Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has a complaint, but his complaint is not against the American Civil Liberties Union, nor is it against section 1983 of the Code. His complaint is against the first amendment of the United States Constitution.

The authors of this bill do not like the protection the courts have given to plaintiffs who allege that their constitutional rights against the establishment of religion in the first amendment have been violated. So he says let us be punitive for winning.

The law says that anyone who brings a lawsuit against the government, Federal, State or local government, and alleges that that government, under color of law, is violating their constitutional rights, if that plaintiff wins, if the court says, and it is not just one judge because it is appealable up to the Supreme Court, but if the court says, yes, Mr. Plaintiff, that government official, mayor so and so, police commissioner so and so, or whatever violated your constitutional rights, you can get damages if you have, in fact, been damaged, monetary damages as you can in any civil lawsuit. You can get an injunction, stop, do not keep doing it, do not keep violating constitutional rights. And you can apply for attorneys' fees.

That is a very important provision. Because these lawsuits can be expensive, and if you cannot get attorneys' fees, it is very difficult to sue, even if you have a very well-established violation of your constitutional rights, and these attorneys' fees are only if you win the lawsuit.

So what does his bill come along and say? Only for establishment cases. We do not like establishment cases. We do not like the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Only for Establishment Clause violations, you cannot get damages if you prove the government has violated your rights. Only for Establishment Clause cases, you cannot get attorneys' fees if you prove the government has violated your rights.

For any other deprivation of rights under law, violation of the free exercise clause of religion, violation of

freedom of speech, freedom of press, whatever, you can get damages; you can get attorneys' fees.

This puts at a disadvantage in enforcing the law one class of people, religious minorities, basically, people who will sue the government for violating their rights under the Establishment Clause.

In more than a century, nothing like this has ever been done. We have always expanded rights under section 1983, our Nation's oldest and most durable civil rights laws. We have never curtailed them.

Just to be sure, I checked with the Congressional Research Service; and I place their memorandum to that effect in the Record at this point.

Congressional Research Service,

July 25, 2006.

To: House Judiciary Committee.

From: Kenneth R. Thomas, Legislative Attorney, American Law

Division.

Subject: Scope of the Proposed Public Expression of Religion

Act of 2005.

The memorandum is in response to your request to examine

the scope of H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act

of 2005, which would limit the relief available and the

payment of attorney's fees for cases brought under 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 1983 when the underlying case involves the Establishment

Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Specifically, you requested an analysis of whether Congress

had previously limited the types of damages available under

1983 as regards particular constitutional provisions. Second,

you requested an analysis as to whether the bill would be

limited to the public expression of religious faith in a

governmental context, or whether this bill would also affect

other Establishment Clause issues.

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 addresses a broad array of rights and

privileges protected by the United States Constitution. It

provides that:

``Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or

the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person

within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution

and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action

at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial

officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's

judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted

unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory

relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any

Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of

Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District

of Columbia.''

The proposed Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005

would appear to limit certain litigants from receiving either

damages or attorneys fees. Specifically, the proposed Act

provides that ``[t]he remedies with respect to a claim under

[42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983] where the deprivation consists of a

violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the

establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive

relief.'' The bill also amends 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) to provide

that no attorney's fees shall be awarded with respect to a

claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 regarding the Establishment

Clause.

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 was first passed in 1871. Although it

has been recodified and relatively recently amended, it has

not been substantially altered since 1871. It does not appear

that it has been amended so as to limit the type of damages

available to litigants who choose to utilize its provisions

regarding particular constitutional issues. Whether such a

limitation is constitutional is beyond the scope of this

memorandum.

The provisions of the proposed Public Expression of

Religion Act of 2005, despite its title, would appear to

include both the public expression of religion under

governmental auspices and a variety of other issues. The

types of cases which the bill would cover would appear to

include, among other things, cases involving financial

assistance to church-related institutions, governmental

encouragement of religion in public schools (prayers, bible

reading), access of religious groups to public property, tax

exemptions of religious property, exemption of religious

organizations from generally applicable laws, Sunday closing

laws, conscientious objectors, regulation of religious

solicitation, religion in governmental observances, and

religious displays on government property.

