Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we debated a very important resolution on this floor to reaffirm our commitment not to spend the Social Security surplus. We heard repeatedly from the other side of the aisle that we had already spent the Social Security surplus when not one penny of that surplus has been spent, and when this House needs to be firmly committed not to spend one penny of the Social Security surplus. I wondered all afternoon and all evening why we would constantly hear that, and then I began to realize that for four decades the House has spent the Social Security surplus. This is truly a historic moment in the life of this House and for the future of Social Security. We have to be committed to the future of Social Security not to spend Social Security money today. We can and we are in the process of putting this budget together without spending the surplus. We have to stay committed to that. We cannot let the American people believe that has already happened, because it has not. We cannot let the message go forth from this House that we are going to continue business as usual when we are not.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the budget we are working on does the things that my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said we ought to be doing. We must have voted on two separate budgets this year because the budget I voted on clearly balanced the budget without spending a penny of Social Security. We need to stick to that commitment. We do not need a new budget. We need a commitment to the budget we have. What was that budget based on? That budget was based on the balanced budget agreement between the Congress and the administration in 1997, not 1987, not 1887; 1997. Two years ago, the President said, and the Congress agreed, this is how much money we need to run the government in fiscal year 2000. Suddenly, because of a productive economy and hard-working American families, we have more money than that; and suddenly we decide we have to have more money. All this discussion about cutting programs is just not what we agreed to. We agreed that this is what we were going to spend this year. Suddenly now, if we spend what we agreed in 1997 to spend, we are cutting programs. How could that possibly be the case? We have not broken the caps. We may do that. I do not know. We cannot possibly break the overall cap until we pass the last budget. It is not possible to do. There is one overall cap. It cannot possibly be broken until the last appropriations bill is passed. We have not done that yet. We need to work hard to find offsets. No question, if we stay on the course we are on right now, without working to find the offsets, we will go beyond that cap, but those offsets can be found; they must be found. This House has to dedicate ourselves to do that. We should not spend a penny of Social Security. This should be the first budget since Eisenhower was President, since fiscal year 1960, when we did not spend a penny of Social Security. As has been said earlier by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), that this is not the solution to the long-term future of Social Security. I will say we will not find the solution if we cannot, first of all, have the resolve not to stop spending the money. This is where the solution to Social Security is found. It is found by not spending the money. Not spending the money is found by finding the resolve to find the offsets in the budget to see that we do not dip into that surplus. Let us set a new standard for the American people and the future of Social Security.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we just saw a chart on how we price milk. What we did not see is a chart on why we price milk, why that has been seen as an important and significant role of both the Federal Government and for the health of the country for the last several years. Market orders ensure a fresh local supply of milk. This is a perishable product, unlike most other products on the farm. I was raised on a dairy farm. I still live on a small farm. Most of the things on the farm one can have some control over. One can put them in an elevator. One can leave them on pasture a little longer. One cannot do that with what happens every day at the dairy barn. That has a very short life. It is a hard product to recreate. If one sees people going out of the dairy business, one seldom sees them go back in. Once there are not local dairies, it is pretty hard to imagine there will ever be local production of that product again. The 2 or 3 days of transportation does matter. In terms of what farmers would like to see, they just had the option of voting on a plan that I am convinced they did not like, 1-B or no market order at all; and they clearly said they did not want market orders. The letters we received from farmers, the various articles that Members have seen on this issue indicated that many people voted for an option they did not like because the option that they thought absolutely would not work if one is a family farmer, if one is a dairy farmer, was the option of having no marketing system for milk in this country. So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I have a number of my colleagues who want to speak in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent that, in my absence, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) be permitted to control the time.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the subcommittee chairman that deals with these issues.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney.)

