[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 24, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H132-H134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      WAR MEMORIAL PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 290) to amend title 36, United States Code, to 
ensure that memorials commemorating the service of the United States 
Armed Forces may contain religious symbols, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 290

       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 ``War Memorial Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS AS PART OF MILITARY 
                   MEMORIALS.

       (a) Authority.--Chapter 21 of title 36, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2115. Inclusion of religious symbols as part of 
       military memorials

       ``(a) Inclusion of Religious Symbols Authorized.--To 
     recognize the religious background of members of the United 
     States Armed Forces, religious symbols may be included as 
     part of--
       ``(1) a military memorial that is established or acquired 
     by the United States Government; or
       ``(2) a military memorial that is not established by the 
     United States Government, but for which the American Battle 
     Monuments Commission cooperated in the establishment of the 
     memorial.
       ``(b) Military Memorial Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `military memorial' means a memorial or monument 
     commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces. 
     The term includes works of architecture and art described in 
     section 2105(b) of this title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

       ``2115. Inclusion of religious symbols as part of military 
           memorials.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands 
(Mr. Sablan) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H.R. 290, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), 
will allow the inclusion of religious symbols as part of military 
monuments.

[[Page H133]]

  In 1913, a memorial that included a 43-foot tall cross was placed on 
Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California, as a tribute to the members of 
the Armed Forces who sacrificed their lives to defend the United 
States. In 1989, the city of San Diego was sued over the cross, with 
critics claiming it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution and to the California Constitution.
  Several remedies were attempted over the years to avoid the cross 
being removed by the courts. These included transferring the property 
to a nonprofit organization, but this, too, led to a lawsuit. The 
property was also declared a national memorial by Congress in 2004. In 
2006, Congress enacted Public Law 109-272 to transfer the memorial to 
the Department of Defense. The Federal Government was sued, and the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cross was 
unconstitutional.
  While the legislation does not specifically resolve the 
constitutionality of the Mt. Soledad cross, this legislation will, for 
the first time, statutorily protect religious symbols in all war 
memorials and make clear Congress' intent in the U.S. Code.
  I urge adoption of H.R. 290, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I my consume.
  (Mr. SABLAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 290 is a bill that would allow 
religious symbols to be included as part of memorials commemorating the 
service of the United States armed services. The legislation, sponsored 
by my good friend Congressman Hunter of California, was considered by 
the Committee on Natural Resources in July. I commend my colleague, Mr. 
Hunter, for moving this legislation forward.
  We have no objections to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter), the author of the bill.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding and for his 
service as a veteran and for what he has done for this country. I also 
thank the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands.

