[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 27, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10303-S10305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S 3956. A bill to create a grant program for collaboration programs 
that ensure coordination among criminal justice agencies, adult 
protective service agencies, victim assistance programs, and other 
agencies or organizations providing services to individuals with 
disabilities in the investigation and response to abuse of or crimes 
committed against such individuals; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is a well-known fact that people with 
disabilities face a great risk of abuse and victimization--in fact, 
studies indicate that disabled adults experience violence or abuse at 
least twice as often as those without disabilities. This shameful 
situation is made even worse by the fact that far too often these 
crimes are not reported, or if they are reported, they are not 
effectively prosecuted--with the result that crime victims with 
disabilities are left vulnerable to further victimization. This is a 
tragic situation and one which requires action.
  The good news is that we have a model to follow, a response which 
works. Massachusetts has set up an excellent program to enhance 
cooperation and coordination between law enforcement and the State 
officials and programs which provide services and care to the disabled, 
and this coordination has greatly improved the ability of the criminal 
justice system to prosecute these offenders and protect those with 
disabilities from crime. In fact, since the implementation of the 
program, criminal referrals in these types of cases in Massachusetts 
went up from 32 before the program began to 880 in 2004, the most 
recent year for which we have statistics.
  We should try to extend the success of the Massachusetts program 
around the country. Accordingly, today I am introducing the Crime 
Victims with Disabilities Act of 2006. This legislation would establish 
a $10 million Federal grant program to make money available to States 
and localities which are

[[Page S10304]]

interested in setting up similar programs to enhance training, 
coordination, and cooperation within the law enforcement and 
disabilities services communities order to address this problem.
  The legislation would require a State or local government to design a 
cooperative plan to improve the reporting and prosecution of crimes 
against people with disabilities, including within the system at least 
one criminal justice agency and at least one agency or organization 
which provides services to individuals with disabilities. The 
legislation encourages local innovation; as long as the application 
meets the basic goals of protecting people with disabilities from crime 
and prosecuting those who attempt to victimize them, it can be designed 
in whatever way the applicants decide will work best in the affected 
community. The grants would be for a maximum of $300,000 over 2 years, 
with a potential for a one-time renewal.
  I have worked closely with the creators of the Massachusetts program 
and many others who work in law enforcement and who provide services to 
crime victims and people with disabilities, and I believe this 
legislation will help States and localities create programs that can 
address the problem of violence against people with disabilities. This 
is a serious problem, and I encourage my colleagues to support this 
effort to help address it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 3957. A bill to protect freedom of speech exercisable by houses of 
worship or mediation and affiliated organizations; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
which will protect the Constitutionally-guaranteed exercise of free 
speech and exercise of religion, the Religious Freedom Act of 2006.
  The American people may be surprised to learn a few things about 
their government's relationship with religion. They may be surprised to 
learn that the Federal Government of the United States of America, in 
the land of the free, does not allow religious leaders in houses of 
worship of all religious orders to say anything that might be construed 
as political in nature. The American people may further be surprised to 
learn that the federal agency tasked with enforcing the absolute ban on 
political speech for houses of worship is the Internal Revenue Service. 
It is the IRS that reviews the content of sermons and homilies and 
threatens to revoke those institutions' tax-exempt status if they dare 
to speak out on the political matters of the day. Many times, the only 
evidence on which the IRS will base their case is a third-party 
complaint and may move forward with threatening letters and the 
revocation of their tax-exempt status even if the prohibited 
activities--the exercise of their First Amendment Rights--were 
incidental or unintentional. Furthermore, the IRS admits that it 
applies a ``coded language'' policy to political speech. That is, 
discussion of a moral issue, if it happens to be a matter discussed in 
our public debates, is a political issue and is consequently banned by 
the IRS. The American people may even be more surprised to learn that 
the IRS is stepping up the enforcement of the ban on political speech 
in houses of worship and has recently emphasized the ``coded language'' 
policy.
  A skeptic might assert that something as serious as an IRS-enforced 
ban on political discourse in a church must have a tenured legislative 
history buttressed by decades of sound First Amendment jurisprudence. 
The American people may be surprised to learn that the exact opposite 
is true. The First Amendment freedoms of houses of worship were 
stripped away in 1954 by the ``Johnson Amendment,'' a floor amendment 
named for then-Senator Lyndon Johnson, which placed an absolute ban on 
political speech by tax exempt organizations. Although the legislative 
record is relatively silent on this matter, the amendment and its 
subsequent ban were enacted without a hearing, any debate, or any 
public comment. History also indicates that Senator Johnson enacted 
this ban as a means of silencing some anticommunist nonprofits that 
were mobilizing against his political campaign. It now silences 
important comment on the issues of the day. Although the Supreme Court 
has affirmed and reaffirmed a ``profound national commitment'' to the 
proposition that debate on issues should be ``uninhibited, robust, and 
wide-open,'' the debate has been unconstitutionally restricted for 
nearly 50 years.
  Whereas the legislative history of the Johnson Amendment is dubious 
where it even exists, the history of the relationship between politics 
and the pulpit is a history of a positive force for change in momentous 
times in our history when we as a nation have reaffirmed our commitment 
to an open and tolerant society. From slavery to segregation, religious 
leaders in America clearly have been effective forces for good, and 
they are also for more modern issues such as abortion, assisted 
suicide, and human trafficking. Perhaps no one could better articulate 
an important aspect of the history of politics and the pulpit than 
Martin Luther King, Jr.: ``The church must be reminded that it is not 
the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of 
the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never 
its tool . . . [or] it will become an irrelevant social club without 
moral or spiritual authority.'' The Johnson Amendment silences the 
``conscience of the state.'' It's difficult to see how religious 
leaders can in any way continue to function as Martin Luther King Jr.'s 
ideal of the church as the ``conscience of the state,'' as the church 
has done so effectively during trying times for our state, when houses 
of worship are banned absolutely from discussing matters of the state.

