89–009

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–143

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON

LETTER TO TOURO SYNAGOGUE IN NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND, WHICH

IS ON DISPLAY AT THE B’NAI B’RITH KLUTZNICK NATIONAL JEWISH MUSEUM IN WASHINGTON, DC, IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EARLY

STATEMENTS BUTTRESSING THE NASCENT AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

JULY 17, 2001.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Con. Res. 62]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the

concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 62) expressing the sense of

Congress that the George Washington letter to Touro Synagogue in

Newport, Rhode Island, which is on display at the B’nai B’rith

Klutznick National Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, is one of

the most significant early statements buttressing the nascent

American constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, having

considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment

and recommends that the concurrent resolution be agreed to.

CONTENTS

Page

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 4

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 4

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 4

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 4

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 4

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 4

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 4

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 6
2

1Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 788 n.5 (1983).

The amendment is as follows:

In the preamble after the sixth clause insert the following:

Whereas the text of George Washington’s letter to Touro Synagogue states:

‘‘Gentlemen:

‘‘While I receive with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of answering you, that

I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.

‘‘The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past, is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of

uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of

the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just

administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.

‘‘The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud

themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal

policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and

immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if

it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United

States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires

only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good

citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

‘‘It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow

that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration, and fervent

wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell

in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants,

while every one shall sit in safety under his own wine and fig tree, and there

shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light

and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful

here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.’’;

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H. Con. Res. 62 is to express the sense of Congress that George Washington’s letter to Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, which is on display at the B’nai B’rith

Klutznick National Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, is one of

the most significant early statements buttressing the nascent

American constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. H. Con.

Res. 62 also calls for the text of the letter to be widely circulated,

serving as an important tool for teaching tolerance to children and

adults alike.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island is the oldest

Jewish house of worship in the United States. When it was dedicated in December 1763, Jewish families had already resided in

Newport for over 100 years. These families were drawn to the

American colonies, and Rhode Island in particular, by the promise

of starting a new life where they could practice their religious beliefs freely and without persecution. They chose Rhode Island, in

part, because of its tradition of religious freedom. Rhode Island was

founded by Roger Williams, who is described as one of ‘‘the first of

his era to espouse the principle of religious freedom.’’ 1 In 1641, its

Legislature ordered that ‘‘none be accounted a delinquent for doctrine,’’ making Rhode Island—similar to Virginia—an example of

3

2Michael W. McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1426. However, Virginia’s efforts to secure religious liberty for

its residents are considered to be more analogous to the First Amendment’s religious liberty provisions because article 16 of its 1776 Declaration of Rights is considered to be the precursor to

both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. See Chambers, 463 U.S. at 788 n.5. 3President George Washington, George Washington Letter to the Touro Synagogue, Aug. 1790

(on file with the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary). 4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Chambers, 463 U.S. at 788. Agreement was reached on Sept. 25, 1789. Id. 7 Chambers, 463 U.S. at 788 n.9. 8 Id. James Madison, one of the leading advocates of religious freedom in the colonies who participated in drafting the Establishment Clause, was appointed to the Senate committee created

to ‘‘take under consideration the manner of electing Chaplains’’ and voted for the bill authorizing payment of the chaplains. Id. n.8.

how American colonies secured religious freedom for their residents.2

As George Washington commenced his term as the first President of the United States of America, Moses Seixas, warden of

Touro Synagogue, sent what has become the most famous of congratulatory notes to the new President. In August 1790, Washington responded to the Synagogue’s letter:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to

applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of

an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All

possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was

by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed

the exercise of their inherent natural rights.3

Washington’s letter then repeated the following statement made

by Seixas in the Synagogue’s letter to Washington: ‘‘For happily the

Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live

under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens, in

giving it on all occasions their effectual support.’’ 4 The President

concluded: ‘‘May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell

in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other

inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own wine

and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.’’ 5

H. Con. Res. 62 recognizes that the Washington letter is ‘‘one of

the most significant early statements buttressing the nascent

American constitutional guarantee of religious freedom’’ and is,

therefore, ‘‘an important tool for teaching tolerance to children and

adults alike.’’ This understanding of Washington’s letter is consistent with the understanding of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty revealed by the acts and statements of

those who drafted the Bill of Rights—many of whom were still active in government at the time of Washington’s letter.

