[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19766-19774]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2679, VETERANS' MEMORIALS, BOY 
    SCOUTS, PUBLIC SEALS, AND OTHER PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS OF RELIGION 
                         PROTECTION ACT OF 2006

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1038 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1038

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2679) to amend the 
     Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the 
     chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression 
     of religion by State and local officials that results from 
     the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and 
     attorney's fees. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1038 is a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of 
debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives 
all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides 
that the amendment in the nature of a substitute as reported by the 
Committee on the Judiciary shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 1038 
also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, as you and many others may have noticed, if you look up 
from the front podium, in the center of the molding above the gallery 
is a sculpture of Moses, the man who freed the slaves in Egypt and 
introduced God's law to man. Moses is at the forefront of all of the 
great legal scholars depicted in this Chamber because of his 
responsibilities as both a religious leader and the custodian of God's 
law.
  The Ten Commandments are the foundation of common law and the 
``rights endowed by our Creator.'' However, in recent decades, the Ten 
Commandments, religious symbols, and religious liberties in general 
have been under attack. More specifically, they have been under attack 
by the same interests that claim to represent civil liberties and free 
speech.
  On July 19, 2005, a month after the Supreme Court ruled on the two 
Kentucky Ten Commandments cases, United States District Court Judge 
William O'Kelley ruled in my home State of Georgia that the courthouse 
in Barrow County, my daughter-in-law's home, had to remove a framed 
poster of the Ten Commandments and awarded the American Civil Liberties 
Union, the ACLU, $150,000.
  Mr. Speaker, small counties like Barrow cannot afford these costly 
lawsuits; and my daughter-in-law's parents, Emory and Pat House of 
Winder, Georgia, experienced an increase in their taxes to help pay for 
these court costs and the legal fees.
  This past July, we had a debate over legislation to preserve the 
Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, from having 
to remove a cross. Mr. Speaker, one can only wonder how those Korean 
War veterans, many of whom gave their lives for this country, might 
have felt had that cross been removed from their memorial cemetery. 
Thankfully, Mr. Hunter's legislation passed and was signed into law, 
but I am stunned at how far our society has fallen when people are 
compelled to sue a major city to have a cross removed from, of all 
places, a memorial cemetery.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow frivolous and, frankly, 
unwarranted lawsuits to stifle the beliefs and self-determination of 
our great communities. This is a textbook example of an issue that 
needs to be addressed by this Congress.
  I have always believed that one man's rights end where another man's 
rights begin, and we need to draw the line to clarify our first 
amendment and ensure impartiality for legal challenges.
  The rule we are debating today would allow for the consideration of 
H.R. 2679, the Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other 
Public Expressions of Religion Act of 2006. I want to thank Mr. 
Hostettler for sponsoring this legislation and Chairman Sensenbrenner 
for the opportunity to discourage frivolous obstruction to our 
constitutional rights of religious expression.
  The Public Expression of Religion Act would prevent Federal courts 
from

[[Page 19767]]

 awarding monetary relief to parties claiming violations based on the 
constitutionally prohibited ``establishment of religion.'' In addition, 
H.R. 2679 would prevent plaintiffs who have won such claims from being 
awarded attorneys' fees and so-called court expenses.
  However, what is more concerning is when a defendant decides, a city 
or county like Barrow and Winder, Georgia, to settle without 
challenging the frivolous accusations not because they could not win 
but because they cannot match the challenger's legal war chest. H.R. 
2679 will ensure that each party in an Establishment Clause lawsuit 
shoulders its own costs.
  Mr. Speaker, beyond the issue of religious expression, this is an 
issue about lawsuit reform. We need to move away from this current sue-
or-be-sued society, which offers little to no repercussions for those 
seeking financial gain or the advancement of some personal or political 
agenda.
  As many of my colleagues know, before being elected to this Congress, 
I had a career as an OB/GYN physician. Most of my patients thought I 
was a successful, good doctor, but I was in constant fear of medical 
liability lawsuits, like many of my colleagues, and struggled to make 
these exorbitant malpractice insurance payments. As a result, one of my 
primary objectives as a retired doctor now and Member of Congress is to 
help pass medical malpractice reform and, as a direct result, reduce 
the cost of health care. What we have with the Establishment Clause 
litigation is very similar, because the multiple lawsuits tie up our 
court system and they affect everybody.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States Constitution is a revolutionary and 
sacred document on many levels. Our Founding Fathers had great 
foresight when they designed our government. The first amendment is an 
absolute right and should not be misinterpreted to allow these attacks 
on our freedom of religion. The attack on our religious heritage is 
just as wrong as denying a person the freedom to worship. The 
Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. 
And it is my hope that with the passage of this legislation we can 
prevent future Barrow County rulings and preserve our Nation's 
heritage.
  I ask my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the political season is upon us. There is just 1 week 
left before we adjourn for the midterm elections. And what does that 
mean? It means we will shove important issues to the side and move the 
sound bite and wedge issues to the forefront. It means that this 
Congress will become a place where trivial issues are debated 
passionately and important ones not at all. The legislation before us 
is not needed, will not be enacted by the Senate, and, quite frankly, 
is a waste of our time.
  The so-called Public Expression of Religion Act, which should really 
be called the ``cheap political expression act,'' is simply another 
wedge issue brought to the floor by the Republican leadership that will 
be used as a political tool in the November elections. The bill bars 
the award of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties asserting their 
fundamental constitutional rights in cases brought under the 
Establishment Clause of the first amendment. In other words, the Public 
Expression of Religion Act will prevent lawyers from being paid for 
representing people who believe that their religious freedoms have been 
violated.
  Now, there is a legal separation of church and State in this country, 
and we have a court system designed to mediate any dispute over the 
law, including legal disputes over the separation of church and State. 
We have an independent judiciary, and they deserve to do the job the 
framers intended them to do.
  But this bill does not allow them to do the job the framers empowered 
them to do. If this bill is enacted, attorneys will stop representing 
people who feel that their rights are infringed upon because they won't 
be compensated for doing their jobs.
  The fact, Mr. Speaker, is that there are some on the other side of 
the aisle who don't like some of the decisions the courts have handed 
down in regards to the display of certain religious symbols; and since 
they cannot win in court based on rights guaranteed in the Constitution 
of the United States, my good friends on the other side of the aisle 
are now attempting to rig the process in their favor.
  Now, there are decisions the courts hand down that I do not agree 
with, and I can think of a few that the Supreme Court has handed down 
that I don't agree with. But I do not run to the floor of this House 
with legislation overturning those decisions. Mr. Speaker, this is a 
slippery slope that will ultimately cause real legal problems if this 
bill is ever enacted into law.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings of 
Florida, said it best during yesterday's hearing on this rule. He said, 
``I don't understand what's broken.'' Well, let me tell you, Mr. 
Speaker, what is really broken. The way we treat people who need the 
most help in this country is broken. The way we protect our homeland is 
broken. The independent 
9/11 Commission has given us D's and F's in terms of implementing their 
recommendations to protect the people of this country. It is a broken 
process.
  And the way we are perceived around the world is broken. We have 
never, ever been held in such low esteem. The way the people of this 
country view the United States Congress is broken. We have never had 
lower ratings than we do right now, because people are fed up with the 
things that are being brought to this floor.
  Instead of addressing the more important and pressing issues, we are 
forced by the Republican leadership to debate and vote on a bill 
restricting attorneys' fees.
  Where, Mr. Speaker, is a clean bill increasing the minimum wage? The 
Federal minimum wage is stuck at $5.15 an hour, and 9 years ago was the 
last time we raised the Federal minimum wage. Yet this Congress has 
given itself nine pay increases. Where is the legislation implementing 
the rest of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations? Where is the Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill?
  Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't adjourn before we consider these bills; and 
bringing up another bill, attacking lawyers for doing their job, does 
nothing to address these problems.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this partisan political legislation, 
this legislation that is not needed, and instead demand that the 
leadership of this House bring to the floor meaningful legislation. I 
would also urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. It is another closed 
rule. Democracy is dead in this House of Representatives. I cannot 
remember the last time we had an open rule. There is no reason why this 
should be a closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a number of letters from 
individuals and organizations that are opposed to this legislation.
  First, a letter signed by a number of religious and civil rights 
organizations, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination 
Committee, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, 
the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee, People for the 
American Way, the Interfaith Alliance, Unitarian Universalist 
Association of Congregations, and a whole range of other organizations 
opposed to this.
  I would also like to insert in the Record a letter opposing this 
legislation signed by the leaders of the Leadership Conference on Civil 
Rights.

