H 2356 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 11, 1993 participate, with the purpose of determining (4) in Employment Division of Oregon v. (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Federal statu­ whether such assessments yield valid and re- Smith the Supreme Court virtually elimi­ tory law adopted after the date of the enact­ liable State representative data; and nated the requirement that the government ment of this Act is subject to this Act unless "(III) include in each such sample assess­ justify burdens on religious exercise imposed such law explicitly excludes such application ment described in subclauses (I) and (II) stu­ by laws neutral toward religion; and by reference to this Act. dents in public and private schools in a man­ (5) the compelling interest test as set forth (c) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED.—Noth­ ner that ensures comparability with the na­ in Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder ing in this Act shall be construed to author­ tional sample,"; and is a workable test for striking sensible bal­ ize any government to burden any religious (C) in clause (vi) (as redesignated by sub- ances between religious liberty and compet­ belief. paragraph (A)), by striking "paragraph (C) (i) ing governmental interests. SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED. and (ii)" and inserting "clauses (i), (ii) and (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act (a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall (iii)". are— be construed to affect, interpret, or in any (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subpara­ (1) to restore the compelling interest test way address that portion of the First Amend­ graph (D) of section 405(f)(1) of the General as set forth in Federal court cases before ment prohibiting laws respecting the estab­ Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith lishment of religion. Granting government 1221e(f)(1)) is amended by striking "1993" and and to guarantee its application in all cases funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the ex- inserting "1994". where free exercise of religion is burdened; tent permissible under the Establishment The Senate bill was ordered to be and Clause of the First Amendment, shall not read a third time, was read the third (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons constitute a violation of this Act. time, and passed, and a motion to re- whose religions exercise is burdened by gov­ (b) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, consider was laid on the table. ernment. the term "granting government funding, SEC . 3 FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PRO­ benefits, or exemptions" does not include a TECTED. denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. GENERAL LEAVE (a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not burden a person's exercise of religion even if The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask the burden results from a rule of general ap­ MAZZOLI). Pursuant to the rule, the unanimous consent that all Members plicability, except as provided in subsection gentleman from Texas [Mr. BROOKS] may have 5 legislative days within (b). will be recognized for 20 minutes, and which to revise and extend their re- (b) EXCEPTION.—Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it dem­ the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HYDE] marks, and include therein extraneous will be recognized for 20 minutes. material, on S. 801, the Senate bill just onstrates that application of the burden to passed. the person— The Chair recognizes the gentleman (1) furthers a compelling governmental in­ from Texas (Mr. BROOKS]. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there terest; and Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield objection to the request of the gen­ (2) is the least restrictive means of further­ tleman from Michigan? myself such time as I may consume. ing that compelling governmental interest. Mr. Speaker. H.R. 1308. the Religious There was no objection. (c) JUDICIAL RELIEF.—A person whose reli­ gious exercise has been burdened in violation Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, re­ of this section may assert that violation as flects a commitment to one of our ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding most cherished freedoms—the right to PRO TEMPORE and obtain appropriate relief against a gov­ practice one's faith without undue in­ ernment. Standing to assert a claim or de­ terference at the hands of the Govern­ The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu­ fense under this section shall be governed by ment. It will restore the standard for ant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule the general rules of standing under article addressing claims under the free exer­ I, the Chair announces that he will III of the Constitution. cise clause of the first amendment as it postpone further proceedings today on SEC. 4. ATTORNEYS FEES. was prior to the Supreme Court's each motion to suspend the rules on (a) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.—Section 722 of Smith decision in 1990. Under long- which a recorded vote or the yeas and the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 standing constitutional principles, any nays are ordered, or on which the vote U.S.C. 1968) is amended by inserting "the Re­ governmental burden on the free exer­ is objected to under clause 4 of rule ligious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993," be- XV. Such rollcall votes, if postponed, fore "or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of cise of religion was subject to the will be taken after debate has con­ 1964". strictest test of constitutional scru­ cluded on all motions to suspend the (b) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.—Section tiny. In order to satisfy the free exer­ rules. 504(b)(1)(C) of title 5, United States Code, is cise clause, Government had to dem­ amended— onstrate that it had a compelling State (1) by striking "and" and at the end of interest in burdening the free exercise clause (ii); 1250 of religion and that it used the least re­ (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of strictive means of furthering that in­ RELIGIOUS FREEDOM clause (iii) and inserting "; and"; and terest. RESTORATION ACT OF 1993 (3) by inserting "(iv) the Religious Free­ dom Restoration Act of 1993" after clause In Smith, the Supreme Court aban­ Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I move to (iii). doned the compelling State interest suspend the rules and pass the bill SEC. 5 DEFINITIONS. test in favor of a much weaker stand­ (H.R. 1308) to protect the free exercise As used in this Act— ard of review. H.R. 1308 statutorily re- of religion. (1) the term "government" includes a instates the strict test that was in The Clerk read as follows: branch, department, agency, instrumental- place prior to Smith. H.R. 1308 ity, and official (or other person acting The Supreme Court's decision 3 years Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- under color of law) of the United States, a ago transformed a most hallowed lib­ resentatives of the United States of America in "State" or a subdivision of a State; erty into a mundane concept with lit- Congress assembled (2) the term "State" includes the District tle more status than a fishing license— SECTION 1. SHORTTITLE. of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of thus subjecting religious freedom to This Act may be cited as the "Religious the whims of Government officials. Freedom Restoration Act of 1993". the United States; SEC 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DEC- (3) the term "demonstrates" means meets That, indeed, has been the sorry legacy LARATION OF PURPOSES. the burdens of going forward with the evi- of the Court's view of this matter. Pas­ (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds— dence and of persuasion; and sage of this legislation is the only (1) the framers of the American Constitu- (4) the term "exercise of religion" means means to restore substance to the con­ tion, recognizing free exercise of religion as exercise of religion under the first article of stitutional guarantee of religious free- an unalienable right, secured its protection amendment to the Constitution of the Unit- ed States. dom. in the First Amendment to the Constitution; I commend Mr. EDWARDS, chairman (2) laws "neutral" toward religion may SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY burden religious exercise as surely as laws (a) IN GENERAL.