[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28364-28369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE THAT SYMBOLS AND TRADITIONS OF CHRISTMAS 
                          SHOULD BE PROTECTED

  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 579) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be 
protected, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 579

       Whereas, Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on 
     December 25; and
       Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the 
     establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of 
     religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions 
     of Christmas;
       (2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to 
     Christmas; and
       (3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and 
     traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PORTER. Madam 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 the resolution under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 579, which would 
express the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and 
traditions of Christmas should be protected.
  Each year during the month of December, thousands of homes across 
America are decorated with Christmas trees, lights and festive wreaths. 
Christmas is the most widely celebrated festival in the world, with 
traditions and customs that originated long ago and still are very much 
alive today.
  Christmas has long been for giving and sharing and for coming 
together with family and friends. The tradition is a celebration of the 
spirit of love which is what makes this holiday so popular throughout 
the world. I urge all Members to come together to support and protect 
the pastime and traditions of a holiday that many of us hold very dear.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be able to yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Ackerman) and that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?

[[Page 28365]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 579 expresses the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be 
protected for those who celebrate Christmas. While this resolution 
focuses on the symbols and traditions of Christmas, it gives this body 
an opportunity to consider the lessons of Christmas.
  The story of Christmas is about a child whose conception was, to say 
the least, unusual and whose birth was under the most lowly of 
circumstances. This was a child who lived among and served the needy 
and the poor. This is the lesson of Christmas. Though we have modern-
day symbols of Christmas, Christmas is not only about beautifully 
decorated pine trees and gift-wrapped boxes that lie beneath them. 
Christmas is about goodwill and peace on Earth. It is about tolerance; 
it is about providing for the less fortunate among us.
  We cannot debate H. Res. 579 without considering how our policies 
address homelessness, the uninsured, the poor, the sick, and the 
suffering. Yes, we have Christmas symbols and traditions, but what do 
they really represent if we do not first embrace the spirit and true 
meaning of Christmas: love, peace, tolerance, compassion, goodwill, and 
hope for the future. Those are the true expressions of Christmas.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support 
of my resolution, H. Res. 579, as amended, expressing the sense of 
Congress that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be 
protected for those who celebrate Christmas and that references to 
Christmas should be supported.
  This measure simply states congressional support for traditional 
references to Christmas that I believe are being eradicated from the 
public dialogue.
  Madam Speaker, this is a very busy week in Congress; and we are 
working on some very important measures that impact our Nation. So with 
that said, some may question the importance of this resolution in light 
of other national priorities that we are addressing this week, but this 
resolution is important because it defends the traditions of Christmas 
for those who celebrate Christmas. It is unfortunate that a 
congressional resolution is even needed to do this. It is unfortunate 
that we have had to come to this point.
  Christmas has been declared politically incorrect. Any sign or even 
mention of Christmas in public can lead to complaints, litigation, 
protest, and threats. America's favorite holiday is being twisted 
beyond recognition. The push towards a neutered ``holiday'' season is 
stronger than ever so that no one can be even the slightest bit 
offended.
  Madam Speaker, overzealous civil liberties lawyers are making their 
