Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, who has been a great leader and fighter on behalf of veterans, the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my children and all children in America, I rise against the risky, budget-busting, trillion-dollar tax cut.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let me make a very clear statement of fact that no one can refute in this House. If the Republican House leadership was not committed to a trillion dollar tax cut, billions of dollars more would be available for veterans health care. Let me repeat that statement of fact. If the House Republican leadership was not committed to a trillion dollar tax cut, billions of dollars more would be available for veterans health care. That is the question that we are raising tonight. Do you want to have a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans who are doing quite well, thank you, or do we want to adequately fund veterans health care? Let me respond to some of the statements made by my friend and colleague from New Jersey who suggested a few minutes ago that the veterans were supporting basically his position. While the veterans may be glad that we are getting some increase and a hard freeze on veterans care funding, let me be exactly clear, perfectly clear. The veterans' organizations he referred to are supporting my amendment and asking Republicans and Democrats tonight to oppose this rule and allow my amendment to come up. Gordon Mansfield, executive director, Paralyzed Veterans of America: ``Making this amendment in order would be a giant step forward in providing the resources and the health care our Nation's sick and disabled veterans have earned and deserve.'' The American Legion, Steve Robertson, director of their National Legislative Commission: ``The VA has an extremely long list of veterans seeking various types of long-term care. The VA's budgetary constraints limit its ability to effectively and efficiently meet these needs. Currently waiting times for appointments in the VA system are staggering. We are not talking days or weeks but months. If the veteran needs to see a specialist, the wait is even longer.'' He goes on to say, and I quote: ``The American Legion supports this amendment and any waiver that may be in order for this amendment to proceed on the floor.'' Let me go on to clarify this point with a quote from Andrew Kisler, the national commander of the 2.3 million Disabled American Veterans' Organization: ``On behalf of the more than 2.3 million disabled veterans, including the more than 1 million members of the DAV, I strongly urge you to consider a rule to allow this amendment,'' referring to the Edwards-Stabenow-Evans amendment. He goes on to express my views I think very well and the views of many Democrats in this House. ``While we greatly appreciate the $1.7 billion increase over the Administration's budget request contained in the VA appropriations bill, it does not go far enough to provide for the health care needs of a sicker, older veterans' population.'' Let me clarify another point. Several of my colleagues have said the President's health care proposal in his budget is inadequate. I agree. We all agree. Nobody is disagreeing. But let the American people know and let us be honest with them in saying that Presidents do not write budgets. That is our responsibility. Let me tell my colleagues what we in Congress have done over the last several years. It was not the President who flat-lined VA health care spending for 5 years. It was this Congress on a bipartisan basis but under the leadership of the Republican Speaker that flat-lined VA health care spending for 5 years. Why do we not just admit tonight we have made a mistake? I think admitting we made a mistake 2 years ago is a lot more responsible than trying to maintain our commitment to that terrible mistake and the inadequate funding for veterans health care. Congress passes budgets and has that responsibility, not the President. This Congress has made assumptions in the past several years of budgets that have said we are going to have 20 percent more veterans needing care, but we are going to bring in 10 percent extra VA health care income from outside sources. But surprise, this Congress did not pass the Medicare subvention law that was the basis to that assumption. This Congress, not the President, assumed that the VA would provide veterans care 30 percent cheaper per veteran. Which Member of this House has been willing to make that promise to his or her constituents? We appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and others' efforts. But let us say no to this rule. Let us adequately fund VA health care, and let us do it tonight.