—This Act applies to all of the Subcommittee on Civil and Con- intended to interfere with religious exercise; Federal and State law, and the implementa- stitutional Rights, for his steadfast (3) governments should not burden reli- tion of that law, whether statutory or other- dedication to religious freedom, and gious exercise without compelling justifica- wise, and whether adopted before or after the Mr. HYDE, the ranking member on the tion; enactment of this Act. subcommittee, who was instrumental May 11, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 2357 in ensuring the remarkable breadth of of the Subcommittee on Civil and Con­ history of unintentionally undermining religious supportforthe hill. I also congratulate stitutional Rights, the gentleman from practices. However, since the Supreme Mr. SCHUMER, who introduced the legis­ California [Mr. EDWARDS]. Court's 1963 decision in Sherbert versus Ver­ lation and has guided it well. (Mr. EDWARDS of California asked ner, the courts have protected religious exer­ Finally, I want to note the unprece­ and was given permission to revise and cise unless the Government could articulate a dented coalition of religious denomina­ extend his remarks) compellingreasontodo otherwise. It was not tions and civil rights groups who have Mr. EDWARDS or California. Mr. until the Supreme Court's April 1990 decision united to stand up for the liberty given Speaker, this has been a long and ardu­ in Oregon versus Smith, that thefirstamend­ meaning by this bill. I am proud of how ous task to be able to come today be- ment's guarantee of tree exercise of religion such marvelous diversity was united by fore this body and ask for the enact­ was seriously threatened. a shared view of the place and role of ment of the Religious Freedom Res­ The Smith case is important because the religion in our society. I urge the ap­ toration Act of 1993. Court, without being asked by either litigant, proval of this legislation. As my chairman explained, it was an lowered the standard under which free exer­ Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of unfortunate decision of the Supreme cise claims are reviewed. By invoking a new my time. Court in 1990 that put religious free­ low level standard ofreviewforthese claims, Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 dominjeopardyinour country. the Courtremovedan important barrier to the minutes to the distinguished ranking Our former Member, Steve Solarz of very real, though unintentional, burdening of Republican on the Committee on the New York, introduced the original bill religion. Judiciary, the gentleman from New about 3 years ago. And ever since then, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of York [Mr. FISH]. we have been working on it. 1993 simplyrestoresthecompelling govern- Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, the ability of We are grateful to the gentleman mental interest test. This test has never men and women of faith to freely prac­ from New York [Mr. SCHUMER] and to meant, nor will it ever mean that religious tice their religion as guaranteed by the our colleague, the gentleman from claimantswillalways win their cases. Rather, first amendment was seriously threat- California [Mr. Cox] for introducing it gives those who successfully assert a bur- ened by the 1990 decision of the U.S. the bill again this year and helping us den on their exercise ofreligiona chance to Supreme Court in Employment Serv­ negotiate with the various parties so protect thatreligiouspractice. ices Division versus Smith. In response we could have virtual unanimity. I, as many members on both sides of the to the Smith decision, a broad and un­ Of course. I thank the gentleman aisle, believe the passage oftheReligious precedented, coalition of religious from Illinois [Mr. HYDE], who has been Freedom Restoration Act is the rightthingto groups including the American Jewish splendid in helping to reconcile the do. I would also liketothank thecoalitionof Congress, the Church of Jesus Christ of various differences, and the differences secular and religious organizations supporting Latter-day Saints, the Christian Life were real, and the other members of this legislation. The coalitionrepresentsthe di­ Commission of the Southern Baptist the subcommittee, including the gen­ versity of the American population andissym­ Convention, and the National Council tleman who will speak, the gentleman bolic of the wide range of interests the Con­ of Churches have come together to sup- from New York [Mr. NADLER], and the stitution seeks to protect. I would like to spe­ port enactment of the Religious Free­ splendid minority and majority staffs. cifically express my gratitudetoOliver Thom­ dom Restoration Act. This is a very, very important bill. as, RabbiDavidSaperstein. Forest Montgom­ In Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court People say, "Well, why is it so impor­ ery. Elliot Minceburg, Robert Peck, and Judy abandoned the compelling State inter­ tant?" Golub. est test which had been applied by the Let me just point out things that I urge youtovoteforthis important piece of Supreme Court and lower Federal have happened that violate religious legislation. courts for almost 30 years. Prior to freedom, since the 1990 Smith decision. Smith, Government actions which hin­ Autopsies have been unnecessarily 1300 dered religious practices were required and wrongly performed upon the Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker. I yield my- to be justified by a compelling interest, Hmong and Jewish deceased in viola­ self such time as I may consume. that is, an interest of the highest tion of strong religious feelings that Mr. Speaker, I think accolades are order. As a result of Smith, Govern­ autopsies should not be performed. certainly due to the chairman of the ment actions which impede religious For example, the Amish in Min­ full committee, the gentleman from worship or other legitimate religious nesota. It is an important part of their Texas, JACK BROOKS, and the chairman activities now need only be rationally religious freedom that their buggies— of the subcommittee, the gentleman related to a legitimate governmental we have seen them, Mr. Speaker, the from California, DON EDWARDS, who interest—a far weaker constitutional buggies of the Amish, driving along the helped get this bill to the point where standard. Even long established reli­ country roads—be very plain. That has it can be passed today over many dif­ gions have expressed grave concerns religious significance to the Amish. ficult compromises and discussions, over this loss of constitutional protec­ And yet the State of Minnesota. I be­ but their patience and their intel­ tion. lieve, or maybe it was the local ordi­ ligence and their good will paid off. Since Smith was decided in 1990, indi­ nance, required the Amish to put a I should mention Melody Barnes and viduals seeking to practice their reli­ light on the buggies, a fluorescent Alan Erenhaum, counsel, who spent gion, unhampered by Government ac­ light, in violation of the religious free­ many hours working with our counsel, tion, have largely been without re- dom of the Amish people. And they had Kathryn Hazeem, in resolving the course. The Religious Freedom Res­ to finally seek State help, the State many difficulties inherent in this bill. toration Act will provide them with a constitution, to rescue them from this The Religious Freedom Restoration means to challenge Government regu­ violation. Act will overturn the 1990 decision of lations which unnecessarily burden the And so here is another case, I think the U.S. Supreme Court in Employ­ free exercise of religion. it is important to see the examples of ment Division versus Smith. Smith The legislation will guarantee that why this bill is needed. A Federal in­ held that neutral laws of general appli­ all Americans, regardless of their par­ vestigator was fired because it was cation that incidentally burden reli­ ticular creed or oath, are able to enjoy against his religion to do a certain in­ gious exercise do not violate the free the right to worship and practice their vestigation of a pacifist group. exercise clause of the first amendment faith, from unnecessary Government And so certainly, there is no peril to to the U.S. Constitution. intrusion. the Government. It was a violation of H.R. 1308 will replicate the compel- Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to his religious freedom, and this bill ling state interest test for the adju­ support this legislation. I congratulate would not allow outrages like this to dication of free exercise claims which my colleagues on the Committee on happen. was in place prior to the Supreme the Judiciary for bringing us this legis­ The right to free exercise of religion is the Court's decision in Smith. lation today. first constitutional protection enumerated in the When this legislation was considered Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 Bill of Rights. Despite this clear constitutional by the Subcommittee on Civil and Con­ minutes to the distinguished chairman mandate, the United States has a troubling stitutional Rights and the full Judici- H 2358 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 11, 1993 ary Committee in the 102d Congress, I Language has also been added to re- Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, it is my offered several amendments. These solve concerns about application of the purpose to discuss the effect of H.R. amendments were designed to address act to social service programs operated 1308 on prison administration, and I concerns I had with respect to abor­ by religious institutions with public will include for the RECORD a letter tion-related claims, third-party chal­ funds and possible challenges to the from the Attorney General, Janet lenges to