When Washington authored his letter in August 1790, it had

been less than a year since final agreement had been reached on

the language of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment.6

The same day that language was approved, the House of Representatives ‘‘resolved to request the President to set aside a

Thanksgiving Day to acknowledge ‘the many signal favors of Almighty God.’ ’’ 7 Three days before that language was approved,

Congress authorized the appointment of paid chaplains to open

each session with prayer.8 When placed within this historical context, George Washington’s letter reflects the intent of the Framers

4

of the Bill of Rights—that the First Amendment nurture a society

within which religious beliefs and practices would flourish while at

the same time vigorously protect the freedom of conscience of all

citizens.

HEARINGS

No hearings were held on H. Con. Res. 62.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On June, 28, 2001, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H. Con. Res. 62 with amendment

by voice vote, a quorum being present.

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

There were no recorded votes. An amendment offered by Mr.

Hostettler passed by voice vote. The amendment inserts the text of

the Washington letter into the concurrent resolution language. The

bill was ordered reported favorably by voice vote.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H. Con. Res. 62 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c)

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House is inapplicable.

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax

expenditures.

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the bill

will have no cost for the current fiscal year, and that there will be

no cost incurred in carrying it out over the next five fiscal years.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The first preambular clause provides that George Washington responded to a letter sent by Moses Seixas, warden of Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, in August 1790.

5

The second preambular clause provides that Touro Synagogue,

the oldest Jewish house of worship in the United States, and now

a national historic site, was dedicated in December 1763, and that

Jewish families had been in Newport for over 100 years before that

date.

The third preambular clause provides that these Jewish families,

some of whom were Marranos, came to the United States with

hopes of starting a new life in this country, where they could practice their religious beliefs freely and without persecution.

The fourth preambular clause provides that these Jewish families were drawn to the Colony of Rhode Island and the Providence

Plantations because of Governor Roger Williams’ assurances of religious liberty.

The fifth preambular clause provides that the letter sent to

George Washington from Touro Synagogue is the most famous of

many congratulatory notes addressed to the new president by

American Jewish congregations.

The sixth preambular clause provides that Seixas articulated the

following principle, which Washington repeated in his letter: ‘‘For

happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance; requires only that

they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as

good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.’’

The seventh preambular clause includes the text of George

Washington’s letter to Touro Synagogue.

The eighth preambular clause provides that this was the first

statement of such a principle enunciated by a leader of the new

United States Government.

The ninth preambular clause provides that this principle has become the cornerstone of United States religious and ethnic toleration as it has developed during the past two centuries.

The tenth preambular clause provides that the original letter is

on display as part of the permanent collection of the B’nai B’rith

Klutznick National Jewish Museum in Washington, DC

The eleventh preambular clause provides that Americans of all

religious faiths gather at Touro Synagogue each August on the anniversary of the date of the letter’s delivery and at the Klutznick

Museum on George Washington’s birthday to hear readings of the

letter and to discuss how the letter’s message can be applied to

contemporary challenges.

The resolved clause provides that it is the sense of the House of

Representatives, with the Senate concurring, that

(1) the George Washington letter sent to Touro Synagogue in

Newport, Rhode Island, in August 1790, which is on display as part

of the permanent collection of the B’nai B’rith Klutznick National

Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, is one of the most significant

early statements buttressing the nascent American constitutional

guarantee of religious freedom; and

(2) the text of the George Washington letter should be widely circulated, serving as an important tool for teaching tolerance to children and adults alike.

6

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING

THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in Room

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order.

Without objection, the Chair is given the authority to grant or call

recesses at any point in today’s markup. A working quorum is

present.

Pursuant to notice, I now call up the concurrent resolution, H.

Con. Res. 62 for purposes of markup, and move its favorable recommendation to the full House. Without objection, the concurrent

resolution will be considered as read and open for amendment at

any point.

[The bill, H. Con. Res. 62, follows:]

7

8

9

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I will yield myself 5 minutes. H.