It is especially ironic because my friends who today are supporting this bill only yesterday brought forward a bill that would expand the rights of real estate developers, garbage dumps and adult bookstores under section 1983. So the rights they would give to adult bookstores, we would take away from people whose religious freedom rights are violated. That is, I guess, what has become of the party of Lincoln. That is their civil rights agenda in 2001.

This bill is aimed at people who have proved in court that the government has violated their religious liberty protected by the first amendment. By denying them their normal relief for monetary damages and the bill to petition for attorneys' fees, we will deny them not just their day in court, we would also be telling government officials everywhere that Congress thinks it is okay for them to violate people's religious liberty with impunity.

It is especially galling after everyone here, well, almost everyone, has taken a victory lap for reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, in which we actually enhanced the attorneys' fees provisions by adding a right to be awarded the cost of expert witnesses in addition to the right to be awarded the cost of lawyers.

As the Judiciary Committee stated in its report on the Voting Rights Act, ``The committee received substantial testimony indicating that much of the burden associated with either proving or defending a section 2 vote dilution claim is established by information that only an expert can prepare. In harmonizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with other Federal civil rights laws, the committee also seeks to ensure that those minority voters who have been victimized by continued acts of discrimination are made whole.''

But here we want to say that people with minority religious views who are victimized by government breaking of the Establishment Clause, they shall not be made whole because we do not like them.

I would warn my colleagues that starting down this path will only lead to depriving other unpopular groups of their civil rights remedies. It wasn't so long ago that attacks on unelected judges and ACLU lawyers, as we heard a few moments ago, stirring up trouble, was the common language of the militant segregationists. It is distressing, and sadly ironic, that today that language is being used to gut the Nation's oldest and most durable civil rights law.

It is all chillingly reminiscent of the infamous 1963 inauguration speech of Alabama's Governor George Wallace who said, ``From this day, from this hour, from this minute we give the word of a race of honor that we will tolerate their boot in our face no longer, and let those certain judges put that in their opium pipes of power and smoke it for what it is worth.'' I think the Governor would feel right at home in this House today.

Or consider the notorious ``Southern Manifesto'' signed by Members of both houses in defiance of the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision several decades ago:

``We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.''

Does any of this sound familiar? I would observe that abuses of judicial power are in the eyes of the beholder.

This is not to suggest that any Members of this House are segregationists. Far from it. I only recall the overheated rhetoric of a half century ago to urge Members to take care with their words. Unpopular minorities and decisions defending the rights of unpopular minorities against the will of the majority have always inflamed passions. People have always questioned our system of checks and balances, and especially the role of the independent judiciary.

Recourse to an independent judiciary is a bulwark of our liberties. We recognize this by allowing people to go to court and sue the government and force the government to respect their rights. We recognize this by allowing people victimized by the government to receive damage awards when the government has done damage. We recognize this by ensuring, just as we have done with the Voting Rights Act, that people who can prove their rights have been violated can get attorneys fees paid so that people with valid claims will be able to afford to go to court to vindicate those claims.

I would remind my friends that this legislation is not limited to religious symbols in public places. This legislation applies to any violation of the establishment clause. This would include forced prayer. If government forcing your child to say a prayer of another faith is not the establishment of religion, then the phrase has no meaning. If government at some locality decided

that that locality was Hindu or Muslim or Wicca, or whatever, pick another unpopular or less popular religion, and all children in school must start the day by saying the profession of faith for that religion, you could go to court. It is a violation of the establishment clause. But under this, you couldn't get damages. You couldn't get attorneys fees. You would have to bear the burden of that lawsuit by yourself.