church-run social service pro- tax-exempt status of religious institu­ Reno, addressing the matter and urg­ grams, and challenges to the tax-ex­ tions. The new language, found in sec­ ing support for the bill as ordered re- empt status of religious institutions. tion 7 of the bill, makes clear that such ported by the committee. Since that time, my concerns have claims are not the appropriate subject Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker. I want to ad- been resolved either through explicit of litigation under the Religious Free­ dress any concerns Members might have statutory changes or through commit- dom Restoration Act. about the effect of this important legislation on tee report language. The changes made to the bill as in­ the administration of Federal and State pris­ A major issue of contention in the troduced in the 103d Congress make ons. In evaluating claims of prisoners under 102d Congress was whether the bill was clear that the Religious Freedom Act the free exercise clause, courts have always a true restoration of the law as it ex­ is not seeking to impose a new and considered the difficulty of the prison officials' isted prior to Smith or whether it strengthened compelling State interest task of maintaining order and protecting the sought to impose a more stringent standard, but is seeking to replicate, safety of prison employees, visitors, and in- statutory standard. Of course, the label by statute, the same free exercise test mates. This will continue to be the case under restoration is inappropriate in this that was applied prior to Smith. this bill. context since the Congress writes In conclusion, the Religious Freedom Restoring the strict scrutiny standard of re- laws—it does not and cannot overrule Restoration Act will not guarantee view in prison cases by no means indicates the Supreme Court's interpretation of that religious claimants bringing free that prisoners will prevail any more frequently the Constitution. We are unable to re- exercise challenges will win, but only than they have in the past. First of all, a store a prior interpretation of the first that they have a chance to fight. threshold consideration for a free exercise amendment. H.R. 1308 is a proposed Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might en- claim is that the religious beliefs are sincerely Federal statute and its meaning will be gage the gentleman from New Jersey held—and prisoner suits are often thrown out determined by its plain language and, [Mr. HUGHES] in a colloquy. of court on a finding that the supposed beliefs to some extent, by the intent of Con­ Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gen­ are really manufactured pretexts. Second, gress in enacting it. tleman, it is my understanding that many prison regulations have been found to Several changes were made to the prior to 1987 many courts evaluated impose only an incidental burden on a pris­ bill during the Judiciary Committee free exercise challenges by prisoners oner's ability to practice his or her religion—a markup in late September 1992 and under the compelling governmental in­ finding which would preclude a claim under prior to the bill's introduction in the terest test. The courts considered not this bill. 103d Congress. These changes make only the exercise of religion, but also Third, religious liberty claims in prison set­ clear that the statutory standard of the difficulty of the prison officials' tings pose far more serious problems for the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act task of maintaining order and protect­ operation of those institutions than they do in is the same free exercise standard that ing the safety of prison employees, civilian settings. Ensuring the safety and or­ was applied by the U.S. Supreme Court visitors, and inmates. Is it the gentle- derliness of prison institutions has been recog­ prior to Smith. man's understanding that challenges of nized as a governmental interest of the high­ The intended standard of the bill was prison regulations were generally not est order, and this is unaffected under the bill. of particular concern to me in the area successful, even under a strict scrutiny Mr. Speaker, the Nation's chief law enforce­ of abortion rights. I have been deeply standard of review? ment officer, Attorney General Janet Reno, concerned that the Religious Freedom Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, will the has also looked at this question, and has Restoration Act would create an inde­ gentleman yield? come to the conclusion that the provisions of pendent statutory basis to challenge Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are abortion restrictions that does not from New Jersey. compatible with the sale, effective, and effi­ exist under current law. The bill now Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman cient administration of our prison system. In a clearly imposes a statutory standard for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, that is letter to me today, she stated that that is to be interpreted as incorporat­ also my understanding, I might say to Concerns have been expressed that the ing all Federal court cases prior to my colleague. Religious liberty claims standard of review of H.R. 1308 will unduly Smith. The one successful district in a prison context present far different burden the operation of prisons and that the court free exercise challenge to an problems for the operation of those in­ bill should be amended to adopt a standard abortion funding restriction prior to stitutions than they do in civilian set­ more favorable to prison administrators Smith was rejected by the U.S. Su­ when confronted with the religious claims of tings. Ensuring the safety and orderli­ prisoners. These concerns have been pre­ preme Court in Harris v. McRae, 448 ness of prisons has repeatedly been rec­ sented by knowledgeable and sincere individ­ U.S. 297 (1980). In that case the Court ognized as a compelling governmental uals for whom I have great respect, but I re­ stated that none of the parties had interest. spectfully disagree with their position and standing to sue because "none had al­ Mr. HYDE. I ask the gentleman, is urge the committee to approve the bill with- leged, much less proved, that she there anything in this bill that would out amendment. sought an abortion under compulsion somehow make courts less likely to Under leave to include extraneous matter, I of religious belief." Because free exer­ and that a State has a compelling in­ am including Attorney General Reno's letter in cise challenges to abortion restrictions terest in maintaining order and dis­ the RECORD in its entirety. were ultimately unsuccessful prior to cipline in its correctional facilities? In short, prisoners challenging institutional Smith. I am confident that although Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, if the rules based on religious exercise have pre­ such claims may be brought pursuant gentleman will continue to yield, there vailed only in extraordinary situations—even to the Act, they will be unsuccessful. is absolutely nothing in this bill which under a compelling governmental interest Individuals seeking to challenge suggests that courts, should not view standard. This legislation presents no threat to abortion restrictions should not look prison regulation as a governmental in­ the administration of our correctional institu­ to the Religious Freedom Restoration terest of the highest order, which has tions. Act, but to Planned Parenthood versus always been the case. OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEY GENERAL. Casey which describes how claims per­ Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker. I certainly Washington, DC, May11,1993. taining to abortion are resolved. We thank the gentleman, and I reserve the Hon. JACK BROOKS. want to make it absolutely clear, that balance of my time. Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. this bill does not expand, contract, or Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker. I yield DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: AS you know. I alter the ability of a claimant to ob­ myself such time as I may consume. strongly support H.R. 1308, the Religious tain relief in a manner consistent with (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and urge its the Supreme Court's free exercise ju­ permission to revise and extend his re- swift enactment. The bill is designed to over- risprudence prior to Smith. marks, and include extraneous matter). turn Employment Division v. Smith. 