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to point out that the USDA requires that milk be off the farm in one day. That is the case for no other product, and I am confident, I am sure it is not the case for either tomatoes or shrimp. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are dealing with this issue today. It clearly is an issue that the House has been divided on for some time, but it has been overwhelmingly divided in favor of H.R. 1402. Last year, 238 Members of the House and 62 Senators wrote the Secretary and asked the Secretary to stay with the Option 1A pricing structure. The Secretary ignored that and came back with a different structure. This year 228 Members have joined me as cosponsors of this legislation. This House is overwhelmingly supportive of commonsense dairy policy for American farming families. My good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, just said, I believe, that the USDA estimates that there would be maybe a $3 million loss to American farming families. The estimates that I see are $200 million, and in fact, in my district alone, the Seventh District of Missouri, in southwest Missouri, most of our milk is marketed on the fluid market. The Secretary's rule would reflect a 49 cent per hundred weight decrease in fluid milk. This means that in the Seventh District, there would be a $4 million loss. If we have a $4 million in the Seventh District of Missouri, which is not any longer in the top 10 dairy- producing districts of the country, even though for years and for generations it was, there is no way we are going to have a $3 million loss nationwide. Mr. Chairman, this is the difference in farming families continuing to farm in the majority of our States. Forty-five States are negatively affected. An average dairy farm in those 45 States, a small dairy farm of around 100 cows, would lose between $6,000 and $15,000 a year, depending on the other market factors. On dairy farm after dairy farm, the difference in $6,000 a year to $15,000 a year is the difference in whether they continue to maintain that farm, whether their family continues to be in this business, whether there is a fresh supply of milk produced reasonably close to consumers. There is a reason that every bottle of milk has a date on it. The reason is that this is a highly perishable product. It does not have tremendous shelf life. It needs to be produced close to the people that consume it. Option 1A continues that policy that continues that kind of production. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for bringing this issue to the floor today for this rule to be voted on. I, of course, encourage that the rule be approved. I think it does give plenty of opportunity to debate the issue and a number of amendments that the will of the House will be known on. As my colleague from Vermont just said, there are 229 cosponsors of this legislation. A handful or more Members contacted me in the last 2 weeks, after it was too late, to cosponsor and ask what could they do to join this legislation. One of the things that prompted them to want to become part of this was the calls they were getting, the frustrated calls they were getting from their dairy farming families who saw the choice they had of no milk marketing structure at all or 1-B as the choice between capital punishment and cutting off their hand. Well, given those two choices, you will always vote to cut off your hand. That is what American dairy farm families felt like they did as they cast those votes. They are overwhelmingly for the 1-A marketing structure. They overwhelmingly believe that the mapping consolidation, where we have now 11 orders, is a good thing. But this is about families. It is about dairy farming families and whether they continue to be able to have a family farm, a family dairy farm. It is about American consuming families and whether they continue to have a fresh supply, a locally produced supply of milk, something that this Government and State governments have been committed to for a long time. This is about families, and it is about dairy farming families that would lose its estimated $200 million every single year if 1-B goes into effect. If 1-B had been a hurricane, it would be in the top 10 most destructive hurricanes in the history of the country. Well, let us not let American dairy farming families be hit by Hurricane Dan. Let us get to work and let us pass this rule today, have this debate for American families tomorrow and pass this legislation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague, Mr. Ike Skelton, to pay tribute on the 75th anniversary of the founding of the oldest continuously operating Boy Scout Camp west of the Mississippi River. Camp Arrowhead, located east of Marshfield, Missouri, was begun the summer of 1924, just 14 years after Scouting came to America and only 8 years after this body, the Congress of the United States, chartered the Boy Scouts of America. I know my colleagues join with me in commending the vision of men like area Scout Executive Allen C. Foster, and organizations such as the Springfield Rotary Club, the Marshfield Merchants Club and the Commercial Club of Springfield which played key roles in the creation of this camp. I doubt those leaders in 1924 could envision microwave ovens, color televisions, the Internet, or jet aircraft, but they could envision a place where dedicated volunteers would help boys grow into young men with character and a commitment to community. And they knew how to translate their vision into reality. Over 75 summers, tens of thousand of campers have carried out the traditions of Camp Arrowhead where boys developed into leaders, and adults returned to encourage other young scouts to grow as they had been encouraged by others. The impact of Camp Arrowhead is found in friendships, skills and character among a broad range of people in the Ozarks and around the world. Camp Arrowhead as we see it today with 600 acres of facilities serving the needs of 1,500 scouts and adults each summer could not exist without the continued active support of Scouters and supporters of Scouting around the area. The countless hours of service and dedication by hundreds of volunteers each year ensure that this camp will continue its mission for years to come. ``Do Your Best'' is more than just the Scout Motto. For those who have attended Camp Arrowhead, it is the moving force behind why they come as scouts, why they lead as adults, and why they serve as volunteers. From the Seventh Congressional District and from this Congress, I offer this commendation to all of those involved for a job well done for the past 75 years with a heartfelt hope that their efforts will continue for at least another 75.