list and checking it twice. Change the Christmas tree to a Friendship 
tree, check. Change ``We Wish You a Merry Christmas'' to ``We Wish You 
a Happy Holiday,'' check. Remove the colors green and red, check. Get 
rid of Christmas music, even instrumental, check.
  When did wishing someone a Merry Christmas show insensitivity? 
According to a recent poll, 96 percent of Americans celebrate 
Christmas. In an effort to create a generic holiday starting at 
Thanksgiving and ending at New Year's, what are we exactly celebrating?
  The purpose of celebrating the Fourth of July is to celebrate our 
Nation's independence. Why is it not reasonable to say that celebrating 
Christmas is a celebration of Christ's birth?
  This is a selective assault on religious free speech which is a 
fundamental right. The Founders did not view celebrating Christmas as 
an issue of church versus State. It is celebrating a holiday that has 
for thousands of years been celebrated. The framers intended that the 
first amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit 
the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or 
reference to God in civic dialogue.
  From Madison Avenue to Wall Street, from activists and lawyers to 
politicians, educators and the media, a culture is being created that 
shames people for saying Merry Christmas.
  Ironically, many retailers, the same group who flood our mailboxes 
with catalogs and advertisements urging us to purchase gifts for 
Christmas, have done away with the Christmas greeting Merry Christmas 
in their stores. Employees have been told not to say Merry Christmas to 
customers. This is political correctness run amok.
  The attack on Christmas, while not new, has now shifted its focus 
from overtly religious symbols, like the nativity, to symbols regarded 
by most Americans, including the Supreme Court, to be secular symbols 
of Christmas, a federally recognized holiday. Now these innocent 
secular symbols are causing concerns of insensitivity. Santa Claus, 
Christmas trees, candy canes, Christmas carols, even the colors red and 
green, they have been place on the endangered list.
  They say to boil a frog you have to do it gradually because if you 
throw it into boiling water, it will jump out; but if you put the frog 
in cold water and gradually turn up the heat, the frog will never know 
he is being boiled until it is too late, and I am afraid that is what 
is happening to us with our Christmas holiday.
  Madam Speaker, the transition to replace Christmas with this vague 
``holiday season'' is a gradual process that over the past few years 
has reached a new crescendo. Let us protect the symbols and traditions 
of Christmas for those who celebrate Christmas, or before we know it, 
we will be looking at a holiday season that represents nothing and 
celebrates anything.
  I for one do not want to surrender and let retailers, overzealous 
civil liberty lawyers, and the media make me feel guilty for wishing 
someone a Merry Christmas. For generations, Christmas has been a public 
expression of the celebration of the birth of Christ. I hope we can say 
that for many more years to come.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I wish you a Merry Christmas.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, first, let me assure the gentlewoman from Virginia 
that I know she comes to the floor with a pure heart and with every 
good intention. Let me also assure her that I am not the Grinch that 
stole the Christmas tree ornaments.
  That being said, I really do not understand what we are doing today. 
I do not understand why we need to set up a straw man just to knock it 
down, to protect the symbols of Christmas as if they were under attack. 
Is this another war we fight for reasons that do not exist?
  There are people around who need an enemy at all times to try to 
separate us one from the other as Americans in order to advance their 
own agenda. I do not think we should be playing into their hands. 
Nobody is attacking Christmas or its symbols. I enjoy Christmas, sing 
Christmas carols. I do not celebrate the religious significance of it, 
but it is a holiday I tremendously respect, as I do my Christian 
friends, and do wish them a Merry Christmas. But that is not the point.
  What we are doing here is we are selling the American people sizzle 
and providing no steak. We are choosing symbolism over substance, and 
we are not providing substance, which is why I think most of us came to 
the Congress of the United States, not to protect symbols, but to 
protect everybody's rights.
  Now, I know when people want to be inclusive they come to the floor 
and they are very inclusive. I get included in when you want to talk 
about Judeo-Christian traditions or heritage.

