty (BJC) urges you to vote NO on H.R. 2679,
the so-called ``Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public
Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection
Act of 2006.'' The bill recently passed out of the Judiciary
Committee and could be on the floor as early as this week.
The BJC is a 70-year-old education and advocacy organization
dedicated
[[Page H7360]]
to the principle that religion must be freely exercised,
neither advanced nor inhibited by government. Our mission
stems from the historic commitment of Baptists to protect
religious freedom for all.
We oppose this legislation that seeks to limit access to
the federal courts for individuals seeking the enforcement of
the Establishment Clause. To prohibit the recovery of
attorney's fees and limit the remedy available to injunctive
and declaratory relief would essentially shut the courthouse
door to many who seek to defend our first freedom.
Enforcement of the First Amendment is essential for the
defense of religious freedom. The protections of the First
Amendment, however, are not self-enforcing. If someone is
forced to sue the government to enjoy their constitutional
rights, justice and fundamental fairness dictate they be able
to recover the legal fees expended to do so.
Despite the claims of the bill's sponsor, this legislation
does not promote the expression of religion. Instead, the
bill undermines fundamental constitutional protections that
have provided for a great deal of religious expression in the
public square. The Establishment Clause exists to protect the
freedom of conscience and to guard against government
promotion of religion, leaving religion free to flourish on
its own merits. This point was well-stated by former Supreme
Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurring opinion
in McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU (2005). She noted,
``Voluntary religious belief and expression may be threatened
when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself as
when government directly interferes with private religious
practices.''
Governmental entities should be encouraged to uphold
constitutional values, not invited to ignore them. Yet,
passage of H.R. 2679 would encourage elected officials to
violate the Establishment Clause whenever they find it
politically advantageous to do so. By limiting the remedies
for a successful plaintiff, this measure would remove the
threat that exists to ensure compliance with the
Establishment Clause.
We urge you to oppose H.R. 2679. The bill is an assault on
an essential constitutional freedom. If passed, it would
greatly harm religious freedom and set a dangerous precedent
for other constitutional protections.
Sincerely,
K Hollyn Hollman,
General Counsel.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our next speaker, the gentleman from
Georgia in his opening remarks, you know, talked about our veterans in
the context of rationalizing a vote in favor of this bill. So let me
just talk for a second about our veterans.
One of the things that is particularly frustrating to so many of us
on this side is that here we are, about to adjourn on Friday or
Saturday, and we have not done what we promised to do for our veterans.
The Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, and almost every Democrat has
sent a letter to President Bush complaining about his administration's
record of underfunding the VA by at least $9 billion over the last 6
years. And the budgets that he has submitted this year reduce veterans
funding by $10 billion over the next 5 years.
If we want to honor our veterans, then we should be debating and we
should be enacting legislation to fund the VA, to give them the health
care benefits and the protections that they are entitled to, to making
sure that we have a military construction bill that is adequately
funded so the families of our veterans and our soldiers do not have to
live in substandard housing.
{time} 1100
It is frustrating. I mean, it takes my breath away that you waste the
time of the Members of this House on something like this and you turn
your back on the fact that we are underfunding programs to benefit our
veterans.
You want to talk about veterans. Let us talk about veterans. And, Mr.
Speaker, I submit for the Record at this point the letter that our
Democratic leader and every Democrat has signed to the President
complaining about his horrendous record in supporting our veterans.
200 House Democrats Urge President Bush To Provide Necessary Funding
for Veterans' Health Care
Washington, DC.--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and
199 House Democrats sent the following letter to President
Bush today urging him to provide the necessary funding for
veterans' health care in his FY2008 budget.
Below is the text of the letter:
September 25, 2006.
Hon. George W. Bush, The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: As your administration continues to
formulate its FY 2008 budget submission, we write to request
that you provide the necessary funding for the Department of
Veterans' Affairs (VA) health care system and related
benefits programs. Unfortunately, we believe it is necessary
to express our serious concern in this matter due to your
administration's record of under-funding the VA by at least
$9 billion over the last 6 years. We are particularly
concerned about veterans funding next year and in the future
as your budget submission this year reduced veterans' funding
by $10 billion over the next 5 years.