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, Mr. Tauzin, and the Subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Dingell. This amendment would eliminate yet another needless, costly and burdensome regulatory requirement that has outlived whatever merits it may have once had. Local telephone companies, both large and small, must submit highly detailed financial accounting records on a continuing basis to both the IRS and the Securities and Exchange Commission. These records use an accounting method approved by the Financial Accounting Services Board. One could reasonably ask the question, ``If it's good enough for the IRS and the SEC, shouldn't it be good enough for the FCC?'' Mr. Chairman, this is not a complex issue. It is a simple case of unnecessary, archaic federal regulation that requires companies to spend millions of dollars to prepare two separate sets of regulatory accounting records for use by one agency of the government. This defies logic and common sense. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Tauzin amendment.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, where I am from, and where my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) is from, the State of Missouri, $1 million is still a lot of money. It may not be a lot of money here in Washington, but it is a lot of money where I am from. I keep asking myself as I hear this debate, as I have looked at this issue over the last several months, why are we spending this money? Why did the administration agree to this study? Why did the Congress appropriate the money? Why are we spending the money? We are spending the money because the one weekend study that NAS has already done is not adequate. We are spending the money because there is a tremendous lack of clarity and agreement on these issues. In fact, if Members read the draft standard, I think it is clear why we are spending the money. The draft standard is not clear. The draft standard is ambiguous. The reviews on the draft standard, from the SBREFA panel, the Small Business Review Panel, to all kinds of journals that have reviewed this, have talked about the problems the draft standard would create. We need to be sure, when we talk about people's jobs, that we are talking about specific and certain facts. One of the facts we hear here tonight is the groups that are disproportionately affected by these kinds of injuries. I am sure later we will eventually hear what the source for that is, but I would tell the Members that the whole work force is ill affected by standards that are not based on sound science. My concern is that as we look at these standards, as we look at the liability, as we look at the vagueness if those did become the standards, that people who are in the business of creating jobs, people who are in the business of sustaining jobs, would have to look at these standards, and their push would be not to hire more people but their push would be to make a greater capital investment instead of a people investment, because of the way the standards are written. In our country, a person's job has a degree of sanctity to it that I think we have to be careful about here in Washington if we treat that casually. If we decide that, based on the instincts of some bureaucrat over at OSHA who had not lifted anything that day heavier than a pencil, that that is the person who is going to decide what is hard to do at the workplace and somebody's job winds up eliminated because of that, I think that is a serious concern. I think that is a serious problem. I think there is much evidence as to why we need this standard. The SBREFA group said that the draft standard was a problem. One of the reasons was the vagueness. One of the reasons was the vagueness of the terms. Well, this study will solve problems like that. This study will create the sound science. This study will create an atmosphere where people are encouraged to show up at a safe workplace every day, but that their jobs are still there. This is about people's jobs. This is not about some political play here in Washington, this is about people's jobs. It is about a $1 million study, and it is about seeing that study before the final regulation is drafted. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and others have talked about, we are in a global economy. OPIC does open markets. OPIC has helped create jobs in this country. And OPIC charges premiums. OPIC charges premiums. One of the big criticisms of OPIC is that the premiums are too high and that is why they have $3.3 billion in reserves. Now, if the premiums are too high and the private sector would be interested in going into these areas, why is it not there? OPIC fills a void that the private sector will not go into if OPIC is eliminated. They will go into troubled countries. They go into countries that insurance companies of a private nature will not go into. These premiums have generated $139 million last year. They are expected to generate $200 million this year. OPIC's claims because of the way OPIC is funded become a priority whenever these troubled countries try to reestablish relationships with the United States. No private company would have that great advantage in settling claims. That is why OPIC does not lose money. That is why OPIC does encourage trade. That is why OPIC works. That is why the private sector will not replace it if it is eliminated. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of an era in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Patrick Keohane will retire August 31 as warden of the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri. That will mark the end a period of over 30 years in which Warden Keohane or one of his two brothers has been a warden somewhere at a federal prison in the United States. It is reportedly the longest period of similar service of any family in federal prison history. The Keohane family association with the federal prison system goes back even further to Patrick's father Tom who retired as a senior lieutenant after 31 years of service with the Bureau of Prisons. Tom and his wife Nora raised ten children--six boys and four girls--in Springfield, Missouri. Pat and four of his five brothers served in the military. It is only fitting that Pat is retiring while warden of the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, because it was in Springfield that he began his civilian career in criminal justice as a member of the Springfield Police Department in 1964. It was only 2 years after beginning work for the Federal Prison System in 1967 as a correctional officer that he was transferred to the Springfield facility in 1969. While there, he completed his degree in law enforcement and corrections in 1974 at Drury College. Pat Keohane has served with distinction in federal prison facilities in Indiana, Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Kansas, and Illinois. He was promoted to warden in 1985 and since then has led facilities in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California, returning to Springfield, Missouri in 1996. As I mentioned earlier, service for the Keohanes in the Federal Prison System is a family thing. Two of his older brothers each retired with 27 years of service. In fact, they are the only family in the Nation in which three brothers served as wardens in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the only one where two brothers, both served as wardens of the same Federal institution at different times--and they accomplished that on two separate accessions. Besides his family distinctions, Pat Keohane, has received numerous honors and recognitions, including the 1994 Warden of the Year award from the North American Association of Wardens and Superintendents and the U.S. Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service from Attorney General Janet Reno. He is being honored later this week at dinner in his hometown in the Seventh District of Missouri. I know that my colleagues in the House join with me in expressing their appreciation for a lifetime of outstanding service to the citizens of these great United States and best wishes for a very happy future to Warden Patrick W. Keohane of Springfield, Missouri.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for yielding. S. 880, as amended, would resolve the existing national security crisis presented by the EPA's distribution of chemical facility worst- case scenarios. It is critical that we resolve this issue immediately, as EPA already has received Freedom of Information Act requests for this material and cannot, without this bill, prevent inappropriate dissemination of the national database of worst-case scenarios. The EPA also chose to include propane under the risk management program regulations intended to reduce the risks associated with toxic chemicals accidents. Propane, however, is not toxic. While the threshold quantity for listed substances is determined by criteria that includes flammability and combustibility because propane is not toxic, it should not be on the list of covered substances in the first place. This legislation removes it from the list. A bill I had in the House, H.R. 1301, that does this same thing, has 145 cosponsors. S. 880 successfully accomplishes this objective and also meets the important criteria of the risk criteria. As the gentleman is well aware, S. 880 was amended through the cooperation and careful consideration of the minority and of the administration, and we will include a joint statement in the Record describing the bill. It is a balanced, bipartisan measure that will ensure that local citizens receive information concerning the risks presented by local chemical facilities while at the same time protecting our national security.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 880) to amend the Clean Air Act to remove flammable fuels from the list of substances with respect to which reporting and other activities are required under the risk management plan program, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the bill. This bill, like this debate, is really all about who this money belongs to. Does this money belong to the people that sent it to Washington? If it does, we should send it back. Or does it belong to the people here who many, in many cases, think they are smarter than the folks who send it here and work hard for it? If we believe this money belongs to the people that send it, we will decide to give this money back. Certainly, we are about to do something that no Congress has done in 40 years, and that is approve a budget and an appropriations process that is balanced without using a penny of Social Security. Even above that, we still have a $3 trillion anticipated surplus. What happens with that $3 trillion? The money that comes from Social Security, for the first time in 29 years, gets set aside for the retirement future of the Americans that sent that money in. The other trillion dollars we are saying we would like to take 790- plus billion dollars of that and let the people who earned it keep it, let them spend it for the benefit of their family, let them spend it for the benefit of their future, let them spend it for the benefit of their small business, eliminate over the course of this time the death tax, reduce taxes for every single American that pays taxes, and in an important late addition to this rule, even today, have a guarantee that there will be a $2 trillion reduction in the debt held by the public that the government each and every time that the debt is reissued will be competing for less of that debt because we are applying that to the future of Social Security. Beyond that, there is a requirement that the debt not be allowed to increase as this across-the-board tax provision goes into effect. This is a good rule. It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to remember who the money belongs to.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 880.