110S.Ct. May11,1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 2359 1595 (1990), which in my view, mistakenly re­ will not substantially burden inmates free the efficacy of the law which we are jected the balancing test of Sherbert v. Ver­ exercise rights and will be permissible. about to pass. He is absolutely correct. ner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). According to Sherbert, I, therefore, strongly urge the Committee As a matter of fact, the Commonwealth government action that substantially bur­ to approve H.R. 1308 without amendment. dened religious practice had to be justified Sincerely, of Pennsylvania was founded by Wil­ by a compelling government interest. In JANET RENO. liam Penn, who, with his Quaker back- Smith, however, the Court held that applica­ Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he ground and with all the rationale that tion of a neutral law of general applicabil­ may consume to the gentleman from existed at that time in his sect in Eng­ ity—even if it has the effect of burdening re­ New Jersey (Mr. HUGHES). land, was the basic reason that they ligious practice—does not run afoul of the (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given came to the shores of our country in Free Exercise Clause of the First Amend­ the first place. The entire Common- ment. This weakening of the protection af­ permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) wealth is steeped in the tradition of re­ forded one of society's most fundamental ligious freedom, stemming from its freedoms is extremely troubling and should Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I thank be corrected by substituting the stronger the gentleman for yielding time to me. first charter. protection afforded by H.R. 1308. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support Today, in Lancaster County, where Mr. WALKER and I share a constitu­ Concerns have been expressed that the of the Religious Freedom Restoration standard of review of H.R. 1308 will unduly Act. It is a good bill. I urge my col­ ency, the remnants of those particular burden the operation of prisons and that the leagues to support it. plain sects to which the gentleman bill should be amended to adopt a standard Mr. Speaker, today, the House is con­ from California alluded are thriving, more favorable to prison administrators sidering the Religious Freedom Res­ and everyone seeks in various ways to when confronted with the religious claims of toration Act. This bill is intended to make sure that their ultimate right to prisoners. These concerns have been pre­ practice their religion is protected. sented by knowledgeable and sincere individ­ ensure that governmental regulations and laws do not unduly interfere with I support the legislation, andsay,as uals for whom I have great respect, but I re­ a matter of record, that in my district, spectfully disagree with their position and the freedom to practice one's choice of urge the Committee to approve the bill with- religion in this country. and I am sure it is true in every one of out amendment. For many years, the Supreme Court the districts of the Members here, the Prior to 1987, the supreme Court had not evaluated governmental actions with diversity of our citizenship is not more distinguished explicitly between the stand- respect to religious practices on the clearly reflected than in the religious ard of review applicable to the religious basis of whether the governmental en­ diversity in the community. One need claims of prisoners and those of others. In tity had a compelling state interest in only have to go through one's district that year, for the first time, it held that a imposing on the religious practice. Un­ and look at the different churches or prison regulation that impinges on an in- fortunately, this strict standard was houses of worship of the various de- mate's right of free exercise "is valid if it is nominations and recognize the fulsome reasonably related to legitimate penological abandoned b y the U.S. Supreme Court interests." O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 in a 1990 decision. diversity that exists, without ever hav­ U.S. 342, 349 (1987), quoting Turner v. Safley, For the past 3 years, a large number ing to study the demographics of a par­ 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). Thus, the Court had of groups have worked together to re­ ticular district. abandoned the compelling interest standard spond to that decision. Their efforts We are sanctifying today, that diver­ regarding inmate claims only a few years have resulted in a narrowly drawn bill sity and religious freedom, and we urge prior to doing so for the general population being considered today which is in- the passage of this legislation. in Smith. tended to restore the standard of re- Prisons, had operated under Sherbert for a view in religious cases to that of a 1310 number of years before O'Lone and Turner Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 adopted a standard that is plainly less ac­ compelling interest. This bill has wide commodating to the prisoners' exercise of re­ support on a bipartisan basis. minutes to the distinguished gen­ ligious rights. During that period, prisoners There are now last minute claims tleman from New York [Mr. NADLER]. attempted to gain privileges based on fab­ that passage of this legislation would (Mr. NADLER asked and was given ricated free exercise claims. Not surpris­ create a severe problem for prison offi­ permission to revise and extend his re- ingly, those types of claims have continued cials in their ability to control and marks.) even under the standard of O'Lone and Turn­ manage prison institutions. If a com- Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker. I rise in er. They will doubtless continue whether pelling interest has to be established, support of the Religious Freedom Res­ H.R. 1308 becomes law or not. toration Act. This landmark legisla­ In my view the four dissenters in O'Lone the opponents argue that they will had the better of the argument. They would never be able to justify control of cer­ tion will overturn the Supreme Court's have required prison administrators to dem­ tain religious practices. disastrous decision, Employment Divi­ onstrate that the restrictions imposed in the This fear is unfounded, as Attorney sion versus Smith, which virtually case—preventing certain Muslims from at- General Janet Reno has noted in her eliminated the first amendment's pro­ tending a religious service central to their letter to the chairman of the Judiciary tection of the free exercise of religion. faith—furthered a compelling government Committee dated today. Prior to 1990, As the Representative of one of the interest and were no greater then necessary most religiously diverse Congressional to achieve legitimate penological objectives. there was no significant problem expe­ This standard parallels that incorporated in rienced by prison systems in providing districts in the country. I believe that H.R. 1308. that a State's correctional policy was this legislation must be given top pri­ Certainly, the strong interest that prison justified under a compelling State in­ ority. In the communities I represent, administrators and society in general have terest. Under this legislation, that Jews from Syria, the former Soviet in preserving security, order, and discipline same conclusion would prevail. The ap­ Union and Iran live alongside Catholics in prison will receive great weight in the de- plicable standard would still ensure from Ireland, Italy, and Latin America, termination whether the government meets that State and Federal prison officials Evangelical Christians and Baptists the compelling interest test when there is a would be able to guarantee the safety and many others. claim that exercise of religious rights is bur­ dened and whether it has pursued the least and security of prisons while permit­ What has made the American experi­ restrictive means of doing so. Activities that ting the practice of religion as guaran­ ment work—what has saved us from are presumptively dangerous or carry a de­ teed under the U.S. Constitution. the poisonous hatreds that are consum­ monstrable likelihood of jeopardizing dis­ Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve ing other nations—has been a tolerance cipline within a prison will continue to be the balance of my time. and a respect for diversity enshrined in subject to regulation after enactment of H.R. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 the freedom of religion clauses of our 1308. minute to the gentleman from Penn­ Bill of Rights. It was no accident that Likewise, prison administrators will retain sylvania [Mr. GEKAS]. the Framers of our Bill of Rights chose authority, in many instances, to regulate Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker. I thank to place the free exercise of religion the time, place, and manner of an inmate's exercise of religion. Restrictions that do not the gentleman for yielding time to me. first among our fundamental freedoms. deny inmates the opportunity to engage in Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to This House should do no less. otherwise permissible religious practice, but hear the gentleman from California Unless the Smith decision is over- merely require them to pursue such activi­ [Mr. EDWARDS] allude to the Amish in turned through the speedy enactment ties within the context of prison life, likely Pennsylvania as a prime example of of the Religious Freedom Restoration H 2360 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 11, 1993 Act, the fundamental religious rights byterian Church U.S.A., United Church most liberal to the most conservative of all Americans, to keep the Sabbath, of Christ. American Association of Member. to use wine in religions ceremonies, to Christian Schools, Episcopal Church. Smith was a