  The moral questions of the day are more often than not also 
fundamental social and political questions--questions that concern what 
we value as a nation. It is truly astounding that today, in America, 
religious leaders are banned from any comment on those moral issues. It 
is not partisan; this ban on speech makes no distinction between the 
ideological divide of left versus right in America: one church leader 
is investigated for publicly opposing abortion and another for 
discussing the morality of the Iraq War. Indeed, the American people 
may be surprised to learn this about their country.
  The American people would allowing religious leaders, of all kinds, 
to speak their consciences on the issues facing our nation, and to do 
so without the threat of IRS punishment through the revocation of their 
tax-exempt status. This is why I am introducing legislation that will 
do just that. The Religious Freedom Act of 2006 simply states that 
religious leaders may discuss political matters, as a Constitutionally 
protected right, without the threat of an IRS investigation. Upon 
enactment, this bill will reaffirm the Supreme Court's holding that 
this country has a ``profound national commitment'' to a national 
debate that is ``uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'' It will also 
reaffirm Martin Luther King, Jr.'s ideal of churches as the 
``conscience of the state.'' I ask that the text of this statement be 
included in the Congressional Record by unanimous consent.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3957

       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 ``Religious Freedom Act of 
     2006''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR HOUSES OF WORSHIP 
                   OR MEDITATION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no organization described in subsection (b) may be 
     denied its Federal tax exemption under the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 by administrative or judicial action, nor shall 
     donors to such organization be denied the deductibility of 
     their contributions under such Code, because such 
     organization engages in an activity that is protected by the 
     United States Constitution, including comment on public 
     issues, election contests, and pending legislation made in 
     the theological or philosophical context of such 
     organization.
       (b) Houses of Worship or Meditation and Affiliated 
     Organizations.--For purposes of subsection (a), an 
     organization described in this subsection is a church, 
     synagogue, mosque, temple, or other house of worship or 
     meditation (including any organization affiliated with any of 
     the foregoing)--

[[Page S10305]]

       (1) with an established form of worship or meditation and a 
     recognizable creed that minimally acknowledges the right of 
     others to freely accept or reject such form and creed, and
       (2) which meets 2 or more of the following indicia: 
     definite and distinct ecclesiastical government; formal code 
     of doctrine and discipline; distinct religious history; 
     membership not axiomatically associated with any other 
     organization; organization of ordained ministers; ordained 
     ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of 
     study; a literature of its own; established places of worship 
     or meditation; regular congregations; regular religious 
     services; classes for the religious instruction of youth or 
     seniors or both; auxiliaries to provide relief and sustenance 
     to the poor and deprived; and auxiliaries to provide youth 
     with morally-structured community service and supervised 
     opportunities to compete in sport and intellect-expanding 
     activities as an alternative to destructive behavior such as 
     crime and drug use.
       (c) Construction.--This section shall not be construed so 
     as to exempt any organization described in subsection (b) 
     from the operation of any other law generally applicable to 
     all organizations and individuals.
                                 ______