Con. Res. 62 expresses the sense of Congress that the George

Washington letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, which is on display at the B’nai B’rith Klutznick National

Jewish Museum here in Washington, DC, is one of the most significant early statements buttressing the nascent American constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. And it calls for the text of

the letter to be widely circulated, serving as an important tool for

teaching tolerance to children and adults alike.

The Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island is the oldest

Jewish house of worship in the United States. It was dedicated in

December 1763, at which point Jewish families had resided in

Newport for over 100 years. These families were drawn to the

American colonies and to Rhode Island in particular by the promise

of starting a new life where they could practice their religious beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:21 Jul 17, 2001 Jkt 089009 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR143.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR143
10

liefs freely and without persecution. Founded by Roger Williams,

who was among the first of his era to espouse the principle of religious freedom, Rhode Island, like Virginia, is looked upon as an example of how the American colonies secured religious liberty and

freedom of conscience for its residents.

As George Washington commenced his term as the first President of the United States, Moses Seixas, warden of the Touro Synagogue, sent what became the most famous of congratulatory notes

to the new President. In August 1790, Washington responded to

the synagogue’s letter as follows. Quote: ‘‘The citizens of the United

States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having

given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy, a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and

immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights,’’ unquote.

Washington’s letter then repeated the following statement made

by Seixas in the synagogue’s letter to Washington. Quote: ‘‘For happily the Government of the United States which gives to bigotry no

sanction, to persecution no assistance, and requires only that they

live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens, and giving at all occasions their effectual support,’’ unquote.

The President concluded, quote: ‘‘May the children of the stock

of Abraham who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the

goodwill of the other inhabitants while everyone shall sit in safety

under his own wine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make

him afraid,’’ unquote.

H. Con. Res. 62 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Washington letter is one of the most significant early

statements buttressing the American constitutional guarantee of

religious freedom, and is, therefore, an important tool for teaching

tolerance to children and adults alike. Such an understanding of

Washington’s letter is consistent with the understanding of the

First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty that is revealed

by the contemporaneous acts and statements of those who drafted

and approved the Bill of Rights, many of whom were still active in

government at the time of Washington’s letter. When Washington

authored his letter in August 1790, it had been less than a year

since the final agreement had been reached on the language of the

Bill of Rights including the First Amendment. Three days before

agreement was reached on the language, Congress authorized the

appointment of paid chaplains to open each session with prayer,

and less than a week later the House of Representatives resolved

to request the President to set aside a Thanksgiving Day to acknowledge the many signal favors of Almighty God.

When placed in this historical, George Washington’s letter reflects the intent of the Framers of the Bill of Rights that the First

Amendment vigorously protect the freedom of conscience of all citizens, while at the same time nurture communities within which religious beliefs and practices would flourish.

I, therefore, urge the Committee to approve Congressman Kennedy’s resolution, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Massachusetts.

11

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, let me explain that our Ranking

Member is busy at this point testifying on important matters in the

Senate and hopes to join us as soon as possible. We appreciate your

giving prompt attention to that resolution. As someone whose district borders the State of Rhode Island, I know how important this

tradition, this beginning of the tradition of opposing bigotry is in

Rhode Island. It’s very important to—to Jewish people as one of

the earliest examples of the principle of freedom from religious discrimination. So we appreciate your giving this such prompt treatment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members may

insert statements in the record at this point.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding the markup of H Con Res. 62, a resolution

that recognizes one of the most significant statements on religious understanding

and equality made in early America. I thank Representatives Kennedy and

Langevin for their work on introducing this bill and for bringing our attention to

this letter. It is undoubtedly no coincidence that we discuss this bill on the same

day we discuss HR 7, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives bill.

This letter, which is now on display at the B’nai B’rith Klutznick National Jewish

Museum in Washington, D.C. In August, 1790, George Washington sent this letter

to the Touro Synagogue, a national historic site in Newport, Rhode Island and the

oldest Jewish house of worship in the United States, today operating as an Orthodox synagogue; it was previously known as Yeshuat Israel, meaning ‘‘the salvation

of Israel.’’ Washington affirmed that our government ‘‘gives to bigotry no sanction,

to persecution no assistance.’’ This phrase has captured the hearts and souls of the

different races and religions in the United States. The letter is read every year at

the synagogue in a ceremony of reminder of the nation’s commitment to the freedom

of worship.