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am grateful to him and to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for bringing this bill to the floor. I am also grateful to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for the great work he has done on this committee for so many years, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to serve from our State with him and appreciate his commitment to this debate and his commitment to better education. I think that is what this debate is about. I think this bill, the base bill, provides that. Certainly the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) just mentioned appropriately the importance of quality teachers in the early grades. But I think quality teachers are important throughout the process. What this legislation does is allow ways to enhance the quality of teachers. It really decides where that decision is going to be made, whether that decision is going to be made in Washington, whether the decision as to what a local school district needs is made here on the floor of the Congress and here in the Halls of the bureaucracy in Washington or whether it is made in the school district, whether it is made in the principal's office in conjunction with the teacher and the school board and parents. I think they can best make those decisions. This bill is another step in that direction. Certainly reducing class size is an option here. But so is better education and special education. More funding for special education teachers, more mentoring, more teacher quality, all of those things have the potential to have great impact in different situations in different districts. We do not know here. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) mentioned earlier that in Delaware they are already down to 17 students as the maximum in a class in elementary. But there are certainly things I am confident in Delaware that they need, that they have not done all they need to do. Simply because they have made the steps already to reduce class size does not mean we should penalize people in that State from being able to do other things that enhance quality of education. I believe this bill does that. I am grateful that it is on the floor today. I intend to vote for it and encourage my colleagues not to be for the substitute.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for yielding me this time. I also appreciate the comments that have been made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) about the importance of this legislation, the reasons we need to move forward with it. Their commitments in the past in this area have been significant. I would just like to say today that I think really what we are talking about here is the status of this right of religious liberty. When the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) mentioned earlier his amendment would allow us to show what trumps what, I think that is exactly why I wanted to speak on this topic today, because I think we need to be careful that we do not create a second-class status for religious rights where those rights are automatically secondary to other rights. We should not be deciding that those rights are trumped by other rights. That is not what we are about here. This legislation, as it is written, gives the fundamental civil right of all Americans to practice their religion a high level of protection. It is consistent with the other fundamental rights that we give in the Constitution and in our laws. This legislation is consistent with title VII's long-standing exemptions for employees of religious institutions. There is nothing in this legislation that continues that. This legislation establishes a process where we weigh and balance competing interests based on the real facts before the court. Religious interests, as defined here, would not always prevail, but they would not automatically be secondary. The facts that support those rights have equal standing in court with other rights equally protected by the Constitution. I believe, and those of us in this body universally believe, that this is a government based on enumerated powers. Those powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Those enumerated powers are evidenced in this legislation. This Act relies on three congressional powers: the power to spend, the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power to reach certain conduct under section 5 of the 14th amendment. First of all, the Religious Liberty Protection Act protects individuals participating in federally assisted programs from burdens imposed by a government as a condition of participating, that those people could not be exempted from these programs because of their religious beliefs. For example, an individual cannot be excluded from or discriminated against in a federally assisted program because of his or her religious dress or the holidays that they observe unless one can prove there is a compelling interest that that particular religious activity somehow makes it impossible to do that job. Secondly, this Act protects religious exercise in the affecting of commerce. Some of our friends say we should not use the commerce clause here to determine whether or not a church can be built. Well, clearly, if one builds a church, if one adds on it a facility, one affects tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, occasionally millions of dollars of commerce. Using the commerce clause to protect religious liberty is appropriate and obvious. Because the commerce clause has sometimes been used in onerous ways does not mean we should shy away from using it for good or that we should shy away from using it to protect this freedom, to protect religious freedom. Third, this legislation makes the use of the power of Congress to enforce the rights under section 5 of the 14th amendment consistent with recent court decisions, particularly the Supreme Court's decision in Boerne v. Flores. What this does, it attempts to simplify litigation of free exercise violations as defined by the Supreme Court. These litigations do not need to be cumbersome. They do not need to be needlessly burdensome. Certainly no right in these litigations needs to be secondary to other