                              {time}  1945

  When you want my participation, you know how to do it. But I am 
offended by this. You have drawn me out. Why not protect my symbols? My 
symbols are not protected here. And I am

[[Page 28366]]

not asking them to be because if you came to the floor protecting my 
symbols and nobody else's, I would say, no thank you. Do not protect me 
unless you protect everybody because that is the American way. We are 
doing symbols over substance. We have embarked on a very slippery 
slope, the incline of which might be too steep. We do not know the 
unintended consequences.
  I like Christmas. I like the message of Christmas. I like helping the 
needy and the poor and the least among us. But I did not come here to 
protect the symbols.
  Did something happen when I was not looking? Did somebody mug Santa 
Claus? Is somebody engaging in elf tossing? Did somebody shoot Bambi? 
If you eat venison, are you a suspect? What silliness we engage in, 
protecting symbols.
  If you wanted to protect the message of Christmas, come to the floor 
with real bills with substance. Where is your bill to house the 
homeless? Where is your bill to feed the needy? Where is your bill to 
clothe the naked? Where is your bill to protect senior citizens who 
will not be able to heat their homes this winter? Where is the 
substance? Why are we engaging, in this terrible time in which we are 
in, in symbolism?
  We can be doing something meaningful. Where is the bill for real 
health care? Where is the bill to educate the children that we really 
are leaving behind? We are not doing any of those things. I think we 
could be doing so much more instead of feeding the flames that divide 
us instead of bringing us together.
  I wish the gentlewoman a merry Christmas. I have no compunction about 
doing that. But I do not want my government to engage in the 
foolishness of deciding for people what their symbols should or have to 
be. And I know that it has been amended so that it now reads that this 
is for Christian people. I do not want to be here telling Christian 
people how to observe Christmas. I mean, I did not come here to protect 
toys and tinsel anymore than I came here to protect presents and potato 
latkes. This is not my deal. And we have important work to do that is 
important to real people of all faiths, and people of all faiths should 
not engage in anything that feeds those who would be divisive.
  I know that is not the intent of the gentlewoman, because I think I 
know her heart well. But this is the unintended consequence of bills 
such as this when we go down that path.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
support of House Resolution 579 and the tradition of Christmas. I 
commend my colleague, Ms. Davis, for introducing this resolution.
  As Americans, we enjoy the freedom to practice our own faith. This 
heritage inspired the American tradition of respecting individuals in 
their right to practice their religion, regardless of faith. However, 
it seems that, in recent years, zealous liberals have tried to destroy 
this heritage. It all started when schools would no longer call their 
annual winter recess a Christmas break in order to be politically 
correct. Now, instead, there is a holiday break, in many instances 
thanks to actions of the ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union.
  While this may be a valid point since various religions observe 
holidays around the same time, they would not stop there at the 
erosion. There is a war against Christmas. Our children cannot sing 
Christmas carols. They can only sing holiday tunes. And now, instead of 
a Christmas tree, advertising calls them holiday trees. There is no 
reason why we cannot honor and cherish the traditions of Christmas 
while also doing the same with Chanukah, Kwanzaa or any other valued 
religion celebrated in America. America should never single out a 
religion for the purposes of banning or looking down upon references to 
their holiday celebrations. That practice flies in the face of the 
principles that our Nation was founded on. Instead, we must treasure 
the traditions that remind us of our history and of our country while 
at the same time respecting Americans of different faiths. As such, I 
strongly support House Resolution 579 which recognizes and supports 
symbols and traditions of Christmas.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
resolution.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Dean of the House.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I have a little poem.

     'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,
     no bills were passed `bout which Fox News could grouse.
     Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
     so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.
     Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
     while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
     In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
     and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.
     Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
     Americans feared we were in a fast track to . . . well.
     Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
     a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.
     We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
     hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
     Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
     Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.
     This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
     From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
     What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
     when this is the season to unite us with joy.
     At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
     We don't need a made-up reason to fight.
     So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing 
           blogs.
     You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.
     'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
     With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
     So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,
     a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, happy 
           holidays.
     Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas.

  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, if our Founding Fathers 
could be resurrected and be with us here this evening, they would be 
astounded that we were discussing, debating this subject. Let me 
explain. Most of our Founding Fathers came here to escape one of two 
tyrannies, the tyranny of the crown and the tyranny of the church. In 
the Second Amendment, they address the tyranny of the crown. But that 
is a subject for another day. In England, the Episcopal Church was the 
official state church, and it could and did oppress other churches. On 
most of the countries of the continent, the Roman Church was the 
official state church, and it could and did oppress other churches, and 
our Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that this never could happen 
in their new country. And so in the First Amendment, they wrote the 
establishment clause which means exactly what it said, not the way it 
is frequently interpreted today. Congress shall make no law respecting 
an establishment of religion, no established state religion, please, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not only should there not be a 
state religion, there should be free exercise of every religion.
  But they had no fear, Madam Speaker, of religion. The Continental 
Congress bought 20,000 copies of the Bible to distribute to their new 
citizens. And for the first 100 years of our country, our Congress each 
year voted funds to send missionaries to the American Indians. For 160 
years of its existence, the Supreme Court, up until 1947 when they did 
an abrupt about face, 180 degrees from where they were before in every 
decision relative to this subject, our Supreme Court said that we were 
a Judeo-Christian nation, and they affirmed the right for expression of 
those beliefs. Indeed, 102, I believe, of the first 104 universities in 
our country

