[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27979-27985]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  SENSE OF CONGRESS SUPPORTING PRAYER AT PUBLIC SCHOOL SPORTING EVENTS

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 199) expressing the 
sense of the Congress that prayers and invocations at public school 
sporting events contribute to the moral foundation of our Nation and 
urging the Supreme Court to uphold their constitutionality.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 199

       Whereas prayers at public school sporting events are 
     entirely consistent with our American heritage of seeking 
     Divine guidance and protection in all of our undertakings;
       Whereas sporting events provide a significant and long-
     lasting impact in character and values development among 
     young people;
       Whereas prayers and invocations have been demonstrated to 
     positively affect the fair play and sportsmanlike behavior of 
     both players and spectators at sporting events;
       Whereas lower court rulings about prayer at sporting events 
     have placed school and community leaders in the difficult 
     position of choosing between conflicting values, rights, and 
     laws;
       Whereas congressional leaders have found value in beginning 
     each legislative day with prayers; and
       Whereas statements of belief in a Supreme Power and the 
     virtue of seeking strength and protection from that Power are 
     prevalent throughout our national history, currency, and 
     rituals: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) prayers and invocations at public school sporting 
     events are constitutional under the First Amendment to the 
     Constitution; and
       (2) the Supreme Court, accordingly, should uphold the 
     constitutionality of such practices.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 199.

[[Page 27980]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the sponsor of 
this resolution, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of a fall tradition we have in Texas. 
On weekends, Fridays and Saturdays high school stadiums fill up with 
people to watch high school football.
  These are not just events, Mr. Speaker; they are traditions; 
communities, student bodies, parents, coming together to watch friendly 
competition and say hello to friends and neighbors. It is about 
sportsmanship, it is about brotherhood, it is about values.
  Traditionally, before each game, voluntary nondenominational prayers 
have been held, primarily to wish the players an injury-free game and 
to wish everyone a safe trip home on the road that night.
  This tradition has been threatened by a foolish decision in Federal 
Court. A parent in a town near Houston apparently felt suppressed by 
the prayer and filed suit. The 5th Circuit Court agreed, and banned 
voluntary prayer at sporting events.
  I think this court decision is wrong. This resolution gives the U.S. 
Congress the chance to take a stand. Voluntary prayer should not be 
banned in States.
  In this day and age when parents and communities search for answers 
in helping our young people, what is wrong with voluntary prayer before 
kick off? There are no mandates in this resolution. I ask my colleagues 
to join me in taking a stand. Let us tell the court it was wrong. Let 
us encourage it to reverse its decision and let the children pray.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, religious freedom has been one of the cornerstones of 
American democracy since the founding of our Nation, and, like most 
Members in the body, I remain committed to preserving religious 
freedom. However, there are serious reservations whether this 
resolution offers us the best means of protecting our citizens' 
religious liberties.
  To begin with, we have had no deliberative process whatsoever on this 
complex issue. I was hoping that someone on the other side may 
enlighten me as to why this could never have come before a subcommittee 
or a committee for hearings and markup. There has been no opportunity 
to gauge the seriousness of the problem or determine whether this 
resolution is an appropriate or reasonable response.

