[House Report 107-143]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-143

======================================================================







 
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON LETTER TO 
  TOURO SYNAGOGUE IN NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND, WHICH IS ON DISPLAY AT THE 
  B'NAI B'RITH KLUTZNICK NATIONAL JEWISH MUSEUM IN WASHINGTON, DC, IS ONE 
  OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EARLY STATEMENTS BUTTRESSING THE NASCENT 
  AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

                                _______
                                

   July 17, 2001.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                     [To accompany H. Con. Res. 62]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 62) expressing the sense of 
Congress that the George Washington letter to Touro Synagogue 
in Newport, Rhode Island, which is on display at the B'nai 
B'rith Klutznick National Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, is 
one of the most significant early statements buttressing the 
nascent American constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the concurrent resolution be 
agreed to.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Vote of the Committee............................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     4
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     4
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     4
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     4
Markup Transcript................................................     6
    The amendment is as follows:
    In the preamble after the sixth clause insert the 
following:

    Whereas the text of George Washington's letter to Touro Synagogue 
states:
            ``Gentlemen:
            ``While I receive with much satisfaction, your Address 
        replete with expressions of affection and esteem, I rejoice in 
        the opportunity of answering you, that I shall always retain a 
        grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my 
        visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.
            ``The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which 
        are past, is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that 
        they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. 
        If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with 
        which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just 
        administration of a good Government, to become a great and a 
        happy people.
            ``The Citizens of the United States of America have a right 
        to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of 
        an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. 
        All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of 
        citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as 
        if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that 
        another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. 
        For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to 
        bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires 
        only that they who live under its protection, should demean 
        themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions 
        their effectual support.
            ``It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my 
        character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable 
        opinion of my administration, and fervent wishes for my 
        felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell 
        in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the 
        other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under 
        his own wine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him 
        afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not 
        darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations 
        useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly 
        happy.'';

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H. Con. Res. 62 is to express the sense of 
Congress that George Washington's letter to Touro Synagogue in 
Newport, Rhode Island, which is on display at the B'nai B'rith 
Klutznick National Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, is one of 
the most significant early statements buttressing the nascent 
American constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. H. Con. 
Res. 62 also calls for the text of the letter to be widely 
circulated, serving as an important tool for teaching tolerance 
to children and adults alike.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    The Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island is the oldest 
Jewish house of worship in the United States. When it was 
dedicated in December 1763, Jewish families had already resided 
in Newport for over 100 years. These families were drawn to the 
American colonies, and Rhode Island in particular, by the 
promise of starting a new life where they could practice their 
religious beliefs freely and without persecution. They chose 
Rhode Island, in part, because of its tradition of religious 
freedom. Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams, who is 
described as one of ``the first of his era to espouse the 
principle of religious freedom.'' \1\ In 1641, its Legislature 
ordered that ``none be accounted a delinquent for doctrine,'' 
making Rhode Island--similar to Virginia--an example of how 
American colonies secured religious freedom for their 
residents.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 788 n.5 (1983).
    \2\ Michael W. McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding 
of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1426. However, 
Virginia's efforts to secure religious liberty for its residents are 
considered to be more analogous to the First Amendment's religious 
liberty provisions because article 16 of its 1776 Declaration of Rights 
is considered to be the precursor to both the Free Exercise and 
Establishment Clauses. See Chambers, 463 U.S. at 788 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As George Washington commenced his term as the first 
President of the United States of America, Moses Seixas, warden 
of Touro Synagogue, sent what has become the most famous of 
congratulatory notes to the new President. In August 1790, 
Washington responded to the Synagogue's letter:

        The Citizens of the United States of America have a 
        right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind 
        examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy 
        worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of 
        conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no 
        more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the 
        indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed 
        the exercise of their inherent natural rights.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ President George Washington, George Washington Letter to the 
Touro Synagogue, Aug. 1790 (on file with the Subcomm. on the 
Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary).

