Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner). (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has done such a lot of good work on this amendment, and has taken a very courageous stand.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the first amendment to the Constitution and the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights have never been amended. They have served us well for over 200 years. This first amendment offers us all the protection we need against religious discrimination and to avoid the strife which has saddled other areas of the world with religious strife, killings, murders for many years. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and to reaffirm our belief in the first amendment to the Constitution.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, could the Chair advise us of the time remaining?

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, I would respond to a couple things that have been said. Several anecdotes have been given, and I think we need to respond to them a little as we go. One suggested that a student could not read the Bible in class. The court held in that case that the student could read the Bible all he wanted, but could not proselytize religion to a captive audience. It also concerned itself with what would happen if other students wanted to practice the same freedom in religions that their parents were not interested in having them listen to. So that was the holding in that case. Not that they could not read the Bible, but they could not read it to a captive audience and they did not want other religions being given the same, all religions including Satanism and everything else, being given the same freedom. Also, the F that was received because someone wrote on the topic of Jesus Christ, both the Federal court and appeals court found that the F was not because of the religious discrimination but, quote, her refusal to comply with the requirements of the teacher, including changing her paper topic without permission and choosing a topic which she was already familiar with, and the assignment was to do something they were not already familiar with. The first amendment already protects the student's right to address religious topics in homework if relevant and otherwise complying with the assignment. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam Speaker, this constitutional amendment would have dire consequences if ever ratified. As a former member of the Virginia General Assembly, I take great pride in Virginia's religious freedom tradition. This country's very first religious freedom statute was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in response to a failed system of government-sanctioned religious practices very similar to that which would occur if this amendment is ratified. The mistakes made and corrected in Virginia became the foundation for the religious freedoms included in the United States Constitution, and it is because of our Bill of Rights that we have enjoyed centuries of peace, free from the religious divisions that continue to mar the lives of millions of people across the globe. H.J.Res. 78 is touted by its supporters as a restorer of religious freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, we already have religious freedom. This freedom has existed for over 200 years in the form of the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, the words that protect us from religious persecution, that is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, those words are under attack by this proposed amendment. The language in the proposed amendment ends the church-State separation by allowing religious groups to be directly funded by the government. So what happens when the Catholics must compete with the Baptists for limited school funding? How much safer will society be if only people willing to practice certain religions are able to get treatment for drug addiction? Which religious groups would and would not be funded? How safer will our schools be when children begin fighting over which prayers will be said or which religious expressions should or should not take place before each class day? How much better off will churches be once they become dependent on government funding? Although the answers to these questions are not at all clear, we know for sure that, if this amendment is ever ratified, the religious freedoms that protect all Americans would be transformed into a divisive manifestation of the very problems the first amendment was designed to protect us from. If the amendment is ratified, it would recklessly disrupt the religious tranquility that we have, that we have appreciated for hundreds of years. This amendment strips the individual of his or her right to pick his or her own prayer or to practice his or her own religion without having to subject their beliefs to the manipulation or interference by arrogant majorities. I am specifically referring to the language in the proposed amendment's first sentence. The effect of this language would be to overturn the Supreme Court cases on religious expression and schools. Nothing in this amendment would stop schools or classrooms from choosing by majority vote to actively recite certain prayers or express certain religious beliefs that are most popular in the school or classroom. So what happens to the losers of these popularity contests? That is why the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers oppose this amendment, because of the potential disruption that will occur when 40 percent of the students are not able to express their beliefs while they are subjected to the beliefs other than their own. This amendment will not encourage religious freedom; and, in fact, it invites religious divisiveness. Despite the assertions of this amendment's proponents, school prayer is alive and well. It is often said that, as long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in public schools. In fact, children praying in school is not now prohibited. What is prohibited is making those who want to pray pursuant to a different religion or not pray at all to be subjected to someone else's prayer. In fact, a broad coalition of religious and civil liberties groups, including both proponents and opponents of the Istook amendment, prepared a document entitled ``Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law'' to make it clear that religious expression is permitted in schools. Madam Speaker, we should not be misled by inaccurate anecdotes. The proponents of H.J. Res. 78 often mention incidents where children are told they cannot bring bibles to school or say grace before eating lunches. These are clearly permissible under current law. In fact, it is this kind of anecdotal evidence, of a need for a constitutional amendment, that is misleading in large part because most, if not all, of the examples used by the proponents of this amendment result from misstatements of fact or misinterpretations of current law. That is why we need to preserve our Bill of Rights. That is why we need to join many religious groups in opposing this amendment. Those groups include the American Baptist Churches, the United Church of Christ, the National Churches of Christ, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Southern Leadership Conference, and many other groups. Let us join these religious organizations to preserve religious freedom by opposing this attack on our first amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if this is permissible under the rule that was adopted for the consideration of the bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and consideration of this resolution. We are amending the Constitution. We have only had one hearing on this amendment. There have been several hearings during this Congress on religious issues, but only one on this amendment. Last night we were still slapping the thing together. The final version of the amendment was being drafted after the hearing on the rule itself. This would be the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. Every word is important, and here we are at the last minute still putting together the final version that we will consider on the floor today. The First Amendment to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, has saved us from the religious strife that other countries have suffered through. We need to know exactly what this amendment would do. How is it different from our present First Amendment? What difference does it make? We should not be misled by inaccurate anecdotes and political pressure into changing the Bill of Rights. We have heard the question about the moment of silence. Many States have moments of silence, moments for silent prayer. To direct people to pray during that moment of silence has been ruled unconstitutional, but a moment of silence has been sustained. So we ought not be misled by inaccurate anecdotes into amending the Bill of Rights for the first time in our history. Mr. Speaker, let us protect our religious freedom that we have enjoyed for over 200 years, and let us defeat this amendment.