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, a Congress that can pass a risky trillion dollar tax cut today surely should be able to adequately fund veterans health care tonight. I want to genuinely thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their work to end a hard freeze on veterans health care, given a budget devastated by massive irresponsible tax cuts. Honestly, they did as well as anyone could. However, I rise tonight in opposition to this rule because it prohibits this House from adequately funding veterans health care. A Congress that can find a trillion dollar tax cut just 9 hours ago to cut taxes mainly for the wealthy surely, surely can find one-tenth of 1 percent of that amount to keep our Nation's commitment to veterans, to middle- and low-income veterans, veterans who are waiting months for basic health services if, indeed, they have not been cut off from those services already. The question before us, Mr. Speaker, is very straightforward. Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of veterans tonight who have fought, sacrificed, and suffered to defend our Nation, or are we going to be on the side of the wealthiest Americans who do not really need a tax cut to affect their life style? Is this Congress going to fight for veterans who have fought for us on the battlefield, or are we going to fight for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans? Some say this is an open rule. But the truth is this rule shut the door on the Edwards-Stabenow-Evans amendment that would provide 730 million real dollars more for veterans health care. Our amendment is supported by organizations such as the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the American Legion because they know this money, and they have said this money, is necessary to adequately fund veterans health care. The Edwards-Stabenow-Evans amendment is paid for by simply delaying until January 1 of 2001 the just-passed capital gains tax cut. It is a fiscally responsible straightforward amendment. It says that we think that providing more adequate health care for veterans is worth delaying one-tenth of 1 percent of the Republican tax cut, especially when we note that 76 percent of the just-passed capital gains tax cut goes to individuals making over $200,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, by voting no on the previous question, we can allow this House to vote its will on whether to put $730 million more into the veterans health care system. Have we not already asked our veterans to sacrifice enough on the battlefield? Must we ask them to sacrifice needed health care services to help pay for a tax cut for our wealthiest Americans? Let me finish, not with my words, but the words of the national commander of the Disabled American Veterans: ``It is shameful that veterans cannot receive a $3 billion increase in veterans health care at a time we have a $1.1 trillion surplus expected and a $792 billion tax cut proposal.''

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I respect my Democratic colleagues who, for years, have expressed their concerns about the Army School of the Americas. Perhaps, and perhaps surely because of them, we have a better school today, and I respect that. But I would suggest that many Democrats will join with our Republican colleagues tonight in support of the belief that the School of the Americas furthers, not hurts, democracy and human rights in South America. Let me mention the statement of one Democrat to that effect. ``I am proud of the prominent role that the school now plays through its emphasis on the values of human rights and civilian control of military.'' ``The School of the Americas and the emphasis its curriculum gives human rights are an important part of our efforts to strengthen democratic institutions throughout Latin America.'' That was a statement made on March 24 of this year by President Bill Clinton. What are the facts? Sixty thousand graduates of the school and a small percentage have been guilty of human rights abuses. Should we shut such a school? I would suggest not. Because if we were being fair and applied that same logic to American universities and colleges from Harvard to Stanford to the University of Texas, we would have to close every major university in the United States. Mr. Chairman, that is the problem we have and I have with our relations with our friends, our Latinos to the south of the United States. The reason they see us as big brother, and a condescending one at that, is because we apply one standard to ourselves and a different, higher standard to them. I do not think it is fair, and neither do they. The reality is the fact that democracy has grown, not shrunk, in Latin America over the last decade. I believe, President Clinton believes, many other Democrats and the Republicans believe the School of the Americas has played a constructive role in that progress. I personally have a hard time thinking that courses such as humanitarian mine removal, counterdrug operations, democratic sustainment, and human rights, train the trainer programs have been the cause of human rights abuses in Latin America. I oppose the Moakley amendment, in all due respect.