Providing for our military veterans and their families is a
continuing cost of war and should be an important component
of our national defense policy. Indeed, President George
Washington recognized this point, saying, ``[t]he willingness
with which our young people are likely to serve in any war,
no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to
how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated
and appreciated by their nation.'' Mr. President, the time is
right for your administration to change course and fully fund
the VA, cease efforts to shift the costs of health care onto
the backs of veterans, and finally recognize and implement
the concept of `shared sacrifice' with respect to the federal
budget.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along with the aging of
our World War II, Korea and Vietnam War veterans have
increased demand for VA services. However, year after year
you request inadequate funding for veterans' health care.
Each year your budget submission includes proposals to
increase veterans' co-payments and fees, essentially taxing
certain veterans for their health care. Each year your VA
budget fails to request what is needed and relies on
accounting gimmicks such as ``management efficiencies'' and
inaccurate health care projections. Such efforts are
transparent as the true consequences of your administration's
budget flaws are being realized by current and future
veterans. Indeed, recently VA officials themselves
acknowledged that greater funding was needed to care for our
servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering
from mental health disorders and traumatic brain injuries.
Mr. President, during your tenure, health care waiting
lines have increased, appointments and medical procedures
delayed, more than 250,000 veterans have been turned away
from entering the VA health care system, and disability and
education claims backlogs have grown to unreasonable rates.
Moreover, Congress has been forced to add billions of dollars
in supplemental VA funding due to embarrassing funding
shortfalls.
What we request of you and your administration is simple--
provide funding in your FY 2008 budget submission to ensure
that our servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan
and the heroes from our previous conflicts receive the care
and benefits they have earned and deserve.
Without question, Mr. President, the federal budget is a
reflection of national policies and ultimately a reflection
of our moral priorities. Please join us in working to provide
the necessary resources in the fiscal year 2008 budget to
fully fund the VA and to take care of our veterans and their
families.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi,
House Democratic Leader.
Lane Evans,
Ranking Member, Veterans Affairs Committee.
198 House Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has
been an eloquent, true conservative on the question of the entanglement
of religion and government, because he expresses what every religious
leader ought to share, the distrust of government if it seeks to
intervene in religious matters.
Religion needs no protection from government in this country. Yes,
there are times when you may need protection if there are people trying
to interfere physically with your right to worship, but in a free
society like ours, religion flourishes independently. It does not need
the government's stamp of approval. What theology says is that for
religion to be freely practiced, the government has to say it is okay,
the government has to put forward a symbol.
So my friend from Texas has expressed a true conservative vision, but
he did not fully describe how flawed this bill is. I guess he could not
fully understand the reasoning. He said that, even if you win to decide
attorney's fees. No, only if you win. Let me read from the bill.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award
reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a
claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition against
the establishment of religion brought against the United States.''
Now, this is not the most actually honest piece of legislation I have
ever seen. They describe some of what they are talking about: a
veterans memorial, not a veterans cemetery. By the
[[Page H7361]]
way, there is no prohibition anyone has ever thought of the families of
any veterans to put any religious symbol he or she wants on that grave,
except there was an effort to block a victim who wanted to put the
symbol on, but they prevailed as, of course, they have to under this
theory not just of this bill but of freedom of religion.
But it says the Boy Scouts, a Federal building containing religious
words, but it also says this bill shall include but not be limited to
these examples. In other words, the examples are there because they
kind of add a little spice to the bill because, understand what this
bill would purport to do.
Any violation of the Establishment Clause, any activity by a State or
a Federal agency to establish a religion, to favor a particular
religion, this is not limited to signs in the cemetery. It says any
violation of the Establishment Clause, if you win you do not get your
attorney's fees.
Now, the gentleman from Georgia correctly said this bill does not
take away rights. I understand that. I also understand that there is a
lot of frustration on that side of the aisle that they cannot. They
would like to take away the rights. This goes as far as they can
diminishing them.
