[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 17587]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. SPENCER BACHUS

                               of alabama

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 22, 1999

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Religious 
Liberty Protection Act.
  First let me commend the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady. As 
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Canady has established himself as a 
stalwart in defending the Constitution and our precious right to the 
free exercise of the religious freedoms.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not forget, let us always be mindful, that the 
very first freedom guaranteed by our forefathers in the Bill of Rights 
was the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs. When we study 
history, we quickly recognize that this is neither coincidence nor 
accident that our forefathers enumerated this as the first 
constitutional right, for they came to this country seeking the right 
to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Since our first forefathers 
arrived on our shores until very recently this freedom has been 
unquestioned. Today, Americans are united on few things but we almost 
uniformly agree that our religious liberties should be cherished and 
protected.
  However, sadly, in 1990 the Supreme Court, created by the very 
Constitution which guarantees our right to religious freedom, began, 
hopefully unwittingly, what constitutes as no less than an assault on 
this freedom. Is it not inconceivable that, of all things, of all 
institutions, our Supreme Court has been at the forefront of denying 
Americans this cherished right? They did so, in a 5-4 decision, by 
repealing a long-established legal principle which required the 
government to prove a compelling state interest before restricting 
religious liberty. Within a year following this unfortunate decision, 
Catholic prisoners were denied access to priests or their confessionals 
were monitored, Jewish prisoners were denied the right to wear 
yarmulkes, and a Christian church right here in Washington, DC, was 
ordered to stop feeding the homeless. Congress quickly responded to 
this breach of protection created by the Supreme Court, and with only 
three dissenting votes, passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
which restored the historic compelling state interest test. It was 
quickly signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court rules this act unconstitutional. I 
respect the Supreme Court, both the institution and its members. Sadly, 
their decision, in my opinion, neither respected the jurisdiction that 
the Constitution conveys to the Congress nor preserved the checks and 
balances of the Constitution. In a display of legalism which escapes 
this Member's understanding and to this Member defies common sense, 
they stated that Congress had the power to enforce the constitutional 
rights protected by the 14th Amendment, the amendment on which the 1993 
act was based, but not the right to ``expand them.'' It is hard to 
imagine that Congress' pronouncement stating that the first freedom in 
the Constitution, the free exercise of our religious beliefs which was 
the catalyst for the very founding of our country should not be swept 
away without a compelling state interest was somehow an ``expansion'' 
of our religious liberties. If a constitutional right can be taken away 
without compelling reason, on a whim, or with a minimum of 
justification, it is not in any way a well protected right.
  Additionally, it is difficult to imagine that Congress' attempt to 
protect the first right delineated in the Constitution is somehow 
prohibited by the Constitution. Not only is it unimaginable, ti is 
unacceptable. For that reason, this Congress, this day, representing 
the people of this country, must again act to protect the precious 
religious freedoms and liberties of those we represent. To do otherwise 
would allow the Supreme Court, in what this Member perceives to be an 
arbitrary decision, to set itself up as the sole arbitrator, 
determinator and protector of our constitutional rights. The basis of 
our constitutional rights is not the Supreme Court; it is the 
Constitution. I, for one, firmly believe that the Constitution also 
gave this body, as the elected representatives of the people, a right, 
and further an obligation, to protect our constitutional freedoms.
  Certainly, is not the right and the obligation to protect our first 
freedom the right and obligation of all three branches of government? I 
will never accept the premise, nor should this Congress, that only the 
Supreme Court is vested with this right and this power. To do so would 
basically give the Supreme Court alone the power to restrict the very 
precious rights encompassed in our Constitution without any check or 
balance. To do so would also surrender our obligation to defend the 
Constitution, an obligation we swear to uphold upon our election. To 
defend the Constitution should be our first obligation, not someone 
else's obligation.
  Our forefathers in their wisdom did not give to the Supreme Court 
alone the power to protect our Constitutional rights and freedoms. 
They, in fact, gave this obligation and responsibility to all three 
branches of government. It is not a duty that we should 
constitutionally avoid. Let us not dodge or shirk this solemn 
responsibility today. Let us instead, not with three dissenting votes, 
but unanimously pass the Religious Liberty Protection Act.

                          ____________________