As many of you may recall from your history lessons, Rhode Island has a tradition

of religious liberty, as it began as a refuge for those who sought haven from religious persecution. Roger Williams founded Rhode Island after he was banished from

Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony. Williams himself eloquently stated that ‘‘No

man should be molested for his conscience.’’

Sephardic Jews then settled Newport with roots in Spain and Portugal. Many

were Jews who had to covert to Christianity in Europe to avoid persecution, people

such as Arthur Lopez, who remarried in accordance with the Jewish tradition after

he immigrated to Newport.

It is this spirit of the freedom of worship that today permits Jews to display their

mezuzahs on their doorways and yalmukes on their heads with little fear of retribution for displaying the symbols of their religious beliefs. And this freedom of worship

is what constitutionally protects all religious worship from government interference.

As we discuss HR 7, we must keep these principles in mind.

Chairman, I soundly support this resolution and encourage my colleagues do join

me. Thank you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments?

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina,

Mr. Watt.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to be very, very,

very, extremely careful in how I say this. I’ve been put in this position many times. When I was in the State legislature we used to

pass laudatory resolutions, praising people, and when we were in

the State legislature, we could just get up and take a walk when

we were feeling uncomfortable. And I’m not going to vote against

12

this resolution today. I think I’m going to exercise my right to get

up and take a walk.

But for us to be applauding statements discussing bigotry that

were written by a person who owned slaves is a little bit more than

I can, without a churning stomach, be able to tolerate. I mean, I—

it’s the same standard I applied in the State legislature. I used to

always ask, ‘‘Did this guy used to own slaves?’’ And I’m sure he did

magnificent things and wonderful things, and I don’t want to denigrate the value of the purpose that you are trying to achieve here.

I think it’s a laudable purpose. This letter can be used as a—as a

method of demonstrating to young people the value of tolerance,

but we should also keep in context the reality that there is—there

is substantial pain still among many of the people in our country

about this chapter in our history, and to honor words that were

written that apparently didn’t have the—the substance that the

words themselves suggest that they would have, is a little bit more

than I can do. So I’m just going to excuse myself and pretend

that——

Mr. FRANK. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT. I’m happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. FRANK. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I must say that

I am a little chagrined that I had not thought about it in this context. I think he’s absolutely right. I wish this resolution had been

reworded, and perhaps maybe it can be before it gets to the floor,

to talk about the sentiments without giving the false impression

that they were unduly followed excessively, and I thank the gentleman for making what I think is a very profound point.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back?

Mr. WATT. Yes. Yes, I yield back.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments?

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You have an amendment?

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I’ve got an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H. Con. Res. 62 offered by Mr.

Hostettler, In the preamble after the sixth clause, insert the following.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read, and the gentleman’s recognized for 5 minutes.

[The amendment to H. Con Res. 62 offered by Mr. Hostettler follows:]

13

14

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for bringing this bill as the start of our markup here today. I think it is the

most appropriate way to begin our session. This resolution recognizes the wisdom of our founding fathers in establishing our great

Nation in order to form, not possibly a perfect union at that time,

but a more perfect union. All my amendment does is to insert the

text of the Washington letter into the bill’s language. I think it is

15

appropriate to include what was actually said as we pay tribute to

our first President’s wisdom.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the adoption of

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.

Hostettler. Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the amendment

is agreed to. Are there further amendments?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr.

Nadler.

Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the real import of the letter from George Washington to the Touro Synagogue

that we are commemorating today, is of course a statement of religious freedom, a statement of the basic philosophy behind the First

Amendment, where it says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And where he says in his letter, ‘‘It is now no more

that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one

class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent

natural rights.’’ Everyone has freedom. Minority religious groups

have freedom on the same level as the majority religious groups.

It’s not that the majority tolerates the minority. Of course, I think

most of us share those sentiments, and we are right to applaud

those sentiments.