                              {time}  1250

  One of the most common ways that this Nation honors its military and 
war dead is with monuments and memorials. Across the Nation, from Fort 
Rosecrans National Cemetery in San Diego to Arlington National 
Cemetery, there are countless markers paying tribute to America's war 
heroes and the brave men and women who never came home. In many cases, 
these markers display symbols of religion and personal faith--
representing not just individuals, but the shared commitment and 
sacrifice of those who serve and those who made the ultimate sacrifice 
to protect others and us here at home.
  I'm reminded of headstones at Arlington National Cemetery or images 
of Normandy where symbols of personal faith and religion are 
prominently displayed. And even then, these symbols never overshadow 
the purpose and message of honoring our military and veterans.
  Now this time-honored tradition is under attack. Civil liberty groups 
have taken offense to the presence of religious symbols on war 
memorials. They are going after a cross sitting atop a hill at Camp 
Pendleton in San Diego. It's not an official site sanctioned by the 
Marine Corps or the Federal Government, and the cross can't even be 
seen by the public. But groups are pushing the Marine Corps to remove 
the cross from Camp Pendleton even when the base is contributing much 
of the manpower to the fight in Afghanistan and more recently Iraq.
  The Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego is also a cause for 
their outrage. The memorial, first erected to honor veterans of the 
Korean war, displaying a 29-foot concrete cross, is now under the full 
ownership of the Department of Defense. At the base of the cross are 
more than 3,000 plaques with images and statements paying tribute to 
the veterans of all wars and religions. Last year, the runaway Ninth 
Circuit Court ruled that the memorial is unconstitutional, overturning 
a lower-court ruling.
  The future of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial is uncertain, even 
though the memorial, for all its years as a fixture of the San Diego 
community, had one stated purpose: to remember those who have fought 
and died for this Nation. H.R. 290 ensures Mt. Soledad and any other 
war memorial will withstand these attacks by allowing the inclusion of 
all symbols of religion and personal faith on war memorials established 
and under control of the Federal Government.
  For the 131 national cemeteries under the purview of the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, there are currently 48 emblems, I believe, 
authorized. There is no preference for one symbol over another--the way 
that things should be. In the face of persistent legal challenges and 
the threat of more to come, it's important that we install the right 
protection for war memorials in Federal law, allowing the spirit and 
tradition of honoring our Nation's military to continue.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, some Members may be aware of specific 
situations regarding religious symbols located on public land in 
California. In fact, the committee report for H.R. 290 mentions one of 
these ongoing controversies.
  It is important to note that the committee report also makes clear 
``this legislation does not specifically address the Mt. Soledad 
situation.'' Further, the report includes analysis of the legislation 
by the Congressional Budget Office, which found, ``under current law, 
religious symbols are not barred from being used in any military 
memorials; thus, H.R. 290 would codify current practice. According to 
the Department of Defense, the National Park Service, and the American 
Battle Monuments Commission, implementing H.R. 290 would not require 
any new memorials to be built or current memorials to be changed.''
  H.R. 290 is not necessary and does not appear to change current law. 
As a result, we do not oppose it.
  At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am truly honored and proud to be here 
today as a cosponsor of this bill. This is a bill that will protect and 
defend religious symbols on war memorials from Washington to San Diego.
  I think we need to remember that one thing that was a foundation of 
this country was religious tolerance. And this bill is addressing the 
fact that there are those who refuse to express religious tolerance and 
are actually after any symbol, no matter how traditionally accepted and 
how universally accepted by the community as a general recognition of 
service and devotion and memorial, that they would attack it if they 
could find a religious connotation in any form.
  Mind you, our Constitution protects the freedom of religion, not from 
it. But I think that this issue is one that has gone so far that we're 
actually talking about tearing crosses down over war memorials, and I 
don't think any American across the board who really believes in 
tolerance would support that.
  I'm very honored to have four plaques at this memorial in San Diego. 
Frankly, I have a father, a stepfather, a brother, and a stepbrother 
whose plaques are at the memorial at Mt. Soledad. This is a family 
effort. I remember as a child, my father pointing up at the cross at 
Mt. Soledad and that memorial that it symbolizes and said it's one of 
the few in the country to the men and women who died in Korea. Now, I 
also was very privileged in 2006 to be the cosponsor of a bill with 
another Duncan Hunter, Duncan's father, that specifically had Congress 
and the Federal Government come in to save this war memorial.
  Mr. Speaker, if you're not going to support this bill, if your 
attitude is that any religious connotation anywhere in the world that 
is on Federal-controlled property needs to be torn down and destroyed, 
then you can take that position, but don't stand in these Chambers and 
point at religious symbols all over in Europe or in San Diego and say 
they must come down or you will not defend them.

[[Page H134]]

  If you're going to sit in these Chambers with Moses at one side, Pope 
Innocent and Pope Gregory on the other, and Calvin, in these Chambers, 
if you're not going to stand up and demand that this Congress tear 
those plaques off these walls, then for God sakes, leave our war 
memorials alone, and don't tear down religious symbols just because 
you're intolerant and can't stand the fact that there are some of us 
that respect our war service and respect their faith, but most 
importantly, respect the heritage that has made America what it is 
today.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 290.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________