                              {time}  1630

  Secondly, the text of the resolution comes very close to not only 
protecting religious expression, but crossing over and violating the 
establishment clause. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the 
coercive mechanics of the State cannot be used to endorse any 
particular set of religious beliefs. I think we all know that. For 
public school sporting events, courts have been very generous and have 
allowed student-led prayers, but have drawn the line at coach-led 
prayers or using the mechanics of the State, out of fear of a coercive 
effect.
  This resolution appears to go beyond this line, finding that 
organized and State-led prayer may be constitutional.
  Finally, I am concerned that the resolution threatens to abridge our 
precious separation of powers. The Congress has had enough trouble 
doing its own business and passing the Nation's budget on time, let 
alone taking the time to tell the Supreme Court how to resolve highly 
complex and serious sensitive constitutional arguments.
  Under the present constitutional structure of a Bill of Rights 
protected by an independent judiciary, the courts have done fine in 
sorting out these issues. Religion is alive and well in America. We 
have greater religious diversity and more religious observance than any 
country on the face of the Earth. I seriously question whether this 
sense of Congress can improve this situation.
  Mr. Speaker, if we want to truly protect religious freedom in this 
country, please reject this well-meaning but flawed resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my good friend and neighbor, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for introducing this important 
resolution. It is vitally important to express the sense of Congress 
that voluntary prayers before athletic contests are appropriate and 
even beneficial. This type of prayer is not an unconstitutional 
establishment of religion. Rather, it is an appropriate and 
constitutional exercise of our freedom of religion.
  It is altogether appropriate before a hard-fought athletic contest to 
allow individuals involved to offer a prayer that acknowledges the 
presence of a supreme being, a reminder of the presence of a deity more 
powerful than the players on the field. Such a prayer can lead to 
better sportsmanship, fewer injuries, and could even uplift and inspire 
both prayers and spectators.
  The offering of a prayer should not be feared. Those who do not wish 
to participate do not need to. However, we should not constrain the 
actions of those who do want to participate.
  Voluntary, unofficial prayers before athletic contests were allowed 
and even encouraged for decades prior to a mid-1960s Supreme Court 
ruling by the most liberal court of this century. We are overdue in 
again recognizing the rights of individuals to offer prayers that can 
do many people much good.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, as the principal Democratic author of 
House Concurrent Resolution 199, I join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) in expressing my strong support on this measure, which simply 
calls on the Supreme Court to rule on public prayer at events such as 
school football games.
  Our forefathers included the establishment clause in the first 
amendment to the Constitution for a reason. They had been subject to 
religious persecution, and wanted to make this country a place where 
Americans of every religion and denomination could practice their faith 
freely, or not practice a faith at all if they so chose. For those of 
us who believe in a God who grants free will to his creation, this 
constitutional approach not only makes for good government, it makes 
for good theology, as well.
  Still, a recognition of God and our country's need for divine 
guidance has been part of this Nation's fabric from the very start. Our 
currency reflects that, our pledge of allegiance acknowledges it, our 
Congress honors the tradition of opening prayers, and a respect for God 
is woven throughout our government's history and practices.
  It is in that spirit that I find prayer at football games both 
positive and constitutional. I would point out that many of the people 
who would prohibit such prayer also openly advocate for going still 
further and want to prohibit prayers in Congress, acknowledgment of God 
in our pledge of allegiance, et cetera.
  Finding a balance between conflicting rights and responsibilities, as 
well as a balance between the rights of society versus the rights of an 
individual, has been the challenge of our democracy from its beginning. 
The balance is never achieved once and for all, but rather, requires 
constant adjustments when one side of the scales becomes imbalanced and 
in need of countervailing weight.
  Recently a newspaper published in my district, the Graham Leader, 
addressed this very important point, which I share with my colleagues 
now: ``Although school prayer is often cloaked in separation rhetoric, 
the real issue lies in the definition of individual and group rights. 
Whose rights should take precedence? In this case, should those who 
want to pray or hear a prayer'' before a game ``have that right? Or 
should those who prefer no prayer have the right to stop it? Whose 
rights are more important?. . .''

[[Page 27981]]

