Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, in 30 seconds, let me debate the first amendment to the Constitution. The gentleman has made my point better than I could make it. He is saying that under ``the Bush administration,'' they would pick out which religious organization qualifies for Federal tax dollars and which ones would not. That is exactly what Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson did not want when they founded the basis of the Bill of Rights. They did not want politicians and government officials deciding which religious organization receives official government approval and which ones do not. I would suggest that providing direct Federal tax dollars to let group discrimination based on religion is a reason to oppose this amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman understand that the Supreme Court of the United States has given tax- free status to the Wiccans; and, therefore, they would be protected, as would the Methodist church, the Baptist church, and the Jewish synagogue. So would the gentleman admit to the fact that under his amendment, our Federal tax dollars could go to the Wiccan church to run a housing program. Is that correct?

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, no, I will not yield at this point. I would like to ask the gentleman a question, the author of the amendment, if I could. If we had more time, I would be glad to have a discussion. I wish we had several hours, if not days of debate on this church-state issue. Madam Chairman, let me ask the question. Under the gentleman's amendment, would the Wiccans be able to apply for Federal tax funding?

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, reclaiming my time, I would hope Members who have not paid attention to this amendment that is added at the end of an otherwise excellent bill will understand that what the gentleman is saying is that contrary to 200 years of history in this country, the gentleman wants the American taxpayers' dollars to be used, would allow them to be used, regardless of intent, to discriminate against people because of their religious views. I would urge Members to pay attention to that. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman answering that question honestly. Let me ask the gentleman another question.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am trying to ask the gentleman a very significant question under the gentleman's amendment, and let me repeat it. Next year, would a church associated with Bob Jones University be able to put out a sign saying, using your tax dollars, no Catholics need apply here for a job?

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to late-term abortions. But when the health of the mother is at risk in tragic cases, that choice should be made by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. This bill would prohibit abortions even when a mother's health is at risk. We have no right in this Congress to make that health decision for other people's wives and other people's daughters. No Member of this House has the right to risk any other woman's fertility, no Member. What this Congress should do is to pass a bill that outlaws all late- term abortion procedures, not just one procedure like this bill does, and then include an exemption in rare tragic cases where a mother's health is at risk. This is the kind of bill I helped pass in Texas in 1987. It was a bipartisan bill, unlike this one, designed not for political press releases and sound bites and attack ads. It was designed to save the lives of babies, something this bill would not do. I would like to ask the supporters of this bill one question they refused to answer for the last 5 years. If they have such a low opinion of America's women that they truly believe mothers want to maliciously kill viable, healthy babies late in pregnancy just moments before natural childbirth, if they really believe that, how does outlawing one procedure while keeping all other procedures legal save even one baby's life? The truth is this bill does not save one life, and pro-life citizens and leaders have even admitted that. The deceptive secret of this bill is that it would keep it perfectly legal to have late-term abortions under this bill, just use a different procedure. Babies are not saved by this bill. But sadly, in tragic, sad cases, mothers' health and their ability to have children in the future will be put at risk. The truth is that if there is one frivolous killing of one healthy baby after viability anywhere in America, that is one too many. And we would all want to prevent such a case. The real tragedy is not that this bill will not become law. The real tragedy is that supporters of this bill could have added a health exemption into this bill at any point during the last 5 years and we would have outlawed all late-term abortion procedures, not just one procedure. Let us vote no on this rule and no on this bill and then do what we should do. Let us pass a law that will outlaw all late-term abortion procedures while protecting women's health.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, first, in response to my colleagues' assertions, I must say that a health exemption for women is not a loophole, it is a constitutional right, and it is the right thing to do for America's women. I would argue if a health exemption is such a terrible thing to do, why is Governor Bush in my home State of Texas over the last 5 years while he has been in office not made, to my knowledge, any serious effort to close that so-called loophole in our State. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to late-term abortions, but when the health of the mother is at risk, that is a choice that should be made by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. Coreen Costello was a pro-life Republican and mother of three when her pregnancy turned tragically fatal for her child. Her doctors preserved her fertility with the procedure being outlawed in this bill. She then became pregnant again and gave birth to her fourth child. Listen to this loving mother's words, and I quote: ``Because of this procedure, I now have something my heart ached for, a new baby, a boy named Tucker. He is our family's joy, and I thank God for him.'' Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to the women of America to suggest that they want to kill healthy, viable babies just seconds before normal childbirth, and shame on those who would use a deceptive, politically motivated drawing to suggest that American women are monsters that would kill their viable, healthy babies just as they were being born and to do so for frivolous reasons. The truth is, the truth is they are rare, but tragic cases, cases like Coreen Costello, where their babies had no chance to live, and doctors used abortions to protect the mother's health and her ability to have a child in the future. This bill would do great harm to decent, loving women such as Mrs. Costello. By voting no on this bill, we are saying this to American women: when your health is at risk, you and your doctor should make that choice, not politicians in Washington, D.C. No Member of this House has the right to substitute his or her judgment for that of a doctor and mother faced with such a rare but tragic situation where a pregnancy is failing and the goal is to save a mother's fertility or health. No Member has that right. Not one! It is unfair to the women of America to say, ``When your health is at risk, Congress should decide which medical procedure should be used.'' How many in this Chamber are qualified to make that medical decision for someone else's wife or daughter?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, we should reward work, not punish work. We should honor citizens who work, not tax them. That is why I urge the House today to pass a bill to let seniors work without losing any Social Security benefits. It is unfair under present law that 800,000 of our seniors in America lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn. The Seniors Citizens Freedom to Work Act deserves our support today. Then, in the days ahead, this Congress should move forward to use our surplus to protect Social Security and Medicare and we should fight to bring down the high cost of prescription drugs for our seniors. Our seniors have made this a better country. They have earned our support. They deserve our respect and our vote.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that is not the only reason we do not have a budget agreement today. One of the reasons is because the majority party in the House for 8 months proposed a trillion dollar tax cut that did not work, that went to the richest families in America, that assumed we would spend $198 billion less on national defense than President Clinton's budget proposals over the next 10 years. The American people rejected it. The numbers did not work. I am amazed to sit here and hear my colleagues talk about not raiding Social Security by reducing four-tenths of 1 percent of the discretionary programs when they offered a trillion dollar tax cut that was going to devastate our ability financially to protect Social Security. I welcome the debate.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first point out two inaccurate and I assume unintentional statements made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Two of their speakers have misrepresented my amendment, saying that it would deny funding to all faith-based organizations. Let me be clear what my amendment does or does not do so Members can know the facts and make their own decision on that amendment. My amendment says that the Federal funds under this bill may go to faith-based organizations. And there are hundreds, if not thousands, of faith-based organizations out there. Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services of America, Jewish Federation, Salvation Army, Volunteers of America, Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Even 501(c)(3) organizations associated directly with the church would not be prohibited from receiving money under my amendment. What my amendment simply does is deal with, as the previous speaker said, the legal technicality. I do want to point out, when we talk about legal technicality, we are talking about the first 10 words of the First Amendment of our Constitution, the first words that our Founding Fathers chose to put in the Bill of Rights, which said, ``Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' The legal technicality that the gentleman kind of demeans in his comments refers also to Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority statement in writing the opinion in the 1988 case of Bowen v. Kendrick that direct Federal funding to pervasively sectarian organizations is unconstitutional. So perhaps if they want to take the position that the Bill of Rights is the legal technicality, that the First Amendment of the Constitution is a legal technicality, and that Justice Rehnquist and the Supreme Court are simply a legal technicality, then perhaps they should go ahead and vote against the Edwards amendment. But if they take seriously and deeply the commitment of our Nation for two centuries not to the have direct Federal funding of churches and houses of worship, I would suggest that they should vote for the Edwards amendment and, recognizing the fact of the actual language, that it will continue to allow Federal dollars to go to faith-based organizations. I hope the gentleman might have a chance to review my amendment again so that he would make it clear that we do hot prohibit money from going to faith-based organizations. We do try to be constitutional and help this bill in its constitutionality in prohibiting money from going directly to churches. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to explain why the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, and Judge Rehnquist's decision in 1988 in the Supreme Court case are merely legal technicalities.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and as the father of two small boys, I would hardly stand in the well of this House and oppose the concept of encouraging fathers to be part of their family and to take responsibility for their children. But I rise today because I want to bring to Members' attention what I think are two fundamental flaws in this bill unless we pass the Edwards amendment in debate today. The first is, without my amendment, this bill would allow direct Federal tax dollars to go directly into churches, synagogues, and houses of worship. Clearly, in my opinion, and more importantly the opinion of Justice Rehnquist in the 1988 decision, something that is unconstitutional. Secondly, without the Edwards amendment, under this measure, because it adopts language that was originally put into the welfare reform bill that not a handful of Members of this House were aware of when that bill passed, and listen to me, Members, on this, this bill, without my amendment, would allow a church to take Federal tax dollars and put up a sign saying, if you are not of a particular religion, we will not hire you because of your religious faith. Signs in one church using Federal dollars may say, no Jews need apply here, and another church say, no Christians or no Protestants need apply here. I find that offensive and I would hope every Member of this House would join me in support of changing that fatal flaw in this legislation. Since the Committee on Rules was gracious enough to give me my amendment, I will have a chance to debate it further. Unfortunately, I will only have 10 minutes to debate the issue of separation of church and State that our Founding Fathers spent 10 years debating. So let me discuss my amendment now. My amendment is straightforward and direct. It says that Federal funding of this bill can go to faith-based organizations but not directly to churches, synagogues, and houses of worship. My amendment will be a short amendment and it will be a short debate. But, Members, the principle of opposing direct Federal funding of churches, synagogues, and houses of worship is as timeless and as profound as the first 10 words of our Bill of Rights. Those words are these: ``Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' Those words have protected for over 200 years American religion from government intervention and regulation. In a 20-minute debate today on this floor when our attention is focused on appropriations bills, let us not carelessly throw away the religious freedom and tolerance our Founding Fathers so carefully crafted in the establishment clause and the first words of the first amendment of our Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong, given some basic safeguards, with faith-based organizations, such as the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities receiving Federal money to run social programs. However, if my colleagues would listen to the words of Madison and Jefferson, there is something terribly wrong about Federal tax dollars going directly to churches, synagogues, and houses of worship. Our Founding Fathers, as I stated, debated at length the question of government-funding of churches. They not only said no, they felt so strongly about their answer that they dedicated the first words of the Bill of Rights to the proposition that government should stay out of religion and should not directly fund religion and houses of worship. Our Founding Fathers did not build the establishment clause in the Bill of Rights out of disrespect for religion, they did it out of total reverence for religion. Why? Because our Founding Fathers understood the clear lesson of all of human history, that the best way to ruin religion is to politicize it. The best way to limit religious freedom is to let government regulate religion. Millions of foreign citizens have emigrated to America and even put their lives on the line to do so precisely because of the religious freedom we have here guaranteed under the establishment clause. Why in the world would we in this Congress want to tear down a principle today that our Founding Fathers so extraordinarily fought for and that has worked, a principle that has worked so well for over 2 centuries? Why in the world would this Congress today want to emulate the failed policies of other nations who have direct Federal involvement in funding of their churches and of their religions and, as a consequence, have had religious fights, discord and, yes, even wars? What is wrong with direct Federal funding of churches and synagogues and houses of worship? With less eloquence than Jefferson and Madison, let me mention four serious specific problems. First, it is clearly unconstitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in 1988, in the case of Bowen vs Kendrick, ``There is a risk that direct government funding, even if it is designated for specific secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively sectarian institution's religious mission.'' The second problem. This bill, if not amended, as I have said, would allow Federal dollars to be used, and listen to me, my colleagues, would allow Federal dollars to be used to discriminate against citizens in job hiring and firing based specifically