                                          Leadership Conference on


                                                 Civil Rights,

                                               September 18, 2006.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Leadership Conference 
     on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, largest, and 
     most diverse civil and human rights coalition, we urge you to 
     oppose the ``Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, 
     and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 
     2006'' (H.R. 2679). H.R. 2679 would

[[Page 19768]]

     bar attorney's fees to parties who prevail in cases brought 
     under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the 
     U.S. Constitution. It would also make injunctive and 
     declaratory relief the only remedies available in such cases.
       H.R. 2679 is unprecedented. It would, for the first time, 
     single out one area of constitutional protections under the 
     Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement. It would 
     greatly undermine the ability of citizens to challenge 
     Establishment Clause violations, as legal fees often total 
     tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, making it 
     difficult to impossible for most citizens to pursue their 
     rights without the possibility of recovering attorney's fees. 
     In addition, because a prevailing party would not even be 
     able to recoup court costs, it would prevent most attorneys 
     from even taking cases on a pro bono basis.
       By deterring attorneys from taking Establishment Clause 
     cases, H.R. 2679 would leave many parties whose rights have 
     been violated without legal representation. As such, it would 
     effectively insulate serious constitutional violations from 
     judicial review. It would become far easier for government 
     officials to engage in illegal religious coercion of public 
     school students or in blatant discrimination against 
     particular religions.
       If the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are to 
     be meaningful, every American must have full and equal access 
     to the federal courts to enforce them. The ability to recover 
     attorney's fees in successful cases has long been an 
     essential component of this enforcement, as Congress has 
     recognized in the past. As such, we strongly urge you to 
     oppose H.R. 2679.
       Thank you for your consideration. If you have any 
     questions, please contact Rob Randhava, LCCR Counsel, at 202-
     466-6058 or [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                                   Wade Henderson,
                                               Executive Director.
                                                     Nancy Zirkin,
     Deputy Director.
                                  ____


      Oppose H.R. 2679, the ``Public Expression of Religion Act''