[[Page 28367]]

were church schools, including Harvard. Harvard's handbook has an 
interesting note, that the Bible should be the constant companion of 
its students. And for the first hundred years of its existence, about 
half of all of the graduates of Harvard were ministers.
  Madam Speaker, if our Founding Fathers could be resurrected and be 
with us this evening, they would unanimously support this commonsense 
resolution.
  Madam Speaker, we should join them and unanimously support this 
resolution.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I cannot help but note the irony of a bill 
celebrating Christmas or its symbols coming on the floor in a session 
that has just destroyed Christmas for millions of poor people.
  I am going to make a request of this Member, because I know her and I 
respect her and I regard her as a friend. And as a Christian, I am 
going to ask her in the name of interfaith tolerance if she would 
withdraw this resolution because it is needlessly divisive, and I think 
she did not realize when she put it in how divisive it is.
  For example, the gentlewoman said Merry Christmas to you, Madam 
Speaker. I do not know what your background is. But I do not believe 
she would have said Merry Christmas to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Ackerman). And in a real sense, that sums up where our country has come 
simply to be tolerant of the fact that we are from many faiths, and we 
do not want to insult anybody. And I say to you that, far from 
references to Christmas needing to be supported, they are glorified, 
and we all know it. The notion of giving any aid and comport to the Fox 
campaign against ``happy holidays'' would be funny if it were not so 
serious.
  Understand how ``happy holidays'' developed. It developed out of a 
country, first and foremost, where there was rampant anti-Semitism. 
Now, of course, we have many more, we have many more religions and much 
more diversity. It developed simply out of a sensitivity, so we 
developed proxy language, and so everybody feels comfortable even when 
it is not your particular religious holiday. I am not going to go up to 
a brown-skinned person in a turban and say, merry Christmas. I think 
that it is more appropriate to say, happy holidays. Maybe the 
gentlewoman understands why this is important for people who, unlike 
her and unlike me, are not Christians. If you do not want to feel 
guilty for wishing someone merry Christmas, I do not want to feel 
guilty for saying happy holidays to someone whose religious background 
I do not know.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I could not imagine growing up that some day I would be on the House 
floor debating the merits of Christmas, and I certainly have great 
respect for my colleagues and their concern. But what is great about 
America is we can debate Christmas on the House floor.
  But let us talk about a few other things that we do in this House 
that I am very proud that we have done. We have recognized Korean 
Americans and the symbols. We have recognized Filipino Americans, 
ideals, very special weeks that we recognize here on this House floor 
numerous times. Pancreatic cancer, campus safety awareness. As a matter 
of fact, one of our next bills this evening is American Jewish Month.
  And that is what is great about America. We can have this debate 
about Christmas, but certainly there are thousands of Americans and 
there are thousands of people around the world that believe in this 
tradition. I too say ``happy holidays'' in respect to Chanukah. I say 
``happy holidays,'' but I also will say ``Merry Christmas'' because 
that is what December 25 is about.
  Again, I appreciate my colleagues and I think that their point is 
being well considered. I have great respect for my colleagues across 
the aisle, but I think it is a very cherished national holiday; and I 
would certainly encourage that we support this, as we have many other 
symbols and different groups in this country, because that is what 
Congress is about.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I have no question about the gentleman's 
values or his intent.
  Is there any element of this bill that if we substituted 
``Chanukah,'' which you mentioned, recognizing the importance of the 
symbols and traditions of Chanukah, would you find that offensive in 
any way?
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I am not sure of the protocol of the 
debate on the floor.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, he controls the time. He has yielded to me 
for a question, and now I am asking it.
  Mr. PORTER. I would absolutely support a bill that talked about the 
symbols of Chanukah. Absolutely.
  Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield further for another question?
  Mr. PORTER. Absolutely.
  Mr. WEINER. Would you find anything offensive about recognizing the 
importance of the symbols and traditions of Diwali, the Indian New Year 
for Indian Americans?
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I am, again, not certain this is time for 
the debate, but I think we should look at all these groups that would 
like to be considered. Again, this is not a place for the debate, and I 
would be happy to have this discussion.
  Mr. WEINER. It is exactly the place to debate. We are on the floor of 
the House of Representatives.
  Mr. PORTER. But I believe that the gentleman's point is well taken.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, nobody enjoys Christmas more than I. But 
today we have roughly 160,000 men and women in Iraq putting their lives 
on the line for an immoral, senseless war. Here at home many of our 
vulnerable citizens will face a cold, bitter winter because they do not 
have home energy assistance from the Federal Government. Many others 
will not get the health care or education they need because of harsh 
cuts in Medicaid and student loans.
  Naturally, the majority does not want to talk about this, and one can 
always tell when the right wing is in political trouble. They 
invariably cook up some divisive culture war that has nothing to do 
with our real challenges in this country.
  What American families really want is the ability to afford more 
gifts for their children this season regardless of whether there is a 
wreath in the local department store.
  Meanwhile, how many casualties have there been in the so-called ``war 
on Christmas''? Here is a hint: several thousand less than in the war 
on Iraq.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for introducing this 
resolution. I actually share her view and understand her frustration 
when any government attempts to ban secular symbols like Santa Claus or 
Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer or Christmas lights. I do not believe 
that any community should ban those secular symbols as long as they do 
not choose one set of symbols over the other; as long as they are 
inclusive of all symbols.
  My difficulty with this resolution is that it excludes some symbols 
and includes only certain symbols. So I would ask the gentlewoman, in 
the spirit of diversity, and of the many faiths that we celebrate in 
this body and throughout America, I would ask her not to withdraw the 
resolution, but allow this resolution to attract a very significant 
number of votes, maybe a unanimous vote, simply by adding the words