The gentleman says, well, the ACLU will be able to do it. Has he
become an agent of the ACLU, Mr. Speaker? Is he interested in giving
the ACLU a monopoly on bringing these lawsuits? I am not. Whether or
not the ACLU is bringing the lawsuit is not determinative. What about
the right of an average citizen who might disagree with the ACLU and
who would not be able to pay the attorney's fees? And, again, it only
applies if you win.
Now, I know people on the other side have had a phrase that they like
in tort law called ``loser pays.'' That may be controversial, but this
one is a lulu. This is winner pays. Bring a lawsuit based on a blatant
violation of the Establishment Clause, not limited to the examples
here. It is what the language says. Bring a lawsuit against a State or
a city or a county or the Federal Government that favors a particular
religion, that says we are going to teach this particular religion's
tenets in the school and win the lawsuit and get no money.
Well, now, obviously that is because they do not trust the courts.
They think the courts cannot be given the freedom to do this. The
United States Supreme Court consists of nine members, seven of them
appointed by Republicans. Six, because I know they do not count Gerald
Ford, Mr. Speaker. He is kind of suspiciously liberal by Congress
Republican standards. But Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George Bush
have appointed six of the nine justices.
Now, what this bills say is if the appointees of George Bush, George
Bush and Ronald Reagan decide that there has been a clear-cut violation
of the Establishment Clause, the person who brought the lawsuit cannot
get legal fees. It is probably right that the ACLU would not be
retarded, but, as I said, I agree with the ACLU on many issues. I am
not interested in promoting them a monopoly over litigation in the
United States.
I want to address this notion, too, well, you have freedom of
religion, not freedom from religion. That is a fundamental
misunderstanding of the Constitution and history. People who came to
this country, some of them were objecting to being forced to profess
other religions or support other religions. Religious freedom means
that your religious practice, whether it exists or does not exist, is
none of the government's business. The notion that your right not to be
religious does not exist is appalling to me.
The gentleman from Georgia said you have freedom of religion, not
from religion. Agnostics, atheists, people whose religion you may not
think worthy, they do not have freedom in this country? What kind of a
distortion of the principle of freedom is that?
The notion that you do not have freedom from religion means,
literally, I guess, that you can be told, okay, look, you have got to
pick a religion, pick one; you cannot have none whatsoever. That is not
the American Constitution.
What we have here is not going to pass, we understand that, and I
have to say I do not fully agree with my colleagues when they lament
the fact that we are wasting time. Because given the penchant of the
majority for atrocious legislation, I would rather have them waste
their time than use it on something that might become law. Because when
they do make laws, they make bad ones. So wasting time is better.
Although I do find it very offensive that in defense of
constitutional principles we once again have a closed rule. Democracy
to them is a spectator sport. They want to look at it somewhere else,
they want to watch it in other countries, but not practice it on the
floor of the House. A closed rule on a fundamental matter of
constitutional principle is an abomination.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the author of the bill.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to speak on the
rule. I will be speaking a little later on the bill itself, as I am the
original sponsor of the bill and have been since the 105th Congress,
but I felt it necessary to clarify the discussion somewhat in that, as
I have heard the discussion, it has focused on some issues that the
bill does not cover, as well as does not discuss some of the issues
that the bill is attempting to remedy.
First of all, the words from the gentleman from Texas suggested that
this bill had to do with the first 16 words of the first amendment.
That is not true. The first 16 words to the first amendment say the
following: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
It has been concluded that there are essentially two clauses to that
portion of the first amendment. First is the so-called Establishment
Clause and the second is the Free Exercise Clause. This bill addresses
the issue of the Establishment Clause and the attorney's fees awarded
as a result of cases brought regarding Establishment Clauses. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with the Free Exercise Clause, the last
portion of the gentleman from Texas' 16 words to the first amendment.
So with regard to free exercise cases, the Attorney's Fees Award Act
of 1976 will still apply, and attorneys's fees will still be awarded
with no alteration of the laws as a result of passage of this bill.
Secondly, the suggestion was that somehow Mr. Madison left the
Constitution sterile with regard to the discussion of religion. Mr.