and only on their religious faith. I find that repugnant. One church, as I said, could put up a sign saying, Jews may not apply for jobs for this federally funded position. Another community, perhaps a church, that says, Protestants may not apply, or Catholics may not apply, Hindus may not apply, using Federal dollars. And that is wrong, my colleagues; and we ought to change it with the Edwards amendment. The idea of government-funded religious discrimination, I hope, would find great offense in this House today. It is anathema to the most fundamental rights embedded in the very core of our constitution. The third problem with this bill and its direct Federal funding of our churches, synagogues, and houses of worship should be obvious to all of us, but especially to my conservative Republican friends, direct Federal funding will lead to massive Federal regulations of our religious institutions. Does anybody question that? If we dislike Federal agencies regulating our businesses and our schools, why in the world would we, through this and the welfare reform legislation language that it adopts, why would we want to invite the Federal Government to regulate our churches and our religious institutions on a daily basis? The fourth problem with this bill, without my amendment, is that it will pit churches and synagogues against each other in the pursuit of millions and ultimately billions of Federal dollars. Just look at the dissension that it has caused this Congress, professional politicians fighting over the annual appropriation bill. Think what is going to happen when we have Baptists and Methodists and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and all of 2,000 religious sects in America all competing for the almighty Federal dollar? This bill has many good provisions in it that I could support, but it has these two fatal flaws. I urge, on a bipartisan basis, my colleagues to vote for the Edwards amendment, allow funding of faith-based organizations with safeguards, but prohibit direct funding of churches, synagogues, and houses of worship. And let us say clearly today on the floor of this House with our vote on my amendment that we do not support using Federal dollars to discriminate against American citizens based solely on their religious beliefs. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to finally thank the Democratic sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for his strong support of the Edwards amendment. Mr. Speaker, following is the case summary I referred to previously: Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988) (Justice Rehnquist Wrote the Majority Opinion in Which Justices White, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy Joined) Facts: Challenge to federal grant program that provides funding for services relating to adolescent sexuality and pregnancy. Plaintiffs claimed that the federal program, the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), was unconstitutional on its face and as applied. Ruling: The Court held that the statute was not unconstitutional on its face. It also ruled, however, that a determination of whether any of the grants made pursuant to the statute violate the Establishment Clause required further proceedings in the district court. ``In particular, it will be open to [plaintiffs] on remand to show that AFLA aid is flowing to grantees that can be considered `pervasively sectarian' religious institutions . . .'' Reasoning: Although the Court did not believe that the possibility that AFLA grants may go to religious institutions that could be considered `pervasively sectarian' was sufficient to conclude that no grants whatsoever could be given under the statute to religious organizations, it left the district court free to consider whether certain grants were going to such groups and thereby improperly advancing religion. By contrast, Court made clear that religiously affiliates could receive tax funds for secular purposes. ``Of course, even when the challenged statute appears to be neutral on its face, we have always been careful to ensure that direct government aid to religiously affiliated institutions does not have the primary effect of advancing religion. One way in which direct government aid might have that effect is if the aid flows to institutions that are `pervasively sectarian.' We stated in Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973) that: ``[a]id normally may be thought to have a primary effect of advancing religion when it flows to an institution in which religion is so pervasive that a substantial portion of its functions are subsumed in the religious mission.'' The reason for this is that there is a risk that direct government funding, even if it is designated for specific secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively sectarian institution's `religious mission.' '' Court also noted difference between pervasively sectarian and religiously affiliated entities when it stated that grant monitoring expected under statute did not amount to excessive entanglement, ``at least in the context of a statute authorizing grants to religiously affiliated organizations that are not necessarily `pervasively sectarian.' '' Note on Justices Kennedy and Scalia's separate concurrence: Justice Kennedy wrote separate concurrence, in which Justice Scalia joined, to emphasize that they did not believe the district court should focus on whether the recipient organizations were pervasively sectarian, but instead on the way in which the organization spent its grant. ``[T]he only purpose of further inquiring whether any particular grantee institution is pervasively sectarian is as a preliminary step to demonstrating that the funds are in fact being used to further religion.''