I want to lay to rest right now the red herring, the lie, that was put into this bill when its title was changed from the Public Expression of Religion Act to the Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006. I know that many sincere people have been misled into believing the ACLU, for example, wants to use section 1983 to force the removal of religious symbols from the individual gravestones of thousands of veterans across the Nation and around the world, hence the new title, hence the citation of these specific instances in this bill.

We received testimony from the American Legion to this effect and Members have received a great deal of mail on the subject because people are spreading misinformation. This assertion is a myth. If you are voting for this bill because you are concerned about national cemeteries, don't bother. Neither the ACLU nor anyone else has ever brought such a lawsuit.

As a matter of fact, I have a letter here from the ACLU taking the opposite position: that individual veterans have a first amendment right to have a religious symbol of their or their family's choice on their gravestones.

American Civil

Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, July 25, 2006.

Re the Public Expression of Religion Act (H.R. 2679).

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative, On behalf of the American Civil

Liberties Union (ACLU), and its hundreds of thousands of

members, activists, and fifty-three affiliates nationwide, we

urge you to oppose H.R. 2679, the ``Public Expression of

Religion Act of 2005.'' This bill would bar damages and

awards of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties asserting

their fundamental constitutional rights in cases brought

under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution. H.R. 2679 would limit the longstanding

remedies available in cases brought under the Establishment

Clause under 42 U.S.C. 1988, which provides for attorneys'

fees and costs in all successful cases involving

constitutional and civil rights violations.

H.R. 2679 Shuts the Courthouse Doors

If this bill were to become law, Congress would, for the

first time, single out one area protected by the Bill of

Rights and prevent its full enforcement. The only remedy

available to plaintiffs bringing Establishment Clause

lawsuits would be injunctive relief. This prohibition would

apply even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of

public school students or blatant discrimination against

particular religions.

Congress has determined that attorneys' fee awards in civil

rights and constitutional cases, including Establishment

Clause cases, are necessary to help prevailing parties

vindicate their civil rights, and to enable vigorous

enforcement of these protections. The Senate Judiciary

Committee has found these fees to be ``an integral part of

the remedies necessary to obtain . . . compliance.'' The

Senate emphasized that ``[i]f the cost of private enforcement

actions becomes too great, there will be no private

enforcement. If our civil rights laws are not to become mere

hollow pronouncements which the average citizen cannot

enforce, we must maintain the traditionally effective remedy

of fee shifting in these cases.

Unfortunately, H.R. 2679 would turn the Establishment

Clause into a hollow pronouncement. Indeed, the very purpose

of this bill is to make it more difficult for citizens to

challenge violations of the Establishment Clause. It would

require plaintiffs who have successfully proven that the

government has violated their constitutional rights to pay

their legal fees--often totaling tens, if not hundreds, of

thousands of dollars. Few citizens can afford to do so, but

more importantly, citizens should not be required to do so

where there is a finding that our government has engaged in

unconstitutional behavior.

The elimination of attorneys' fees for Establishment Clause

cases would deter attorneys from taking cases in which the

government has violated the Constitution; thereby leaving

injured parties without representation and insulating serious

constitutional violations from judicial review. This

effectively leaves religious minorities unable to obtain

counsel in pursuit of their First Amendment rights under the

Establishment Clause.

H.R. 2679 Denies Just Compensation

Despite proponents' assertions to the contrary, attorneys'

fees are not awarded in Establishment Clause cases as a

punitive measure. Rather, as in any case where the government

violates its citizens' civil or constitutional rights, the

award of attorneys' fees is reasonable compensation for the

expenses of litigation awarded at the discretion of the

court. After intensive fact-finding, Congress determined that

these fees ``are adequate to attract competent counsel, but .

. . do not produce windfalls to attorneys.'' H.R. 2679 is

contrary to good public policy--it reduces enforcement of

constitutional rights; it has a chilling effect on those who

have been harmed by the government; and it prevents attorneys

from acting in the public's good.

The award of fees in Establishment Clause cases is not a

means for attorneys to receive unjust windfalls--it is

designed to assist those whose government has failed them.