                                               September 22, 2006.
       Dear Representative: We write to urge you to oppose the 
     ``Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005'' (H.R. 2679). 
     This bill would bar the award of attorneys' fees to 
     prevailing parties asserting their fundamental constitutional 
     rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the 
     First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This bill would 
     limit the longstanding remedies available under 42 U.S.C. 
     1988 (which provides for attorneys fees and costs in 
     successful cases involving constitutional and civil rights 
     violations) in cases brought under the Establishment Clause. 
     If this bill were to become law, the only remedy available to 
     plaintiffs bringing Establishment Clause lawsuits would be 
     injunctive and declaratory relief. As a result, Congress 
     would single out one area of constitutional protections under 
     the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement.
       Religious expression is not threatened by the enforcement 
     of the Establishment Clause, but is protected by it. The 
     Establishment Clause promotes religious freedom for all by 
     protecting against government sponsorship of religion. While 
     the signers of this letter may differ on the exact parameters 
     of the Establishment Clause or even on the outcome of 
     particular cases, we all believe that the Establishment 
     Clause together with the Free Exercise Clause, protects 
     religious freedom. The purpose of this bill, however, is to 
     make it more difficult for citizens to challenge violations 
     of religious freedom. But with legal fees often totaling 
     tens--if not hundreds--of thousands of dollars, few citizens 
     can afford to do so. Most attorneys cannot afford to take 
     cases, even on a pro bono basis, if they are barred from 
     recouping their fees and out-of-pocket costs if they 
     ultimately prevail. The elimination of attorney's fees for 
     Establishment Clause cases would deter attorneys from taking 
     cases in which the government has violated the Constitution, 
     thereby leaving injured parties without representation and 
     insulating serious constitutional violations from judicial 
     review.
       This bill raises serious constitutional questions and would 
     set a dangerous precedent for the vindication of all civil 
     and constitutional rights. If the right to attorney's fees is 
     taken away from plaintiffs who prove violations of the 
     Establishment Clause, other fundamental rights are likely to 
     be targeted in the future. What will happen when rights under 
     the Free Exercise Clause are targeted? Can we imagine a day 
     when citizens cannot enforce their longstanding free speech 
     rights, or bring a case under the constitution to challenge 
     the government's use of eminent domain to take their 
     property, simply because they cannot hire an attorney to 
     represent them? Surely, these and other fundamental rights 
     might not be far behind once Congress opens the door to 
     picking and choosing which constitutional rights it wants to 
     protect and which ones it wants to disfavor.
       If the Constitution is to be meaningful, every American 
     should have equal access to the federal courts to vindicate 
     his or her fundamental constitutional rights. The ability to 
     recover attorney's fees in successful cases is an essential 
     component for the enforcement of these rights, as Congress 
     has long recognized. We urge you to protect the longstanding 
     ability of Americans to recoup their costs and fees when 
     faced with basic constitutional violations and urge you in 
     the strongest terms to oppose H.R. 2679.
           Sincerely,
         ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights,
         Alliance for Justice,
         American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC),
         American Civil Liberties Union,
         American Humanist Association,
         American Jewish Committee,
         American Jewish Congress,
         Americans for Democratic Action,
         Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
         Anti-Defamation League,
         Asian American Justice Center,
         Asian Law Caucus,
         Asian Pacific American Legal Center,
         Baptist Joint Committee,
         Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,
         Equal Justice Society,
         Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders,
         Human Rights Campaign,
         Japanese American Citizens League,
         Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA),
         Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
         Legal Momentum,
         Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
           (MALDEF),
         National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
           People (NAACP),
         National Center for Lesbian Rights,
         National Council of Jewish Women,
         National Employment Lawyers Association,
         National Gay and Lesbian Task Force,
         National Lawyers Guild,
         National Partnership for Women & Families,
         National Senior Citizens Law Center,
         National Women's Law Center,
         National Workrights Institute,
         People For the American Way,
         Public Justice Center,
         Secular Coalition for America,
         Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF),
         The Impact Fund,
         The Interfaith Alliance,
         The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund,
         The Urban League,
         Union for Reform Judaism,
         Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said the 
Constitution is a sacred document. I agree. And that is exactly why I 
passionately oppose this ill-advised legislation, because it does a 
disservice to the Constitution by making it more difficult to enforce 
the first amendment to the Constitution, which is dedicated to 
protecting our first freedom in America, religious freedom.
  I am glad to join with faith-based groups, such as the Baptist Joint 
Committee, the Interfaith Alliance, along with the American Jewish 
Committee, in strong opposition to this bill. Why? Because this bill 
would make it more difficult for ordinary Americans to denied their 
religious freedom against intrusion by government. For over two 
centuries, the first amendment of our Bill of Rights has protect 
religious freedom for all Americans.
  Listen with me to the words of Thomas Jefferson written in his 1802 
letter to the Danbury Baptists: ``I contemplate with sovereign 
reverence,'' sovereign reverence, ``that Act of the whole American 
people which declared that their legislature should,'' and here he 
quotes the Constitution, ``make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall 
of separation between church and state.''
  Today's amendment would not just chip away, it would chisel away, the 
wall of separation of church and state. It would knock down the 
fundamental part of that wall that was designed to keep government out 
of our houses of worship and out of our own private religious faith.
  Today's amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Time for maximum 
political sound bites, I understand that, just prior to an election. 
This bill claims to protect the public expression of religion, but it 
does not do that. What it does is protect the power of government to 
step on the individual rights of every American citizen when

[[Page 19769]]

it comes to the exercise of their religious freedom, and it allows the 
government to inhibit the individual's right to exercise his or her 
views of faith by using government power to force someone's religion on 
someone else.
  The truth is, this bill undermines the enforcement of the 
establishment clause of the first amendment, which was designed exactly 
to protect Americans from government intrusion into our faith. Now, Mr. 
Madison and Mr. Jefferson knew that government intrusion into religion 
is the greatest single threat to religious freedom.
  And that is why they embedded into our Bill of Rights the fundamental 
principle that government should not use its power to promote anyone's 
religion upon anyone else. The principle of church-state separation has 
been a magnificent bulwark for over 200 years against government 
intrusion into our houses of worship and our private faith.
  Unfortunately, this bill would make it more difficult for citizens to 
protect that religious freedom by using our judicial system to enforce 
the first amendment to the Constitution. In fact, this bill would go so 
far as to say, even if a plaintiff, in defense of religious freedom in 
the first amendment to the Bill of Rights, even if that plaintiff wins 
the case before the United States Supreme Court, that party would not 
be reimbursed for their legal fees.
  Let me remind my friends of faith that should, for example, someone 
not put a 2\1/2\ ton monument of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama 
courthouse, but put a 2\1/2\ ton monument to Buddha in an Alabama or a 
Georgia or a Texas courthouse, this bill would prohibit people of the 
Christian faith, for example, from filing a lawsuit and then recovering 
damages if the Supreme Court said, yes, it was wrong for that county 
judge to put a 2\1/2\ ton statue of Buddha in that Alabama courthouse.
  This bill does not protect public expression of religion, as its 
title suggests. To the contrary, this bill should be called, let's not 
enforce the first amendment to the Constitution, because that is 
exactly what this legislation does. It makes it harder, if not 
impossible, for many citizens to stop the intervention of government 
into our religious faith and our lives.
  By making it easier for government to step on the first amendment 
religious rights of all Americans, this bill does damage to what 
Jefferson called, with reverence, the wall of separation between church 
and state.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe America's greatest single contribution to the 
world from our experiment in democracy is our system of protecting 
religious freedom through the separation of church and state. Our 
system, built upon the sacred foundation of the first amendment, has 
resulted in a Nation with more religious freedom, vitality and 
tolerance than any nation in the world. How ironic and sad it is that 
while we are preaching democracy and church-state separation to the 
Iraqis, right here today in the cradle of America's democracy some 
would try to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.
  If anyone thinks government is a friend of religious freedom, then 
vote for this dangerous, ill-advised legislation during the middle of 
campaign season. However, I would challenge any Member, Mr. Speaker, to 
show me one nation, show me one nation in the history of the world 
where government endorsement and involvement in religion has resulted 
in more religious freedom than we have in America.
  I would be glad to yield any time for any Member who can show me one 
nation where that has been the case. Aside from the clear lessons of 
history that have shown just the contrary, that government is a danger 
to religious freedom, one only has to look at the Middle East today to 
find out the danger we have when we allow government to use its power 
and its money to force religion or anyone's religious views on any 
other citizen.
  Church-state separation does not mean keeping people of faith out of 
government, but it does. And it should, and I pray it always will mean 
keeping government out of our faith. That is what the establishment 
clause of the first amendment is all about. That is why that principle 
was written into our Bill of Rights. And not only the Bill of Rights, 
but the first 16 words of the first amendment thereof. That is how 
important Mr. Madison thought, and the Founding Fathers thought, this 
principle of church separation was to our Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, if I must choose today between standing on the side of 
campaign sound bite politics, or standing with Mr. Madison, Mr. 
Jefferson and the Bill of Rights, I will proudly stand with our 
Founding Fathers and our Constitution.
  Religious freedom is a gift from God. And our Bill of Rights has been 
a magnificent steward of that precious gift for over two centuries. Let 
us not tamper with that divine gift in election season. Vote ``no'' on 
this bill.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talking about the rights of people 
to sue, and that this bill would discourage that right because we are 
taking away the ability to recover monetary damages or legal fees and 
court costs, the American Civil Liberties Union probably files most of 
these lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs. They have said very clearly 
that their motivation is not fees, is not compensation. If there were 
no fees involved, they would continue to file these lawsuits even 
though in many cases of course there are tremendous legal fees and 
court costs awarded, monetary damages.
  I want to just, Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous speaker, 
list a few examples of what I am talking about. I mentioned already in 
my home State of Georgia, Barrow County of the $150,000 cost. And that 
small struggling county elected to defend themselves. And that is what 
it ended up costing them.
  Another example. The ACLU received $950,000 in a settlement with the 
city of San Diego in a case involving the San Diego Boy Scouts. The 
ACLU received $121,000 in Kentucky in a case to remove a Ten 
Commandments monument outside of the capitol.
  The ACLU and two other groups received nearly $550,000 in an Alabama 
case to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse. I could go on 
and on and on. But in regard to rights, this case as we will hear, I am 
sure, from the author of the legislation as we discuss the bill, is not 
about removing anybody's rights under the establishment clause, not at 
all.
  But we are talking about the rights of these small counties and 
cities, which represent a lot of people, and their ability to defend 
themselves when they have not violated the Constitution at all. The 
Constitution calls for a separation of church and state and a freedom 
from the imposition of a state religion, but it does not call for the 
total elimination of religion and the removal of a cross from a 
veterans cemetery in San Diego.
  Mr. Speaker, if we continue down this line, pretty soon Moses will be 
removed from this Chamber based on the same argument. So I say to my 
friend from the other side that we need a balancing of rights. That is 
what this is all about. Let's level the playing field. We are not 
eliminating anybody's constitutional rights under the establishment 
clause.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my friend 
from Georgia that this legislation, that if one reads it, says that 
even if a party has prevailed in the United States Supreme Court in an 
enforcement of the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, that that 
party would be denied legal fees.
  That is why I say this should be entitled, ``let's not enforce the 
Bill of Rights legislation.'' And again, groups such as the Baptist 
Joint Committee strongly oppose this. Why? Because what if that 
courthouse in Alabama had had a judge that put a 2\1/2\ ton statue of 
Buddha in there. Would one not give the citizens of that community the 
right to respond?