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me point out that I would make the same argument the gentleman made as an argument to support the Edwards amendment and I appreciate his bringing it up. Under their bill, when money goes directly to the church, the Federal Government, to provide accountability to the taxpayers, is going to have to audit every dime raised and spent by that church. If we pass my amendment, the money goes to a separate organization affiliated with the church or religion. And, therefore, because it is separate, they do not give the Government the carte blanche to walk into every church and synagogue in America and audit their revenues and their expenditures. I think, without this amendment, this bill, whether intended or not, is going to invite massive involvement of Federal regulation into our houses of worship. And finally the point I would make, the gentleman has referenced these debates we have had on the floor of the House about so-called charitable choice. Let me point out to him, I think he may recall the last two times we have had that debate, one was at 12:30 in the morning that lasted for 10 minutes and the other one was at 1:00 in the morning that lasted for 10 minutes. I would be willing to wager with the gentleman that there were not 15 Members out of 435 of this House that knew that the Welfare Reform bill of 1996 opened the door to possible unconstitutional direct funding of our churches. So the fact that we did something that the courts are now looking at, and I think will declare as unconstitutional, in 1996 is hardly a rationale to say, based on those 1:00 a.m. debates with 5 minutes on the floor of the House, we ought to extend this unconstitutional direct funding of our religious houses of worship and just one more step with just, gosh, this is just another $150 million. This is an issue our Founding Fathers debated at length, and it was so fundamental to them that they said neither convenience nor even good intentions should be a reason for breaking down the wall of separation between church and State. This is a fundamental principle. I wish we could debate this issue all day. It deserves such a debate. But I would just argue with my colleagues, if they want to support this bill, if they actually want it to become law, they should support the Edwards amendment, because based on the clear decision of the Supreme Court in 1988 in Judge Rehnquist's decision, this bill will not be constitutional unless we pass the Edwards amendment. The final thing I would point out, in response to what the gentleman was saying, is that if we separate out the funding and have it go to religiously affiliated organizations, they do not have the protection under the Supreme Court decisions to discriminate based on religious faith. So, without my amendment, what they are really doing is breaking new ground. I would like to ask the gentleman to respond, how can he defend the concept of taking his and my Federal dollars and our constituents' Federal dollars and hanging up a sign saying a Jew, a Christian, a Protestant, a Hindu or a Muslim should not apply for this Federally funded job because they do not participate in the right religion? How can the gentleman defend that principle?

Mr. EDWARDS. Frankly, our Founding Fathers did not trust government to regulate churches and houses of worship. I think they had it absolutely right in the Bill of Rights. The gentleman has made my point. He needs to go back and look at the language in the actual Welfare Reform Act of 1996 that nobody knew about and this adopted that says, yes, there is an exemption that applies to that, and now to this bill if we pass it, that says, yes, you can hang out a sign saying, do not apply for this federally funded job if you are not of the right religious faith. That is obnoxious to me, that is repugnant to me, and I think that is why this should be a bipartisan amendment. I would urge my Republican colleagues to support it.