H.R. 2679 Favors Enforcement of the Free Exercise Clause Over the

Establishment Clause

Among the greatest religious protections granted to

American citizens are the Establishment Clause and the Free

Exercise Clause. The right to practice religion, or no

religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the

freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Religious liberty

can only truly flourish when a government protects the Free

Exercise of religion while prohibiting government-sponsored

endorsement, coercion and funding of religion. H.R. 2679

creates an arbitrary congressional policy in favor of the

enforcement of the Free Exercise Clause, while simultaneously

impeding individuals wronged by the government under the

Establishment Clause.

Through the denial of attorneys' fee awards under H.R.

2679, plaintiffs will be able to afford the expense of

litigation only when they are seeking to protect certain

constitutional rights but not others. This bad congressional

policy serves to create a dangerous double standard by

favoring cases brought under the Free Exercise Clause, but

severely restricting cases under the Establishment clause.

Proponents of this bill have been spreading the urban myth

that religious symbols on gravestones at military cemeteries

will be threatened without passage of H.R. 2679. The

supposedly ``threatened'' religious markers on gravestones

has become a red-herring--indeed it is an urban myth--that

has been invoked as a reason for the denial of attorneys'

fees in Establishment Clause cases. It should be noted--in

light of the wildly inaccurate statements that have

repeatedly been made--that religious symbols on soldiers'

grave markers in military cemeteries (including Arlington

National Cemetery) are entirely constitutional.

Religious symbols on personal gravestones are vastly

different from government-sponsored religious symbols or

sectarian religious symbols on government-owned property.

Gravestones and the symbols placed upon them are the choice

of individual service members and their families. The ACLU

would in fact vigorously defend the first amendment rights of

all veteran Americans and service members to display the

religious symbol of their choosing on their gravestone.

If the Constitution is to be meaningful, every American

should have equal access to the federal courts to vindicate

his or her fundamental constitutional rights. The ability to

recover attorneys' fees in successful cases is an essential

component of the enforcement of these rights, as Congress has

long recognized. The bill is a direct attack on the religious

freedoms of individuals, as it effectively shuts the door for

redress for all suits involving the Establishment Clause. We

urge members of Congress to oppose H.R. 2679.

If you have any questions, please contact Terri Schroeder,

Senior Lobbyist.

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson,

Director.

Terri Ann Schroeder

Senior Lobbyist.

Mr. Speaker, it is an election year, and the months leading up to elections have long been known as the ``silly season.'' We all understand that. But get an earmark for a bridge to nowhere or something, and leave the first amendment and our civil rights out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric that is really beside the point on this bill. We all agree, I hope, that the United States Constitution governs. We all agree, I hope, that the Bill of Rights confers certain rights on Americans, whether citizens or not. We all agree that freedom of religion, freedom to exercise religion, and freedom from establishment of religion are among those rights. We all agree, I hope, that the courts are there to enforce those rights. And then the disagreement begins.

This bill would seek to put a thumb on the scale and say, and we heard this rhetoric: We don't like the ACLU. We don't like what they are doing, even if the courts say they are right in a given case. Because we don't like what they are doing, because their winning court decisions violates our concept of what the Establishment Clause means, we are going to put a thumb on the scale and say that people who win lawsuits, who establish to the court's satisfaction that the government has violated their rights under the first amendment, the Establishment Clause, they cannot get damages, they cannot get attorneys' fees. We are going to put a poll tax on the Establishment Clause. Only people with a lot of money had better sue to enforce their first amendment rights.

If you don't have a lot of money but the government is violating your rights under the Establishment Clause, you can't sue. Because even if your attorney tells you you have got a 99 percent chance of winning because these people know they are wrong, it may still cost you a couple hundred thousand dollars. And they paint the picture of these poor cities and towns and governments having to kowtow to an organization, but the fact is, who generally has more money for a lawsuit? The City of New York, the City of Galveston, the town of whatever, or an individual?