[[Page 19770]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me read a line from a letter that was sent to all 
Members of Congress from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious 
Freedom.
  They write: ``The protections of the first amendment, however, are 
not self-enforcing. If someone is forced to sue the government to enjoy 
their constitutional rights, justice and fundamental fairness dictate 
that they be able to recover the legal fees expended to do so.''

                                       Baptist Joint Committee for


                                            Religious Liberty,

                               Washington, DC, September 12, 2006.
       Dear Representative: The Baptist Joint Committee for 
     Religious Liberty (BJC) urges you to vote NO on H.R. 2679, 
     the so-called ``Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public 
     Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection 
     Act of 2006.'' The bill recently passed out of the Judiciary 
     Committee and could be on the floor as early as this week. 
     The BJC is a 70-year-old education and advocacy organization 
     dedicated to the principle that religion must be freely 
     exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by government. Our 
     mission stems from the historic commitment of Baptists to 
     protect religious freedom for all.
       We oppose this legislation that seeks to limit access to 
     the federal courts for individuals seeking the enforcement of 
     the Establishment Clause. To prohibit the recovery of 
     attorney's fees and limit the remedy available to injunctive 
     and declaratory relief would essentially shut the courthouse 
     door to many who seek to defend our first freedom. 
     Enforcement of the First Amendment is essential for the 
     defense of religious freedom. The protections of the First 
     Amendment, however, are not self-enforcing. If someone is 
     forced to sue the government to enjoy their constitutional 
     rights, justice and fundamental fairness dictate they be able 
     to recover the legal fees expended to do so.
       Despite the claims of the bill's sponsor, this legislation 
     does not promote the expression of religion. Instead, the 
     bill undermines fundamental constitutional protections that 
     have provided for a great deal of religious expression in the 
     public square. The Establishment Clause exists to protect the 
     freedom of conscience and to guard against government 
     promotion of religion, leaving religion free to flourish on 
     its own merits. This point was well-stated by former Supreme 
     Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurring opinion 
     in McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU (2005). She noted, 
     ``Voluntary religious belief and expression may be threatened 
     when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself as 
     when government directly interferes with private religious 
     practices.''
       Governmental entities should be encouraged to uphold 
     constitutional values, not invited to ignore them. Yet, 
     passage of H.R. 2679 would encourage elected officials to 
     violate the Establishment Clause whenever they find it 
     politically advantageous to do so. By limiting the remedies 
     for a successful plaintiff, this measure would remove the 
     threat that exists to ensure compliance with the 
     Establishment Clause.
       We urge you to oppose H.R. 2679. The bill is an assault on 
     an essential constitutional freedom. If passed, it would 
     greatly harm religious freedom and set a dangerous precedent 
     for other constitutional protections.
           Sincerely,
                                                 K Hollyn Hollman,
                                                  General Counsel.

  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our next speaker, the gentleman from 
Georgia in his opening remarks, you know, talked about our veterans in 
the context of rationalizing a vote in favor of this bill. So let me 
just talk for a second about our veterans.
  One of the things that is particularly frustrating to so many of us 
on this side is that here we are, about to adjourn on Friday or 
Saturday, and we have not done what we promised to do for our veterans.
  The Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, and almost every Democrat has 
sent a letter to President Bush complaining about his administration's 
record of underfunding the VA by at least $9 billion over the last 6 
years. And the budgets that he has submitted this year reduce veterans 
funding by $10 billion over the next 5 years.
  If we want to honor our veterans, then we should be debating and we 
should be enacting legislation to fund the VA, to give them the health 
care benefits and the protections that they are entitled to, to making 
sure that we have a military construction bill that is adequately 
funded so the families of our veterans and our soldiers do not have to 
live in substandard housing.

                              {time}  1100

  It is frustrating. I mean, it takes my breath away that you waste the 
time of the Members of this House on something like this and you turn 
your back on the fact that we are underfunding programs to benefit our 
veterans.
  You want to talk about veterans. Let us talk about veterans. And, Mr. 
Speaker, I submit for the Record at this point the letter that our 
Democratic leader and every Democrat has signed to the President 
complaining about his horrendous record in supporting our veterans.