[[Page 28368]]

``Kwanzaa,'' ``Ramadan,'' and ``Chanukah'' to her resolution. Do not 
exclude certain symbols. Be inclusive of all.
  The gentleman just stated prior to the gentleman from New York that 
he would support a resolution that includes the holidays of different 
faiths. So I would take the gentleman up on that offer.
  So, Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman and ask her if she 
would change this resolution, change this language, include Chanukah, 
include Kwanzaa, include Ramadan, include holidays of all faiths so 
that this resolution can reflect the best of America, which is a place 
of justice for all.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would say that the 
reason for this resolution is that the attack has not been on the 
menorah or any of the other symbols of the other religions. But the 
attack has been and is being made on red and green colors, on candy 
canes, on Santa Claus, which are not even religious symbols. That is 
the point of the resolution. And with that I will leave it the way the 
resolution stands.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, this resolution purports to 
protect the symbols of Christmas, but what really needs to be protected 
are not the symbols of Christmas, but rather the spirit of Christmas. 
The spirit of Christmas demands generosity and goodwill towards others.
  Instead of legislation that respects the spirit of Christmas, 
Congress in just these past few weeks has passed a budget that includes 
mean-spirited attacks on the least of us. For those who are hungry, we 
are cutting food stamps. For those who are sick, we are cutting 
Medicaid. For those who are in prison, we are imposing senseless 
mandatory minimums. For others we are ignoring increases in heating 
costs and cutting student loans. At the same time we are cutting those 
programs to help the least of us, we are cutting taxes for the 
wealthiest in society.
  Madam Speaker, we ought to express our passion for Christmas through 
deeds, not words; and we should not be distracted from our 
responsibility to uphold the spirit of Christmas as we consider the 
effects our actions on the Federal budget will have on the least of us 
during this holiday season.
  For these reasons I oppose this resolution.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank the gentleman from Nevada and the gentlewoman from 
Virginia.
  The bottom line is there was a good-faith effort made by the 
gentleman from New York to change ``recognizes the importance of the 
symbols and traditions of Christmas'' to ``the symbols of Christmas and 
Chanukah,'' and you said no.
  It was an attempt to change ``strongly disapproves of attempts to ban 
references to Christmas'' to ``ban references to Christmas and 
Kwanzaa,'' and you said no.
  It was a chance to take this and put it into the words that the 
gentleman from Virginia, the gentlewoman from Florida earlier 
articulated, and the gentlewoman who is the sponsor says that she 
intends. The question must be, why? For someone who does not celebrate 
Christmas, the question looms: Why? Why not say to someone who wants to 
make this inclusive that, indeed, we are going to make it inclusive? 
The symbols of Chanukah are not valuable? Sure, they are, I think. The 
symbols of Kwanzaa are not valuable to some? Sure, they are. I cannot 
imagine why the gentlewoman who is the sponsor of this, who says that 
she speaks from a sense of inclusion, would not want to include those. 
Are those not worthy of being protected? What is the message that is 
being sent?
  The gentleman from Nevada articulated his support. He perhaps should 
persuade his colleague to offer that UC.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I appreciate the comments from our friends across the aisle, 
and I would be happy to cosponsor those bills that were just mentioned. 
They certainly have merit and should be considered by this House of 
Representatives.
  This evening we are here to discuss H. Res. 579, as amended, and I 
believe that it should pass. But I also would suggest we do the same 
for those other religions that were mentioned, from Kwanzaa to 
Chanukah, and there are many others that should be considered at some 
point in time.
  This evening I respect the fact that my colleague has presented this 
resolution and would encourage that Members support it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I am really very saddened by the fact that when given the opportunity 
to expand this resolution that the sponsor demurred. I am not sure why.
  If you do not know and you are saying that you want this to be what 
this is because yours is the religion that has its symbols under 
attack, when was the last time you walked into Wal-Mart and saw it 
saying ``Happy Chanukah''? When did you walk into Toys `R Us and see it 
saying ``Happy Kwanzaa''? Does that give me the right to say that my 
religion is under attack, the symbols of my faith or the holiday I wish 
to celebrate are under attack. It is not, and I am not going to be a 
crybaby and say that it is.
  To tell the truth, it is slightly offensive to see people trying to 
create a war and claiming they are attacked just so that they go on the 
offense instead of the defense.
  This is a prefabricated issue that has no merit. Nobody is attacking 
the symbols of Christmas. Are you objecting to our wanting to be 
included because the symbols of your religion are more important than 
the symbols of anybody else's religion in America? Or is it because you 
think that the symbols of your religion are more official? And that is 
the danger in what we are doing.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  We have had a tremendous discussion. The United States of America is 
a seriously diverse country. I did a bit of research about Christmas 
and found 32 pages about how we sort of evolved to the point of 
Christmas in this country.