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is not going to be one of the highest profile bills that we will pass before this House this year, but I think it will be one of the most important, one of the most important if my colleagues believe that providing for flood control for communities and urban rural areas across our country is important. One of the most important if they think it is a role of our Federal Government to safeguard the nuclear stockpile, provide for energy research, and help solve the problem and the threat of nuclear proliferation. This bill deals with those crucial, crucial issues. The reason this bill is not going to be one of the highest profile bills in the Congress is because we had a great chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and a great ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), who worked together in a bipartisan, really nonpartisan, fashion on so many of the important decisions that had to be made. And as happens when we have leaders in this House that work together, the press, the national press, pays very little attention to that. So notwithstanding the honest disagreements as there would be and should be on issues such as the environment and the wetlands issue in this bill, the chairman and the ranking member did an outstanding job of putting together this package on a nonpartisan basis. Let me say personally while I wish we had more money to fund the critical programs in the Department of Energy, the budget simply did not allow that, and I hope the final conference report might include some plus ups in some of those programs. And as a final note, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I understand that there are between, depending on how one counts them, 800 and a thousand Member requests for additional spending in this bill, and to those who would argue in support of nearly a trillion dollars tax cut over the next 10 years that we can cut domestic discretionary spending by 20 to 40 percent, I would suggest they need to look at the finer details of legislation such as this, important flood control, water research projects; that if they were to be cut by 20 to 40 percent, we would undermine some terribly, terribly important causes and programs for this country. This is a good bill. Notwithstanding what happens on the amendment dealing with the wetlands, I intend to support it, and I want to again commend the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their leadership on this legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in an imperfect world, we do not have the choice of dealing with perfect nations. Certainly, China is far from perfect as a nation, as are we, and I must admit I am especially bothered by recent detentions in China, and I hope the Chinese know that this Congress is sensitive to those detentions. But we have a choice today. It is engagement, or it is isolation. Let us see how that has worked in other circumstances. We chose isolation in the case of our dealings with Cuba. What has happened? Thirty-eight years later Castro is in power. Let us choose engagement and look at that and its track record. We chose to engage the former Soviet Union. Today, they are a democratic nation, struggling with an economy, albeit, but a democratic nation. The choice today is not dealing with perfect nations; it is a choice between isolation and engagement. I would suggest that the policy of engagement with China, as important of a nation as it is, makes sense for America and the world in the 21st century.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is not good enough to honor veterans on just Veterans' Day and Memorial Day. It is not good enough to just honor veterans with our speeches and our words. It is time we honored veterans with our actions. Veterans do not need our rhetoric. They need our support. A vote for the Doggett amendment today is a vote to put veterans first where they should be. We have a clear choice. We can vote to give Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans first claim on $1 billion of frozen Iraqi assets, or we can vote to let countries who sold cigarettes to Saddam Hussein put their claims before our American veterans. We can vote to support those who put their lives on the line fighting against Saddam Hussein, or we can vote to support those who made profits selling to Saddam Hussein. Whose side are we on? That is the question before us. American veterans who were on the front lines in fighting against Saddam should not be put in the back of the line when Iraqi assets are unfrozen. Vote for our veterans. Vote for the Doggett amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his efforts. I would like to point out that I think it is outrageous if Members do not have the courage to come in the light of day on the floor of this House to say they oppose the amendment of the gentleman, an effort to put veterans first, and yet behind closed doors in conference committee this effort seems to be killed. I would hope that the silence and opposition to this amendment would indicate that this will pass through the conference committee. I hope that the veterans organizations in America will be watching this effort very, very carefully.