 200 House Democrats Urge President Bush To Provide Necessary Funding 
                       for Veterans' Health Care

       Washington, DC.--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and 
     199 House Democrats sent the following letter to President 
     Bush today urging him to provide the necessary funding for 
     veterans' health care in his FY2008 budget.
       Below is the text of the letter:

                                               September 25, 2006.
     Hon. George W. Bush, The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As your administration continues to 
     formulate its FY 2008 budget submission, we write to request 
     that you provide the necessary funding for the Department of 
     Veterans' Affairs (VA) health care system and related 
     benefits programs. Unfortunately, we believe it is necessary 
     to express our serious concern in this matter due to your 
     administration's record of under-funding the VA by at least 
     $9 billion over the last 6 years. We are particularly 
     concerned about veterans funding next year and in the future 
     as your budget submission this year reduced veterans' funding 
     by $10 billion over the next 5 years.
       Providing for our military veterans and their families is a 
     continuing cost of war and should be an important component 
     of our national defense policy. Indeed, President George 
     Washington recognized this point, saying, ``[t]he willingness 
     with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, 
     no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to 
     how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated 
     and appreciated by their nation.'' Mr. President, the time is 
     right for your administration to change course and fully fund 
     the VA, cease efforts to shift the costs of health care onto 
     the backs of veterans, and finally recognize and implement 
     the concept of `shared sacrifice' with respect to the federal 
     budget.
       The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along with the aging of 
     our World War II, Korea and Vietnam War veterans have 
     increased demand for VA services. However, year after year 
     you request inadequate funding for veterans' health care. 
     Each year your budget submission includes proposals to 
     increase veterans' co-payments and fees, essentially taxing 
     certain veterans for their health care. Each year your VA 
     budget fails to request what is needed and relies on 
     accounting gimmicks such as ``management efficiencies'' and 
     inaccurate health care projections. Such efforts are 
     transparent as the true consequences of your administration's 
     budget flaws are being realized by current and future 
     veterans. Indeed, recently VA officials themselves 
     acknowledged that greater funding was needed to care for our 
     servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering 
     from mental health disorders and traumatic brain injuries.
       Mr. President, during your tenure, health care waiting 
     lines have increased, appointments and medical procedures 
     delayed, more than 250,000 veterans have been turned away 
     from entering the VA health care system, and disability and 
     education claims backlogs have grown to unreasonable rates. 
     Moreover, Congress has been forced to add billions of dollars 
     in supplemental VA funding due to embarrassing funding 
     shortfalls.
       What we request of you and your administration is simple--
     provide funding in your FY 2008 budget submission to ensure 
     that our servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan 
     and the heroes from our previous conflicts receive the care 
     and benefits they have earned and deserve.
       Without question, Mr. President, the federal budget is a 
     reflection of national policies and ultimately a reflection 
     of our moral priorities. Please join us in working to provide 
     the necessary resources in the fiscal year 2008 budget to 
     fully fund the VA and to take care of our veterans and their 
     families.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy Pelosi,
       House Democratic Leader.
     Lane Evans,
       Ranking Member, Veterans Affairs Committee.
     198 House Democrats.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has 
been an eloquent, true conservative on the question of the entanglement 
of religion and government, because he expresses what every religious 
leader ought to share, the distrust of government if it seeks to 
intervene in religious matters.
  Religion needs no protection from government in this country. Yes, 
there

[[Page 19771]]