    Washington's letter then repeated the following statement 
made by Seixas in the Synagogue's letter to Washington: ``For 
happily the Government of the United States, which gives to 
bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires 
only that they who live under its protection, should demean 
themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions 
their effectual support.'' \4\ The President concluded: ``May 
the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, 
continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other 
inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own 
wine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him 
afraid.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H. Con. Res. 62 recognizes that the Washington letter is 
``one of the most significant early statements buttressing the 
nascent American constitutional guarantee of religious 
freedom'' and is, therefore, ``an important tool for teaching 
tolerance to children and adults alike.'' This understanding of 
Washington's letter is consistent with the understanding of the 
First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty revealed by 
the acts and statements of those who drafted the Bill of 
Rights--many of whom were still active in government at the 
time of Washington's letter.
    When Washington authored his letter in August 1790, it had 
been less than a year since final agreement had been reached on 
the language of the Bill of Rights, including the First 
Amendment.\6\ The same day that language was approved, the 
House of Representatives ``resolved to request the President to 
set aside a Thanksgiving Day to acknowledge `the many signal 
favors of Almighty God.' '' \7\ Three days before that language 
was approved, Congress authorized the appointment of paid 
chaplains to open each session with prayer.\8\ When placed 
within this historical context, George Washington's letter 
reflects the intent of the Framers of the Bill of Rights--that 
the First Amendment nurture a society within which religious 
beliefs and practices would flourish while at the same time 
vigorously protect the freedom of conscience of all citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Chambers, 463 U.S. at 788. Agreement was reached on Sept. 25, 
1789. Id.
    \7\ Chambers, 463 U.S. at 788 n.9.
    \8\ Id. James Madison, one of the leading advocates of religious 
freedom in the colonies who participated in drafting the Establishment 
Clause, was appointed to the Senate committee created to ``take under 
consideration the manner of electing Chaplains'' and voted for the bill 
authorizing payment of the chaplains. Id. n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H. Con. Res. 62.

                        Committee Consideration

    On June, 28, 2001, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H. Con. Res. 62 with 
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    There were no recorded votes. An amendment offered by Mr. 
Hostettler passed by voice vote. The amendment inserts the text 
of the Washington letter into the concurrent resolution 
language. The bill was ordered reported favorably by voice 
vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    H. Con. Res. 62 does not authorize funding. Therefore, 
clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House is 
inapplicable.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that 
the bill will have no cost for the current fiscal year, and 
that there will be no cost incurred in carrying it out over the 
next five fiscal years.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, section 8, clause 18 of the 
Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    The first preambular clause provides that George Washington 
responded to a letter sent by Moses Seixas, warden of Touro 
Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, in August 1790.
    The second preambular clause provides that Touro Synagogue, 
the oldest Jewish house of worship in the United States, and 
now a national historic site, was dedicated in December 1763, 
and that Jewish families had been in Newport for over 100 years 
before that date.
    The third preambular clause provides that these Jewish 
families, some of whom were Marranos, came to the United States 
with hopes of starting a new life in this country, where they 
could practice their religious beliefs freely and without 
persecution.
    The fourth preambular clause provides that these Jewish 
families were drawn to the Colony of Rhode Island and the 
Providence Plantations because of Governor Roger Williams' 
assurances of religious liberty.
    The fifth preambular clause provides that the letter sent 
to George Washington from Touro Synagogue is the most famous of 
many congratulatory notes addressed to the new president by 
American Jewish congregations.
    The sixth preambular clause provides that Seixas 
articulated the following principle, which Washington repeated 
in his letter: ``For happily the government of the United 
States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no 
assistance; requires only that they who live under its 
protection, should demean themselves as good citizens, in 
giving it on all occasions their effectual support.''
    The seventh preambular clause includes the text of George 
Washington's letter to Touro Synagogue.
    The eighth preambular clause provides that this was the 
first statement of such a principle enunciated by a leader of 
the new United States Government.
    The ninth preambular clause provides that this principle 
has become the cornerstone of United States religious and 
ethnic toleration as it has developed during the past two 
centuries.
    The tenth preambular clause provides that the original 
letter is on display as part of the permanent collection of the 
B'nai B'rith Klutznick National Jewish Museum in Washington, DC
    The eleventh preambular clause provides that Americans of 
all religious faiths gather at Touro Synagogue each August on 
the anniversary of the date of the letter's delivery and at the 
Klutznick Museum on George Washington's birthday to hear 
readings of the letter and to discuss how the letter's message 
can be applied to contemporary challenges.
    The resolved clause provides that it is the sense of the 
House of Representatives, with the Senate concurring, that
    (1) the George Washington letter sent to Touro Synagogue in 
Newport, Rhode Island, in August 1790, which is on display as 
part of the permanent collection of the B'nai B'rith Klutznick 
National Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, is one of the most 
significant early statements buttressing the nascent American 
constitutional guarantee of religious freedom; and
    (2) the text of the George Washington letter should be 
widely circulated, serving as an important tool for teaching 
tolerance to children and adults alike.