devastating blow to reli­ observe religious dietary laws, to be Church of the Brethren, and 60 other gious freedom, and we are trying to free from unnecessary autopsies, to diverse organizations representing undo it. Under Smith, the practice of worship as their consciences dictate— nearly every major religious organiza­ using sacramental wine, wearing a will remain threatened. tion in the country. yarmulke, Kosher slaughter and many Indeed, even Justice Scalia, writing The deeply held desire to worship other religious practices all could be for the majority in Smith, acknowl­ their God free of government intrusion jeopardized. edged that "[i]t may fairly be said that drove the Pilgrims in small wooden The parade of horribles had already leaving accommodation to the political boats across the dangerous Atlantic begun. In the 3 years since the case, process will place at a relative dis­ Ocean and to a hostile wilderness of evangelical store-front churches have advantage those religious practices the New World almost four centuries been zoned out of commercial areas that are not widely engaged in." Our ago. Their courage, convictions, and te­ and Orthodox Jews and the H'mong experience in the 3 years since Smith nacity, coupled with the blessings of people have been subjected to autopsies has demonstrated that religious mi­ God, allowed them to help create the in violation of their religious faiths. norities—and even majority religions— greatest country on Earth. We owe it Quite simply, we cannot allow, this to nave been placed at a tremendous dis­ to our heritage and to our children and continue. The Founders of our Nation, advantage. The rights of religious grandchildren to protect these reli­ the American people today know that Americans in every State have been gious freedoms won at such great cost. religious freedom is no luxury, but is a violated as a result of this decision. basic right of a free people. If there is a shared American value it Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 The bill will restore the first amend­ is the commitment to religious liberty. minutes to the distinguished gen­ ment to its proper place as one of the The American people have waited long tleman from New York [Mr. SCHUMER], cornerstones of our democracy. It is enough for the restoration of their first chairman of the Subcommittee on simple. It states that the Government freedom. I urge my colleagues to vote Crime and Criminal Justice. can infringe on religious practice only for the Religious Freedom Restoration Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, as the if there is a compelling interest and if Act. lead sponsor of the Religious Freedom the restriction is narrowly tailored to Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of Restoration Act, along with the gen­ further that interest. the subcommittee and the full commit- tleman from California [Mr. Cox]. I I want to thank everyone for their tee and the ranking minority members want to thank Chairman EDWARDS for broad and bipartisan support, the doz­ for their diligence in bringing this leg­ his work on this bill and support in ens of religious groups from across the islation to the floor. bringing the bill to the House today. I spectrum, the Agudath Israel of Amer­ Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2also want to thank and give special ican, the Baptist Joint Committee, the minutes to the gentleman from Vir- mention to the efforts of Steve Solarz, National Association, of Evangelicals, ginia [Mr. GOODLATTE]. who originally introduced this bill in and the National Religious Action (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was the 101st Congress, and his support for Committee, as well as President Clin­ given permission to revise and extend religious freedom first brought this ton and the Attorney General for their his remarks.) issue to the Congress. support of this bill. I urge my col­ Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I As we all know, the first amendment leagues to join me today as we strike a thank the gentleman from Pennsylva- guarantees the right of free exercise of blow for religious freedom. We should nia for yielding me this time and for religion, and traditionally the Supreme vote to restore one of this country's his support of this important measure. Court interpreted that guarantee to cherished traditions by voting for the And I also compliment the gentleman mean religious freedom can be in- Religious Freedom Restoration Act. from Texas [Mr. BROOKS], the distin­ fringed only when Government has a Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker. I yield guished chairman of the Judiciary compelling interest to do so. And this such time as he might consume to the Committee, and the gentleman from was sort of an exquisite balance, one of gentleman from Georgia [Mr. LINDER]. New York for their support of this the times that it works out almost just (Mr. LINDER asked and was given truly bipartisan measure. right in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence permission to revise and extend his re- Mr. Speaker, "Congress shall make when the Government really had a marks.) no law * * * prohibiting the free exer­ compelling interest. Yes, they could in- Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker. I am de- cise of religion." We have all heard and fringe on religion, and when they did lighted that the Religious Freedom read these words in the first amend­ not we would let the religious issue Restoration Act has reached the House ment. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme predominate, and it made eminent floor today, and I look forward to Join­ Court has allowed serious erosion of sense. It was working admirably well. ing my colleagues in restoring the tra­ this right. But in 1990, in the infamous case ditional protections for religious lib­ For over 200 years every family or in­ known as the Smith case, the Supreme erty guaranteed in the first amend­ dividual who has lived in our great Na­ Court changed the standard radically ment of our constitution. tion has been free to follow their reli­ and said that the Government only had In response to the Smith case, my gious beliefs without threat of govern­ to show a legitimate interest in order constituents, in the Fourth District of ment interference because of this first to burden religion, unless the religious Georgia, expressed to me the negative amendment protection. However, since practitioners could show they were di­ impact that this case has had—and will the Oregon Employment Division ver­ rectly targeted for persecution. In my have—on their first amendment rights. sus Smith ruling, over 50 court cases opinion, that decision rubbed against We must protect the religions rights of have been decided against religious totally the American grain of allowing our citizens, and it was for these rea­ groups or individuals acting upon their maximum religious freedom. Of course sons that I joined as an original co­ religious beliefs. when the Government had a compelling sponsor of this legislation. Our Fund­ Clearly this situation must be re- interest, that is where it should stop. ing Fathers created a document that versed. That is way I urge support of But up to that point, why not let reli­ would last through the ages, and this the Religious Freedom Restoration gious freedom bloom? act is our opportunity to assure that Act, which would restore higher con­ But, incomprehensibly, Justice the protection of free religious exercise stitutional protection for our religious Scalia's decision explained that requir­ remains an inalienable right for per- liberty. ing the Government to accommodate sons of all religious faiths. Included in the broad and diverse co­ religious practice was a luxury. Tell to This act does not create special pro­ alition supporting this important bill millions and millions of Americans tections for any particular religion. are the United Methodist Church, the that religion is a luxury, and I think This act does not mean that religious National Association of Evangelicals. we get the reaction that we have had claims in court will succeed at all the American Jewish Congress, Pres­ universally here on the floor from the times. The Religious Freedom Restora- May 11, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 2361 tion Act simply stated that the Gov­ Civil and Constitutional Rights [Mr. EDWARDS], freedom of religion, I believe that this statutory ernment may not regulate the religious for hiswirelesswork on this bill and the chair- restoration of the compelling governmental in­ practices of its citizens unless the Gov­ man of the Judiciary Committee [Mr. BROOKS], terest standard is both a legitimate and a nec­ ernment demonstrates that there is a for expeditiously bringing this bill to the floor essary response by Congress to the degrada­ compelling interest, and the Govern­ for consideration. tion of religious freedom resulting from the rul­ ment action is the least restrictive H.R. 1308 is one of the most important bills ing in the Smith case. means of furthering that interest. affecting religious liberty in our lifetime. The Freedom of religion is one of the most fun­ While generations of Americans have