Mr. EDWARDS. I did not shift my argument. I will be happy to give the gentleman the printed statement that I read from a few minutes ago. What it says is this bill without the Edwards amendment will let you take Federal dollars and discriminate against someone in the hiring of a person based on his or her religion.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and, Mr. Chairman, I will be offering an amendment in a few minutes that I hope all Members on both sides of the aisle will consider very carefully. The amendment is very simple, but the principle behind that amendment is, I believe, as profound as the meaning of the establishment clause in the first amendment of our Constitution. What our amendment does is simply say that monies, the $150 million that will be funded through this bill, shall not go to pervasively sectarian organizations. The Supreme Court has decided this, specifically in a decision in 1988 in Bowen vs Kendrick, saying that pervasively sectarian organizations, or organizations such as churches, synagogues, mosques, houses of worship, where religion is fundamentally thoroughly the reason for its existence. Why do I offer this amendment? Well, there are a couple of basic reasons. First of all, the Founding Fathers made it very clear, and not just in putting it in the Bill of Rights, but putting in the first 10 words of the Bill of Rights this principle: that the best way to have religious freedom and respect in America is to build a firewall between government regulations and religion. And that separation, that wall of separation between church and State, has for 200 years worked extraordinarily well. We are the envy of the world when it comes to religious tolerance and religious freedom. Why in the world, in a 20-minute debate over an amendment on the floor today in this House, should we, in effect, tear down that wall of separation between church and state and put at risk the independence and freedom of religious organizations and institutions all across this country? The second reason I would say we need to pass the Edwards amendment is that without that amendment we need to look at the language this bill refers to in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which not more than a handful of Members were even aware of. This bill, without my amendment, could literally let churches and houses of worship take Federal dollars and, in using those dollars to run secular or social programs, they can hold out that money and actually use it to pay for a sign that they could put on the front of their church saying that no Jews need apply for this job, no Protestants need apply for this federally funded job, no Catholics, no Hindus. Whatever religions they do not like, they can use Federal dollars to literally discriminate in job hiring decisions based on no other reason than the religion of that American citizen. I find that to be repugnant to the concept of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights. And I know that no sponsor of this legislation would intentionally want to do that, but I would urge them to take a look at the impact of this language and the underlying language that it builds on from the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. I appreciate deeply the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Democratic sponsor of this bill, and his strong support of my amendment. I think he and I would agree that if we believe in this legislation, we ought to vote for the Edwards amendment simply to make it constitutional, if for no other reason than that practical but yet important reason. I think it is time for this House to take a stand in saying that we are not going to compromise the meaning of the establishment clause, the first 10 words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, not out of disrespect to religion, but out of total reverence to religion. To my Republican colleagues and conservative Members on both sides of the aisle, those of them who constantly come to this floor and express grievous reservations about government regulation of our public schools and they do not even want the Federal Government involved in governing our local schools and they are greatly concerned about Federal regulations and agencies overseeing businesses in America, why in the world through this legislation would they want to extend government regulation into our churches, our synagogues, and our houses of worship? The way this bill is written and using the underlying language of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, they basically are going to invite government regulators to come into virtually any synagogue, church, or house of worship that receives money under this program and allow those government regulators to ask where they got their money, how they spend their money, and the purposes for it. Please, my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, vote for the Edwards amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the points made by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). First of all, she talked about a chilling effect. Quite frankly, to be honest, I do want to put a chilling effect, as Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson wanted to in writing the Bill of Rights and drafting it and supporting it, that we ought not to have Federal dollars going directly to houses of worship. They were adamant, they were profoundly committed to that concept. And, yes, I do want to put a chilling effect on that kind of flow of dollars, for all the reasons that I have mentioned. But my amendment is clear that it allows dollars, under this program, to go to other faith-based organizations. I think that is one reason why a number of religious organizations are supporting my amendment. Let me just mention a few: The American Jewish Committee, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, actually the American Federation of State and County and Municipal Employees, the National Council of Jewish Women, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish Committee, Religious Action Center, America United for Separation of Church and State, the Council on Religious Freedom. This is not going to stop faith-based organizations from participating in social programs. What it is going to do is make this bill consistent with Bowen v. Kendrick in 1988 in the Supreme Court decision. Let me read from what Justice Rehnquist actually