You are putting a means test on protecting your rights to freedom of religion. I don't think that is what this country ought to be about. Because, after all, someone has got to pay for that lawsuit. Someone has got to pay the attorneys' fees, and that is either going to be the plaintiff who alleges a violation of his rights, or it is going to be the government that allegedly violated his rights.

The law says, current law, that if you prove that the government violated your rights, the government should pay the cost of that lawsuit, not you.

This bill says that, for most things, that is still true; but for the Establishment Clause rights, it no longer true, and you have got to pay for the lawsuit that the government made you bring by willfully, or perhaps not willfully, violating your rights.

They say, well, look at the City of San Diego. It is costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Well, if they listened to their attorney who said, gee, what you are doing may very well violate the first amendment or does violate the first amendment, then maybe they wouldn't have had to pay those hundreds of thousands of dollars. With this bill, there will be no financial incentive to obey the Establishment Clause.

Second, this bill does not, as I said before, cover only the cases they are talking about; it covers all establishment cases. And let's think of an establishment case. Let's assume, and we know that throughout the history of this country different ethnic groups, different religious groups have different political weights at different times. Let's assume that in some town the Sunni Muslims became a majority, and let's assume that they decided in that town that everybody, Christians, Jews, Muslims, in school had to recite every day on pain of expulsion from class there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. Pretty clear violation of the Establishment Clause in the first amendment.

Now, somebody who is not a Muslim in that case, someone who is Jewish or Christian or something else, decides to sue and wins the lawsuit; and they say you can't do that. You can't get attorneys' fees. He has got to bear the cost of that. Why? Because of hostility on the part of the sponsors of this bill to the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. Because they think that only the majority religion is ever going to be in the position to dominate a local government or any government.

Maybe so. But the real reason we have the first amendment is that you can never be sure. It may be that in the future some group that isn't the majority now will be the majority in some local area; and if you make it difficult to enforce the Establishment Clause of the first amendment, you or your children could be the ones imposed upon.

Now, we heard about this horrible situation, about the challenge to this or challenge to that. But, as I said before, the real complaint is not with the attorneys' fees, the real complaint is with the first amendment. You think you ought to be able to do whatever it was and what the courts have said, no, you can't. Well, maybe you shouldn't or maybe we should amend the Constitution. Which I wouldn't suggest, but that would be the right way to do it. Or maybe we should get different judges or whatever.

But if the courts say you are violating the first amendment, you shouldn't continue to do it. You should be able to get damages if you continue to do it. And the plaintiff, vindicating his own constitutional rights, should be able to bring a lawsuit without having a lot of money.

Now, we heard also that, well, the various organizations say that even if you pass this bill, they will still sue. But that is not the question. The first amendment does not belong, the Constitution of the United States does not belong to the American Civil Liberties Union or to Americans United for Separation of Church and State or United Americans Against the Separation of Church and State.

It is the individual right that you are violating here. It is an individual's right, or maybe a whole class of individuals, that you are violating when you violate the establishment clause of the first amendment, and any individual should have the right and the ability to go to court and if he wins, to get attorneys fees.

We have made a decision, we have made a decision in this country, and maybe you want to challenge that decision, but this bill doesn't do that. That decision is that when your constitutional rights are violated and you can prove it to the court, that the government violated your constitutional rights, then the government should pay for the cost of your vindicating the Constitution and vindicating your rights against the government that broke the law by violating your rights. That is a general principle.

Maybe you want to say no, we don't care that much about individual rights any more, first amendment, second amendment, whatever. From now on you want to sue the government because they violated your rights, you pay no matter what, even if you win. Okay, that is a different bill. I would oppose it, but that is a different bill. That is not this bill. This bill says we think all rights are important. If you think that the government violated your second amendment right to own a gun and you go to court and you prove it, the government pays for that lawsuit, and properly so.

But if you think the government violated your right to practice your religion by violating the establishment clause, and you prove it, the government doesn't pay. You have to pay for it because your right to own a gun is a heck of a lot more important than your freedom of religion, apparently. That doesn't make sense.