                              {time}  2015

  I think the season is a season to spread goodwill. I would hope that 
there would not be a political debate necessarily around the yuletide, 
a political debate, because I was taught, and maybe some of what I was 
taught is different, that Christ was born, and out of that evolved 
Christmastime, and we spread good cheer, and we give hope, and we say, 
happy holidays, we say merry Christmas, happy Ramadan, happy, 
productive Kwanzaa.
  I just could not imagine, though, what it would be like if I could 
not hear Mahalia Jackson sing ``Silent night, holy night; all is calm, 
all is bright; round young virgin, mother and child; holy infant, so 
tender and mild,'' from which I got the impression that the origin of 
this period came.
  So, I would hope that all of us would have a happy Kwanzaa, a happy 
Chanukah, a happy Ramadan, a merry Christmas and happy holidays to 
everybody.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam. Speaker, I am troubled and disappointed that this 
resolution concerning Christmas is before the House today. It is a 
solution in search of a problem, it is divisive, and it comes at the 
cost of substantive issues that should be addressed.
  There is a sad irony in this resolution. Christmas is supposed to be 
a season of goodwill, bringing people together, a holiday that brings 
out the best in us, and encourages us to reach out to our fellow man. 
Instead, this resolution was created simply so the Majority

[[Page 28369]]