  ``Democracy centers on the ability to balance individual freedom with 
the common good. Let's not forget that cooperation sometimes means 
compromise. We relinquish some rights, and we must endure some 
offensiveness so others may be granted some rights.''
  ``What the Federal courts and the American Civil Liberties Union 
seems to have forgotten is that no one group should bear the brunt in 
each case. Unfortunately, Christians have.''
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure, which simply urges the 
Supreme Court to act on this currently conflicting issue, and expresses 
the sense of Congress that student-led prayers at school sporting 
events are an exercise of our constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of 
speech and religion.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 199, and I 
commend my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, for bringing forth this 
important resolution.
  I feel strongly about the right to pray in public, and believe that 
prayer at public school sporting events is in fact constitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, we are truly fortunate to be Americans. The Founders of 
this great country worked to ensure each citizen's right to life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our Nation's military has fought 
and sacrificed to protect and preserve these rights.
  America was built upon Judeo-Christian values. Yet this foundation of 
our culture is so often ignored in today's society, and even frowned 
upon. Citizens throughout the country are being denied one of the most 
basic, fundamental rights we have fought so hard to protect, the right 
to freely express one's religious beliefs. Children have been barred 
from bowing their heads in private prayers and writing their religious 
beliefs in school papers, and even from bringing the Bible to school.
  Freedom of religion is one of the most protected rights guaranteed to 
us under the Constitution. There are far too many incidents of students 
and student athletes being prevented from expression of their religious 
beliefs.
  In Santa Fe, Texas, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling has forced student 
athletes to replace their former pre-game invocations with the 
observance of nonsectarian moments of silence. Just recently, Mr. 
Speaker, while I was watching an NFL football game, a player was 
seriously ill. Out of deep concern about their teammate, the members of 
that team knelt on the football field in front of the national TV 
audience to pray that he be protected from the injury.
  To my knowledge, there was no objection to this practice, so I ask, 
Mr. Speaker, why are student athletes prohibited from expressing their 
faith on the field? I feel that this is a tragedy. We must stand up for 
our students' rights to freely observe their religious beliefs.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for 
the Boston Globe, who brilliantly conveys the belief of the Founding 
Fathers on freedom on religion.
  ``Religion can't survive in the absence of freedom, but freedom 
without religion is dangerous and unstable.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is in direct conflict with a long line 
of Supreme Court decisions. For example, in 1962 in the Engel decision, 
the Supreme Court warned that one of the greatest dangers to the 
freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lies in the 
government's placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular 
kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services.
  In the Jager decision in 1989, the Supreme Court refused to review a 
case that specifically held that prayers at public football games 
violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, even though 
student clubs designated the individuals who gave the prayers.
  In 1997, a Federal court ruled that a moment of silence could be 
observed before games, but this year, 1999, another circuit court held 
specifically that prayers before football games were unconstitutional.
  The really disturbing aspect of this resolution is not whether we 
agree with that long line of court decisions, but the fact that we are 
considering the issue in a political forum.
  In the Barnett case in 1943, the court wrote that ``The very purpose 
of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the 
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach 
of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles 
to be applied by the courts.'' One's right to life, liberty, and 
property, to free speech, to a free press, freedom of worship and 
assembly, and other fundamental rights cannot be submitted to a vote. 
They depend on the outcome of no elections.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in the city of Richmond, Virginia, an 
elementary school was named in honor of former Governor of Virginia 
Linwood Holton. The program said, Mr. Speaker, that ``Linwood Holton 
was elected Governor of Virginia in 1969--the State's first Republican 
Governor since 1886. Holton's most enduring legacy is his embrace of 
racial integration. He supported court-ordered busing to achieve racial 
balance in schools. While he was governor, he escorted one of his 
children to attend a predominantly black school. That act, captured on 
film, displayed a message of social justice to Virginians.''
  Mr. Speaker, rather than promote a politically popular strategy of 
massive resistance, Governor Holton supported the Supreme Court ruling. 
So when he went to the schoolhouse door, he went not to display 
interposition and nullification, but to display a message of social 
justice.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is wrong because it subjects the 
complicated issue of religious freedom to the vicissitudes of political 
controversy, and therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I think the Supreme Court is part of the 
problem here, not the solution.
  I keep hearing this First Amendment mumbo-jumbo. I would like to read 
it: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion'', and then the First Amendment says, immediately, ``Or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  The Founders are rolling over in their graves. They did intended to 
separate church and State, but they never intended to separate God and 
the American people. This is absolutely ridiculous. The Supreme Court 
in my opinion is prohibiting in America the free exercise of religion.
  It is on our currency. Look behind the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood): ``In God we trust.'' Do we strike that from the Chamber? Do 
we?
  A Nation without God is a Nation without order. An America that 
restricts God gives license to the devil. We are nitpicking over 
something that nine Supreme Court members should have enough anatomy to 
ratify, the free exercise of religion. If a ballplayer wants to say a 
prayer, I want someone to show me how it is unconstitutional.
  They need a shrink over there. I support the resolution, and I think 
Congress better start drafting laws, because the precedents of the 
courts are what are running America, and the Founders did not want 
that, either.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that prayer is nothing less 
than heartfelt communication with our Creator. I believe in the power 
of prayer and the reverence for prayer and the sanctity of prayer. That 
is why I believe any debate on prayer and religious freedom deserves 
more than a 40-minute debate on a suspension calendar after no 
committee hearings and with so few Members of this House even present.