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that every major veterans group in American will watch like a hawk what happens in conference committee on this. It would be unfair and morally wrong to our Nation's veterans to take this language out in conference committee.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chief sponsor of this legislation in a colloquy in order to address concerns that the bill advantages or disadvantages any group or ideological perspective. Could the gentleman from Florida please explain how the compelling- interest standard works in this legislation?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address several questions: First, the question of is this bill constitutional. Obviously, legal scholars on this floor and elsewhere throughout the country may disagree, but for the Record I would like to read and then insert the full letter, a letter of July 14 to the Speaker of the House, the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert from Jon P. Jennings, Acting Assistant Attorney General. He says that, quote, The Department of Justice has concluded that the Religious Liberty Protection Act, as currently drafted, is constitutional under governing Supreme Court precedence. The letter in its entirety is as follows: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, July 14, 1999. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing with respect to H.R. 1691, the Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999 (``RLPA''), as reported by the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. We understand that RLPA may be considered shortly by the House of Representatives. We also understand that some Members may be concerned about the constitutionality of the legislation. This letter is addressed solely to the question of RLPA's constitutionality. We understand that the Administration is planning to convey further views on the legislation, apart from the constitutional questions. Over the past two years, the Department of Justice has worked diligently with supporters of RLPA to amend prior versions of the bill so as to address serious constitutional concerns. Moreover, we have reviewed carefully the testimony of several legal scholars who have questioned the constitutionality of the bill. We agree that RLPA raises important and difficult constitutional questions-- particularly with respect to recent and evolving federalism doctrines--and that there may be ways to amend the bill further to make it even less susceptible to constitutional challenge. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has concluded that RLPA as currently drafted is constitutional under governing Supreme Court precedents. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the perspective of the Administration's program, there is no objection to submission of this report. Sincerely, Jon P. Jennings, Acting Assistant Attorney General. The second question I would like to address, Mr. Speaker, is: Who are some of the people that support this bill, recognizing that good people of good-faith will be on both sides of this issue. Let me first read in a statement from the administration dated July 14, as well. ``The administration strongly supports H.R. 1691, the Religious Liberty Protection Act, which would protect the religious liberty of all Americans. RLPA would, in many cases, forbid State and local governments from imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, unless they could demonstrate that imposition of such a burden is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest.'' For the Record let me mention some other religious groups, diverse religious groups, supporting this legislation: The American Jewish Committee, The American Jewish Congress, The Anti Defamation League, The Association of American Indian Affairs, The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, B'nai Brith, The Christian Coalition, The Christian Science Committee on Publication, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, The Episcopal Church, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, The Family Research Council, The General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, Hadassah,

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and this bill, the Religious Liberty Protection Act. The first 16 words of the Bill of Rights were carefully chosen by our Founding Fathers to protect the religious freedom of all Americans. The words are these: ``Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' For over 200 years those words and the principles they represent have given Americans a land of unprecedented religious freedom and tolerance. The establishment clause was intended to prohibit government from forcing religion upon citizens. The free exercise clause was designed to keep government from limiting any citizen's rights to exercise his or her own religious faith. In recent weeks, I have been greatly concerned about congressional efforts that I felt would undermine the establishment clause and consequently tear down the wall of separation between church and State. Our Nation's religious community has been seriously divided on these issues. However, the legislation today does not focus on the establishment clause. Rather, it focuses on the importance of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. I would suggest that the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs is the foundation for all other freedoms we cherish as Americans. Without freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, press, and association lose much of their value. It is a commitment to the free exercise of religion that has united over 70 religious and civil rights organizations in support of this bill. It is the free exercise of religion that has united religious groups in