                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                        THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2001

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. 
Without objection, the Chair is given the authority to grant or 
call recesses at any point in today's markup. A working quorum 
is present.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up the concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 62 for purposes of markup, and move 
its favorable recommendation to the full House. Without 
objection, the concurrent resolution will be considered as read 
and open for amendment at any point.
    [The bill, H. Con. Res. 62, follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I will yield myself 5 minutes. H. 
Con. Res. 62 expresses the sense of Congress that the George 
Washington letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode 
Island, which is on display at the B'nai B'rith Klutznick 
National Jewish Museum here in Washington, DC, is one of the 
most significant early statements buttressing the nascent 
American constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. And it 
calls for the text of the letter to be widely circulated, 
serving as an important tool for teaching tolerance to children 
and adults alike.
    The Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island is the oldest 
Jewish house of worship in the United States. It was dedicated 
in December 1763, at which point Jewish families had resided in 
Newport for over 100 years. These families were drawn to the 
American colonies and to Rhode Island in particular by the 
promise of starting a new life where they could practice their 
religious beliefs freely and without persecution. Founded by 
Roger Williams, who was among the first of his era to espouse 
the principle of religious freedom, Rhode Island, like 
Virginia, is looked upon as an example of how the American 
colonies secured religious liberty and freedom of conscience 
for its residents.
    As George Washington commenced his term as the first 
President of the United States, Moses Seixas, warden of the 
Touro Synagogue, sent what became the most famous of 
congratulatory notes to the new President. In August 1790, 
Washington responded to the synagogue's letter as follows. 
Quote: ``The citizens of the United States of America have a 
right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind 
examples of an enlarged and liberal policy, a policy worthy of 
imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and 
immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is 
spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people 
that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural 
rights,'' unquote.
    Washington's letter then repeated the following statement 
made by Seixas in the synagogue's letter to Washington. Quote: 
``For happily the Government of the United States which gives 
to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, and 
requires only that they live under its protection, should 
demean themselves as good citizens, and giving at all occasions 
their effectual support,'' unquote.
    The President concluded, quote: ``May the children of the 
stock of Abraham who dwell in this land, continue to merit and 
enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants while everyone 
shall sit in safety under his own wine and fig tree, and there 
shall be none to make him afraid,'' unquote.
    H. Con. Res. 62 expresses the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the Washington letter is one of the most 
significant early statements buttressing the American 
constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, and is, 
therefore, an important tool for teaching tolerance to children 
and adults alike. Such an understanding of Washington's letter 
is consistent with the understanding of the First Amendment's 
guarantee of religious liberty that is revealed by the 
contemporaneous acts and statements of those who drafted and 
approved the Bill of Rights, many of whom were still active in 
government at the time of Washington's letter. When Washington 
authored his letter in August 1790, it had been less than a 
year since the final agreement had been reached on the language 
of the Bill of Rights including the First Amendment. Three days 
before agreement was reached on the language, Congress 
authorized the appointment of paid chaplains to open each 
session with prayer, and less than a week later the House of 
Representatives resolved to request the President to set aside 
a Thanksgiving Day to acknowledge the many signal favors of 
Almighty God.
    When placed in this historical, George Washington's letter 
reflects the intent of the Framers of the Bill of Rights that 
the First Amendment vigorously protect the freedom of 
conscience of all citizens, while at the same time nurture 
communities within which religious beliefs and practices would 
flourish.
    I, therefore, urge the Committee to approve Congressman 
Kennedy's resolution, and yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, let me explain that our Ranking 
Member is busy at this point testifying on important matters in 
the Senate and hopes to join us as soon as possible. We 
appreciate your giving prompt attention to that resolution. As 
someone whose district borders the State of Rhode Island, I 
know how important this tradition, this beginning of the 