wrote in the majority position. He said, the reason for this concern, and he is referring to Federal dollars going to pervasively sectarian churches to be run in secular programs, ``The reason for this is that there is a risk that direct government funding, even if it is designated for specific secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively sectarian institution's religious mission.'' I do not understand why any sponsor of this legislation would want to write a bill knowing it is specifically in contrast to a clear constitutional decision written by Mr. Rehnquist and supported by a majority of the Supreme Court on a very similar case. Secondly, on some other points, she talked about, well, under this bill you will not be able to discriminate against people wanting the services. That still does not deny the fact that it will allow you to use Federal dollars to discriminate against people, in hiring people for running and managing these programs based simply on their religion. There are logical reasons why we let church and synagogues hire people of their own faith using their own dollars. But this is plowing new ground, beginning with the welfare reform bill of just 3 years ago, that has not been well implemented yet, in allowing dollars to go directly to churches and synagogues and houses of worship. I think that is profoundly risky and dangerous and threatens the very purpose and commitment of the Bill of Rights. The gentlewoman mentioned, quote, there are no problems over the last 6 years. Let me point out that the welfare reform bill was only passed in 1996. It has only been in place 3 years, not 6 years, and in fact it is now being mired down in constitutional debate and court cases over the very point we are making today. Why burden this legislation with the burden that the welfare reform act is going through? Finally, I think the point is just simply this: For 200 years, we have had separation of church and State for very basic reasons. We do not want government regulation of religious institutions. I would suggest without the Edwards amendment, that is exactly what we are going to get. Even when a church defends its efforts as not being proselytizing or sectarian, that will require itself court cases where it will allow plaintiffs to go in and file lawsuits against churches and houses of worship. I would suggest it is that constitutional question, it is that legal fear that has caused many churches, religions and houses of worship not to want to participate in direct Federal funding under the welfare reform bill.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one sentence long. It says this: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds shall not be provided under this section to any faith-based institution that is pervasively sectarian.'' This is very simple. The Supreme Court ruled in 1988 they cannot give dollars directly to pervasively sectarian organizations, essentially organizations that are thoroughly religious, that their secular and religious purposes are so intertwined they cannot separate them. We are picking up that language of the Supreme Court in its 1988 case to try to make this bill constitutional. I want to be clear. My amendment does not stop Federal funds from flowing to faith-based organizations. That is happening today. It has happened for years. And it will continue to happen under my amendment. What will be different is, under my amendment, we will follow the profound principles of the first 10 words, in fact, the establishment clause of the Bill of Rights, that say our Founding Fathers did not and would not want direct Federal dollars to go directly to houses of worship, churches, and synagogues. There are many supporters, from the Joint Baptist Committee to the American Jewish Committee, of this amendment. Let me just say some things that will happen if it does not pass. First, they will obliterate a 200-year wall of separation between church and State. Convenience or even good intentions are not good enough reasons to turn our back on the first 10 words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Secondly, without my amendment passing, this bill will let a church or religious organization take Federal dollars and, in the decision of hiring people for that federally funded program, say, no, they are not good enough, we are not hiring them because they are not, as an American citizen, of the right religion in our opinion. I find that is offensive to the concept of religious freedom and respect and independence in this country. Third, I think they are going to harm these religious organizations by inviting massive Federal regulation of them. And finally, they will create great dissension as these organizations compete for Federal dollars.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), cosponsor and coauthor of this legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I could make two points to the distinguished majority leader, let me say first that I hope that passage of a multi-billion dollar appropriation bill or bills is not contingent upon Members not having the ability to read it. I hope that would cause great concern on both sides of the aisle, if the argument is the only way we can finally solve this appropriation conflict of ours is if we bring together a package and do not let Members have time to read it and think about it. Secondly, tomorrow is not only Veterans Day, it is the last Veterans Day of the 20th century. It is a century that has seen our veterans fight in two world wars, and through all parts of this globe. I know I speak for Republicans and Democrats alike when I say that inconveniencing a Member of Congress should be of no consequence, but showing a lack of respect to the veterans who have fought those two world wars, many of whom will not be around to see the next Veterans Day, is totally a different thing. I would plead with the majority leader, obviously, and Democrats and Republicans, to say, it is worth it to show respect to our veterans on the last Veterans Day of this century to let the House Members know within the next several hours whether they can catch planes back home tonight so they can make speeches tomorrow morning and tomorrow afternoon. Give not us that privilege, Mr. Majority leader, but give that privilege to our veterans. Let us go home and say thank you to our veterans for the sacrifices they have given on behalf of our Nation.