Madison, who many claim to be the chief architect of the Constitution,
I believe probably even including my friends from Texas and
Massachusetts, included in the signatory clause two dates of reference
for the United States Constitution's approval by the constitutional
convention. When he said, ``Done in convention by unanimous consent of
the States present the 17th day of September in the year of our Lord,
one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the independence of
the United States of America, the 12th.''
So James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution, as well as the
rest of the delegates who signed the Constitution, gave two dates of
reference that every schoolchild should know, every public schoolchild,
private schoolchild, home schoolchild should know, with regard to the
discussion of the approval of the Constitution of the United States.
The delegates thought it was so important that these two dates be
referenced that they ensconced them in the very wording of the
Constitution. The first primary, most important, date of reference
would be the 17th day of September, in the year of our Lord, one
thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven. So the first date, the primary
date of reference for the delegates of the constitutional convention as
placed in the Constitution itself, was the birth of Jesus Christ.
The second important day, the secondary important day for the
ratification of the United States Constitution was the day that was
placed secondarily in the signatory clause, and that is the
independence of the United States of America, the 12th. It had been
since July 4, 1776, a little over 11 years since that celebration, and
so
[[Page H7362]]
they were in the 12th year of the independence of the United States,
the Declaration of Independence being effectively the birth certificate
of the United States of America.
So there would be those on the other side, first of all, that would
suggest that this bill has something to do with the free exercise of
religion. It has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. And
some that would suggest that the Framers of the Constitution and the
Founders of this country would somehow sterilize government from the
very mention of religion.
Now, if someone today in the State of Virginia where Mr. Madison come
from and Jefferson would suggest erecting a monument to the individual
whose birth is the primary date of reference for the delegates for the
approval of the United States Constitution to be later sent to the
States for ratification would raise a life-size monument to that one
individual, they would be sued by the ACLU. They would be sued by the
ACLU, and the ACLU would come to those people and say, we are going to
sue you, just like they did educators in the State of Indiana. And they
would say, we are going to sue you and we are going to win, and when we
win you will not only have to pay your attorney's fees but you will
have to pay our attorney's fees, too, as a result of the Attorney's
Fees Award Act of 1976 by erecting a monument to the individual's whose
birth is celebrated in the United States Constitution.
Now, that case could go to court, but it probably would not. Because
those county officials, those officials would have this sword of
Damocles hanging over their head, meaning we are going to take you to
court, and when we win, you will have to pay our attorney's fees as
well.
The Public Expression of Religion Act would simply say let that case
go to court, do not allow that sword of Damocles, that notion of
intimidation to continue and let the case go to court.
The gentleman from Massachusetts says that we cannot trust the courts
as conservatives. We do trust the courts, which is exactly what the
Public Expression of Religion Act allows. It allows these cases to go
to court. Whereas in many cases they do not go to court, and the
gentleman from Georgia and others have given examples. They will go to
court and will allow the cases to go to court, but that is exactly what
the other side does not want to have happen because let us give recent
experience.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court came down with two
decisions, the same day, on the first amendment to the Constitution,
the Establishment Clause, and in those two decisions, they said that
the Ten Commandments posted on public property, public property paid
for and maintained with government dollars, was constitutional in the
State of Texas. Then they said, on the same day, in a different case,
they said the public display of the Ten Commandments on government-
funded, government-maintained property in Kentucky was
unconstitutional. Constitutional in Texas, unconstitutional in
Kentucky. I think the Ten Commandments were pretty well the same. They
are pretty well the same wherever you read them, but in Texas it was
constitutional, and in Kentucky it was unconstitutional.
What the other side does not want to have happen is for these cases
to actually go to court. Because if they go to court, it is likely with
the new makeup of the United States Supreme Court that had those two
cases come out of that Supreme Court, the Texas case would have
probably been a 6-3 majority in favor of maintaining the Ten
Commandments in Texas and a 5-4 majority in maintaining the Ten
Commandments in the State of Kentucky.