tradition of opposing bigotry is in Rhode Island. It's very 
important to--to Jewish people as one of the earliest examples 
of the principle of freedom from religious discrimination. So 
we appreciate your giving this such prompt treatment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members may 
insert statements in the record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
           Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding the markup of H Con Res. 62, 
a resolution that recognizes one of the most significant statements on 
religious understanding and equality made in early America. I thank 
Representatives Kennedy and Langevin for their work on introducing this 
bill and for bringing our attention to this letter. It is undoubtedly 
no coincidence that we discuss this bill on the same day we discuss HR 
7, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives bill.
    This letter, which is now on display at the B'nai B'rith Klutznick 
National Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. In August, 1790, George 
Washington sent this letter to the Touro Synagogue, a national historic 
site in Newport, Rhode Island and the oldest Jewish house of worship in 
the United States, today operating as an Orthodox synagogue; it was 
previously known as Yeshuat Israel, meaning ``the salvation of 
Israel.'' Washington affirmed that our government ``gives to bigotry no 
sanction, to persecution no assistance.'' This phrase has captured the 
hearts and souls of the different races and religions in the United 
States. The letter is read every year at the synagogue in a ceremony of 
reminder of the nation's commitment to the freedom of worship.
    As many of you may recall from your history lessons, Rhode Island 
has a tradition of religious liberty, as it began as a refuge for those 
who sought haven from religious persecution. Roger Williams founded 
Rhode Island after he was banished from Puritan Massachusetts Bay 
Colony. Williams himself eloquently stated that ``No man should be 
molested for his conscience.''
    Sephardic Jews then settled Newport with roots in Spain and 
Portugal. Many were Jews who had to covert to Christianity in Europe to 
avoid persecution, people such as Arthur Lopez, who remarried in 
accordance with the Jewish tradition after he immigrated to Newport.
    It is this spirit of the freedom of worship that today permits Jews 
to display their mezuzahs on their doorways and yalmukes on their heads 
with little fear of retribution for displaying the symbols of their 
religious beliefs. And this freedom of worship is what constitutionally 
protects all religious worship from government interference. As we 
discuss HR 7, we must keep these principles in mind.
    Chairman, I soundly support this resolution and encourage my 
colleagues do join me. Thank you.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments?
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to be very, very, 
very, extremely careful in how I say this. I've been put in 
this position many times. When I was in the State legislature 
we used to pass laudatory resolutions, praising people, and 
when we were in the State legislature, we could just get up and 
take a walk when we were feeling uncomfortable. And I'm not 
going to vote against this resolution today. I think I'm going 
to exercise my right to get up and take a walk.
    But for us to be applauding statements discussing bigotry 
that were written by a person who owned slaves is a little bit 
more than I can, without a churning stomach, be able to 
tolerate. I mean, I--it's the same standard I applied in the 
State legislature. I used to always ask, ``Did this guy used to 
own slaves?'' And I'm sure he did magnificent things and 
wonderful things, and I don't want to denigrate the value of 
the purpose that you are trying to achieve here. I think it's a 
laudable purpose. This letter can be used as a--as a method of 
demonstrating to young people the value of tolerance, but we 
should also keep in context the reality that there is--there is 
substantial pain still among many of the people in our country 
about this chapter in our history, and to honor words that were 
written that apparently didn't have the--the substance that the 
words themselves suggest that they would have, is a little bit 
more than I can do. So I'm just going to excuse myself and 
pretend that----
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. I'm happy to yield to my colleague.
    Mr. Frank. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I must say 
that I am a little chagrined that I had not thought about it in 
this context. I think he's absolutely right. I wish this 
resolution had been reworded, and perhaps maybe it can be 
before it gets to the floor, to talk about the sentiments 
without giving the false impression that they were unduly 
followed excessively, and I thank the gentleman for making what 
I think is a very profound point.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Watt. Yes. Yes, I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments?
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You have an amendment?
    Mr. Hostettler. I've got an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H. Con. Res. 62 offered by Mr. 
Hostettler, In the preamble after the sixth clause, insert the 
following.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    [The amendment to H. Con Res. 62 offered by Mr. Hostettler 
follows:]


