Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, this rule is terribly unfair. The gentleman from Ohio said, well, this is how we treat tax bills. But this is hardly a tax bill. There is a very small piece of it that is tax related. The great bulk of it is the social service aspect. It is very important. I am very proud of the work I have done with faith-based groups. I care a lot about housing, and the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has a wonderful record in housing. In area after area, I have been proud to cooperate with them. But none of those organizations have told me that they needed the right to discriminate or ignore State and local anti- discrimination laws. That is what this bill does. I will insert into the Record here pages from the transcript which will show the chairman of the committee acknowledging that it preempts State and local anti-discrimination laws, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) explaining why it is important that Jewish groups be allowed to discriminate in the serving of soup by not hiring non-Jews. I disagree with both of those. I wish we had ample time to debate them. Mr. Frank. There are further questions that we have. There is also this list, the non-discrimination statutes, that must be followed. They are the Federal statutes. Some States have decided to go beyond what the Federal Government has done in preventing discrimination, and I would ask, because it's not clear to me, is this preemptive of State employment discrimination laws other than those which might track the Federal one? I would yield to anyone who could give me the answer to that. By specifying the Federal anti-discrimination laws that apply, does this mean that State anti- discrimination laws which cover subjects not covered under the Federal law, would be preempted in effect, and the religious organizations would not have to apply--follow them? I would yield to anyone who would answer that. Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Frank. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sensenbrenner. I'll answer the second part of our question and I'll seek my own time for the first part. The second part, relative to Federal preemption. Federal law applies where Federal funds go, and State law does not apply. If the religious organization accepted State funds, and by implication, local government funds, then State laws would apply to them as well. Mr. Frank. So it would preempt State laws or allow them to---- Chairman Sensenbrenner. It would allow them to ignore State laws when Federal--only Federal funds are used, but would not allow them to ignore State laws when State funds are used. Mr. Frank. What if there was a mix of Federal funds and private funds? Chairman Sensenbrenner. Then they could ignore State laws. Mr. Frank. That seems to me to be a serious flaw and hardly consistent with the sporadic States' rights professions that we hear from the other side. The principle ought not to be that you can get out of following a State's enactment because you have accepted some Federal funds, and the Chairman has very straightforwardly made it clear. If you get some Federal funds and you have some of your own funds, you might--not might--you are then allowed to ignore a State law that would otherwise be binding on you. I do not think we ought to be embodying the principle that the acceptance of Federal funds somehow then cancels State law. There are a number of things. For instance, the States get highway money from the Federal Government. Does that principal apply? Should we then say that a State highway department can ignore its State's own laws with regard--or contractors getting the State highway money? That, really, frankly, surprises me in the very radical nature of a repudiation of what the State can do. In other words, you are in the State and you have set a policy that there will not be discrimination based on this or that or the other, other than what the Federal Government does. And an organization in your State, which decides to do a program, and it's got 70 percent of its money, and it gets 30 percent of the Federal money, that Federal money now becomes a license to ignore State anti-discrimination law. If there's a conflict between the laws, then the Federal would apply, but I had not previously thought it would be Mr. Scarborough. I do believe, although it has not been articulated well, and I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm just merely saying that there are some of us that believe this that may not be able to articulate it very well, that there is a culture in, let's say, an urban Protestant Church that is separate from a culture in, let's say, an urban synagogue or in a Catholic Church that is separate from another. And I see Ms. Waters. She's about to explode, and I'm sure I'm going to be a bigot, and this, that, and the other, but I'm just saying there is---- Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair is prepared to declare a 30-second recess. Mr. Scarborough. Why is that? Chairman Sensenbrenner. So that nobody explodes. We don't want that to happen. Mr. Scarborough. I love Ms. Waters---- [Laughter.] Mr. Scarborough. I love Ms. Waters, and Ms. Waters loves me. She hugs me on the floor every chance she gets. That's why she got up. She couldn't resist herself. [Laughter.] But there is a culture, seriously, there is an inherent culture in these organizations, like, for instance, and I'll talk about my church. I'm Southern Baptist. I disagree with a lot of things they believe about people who are divorced not being able to be deacons or, or women not being able to preach, all right? But I do know that there are Southern--and if that offends me, I can, I can take a hike. But there are, even though I disagree with some of the things that people in the Southern Baptist Church believe in, they can effectively deliver services because of the culture of whether it's First Baptist Church of Pensacola or---- Mr. Weiner. Will the gentleman yield on that point? Mr. Scarborough. Yes, sir, I will. Mr. Weiner. Would the gentleman yield on that? And I'm convinced the Southern Baptist Church can deliver those under this bill. Perhaps you can enlighten me, and using the example of the Southern Baptist Church or