support of this legislation that have been badly divided on so many other religious measures recently before this House. I will greatly respect Members of this House who cannot support this legislation today because I believe religious votes should be a matter of conscience, not of party. However, I am gratified to see so many diverse religious organizations coming together on this particular issue. Organizations from the Anti-Defamation League to the Christian Coalition, numerous organizations such as the American Jewish Committee, the American Congress, the Methodist church, the Southern Baptist Convention, groups that have very seldom come together in recent days, have come together in the support of the free exercise of individual American's religious rights. Mr. Speaker, the point I make in listing some of these organizations in support of this is not to say any Member must or should support this bill because of these religious groups' endorsement. My point is that this legislation was put together on a broad-based nonpartisan basis. Its intent was to protect religion, not to deal in partisan issues. The common bond of these diverse religious groups on this issue measure is that they all believe that government should have to show a compelling reason to limit any citizen's religious rights. I agree with those groups. More importantly, I believe the Founding Fathers intentionally began the First Amendment with the protection of religious rights because they recognized the fundamental role of religious freedom in our society. Now, I have been interested to see that some local and State officials have argued recently that this legislation might inconvenience them. Let me say that I agree. In fact, if they will reread the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights was written precisely to inconvenience governments. The Bill of Rights was written to make it inconvenient to step on the religious rights of citizens in this country. For that reason, I think this is a measure that should pass for the very precise reason that it does inconvenience local and State governments in their efforts as mentioned by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) in her speech, their efforts to limit the rights of Americans in their religious exercise. Others, Mr. Speaker, might argue in good faith that this bill will be used by some religious groups to defend discrimination based on sexual orientation. I can only say that it is neither my intent as a primary cosponsor of this bill nor the intent of the religious groups with whom I have met to design a bill for that purpose. Our intent is rather to build into the statutes a shield against government regulations that would limit religious freedom. Our intent, in the words of Rabbi David Sapperstein, is to clarify, quote, ``A universal, uniform standard of religious freedom.'' This legislation protects the right of government entities to limit religious actions if there is a compelling interest to do so. Court cases have clearly established, for example, that protecting against race and gender discrimination are compelling State interests, as are safety and health protections in the laws. In the real world I recognize there are sometimes direct conflicts between one citizen's right and another citizen's right. That is why we have the judicial system, a system that can look at those issues on a case-by-case basis. I believe the judicial system, rather than the legislative system, is the best way to determine those specific cases. Consequently, personally I believe it would be a mistake for Congress in this bill to try to define who does and who does not have protected religious rights or to exclude certain circumstances from free exercise protections under this bill. Whether intended or not, and I do not think it is intended, such an action could in some cases relegate religious rights to a secondary status, something I do not think our Founding Fathers intended when they chose the first words of the first amendment to protect religious liberty. To my Democratic colleagues who will vote for the Nadler amendment, I respect your decision. No one in this House has been a stronger defender of religious liberty and civil rights in Congress than the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and I respect his genuine concerns about possible conflicts between religious rights and other rights. However, if the gentleman's amendment fails, I would hope that Members who supported his amendment would vote for final passage of this bill. The need to protect religious freedom and to do it today is real. It is important. This bill can still be modified in the Senate, in the conference committee, and Members can make their final decision on passage at that time. But the principle of protecting religious freedom in my opinion is too important to delay. Mr. Speaker, no bill is perfect. I do not suggest this bill meets that impossible standard. But I believe the Religious Liberty Protection Act deserves our support because it protects the fundamental principle that government must have compelling reason to limit the religious rights of individual citizens. I can find few reasons more compelling to support any legislation before this House.

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would further ask if it is correct that the point of this legislation is that by adopting the compelling-interest standard Congress is acknowledging that courts will consider and weigh important interests behind these laws; and that because each religious claimant's situation is unique, it is appropriately left to the courts to weigh the competing interests; and that because the legislation is not designed to resolve any specific case or set of facts, it is neutral and does not directly address a specific outcome.

