[House Report 107-143]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
R E P O R T
[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
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 how
American colonies secured religious freedom for their
residents.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 788 n.5 (1983).
\2\ Michael 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ President 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).
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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:]
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 beliefs 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.
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 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:]
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 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 desperate 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 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 faith-based 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 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.
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.