whatever you referred to, someone coming in for a job interview to work in a job training program to teach typing to someone who had been laid off---- Mr. Scarborough. Right. Mr. Weiner. Why is it, give me an example, just so I can fully get my mind around it, why is it necessary that they be Baptist and why is it not only necessary, why is it so important to this program that it means offending 35 or 40 Members around here who might be willing to make this a bill that 300 people can vote for? Mr. Scarborough. Yeah, well, I don't think it's--reclaiming my time--I don't think it's necessary. And, obviously, I think most of us on this panel, I would hope, would agree that it would be extraordinarily bigoted for any, any organization, be it a faith-based or secular organization, to prevent people from being hired. But I think the biggest concern is compelling, for instance, a synagogue in a certain area to hire a fundamentalist, right wing, religious, whatever, that would, after all---- Mr. Weiner. Typing teacher? Mr. Scarborough. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Mr. Weiner. What does a right-wing typing teacher do, only type with the right hand? Mr. Scarborough. We're talking about, and again---- [Laughter.] Mr. Scarborough. Again, if you want to get laughs, that's fine, but, for instance, delivering soup, let's say, for instance, in an area that's heavily served, let's say a synagogue in an urban part of the area, listen, they want to get their soup. They don't want to hear somebody with views that's completely different from their own views. And I understand, I understand what the bill says that they're not allowed to do that. But, again, if you compel these organizations, again, whose culture, many Americans believe, allow faith-based organizations to deliver services more effectively than, say, the Department of HHS---- Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Scarborough [continuing]. There's a risk of changing the very culture of those organizations. Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Scarborough. Thank you. Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, seek recognition? Ms. Lofgren. To strike the last word. Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Lofgren. I--I was fascinated by the last exchange because, apparently, even though there is a prohibition on proselytizing, the reality would be that there would be proselytizing, and therefore we need to make sure that religious institutions can discriminate against people who are not of their religion so that they can violate this statute, which I think is a very odd proposition. But I would just, going back to my experience in local government, I would just like to say I think this bill is a, is a solution in search of a problem. I mean, we used all kinds of contracts with religious-based organizations. Catholic Charities ran the Immigration Counseling Center. The only instance in my 14 years on the Board of Supervisors that ever came to my attention that someone, a religious group felt that they might not be--having treated fairly, was an evangelical church who wondered were they being treated fairly, and I met with them, and we made sure that they were brought into the opportunity to provide food through the food service, the largest faith-based group in Santa Clara County, PAC, which has, I think now, 17 parishes and churches. They provide homework centers, the biggest homework centers for all the kids after school. They wouldn't even consider discriminating against a tutor based on their religion, and Catholic Charities wouldn't even consider discriminating against a psychologist in hiring for one of the programs, the mental health programs they run. It would be inconceivable. So I really strongly believe that Mr. Scott's amendment is necessary and that this bill is probably not, but I would like to yield to Mr. Scott, at this point. Mr. Speaker, this rule does a terrible disservice to democracy. This is a fundamentally important issue. Many of us are in favor of helping the faith-based groups, but want to put some safeguards in. There are complicated issues. Instead, we are told we get one substitute and one recommittal. The recommittal gets 10 minutes of debate. This forces fundamental, philosophical, constitutional, and moral issues of great importance into a shoehorn, apparently because the majority did not want to debate them. We are going to be told, well, you should not lump all these things together. We only wanted four or five amendments. We are only getting a couple of hours of debate on this fundamental issue, when we spend much more time on things of less significance. I will say this: Members who say, well, I could not vote for that recommittal, I could not vote for that substitute because it did not have everything I wanted, it had too much in there, then vote against the rule. Let us vote down this rule, and let us take this bill up where we can offer amendments that deal with these serious moral and constitutional issues in a significant way. Unfortunately, we are going to have a debate in which there are going to be all kinds of charges of mission representation, because the rule does not allow us time to air them. But I want to just close by saying again, the chairman of the committee honestly acknowledged that it preempts State and local anti- discrimination laws where they use Federal laws, and others have talked about the right to discriminate religiously in hiring for secular purposes. Those should not be allowed to stand.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, if what the previous gentleman said was in the bill, it would be much less controversial. It does change civil rights laws. It preempts, as the chairman of the committee acknowledged in the debate, all State and local laws that many of these organizations do now have to abide by in their purely secular activity, and it allows discrimination with Federal funds for purely secular activities. It says, ``No, you can't discriminate based on race, but you can based on religion.'' But, sadly, all too often in America, religion becomes a proxy for race. When Orthodox Jews get this money in Brooklyn, no blacks will be hired. When the Nation of Islam gets this money in Baltimore to deal with public housing, no whites will be hired. In fact, religion is all too often correlated with race. And when you say to religious groups, provide a purely secular activity with Federal tax dollars but in employing people to serve the soup or build the homes or clean up or give drug treatment, hire only your own co-religionists, you are empowering people de facto to engage in racial segregation. That is not worthy of the purposes of this bill.