Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I understand. Mr. Speaker, I think that makes my point.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, tomorrow in this House I will vote to oppose the Istook amendment which would amend our cherished Bill of Rights for the first time in our Nation's history. Numerous religious organizations support this position. Yet incredibly and sadly the Christian Coalition has sent out a mailing in my district which I would like to submit for the Record accusing me of, quote, religious bigotry because I oppose the Istook amendment. They say this about me: ``His attitudes have no place in Texas or anywhere in America.'' Madam Speaker, I never thought that my position in defending the first amendment of the Bill of Rights would be the basis for someone accusing me of being anti-American. Such a claim is outrageous. If I am a religious bigot for believing in the first amendment, the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, then I shall say I will be in good company with James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and our Founding Fathers. Perhaps the author of this hate mail should be reminded of the ninth commandment which says, ``Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.'' Stop The Bigotry! Your congressman, Rep. Chet Edwards, is trying to stop Christians and other people of faith from exercising two of their First Amendment rights: the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression. Rep. Edwards is the leading opponent of the Religious Freedom Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This Amendment would allow all Americans the freedom of religious expression in public places and would ensure that school children are not punished for creating a Valentine to Jesus, or for reading a Bible during free time. The Edwards bigotry directed at Christians and other people of faith is outrageous and must be stopped! His attitudes have no place in Texas or anywhere in America. People of faith cannot sit silently and allow this bigotry to be used as a tool to stop the Religious Freedom Amendment. We must stand for our right to express our religious beliefs. Call Rep. Edwards now and (1) ask him to stop trying to silence people of faith and (2) encourage him to support the Religious Freedom Amendment. Call To Action--Prayer Monitors In The Public School Halls! Blatant disregard for the rights of people of faith are becoming more and more commonplace as our judges and politicians turn their backs on religious freedom. We Need A Religious Freedom Amendment Call your congressman at the numbers listed on this postcard today!

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect those who have worked hard to develop America's highway infrastructure. I believe that is an important function of the Federal Government. But for anyone who has come to this Congress on the platform of fiscal responsibility, I would like to suggest there is something very wrong with our voting in just a few minutes to spend $200 billion of our taxpayers' money, when frankly I cannot get a copy of the bill to even look at before we vote on it. Whether one thinks this could be a great bill or one thinks it is a horrible bill, the fact is that we are about to spend $200 billion and most Members have not even had a chance to look at the bill. It is fiscally irresponsible. Whether you are Republican or a Democrat or an Independent, the fact is that this does not make sense for us to so cavalierly spend that much money of taxpayers' dollars without being given a fair opportunity to review the details of this bill. A few minutes ago, I was told by staff that we could get a copy of this bill sometime tomorrow, of course, after we have voted on it. And I guess it would be nice if they vote for this to get a copy tomorrow so they can tell their constituents what is in it. So my objection to this rule, Mr. Speaker, is not any specific content in the bill. Because, frankly, most of us do not have a chance, I cannot find a copy of the bill, at least on this side of the aisle. Perhaps the majority party has a copy of the bill. But we also have a constitutional responsibility to review legislation before we vote on it even though we are on the minority side of the aisle. So I object and I hope other Members of this House from both parties who have gone back home year after year after year and said, we have got to spend your taxpayer dollars wisely, we have got to be careful in how we spend it, we ought to show fiscal responsibility, I hope those Members will think twice before spending $200 billion without even looking at a copy of the bill.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed that so many Republican Members, colleagues who are willing to shut down the Federal Government, harming veterans, harming seniors on Social Security, putting many of our Federal employees at risk of losing their homes, not being able to pay their bills, did not think it was important enough to come back to the floor tonight to be here with less than half a dozen of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But what I do hope is that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American that were directly harmed by the Government shutdown, such as our veterans in my district that did not receive compensation and pension checks, did not have their cases handled, I hope the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees that were put out of work because the Republicans said the principle of using the Congressional Budget Office numbers were so important we had to shut down the Government over that principle, I hope all those millions of people will notice this debate tonight and realize that the distinguished Majority Whip has now said this principle is no longer worth defending. Not only is it not worth defending, he said he is going to oppose the motion.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the Republican leadership would want to take credit for cutting $17 billion out of veterans' health care programs rather than just cutting $10 billion. But I presume if they want to take credit for cutting those veterans' benefits, despite the opposition of every major national veterans organization, then they can have that credit. Mr. Speaker, the principle behind the Minge motion is very simple. It says, first, if Congress is going to increase spending for new programs, it should pay for it with cuts in other programs. Second, the Minge motion says Congress should use honest numbers, honest numbers in budgeting. I would hope that every Member of Congress who has claimed to be a fiscal conservative will vote for this motion. I would like to see bipartisan support for it. The first point, paying for new spending with other budget cuts, is certainly not a new idea. Every Member who voted, Republican and Democrat alike, who voted for the 5-year Balanced Budget Act just 9 months ago in this body, in this Chamber, has already gone on record saying new spending should be paid for, not passed on to our children and grandchildren as an increase in the national debt. The second point to the Minge motion, using honest budget numbers, is something my Republican colleagues have strongly embraced in the past. Specifically, Republican House Members up to now have argued that the Congressional Budget Office numbers should be used to ensure, in their terms, honest budgeting. In light of numerous Republican floor speeches in 1995, when many House Republicans were even willing to shut down the Federal Government over the principle of using CBO numbers, it would be surprising today if that principle should now be abandoned in the name of cutting veterans' programs, health care programs, more deeply, or in the name of increasing Federal spending by $7 billion. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if a principle is good enough to justify shutting down the Federal Government, with all the harm that caused just 3 years ago, then surely that same principle should be worth voting for today in the Minge motion. Let me use not my words but the words of Republicans on the floor of this House just a few years ago about the important principle that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) is showing today. Speaker Gingrich said, ``All the President has to do,'' and then went on to finish by saying, ``is to commit to a 7-year balanced budget with honest numbers and an honest scoring system,'' referring to the CBO numbers. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, said, on November 20, 1995, in this House: There is no wiggle room there, ladies and gentlemen. We will do it with 7 years, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. There is no wiggle room there. No smoke and mirrors. We will do it with realistic figures. Seems to me if smoke and mirrors were a bad habit in 1995 they are a bad habit in 1998. Let us go on to see what other Republican Members of the House said about using CBO numbers. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), my friend and colleague, a strong fiscal conservative, said: I also rise in favor of the concurrent resolution that says we will balance the budget in 7 years, that we will use honest numbers. The Congressional Budget Office numbers are what he was referring to. And finally, let me just mention another Republican statement from December 20 of 1995 made in the well of this House. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) said: I believe a lot of Members on that side want a balanced budget, too. They want it honestly scored, and that means by the Congressional Budget Office. We are tired of smoke and mirrors and phony numbers. Yet phony numbers are what this House will endorse if it votes against the Minge motion. Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, from my political perspective as a Democrat, it would probably help me more if most Republicans vote against the Minge motion. Such a vote would show the increasingly restless core Republican voters that the Republican leadership in this House has turned its back on principles such as fiscal responsibility and using honest budget numbers that seemed so terribly important just 36 months ago. If these core principles were the Republican justification for shutting down the Federal Government in 1995, then surely those principles should be worth supporting in the few minutes ahead. Because, though, I believe that the policy of fiscal responsibility in this highway bill is more important than its politics, frankly, I hope that Republicans will stick with their past principles and join Democrats in supporting the Minge motion. Mr. Speaker, this highway bill is the first major test of the 5-year, 5-year, balanced budget agreement signed just 9 months ago. If we fail to be fiscally responsible in this, our first major test of the budget agreement, then the so-called 5-year Balanced Budget Act should be renamed the 9-Month Budget Act, or perhaps even the ``We Really Didn't Mean It Budget Act''. Any Member who supported the Balanced Budget Act or has spoken of ``honest budgeting'' can show their constituents this evening they mean what they say by voting for the Minge motion.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I live in Texas; frankly, much closer to the Mexican border than the gentleman from Ohio. While I have great respect for the gentleman's interest in fighting drugs, as a father of two small sons who will be raised in Texas near the Mexican border I will absolutely take a back seat to no one in this House in my interest in fighting drugs. Let us be fair in this debate. This is not about who wants to fight drugs and who does not. This is about the best way to do it. There is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish our Nation's goals. The wrong way is to put thousands of U.S. soldiers on the Texas/Mexican border to make our State look like east Berlin during the Cold War. The Army does not want this. Those of us who represent major Army installations, and I represent the largest populated Army installation in the world, Fort Hood, I can speak for thousands of Army soldiers in saying that they came into the Army to fight for our Nation's defense and wars, not to stand on the borders of our States in the fight against drugs, a noble cause, perhaps, but one that is inappropriate because of the Posse Comitatus. What is the next step? I agree that fighting drunk driving fatalities is terribly important. Do we want to station thousands of soldiers on American roads and highways to fight drunk driving? Certainly not. For the same reason, we should not put thousands of Army soldiers on the border of Texas. The fact is that it takes three soldiers for every one deployed, those to be trained, those deployed, and those who just recently deployed. We simply cannot afford in our national security interest to allow thousands of soldiers to be diverted to the Texas or any other border in our States.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague from Kentucky would be willing to have a discussion. I appreciated his comments, trying to explain why Republicans might oppose the very principle tonight that they were willing to shut down the government for three years ago. I would be willing to hear from the gentleman from Kentucky once again. Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of veterans in my district who did not get compensation and pension checks, service-connected veterans who did not have their cases processed because Republicans said in these statements I have before me, made on the floor of this House, that we are willing to shut down the government basically to stand up for this principle of using CBO numbers. I would like to be able to go back and explain to them tomorrow why the principle that the Republican Party used to shut down the government and cut off veterans' checks, to basically lay off Federal employees, to put their financial health at risk, why the principle that was so important three years ago in fighting for is not worth fighting for, or even, frankly, coming to the floor of the House to even discuss tonight? I would be glad to yield some time to the gentleman to answer.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in response I would say I think the American people made it very clear who they held responsible for shutting down the government, and it was not the President they held responsible, it was the Republican majority in this House. Criticism even came from Republican Members in another body in this town of that. But I guess the answer that I still do not have this evening is why Republicans were willing to hurt veterans, willing to hurt people on Social Security, willing to lay off Federal employees to the tune of hurting millions of American families just three years ago over this principle of honesty in budgeting, and yet tonight we hear that there will be total acquiescence to the President. What happened to the commitment to principle? Perhaps, frankly, I better understand now why the Republican core base in this country is beginning to have some second guesses about supporting the majority it thought it was electing, committed to certain principles that we find tonight it is very conveniently ignoring in the name of spending more money or cutting more funding out of veterans' health care, perhaps.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and his leadership in defending veterans programs.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask the distinguished gentleman one question. In my 8 years in the House, I do not think there has been anything close to a proposed $15 billion cut in veterans' programs. I know the gentleman has been here a number of years longer than I have, and my question to the gentleman would be, in all of the years he has been in this body, has there ever been a proposal passed that would have cut as much as $15 billion out of veterans' health care programs? To my knowledge, that has never occurred, and if that is true, what the gentleman is basically trying to stop today and what Members are going to vote on in just a minute is whether or not they want to allow the largest single cut in our time for veterans' health care benefits.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough for Members of Congress to just honor veterans on Veterans Day and Memorial Day. We should honor them today, now, with this vote. Veterans may appreciate our speeches next week on Memorial Day, but today veterans need and they deserve our vote. Today we have a choice. It is a clear choice. We can choose to defend veterans' health care programs or we can vote in a few moments to allow millions, if not billions of health care dollars going to veterans to be spent on our highway program. Personally, I think it would be a sad day if less than one week before Memorial Day this House votes to allow veterans' health benefits to be cut. But, Mr. Speaker, the voice that needs to be heard today on the floor of this House is not my voice. The voice that deserves to be heard is the voice of our Nation's veterans. Let me turn to several of the letters, some of which were referred to by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in his comments. First, the Vietnam Veterans of America said this: ``On behalf of the membership of Vietnam Veterans of America, I write to strongly support your motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 2400. The fact that Congress may cut veterans disability compensation only days before the national celebration of Memorial Day is an outrage. This is outright disregard of the service and sacrifice made by these veterans and their families.'' Signed by George Duggins, National President of Vietnam Veterans of America. The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, signed by Mr. John Moon, Commander-in-chief, said this: ``We are both incredulous and outraged that certain lawmakers would so distort and violate House rules for the sole purpose of denying veterans earned compensation.'' Mr. Speaker, let us listen to the voice of Disabled American Veterans, veterans who have continued to pay the price of war long after the ceasefire was concluded. Harry McDonald, National Commander of DAV, said this: ``We will be calling upon all DAV and Auxiliary members to contact their elected officials to encourage their Representative to support your motion,'' the Obey motion. Mr. Speaker, let us listen to the Members of the American Legion, Anthony Jordan, National Commander: ``The American Legion fully supports,'' Mr. Obey, ``your motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 2400. Your motion would uphold Congress' moral, ethical and legal responsibilities with regard to veterans service-connected injuries or illnesses that resulted from addiction to tobacco while serving in the armed forces.'' Let us listen to the voice, Mr. Speaker, of America's AMVETS. ``This is not a new benefit and it will affect more veterans than just those suffering from smoking-related illnesses.'' They go on in their letter to support Mr. Obey's motion. Finally, let us hear from the voice of blinded Americans, the Blinded Veterans Association. Its director, Thomas Miller, said this: ``The Blinded Veterans Association strongly supports,'' Mr. Obey, ``your motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 2400. ``It is outrageous that veterans' programs are targeted at all for offsets for transportation. It is even more unconscionable to learn veterans are the only offset contained in the report.'' Mr. Speaker, I hope in a few moments the Members of this House, most of whom will go home to speak with veterans on Memorial Day, will listen now to the voices of our veterans who have served our country.