are times when you may need protection if there are people trying to 
interfere physically with your right to worship, but in a free society 
like ours, religion flourishes independently. It does not need the 
government's stamp of approval. What theology says is that for religion 
to be freely practiced, the government has to say it is okay, the 
government has to put forward a symbol.
  So my friend from Texas has expressed a true conservative vision, but 
he did not fully describe how flawed this bill is. I guess he could not 
fully understand the reasoning. He said that, even if you win to decide 
attorney's fees. No, only if you win. Let me read from the bill.
  ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award 
reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a 
claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition against 
the establishment of religion brought against the United States.''
  Now, this is not the most actually honest piece of legislation I have 
ever seen. They describe some of what they are talking about: a 
veterans memorial, not a veterans cemetery. By the way, there is no 
prohibition anyone has ever thought of the families of any veterans to 
put any religious symbol he or she wants on that grave, except there 
was an effort to block a victim who wanted to put the symbol on, but 
they prevailed as, of course, they have to under this theory not just 
of this bill but of freedom of religion.
  But it says the Boy Scouts, a Federal building containing religious 
words, but it also says this bill shall include but not be limited to 
these examples. In other words, the examples are there because they 
kind of add a little spice to the bill because, understand what this 
bill would purport to do.
  Any violation of the Establishment Clause, any activity by a State or 
a Federal agency to establish a religion, to favor a particular 
religion, this is not limited to signs in the cemetery. It says any 
violation of the Establishment Clause, if you win you do not get your 
attorney's fees.
  Now, the gentleman from Georgia correctly said this bill does not 
take away rights. I understand that. I also understand that there is a 
lot of frustration on that side of the aisle that they cannot. They 
would like to take away the rights. This goes as far as they can 
diminishing them.
  The gentleman says, well, the ACLU will be able to do it. Has he 
become an agent of the ACLU, Mr. Speaker? Is he interested in giving 
the ACLU a monopoly on bringing these lawsuits? I am not. Whether or 
not the ACLU is bringing the lawsuit is not determinative. What about 
the right of an average citizen who might disagree with the ACLU and 
who would not be able to pay the attorney's fees? And, again, it only 
applies if you win.
  Now, I know people on the other side have had a phrase that they like 
in tort law called ``loser pays.'' That may be controversial, but this 
one is a lulu. This is winner pays. Bring a lawsuit based on a blatant 
violation of the Establishment Clause, not limited to the examples 
here. It is what the language says. Bring a lawsuit against a State or 
a city or a county or the Federal Government that favors a particular 
religion, that says we are going to teach this particular religion's 
tenets in the school and win the lawsuit and get no money.
  Well, now, obviously that is because they do not trust the courts. 
They think the courts cannot be given the freedom to do this. The 
United States Supreme Court consists of nine members, seven of them 
appointed by Republicans. Six, because I know they do not count Gerald 
Ford, Mr. Speaker. He is kind of suspiciously liberal by Congress 
Republican standards. But Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George Bush 
have appointed six of the nine justices.
  Now, what this bills say is if the appointees of George Bush, George 
Bush and Ronald Reagan decide that there has been a clear-cut violation 
of the Establishment Clause, the person who brought the lawsuit cannot 
get legal fees. It is probably right that the ACLU would not be 
retarded, but, as I said, I agree with the ACLU on many issues. I am 
not interested in promoting them a monopoly over litigation in the 
United States.
  I want to address this notion, too, well, you have freedom of 
religion, not freedom from religion. That is a fundamental 
misunderstanding of the Constitution and history. People who came to 
this country, some of them were objecting to being forced to profess 
other religions or support other religions. Religious freedom means 
that your religious practice, whether it exists or does not exist, is 
none of the government's business. The notion that your right not to be 
religious does not exist is appalling to me.
  The gentleman from Georgia said you have freedom of religion, not 
from religion. Agnostics, atheists, people whose religion you may not 
think worthy, they do not have freedom in this country? What kind of a 
distortion of the principle of freedom is that?
  The notion that you do not have freedom from religion means, 
literally, I guess, that you can be told, okay, look, you have got to 
pick a religion, pick one; you cannot have none whatsoever. That is not 
the American Constitution.
  What we have here is not going to pass, we understand that, and I 
have to say I do not fully agree with my colleagues when they lament 
the fact that we are wasting time. Because given the penchant of the 
majority for atrocious legislation, I would rather have them waste 
their time than use it on something that might become law. Because when 
they do make laws, they make bad ones. So wasting time is better.
  Although I do find it very offensive that in defense of 
constitutional principles we once again have a closed rule. Democracy 
to them is a spectator sport. They want to look at it somewhere else, 
they want to watch it in other countries, but not practice it on the 
floor of the House. A closed rule on a fundamental matter of 
constitutional principle is an abomination.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the author of the bill.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to speak on the 
rule. I will be speaking a little later on the bill itself, as I am the 
original sponsor of the bill and have been since the 105th Congress, 
but I felt it necessary to clarify the discussion somewhat in that, as 
I have heard the discussion, it has focused on some issues that the 
bill does not cover, as well as does not discuss some of the issues 
that the bill is attempting to remedy.
  First of all, the words from the gentleman from Texas suggested that 
this bill had to do with the first 16 words of the first amendment. 
That is not true. The first 16 words to the first amendment say the 
following: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  It has been concluded that there are essentially two clauses to that 
portion of the first amendment. First is the so-called Establishment 
Clause and the second is the Free Exercise Clause. This bill addresses 
the issue of the Establishment Clause and the attorney's fees awarded 
as a result of cases brought regarding Establishment Clauses. It has 
nothing whatsoever to do with the Free Exercise Clause, the last 
portion of the gentleman from Texas' 16 words to the first amendment.
  So with regard to free exercise cases, the Attorney's Fees Award Act 
of 1976 will still apply, and attorneys's fees will still be awarded 
with no alteration of the laws as a result of passage of this bill.
  Secondly, the suggestion was that somehow Mr. Madison left the 
Constitution sterile with regard to the discussion of religion. Mr. 
Madison, who many claim to be the chief architect of the Constitution, 
I believe probably even including my friends from Texas and 
Massachusetts, included in the signatory clause two dates of reference 
for the United States Constitution's approval by the constitutional 
convention. When he said, ``Done in convention by unanimous consent of 
the States present the 17th day of September in the year of our Lord, 
one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the independence of 
the United States of America, the 12th.''

[[Page 19772]]

  So James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution, as well as the 
rest of the delegates who signed the Constitution, gave two dates of 
reference that every schoolchild should know, every public schoolchild, 
private schoolchild, home schoolchild should know, with regard to the 
discussion of the approval of the Constitution of the United States.
  The delegates thought it was so important that these two dates be 
referenced that they ensconced them in the very wording of the 
Constitution. The first primary, most important, date of reference 
would be the 17th day of September, in the year of our Lord, one 
thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven. So the first date, the primary 
date of reference for the delegates of the constitutional convention as 
placed in the Constitution itself, was the birth of Jesus Christ.
  The second important day, the secondary important day for the 
ratification of the United States Constitution was the day that was 
placed secondarily in the signatory clause, and that is the 
independence of the United States of America, the 12th. It had been 
since July 4, 1776, a little over 11 years since that celebration, and 
so they were in the 12th year of the independence of the United States, 
the Declaration of Independence being effectively the birth certificate 
of the United States of America.
  So there would be those on the other side, first of all, that would 
suggest that this bill has something to do with the free exercise of 
religion. It has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. And 
some that would suggest that the Framers of the Constitution and the 
Founders of this country would somehow sterilize government from the 
very mention of religion.
  Now, if someone today in the State of Virginia where Mr. Madison come 
from and Jefferson would suggest erecting a monument to the individual 
whose birth is the primary date of reference for the delegates for the 
approval of the United States Constitution to be later sent to the 
States for ratification would raise a life-size monument to that one 
individual, they would be sued by the ACLU. They would be sued by the 
ACLU, and the ACLU would come to those people and say, we are going to 
sue you, just like they did educators in the State of Indiana. And they 
would say, we are going to sue you and we are going to win, and when we 
win you will not only have to pay your attorney's fees but you will 
have to pay our attorney's fees, too, as a result of the Attorney's 
Fees Award Act of 1976 by erecting a monument to the individual's whose 
birth is celebrated in the United States Constitution.
  Now, that case could go to court, but it probably would not. Because 
those county officials, those officials would have this sword of 
Damocles hanging over their head, meaning we are going to take you to 
court, and when we win, you will have to pay our attorney's fees as 
well.
  The Public Expression of Religion Act would simply say let that case 
go to court, do not allow that sword of Damocles, that notion of 
intimidation to continue and let the case go to court.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts says that we cannot trust the courts 
as conservatives. We do trust the courts, which is exactly what the 
Public Expression of Religion Act allows. It allows these cases to go 
to court. Whereas in many cases they do not go to court, and the 
gentleman from Georgia and others have given examples. They will go to 
court and will allow the cases to go to court, but that is exactly what 
the other side does not want to have happen because let us give recent 
experience.
  In 2005, the United States Supreme Court came down with two 
decisions, the same day, on the first amendment to the Constitution, 
the Establishment Clause, and in those two decisions, they said that 
the Ten Commandments posted on public property, public property paid 
for and maintained with government dollars, was constitutional in the 
State of Texas. Then they said, on the same day, in a different case, 
they said the public display of the Ten Commandments on government-
funded, government-maintained property in Kentucky was 
unconstitutional. Constitutional in Texas, unconstitutional in 
Kentucky. I think the Ten Commandments were pretty well the same. They 
are pretty well the same wherever you read them, but in Texas it was 
constitutional, and in Kentucky it was unconstitutional.
  What the other side does not want to have happen is for these cases 
to actually go to court. Because if they go to court, it is likely with 
the new makeup of the United States Supreme Court that had those two 
cases come out of that Supreme Court, the Texas case would have 
probably been a 6-3 majority in favor of maintaining the Ten 
Commandments in Texas and a 5-4 majority in maintaining the Ten 
Commandments in the State of Kentucky.
  This is an issue of allowing the cases to go to court and not to have 
the threat or intimidation by the ACLU and their minions to hang over 
all of these heads.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I would ask the gentleman, he says 
he is not for keeping these things from going to court. Am I incorrect, 
I had thought that the gentleman from Indiana, when we were on the 
committee together, before I took leave and on the floor, had supported 
legislation in the area of church and state taking jurisdiction away 
from the courts.
  Would the gentleman reconcile for me his support of legislation that 
would remove jurisdiction from the Federal courts, in many cases, with 
his support for letting the cases go to court?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Taking back my time, because in both cases the United 
States Constitution grants Congress the exclusive explicit authority to 
do those things, and that is why I am saying this is the exclusive 
authority of the United States Congress. We have that authority. We do 
not have to be in one particular area allowing the court to consider 
cases. In other cases, we can allow the cases to go to court. That is 
what the legislative process is about.
  And the gentleman has heralded the idea of democracy and the 
legislative process. Today, we continue to exercise that.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) 3 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from 
Indiana did not reconcile the position. He said, we are Congress, and 
if we want to take these cases away, we can. I understand that, but 
that is not consistent with saying they ought to go to court.
  Secondly, there are two parts to this bill. One says you should not 
have monetary damages. That is relevant to his argument about 
intimidation. But the other section says if you bring a claim based on 
a violation of the establishment clause, no matter how blatant, if a 
county or city or any other government entity formally prefers one 
religion over others, one denomination over others, and provides 
funding for that, if you bring a lawsuit challenging that and you win, 
you don't get attorneys fees.
  And the answer again is, well, the ACLU can do it. Again, I am not 
letting only the ACLU be involved here. And that has nothing to do with 
intimidation of the county. The question is, and, again, it is only if 
you win. Let me read what it says: ``No court shall not award 
reasonable fees and expenses to the prevailing party on the claim of 
injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition of the 
establishment clause.''
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. And I can understand that concern, but let me remind 
you that the awards act came in 1976. In 1962, the United States 
Supreme Court struck down the notion of school prayer without the 
attorneys fees award act. In 1963, the Supreme Court struck down Bible 
reading in public