    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 
bringing this bill as the start of our markup here today. I 
think it is the most appropriate way to begin our session. This 
resolution recognizes the wisdom of our founding fathers in 
establishing our great Nation in order to form, not possibly a 
perfect union at that time, but a more perfect union. All my 
amendment does is to insert the text of the Washington letter 
into the bill's language. I think it is appropriate to include 
what was actually said as we pay tribute to our first 
President's wisdom.
    Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the adoption of 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Hostettler. Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to. Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the real 
import of the letter from George Washington to the Touro 
Synagogue that we are commemorating today, is of course a 
statement of religious freedom, a statement of the basic 
philosophy behind the First Amendment, where it says that 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And where 
he says in his letter, ``It is now no more that toleration is 
spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people 
that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural 
rights.'' Everyone has freedom. Minority religious groups have 
freedom on the same level as the majority religious groups. 
It's not that the majority tolerates the minority. Of course, I 
think most of us share those sentiments, and we are right to 
applaud those sentiments.
    I find it ironic that we are going to applaud this letter 
in the same markup session in which we are going to, 
apparently, approve a bill designed to do violence to the First 
Amendment, designed to do violence to the very religious 
freedom provisions of the First Amendment that we are 
celebrating here, because make no mistake, when you have--and 
I'll get into this more, I suppose, when we debate the bill in 
a few minutes--but what you're really saying with this 
charitable choice bill, is that there should be religious 
programs for worthy purposes, drug detoxification, whatever, 
using religious propaganda, religious proselytization, in the 
service of a worthy social goal in which a drug addict perhaps 
of a minority religious view may be tolerated, may feel that he 
can walk out of the room when they do the religious 
proselytization, may go to another program, although I note the 
provision that there has to be a secular alternative is watered 
down in the manager's amendment, but this bill that we're going 
to be doing in a few minutes really is an expression of the 
feeling that religious minority rights are to be tolerated, but 
if people are made uncomfortable or are discriminated against 
on the basis of religion, that's all right, as long as we have 
a proper social goal involved, even with the use of Federal 
funds.
    So I find it very ironic that--that we're using this 
perfectly good resolution to express sentiments that are mocked 
by the bill we're going to do, and I suspect the majority has 
gone so far as to move a Patrick Kennedy bill, even though we 
know that he's been blacklisted by the majority leadership 
because they were so desperate for some gesture to mask or to 
ameliorate the violence we will be doing to religious freedom 
and religious toleration in this markup today.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. So I support----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. In one moment, sir. So I support the 
resolution. I question why it's on the agenda--I don't question 
why it's on the agenda. I know why it's on the agenda today. I 
wish we weren't being so disingenuous.
    Yes, I will yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes. I said I'll yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The reason it's on the agenda today 
is because Mr. Kennedy approached me in the Republican 
cloakroom on Tuesday and asked me to put it on the agenda 
promptly, and I am happy to accommodate him.
    Mr. Nadler. Then in that case, I wish to--reclaiming my 
time, I wish to commend the Chairman for breaking with the 
otherwise uniform policy of not allowing any Patrick Kennedy 
bill and resolution to be considered by any Committee in this 
House. I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will further 
yield, I hope that he will return the bipartisanship in a few 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I'd like to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. This is a unique time in this Committee 
today in the juxtaposing of these two legislative initiatives. 
But I'd like to comment--I know there will be sufficient time 
to comment on H.R. 7--I would like to comment on H. Con. Res. 
62. The reason is because in the time that I've been in this 
Committee, certainly not senior to many Members here, I've had 
the experience of participating in proceedings that involve 
religious implications such as the Davidian issue in 1995. And 
I can see when the question of religion in this country comes 
to the forefront, enormous amount of emotions can generate 
antagonisms that should not be the basis, or were not the 
basis, or hopefully were not the intentions of the founding 
father. I've always noted that there were no founding mothers 
that were listed in that time frame.
    I think this resolution is appropriate at this time to 
reaffirm that this Nation is a nation founded upon the ability 
to worship privately and separately as you please, and to 
establish the separation of church and state, which does not in 
any way negate the fact that we of so many faiths can practice 
that faith without intimidation by the government. And 
sometimes our intent to be able to embrace and to compete with 
each other as to who can embrace the religious community more, 
sometimes causes us to overlook the very values upon what this 
Nation was built.
    I do want to give acknowledgement to the words that I find 
very striking that Washington affirmed, that this government 
gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. 
That is the value of this resolution in restating our 
principles. Might I also, however, thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina for reminding us that we are still in an 
imperfect union, and really to call upon the religious 
community and to acknowledge the travesty and the devastation 
of the various holding of slaves throughout the world, in 
particular here in the United States, but we know that slavery 
was prevalent throughout the world. And I imagine that 
sometimes we overlook, where it is uncomfortable to challenge 
what slavery actually meant.
    Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will have the opportunity in 
