Date: 1999-07-15
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker. I started out this debate earlier today acknowledging that we have more in common than we have in disagreement. Today I rise and stand on behalf of the Sabbath keepers. on behalf of those who wear yarmulkes. on behalf of churches who feed the homeless. because I am standing in support of the Nadler amendment. particularly emphasizing the fact that the free exercise of religion is a prominent and important right and why can we not do it together. raising the concern that we should not discriminate against those in businesses and governments with respect to their employment. participation in the rental market. their right to observe the Sabbath. to wear religion articles. and to follow the other teachings of their faith. including those relating to family life. the education of children. and the conduct of their religious institutions. The Nadler amendment stands for this. But at the same time. as we did in my State of Texas. the Nadler amendment respects unmarried couples and single parents. -lesbians and gays. maybe even racial and ethnic groups who differ in their acceptance in this community. Mr. Speaker. I am a believer in the free exercise of religion. But my ancestors. unfortunately. came as slaves. We had to be educated about the democracy. if you will. late in life and the free exercise of religion. I would hope we would not go along the lines of- the free exercise of religion and civil rights. I offer in testimony. Mr. Speaker. the words of Scott Hochberg. the pro.ponent of the legislation in Texas. where. in a -bipartisan manner. this same legislation was passed and George Bush signed it. And what it offered to say is that he supports a strong religion liberty but he Wanted to ensure that the Texas civil rights were not violated. They worked together in Texas. I will close by simply saying. let us work together and vote for the amendment. Mr. Speaker today. we discuss what I believe is sorely needed legislation to restore the legal protections for the free exercise of religion. These legal protections have been dangerously eroded by the Supreme Court in its 1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision. Congress attempted to remedy this by enacting on a bipartisan basis. the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. which the Court struck down in part in its 1997 City of Boerne v. Flores decision. H.R. 1691. the Religious Liberty Protection Act ("RLPA") seeks to restore the application of strict scrutiny in those cases in which facially neutral. generally applicable laws have the incidental effect of substantially burdening the free exercise of religion. I believe that the government should not have the ability to substantially burden a right that is enshrined in Constitution unless it is able to demonstrate that it has used "the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest." (Thomas v. Review Board. Indiana Employment Security Commission. 450 U.S. 707. 718 (1981)). I am concerned that this legislation if left unamended could have deleterious affects on the enforcement of State and local civil rights laws. Many Americans. including unmarried couples. single parents. persons with different lifestyles. maybe even racial and ethnic minorities with different religious beliefs. The amendment offered in the nature of a substitute by Mr. NADLER of New York would address these concerns. This amendment would appropriately strike a balance between the free exercise sincerely held religious beliefs and the enforcement of hardwon civil rights. The amendment. crafted in consultation with both religious and civil rights groups clarifies the fact that religious liberty is an individual right expressed by individuals and through religious associations. educational institutions and .house of worship. It also makes clear that the right to raise a claim under RLPA applies to that individual. A nonreligious corporate entities could not use a RLPA for a claim or defense to attack civil rights laws. Individuals. under this amendment. could still raise a claim based on their sincerely held religious beliefs which are substantially burdened by the government. whether in the conduct of their businesses. their employment by governments. their participation in the rental market. their right to observe the sabbath or to wear religious articles and to follow the other teachings of their faith. including those relating to family life. the education of children and the conduct of their religious institutions. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the Nadler amendment as it is a positive step forward in protecting the rights of all Americans and finally restores the legal protections for religious freedom for the average American citizens that have been threatened for neariy a decade.