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, probably not many Members are aware of this but perhaps the first day after our return from Memorial Day recess, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) will make an effort to do something that has never been done in the history of the United States. On that Wednesday when we return he will move that we vote on a constitutional amendment, for the first time in the history of our country, to amend the Bill of Rights, not only the Bill of Rights but the first 16 words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights designed to defend religion against intrusion by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken previously from the well of this House outlining that the arguments in favor of this constitutional amendment are really based on false premises. The premise that there is no religion in school, that somehow government and liberal Federal judges have taken religion out of our schools when, in fact, Time Magazine recently documented that there are thousands of public schools all over America that have bible worship groups and religion prayer groups both before and after school. The fact is that prayer is allowed in America's public schools, as long as that prayer is not prescribed by government officials or forced upon students involuntarily. I have talked about all of these issues and I have talked about the downside of some of the things that could happen under the Istook amendment. What I would like to do with just several days left before we have this historic vote on the floor of the House is to raise some questions that I hope the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and supporters of this effort to amend our Nation's Bill of Rights would be willing to answer before we have this vote. Let me just list some of these kinds of questions that, as of the debate so far, have been left unanswered. First, under the Istook amendment, who will decide which religious prayers are heard in a public forum? Who will determine what prayers are said in the classroom? Second, will 9-year-old students in public classes be deciding which prayers are heard? Third, would the determination of which prayers are said be based on the percentage of students in that religion at a particular school in that community or that State? Or would that decision be made by a committee of students, perhaps 9-year-olds, perhaps 10-year-olds to select prayers. Fourth, who would ensure that minorities are not excluded from offering their public prayers in school and over the PA system? What if a committee, for example, of students decides that a Jewish prayer or another prayer simply will not be allowed? Who will protect the rights of minorities in such a majority rule situation? Will it be first graders and second graders and third graders in our public school classrooms that will be forced to defend the constitutional rights as outlined in our First Amendment by our Founding Fathers? If not, the alternative is to allow government officials, teachers, administrators to make that decision of which prayers will be allowed and which rules will be used. Next I would ask this question: Would a Satanic prayer be allowed in the public school classrooms under the Istook amendment? Would the Santerias, defined by our courts as a religion in America, be allowed to participate in their prayer ritual in our schools, part of which concerns or part of which includes animal sacrifices? Will that be allowed in the third grade classrooms of America's schools? If not, will it be the teachers or school administrators or government officials deciding which prayer ritual is okay and which is not? The next question I would raise is, would this amendment prevent a teacher from proselytizing his or her students? Additionally, I do not see anything in the Istook amendment that would prohibit outside religious groups from proselytizing young children, including first graders, on public school grounds. It seems to me that under the Istook amendment, the experience that many of us have in our Nation's airports, being accosted by religious groups and sometimes religious cults, is going to be replicated on thousands of public school grounds all over America. That is the question that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the proponents of this effort to, in my opinion, massacre the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment thereof have an obligation to answer before we cast this historic vote in a couple of weeks. Next question, will a wiccan be able to hold a ceremony in a public school cafeteria? It appears from the language of the Istook amendment the answer to that would be yes. Next question, will students be able to read Satanic prayers over the PA system in our public schools every morning? Next, will judges be allowed to lead juries in prayer before consideration of a court case? If so, would a judge be allowed to recite the bible and the verse that talks about an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth before the jury makes its decision? All of these unanswered questions ought to be answered by the supporters of the Istook amendment before we vote to amend the Bill of Rights.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on May 15 our Nation honored the brave men and women in law enforcement with Peace Officers' Memorial Day, designated 36 years ago by President John F. Kennedy. This day of acknowledgment for the selfless contributions made by hardworking individuals falls during National Police Week. I rise today to pay tribute to all law enforcement professionals across our country and to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Last year, 159 officers lost their lives in the line of duty. These fine individuals died serving the best interests of our society, working hard to protect our citizens. Patrolling our streets and highways, protecting our homes and families, and seeking out criminals are in the job descriptions of law enforcement professionals. Yet we all too often take for granted these hardworking people. The National Association of Police Chiefs reported 21 confirmed line- or-duty deaths for January of 1998, ten more than reported in January of 1997. Even as crime rates are dropping, peace officer fatalities are steadily rising. Since 1980, 1,182 officers have been killed in the line of duty by firearms. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 42 percent of those officers could have survived had they been wearing bulletproof vests. That is why I am pleased that the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act was approved by Congress last week. This bill will provide Federal grants to match State and local government funds in purchasing bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers. This bill will take steps to provide these brave men and women with the tools they need to fight crime, protect society, and insure that they make it home. We should not forget the hardworking, courageous men an women who every day step into the role of peace officer to make our society a safer place. I thank the Members for supporting the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act and observing National Police Week and Peace Officers' Memorial Day.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in three weeks the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) will try to amend the U.S. Bill of Rights, the sacred document that has served America for well over 200 years. Perhaps the greatest contribution of the American experiment in democracy is our Nation's religious freedom. Because of our Bill of Rights, America is not torn by religious wars. In contrast to the religious strife in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East, Americans are at peace. In contrast to Islamic fundamentalist states that use government to force religion upon its citizens, America's Founding Fathers had the wisdom to write a Bill of Rights that separated the power of government from the freedom of religion. These and others are powerful reasons why the Bill of Rights has never been amended in our Nation's 207 years; never, never has been amended since the Bill of Rights was adopted 207 years ago. Yet Mr. Istook not only wants to tamper with the Bill of Rights, he wants to rewrite the first 16 words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, those words that say ``Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Now, Mr. Istook calls his bill the religious freedom amendment. I would suggest that James Madison and our Founding Fathers beat Mr. Istook to the punch by just over 200 years. The real religious freedom amendment is called the First Amendment of our Constitution. I believe Mr. Istook's bill should frankly be called the religious freedom destruction act. It is amazing that some of the same people who do not entrust the Federal Government to deliver our mail want government involved in something as sacred as our children's and grandchildren's prayers. To change the Bill of Rights for any reason is a grave undertaking. To change it for reasons that simply do not exist is wrong. Mr. Istook bases his amendment on several myths. His arguments are a temple built on a false foundation. Myth number one: Mr. Istook alleges that students cannot pray in public schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. The law of this land allows students to pray before, after, and even during school. What the law prohibits, as it should, as intended by our Founding Fathers, is that government-sponsored prayers should be prohibited. Time Magazine on April 27, 1998, and CNN have recently reported there are thousands of prayer and Bible groups that have been formed in public schools all across America in just the last few years. Mr. Speaker, I enclose for the Record the article from Time Magazine of April 27 record entitled ``Spiriting Prayer into School.'' Mr. Speaker, let me take several excerpts from this Time Magazine article. ``Politicians may bicker about bringing back prayer, but in fact it is already a major presence, thanks to the many after-school prayer clubs.'' The article goes on to say that ``available statistics are approximate, but they suggest that there are clubs in as many as one out of every four public schools in the country. In some areas, the tally is much higher.'' Later the article says this: ``The resulting Equal Access Act of 1984 required any federally-funded secondary school to permit religious meetings if the schools allowed other clubs not related to curriculum, such as public-service Key Clubs. The crucial rule was that the prayer clubs had to be voluntary, student-run, and not convene during class time.'' The article goes on to point out the Supreme Court in 1990 sustained this law by a vote of 8 to 1. Let me read additional excerpts from the Time Magazine article. ``Evangelicals had already seized the moment. Within a year of the 1990 court decision, prayer clubs bloomed spontaneously on a thousand high school campuses. Fast on their heals came adult organizations dedicated to encouraging more. Proffitt's, Tennessee-based organization, First Priority, founded in 1995, coordinates inter-church groups in 162 cities, working with clubs in 3,000 schools. The San Diego-based National Network of Youth Ministries has launched what is called Challenge 2000, which pledges to bring the Christian gospel to 'every kid on every secondary campus in every community in our Nation by the year 2000.' It also promotes a phenomenon called 'See You at the Pole,' encouraging Christian students country-wide to gather around their school flagpoles on the third Wednesday of each September; last year, 3 million students participated.'' Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this article points out very clearly that Mr. Istook's allegation that somehow we simply do not have prayer at our public schools does not bear out with today's facts. The Time article also says, ``Says Doug Clark,'' quoting him, ``field director of the National Network of Youth Ministries, `Our energy is being poured into what kids can do voluntarily and on their own. That seems to us to be where God is working.' '' They then go on in the article finally to say, ``For now, the prospects for prayer clubs seem unlimited. The doom of Mr. Istook's predictions simply is not there. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that students can pray silently in the classroom, or out loud over the lunch table. For anyone to suggest that prayer is not alive and well in schools is not facing reality. For anyone to suggest that somehow God has been taken out of our schools, underestimates the God that I and my family worship. No person, no law, has the power to take an all-powerful God from anyplace in this world, much less a school classroom. Myth number two, used by Mr. Istook to push his amendment of the Bill of Rights: Mr. Istook suggests that liberal Federal courts have misinterpreted our Founding Fathers. That is simply not the case. To begin with, the majority of these so- called liberal Federal courts have been appointed by Republican presidents, Gerald Ford, George Bush, and that well-known liberal president, Ronald Reagan. I would also point out that Thomas Jefferson could not have been more clear in his interpretation of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights inasmuch as it deals with religious freedom. This is what Mr. Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, our third president, the author of our Declaration of Independence, said in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. ``Religion is a matter which lives solely between man and his God that he owes account to none other for his faith or worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reference that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislatures should ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' thus, building a wall of separation between church and state.'' The fact is that modern day Federal judges, including the majority of judges that have been appointed in our Federal courts by Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan and Mr. Ford, have interpreted today's law exactly to be consistent with the intention of Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers; not to demean religion by separating it from government, but to respect religion and to defend religious liberty by the very act of building a wall of separation to protect religion from the intrusion of government. Myth number three Mr. Istook has gone so far as to call opponents of this bill ``demagogues.'' He has suggested that those opposed to his amendment are somehow committed to keeping children from praying in schools. He has also suggested, or others have suggested, I should say, other supporters of Mr. Istook, that opponents of Istook are somehow anti- religion. The implication that somehow Istook supporters are pro-prayer and pro-religion and opponents of Mr. Istook's amendment of the Bill of Rights are anti-prayer and anti-religion could well be a surprise to the numerous religious groups strongly opposing the Istook amendment. Let me mention just a few of the religious and educational groups opposing the Istook amendment, for the very reason they believe that Istook would harm religious freedom in America, not defend it. These groups would be disappointed to know that Mr. Istook has referred to opponents of his amendment as ``demagogues,'' and if opposing Istook and defending the words of James Madison and our Bill of Rights, make me a demagogue, Mr. Speaker, then I am in good company. Let me just list some of that company that oppose the Istook amendment. The American Association of School Administrators; the American Association of University Women; the American Baptist Churches, USA; the American Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; the Antidefamation League; the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; the Episcopal Church; the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the National Association of Elementary School Principals; the National Education Association; the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; the United Church of Christ, Office for Church and Society. I join in good company, Mr. Speaker, along with our Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson and Madison and others, in defending the Bill of Rights, not amending it; not changing it, not undermining it. I agree with Brent Walker, the General Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee, who said this: ``The Istook amendment is unnecessary, unwise, and unfaithful to our heritage of religious freedom and separation of church and State.'' The fact is that, in my words, Mr. Speaker, the Istook amendment is a house built on sand. Its foundation is flawed, unfounded, and false. In the days ahead, I will also take time to point out the numerous possible harmful consequences of the Istook amendment. To name just a few this evening, the Istook amendment could first, allow Satanic prayers and even animal sacrifices as part of prayer rituals in first and second and third grade public school classrooms across America. Second, it could lead to censorship of prayers. Third, it could allow outside religious groups to proselytize young students on public school grounds so that our children will be going to public schools learning reading, writing and arithmetic and perhaps will be proselytized by some religious group such as those we see at our Nation's airports across America. I am not sure America's parents sending their children to public schools want to have to worry about religious groups, or possibly even cults, proselytizing their children while they should be learning on the school grounds. Fourth, the Istook amendment could be an unfunded mandate of Biblical proportions, stemming from its words that we cannot ``Deny equal access to benefit on account of religion.'' Who knows how many decades of court decisions it might take and divisiveness in our country to interpret that particular language. But certainly, on the surface, it could appear that this language of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) could basically have required the Federal Government to fund David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in my hometown of Waco, Texas for a child care program or a child care center because other groups, nonreligious groups, were given Federal funding for child care centers, despite the fact that before his death, Mr. Koresh said that, in his religious beliefs, that God had encouraged him to have sex with girls as young as 10 years old. I am offended by the possibility that America's taxpayers' dollars could go to fund such religious groups and programs. Fifth, the Istook amendment could lead to majoritarian prayers in many of our public schools, and there are many others. But let me just read from a statement prepared by the Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty. They said this: The following are a few examples of activities that would be permitted under the amendment: A tax could be levied for support of sectarian schools. Crosses, stars of David, or statues of the goddess Gaia could be erected in public places such as courthouses, public schools and military bases to represent religious heritage or belief. New testament readings and specific prayers could be prescribed for all meetings of government employees (except public schools) as long as no one was required to participate. Devotional Bible readings or meditations from the Quran could be required in public schools as long as no one was required to participate. Upon a student's suggestion, a teacher could lead prayers for his or her kindergarten classes, as long as the prayers were not prescribed by the government and participation was not required. Bibles, Books of Mormon or Qurans could be printed or distributed to all public school students or public employees as a way of recognizing the people's heritage. Public schools could be required to teach creation science along with evolution as a way of recognizing the beliefs and heritage of the people. Tax money could be used to fund mission programs sponsored by Baptists, Buddhists or Branch Davidians, Methodists, Mormons or Mennonites. A judge or juror could lead the courtroom in prayer and limit such prayers to the majority faith of the surrounding community. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it will take far longer than one hour to point out why so many religious groups and people of deep religious faith are opposing the Istook amendment. For that reason, I would like to focus on some of the cases of ``Religious persecution'' that Istook supporters use to justify their taking such drastic action as amending our Bill of Rights for the first time in our Nation's history. I would refer to a recent publication by the People For The American Way Action Fund, and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record following my remarks. This is what they say in the report: The true facts behind the Christian Coalition's ``religious persecution'' claims. As part of its May 22, 1977 Religious Freedom Celebration on Capitol Hill, the Christian Coalition is presenting 4 claims of what it calls ``religious persecution'' which purportedly justify a constitutional amendment concerning religion. In fact, these claims are nothing of the sort. Instead, they are instances where officials properly applied school or job rules without improper religious discrimination, or, in one instance, where school officials made a mistake and promptly corrected it. In the case of the school-related examples that the Christian Coalition is using, all 3 incidents are at least 5 years old. Religious freedom should be celebrated in our country with the true facts about the First Amendment which fully protects religious liberty for all people. The People For The American Way Action Fund statement then goes on to mention these purported claims by the Christian Coalition of religious persecution. Brittany Settle Gossett, ``Received an ``F'' on a research paper simply because her topic was Jesus Christ.'' The Christian Coalition letter, May 8, 1997. The true facts behind the claim, according to this report, are these: ``As both a Federal trial and appeals court found, Ms. Gossett grade on this 1991 assignment was based not on religious discrimination, but on her ``refusal to comply with the requirements'' of the teacher, including changing her paper topic, without permission, and choosing a topic with which she was already familiar.'' ``As one judge explained, ``The student has no constitutional right to do something other than that assignment and receive credit for it. The First Amendment already protects a student's right to address religious topics in homework if relevant and otherwise compliant with the assignment.'' The second purported claim of religious persecution that is being used to justify amending the Bill of Rights goes to the case of Kelly DeNooyer who ``Was told by her school principal that she could not show a videotape of herself performing a religious song in church for her part in the VIP of the week program in her school classroom ``because it had Christian things in it.'' The response of the facts according to this report is this: ``As a Federal Court of Appeals found, the school's decision in 1990 was upheld based not on the content of the video, but because the purpose of the program was to increase ``students' communication skills by requiring a live classroom presentation by the student,'' and that purpose ``would be frustrated if every student were permitted to show a videotape instead.'' Example number 3 used by the supporters of the Istook amendment to say why Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson's first amendment is somehow inadequate today. Audrey Pearson was told by school officials that ``She could not read the Bible on the school bus.'' This is the response, according to this report: ``Within days, Audrey was back reading her Bible on the bus after only a few phone calls to the principal's office in 1989.'' Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that Members of this House and supporters of the Istook amendment would use a case from 1989, a problem that was resolved within a few hours with a handful of phone calls, knowing that that problem had been corrected because of the misinterpretation of the law, to use that case to justify massacring the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is unbelievable. The final case of religious persecution used to undermine our constitutional protections of religious freedom goes to the story of Brad Hicks, a North Carolina police officer who was ``Reprimanded by his police department for offering a religious tract to a woman whom he had pulled over for speeding and was later fired for refusing a police department request to refrain from speaking about religion whenever in a police uniform.'' The response is this: ``According to the police chief, Hicks was dismissed not for speaking about religion, but because he refused to stop proselytizing to citizens while on duty. As Hicks admitted, for 7 months, ``Whenever I would pull someone over to come into contact with them on some kind of call, while on duty and on police business, he sought to proselytize and witness.'' The chief explained that, ``You cannot stop someone on the road as a police officer and proceed to give them a church sermon.'' Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the judicial decision, that a police officer in uniform should not be allowed to use the power and threatening nature, at times, of his government position to proselytize his personal religious views upon the citizens of this land. In 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, Members of this House must make a choice. They must choose between defending our Bill of Rights or dismantling it. Members must choose between the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and the latest and often- amended version of the Istook amendment. We must choose in this House between the cautious, careful consideration of our Founding Fathers as they drafted that cherished document we know as the Bill of Rights, versus a constitutional amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that received 1 day of hearings, 1 day of hearings in 1998. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that the leadership of this House would even allow a measure to come to this floor attempting to amend the first 16 words of the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights, after having less days of hearings on it, on amending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, than they had in reviewing the Branch Davidian situation in my hometown of Waco. In less than 3 weeks Members must choose between America's proud 200- year history of religious freedom versus the world's history of religious intolerance caused by the commingling of government and religion. How ironic and sad it would be for America, which is a beacon of religious freedom to the world, to take the first step down the path of Islamic fundamentalist states to prove how religious freedom is imperiled when the wall of separation between church and state is dismantled. The choice is clear, in my opinion. Madison and Jefferson were right, and my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Earnest Istook), no disrespect intended, is wrong. I believe the Bill of Rights should be protected, not dismantled. The materials referred to earlier are as follows: [Prepared by People for the American Way Action Fund] The True Facts Behind the Christian Coalition's `Religious Persecution' Claims As part of its May 22, 1977 Religious Freedom Celebration on Capitol Hill, the Christian Coalition is presenting four claims of what it calls ``religious persecution'' which purportedly justify a constitutional amendment concerning religion. In fact, these claims are nothing of the sort. Instead, they are instances where officials properly applied school or job rules without improper religious discrimination or, in one instance, where school officials made a mistake and promptly corrected it. In the case of the school-related examples that the Christian Coalition is using, all three incidents are at least 5 years old. Religious freedom should be celebrated in our country with the true facts about the First Amendment, which fully protects religious liberty for all people. The Christian Coalition claim: Brittany Settle Gossett ``received an F on a research paper simply because her topic was Jesus Christ.'' (Christian Coalition letter May 8, 1997) The true facts behind the claim: As both a federal trial and appeals court found, Ms. Gossett's grade on this 1991 assignment was based not on religious discrimination, but on her ``refusal to comply with the requirements'' of the teacher, including changing her paper topic without permission and choosing a topic with which she was already familiar. 1995 Lexis Fed. App. 141, 4- 5. As one judge explained, ``the student has no constitutional right to do something other than that assignment and receive credit for it.'' Id. at 20. The First Amendment already protects a student's right to address religious topics in homework if relevant and otherwise compliant with the assignment. The Christian Coalition claim: Kelly DeNooyer ``was told by her school principal that she could not show'' a videotape of herself performing a religious song in church for her part of the VIP of the Week program in her school classroom ``because it had Christian things in it.'' (Rutherford Inst. Rep. Oct. 1992) The true facts behind the claim: As a federal court of appeals found, the school's decision in 1990 was upheld based not on the content of the video, but because the purpose of the program was to increase ``students'' communication skills by requiring a `live' classroom presentation by the student,'' and that purpose ``would be frustrated if every student were permitted to show a videotape'' instead. 1993 U.S. App. Lexis at 4.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, Harry Truman would not be impressed. ``The buck stops here'' has now been amended by Republicans in Congress to say, ``The buck stops with staff; don't blame me.'' The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has released private conversations between husband and wife. He released edited tapes that misrepresented those conversations. He has said he is ``out to get President Clinton.'' When the gentleman is supposed to be leading an impartial investigation, when public outrage forced action, what did Republicans do? They fired a staff person. Harry Truman would not buy that and neither will the American people. Republicans have changed the principle of innocent until proven guilty to guilty before the facts are heard. Republicans have changed the principle of limited government to the injustice of government, forcing mothers to testify against their daughters and the injustice of intruding into marital conversations. The Burton committee has become the paparazzi of American politics, and that is a sad day for our country.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if there is a single Member of this House that believes that racial discrimination is nonexistent in America today, then I will vote for the Riggs amendment. That is what I thought. Mr. Chairman, I hope and pray that I will live long enough to see racial discrimination ended in this country. Unfortunately, I doubt that I will live that long, and certainly that day has not yet arrived. Until that day has arrived, affirmative action is a necessary limited means of using, of ensuring that equal opportunity is more than a hollow phrase in a high school civics textbook. The fact is, the Supreme Court has limited affirmative action to be a tool to ensure equal opportunity where discrimination has been proven. That is a vital tool in today's society where the problem is hardly that we have too many minorities in our public and private universities and colleges of America. Under the Riggs amendment, if Mark Furman had been an admissions director at a major public university, the wrongs of discrimination could not be righted by affirmative action. In the name of ending affirmative action, the Riggs amendment would institutionalize discrimination; and that, Mr. Chairman, is wrong. If there is a single Member of this House who believes that minorities living in the third ward of inner-city Houston receive an equal education with children of the privileged families of Highland Park in the Dallas area, then perhaps I could understand why some would vote to end affirmative action. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to me that some of the same people who want to use tax dollars to subsidize elite private prep schools would also argue against leveling the playing field of opportunity for children attending low-income public schools. Where is the fairness in that? Mr. Chairman, until the 1960s, many colleges and universities excluded minorities for one reason and one reason alone: the color of their skin. Where is the fairness in allowing those same colleges to give privileges of legacy to the white children and grandchildren of those former white students, while legacy preferences simply do not exist for minorities? The doors were not open to them. Mr. Chairman, when Republicans took charge of this House, they appointed dozens and dozens of high school interns from all over America. And know what? Not a single one, not a single one was African American. And if that is the future vision of equal opportunity under Republican leadership, then I want no part of it. And finally, it is interesting to me that some of the very people supporting the Riggs amendment, the same people who have voted to cut spending month after month for the enforcement of laws in America against discrimination; where is the fairness in that? Rather than quoting Dr. Martin Luther King today, I wish some of the proponents of the Riggs amendment would fight every day for the ideal of equal opportunity for which Dr. King lived and died. Vote no on the Riggs amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make three points in response to the gentleman's comments. First, he misquoted my statement on the floor. Secondly, what has happened in Texas with the ending of affirmative action is a perfect example of why we should oppose the Riggs amendment. Thirdly, if the gentleman wants to quote minorities on affirmative action, I would point out for the Record that the only African-American Member of the House, who is also a Republican, happens to be opposing the Riggs amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Since the gentleman used my name and misquoted me, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield since he is quoting me?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to discuss an issue that is of critical importance to our Nation and to every American family. The issue is religious freedom. Specifically, I want to comment on Federal legislation that I believe will do great damage to our Bill of Rights and to the cause of religious liberty. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has introduced a constitutional amendment that, if passed into law, would for the first time in our Nation's history amend our cherished Bill of Rights, which has for over 200 years protected Americans' religious, political and individual rights. The House could vote on this amendment as early as next month. The gentleman from Oklahoma has mislabeled his work the Religious Freedom Amendment. More appropriately, it should be called the Religious Freedom Destruction Amendment. That is why so many religious organizations such as the Baptist Joint Committee, the American Jewish Congress and the United Methodist Church are strongly opposing the Istook amendment. In fact, these and many other religious organizations and education groups, known as the Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty, are opposing the Istook amendment because it will harm religious freedom in America. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Istook amendment is the worst piece of legislation that I have seen in 15 years in public office. It is dangerous because it threatens our core religious rights and literally tears down its 200-year-old wall that our Founding Fathers built to protect religion from intrusion by government. That is why I have been active and will continue to be active in the bipartisan coalition of House Members and religious leaders to defeat this ill-designed measure. Mr. Speaker, the Istook amendment would allow satanic prayers, it would allow animal sacrifices to be performed in public schoolrooms, even in elementary schools with small children. It would step on the rights of religious minorities and allow government facilities to become billboards for religious cults. Mr. Speaker, America already has a religious freedom amendment. It is called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is the first pillar of the Bill of Rights. It is the sacred foundation of all our freedoms. The first amendment begins with these cherished words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. For over two centuries that simple but profound statement has been the guardian of religious liberty, which is perhaps the greatest single contribution of the American experiment in democracy. To tamper with the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights has profound implications. In the name of furthering religion, the Istook amendment would harm religion. In the name of protecting religious liberty, it would damage religious freedom. With no disrespect intended, if I must choose between Madison, Jefferson, and our Founding Fathers versus the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) on the issue of protecting our religious liberty, I shall stand with Madison, with Jefferson, and our Founding Fathers. I shall stand in the defense of our Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that the best way to ruin religion is to politicize it. Our Founding Fathers did not mention God in our Constitution, not out of disrespect, but out of total reverence. It is that same sense of reverence that should move us in this House to protect the First Amendment, not dismantle it. Some have suggested that the Istook amendment is necessary because they allege that ``God has been taken out of public places and schoolhouses.'' I would suggest those people must not share my belief that no human has the power to remove an all-powerful ever-present God from any place on this Earth. The fact is that there is no law in America that prohibits all prayers in our school. It has been said that ``as long as there are math tests, there will be prayers in school.'' I agree. Under present law, schoolchildren may pray silently in school or even out loud, as long as they do not disturb the class work of others or participate in government-sanctioned prayer. Children can say grace over their school lunches and, if they wish, pray around the flagpole before and after school. In fact, before and after school, prayer groups have been established at hundreds of schools all across America, and these numbers are increasing every day. The April 27 copy of Time Magazine of this year documents that voluntary prayer is alive and well in American schools. Mr. Speaker, I include that article in the record this evening. Under the Bill of Rights, as it should be, government resources cannot be used to force religion upon our schoolchildren against the wishes of their parents or against the wishes of the students themselves. What the Bill of Rights does prohibit is government- sponsored prayer, and thank goodness it does. Our Founding Fathers were wise to separate church and State in the very First Amendment, in the very first words of the Bill of Rights. Religious freedom flourishes in America today precisely because of our wall of separation between church and State. Islamic fundamentalism seen in the Middle East today is a clear example of how religious rights are trampled upon when government gets involved in religion. In the weeks ahead, I urge Americans to look beyond the sound bite rhetoric of the Istook amendment and to ask yourselves this question: Should prayer be an individual right or a government program? Whether I am in office for 2 more years or 10 more years, there never has been and never will be an issue more important to me than protecting religious liberty by defeating the Istook amendment. Our Bill of Rights is one of the greatest political documents in the history of the world. We cannot allow the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) in sound bite politics or anything else, for that matter, to dismantle it. First, let me say, too, that there should be an enormous burden of proof placed upon anyone wanting to amend the first words of the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights. The document has not been amended even a single time since its adoption, as I said, over two centuries ago. There can be no more sacred freedom than the freedom of religion. To tamper with it is a grave undertaking. Frankly, I would have hoped that, prior to any vote on amending the Bill of Rights, this Congress would have had hearings more extensive than any other hearings past or present in the history of the Congress. Unfortunately, that has not happened. In fact, in 1998, and this is hard to believe, in 1998, there has only been one day of hearings on the Istook amendment to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in our country's history. Regardless of one's view on the Istook amendment to have a vote changing the Bill of Rights with less review than Whitewater, campaign finance, or even the Branch Davidian hearings I believe would be an injustice to our Bill of Rights, our Founding Fathers, and all who cherish religious liberty. It would be tragic to set a precedent in this House that amending the Bill of Rights deserves a less careful review than any other issue before this Congress or any Congress. As Mr. Istook and his supporters try to meet their burden of proof in arguing that the Bill of Rights is flawed, I hope they will follow the Ninth Commandment. For example, many proponents of this measure have failed to point out the Ellen Pearson school bus story about a student who was told that she could not read a Bible or bring a Bible on the school bus. They use that as a reason to amend the Bill of Rights, but yet they forget to point out that that problem was solved with one phone call to a school principal in 1989, hardly a reason to amend a bill of rights in 1998. Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people have the right to know that, under the Istook amendment, seven, eight, nine, ten-year-old schoolchildren could be subjected to satanic prayers in their public schools. Let me read an example of what our children could be exposed to under the Istook amendment, a satanic prayer: I am a born satanist. I am a happy little blob of custard and you cannot nail me to any wall; in fact, I would pull those nails out and aim them at you. Tell me how negative I am. Tell me how I am filled with hate. You are not just stupid. You are wrong. Dracula loved his bride. Dr. Frankenstein loved his monster. My satanic love burns fiercely. It is perfect and uncompromising. Maybe Mr. Istook would not mind his children being exposed to that satanic prayer and others like it in our public schools, our tax- supported schools, but I would be offended if my two young sons someday are exposed to witchcraft, satanic, or cult prayers in the public schools of Waco, Texas. Therein lies the unanswered dilemma, the unanswerable, in fact, dilemma of the Istook amendment that allows student-initiated prayer. Either you expose young impressionable children in first and second and third and fourth and fifth grades in public school classrooms to satanic and all other types of prayers from thousands of religious sects and cults, or, on the other hand, you allow 10-year-old children in elementary schools to be the censors and selectors of permissible prayers and the guardians of America's religious rights. Under the Istook amendment, would 10-year-olds set up prayer selection committees? Would 10-year-olds create prayer appeals committees? Would eight, nine, and 10-year-olds be expected to balance majority views with minority rights as written in our Constitution through the Bill of Rights? What if one's religion, such as the Santerias, involves animal sacrifices? Would that be allowed, cutting off the heads of chickens in the classrooms as part of a prayer ritual? Which 10-year-olds would be forced or allowed to make that decision in our public schools? Could school administrators be allowed to override that 10-year-old student's decision? If so, where do we then draw the line on government officials reviewing what is and is not a permissible prayer? Mr. Speaker, until these and hundreds of other questions are answered concerning the Istook amendment, I would suggest we would do well to follow the wisdom of Jefferson, Madison, and our Founding Fathers and protect, not dismantle, the First Amendment to our Bill of Rights. I think Thomas Jefferson said it better than I could ever imagine when he said this in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, ``Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions.'' I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State.'' Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting that the other day the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) in supporting his constitutional amendment that, in my opinion would destroy an important part of the Bill of Rights, he suggested that those who were opposing his amendment of the Bill of Rights were ``demagogues''. Let me suggest, I do not know about whom the gentleman from Oklahoma was suggesting, but if you want to call those demagogues opposing the Istook amendment, you are going to have to include the Baptists, you are going to have to include the Methodists, you are going to have to include Jewish organizations across America, and dozens and dozens of other devout religious organizations who oppose the Istook amendment specifically because of their belief in the reverence of religious liberty in America. On April 22, just a few days ago, the Baptist Standard said this: ``The Baptist Standard remains a strict advocate of the separation of church and State. The first amendment has served us well. We don't need the Religious Freedom Amendment.'' Finally, Mr. Speaker, and there are so many other issues that I hope we can discuss on the floor of this House in the weeks leading up to a vote on the Istook amendment, and I would urge the other side to agree to our recommendation or request that we have an open debate, it seems to me the least we owe, the Congress to the American people, is to have an open dialogue, an open discussion and not just one person's debate in the late hours of the evening, which the other side has been doing recently to discuss the pros and cons of amending the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights. My concern about this Istook amendment, among many other things, goes to a statement that was made right here on the floor of this House last evening when the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) were discussing this amendment. The gentleman from Oklahoma had listed a series of Federal Court decisions where he disagreed with the judge's opinion that we should, in Thomas Jefferson's words, have separation of church and State in America. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) then replied in this way. He said, ``Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a special place in hell for a number of Federal court judges, as I am sure there will be for Members of Congress.'' I hope the gentleman from Georgia will come to the floor of this House and explain that statement, because it appears to me that in the context in which it was given, he was suggesting that because certain Federal judges happen to disagree with the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from Georgia, and happen to agree with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, that somehow there would be a special place in hell reserved for not only those Federal judges but perhaps for Members of Congress that would agree with our Founding Fathers that the best way to protect religion is to keep government out of religious affairs. Mr. Speaker, I think it is this kind of thinking that will create divisive debate around this country if the proponents of the Istook amendment would continue to suggest, as they did last night, that if we agree with certain views of church and State issues, somehow we have a special place in heaven; and somehow if we disagree with those people's opinions, somehow we will have a special place in hell reserved for us. I do not think this country needs that kind of religious divisiveness, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that kind of divisiveness that was part of the debate on the floor of this House last night will be replicated in thousands of schoolhouses across America as we have fights over who gets how many minutes to give which prayer in 1st grade classrooms and 5th grade classrooms and 12th grade classrooms, public classrooms in America's schools. So for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, and for many, many more that I will have the privilege to discuss in the weeks ahead, I would urge the Members of this Congress and the American people to think carefully before we buy into the sound-bite rhetoric of the Istook constitutional amendment; that we should think seriously before we change what our Founding Fathers carefully designed as the very first 16 words of our Bill of Rights, to defend religious freedom. I think this will be the most important debate of this Congress, and I hope this Congress will give it serious consideration and ultimately the defeat that it deserves. [From Time, Apr. 27, 1998] Spiriting Prayer Into School (By David Van Biema) On an overcast afternoon, in a modest room in Minneapolis, 23 teenagers are in earnest conversation with one another-- and with the Lord. ``Would you pray for my brother so that he can raise money to go [on a preaching trip] to Mexico?'' asks a young woman. ``Our church group is visiting juvenile- detention centers, and some are scared to go,'' explains a boy. ``Pray that God will lay a burden on people's hearts for this.'' ``Pray for the food drive,'' says someone. ``There's one teacher goin' psycho because kids are not turning in their homework and stuff. She's thinking of quitting, and she's a real good teacher.'' ``We need to pray for all the teachers in the school who aren't Christians,'' comes a voice from the back. And they do. Clad in wristbands that read w.w.j.d. (``What Would Jesus Do?'') and T shirts that declare upon this rock I will build my church, the kids sing Christian songs, discuss Scripture and work to memorize the week's Bible verse, John 15: 5 (``I am the vine and you are the branches''). Hours pass. As night falls, the group enjoys one last mass hug and finally leaves its makeshift chapel--room 133 of Patrick Henry High School. Yes, a public high school. If you are between ages 25 and 45, your school days were not like this. In 1963 the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling banning compulsory prayer in public schools. After that, any worship on school premises, let alone a prayer club, was widely understood as forbidden. But for the past few years, thanks to a subsequent court case, such groups not only have been legal but have become legion. The clubs' explosive spread coincides with a more radical but so far less successful movement for a complete overturn of the 1963 ruling. On the federal level is the Religious Freedom amendment, a constitutional revision proposed by House Republican Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, which would reinstate full-scale school prayer. It passed the Judiciary Committee, 16 to 11, last month but will probably fare less well when the full House votes in May. One of many local battlefields is Alabama, where last week the state senate passed a bill mandating a daily moment of silence--a response to a 1997 federal ruling voiding an earlier state pro-school prayer law. Governor Fob James is expected to sign the bill into law, triggering the inevitable church-state court challenge. But members of prayer clubs like the one at Patrick Henry High aren't waiting for the conclusion of such epic