[[Page 27982]]

  Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleagues, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), 
and their genuine concerns, but it is the process of handling this 
resolution, however, on which I wish to comment.
  In my opinion, the subject matter of prayer and religious freedom 
deserves a full and open debate and Committee on the Judiciary hearings 
and on this floor. To do any less potentially undermines the importance 
of the first freedom guaranteed in the first 16 words of the Bill of 
Rights, the freedom of religion.
  Let us also recognize that the Constitution, in Article III, makes it 
clear that the Supreme Court, not the Congress, has the power to 
determine what is or is not constitutional.

                              {time}  1645

  Several weeks ago, the House leadership supported a resolution that 
said it was, quote, the necessary duty, end quote, of Americans to 
pray. That resolution, like this one, was on a suspension calendar and 
had no committee hearings.
  I am therefore compelled to question when the leadership of this 
House will start treating profound issues such as prayer and such as 
religious freedom and church-State relations with the reverence that 
our Founding Fathers exhibited in writing our Bill of Rights and our 
First Amendment.
  I would plead with the House leadership today to stop dealing with 
the principles of the religious establishment and free exercise clauses 
of the First Amendment with the same quick process and time limits 
reserved for the naming of Federal office buildings. The Constitution, 
the Bill of Rights and the high principles enumerated therein deserve 
far more than a superficial review.
  Resolutions and legislation on prayer and religious freedom should 
always undergo carefully considered hearings and debates of principle 
and conscience, not hastily organized mini-debates that deny most House 
Members even a chance to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, as a citizen I would hope the Supreme Court would 
clarify for school districts whether and under what conditions public 
prayers and invocations at school sporting events are allowed under the 
First Amendment. It is not right, in my opinion, for schools and 
communities to be divided by possibly conflicting lower court 
decisions. I would hope the Supreme Court would expeditiously review 
any such cases.
  Mr. Speaker, to all of us in Congress, however, I would say we have 
an obligation in the future to review any question affecting the sacred 
issues of prayer and religious freedom with the careful, thorough and 
reverent consideration they deserve.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, why are we considering this legislation 
today? How is the offering of prayer at a football game 
unconstitutional? The root of this debate can be traced to 1962 when 
the Supreme Court opined in Engel versus Vitale that, quote, State-
sponsored, end quote, prayer was unconstitutional. Why? Because the 
Supreme Court said that the First Amendment had erected a wall of 
separation between church and State and that that wall had been applied 
to the individual States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  Where did that logic come from?
  It was a line of reasoning that was expounded by Justice Hugo Black 
in 1947 when he stated, quote, my study of the historical events that 
culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment and the expression of those who 
sponsored and favored, as well as those who opposed its submission and 
passage, persuades me that the provision of the amendment's first 
section were intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the 
States, end quote.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to rehash all of Justice Black's 
research. Fortunately, all that is necessary today is to ask a simple 
question: What was so apparent in the justice's research that escaped 
the knowledge of people who actually voted on the Fourteenth Amendment 
itself?
  The Blaine amendment was an amendment to the Constitution that was 
introduced in 1875 by Representative James Blaine of Maine and it would 
have become the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It was 
introduced and it stated in relevant part, quote, no State shall make 
any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Congress at that time believed that the 
Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States, why was 
this amendment even brought up for consideration? The question is, 
would it not have been the main reason for dismissing the amendment the 
fact that it was unnecessary, given the fact that the Blaine amendment 
was introduced 8 years after the ratification of the Fourteenth 
Amendment? In fact, in the 44th Congress that considered the Blaine 
amendment, 15 Senators had been Members of the 39th Congress that 
adopted the Fourteenth Amendment and 12 others had participated in the 
ratification or rejection of this amendment by the State legislatures.
  Likewise, 50 Members of the House of Representatives had similar 
backgrounds. In fact, Mr. Blaine voted for the Fourteenth Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply 
the Bill of Rights to the States and if we do not want any more 
thorough exercise of this we can simply go to the Encyclopedia of the 
American Constitution that says this: Additionally, the first clause of 
the proposed amendment provided that no State shall make any laws 
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.
  This is an indication, says the Encyclopedia of the U.S. 
Constitution, that Congress did not believe in 1876 that the Fourteenth 
Amendment, ratified in 1868, incorporated the religion clauses of the 
First Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to say amen and ask for 
consideration and approval of the resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, because the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), I thought I misunderstood him 
at first when he said the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to the 
States but he repeated it at least one more time so that I do not have 
any doubt of that now. Now that that is confirmed, I suppose we can 
move on back to the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for allowing me to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of the resolution. Coming from Texas, I 
noticed a lot of the cosponsors of the resolution are from Texas. There 
are a lot of things we hold sacred in Texas and one of them is high 
school football. One can go to any Friday night game or Saturday night 
game and it is important to the community, and growing up in Texas and 
having an opportunity to play high school football I know how important 
that event is for the community.
  Since then, I have attended football games both as a State legislator 
and Member of Congress and participating in the pre-game ceremonies, 
including giving the prayer as a Member of Congress at some of our high 
schools. This last February, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe 
versus Santa Fe Independent School District caused a great deal of 
concern and ultimately with this coming school year I talked with some 
of our superintendents in my own district to see how they were dealing 
with it.
  This ruling, while affirming previous court decisions that upheld 
student-led nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer at solemn events like 
school graduation ceremonies, also stated that invocations before 
sporting events like football games were not constitutional even if 
they met that standard.
  Mr. Speaker, the courts have been clear on the issue that the 
guidelines that had previously been issued by the Fifth Circuit Court 
in Jones versus Clear Creek Independent School District were being 
followed, so we have a problem. The Supreme Court needs to

[[Page 27983]]