[[Page 19773]]

schools, without the attorneys fees award act. This bill will simply 
allow the cases to actually continue to go to court.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is just nonsense, Mr. Speaker. 
Absolute nonsense.
  There is nothing that keeps the county or the city from defending 
because the other side will get attorneys fees. The gentleman is trying 
to collapse a couple of things. The threat of monetary damages arguably 
would keep you from going to court, but a denial of attorneys fees to 
an individual plaintiff who does not happen to have an organization, 
that is not the fact that the other side may get attorneys fees if they 
win.
  And, remember, the gentleman suggested that people were being 
deterred from bringing lawsuits that they could win, or defending 
lawsuits they could win by the threat of what would be the expense. But 
in this case, you only get the fees if you win. This only denies 
successful plaintiffs the fees.
  So that is what this bill does. It has nothing to do with keeping it 
from going to court. It is trying to discourage things from going to 
court. I guess what they say is, you can't bring such a lawsuit unless 
you get the ACLU. If you are an individual that has a different theory 
about this, and you don't have the money for an attorney, you can't go 
to court. And the gentleman said, well, that is whatever happened 
before the 1976 act. Singling out one class of cases for the denial of 
attorneys fees when every other one gets them does seem to me an odd 
way to run a constitution. This right and that right.
  And, by the way, no one should think that if this ever became law, 
which, of course, no one thinks it will, that it would stop here. There 
would be other unfavored rights where a minority would be at risk, 
where you would be denied legal fees. So let's not collapse two issues. 
This has no deterrent effect, the part about attorneys fees. It is an 
effort on the other side to keep people out of court in case they might 
win.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana for the purpose of clarification and response to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentleman from Massachusetts concluded his 
remarks by saying this is going to keep people out of the courts. In 
fact, the precedent is just the opposite. In 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, 
the United States Supreme Court said, 14 years before the attorneys 
fees award act was put into place, that the state sanctioning of prayer 
in public schools was unconstitutional. In 1963, 13 years before the 
attorneys fees award acts came into play, the United States Supreme 
Court held it was unconstitutional to have Bible reading in public 
schools.
  This will not change anything from what happened before this law was 
created that we are amending today. The same things will happen. And 
this bill, most importantly, does not remove injunctive relief. If it 
is the desire of the plaintiff to stop an activity or to remove a 
monument or remove a display, this bill does nothing to stop that from 
taking place. The injunctive relief available in all of these cases 
continues to be available in establishment clause cases.
  And, in fact, the court can say, remove the monument, stop the 
practice. This bill does not change that, and I want to make that 
clarification.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I appreciate this eloquent defense 
of his bill that it doesn't do very much, but I do question that. And I 
understand your concern about monetary damages; but if the restriction 
on attorneys fees only for the party that wins in a case doesn't do 
anything, what is it in here for?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. And that is perfect, so the gentleman can support my 
bill. I appreciate that, which is why it does something very important, 
which is why the gentleman and his cohorts are opposing the bill, 
because they understand that by removing the chilling effect on these 
closed-door sessions with county commissioners, with schoolteachers, 
with mayors and the like, without that ability for the ACLU and others 
to go into these closed-door sessions and say, Mayor, we are going to 
sue you, we are going to win, and you are going to have to pay our 
attorneys fees, that without that chilling effect, these cases will go 
to court.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I feel like I am in Dickens, the artful 
dodger is apparently about to leave.
  I repeat the question: If banning attorneys fees from people who win 
a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the establishment clause, 
which this bill does, doesn't do anything, what is it in there for? Is 
it just an expression of dislike for people who happen to enforce a 
part of the Constitution that people on the other side don't like? What 
is it in there for?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. From the gentleman's perspective, because of the 
benign nature and virtual nonutilitarian nature of the bill, please 
support it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman please answer the 
question? He asked me to yield. Why are you banning attorneys fees from 
people who win a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the 
establishment clause? Why are you doing that?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Because a blatant violation is determined by a court 
of law.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But the gentleman is for letting it go to 
court, I thought.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. We are letting them go to court. That is exactly 
right, we are going to let them go to court. A blatant violation is 
determined by a court of law and not by ACLU attorneys behind closed 
doors.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. And only under this bill, if you bring a 
lawsuit and you win, and the court decides that you are correct and 
there was a blatant violation of the establishment clause, you don't 
get your attorneys fees, and I still don't understand why.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, there is nothing benign 
about this bill. This bill makes it more difficult to enforce the first 
amendment to the Constitution and the very words thereof designed to 
protect religious freedom of every measurement.
  I want to thank my colleague from Indiana, who is leaving at the 
moment, for clarifying the point that this bill now is only intended to 
make it more difficult to enforce the first 10 words of the Bill of 
Rights rather than make it more difficult to enforce the first 16 words 
of the Bill of Rights.
  But let me express a very heartfelt difference of opinion. When the 
gentleman said this bill has nothing to do with the free exercise of 
religion, nothing could be further from the truth. That is why Mr. 
Jefferson and Mr. Madison and our Founding Fathers built in, embedded, 
into the foundation of the Constitution the principle that we want to 
keep government out of our houses of worship and out of our personal 
faith.
  The greatest single threat to the free exercise of religion is 
government. And if the gentleman doesn't believe that, then I would 
suggest he denies history.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman if he can name 
me one nation anywhere in the world today that has more religious 
freedom than the United States of America because it allows government 
intervention into houses of worship and peoples private religious 
affairs. Can the gentleman name one nation?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. I cannot name one. Will the gentleman yield for a 
discussion?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I didn't think you could.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. First of all, Mr. Jefferson was in France during the 
approval process of the Bill of Rights.