Religious Freedom Restoration Act will restore damental truths upon which this great Nation been indebted to our Founding Fathers the traditional requirement that Government was established. I am a member of a church because they had the wisdom to pro­ demonstrate a compelling interest before re­ whose people were once cruelly persecuted tect the free exercise of religion in the stricting religious practices. That requirement and I remember the anguish of my ancestors first amendment, today, we are thank­ was scrapped by the Supreme Court in the who were driven from their homes because ful that they also had the foresight to Employment Division of Oregon versus Smith the Government of this Nation condoned op­ entrust the legislative branch of the case, when the Court held that Government pression. United States with the power to pro­ actions can burden a person's exercise of reli­ Last year during testimony before the House tect the rights and liberties that we, as gion as long as the Government had a legiti­ Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitu­ Americans, enjoy. Today, we have the mate purpose and are not aimed at suppress­ tional Rights Elder Dallin H. Oaks, apostle of opportunity to fulfill our constitu­ ing religion. This ruling did great mischief to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day tional duty to protect this cherished the rights of all Americans. Religious liberty Saints, could not have stated it more clearly right for ourselves and our posterity. was no longer a fundamental constitutional when he said: right. 1320 The conflict between individual rights to Since Smith, more than 50 cases have been freely worship God and Government at- Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 decided against religious claimants. Amish tempts to regulate or interfere with religious minutes to the distinguished gen­ farmers have been forced to affix garish warn­ practices remains today. For decades the tleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), a United States Supreme Court adhered to the ing signs to their buggies, despite expert testi­ first amendment guarantee of free exercise member of the Committee on Appro­ mony that more modest silver reflector tape by requiring the State to demonstrate a priations and chairman of the Demo­ would be sufficient. Orthodox Jews have been compelling governmental interest before in­ cratic caucus. subjected to unnecessary autopsies in viola­ terference with religious freedom would be Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank tion of their family's religious faith and one tolerated. This test struck an appropriate the chairman for yielding this time to Catholic teaching hospital lost its accreditation balance between the needs of Government to me. for refusing to provide Abortion services. Evan­ establish rules for the orderly governance of I commend the chairman, the gen­ gelical churches have been zoned out of com­ our society and the rights of citizens not to mercial districts in some cities prompting a be unduly restricted in their religious prac­ tleman from Texas [Mr. BROOKS], the tices. In those instances where elected offi­ gentleman from California, [Mr. ED- Minnesota trial judge to remark that churches have no more constitutional rights than adult cials approved laws which interfered with a WARDS], and the ranking member of the specific religious practice, they had to sus­ committee for their action on this bill. movies theaters. tain the burden of justifying their action by Mr. Speaker, to restore freedom is al­ Today Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity identifying a compelling government reason ways timely, to restore in particular to correct these injustices. We can restore the or interest for doing so * * * the compelling the rights that Americans hold so sa­ Nation's first amendment and religious liberty governmental interest test provided an es­ cred under the first amendment and in sential protection for the free exercise of re­ to itsrightfulpreeminence. ligion. Such protection is vital. There is particular the right to practice their I want to thank the President and the Attor­ nothing more private or personal than the religion as they see fit. ney General for their support. And, I commend relationship of an individual to his or her Mr. Speaker, after all, it was that the coalition for the free exercise or religion— God. There is nothing more sacred to a reli­ right that was hallmark to the found­ the 60 religious and civil liberties groups—for gious person than the service or worship of ing of this country, and it was that their willingness to lay aside their political God * * * if past is prolog, the forces of local, right that in many respects made us agendas in order to unite in a common vision State and Federal governmental power, now freed from the compelling governmental in­ unique in the world. for the common good—religious liberty for all terest test, will increasingly interfere with Mr. Speaker, in Maryland we have Americans. the free exercise of religion. We fear that the the Religious Toleration Act of 1648. I urge all my colleagues to support this leg­ end result will be a serious diminution of the one of the first enunciations in our Na­ islation. religious freedom guaranteed by the United tion that the practice of religion ought Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield States Constitution * * * the Bill of Rights to be unfettered by Government, ex­ back the balance of my time. protects principles, not constituencies. The worshippers who need its protections are the cept if there is a compelling reason. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield oppressed minorities, not the influential I want to say to our former col­ such time as he may consume to the constituent elements of the majority. league, the gentleman from New York, gentleman from Utah [Mr. ORTON] a Mr. Steve Solarz, who led the fight for leader of the Mormon community. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1308 this early on, that his efforts will be (Mr. ORTON asked and was given and join me in reaffirmation of the first amend­ realized today as will the efforts of permission to revise and extend his re- ment. Freedom to worship God according to Chairman BROOKS, the gentleman from marks.) the dictates of one's own conscience is still a New York [Mr. SCHUMER], and others. Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank fundamental right of our society. This is a bill whose time not only has the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 come but was for many years prior to Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor minutes to the gentleman from Califor­ the Smith decision. of H.R. 1308, I urge my colleagues to nia [Mr. TUCKER]. In my prepared remarks I call this join me in reaffirmation of the first Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank one of, and some would say it is, the amendment by the passage of this leg­ the chairman for yielding this time to most important bill affecting religious islation. me. liberty in our lifetime. That is an ex­ Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong pansive statement, but I think it cor­ 1308, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. support of H.R. 1308, the religious free­ rectly enunciates the impact of this The U.S. Supreme Court seriously eroded the dom restoration Act. This act merely bill. It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, first amendment guarantee of freedom of reli­ seeks to reflect what had been the con­ that we restore this sacred right for gion when, in Employment Division versus stitutional standard prior to the ruling every American. Smith 1990, they abandoned the compelling in Employment Division versus Smith. I am pleased to rise in strong support government interest test on all Government Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated in of this legislation. action burdening a person's exercise of his or her concurring opinion that "Today's Mr. Speaker,Irisetodayinvery strong sup- her religion. Although it would be preferential holding dramatically departs from port of H.R. 1308, the Religious Freedom Res­ for the Supreme Court to reverse the Smith well-settled first amendment jurispru­ toration Act I would like to thank and com­ case and restore the full constitutional dimen­ dence, and is incompatible with our mend the chairman of the Subcommittee on sions of the first amendment protection of Nation's fundamental commitment to H 2362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 11, 1993 individual religious liberty." Mr. