[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1952-E1953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF RELIGION ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 26, 2006

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the so-called ``Public Expression of 
Religion Act of 2006,'' H.R. 2679. This bill would send a chilling 
message to those who seek to uphold the Constitution and protect the 
religious liberty granted by the Constitution. Further, by denying 
aggrieved parties the existing remedies, this bill would embolden those 
who try to impose their religious beliefs on others to take additional 
risk and further violate the Constitution.
  H.R. 2679 seeks to amend, for the first time, the Civil Rights Act of 
1871, which is our Nation's oldest civil rights law. This bill would 
fundamentally alter the way individuals seek redress from violations of 
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Worse, this bill is a 
solution in search of a problem.
  What we are discussing goes to the very heart of one of the essential 
principles enshrined the Constitution and documents of the founding of 
America principles: the separation between church and state. Two of our 
Founding Fathers, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, spent almost 10 
years debating this central issue in the Virginia State Legislature. 
Yet, today, the Republican Majority has allowed it to be debated only 
for a single hour on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. 
Such an important change to the constitutional rights of Americans 
should receive thorough review by the House.
  This legislation would bar parties who successfully assert their 
constitutional right to bring a case under the Establishment Clause 
from receiving attorney's fees. Under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees 
Award Act of 1976, successful plaintiffs are awarded attorneys fees if 
their civil rights have denied by government officials. This remedy was 
intended to make the government think twice about acting in manner that 
would infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.
  However, we are considering legislation that would strip a remedy for 
plaintiffs who assert that the government infringed upon their 
religious freedoms.
  This legislation is opposed by the Interfaith Alliance, American 
Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church 
and State, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, American 
Jewish Committee, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union for Reform 
Judaism, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Woman's 
Law Center, Secular Coalition for America, People for the American Way, 
Friends Committee on National Legislation and Baptist Joint Committee 
on Religious Liberty.
  The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protects all 
Americans from government endorsement of, or favoritism toward, 
specific religion, or any religion. Its protection extends only as far 
as it can be enforced, however. We limit the ability of citizens, 
churches, and other organizations to challenge the government at our 
own peril. The Establishment Clause was written not only to ensure

[[Page E1953]]

that people could practice religion as they saw fit, but also to 
prevent government from meddling in organized religion. Those who seek 
to expand religious expression by allowing the government to 
participating in it do great harm to the religious and non-religious.

                          ____________________