struggles. They have already brought worship back to public school campuses, although with some state-imposed limitations. Available statistics are approximate, but they suggest that there are clubs in as many as 1 out of every 4 public schools in the country. In some areas the tally is much higher: evangelicals in Minneapolis-St. Paul claim that the vast majority of high schools in the Twin Cities region have a Christian group. Says Benny Proffitt, a Southern Baptist youth-club planter: ``We had no idea in the early '90s that the response would be so great. We believe that if we are to see America's young people come to Christ and America turn around, it's going to happen through our schools, not our churches.'' Once a religious scorched-earth zone, the schoolyard is suddenly fertile ground for both Vine and Branches. The turnabout culminates a quarter-century of legislative and legal maneuvering. The 1963 Supreme Court decision and its broad-brush enforcement by school administrators infuriated conservative Christians, who gradually developed enough clout to force Congress to make a change. The resulting Equal Access Act of 1984 required any federally funded secondary school to permit religious meetings if the schools allowed other clubs not related to curriculum, such as public-service Key Clubs. The crucial rule was that the prayer clubs had to be voluntary, student-run and not convened during class time. Early drafts of the act were specifically pro-Christian. Ultimately, however, its argument was stated in pure civil- libertarian terms; prayers that would be coercive if required of all students during class are protected free speech if they are just one more after-school activity. Nevertheless, recalls Marc Stern, a staff lawyer with the American Jewish Congress, ``there was great fear that this would serve the base for very intrusive and aggressive proselytizing.'' Accordingly, Stern's group and other organizations challenged the law--only to see it sustained, 8 to 1, by the Supreme Court in 1990. Bill Clinton apparently agreed with the court. The President remains opposed to compulsory school prayer. But in a July 1995 speech he announced that ``nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion- free zones or requires all religious expression to be left at the schoolhouse door.'' A month later Clinton had the Department of Education issue a memo to public school superintendents that appeared to expand Equal Access Act protections to include public-address announcements of religious gatherings and meetings at lunchtime and recess. Evangelicals had already seized the moment. Within a year of the 1990 court decision, prayer clubs bloomed spontaneously on a thousand high school campuses. Fast on their heels came adult organizations dedicated to encouraging more. Proffitt's Tennessee-based organization, First Priority, founded in 1995, coordinates interchurch groups in 162 cities working with clubs in 3,000 schools. The San Diego-based National Network of Youth Ministries has launched ``Challenge 2000,'' which pledges to bring the Christian gospel ``to every kid on every secondary campus in every community in our nation by the year 2000.'' It also promotes a phenomenon called ``See You at the Pole,'' encouraging Christian students countrywide to gather around their school flagpoles on the third Wednesday of each September; last year, 3 million students participated. Adult groups provide club handbooks, workshops for student leaders and ongoing advice. Network of Youth Ministries leader Paul Fleischmann stresses that the resulting clubs are ``adult supported,'' not adult-run. ``If we went away,'' he says, ``they'd still do it.'' The club at Patrick Henry High certainly would. The group was founded two years ago with encouragement but no specific stage managing by local youth pastors. This afternoon its faculty adviser, a math teacher and Evangelical Free Church member named Sara Van Der Werk, sits silently for most of the meeting, although she takes part in the final embrace. The club serves as an emotional bulwark for members dealing with life at a school where two students died last year in off- campus gunfire. Today a club member requests prayer for ``those people who got in that big fight [this morning].'' Another asks the Lord to ``bless the racial-reconciliation stuff.'' (Patrick Henry is multiethnic; the prayer club is overwhelming white.) Just before Easter the group experienced its first First Amendment conflict: whether it could hang posters on all school walls like other non-school-sponsored clubs. Patrick Henry principal Paul McMahan eventually decreed that putting up posters is off limits to everyone, leading to some resentment against the Christians. Nonetheless, McMahan lauds them for ``understanding the boundaries'' between church and state. In Alabama, the new school-prayer bill attempts to skirt those boundaries. The legislation requires ``a brief period of quiet reflection for not more than 60 seconds with the participation of each pupil in the classroom.'' Although the courts have upheld some moment-of-silence policies, civil libertarians say they have struck down laws featuring pro- prayer supporting language of the sort they discern in Alabama's bill. In the eyes of many church-club planters, such fracases amount to wasted effort. Says Doug Clark, field director of the National Network of Youth ministries: ``Our energy is being poured into what kids can do voluntarily and on their own. That seems to us to be where God is working.'' Reaction to the prayer clubs may depend on which besieged minority one feels part of. In the many areas where Conservative Christians feel looked down on, they welcome the emotional support for their children's faith. Similarly, non- Christians in the Bible Belt may be put off by the clubs' evangelical fervor; members of the chess society, after all, do not inform peers that they must push pawns or risk eternal damnation. Not everyone shares the enthusiasm Proffitt recently expressed at a youth rally in Niagara Falls, N.Y.: ``When an awakening takes place, we see 50, 100, 1,000, 10,000 come to Christ Can you imagine 100, or 300, come to Christ in your school? We want to see our campuses come to Christ.'' Watchdog organizations like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State report cases in which such zeal has approached harassment of students and teachers, student prayer leaders have seemed mere puppets for adult evangelists, and activists have tried to establish prayer clubs in elementary schools, where the description ``student- run'' seems disingenuous. Nevertheless, the Jewish committee's Stern concedes that ``there's been much less controversy than one might have expected from the hysterical predictions we made.'' Americans United director Barry Lynn notes that ``in most school districts, students are spontaneously forming clubs and acting upon their own and not outsiders' religious agendas.'' A.C.L.U. lobbyist Terri Schroeder also supports the Equal Access Act, pointing out that the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause protecting religious expression is as vital as its Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from promoting a creed. The civil libertarians' acceptance of the clubs owes something to their use as a defense against what they consider a truly bad idea: Istook's school-prayer amendment. Says Lynn: ``Most reasonable people say, `If so many kids are praying legally in the public schools now, why would you possibly want to amend the Constitution?' '' For now, the prospects for prayer clubs seem unlimited. In fact, the tragic shooting of eight prayer-club members last December in West Paducah, Ky., by 14-year-old Michael Carneal provided the cause with matyrs and produced a hero in prayer- club president Ben Strong, who persuaded Carneal to lay down his gun. Strong recalls that the club's daily meetings used to draw only 35 to 60 students out of Heath High School's 600. ``People didn't really look down on us, but I don't know if it was cool to be a Christian,'' he says. Now 100 to 150 teens attend. Strong has since toured three states extolling the value of Christian clubs. ``It woke a lot of kids up,'' he says. ``That's true everywhere I've spoken. This is a national thing.''

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Kitty Young. She is retiring after a distinguished career serving her community of Harker Heights which is in my 11th Texas Congressional District. Kitty Young was born in Rupert, Arkansas, on August 16, 1919. She worked hard as a wife and mother during her husband Bob Young's military career. Kitty Young was first elected to the Harker Heights City Council to replace her late husband. She served with distinction in that position for 15 years. She has also served as the mayor pro tem and has assumed mayoral duties of Harker Heights during the illness of the then mayor. Her vision has led to impressive city growth through annexation and through incorporation of a Water Supply District. City beautification and high housing standards have always been of great concern to her. Besides her service on the City Council, Kitty Young was instrumental in establishing the local public library system, securing construction funds and obtaining grants and books. Kitty Young is a founding member of the Harker Heights Ladies Service Club, a social and benevolent organization of women who live or work in Harker Heights. Under her guidance the annual ``Garage Sale'' was founded to benefit city charities, volunteer fire and police activities, and local schools. For many years Kitty Young has opened her home to fundraisers for the CorBell Chapter of the American Cancer Society and helped raise thousands of dollars for research and patient support. She has also supported the Cancer Society by selling tickets and providing prizes and food. Kitty Young has served on many boards and committees that aid education, health, police, and youth. An asset to her community, church, and country, she is an example of how a can-do spirit makes our communities great. Members, please join me in recognizing Kitty Young for her distinguished role in the Harker Heights community.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the Chairman and full committee chairman and the ranking member for their support and help and leadership on this issue.