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 Rulings such as these risk making a Speaker. I agree and would encourage minutes to the gentlewoman from New mockery of our religious liberties, my colleagues to reverse this ill ad- York[Mrs.LOWEY]. and—in light of these pernicious rul­ vised decision by supporting the tenet (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given ings—we must ask ourselves what contained in H.R. 1308, that only a permission to revise and extend her re- might be next if we do not act? Will it compelling State interest should jus­ marks.) be permissible to tell a mashglach how tify the denial of the free exercise of Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the a kosher chicken should be cut? Will it one's religion. If the first amendment, fundamental freedoms on which our be acceptable for the EPA to tell means anything at all, it means the Nation was founded is in jeopardy. The priests how to handle holy water? freedom to believe and the freedom to religious liberties which were a driving This legislation is a simple reaffir­ worship. To deny a citizen the right to force behind the formation of this Na­ mation of our strong commitment to practice his religion, the State should tion have been seriously eroded by the religious liberty in the fullest sense. It have nothing less than a compelling in­ court ruling in Oregon versus Smith states, without equivocation, that terest in doing so. and subsequent cases. Only enactment there must be a compelling public rea­ Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 of the Religious Freedom Restoration son—health, safety, or the like—before minutes to the gentleman from Min­ Act can repair the damage done and religious traditions or observances nesota [Mr. VENTO]. give Americans confidence that their would be subject to Government re­ (Mr. VENTO asked and was given right to observe their own religious be­ strictions. That is, as it should be. in permission to revise and extend his re- liefs is secure. this land of religious liberty. marks.) Throughout our history, America has Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support Mr. VENTO. I thank the chairman always been a haven for those who of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. for yielding this time to me. have feared religious persecution. At This legislation is important in restoring the Mr. Speaker, I want to credit the the time of the establishment of the protection for the exercise of religion that ex­ Committee on the Judiciary, led by the American colonies, there was no coun­ isted prior to the Oregon Employment Division gentlemanfromTexas [Mr. BROOKS] for try in Europe without a state church, versus Smith decision in 1990. their work on the measure before the and unity of religion was considered es­ When our forefathers drafted the Constitu­ House. sential to the unity of the state. Those tion of the United States, they put forth an un­ Mr. Speaker, I think this is an oppor­ whose faiths differed from the offi­ derlying premise that no person shall be de­ tunity, to reaffirm our support for the cially designated religion were pre- nied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Constitution, and the religious freedom vented from practicing their own reli­ in codifying this premise our forefathers incor­ that is inherent in the Bill of Rights, gious and observing their own spiritual porated language in the first amendment that and the practices and laws of our coun­ beliefs. specifically addresses the rights that shall be try for the past200years. But in the United States, we have al­ enjoyed by all Americans, including the exer­ I think that most of us who are yet ways cherished our religious liberties. cise of religion. Congress shall make no law students of law—not lawyers—obvi­ The freedom to practice one's religious respecting the establishment of religion, or ously understand the dynamic nature beliefs is enshrined in the first amend­ prohibit the free exercise thereof. of the court decision process. Today ment to our Constitution, and it is ex­ Prior to the Smith decision the courts have the balance is tipped against the exer­ perienced every day in the diversity of applied a compelling interest test that requires cise of religion and especially against our society. Indeed, our goal in setting the Government to demonstrate that any law those that need the protection of our public policy has and must always be burdening the free exercise of religion is es­ Constitution and our laws, those that to accommodate religious diversity to sential to furthering a compelling interest end are minorities in our society, either the maximum extent possible. To do is the least restrictive means of furthering that ethnically, as my colleagues men­ otherwise would be to abandon our her- interest, However, the Smith decision aban­ tioned, the native Americans groups, itage and to turn our Constitution on doned the longstanding compelling interest the Hmong a significant population its head. test for evaluating whether a governmental ac- that I represent in St. Paul,MN,a sig­ But the Supreme Court of the United tion unconstitutionally interferes with a reli- nificant Southeastern Asian popu­ States in Oregon versus Smith found gious practice. lation, or other ethnic groups, and/or that States do not have to show a com- The Smith decision has sent out a dear sig­ other minority religious groups such as pelling interest in restricting a reli- nal to the American people that the Govern­ the groups to whom we have referred, gious practice. After two centuries of ment no longer has to Justify most burdens on whether they are people who practice commitment to the protections of reli- religious exercise. The Religious Freedom the Jewish faith, Mormons or the many gious freedom and understanding that Restoration Act would simply require States other religious groups that exist in our true freedom of religion can only be seeking to outlaw a questionable religious Nation. possible if we are willing to go the practice to demonstrate a compelling interest Frankly, as we look at that challenge extra mile to respect the beliefs of oth- to do so. for us as a nation in writing law and es­ ers, this decision and others have un- Mr. Speaker. I find that the Smith decision tablishing policy government inter­ dermined the willingness to accommo- places religious rights in a subcategory to ference really should have overwhelm­ date the religious beliefs of others. other first amendment rights, such as freedom ing justification. Today that is not the In Michigan, an autopsy was per- of speech and press. The exercise of religion case. The balance is restored in the formed on the body of an orthodox man is a fundamental right and is not to be re- measure before the House by making because State law there requires autop- garded as a luxury. The Religious freedom the test by a compelling interest and sies for all violent deaths. His orthodox Restoration Act does not provide any addi­ as to the least restrictive means of at­ faith prohibits autopsies and there was tional rights under law, it restores the full exer­ taining the Government's objective no mystery surrounding his death. He cise of religion established in the first amend­ with regard to law. I hope that this died in an auto accident. But the court ment. This bill has bipartisan, support and I balance will be restored with this found that the State could perform an would urge my colleagues to vote for the Reli­ change. I am pleased to note that my autopsy with no compelling reason. gious Freedom Restoration Act. colleagues in the Congress have acted In another case, an Ohio court held Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in with great sensitivity and conscien­ that an individual could not display a strong support of H.R. 1308, the Religious tious effort to try to make sure that cross on her own front law. According Freedom Restoration Act. our laws are evenhanded. especially as to the court, the Smith decision en­ I am proud to be an original cosponsor of it affects this cherished right of reli­ abled the State to prevent, without this legislation and I believe is one of the most gious freedom. any compelling reason, people from Important bills that Congress will pass this I urge my colleagues to join the Com­ displaying religious articles. In other year. mittee on the Judiciary and the lead areas, individuals have been prevented It is almost inconceivable that in 1993, the sponsor, CHUCKSCHUMER,and other co­ from wearing yarmulkes, crosses, or fundamental right of all Americans to the free sponsors such as myself in supporting rosaries, and courts, citing Smith re- exercise of religion is in serious jeopardy. But this meritorious measure. fused to defend their rights. fee sad fact is that the Supreme Court's ruling May 11, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 2363 in Employment Division versus Smith has al The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. "Plum Creek Timber and Forest Service Pro- ready begun to chip away at the first freedom MONTGOMERY). The question is on the posed Gallatin Land Exchange", dated May 20, 1988, the Secretary shall accept a warranty deed protected by the Bill of Rights, the freedom of motion offered by the gentleman from to such land and, in exchange therefor, and religion. Texas [Mr. BROOKS] that the House sus­ subject to solid existing, rights, upon such ac­ I was not in Congress when I read Justice pend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. ceptance the Secretary of the interior shall con­ Scalia's decision in which he called freedom of 1308. vey, subject to valid existing rights, by patent religion a luxury. But like many of m y col­ The question was taken; and (two- the fee title to approximately 12,414and 6/100 leagues who have cosponsored