Mr. Speaker, if we believe in the individual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, if we believe in the first amendment and the freedom of religion in this country, and if we believe we shouldn't single out freedom of religion and say that freedom is less important, that freedom if you win, and forget the merits of these cases, if you lose, you don't get attorneys fees or damages.

We are talking about where you are right and the government is wrong. The government is violating your rights, and this bill says you shouldn't get damages or attorneys fees anyway

because we don't like your point of view. That is wrong. It is demeaning to this Congress, and if we believe in freedom of religion and the Bill of Rights, we will defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the political season is upon us. There is just 1 week left before we adjourn for the midterm elections. And what does that mean? It means we will shove important issues to the side and move the sound bite and wedge issues to the forefront. It means that this Congress will become a place where trivial issues are debated passionately and important ones not at all. The legislation before us is not needed, will not be enacted by the Senate, and, quite frankly, is a waste of our time.

The so-called Public Expression of Religion Act, which should really be called the ``cheap political expression act,'' is simply another wedge issue brought to the floor by the Republican leadership that will be used as a political tool in the November elections. The bill bars the award of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties asserting their fundamental constitutional rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. In other words, the Public Expression of Religion Act will prevent lawyers from being paid for representing people who believe that their religious freedoms have been violated.

Now, there is a legal separation of church and State in this country, and we have a court system designed to mediate any dispute over the law, including legal disputes over the separation of church and State. We have an independent judiciary, and they deserve to do the job the framers intended them to do.

But this bill does not allow them to do the job the framers empowered them to do. If this bill is enacted, attorneys will stop representing people who feel that their rights are infringed upon because they won't be compensated for doing their jobs.

The fact, Mr. Speaker, is that there are some on the other side of the aisle who don't like some of the decisions the courts have handed down in regards to the display of certain religious symbols; and since they cannot win in court based on rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, my good friends on the other side of the aisle are now attempting to rig the process in their favor.

Now, there are decisions the courts hand down that I do not agree with, and I can think of a few that the Supreme Court has handed down that I don't agree with. But I do not run to the floor of this House with legislation overturning those decisions. Mr. Speaker, this is a slippery slope that will ultimately cause real legal problems if this bill is ever enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings of Florida, said it best during yesterday's hearing on this rule. He said, ``I don't understand what's broken.'' Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what is really broken. The way we treat people who need the most help in this country is broken. The way we protect our homeland is broken. The independent 9/11 Commission has given us D's and F's in terms of implementing their recommendations to protect the people of this country. It is a broken process.

And the way we are perceived around the world is broken. We have never, ever been held in such low esteem. The way the people of this country view the United States Congress is broken. We have never had lower ratings than we do right now, because people are fed up with the things that are being brought to this floor.

Instead of addressing the more important and pressing issues, we are forced by the Republican leadership to debate and vote on a bill restricting attorneys' fees.

Where, Mr. Speaker, is a clean bill increasing the minimum wage? The Federal minimum wage is stuck at $5.15 an hour, and 9 years ago was the last time we raised the Federal minimum wage. Yet this Congress has given itself nine pay increases. Where is the legislation implementing the rest of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations? Where is the Labor- HHS-Education appropriations bill?

Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't adjourn before we consider these bills; and bringing up another bill, attacking lawyers for doing their job, does nothing to address these problems.

I urge my colleagues to reject this partisan political legislation, this legislation that is not needed, and instead demand that the leadership of this House bring to the floor meaningful legislation. I would also urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. It is another closed rule. Democracy is dead in this House of Representatives. I cannot remember the last time we had an open rule. There is no reason why this should be a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a number of letters from individuals and organizations that are opposed to this legislation.

First, a letter signed by a number of religious and civil rights organizations, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee, People for the American Way, the Interfaith Alliance, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, and a whole range of other organizations opposed to this.