This is an issue of allowing the cases to go to court and not to have
the threat or intimidation by the ACLU and their minions to hang over
all of these heads.
{time} 1115
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I would ask the gentleman, he says
he is not for keeping these things from going to court. Am I incorrect,
I had thought that the gentleman from Indiana, when we were on the
committee together, before I took leave and on the floor, had supported
legislation in the area of church and state taking jurisdiction away
from the courts.
Would the gentleman reconcile for me his support of legislation that
would remove jurisdiction from the Federal courts, in many cases, with
his support for letting the cases go to court?
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Taking back my time, because in both cases the United
States Constitution grants Congress the exclusive explicit authority to
do those things, and that is why I am saying this is the exclusive
authority of the United States Congress. We have that authority. We do
not have to be in one particular area allowing the court to consider
cases. In other cases, we can allow the cases to go to court. That is
what the legislative process is about.
And the gentleman has heralded the idea of democracy and the
legislative process. Today, we continue to exercise that.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank) 3 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
Indiana did not reconcile the position. He said, we are Congress, and
if we want to take these cases away, we can. I understand that, but
that is not consistent with saying they ought to go to court.
Secondly, there are two parts to this bill. One says you should not
have monetary damages. That is relevant to his argument about
intimidation. But the other section says if you bring a claim based on
a violation of the establishment clause, no matter how blatant, if a
county or city or any other government entity formally prefers one
religion over others, one denomination over others, and provides
funding for that, if you bring a lawsuit challenging that and you win,
you don't get attorneys fees.
And the answer again is, well, the ACLU can do it. Again, I am not
letting only the ACLU be involved here. And that has nothing to do with
intimidation of the county. The question is, and, again, it is only if
you win. Let me read what it says: ``No court shall not award
reasonable fees and expenses to the prevailing party on the claim of
injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition of the
establishment clause.''
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. And I can understand that concern, but let me remind
you that the awards act came in 1976. In 1962, the United States
Supreme Court struck down the notion of school prayer without the
attorneys fees award act. In 1963, the Supreme Court struck down Bible
reading in public schools, without the attorneys fees award act. This
bill will simply allow the cases to actually continue to go to court.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is just nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
Absolute nonsense.
There is nothing that keeps the county or the city from defending
because the other side will get attorneys fees. The gentleman is trying
to collapse a couple of things. The threat of monetary damages arguably
would keep you from going to court, but a denial of attorneys fees to
an individual plaintiff who does not happen to have an organization,
that is not the fact that the other side may get attorneys fees if they
win.
And, remember, the gentleman suggested that people were being
deterred from bringing lawsuits that they could win, or defending
lawsuits they could win by the threat of what would be the expense. But
in this case, you only get the fees if you win. This only denies
successful plaintiffs the fees.
So that is what this bill does. It has nothing to do with keeping it
from going to court. It is trying to discourage things from going to
court. I guess what they say is, you can't bring such a lawsuit unless
you get the ACLU. If you are an individual that has a different theory
about this, and you don't have the money for an attorney, you can't go
to court. And the gentleman said, well, that is whatever happened
before the 1976 act. Singling out one class of cases for the denial of
attorneys fees when every other one gets them does seem to me an odd
way to
[[Page H7363]]
run a constitution. This right and that right.
And, by the way, no one should think that if this ever became law,
which, of course, no one thinks it will, that it would stop here. There
would be other unfavored rights where a minority would be at risk,
where you would be denied legal fees. So let's not collapse two issues.
This has no deterrent effect, the part about attorneys fees. It is an
effort on the other side to keep people out of court in case they might
win.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana for the purpose of clarification and response to
the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentleman from Massachusetts concluded his
remarks by saying this is going to keep people out of the courts. In
fact, the precedent is just the opposite. In 1962, in Engel v. Vitale,
the United States Supreme Court said, 14 years before the attorneys
fees award act was put into place, that the state sanctioning of prayer
in public schools was unconstitutional. In 1963, 13 years before the
attorneys fees award acts came into play, the United States Supreme
Court held it was unconstitutional to have Bible reading in public
schools.