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, there is a flaw in several of the things we have heard. The bill specifically says we cannot have a religious and theological content in the program. Those who say that the importance is to use religion to improve people's lives have not read the bill.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, there is virtual unanimity here on the goal the Speaker stated. We simply do not believe that to get the benefit of these decent well-motivated individuals who run the faith-based institutions that we have to give them the right to discriminate. Now, we were told, well, there is probably a concession that there are parts of this bill that would allow too much discrimination, but they will be fixed in conference. It is funny, when I heard this was the faith-based bill, I thought they were talking about faith in God, not faith in the Senate. I think there is a lot less of that over here than of the other. This bill clearly authorizes the preemption of State and local civil rights laws. What it says is with Federal money, doing purely secular activities, albeit motivated by faith, they can violate State and local laws. And if the money is commingled, if there is State money and local money, and they try to condition that money on their policies, the Federal money wipes that out. It also allows religious discrimination. It seems to me to disserve the faith-based communities. It insults them to say that they can only go forward if they are allowed to violate otherwise applicable State law and discriminate on these grounds. And let me address one absolute inaccuracy. The suggestion that we have heard, that the substitute and then the subsequent recommit, somehow will enact the National Gay Rights Bill, that is absolutely and completely and totally false. All this says is that where there are existing State, State antidiscrimination laws, and an organization would otherwise be covered by them, they are still covered. Federal money does not become the universal solvent. If an organization is in a State and they get Federal highway money, that does not exempt them from State laws. If they get Federal housing money, it does not exempt them from State laws. Do my colleagues really think so little, those on the other side, of churches and faith-based institutions, and synagogues and mosques, as to think they will not do this faith-based charity unless they are given a special right to violate State laws and discriminate against people? I think we are the ones who truly show faith in them.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio give us a chance to deal with the common misapprehension and misunderstanding that somehow we have more rights to burn a flag than we have to burn other things. That simply is not true; and indeed, presumably the person who burned a gay pride flag had burned someone else's gay pride flag. It is entirely legal, I am sure, for someone to burn their own gay pride flag. It is not legal to burn someone else's flag. If, in fact, we burn someone else's American flag, we are guilty of theft, destruction of property, vandalism; and that, of course, can be punished. We had an incident described where someone disrupted the funeral of a man who had been shot by a police officer and burned a flag. That was a violation of law on many counts. So we are not here advocating a policy whereby we can burn a flag when we cannot burn anything else. Yes, there are many cities and States and communities that have laws against burning in certain seasons. No, the flag is not an exemption to that. So let us put that to rest. It is not a case where we have more protection to burn other things. Any law against vandalism, disturbing the peace, theft, destruction of someone else's property, that applies whether it is a flag or anything else. What we are opposed to, those who oppose this amendment, is the notion that because some people seek to express views that almost all of us find terribly obnoxious, in the most offensive possible way, namely, by burning a flag, that we should make it illegal. And here is why: first, this takes what I would have thought was a very unconservative position. It takes a very expansive view of government. What it says is, that which the Government does not prohibit it condones. We are told that if we do not make it illegal for people to burn the flag, we are somehow allowing that and maybe even showing it is okay. No, I hope we live in a society in which we make laws to protect people from being interfered with by others; but we do not take the view that whatever the Government does not outlaw, it is somehow condoning. That is an extraordinarily expansive view of government that would erode liberty. So we ought to be clear that the absence of a law that says something is illegal is in no sense an approval of it. People who say, yes, but still this is so offensive, burning a flag, desecrating a flag to express oneself, that we have to make it illegal. Okay, this is then the theory. The theory is that if we do not make it illegal to destroy or desecrate a particular symbol, we are devaluing that symbol. The problem with that is that it does not go far enough. The flag is a very dear symbol to many Americans; perhaps to most it is the most important symbol. But are there not people in this society who we admire because they think some other symbol is more important? What about religious symbols? Must people be told in their hierarchy of symbolic value that State comes above church; that the embodiment of the Government somehow is entitled to more protection than the embodiment of their religious faith? The Supreme Court did not just say we could burn a flag; it said also that we could burn a cross. There was a Supreme Court decision in which a conviction was overturned of someone who