[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6994-6995]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NDAA AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Russell) offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act 
regarding religious freedom. Many of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have attempted to use this amendment as a wedge in an effort 
to divide the American people. I want to take a few minutes to discuss 
the truth and the facts about its impact.
  In September of 1789, the First Congress considered demands made by 
many participants in the State conventions which called for ratifying 
the U.S. Constitution. In response to many of those concerns, Congress 
approved, by a voice vote, the First Amendment to the United States 
Constitution and sent it to the States for ratification. The States 
ratified it in December of 1791.
  The first two clauses of the First Amendment address religious 
freedom. The first prohibits an establishment of religion so that 
citizens would not be forced to support a national church, as was the 
case in Great Britain.
  The second clause prohibits any government act that inhibits the free 
exercise of religion by a citizen, thereby assuring that the government 
cannot dictate religious beliefs or interfere with citizens as they 
practice and live out their faith.

                              {time}  1045

  Historically, we have a proud tradition of Republicans and Democrats 
working together to protect free exercise under the First Amendment. A 
great example of this is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which 
passed this House by a voice vote in 1993.
  Unfortunately, basic principles of free exercise are under attack 
today. In response, Mr. Russell's limited amendment would extend 
religious liberty protection to four categories of government 
contractors.
  It is important to note that one doesn't lose constitutional rights 
if he or she seeks to become a contractor of the government. Hence, 
contractors are protected in the free exercise of their religious 
beliefs and practices. The Russell amendment makes explicit these 
contractors' rights to such protection in the employment of people who 
work for them.
  So let's look at the Russell amendment. It states: ``Any branch or 
agency of the Federal Government shall, with respect to any religious 
corporation, religious association, religious educational institution, 
or religious society that is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal 
government contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative 
agreement, provide protections and exemptions consistent with sections 
702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . and section 
103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . .''
  Again, note that the Russell amendment is limited to these four 
categories of religious entities, and it does not apply to other 
private entities or individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a landmark civil rights law 
which bans discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, 
or national origin. Title 7 of the act deals with discrimination in the 
workplace. Section 702 specifically protects the four categories of 
religious employers listed in the Russell amendment.
  Hence, the Russell amendment extends to these four categories of 
religious entities when they are working for or attempt to work for the 
government, the same religious liberty rights they have had for over 50 
years when operating in the private sector. This approach is neither 
new nor novel.
  The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 extends many of the same 
rights granted under the 1964 act to people with disabilities. Section 
103(d) of that act allows the four categories of religious entities to 
give ``preference in employment to individuals of a particular 
religion'' and to require that ``all applicants and employees conform 
to the religious tenets of such organization.''
  Again, the Russell amendment extends to these four categories of 
religious entities the same religious liberty rights they have had for 
over 25 years when operating in the private sector to when they are 
doing business in the government.
  The opponents of the Russell amendment say it provides for 
discrimination against the LGBT community. A simple review of the 
amendment and the underlying statutes demonstrates an absence of any 
reference to LGBT persons. Indeed, the Russell amendment is narrowly 
drawn to apply only to the four categories of religious entities in 
their employment of individuals to carry out their work. Any service or 
product produced by such an entity in a government contract would have 
to be provided to whomever the government requires, and that, obviously 
and appropriately, will include those in the LGBT community.

[[Page 6995]]

  Mr. Speaker, if the Russell amendment is discriminatory, then so is 
the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the 1964 
Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  If allowing a religious entity to employ persons who share its 
beliefs is discriminatory, then so are all these other Congresses. It 
is inaccurate to portray the Russell amendment as anything other than a 
narrowly drawn effort to protect religious freedom.

                          ____________________