This will not change anything from what happened before this law was
created that we are amending today. The same things will happen. And
this bill, most importantly, does not remove injunctive relief. If it
is the desire of the plaintiff to stop an activity or to remove a
monument or remove a display, this bill does nothing to stop that from
taking place. The injunctive relief available in all of these cases
continues to be available in establishment clause cases.
And, in fact, the court can say, remove the monument, stop the
practice. This bill does not change that, and I want to make that
clarification.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I appreciate this eloquent defense
of his bill that it doesn't do very much, but I do question that. And I
understand your concern about monetary damages; but if the restriction
on attorneys fees only for the party that wins in a case doesn't do
anything, what is it in here for?
Mr. HOSTETTLER. And that is perfect, so the gentleman can support my
bill. I appreciate that, which is why it does something very important,
which is why the gentleman and his cohorts are opposing the bill,
because they understand that by removing the chilling effect on these
closed-door sessions with county commissioners, with schoolteachers,
with mayors and the like, without that ability for the ACLU and others
to go into these closed-door sessions and say, Mayor, we are going to
sue you, we are going to win, and you are going to have to pay our
attorneys fees, that without that chilling effect, these cases will go
to court.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I feel like I am in Dickens, the artful
dodger is apparently about to leave.
I repeat the question: If banning attorneys fees from people who win
a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the establishment clause,
which this bill does, doesn't do anything, what is it in there for? Is
it just an expression of dislike for people who happen to enforce a
part of the Constitution that people on the other side don't like? What
is it in there for?
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. From the gentleman's perspective, because of the
benign nature and virtual nonutilitarian nature of the bill, please
support it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman please answer the
question? He asked me to yield. Why are you banning attorneys fees from
people who win a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the
establishment clause? Why are you doing that?
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Because a blatant violation is determined by a court
of law.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But the gentleman is for letting it go to
court, I thought.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. We are letting them go to court. That is exactly
right, we are going to let them go to court. A blatant violation is
determined by a court of law and not by ACLU attorneys behind closed
doors.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. And only under this bill, if you bring a
lawsuit and you win, and the court decides that you are correct and
there was a blatant violation of the establishment clause, you don't
get your attorneys fees, and I still don't understand why.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, there is nothing benign
about this bill. This bill makes it more difficult to enforce the first
amendment to the Constitution and the very words thereof designed to
protect religious freedom of every measurement.
I want to thank my colleague from Indiana, who is leaving at the
moment, for clarifying the point that this bill now is only intended to
make it more difficult to enforce the first 10 words of the Bill of
Rights rather than make it more difficult to enforce the first 16 words
of the Bill of Rights.
But let me express a very heartfelt difference of opinion. When the
gentleman said this bill has nothing to do with the free exercise of
religion, nothing could be further from the truth. That is why Mr.
Jefferson and Mr. Madison and our Founding Fathers built in, embedded,
into the foundation of the Constitution the principle that we want to
keep government out of our houses of worship and out of our personal
faith.
The greatest single threat to the free exercise of religion is
government. And if the gentleman doesn't believe that, then I would
suggest he denies history.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman if he can name
me one nation anywhere in the world today that has more religious
freedom than the United States of America because it allows government
intervention into houses of worship and peoples private religious
affairs. Can the gentleman name one nation?
Mr. HOSTETTLER. I cannot name one. Will the gentleman yield for a
discussion?
Mr. EDWARDS. I didn't think you could.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. First of all, Mr. Jefferson was in France during the
approval process of the Bill of Rights.
Mr. EDWARDS. Let me take back my time, because that is misleading.
Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison debated for 10 years in the Virginia
legislature the principle of church-state separation, and it was
absolutely the core idea behind the 16 words of the Bill of Rights. So
while he was in France, to suggest that Mr. Jefferson didn't endorse
this principle is wholly wrong, evidence of which is Mr. Jefferson's
letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 where he didn't just endorse
this principle, he said he considers it with ``sovereign reverence.''