rights in these litigations. Evidence shows that individuals who have determinations in land use regulation that work against them, frequently we see that as a burden for religious activities. We see that particularly as it relates to minority faiths, and this bill reaches out and protects those minority faiths. We know that from the evidence of the very broad base of groups that are supporting this legislation today. Again, I would like to close by simply saying that this legislation levels the playing field for a critical first amendment right. It does not allow the creation of a secondary right. I think the Nadler substitute, while well intentioned, and I really admire what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has done in these areas in the past, while this amendment is well intentioned, I think it does have the potential and the likelihood, and, in fact, what I think it does is relegate religious freedom and religious liberty and religious practice and religious rights to a secondary position. I think we need to have those rights as protected as any other right. Those decisions can be made by the court. I support the bill and oppose the amendment, but I do so with deference to the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the legislation and certainly in support of the remarks just made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) that were so well said in this area. This is clearly an area that needs protection. It is an area where local governments constantly in recent years have fought in the face of what we consider to be First Amendment rights. A small church in Florida was ordered to stop its feeding ministry for feeding the homeless. In Greenville, South Carolina, home Bible study was banned in communities that could still have at the exact same locations Tupperware parties. When local ordinances ban Bible study but allow Tupperware parties there is some significant violation of the First Amendment there. A family in Michigan was tried under criminal statutes because they educated their children at home for religious reasons and did not have certification. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Christian day care centers were threatened with closure if they did not change their hiring practices which barred them from hiring non- Christians, but these were Christian day care centers. In Douglas County, Colorado, officials tried to limit the operational hours of churches. A local community college required a loyalty oath that made it impossible for Jehovah witnesses whose faith instructs against taking those oaths to go to work at that facility. Certain fire and police stations promulgate a blanket of no beards rules which interferes with, among other groups, Muslim firefighters. Mr. Speaker, these infringements on religious liberty are significant. They are not pervasive yet, but they are certainly prevalent. This bill allows churches in places like Rolling Hills Estates, California, to build in an area that was zoned commercial where the churches are told they cannot build if they want to, but adult businesses and adult massage parlors can be built in this same area of that community. The RLPA would allow an orthodox Jewish community to build their houses of worship within walking distance of their neighborhoods. It would allow prison ministries, which have had such a great impact all over the country, to continue to do efforts and prison programming that are currently threatened. This would also deal with the question of land-use regulation that so affects religious practice in communities today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record, as I conclude my comments in support of this rule, I would like to enter into the Record a list that is even more inclusive than the list that was just referred to by the gentleman from Texas of religious groups that really cover a broad, broad spectrum of religious activity and association in this country who are in favor of H.R. 1691, and I am sure would also encourage the passage of this rule so we can get on to this important debate. Organizations and Supporters of R.L.P.A. Agudath Israel of America The Alepha Institute American Baptist Churches USA American Center for Law and Justice American Conference on Religious Movements American Ethical Union, Washington Ethical Action Office American Humanist Association American Jewish Committee American Jewish Congress American Muslim Council Americans for Democratic Action Americans for Religious Liberty Americans United for Separation of Church & State Anit-Defamation League Association of Christian Schools International Association on American Indian Affairs Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs B'nai B'rith Campus Crusade for Christ Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights Central Conference of American Rabbis Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Christian Coalition Christian Legal Society Christian Science Committee on Publication Church of the Brethren Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Church of Scientology International Coalition for Christian Colleges and Universities Council of Jewish Federations Council on Religious Freedom Council on Spiritual Practices Criminal Justice Policy Foundation Episcopal Church Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Family Research Council Focus on the Family Friends Committee on National Legislation General Conference of Seven-day Adventists Guru Gobind Singh Foundation Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of American, Inc. Interfaith Religious Liberty Foundation International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists International Institute for Religious Freedom Japanese American Citizens League Jerry Falwell's Liberty Alliance Jewish Council for Public Affairs The Jewish Policy Center The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation Justice Fellowship Kay Coles James Liberty Counsel Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Muslim Prison Foundation Muslim Public Affairs Council Mystic Temple of Light, Inc.