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for this clarification.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I primarily want to rise to congratulate the leadership of this committee and the professional staff for putting together a quality product. If I have any disappointment in this bill, it is simply that the American people will see nothing of this debate and will not hear about this process on the evening news. Because it seems that, with the national press, if it is not conflict, it is simply not news. Well, my message to the American people is, if they watch this military construction appropriations process, this is the way government should work. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking minority member, have put the interest of our military families, the interest of a strong national defense, the interest of our Nation above the interest of any partisanship. Because of that, there will not be great debate on this floor and, consequently, many Americans will not know about the quality product. But, most importantly, the people who will find out about it, the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line defending our country in uniform, in combat, they will be the winners from this legislation. I think it is especially interesting to note, if we look at the supplemental appropriations legislation that passed this House several months ago, along with this legislation, the end product is that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) working together have helped renew a real commitment for quality-of-life programs for our military families both here and abroad. I want to once again commend them for taking an interest in an issue that does not have any political payoff back home or in their districts, the interest of providing better quality housing for our men and women serving in uniform overseas. I think the important message to come out of this bill, Mr. Chairman, is that wars are not won by technology alone. That is an important message that we must remind ourselves and the American people. To win them, wars require quality, well-motivated people. When we consider the number of people in our military that are married today, these quality of life issues, while they may not have defense subcontractor lobbyists from 40 States lobbying in their behalf, are at the heart and soul of our building and strengthening our national defense structure in America. The credit for that goes to the chairman and the ranking member and the professional staff for the great work they have done. I commend them for their work. I just wish the American people could turn on the television tonight and see Congress working on a bipartisan basis putting the interest of our country ahead of partisanship. Congratulations.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, speaking as a citizen I am grateful that I live in a country that protects my right to pray. Speaking as a Christian, I believe deeply in the importance and power of prayer. The idea of having a national voluntary day of prayer is one I can support. But speaking as a Congressman, I am deeply bothered by the clauses of this resolution which would put the U.S. Congress on record as telling individuals that it is a, quote, necessary duty, end quote, to pray. Prayer should not be a government-imposed duty, Mr. Speaker. It is a God-given right. To even suggest prayer should be a government- dictated, necessary duty demeans the very sanctity of prayer. Prayer is not a duty to be directed by this or any Congress. Prayer is an act of free will where one chooses, in the privacy of his or her own heart and soul, to communicate directly with our Creator. What right under our Constitution does this Congress have the right to tell any citizen that it is his duty to pray? The answer is, we have no right to do so. In fact, those who have quoted our Founding Fathers seem to forget the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, which say Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I thank God that our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to write the Bill of Rights so that any attempt by Congress to mandate the religious affairs of American citizens would be null and void. I thank God that Madison and Jefferson were wise enough to realize that the best way to ruin religion is to politicize it. As a Christian, I revere and rely on God in my day-to-day existence. But what right under our Constitution does this Congress today, in a suspension calendar vote with no committee hearings, have to dictate this resolution, where ``It is incumbent upon all public bodies, as well as private persons, to revere and rely on God almighty for our day-to-day existence''? The answer is Congress has no right to do so. For Congress to declare that reverence of and reliance on God is ``incumbent on all public bodies and private persons'' is not only unconstitutional, it is morally wrong, in my opinion. A God that is powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it surely, surely has the power to make us believe or do whatever he so chooses. But God gave man an incredible gift, the gift of free will. He gave each of us the choice to believe in him or not, to worship him or not, to pray to him or not. What right under heaven does this Congress have to infringe upon that divine gift of free will? Any effort by this Congress to inject the notion of ``necessary duty'' upon how, when, or whether an American citizen must pray is not only blatantly unconstitutional, it offends my deepest conviction that the sacredness of one's prayers and belief in God is that they are based on free will, not an imposed duty from government. Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that faith and prayer can make ours a better Nation. However, in reflecting upon the debates in this House of recent days, I would suggest that we Members of Congress should consider spending more time praying and less time trying to tell others how they should pray. I would suggest we should spend more time trying to live up to the Ten Commandments in our personal lives than in using our public positions to tell others which religious commandments they should or should not follow. Perhaps it is time for us in Congress to preach a little less and practice a little more. Maybe we should spend more time worrying about the log in our own eye and less about the speck in others'. God does not need Congress' help, but may God help us if we ever use religion as a means to our own political ends. Mr. Speaker, God gave us religious freedom. In America, the Bill of Rights has protected that precious freedom for over 200 years. Let us not tamper with that freedom under any circumstance, and certainly not after only a 40-minute consent calendar debate and no committee hearings. Such an approach to the profound principles of prayer, faith, and freedom do a disservice to those high principles and to us.