burned a cross. Now, once again, it had better have been his cross on his property. We cannot go burning someone else's cross. But the Supreme Court said the symbolic act of burning a cross is constitutionally protected. What we will do today if we ratify this amendment, or send it for ratification, is to say we will protect the American flag but not the cross. Because once we have put forward the principle that, if the Government thinks something is terrible it should outlaw it, then what do we say to people who think it is terrible to burn a cross? The cross is a symbol of a powerful religion, a religion that has, undoubtedly, had more impact on humanity than any other; and people who burn it are turning this profound religious symbol of all of man's best instincts, of man's tribute to the best in the universe, people are turning it into a symbol of racism, because the burning of the cross has become associated with racism. Now, the Supreme Court said that is okay. Do those of us who support that decision think it is okay? No, we think it is despicable. But we think it is a mark of a free society that despicable people are allowed to express themselves in despicable ways, as long as they have not taken anybody else's property or otherwise injured anybody. We do not simply punish expression. But for those who want to ratify this amendment, do we now get an amendment that overturns the decision that says it is okay to burn a cross? Or do we say that we, the Government of the United States, protect the flag because that is a symbol of our Nationhood, but the cross, that symbol of some of the most profound values human beings are capable of conceiving, it is okay to burn that? It is not only okay to burn that, it is okay to take that wonderful symbol and turn it into a reminder of the worst aspect of American history: racism. So that is what we are dealing with today. We have a choice of saying that we will continue the situation in which we believe in limited government, in which government intervenes when one individual's rights are threatened by another, in which we protect private property and we prevent disruption of the peace, but in which we say if some individual, choosing to be as vile as can be and give offense by his or her means of expression, chooses to burn his or her own flag on his or her own property, that we are going to penalize that criminally. But if that individual decides to burn a cross to symbolize racism, if that individual decides to destroy or deface any other symbol, no matter how profound, that is okay. It seems to me that leaves us in an untenable position. Because either we believe that what an individual does to express himself or herself is not a matter for the law, or we say we value this one symbol but we devalue all the others. I think we are better off as a society letting people express themselves as freely as possible and having the rest of us argue against it. The alternative is to set the principle that if the Government does not outlaw something, it is somehow condoning it. And if it does not outlaw the desecration of a particular symbol, it somehow devalues that symbol. I think that will do more damage because it will leave more valuable symbols in fact devalued by being excluded from this new form of protection. So I hope the amendment is defeated.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to be given a chance to send my congratulations to the winners of the Hispanic Recognition Awards which are going to be held on August 3 in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts. The Hispanic Recognition Awards Committee has assembled a very diverse and valuable group of individuals and institutions to receive well merited recognition for their work in helping preserve Latino culture and values in the framework of our national unity. I am delighted to have a chance to share with my colleagues the work of this important organization and I ask that the names of the award winners be printed here so that they may get the recognition to which they are entitled.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, if I heard correctly, no motion to table a motion to reconsider was made after the Obey amendment. Now, I am a great believer in giving people third chances, not just second chances, and, with all of the switching, I thought we could offer one last chance for redemption. Would it be in order to move to reconsider the vote on the Obey amendment, for Members who did not get their switches in time?

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. FRANK. In other words, the Members are off the hook, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRANK. May I ask a question? May I ask the gentleman a question?

Mr. FRANK. I am correcting him. May I ask a question? May I ask the gentleman a question?

Mr. FRANK. First, I want to repeat what the gentleman from Maryland said. The notion of the $300 to $600 was not something opposed on this side. The gentleman inaccurately said there were people who were opposed to that. The notion of sending a check out right away was something that was advocated by many on this side.

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

Mr. FRANK. The gentleman from Florida has the 3 minutes.

Mr. FRANK. He has 3 extra minutes for you at the end.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. THOMAS: I would like to finish my statement. I do not have a lot of time. Then, if I finish, I will yield.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say, because we are about to run out of all time, that not having heard the explanation, it obviously makes no sense. Apparently people think Americans are consumed with jealousy, and some people are going to get a check in July, and some are getting it in September, and they will have no idea why that happened. Again, we do not think that is a serious argument. And the notion that you cannot consolidate in one check that information, again, is wholly unpersuasive.

Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. FRANK. I understand the gentleman has trouble understanding how the mail works, but he should know how the rules of the House work.

Mr. FRANK. I will take back my time.

Mr. FRANK. I thank the gentleman, and I am taking back my time.