I find it ironic that we are going to applaud this letter in the

same markup session in which we are going to, apparently, approve a bill designed to do violence to the First Amendment, designed to do violence to the very religious freedom provisions of the

First Amendment that we are celebrating here, because make no

mistake, when you have—and I’ll get into this more, I suppose,

when we debate the bill in a few minutes—but what you’re really

saying with this charitable choice bill, is that there should be religious programs for worthy purposes, drug detoxification, whatever,

using religious propaganda, religious proselytization, in the service

of a worthy social goal in which a drug addict perhaps of a minority religious view may be tolerated, may feel that he can walk out

of the room when they do the religious proselytization, may go to

another program, although I note the provision that there has to

be a secular alternative is watered down in the manager’s amendment, but this bill that we’re going to be doing in a few minutes

really is an expression of the feeling that religious minority rights

are to be tolerated, but if people are made uncomfortable or are

discriminated against on the basis of religion, that’s all right, as

long as we have a proper social goal involved, even with the use

of Federal funds.

So I find it very ironic that—that we’re using this perfectly good

resolution to express sentiments that are mocked by the bill we’re

going to do, and I suspect the majority has gone so far as to move

a Patrick Kennedy bill, even though we know that he’s been

blacklisted by the majority leadership because they were so desVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:21 Jul 17, 2001 Jkt 089009 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR143.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR143
16

perate for some gesture to mask or to ameliorate the violence we

will be doing to religious freedom and religious toleration in this

markup today.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. So I support—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. In one moment, sir. So I support the resolution. I

question why it’s on the agenda—I don’t question why it’s on the

agenda. I know why it’s on the agenda today. I wish we weren’t

being so disingenuous.

Yes, I will yield.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. Yes. I said I’ll yield.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The reason it’s on the agenda today

is because Mr. Kennedy approached me in the Republican cloakroom on Tuesday and asked me to put it on the agenda promptly,

and I am happy to accommodate him.

Mr. NADLER. Then in that case, I wish to—reclaiming my time,

I wish to commend the Chairman for breaking with the otherwise

uniform policy of not allowing any Patrick Kennedy bill and resolution to be considered by any Committee in this House. I yield back.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will further yield,

I hope that he will return the bipartisanship in a few minutes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I’d like to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s recognized for 5

minutes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is a unique time in this Committee today

in the juxtaposing of these two legislative initiatives. But I’d like

to comment—I know there will be sufficient time to comment on

H.R. 7—I would like to comment on H. Con. Res. 62. The reason

is because in the time that I’ve been in this Committee, certainly

not senior to many Members here, I’ve had the experience of participating in proceedings that involve religious implications such as

the Davidian issue in 1995. And I can see when the question of religion in this country comes to the forefront, enormous amount of

emotions can generate antagonisms that should not be the basis,

or were not the basis, or hopefully were not the intentions of the

founding father. I’ve always noted that there were no founding

mothers that were listed in that time frame.

I think this resolution is appropriate at this time to reaffirm that

this Nation is a nation founded upon the ability to worship privately and separately as you please, and to establish the separation

of church and state, which does not in any way negate the fact that

we of so many faiths can practice that faith without intimidation

by the government. And sometimes our intent to be able to embrace and to compete with each other as to who can embrace the

religious community more, sometimes causes us to overlook the

very values upon what this Nation was built.

I do want to give acknowledgement to the words that I find very

striking that Washington affirmed, that this government gives to

bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. That is the value

17

of this resolution in restating our principles. Might I also, however,

thank the gentleman from North Carolina for reminding us that we

are still in an imperfect union, and really to call upon the religious

community and to acknowledge the travesty and the devastation of

the various holding of slaves throughout the world, in particular

here in the United States, but we know that slavery was prevalent

throughout the world. And I imagine that sometimes we overlook,

where it is uncomfortable to challenge what slavery actually

meant.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will have the opportunity in the

future to address the question of Mr. Conyers’ reparation legislation. I’ve begun to call it compensation, even though that is possibly a stretch from our debate today. I think it all goes to making

this Nation and this room representative of a perfect union. That

was the start of our Declaration of Independence, that we as a people would move toward creating a perfect union. We have far to go.

We have come far.

And so I support the resolution with the recognition that we still

in this room, the holder of the Constitution of the United States

in terms of the Committee’s jurisdiction, have work to do that can

help make this country a better country and to be able to respond

to some of the deep and abiding concerns that still prevail in this

Nation.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, seek recognition?