this bill, I was thirds having voted in favor thereof) acres of National Forest System lands available shocked by this pronouncement. After all, our for exchange to the company as depicted on the rules were suspended and the bill such map, subject to— Nation was founded by people who fed reli­ was passed. (A) the reservation of ditches and canals re­ gious persecution and it remains the world's A motion to reconsider was laid on quired by the Act entitled "An Act making ap­ safe haven for those who cherish religious the table. propriations for sundry civil expenses of the freedom and tolerance. Government for the fiscal year ending June thir­ in New York City, my constituents are quite tieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-one, and for concerned about the unwarranted govern- GENERAL LEAVE other purposes", approved August 30, 1890 (26 mental interference with religious practices Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker. I ask Stat. 391; 43 U.S.C. 945); that could come about unless we overturn the (B) the reservation of rights under Federal unanimous consent that all Members and Gas Lease numbers 49739, 55610, 40389, Court's decision by enacting this bill. The Jew­ may have 5 legislative days within 53670, 40215, 33385, 53736, and 38684; and ish practices of Kosher slaughter and circumci­ which to revise and extend their re- (C) such other terms, conditions, reservations, sion, for example, might be threatened, as marks and include therein extraneous and exceptions as may be agreed upon by the might the use of ceremonial wine, which is im­ material on H.R. 1308, the bill just Secretary and the company. portant to many faiths. Congregations of dif­ passed. (2) On termination or relinquishment of the ferent religious have already run about of zon­ leases referred to in paragraph(1),allthe rights The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there and interests in land granted therein shall im­ ing regulations which have banned houses of objection to the request of the gen­ mediately vest in the company, its successors worship in particular neighborhoods. tleman from Texas? and assigns, and the Secretary shall give notice The diverse array of religious and other There was no objection. of that event by a document suitable for record­ public policy groups which support this bill is ing in the county wherein the leased lands are proof of the strong sentiment across this land situated. that we cannot tolerate an erosion of religious GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION (c) EASEMENTS—Reciprocal casements shall liberty. Freedom of religion is a fundamental be exchanged at closing on the conveyances au­ AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1993 thorizedby this section— right which transcends ideological, religious, Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I move to (1)inconsiderationof the casements conveyed and partisan differences. suspend the rules and pass the bill by the company as provided in paragraph(2)of I am pleases to join with my colleagues in (H.R. 873) entitled the "Gallatin Range this subsection, the Secretary shall, under au­ voting for the Religious Freedom Restoration thority of the Act of October13,1964(16U.S.C. Consolidation and Protection Act of 532 et seq., commonly referred to as the "Na­ Act and am pleased that President Clinton will 1993," as amended. tional Forest Roads and Trails Act"), or the sign the bill when it reaches his desk. That will The Clerk read as follows: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of be a historic day for all Americans. H.R. 873 1976, execute and deliver to the company such Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker I rise today to Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep­ casements or other rights-of-way authorizations express my support for H.R. 2927 the Reli- resentatives of the United States of America in over federally owned lands included in this ex- gious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and change as may be agreed to by the Secretary Congress assembled. and the company in an exchange agreement; to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this Section 1. SHORT TITLE. measure. I commend my colleagues Rep­ and This Act may be cited as the "Gallatin Range (2) in consideration of the casements conveyed resentatives SCHUMER and Cox for reintroduc­ Consolidation and Protection Act of 1993". by the United States as provided in paragraph ing this important legislation in the 103d Con­ SEC. 2. FINDINGS. (i) the company shall execute and deliver is the gress. The Congress finds that: United States such easements or other rights-of- The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was (1) It has been the clear policy of the Federal way authorizations across company-owned drafted in response to the 1990 Supreme Government since 1925 to consolidate the check­ lands included in this exchange as may be Court case Employment Division versus erboard lands along the Gallatin Range worth of agreed to by the Secretary and thecompanyin Smith i n that case, the Supreme Court dis­ Yellowstone National Fork. as exchange agreement. (2) These lands worth, of Yellowstone possess carded the free exercise. rule of the first (d) TIMING OF TRANSACTION.—Subject to the Outstanding natural characteristics and wildlife provisions of sections 4(a) and 5(a) of this Act. amendment and decided that general laws habitat which gave them high value as lands it is the intent of Congress that the conveyances could deny an individual's right to the free ex­ added to the National Forest System. authorized by this section be completed within ercise of religion. (3) Although these lands have historically re­ 90 days after the dale of enactment of an Act In order to protect the constitutional rights of mained pristine up to now, failure to consoli­ making the appropriation authorized by sub- Americans. It is necessary to return the criteria date at this time will be the near future lead to section (e). for abridging religious freedom to pre-Smith fragmentation and development. (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (4) The federal Government has already in- There it authorized to be appropriated to carry days. Before this trial, any Government action vested a great deal in keeping the funds along out this section the sum of $3,400,000, which restricting the free exercise of religion had to the Gallatin Range protected from excess devel­ amount the Secretary shall, when appropriated, pass the "compelling governmental interest opment. pay to the company to equalize the value of the less to prove that the action was essential to SEC. 3. PLUM CREEK LAND EXCHANGE—GAL- exchange of land authorized by this section. further a compelling Government interest. LATIN AREA (f) QUALITY OF TITLE.—Title to the properties This legislation is important because it pro­ (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Agriculture referenced in this section to be offered to the tects an individual's religious freedom from un­ (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "Sec­ United Stales by Big Sky Lumber Company, its assignees or successors in interest, shall include necessary Government interference. It pro­ retary") shall, subject to the provisions of sec­ tions 4(a) and 5(a) and notwithstanding any both the entire surface and subsurface estates vides for the reestablishment of fair standards other provision of law, acquire by exchange and without reservation or exception. The owner to determine if Government intervention is cash equalization in the amount of $3,000,000 shall be required to acquire any outstanding in­ necessary. certain lands and interests in land of the Plum terest in mineral or mineral rights, timber or Religious freedom is one the founding prin­ Creek Timber, L.P. (hereinafter in this section timber rights, water or water rights, or any ciples of this Nation. H.R. 2927 would ensure referred is as the "company"), in and adjacent ether outstanding interest in the property, ex­ to the Hyalite-porcupine-Buffalo Horn wilder­ cept reservations by the United States of the thecontinuationof this important principle. I State of Montana by patent, in order to assure hope that my colleagues will join me in sup- ness Study Area, the Scapegoat Wilderness Area, and other land in the Gallatin National that title to the property is transferred as de- porting the protection of religious freedom by Forest in accordance with this section. scribed in this section and seasons 4, 5, and 6. voting in favor of the Religious Freedom Res­ (b) DESCRIPTION OF LANDS—(i) If the com­ Title to land to be conveyed is the United States toration Act. pany offers to the United States the fee title, in­ shall be acceptable to the Secretary and shall cluding mineral interests, to approximately otherwise be in conformity with title standards 1330 37,752 and 25/100 acres of land owned by the com­ for Federal land acquisitions. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield pany which is available for exchange to the (g)REFERENCES.—Thereference and authori­ back the balance of my time. United States as depicted on a map entitled ties of this section referring to Plum Creek Tim-