rule and provide that guidance not only in Texas but hopefully the 
whole Fifth Circuit and our whole country.
  If this sort of activity is constitutional before a graduation 
ceremony, it should be constitutional. If we in Congress can start our 
business day as we do, then why would it not be constitutional to pray 
for the safety of our young men and women before they participate in 
some sporting event?
  I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and I oppose actions that 
would violate the establishment clause. I ask, though, where is this 
violation? How does a prayer before a football game act to establish a 
religion? We cannot go back to the 1950s because it was wrong where 
children all recited the Lord's Prayer and we know that as a Methodist 
and Presbyterians, even Catholics, we have a different Lord's Prayer 
but I do think we can invoke the wish and the hope and the prayer for 
the safety of the participants.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) for yielding me additional time.
  Just simplifying, the gentleman was unsure of the meaning of the 
Fourteenth Amendment, the Congress that adopted it, in that section 5 
they said the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate 
legislation the provisions of this article. Therefore, they did not 
believe the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the Fourteenth 
Amendment and so they gave themselves the capability to, by statute, 
enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and grant all of us the liberties we 
so greatly enjoy at this time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of ironic we have this religious 
debate from time to time here, and when we stand in the House well the 
only lawgiver facing us is Moses, whose head is turned right towards 
the Speaker; and above the Speaker's head it says, ``In God we trust.''
  It is clear what Congress intended. We open in the morning with a 
prayer, and clearly Congress may need prayer more than the schools but 
I think it is a double standard for us to say these things cannot go on 
in schools but they can go on here in Congress.
  Prayer is not for victory. Hopefully everybody understands that in 
these football games it is not for victory; unless maybe with the 
exception of Notre Dame, God does not take sides in football games. In 
general, however, what is disappointing to me is that apparently if one 
uses our Lord and Saviour's name Jesus Christ in vain it is allowed, 
but if one uses it in a biblical sense it is not. If I would refer to 
God damning people because of their behavior, that would be wrong but 
if one uses it in blasphemy, that is free speech.
  Free speech is a one-directional thing. How can it possibly hurt the 
young students at a football game to acknowledge that there is a 
Creator; that there is someone higher than them; that hatred is wrong; 
that violence in an extreme way is wrong? How can the humility that 
comes from the Bible be wrong at any moment, whether it is a football 
game or in school?
  We are in danger of putting us, the almighty ``I,'' the all-powerful 
me, in such a preeminent position that we will not even allow kids who 
voluntarily, in a voluntary activity, after school hours, can pray 
together. It is a sad day if this amendment does not pass.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 
199, which expresses the sense of Congress that prayers and invocations 
at public school events are constitutional on the First Amendment and 
that the Supreme Court should uphold the constitutionality of such 
activities.
  Mr. Speaker, it is most ironic that while an increasing number of 
violent crimes have occurred in our Nation's schools in recent months 
and even recent years, some Federal courts have ruled to restrict the 
very expression of faith which can play such a significant role in 
providing desperately needed moral guidance to our youth. Under the 
proper guidance of coaches and administrators, team and individual 
sports can make a significant, positive impact on the character of 
students and student athletes in their most formative years.
  A strong religious message, coupled with good sportsmanship, 
instilled by adult role models, can make a positive, long-term 
influence on our Nation's young people.
  I join my colleagues who are opposed to these Federal court decisions 
that would ban organized prayer from sporting events. Student athletes 
have a clear constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs, 
particularly during school and extracurricular activities. I do not 
believe that students in our country should have to check their 
religion and their beliefs at the school door.
  Our Founding Fathers believed that prayer and even studying the Bible 
were activities that should be encouraged among our youth rather than 
suppressed, even in our schools. Our Constitution grants freedom of, 
not freedom from, religion. Because of these rulings in the past, I am 
proud to join the gentleman from Texas in support of this resolution to 
affirm the importance of prayer at sporting events at a pivotal time in 
the life of our Nation's young people. There can be no compromise in 
the defense of our commitment to the very principles that have made 
this Nation, the United States of America, the greatest nation on the 
face of the Earth.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, comments have been made about the ability of 
athletes or students to pray voluntarily. There is no prohibition 
against that. In fact, in 1995, a circuit court ruled that students, 
quote, are not enjoined from praying either individually or in groups. 
Students may voluntarily pray together provided such prayer is not done 
with school participation or supervision.
  We are not talking about a student's ability to pray. We are talking 
about the ability of that student to require everyone else to 
participate.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the cosponsors of this 
resolution, and I rise in strong support of it. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for bringing it to the floor.
  Most of the opposition that has been expressed on this this afternoon 
has been more on the process. We have had the complaints that there 
have not been adequate hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary, et 
cetera. That is usually a leading indication that they really cannot 
argue the policy.
  All one has to do is read the Constitution where it talks about 
freedom of expression and freedom of speech, freedom of religion. I do 
not believe anybody in everyday America thinks that a public prayer 
before a football game or some sort of a public event is establishing 
an official religion.
  If one goes back to our Founding Fathers' time and one looks at why 
they put in the prohibition against establishment of an official 
religion, it was because, in many of our States, the Anglican church 
was the official church. If one goes even down to the great State of 
Texas before it became a State, the Catholic church was the official 
church of Mexico, one had to convert to Catholicism to come into Texas 
in the 1820s.
  Saying a public prayer before a football game is not the 
establishment of a religion. It is the acknowledgment that there is a 
supreme being and that those in attendance and those in participation 
wish the protection or the blessing of the supreme being as they engage 
in the contest.
  As a United States Congressman, I have given public prayers before 
football games in Texas. As a football player way back in the dark ages 
of the