Ms. WATERS. To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I think the point has been made

that this Committee is sending a strange signal to the public by

taking perhaps two very different actions here today. On the one

hand, the resolution is designed to confirm this Nation’s so-called

belief in separation of church and state and tolerance of religious

views. And on the other hand, we are going to be debating, perhaps, in my estimation, the greatest possibility of a violation of

separation of church and state as we move with the so-called faithbased amendment.

I think politicians oftentimes get a bad name because we send

these kind of dual messages. You know, I’m tolerant enough to say

if you believe the faith-based initiative and what it’s attempting to

do, vote for it, stand up and have the guts to say you believe in

it and fight for it. But don’t send this mixed message that somehow

you believe in separation of church and state and then move forthwith to violate separation of church and state. What are we doing?

I would hope that the Chairman would use his leadership and

authority as the Chair of this Committee, to remove this resolution

from the agenda today, and let’s get on with the business of discussing charitable choice. Let’s get on with the business of discussing the role of government—what role government is going to

play with our religious organizations, but let’s not try and trick the

public, let’s not try and fool people. Let’s stop sending these kind

of messages that on the one hand we believe a certain way, but

then we act differently. I just think it’s time to stop playing the

games. There’s no reason why this resolution should be on this

18

agenda today. I think it is a contradiction to those who are going

to be involved in supporting charitable choice.

Mr. Chairman, I see somebody’s trying to get my attention.

Mr. CANNON. Would the gentlelady yield?

Ms. WATERS. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. CANNON. It seems to me that this may have been one of the

more clever things that our colleague, Congressman Kennedy has

done. He knew that we would be dealing with this issue today, and

asked the Chairman, I suspect, to get this on because he wanted

it on. The criticism of the majority seems to be to me misplaced.

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time?

Mr. CANNON. Certainly.

Ms. WATERS. I don’t care if it’s Mr. Kennedy or anybody else. I

don’t believe—and I can be corrected—I don’t believe that the

Chairman of the Committee consulted the minority about this, but

again, whether it’s Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Sensenbrenner or anybody

else, I believe that it is confusing, and improper to do this. So it

doesn’t make any difference whether it was initiated by Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sensenbrenner is in charge, and he has the opportunity

to do what I’m asking.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.

Hutchinson.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You’re recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chairman, and I just wanted to

take the liberty of referring to a conversation I had with the Chairman earlier, whenever we were talking about the agenda for today,

and I was asking him, you know, whether anything was going to

be considered besides the charitable choice issue, and he said that

there was a resolution by Mr. Patrick Kennedy, that in which Mr.

Kennedy had requested a markup on, and that he was being responsive to that request by scheduling this. And I really am puzzled somewhat that whenever the minority side wishes to have a

markup and there’s a request for legislation to be considered by

this Committee that is sponsored by a Member of the minority,

that then whenever it is offered, even though it’s a Member not of

this Committee, that there is a challenge that perhaps it is inappropriate, perhaps it should be withdrawn, and I really am confused by that. And it seems to me to be appropriate. It seems that

this resolution is offered, not by a Member of the majority to make

a point, but it is offered by a very distinguished Member of the minority, Mr. Patrick Kennedy, who believes that this is something

that’s worth expressing, that it is something that not only the Judiciary Committee should consider, but the House of Representatives

as a whole should consider, and as you know, this is a necessary

stop to come through this Committee. And so if it’s not going to be

considered by this Committee, it’s not going to be considered by the

House as a whole, and it just seems very appropriate that we try

to respond whenever the minority has a request for a markup.

And so I just want to refer—I think the Chairman is being very

genuine in trying to accommodate the request of the minority for

a markup, and I applaud him for that effort, and I yield back.

19

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the motion to report H. Con. Res. 62 favorably as amended. A reporting quorum is

present. All those in favor will say aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the motion to

report favorably is adopted.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the bill will be— do you wish a rollcall?

Mr. WATT. No. I just wanted to make sure—I wanted to insert

in the record my abstention from this vote.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. Without objection

the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating the

amendment adopted here today. Without objection the Chairman is

authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House rules.

Without objection the staff is directed to make any technical and

conforming changes, and all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House rules, in which to submit additional dissenting,

supplemental or minority view.

Æ