[[Page 19774]]


  Mr. EDWARDS. Let me take back my time, because that is misleading. 
Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison debated for 10 years in the Virginia 
legislature the principle of church-state separation, and it was 
absolutely the core idea behind the 16 words of the Bill of Rights. So 
while he was in France, to suggest that Mr. Jefferson didn't endorse 
this principle is wholly wrong, evidence of which is Mr. Jefferson's 
letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 where he didn't just endorse 
this principle, he said he considers it with ``sovereign reverence.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Historically, I know the gentleman from 
Indiana previously had a location issue on Mr. Jefferson, but he was in 
France during the debate on the Constitution. You said he was in France 
during the debate on the Bill of Rights. I don't think that is 
accurate. I know there were slow boats then, but I think he had gotten 
back by that time.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. He was not in France during the ratification by the 
States of the Bill of Rights, but he was in France during the approval 
by the Congress of the Bill of Rights, which took place 2 years prior.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Taking back my time, if the gentleman is trying to 
suggest that Thomas Jefferson didn't endorse the principle of church-
state separation, I would remind my colleague it was Thomas Jefferson 
who was the first American to use the term ``wall of separation between 
church and state.''
  I would reiterate my key points.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. History gets 
misused and used as a tool, but I think one thing is very clear. The 
people who are pushing this, had they been contemporaries of Thomas 
Jefferson wouldn't have been great fans of his.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I think it does disservice to the 
importance of this issue of religious freedom that out of 435 Members 
of the House, we are debating it in 1 hour, something Mr. Madison and 
Mr. Jefferson spent 10 years debating in the Virginia legislature. We 
are debating this in 1 hour, with 4 or 5 Members of the House on this 
floor. I think that, frankly, in my book, is a sacrilege.
  There is no greater principle in American democracy than religious 
freedom. It is the first freedom upon which all other freedoms are 
built. If one thinks government involvement in religion protects 
religious freedom, then I would suggest you vote for this ill-advised 
and dangerous piece of legislation. If one agrees with our Founding 
Fathers, with the Bill of Rights, the first 16 words thereof, with Mr. 
Madison and Mr. Jefferson, that the greatest threat to religious 
freedom in this world is government intrusion into religion, I would 
suggest you vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  This legislation is a direct effort to make it more difficult to 
enforce the Bill of Rights, and that is wrong. That is why we should 
vote ``no.''
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I 
reserve my time for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the gentleman from Texas for making clear what this 
bill is trying to do, which is to undermine the Constitution. It is 
frightening to see what could potentially happen should the other side 
gain seats in the next election.
  I also think it is frustrating and I think it is offensive that we 
all know this bill is going nowhere and that we are taking our time up 
debating this when we should be debating ways to improve the quality of 
life for our veterans and raising the minimum wage and a whole bunch of 
other things.
  One final thing. We have heard the word democracy mentioned several 
times over there. All the rules in this Congress that have been 
reported out by the Rules Committee, with the exception of 
appropriations bills, have been closed, with the exception of one bill. 
It is about time we had a little democracy in this House of 
Representatives.
  If you respect the Constitution and you respect this institution, we 
need to have a different process.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to once again thank Mr. 
Hostettler for sponsoring the Public Expression of Religion Act and 
Chairman Sensenbrenner for bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the principles of life, liberty, and property make up 
the foundation of our constitutional Republic. Under liberty, we are 
guaranteed the freedom to worship as we please, a freedom that should 
be protected and not taken for granted. The freedom of religion is one 
of the positive social institutions in our country, and we should 
encourage this constitutional protection throughout the world.

                              {time}  1130

  Almost every State in the Union has chosen to acknowledge God within 
its State constitutions. However, too often today, overzealous courts 
have infringed upon an individual's right to worship. Courts have 
attempted to ban holiday decorations reflecting religious traditions 
such as Christmas carols or Hanukkah songs from school events. Federal 
courts have demanded the removal of the Ten Commandments from 
courthouses across our country, sought to remove the words ``in God we 
trust'' from our currency, as well as remove emblems from State seals, 
flags and logos.
  As I stated earlier, these attacks on our religious heritage are 
frivolous and unwarranted. For every decision a court makes, there are 
countless out-of-court settlements and even more pending lawsuits aimed 
at removing anything that acknowledges a divine authority.
  The debate over religious freedom is old and contentious, but it 
should be fair. When organizations like the ACLU are rewarded, 
rewarded, for filing lawsuits, it is not a fair debate. Congress needs 
to close that loophole, to restore impartiality to our system of 
justice, and it needs to act on preventing frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 
2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act, will help protect the 
freedom of religion, restore impartiality and reduce lawsuits.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this rule and support 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________