[[Page 27984]]

1960s, I have given public prayers during football games. I strongly 
hope that we will pass this resolution by the two-thirds necessary to 
suspend the rules.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a debate that 
bears much more attention than we are able to give it, primarily 
because it involves children, because it involves guiding children. But 
it also involves the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I am the mother of an eighth grade football player. 
Football is an intrinsic part of the culture of Texas, as it is in 
many, many places, as sports are an intrinsic part of America.
  I would simply say to my colleagues that we set, I think, not the 
right tone if we would suggest to those students that they do not have 
the freedom to exercise their beliefs and pray. But I do think it is 
equally important for us to protect the isolated or the single person 
of a different faith.
  That is why I bring some concern to this resolution, not because 
there is not good intention, but because there are the opportunities to 
have a story, such as Plaintiff Jane Doe, II, who was attending the 
seventh grade Texas history class, and her teacher handed out 
advertising regarding a Baptist religious revival, some of which I have 
attended. In fact, tomorrow I will be hosting a number of religious 
liberty activists from the 7th Day Adventist Church.
  But Jane Doe was not a Baptist, and she was inquired about her 
religious affiliation. It was noted that she was from the Church of 
Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, Mormons. Her teacher launched 
into a diatribe about the non-Christian cult-like nature of Mormonism 
and its general evils. In fact, in the Duncanville case, the 
plaintiff's history teacher referred to her as a little atheist.
  I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution emphasizes too 
much that we are separated rather than we are welcoming the diversity 
of religion. It establishes one faith over another. It establishes a 
religion.
  What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to make sure that this 
country is free for all religions. I want the football team to pray. I 
want the Capitol to pray. I want those in the stadium to pray, and they 
have every right to pray. The idea, of course, is that they cannot 
force upon others a prayer that others would not want to have.
  I applaud those young people who are praying, and I think we, as 
adults, should create the atmosphere for them to pray. But I do not 
think we should instruct the Supreme Court to rule against the 
Constitution where it says there is a separation of church and State.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a discussion here that has been premised 
upon some things that we probably are not as sure about because we have 
not had any hearings. I am surprised to hear one Member say that this 
is a very important matter; but, yet, it skips over the subcommittee 
and committee of jurisdiction. We rush it to the floor, and then we end 
up with Members complaining to me repeatedly that the 14th amendment 
does not apply to the States. Now, we prepared a lot of material to try 
to point that out to him, that this has been pretty well settled in 
constitutional law.
  But then I said, why? Why do we need to do this? We are not talking 
about the right of students not to pray. It is how it is done. Students 
can pray at games. They do all the time. They do it in Texas even. So 
this is not an issue about whether one has the right to pray or not. It 
is under what circumstances can prayer be allowed.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, pretty conservative members of the court have found 
that the Constitution forbids school-sponsored prayers, not out of a 
hostility to religion, but to protect the religious freedom of each 
student. In other words, one cannot use the State and the school as a 
State to promote any religion over the other. The entire premise of the 
