IB
Union Calendar No. 43
103D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1308
[Report No. 103–88]
To protect the free exercise of religion.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 11, 1993
Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. COX, Mr. NADLER, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. GIL-
MAN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WASHING-
TON, Mr. COOPER, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. YATES, Mrs.
MEEK, Mr. KOPETSKI, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. PRICE of
North Carolina, Mr. SWIFT, Ms. SHEPHERD, Mr. TOWNS, Mrs.
MORELLA, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. BERMAN, Mr.
EDWARDS of California, Ms. BYRNE, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. SUNDQUIST, Mr.
BRYANT, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mrs. UNSOELD, Ms. MOLINARI, Mr. HALL
of Ohio, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr.
WELDON, Mr. GORDON, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. SAWYER, Mr. ANDREWS of
New Jersey, Mr. RUSH, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. GLICKMAN, Mr. GONZALEZ,
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. MATSUI,
Mr. OWENS, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. PORTER, Mr. JEF-
FERSON, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. HERGER, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. SMITH of Texas,
Mr. MCHALE, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. WATERS, Mr. WYNN, Mr. THORNTON,
Mr. NEAL of North Carolina, Mr. WYDEN, Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY,
Mr. LANTOS, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. LEVY, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. LINDER, Mr.
BLACKWELL, Mr. MINETA, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, Ms. MCKINNEY,
Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SABO, Mr.
BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. TORRES, Mr.
DELLUMS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. STARK, Mr. SHAYS, Mr.
SCOTT, Mr. FROST, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. FILNER, Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas,
Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. FINGERHUT, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. GEJDEN-
SON, Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr.
LIGHTFOOT, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. TALENT, Mr. BEILENSON, Mrs. LOWEY,
Mr. HANSEN, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. MFUME, Mr. HOYER, Ms. NORTON,
Mr. ORTON, Mr. GUNDERSON, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. HAMBURG, Mr.
KLEIN, Mr. DICKS, Mr. STUMP, Mr. EVANS, Mr. SKAGGS, Mr. STOKES,
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Ms. VELA´ZQUEZ, Mr. VENTO, Mr. GENE
GREEN of Texas, Mr. ANDREWS of Maine, Mr. BACCHUS of Florida, Mr.
FAZIO, Mr. COPPERSMITH, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. DERRICK, Mr. SWETT,
Mr. LAZIO, Mrs. FOWLER, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, Mr. RAVENEL,
Mr. MCKEON, and Mr. GALLO) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
MAY 11, 1993
Additional sponsors: Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr.
MEEHAN, Ms. LAMBERT, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. KING, Mr. KREIDLER, Mr.
ZIMMER, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. SANGMEISTER, Mr. SKEL-
TON, Mr. MCMILLAN, Mr. GRANDY, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. ISTOOK, Ms.
SCHENK, Mr. LEACH, Mr. APPLEGATE, Mr. SLATTERY, Mr. DORNAN,
Mr. WHEAT, Mr. ROEMER, Mr. DREIER, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland,
Mr. TUCKER, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. OLVER, Mr.
FLAKE, Mr. PAYNE of Virginia, Ms. DANNER, Mr. HOBSON, and Mr.
JOHNSON of Georgia
MAY 11, 1993
Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
and ordered to be printed
A BILL
To protect the free exercise of religion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993’’.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF
PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds—
(1) the framers of the American Constitution,
recognizing 
free 
exercise 
of 
religion 
as 
an
unalienable right, secured its protection in the First
Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws ‘‘neutral’’ toward religion may burden
religious exercise as surely as laws intended to
interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not burden religious ex-
ercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith
the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the require-
ment that the government justify burdens on reli-
gious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward
religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in
Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder is a
workable test for striking sensible balances between
religious liberty and competing governmental inter-
ests.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set
forth in Federal court cases before Employment Di-
vision of Oregon v. Smith and to guarantee its appli-
cation in all cases where free exercise of religion is
burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons
whose religious exercise is burdened by government.
SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not burden a
person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results
from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in
subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION.—Government may burden a per-
son’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that appli-
cation of the burden to the person—
(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering
that compelling governmental interest.
(c) JUDICIAL RELIEF.—A person whose religious ex-
ercise has been burdened in violation of this section may
assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial
proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a govern-
ment. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this
section shall be governed by the general rules of standing
under article III of the Constitution.
SEC. 4. ATTORNEYS FEES.
(a) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.—Section 722 of the Re-
vised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988) is
amended by inserting ‘‘the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1993,’’ before ‘‘or title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964’’.
(b) 
ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS.—Section
504(b)(1)(C) of title 5, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (ii);
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of
clause (iii) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by inserting ‘‘(iv) the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993’’ after clause (iii).
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act—
(1) the term ‘‘government’’ includes a branch,
department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or
other person acting under color of law) of the
United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State;
(2) the term ‘‘State’’ includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
each territory and possession of the United States;
(3) the term ‘‘demonstrates’’ means meets the
burdens of going forward with the evidence and of
persuasion; and
(4) the term ‘‘exercise of religion’’ means exer-
cise of religion under the first article of amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—This Act applies to all Federal
and State law, and the implementation of that law,
whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted be-
fore or after the enactment of this Act.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Federal statutory law
adopted after the date of the enactment of this Act is sub-
ject to this Act unless such law explicitly excludes such
application by reference to this Act.
(c) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in
this Act shall be construed to authorize any government
to burden any religious belief.
SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be con-
strued to affect, interpret, or in any way address that por-
tion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting
the establishment of religion. Granting government fund-
ing, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible
under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment,
shall not constitute a violation of this Act.
(b) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, the term
‘‘granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions’’
does not include a denial of government funding, benefits,
or exemptions.