the future to address the question of Mr. Conyers' reparation 
legislation. I've begun to call it compensation, even though 
that is possibly a stretch from our debate today. I think it 
all goes to making this Nation and this room representative of 
a perfect union. That was the start of our Declaration of 
Independence, that we as a people would move toward creating a 
perfect union. We have far to go. We have come far.
    And so I support the resolution with the recognition that 
we still in this room, the holder of the Constitution of the 
United States in terms of the Committee's jurisdiction, have 
work to do that can help make this country a better country and 
to be able to respond to some of the deep and abiding concerns 
that still prevail in this Nation.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, seek recognition?
    Ms. Waters. To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I think the point has been made 
that this Committee is sending a strange signal to the public 
by taking perhaps two very different actions here today. On the 
one hand, the resolution is designed to confirm this Nation's 
so-called belief in separation of church and state and 
tolerance of religious views. And on the other hand, we are 
going to be debating, perhaps, in my estimation, the greatest 
possibility of a violation of separation of church and state as 
we move with the so-called faith-based amendment.
    I think politicians oftentimes get a bad name because we 
send these kind of dual messages. You know, I'm tolerant enough 
to say if you believe the faith-based initiative and what it's 
attempting to do, vote for it, stand up and have the guts to 
say you believe in it and fight for it. But don't send this 
mixed message that somehow you believe in separation of church 
and state and then move forthwith to violate separation of 
church and state. What are we doing?
    I would hope that the Chairman would use his leadership and 
authority as the Chair of this Committee, to remove this 
resolution from the agenda today, and let's get on with the 
business of discussing charitable choice. Let's get on with the 
business of discussing the role of government--what role 
government is going to play with our religious organizations, 
but let's not try and trick the public, let's not try and fool 
people. Let's stop sending these kind of messages that on the 
one hand we believe a certain way, but then we act differently. 
I just think it's time to stop playing the games. There's no 
reason why this resolution should be on this agenda today. I 
think it is a contradiction to those who are going to be 
involved in supporting charitable choice.
    Mr. Chairman, I see somebody's trying to get my attention.
    Mr. Cannon. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Waters. Yes, I will yield.
    Mr. Cannon. It seems to me that this may have been one of 
the more clever things that our colleague, Congressman Kennedy 
has done. He knew that we would be dealing with this issue 
today, and asked the Chairman, I suspect, to get this on 
because he wanted it on. The criticism of the majority seems to 
be to me misplaced.
    Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time?
    Mr. Cannon. Certainly.
    Ms. Waters. I don't care if it's Mr. Kennedy or anybody 
else. I don't believe--and I can be corrected--I don't believe 
that the Chairman of the Committee consulted the minority about 
this, but again, whether it's Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Sensenbrenner 
or anybody else, I believe that it is confusing, and improper 
to do this. So it doesn't make any difference whether it was 
initiated by Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sensenbrenner is in charge, and 
he has the opportunity to do what I'm asking.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. 
Hutchinson.
    Mr. Hutchinson. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hutchinson. I thank the Chairman, and I just wanted to 
take the liberty of referring to a conversation I had with the 
Chairman earlier, whenever we were talking about the agenda for 
today, and I was asking him, you know, whether anything was 
going to be considered besides the charitable choice issue, and 
he said that there was a resolution by Mr. Patrick Kennedy, 
that in which Mr. Kennedy had requested a markup on, and that 
he was being responsive to that request by scheduling this. And 
I really am puzzled somewhat that whenever the minority side 
wishes to have a markup and there's a request for legislation 
to be considered by this Committee that is sponsored by a 
Member of the minority, that then whenever it is offered, even 
though it's a Member not of this Committee, that there is a 
challenge that perhaps it is inappropriate, perhaps it should 
be withdrawn, and I really am confused by that. And it seems to 
me to be appropriate. It seems that this resolution is offered, 
not by a Member of the majority to make a point, but it is 
offered by a very distinguished Member of the minority, Mr. 
Patrick Kennedy, who believes that this is something that's 
worth expressing, that it is something that not only the 
Judiciary Committee should consider, but the House of 
Representatives as a whole should consider, and as you know, 
this is a necessary stop to come through this Committee. And so 
if it's not going to be considered by this Committee, it's not 
going to be considered by the House as a whole, and it just 
seems very appropriate that we try to respond whenever the 
minority has a request for a markup.
    And so I just want to refer--I think the Chairman is being 
very genuine in trying to accommodate the request of the 
minority for a markup, and I applaud him for that effort, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the motion to 
report H. Con. Res. 62 favorably as amended. A reporting quorum 
is present. All those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
motion to report favorably is adopted.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will 
be--do you wish a rollcall?
    Mr. Watt. No. I just wanted to make sure--I wanted to 
insert in the record my abstention from this vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection. Without 
objection the bill will be reported favorably to the House in 
the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
incorporating the amendment adopted here today. Without 
objection the Chairman is authorized to move to go to 
conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection the staff 
is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and 
all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House rules, 
in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental or 
minority view.

                                  