Bill of Rights is that individual liberty must be safeguarded and must 
sometimes trump the desires even of the majority.
  So it is in that spirit that I close the debate on this side by 
pointing out we are not against students praying, athletes praying, 
prayer at games. That is not the issue. The issue is under what 
circumstance can State-supported institutions use their facilities to 
promote any one particular prayer.
  I urge that Members reject the measure that is now before the House.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on this side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), who is the sponsor of the 
resolution, for purposes of closing.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) for yielding this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out by thanking the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), former high school football star, for joining me 
in this effort as the lead cosponsor. I truly appreciate the work he 
has put in on this bill, and we are hopeful that we will prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, there are parents out there in our communities who are 
crying out for help and crying out for support. A few weeks ago, I was 
in the fall parade in Devine, Texas, which is just a few miles south of 
San Antonio. A young man walked up to me, and told me he was a banker, 
an executive at the local bank. He did not approach me to talk about 
banking regulations or the banking bill now pending.
  He wanted to talk about prayer at high school football games, because 
in Medina County, for generations, they have traditionally opened games 
with voluntarily, nonmandated prayers. They have always opened the 
ceremonies at night by having a prayer.
  He could not understand how we have gotten to the point in this 
country where they are suddenly under a threat of legal action to stop 
them from doing this. He was just wondering what our country is coming 
to when we cannot have voluntary nondenominational, nonmandated prayer 
at our high schools if we so desire.
  I told him that day that I would introduce this resolution, and he 
was just delighted to hear that here in Congress there were many of us 
who were already concerned about this and we were going to at least try 
to take a stand in supporting these parents.
  During this debate, we have talked about how every day we in Congress 
open our sessions with a prayer. We have already talked about how we 
have the words ``In God We Trust'' above the Speaker's podium. We have 
talked about how the Supreme Court opens each session with a prayer. So 
we wonder why the Fifth Court of Appeals would rule that voluntary 
community prayers would be prohibited and under threat of legal action.
  These prayers are not government-mandated events. High school 
football games are community events. They are made up of, not only 
parents, teachers, and students, but sponsors and families from around 
the community. Some of them do not even have students in school, but 
like to come out and enjoy the physical activities of a great tradition 
that we have in some parts of our country.
  These parents, teachers, and students are not asking us to pass a new 
law here in Congress. This is a sense of the Congress that simply 
allows us to go home and tell our constituents that we took a stand on 
this issue that is very important to them.
  So let us not delay any longer. Let us take a stand. Let us let the 
folks back home know that we are on their side in this very important 
issue.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, one of our most fundamental rights is under 
fire in the court system. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 
which presides over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, recently told our 
students they cannot pray before a football game or any other sporting 
event sponsored by their school. This decision is an affront to the 
Constitution and sends the wrong message to our children.