could pat itself on the back. It is a straw man, and should not have 
been considered by the House because it is needlessly divisive and 
inappropriate.
  It comes as a surprise to no one, I'm sure, that as a Christian, I 
support and look forward to celebrating Christmas with my friends and 
family. But this is beside the point. More importantly, I support and 
respect the right of my fellow citizens to celebrate religion as they 
chose.
  The House floor should not be manipulated so one group or members can 
revel in their own sanctimony. What makes America a great and free 
society is our system of government and our Constitution, which 
provides each citizen with broad, basic rights and freedoms. One of 
these is freedom of religion. This right treats all religions, and the 
lack of religion, equally. Yet today in this resolution, the House 
singles out one religion over the others, and defends one religious 
holiday at the expense of others. I wish this resolution had not come 
to the floor.
  Just over a month ago, the House of Representatives unanimously 
supported a resolution that I sponsored which stressed the need for 
continuing interreligious dialogue and respect. Rather than 
``protecting'' one specific religious holiday, we should protect and 
defend all of them. And we should honor the right of every citizen to 
celebrate or not celebrate these religious holidays as they chose. We 
should support and protect Hanukah, Kwanza, Diwali, and all other 
religious holidays. It is my experience that the American people are 
much more respectful of each other's differences than the House may 
believe. They do not need to be told to respect the symbols of 
Christmas. They already do, just as they respect other religions.
  Rather than creating a false argument over Christmas, the House 
should honor the spirit of Christmas through its own actions. Christmas 
is not about trees and candy canes, it is about a spirit of giving and 
helping those who need help. If the House wants to do something about 
Christmas, it should protect the various federal programs the Majority 
is trying to cut, such as food stamps, Medicaid, and money to help low 
income families pay their home heating bills. Ending the cuts on these 
essential programs for the poor and disadvantaged in our society would 
truly honor Christmas.
  I will vote present on this resolution because it does not belong on 
the House floor.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, this legislation is an excellent 
example of how the House Leadership politicizes non-issues to distract 
Congress from substantive issues.
  The Federal Government is obviously not opposed to Christmas, an 
annual celebration that has deep significance for those of us from a 
Christian tradition. In that sense, a ``Yes'' vote is appropriate.
  But Christmas is not under assault from the Federal Government; there 
is no need for this resolution. Therefore, a vote of ``Present'' could 
be appropriate; there is simply no controversy here.
  I chose to vote ``No,'' however, because the resolution is flawed. It 
misses the point. Christmas is not being threatened by the federal 
government. Instead, the season that celebrates Christ's humble birth 
in a manger has been commercialized and cheapened by those who 
celebrate it as the retail highlight of the year.
  My sincere wish for the New Year is that House leadership sets aside 
its penchant for distracting and divisive issues to focus on solutions 
to problems that face Americans every day.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, forgive me if I haven't noticed that 
Christmas is under attack. Being Jewish, maybe I am simply incapable of 
judging. Silly me, I thought there were about the same number of 
Christmas trees, both in private homes and public places--that is, 
everywhere. Seems like Christmas music is still ubiquitous in 
elevators, grocery stores, the mall and while on hold on the telephone. 
No? Having just returned from Eastern Market, I still have the sounds 
of real live carolers in my ears, and, as a former community choir 
member, I knew all the words and sang along. (Is it anti-Christmas for 
a Jew to do that? I should check with Bill O'Reilly.)
  Santa was there as usual at Congressmen Barton's and Dingell's 
reception for the Energy and Commerce Committee, and adorable little 
children of Christian conservatives as well as moderates, and yes, even 
Democrats, were sitting on his lap. I thought I observed the same mix 
of awe, fear and delight as in years past, but Jewish eyes can deceive, 
I guess.
  I could be wrong, but I think it would be pretty hard not to guess 
that it is the ``Christmas season'' or that ``Christmas'' is coming if 
you turned on just about any channel, cable or broadcast, at just about 
any time of the day or night. Sometimes those reminders also include a 
request for you to call in and give your credit card number, and do it 
now, because there are only a few more days until ``Christmas.''
  I'm pretty cheerful about responding to ``Merry Christmas'' with a 
``Same to you.'' I can't recall ever scolding anyone in public or in 
private for missing the fact that I don't celebrate Christmas. I do try 
not to say it myself at my synagogue, unless I know for sure the person 
is Christian, and then I try especially hard to say it.
  I'm fond of candy canes. They seem to be available for free in many 
places at this time of year--``Christmas'' time. I try never to pass 
one up. I even try to like fruit cake, understanding it is one of the 
typical ``Christmas'' treats, but I think it may be like gefilte fish--
an acquired taste.
  If there are some Christians who think that Christmas has become too 
commercial--the symbol of Christmas being more the Visa or Mastercard 
than the nativity scene--then I think they deserve to have a serious 
discussion about that. That discussion, in my Jewish view, would be 
best held in church, or at home, or just about any place other than the 
floor of the United States House of Representatives.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage 
of H. Res. 579, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Miss McMorris). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 579, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, how many Members arose?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The count by the Chair is not liable to 
question, but the chair will affirm that she counted more than one-
fifth of those present.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________