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is the unanswered questions about this legislation that bother me the greatest. But I must say that I consider it an affront to the integrity of this House that we would debate such a fundamental constitutional issue, regardless of which side my colleagues are on on this resolution, fundamentally important constitutional issues such as church and State separation, the establishment clause of the first amendment, in fact the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, under a Suspension Calendar with no committee consideration. I think Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison would be ashamed of the process that we are going through today. But let us talk about what unanswered questions we have in this debate, in this little time for debate. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has answered our questions by saying, yes, under this legislation, let me be clear, yes, under this legislation Federal funds will be allowed to hire and fire people based on race discrimination, religious discrimination, sex discrimination.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, under this legislation, if one simply reads it, which most Members of this House have not yet done, a religious organization could say, based on their religious creed, they would not hire someone based on the fact that that person is a woman. A Christian may not hire someone because he is Jewish. A Jewish group may not hire someone because they are Christian. In some religious faiths, they may not hire someone because of the color of their skin. This bill directly endorses job discrimination, and worse yet job discrimination using Federal taxpayers dollars. For that reason and that reason alone, this House should reject this legislation and H.R. 815 which it supports. But that is the answered question. Let us look at the unanswered questions. According to this bill, if a participant in a program is Jewish, working in a Baptist Church that has won the government program, could that Jewish program be forced to say the Lord's Prayer? If the program is an Islamic mosque, would a Christian be forced to follow the rules of Islamic law, including women in America following the rules of Islamic law? If a Buddhist group is running a program, would Jewish and Christian citizens in the program be forced to pray to Buddha? If a Baptist group is running a program, would the Catholic be forced to say the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer? If reciting New Testament proceedings is basically a process that a church goes through that has won these Federal funds for this program, can they force an Islamic or a Muslim or a Jewish person to read from the New Testament? Well, how about this. What about a Wiccam group? It says we are not going to discriminate based on the religion. The courts have said the Wiccams are religious group identified in this country. What if the Wiccam group has a religious service where they honor the sun and the moon and circle as they do with candles? And they actively participate in that process in my district in Central Texas. Can they force a Christian alcoholic to participate in the Wiccam religious services? If my colleagues say yes, that is religious discrimination. What if the Santeria, a religion than practiced, and a religion as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States, what if the Santeria win a Federal grant to administer alcohol programs? Since my colleagues say they cannot discriminate based on religion, does that mean that the Santerias can force a Presbyterian to participate in the decapitation of a chicken's head, because that is part of the prayer ritual the Santeria religion? The fact is, there are too many unanswered questions in this legislation that go to the heart, the reason why our Founding Fathers chose the first 16 words of our Bill of Rights, to be committed to protecting religion against government intervention, that we should reject this legislation. According to these proponents, we would think that the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights are a shackle on religious freedom. That is absolutely wrong. Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, others involved in drafting that legislation did not write the establishment clause to shackle religion in America. They did it to shackle government from intervening into the religious freedom of individuals. Political conservatives should be terrified by this legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. First is in response to the last speaker. I think the fact that the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs strongly opposes this legislation today really undermines the gentleman's argument or suggestion that people of faith should be for this Federal funding and faith-based organizations. Secondly, I would like to correct the statement made by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) when he failed to point out that the Supreme Court in 1989 ruled that, when an organization such as this case, the Salvation Army was using Federal funds to hire people, they could not fire someone based on religion. In this particular case, the Salvation Army could not fire a Wiccam because of his religious belief. So the gentleman is really in a quandary. Either one can endorse religious-based discrimination using Federal funds, or is one going to say to the Baptist Church of Waco, Texas that they must hire Wiccams. Perhaps they must hire Satanic worshipers. Perhaps they must hire people of religious faith that are inconsistent with their own.

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, that is in the bill. And reclaiming my time, the point I would make is, that direct language in the bill directly conflicts with the gentleman's answer to my question. Let me ask the gentleman another question about the intent of this legislation and H.R. 815, which he is supporting. Under this legislation, would a Christian organization that has won a grant program for alcohol and drug abuse programs be able to take Federal funds to hire and fire employees, and could it then refuse to hire an employee, a perfectly qualified employee, because that person is Jewish?