[[Page 27985]]

  I am an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 199, 
expressing the sense of the Congress that prayers and invocations at 
public school sporting events contribute to the moral foundation of our 
nation and urging the Supreme Court to uphold their constitutionality. 
I have consistently voted in favor of prayer in schools because it is 
wrong for the government to tell us when and where we can pray. The 
First Amendment states, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . 
. . ''
  The United States Supreme Court has interpreted our constitution to 
all at least some prayer and religious expression in public schools. We 
have seen, however, that courts and school district officials are 
having great difficulty in drawing the distinctions between what is 
allowed and what is prohibited. With respect to our public school 
system, the government must be neutral on the issue of religion in the 
pubic schools, serving neither as its agent nor as its adversary. 
Therefore, constitutionally, a public school should allow a student to 
pray in school, but should not mandate organized prayer.
  In the decision handed down by the Fifth Circuit, this principle of 
neutrality has been lost. Clearly, a court that prohibits prayers 
specifically at sporting events is not practicing neutrality towards 
religion. It is discrimination of one kind of speech--religious speech. 
Our courts should not ban this form or religious expression or attempt 
to regulate its content.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe faith is essential in establishing one's moral 
and ethical character. I am sure the Members of this House agree 
because we say a prayer every day this House is in session. If Members 
of Congress can say a prayer at the beginning of each legislative day, 
then students should be allowed to say a prayer before a school 
sporting event. After all, our children do not check their religious 
beliefs at the schoolhouse door. We cannot allow a strained, out of 
touch court decision eclipse their rights.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Concurrent 
Resolution 199. Let's give our children the same rights we exercise 
here in the Congress. Let's protect the constitutional freedoms they 
are learning about in class, but currently unable to enjoy at the 
school football game.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and 
agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res 199.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was 
agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________