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Historically, I know the gentleman from
Indiana previously had a location issue on Mr. Jefferson, but he was in
France during the debate on the Constitution. You said he was in France
during the debate on the Bill of Rights. I don't think that is
accurate. I know there were slow boats then, but I think he had gotten
back by that time.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. He was not in France during the ratification by the
States of the Bill of Rights, but he was in France during the approval
by the Congress of the Bill of Rights, which took place 2 years prior.
Mr. EDWARDS. Taking back my time, if the gentleman is trying to
suggest that Thomas Jefferson didn't endorse the principle of church-
state separation, I would remind my colleague it was Thomas Jefferson
who was the first American to use the term ``wall of separation between
church and state.''
I would reiterate my key points.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. History gets
misused and used as a tool, but I think one
[[Page H7364]]
thing is very clear. The people who are pushing this, had they been
contemporaries of Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have been great fans of
his.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from
Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I think it does disservice to the
importance of this issue of religious freedom that out of 435 Members
of the House, we are debating it in 1 hour, something Mr. Madison and
Mr. Jefferson spent 10 years debating in the Virginia legislature. We
are debating this in 1 hour, with 4 or 5 Members of the House on this
floor. I think that, frankly, in my book, is a sacrilege.
There is no greater principle in American democracy than religious
freedom. It is the first freedom upon which all other freedoms are
built. If one thinks government involvement in religion protects
religious freedom, then I would suggest you vote for this ill-advised
and dangerous piece of legislation. If one agrees with our Founding
Fathers, with the Bill of Rights, the first 16 words thereof, with Mr.
Madison and Mr. Jefferson, that the greatest threat to religious
freedom in this world is government intrusion into religion, I would
suggest you vote ``no'' on this legislation.
This legislation is a direct effort to make it more difficult to
enforce the Bill of Rights, and that is wrong. That is why we should
vote ``no.''
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I
reserve my time for the purpose of closing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts and the gentleman from Texas for making clear what this
bill is trying to do, which is to undermine the Constitution. It is
frightening to see what could potentially happen should the other side
gain seats in the next election.
I also think it is frustrating and I think it is offensive that we
all know this bill is going nowhere and that we are taking our time up
debating this when we should be debating ways to improve the quality of
life for our veterans and raising the minimum wage and a whole bunch of
other things.
One final thing. We have heard the word democracy mentioned several
times over there. All the rules in this Congress that have been
reported out by the Rules Committee, with the exception of
appropriations bills, have been closed, with the exception of one bill.
It is about time we had a little democracy in this House of
Representatives.
If you respect the Constitution and you respect this institution, we
need to have a different process.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to once again thank Mr.
Hostettler for sponsoring the Public Expression of Religion Act and
Chairman Sensenbrenner for bringing this legislation to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the principles of life, liberty, and property make up
the foundation of our constitutional Republic. Under liberty, we are
guaranteed the freedom to worship as we please, a freedom that should
be protected and not taken for granted. The freedom of religion is one
of the positive social institutions in our country, and we should
encourage this constitutional protection throughout the world.
{time} 1130
Almost every State in the Union has chosen to acknowledge God within
its State constitutions. However, too often today, overzealous courts
have infringed upon an individual's right to worship. Courts have
attempted to ban holiday decorations reflecting religious traditions
such as Christmas carols or Hanukkah songs from school events. Federal
courts have demanded the removal of the Ten Commandments from
courthouses across our country, sought to remove the words ``in God we
trust'' from our currency, as well as remove emblems from State seals,
flags and logos.
As I stated earlier, these attacks on our religious heritage are
frivolous and unwarranted. For every decision a court makes, there are
countless out-of-court settlements and even more pending lawsuits aimed
at removing anything that acknowledges a divine authority.
The debate over religious freedom is old and contentious, but it
should be fair. When organizations like the ACLU are rewarded,
rewarded, for filing lawsuits, it is not a fair debate. Congress needs
to close that loophole, to restore impartiality to our system of
justice, and it needs to act on preventing frivolous lawsuits. H.R.
2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act, will help protect the
freedom of religion, restore impartiality and reduce lawsuits.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this rule and support
the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________