I would also like to insert in the Record a letter opposing this legislation signed by the leaders of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Leadership Conference on

Civil Rights,

September 18, 2006.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Leadership Conference

on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, largest, and

most diverse civil and human rights coalition, we urge you to

oppose the ``Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals,

and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of

2006'' (H.R. 2679). H.R. 2679 would bar attorney's fees to

parties who prevail in cases brought under the Establishment

Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It

would also make injunctive and declaratory relief the only

remedies available in such cases.

H.R. 2679 is unprecedented. It would, for the first time,

single out one area of constitutional protections under the

Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement. It would

greatly undermine the ability of citizens to challenge

Establishment Clause violations, as legal fees often total

tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, making it

difficult to impossible for most citizens to pursue their

rights without the possibility of recovering attorney's fees.

In addition, because a prevailing party would not even be

able to recoup court costs, it would prevent most attorneys

from even taking cases on a pro bono basis.

By deterring attorneys from taking Establishment Clause

cases, H.R. 2679 would leave many parties whose rights have

been violated without legal representation. As such, it would

effectively insulate serious constitutional violations from

judicial review. It would become far easier for government

officials to engage in illegal religious coercion of public

school students or in blatant discrimination against

particular religions.

If the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are to

be meaningful, every American must have full and equal access

to the federal courts to enforce them. The ability to recover

attorney's fees in successful cases has long been an

essential component of this enforcement, as Congress has

recognized in the past. As such, we strongly urge you to

oppose H.R. 2679.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any

questions, please contact Rob Randhava, LCCR Counsel, at 202-

466-6058 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Wade Henderson,

Executive Director.

Nancy Zirkin,

Deputy Director.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me read a line from a letter that was sent to all Members of Congress from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Freedom.

They write: ``The protections of the first amendment, however, are not self-enforcing. If someone is forced to sue the government to enjoy their constitutional rights, justice and fundamental fairness dictate that they be able to recover the legal fees expended to do so.''

Baptist Joint Committee for

Religious Liberty,

Washington, DC, September 12, 2006.

Dear Representative: The Baptist Joint Committee for

Religious Liberty (BJC) urges you to vote NO on H.R. 2679,

the so-called ``Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public

Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection

Act of 2006.'' The bill recently passed out of the Judiciary

Committee and could be on the floor as early as this week.

The BJC is a 70-year-old education and advocacy organization

dedicated

to the principle that religion must be freely exercised,

neither advanced nor inhibited by government. Our mission

stems from the historic commitment of Baptists to protect

religious freedom for all.

We oppose this legislation that seeks to limit access to

the federal courts for individuals seeking the enforcement of

the Establishment Clause. To prohibit the recovery of

attorney's fees and limit the remedy available to injunctive

and declaratory relief would essentially shut the courthouse

door to many who seek to defend our first freedom.

Enforcement of the First Amendment is essential for the

defense of religious freedom. The protections of the First

Amendment, however, are not self-enforcing. If someone is

forced to sue the government to enjoy their constitutional

rights, justice and fundamental fairness dictate they be able

to recover the legal fees expended to do so.

Despite the claims of the bill's sponsor, this legislation

does not promote the expression of religion. Instead, the

bill undermines fundamental constitutional protections that

have provided for a great deal of religious expression in the

public square. The Establishment Clause exists to protect the

freedom of conscience and to guard against government

promotion of religion, leaving religion free to flourish on

its own merits. This point was well-stated by former Supreme

Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurring opinion

in McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU (2005). She noted,

``Voluntary religious belief and expression may be threatened

when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself as

when government directly interferes with private religious

practices.''

Governmental entities should be encouraged to uphold

constitutional values, not invited to ignore them. Yet,

passage of H.R. 2679 would encourage elected officials to

violate the Establishment Clause whenever they find it

politically advantageous to do so. By limiting the remedies

for a successful plaintiff, this measure would remove the

threat that exists to ensure compliance with the

Establishment Clause.

We urge you to oppose H.R. 2679. The bill is an assault on

an essential constitutional freedom. If passed, it would

greatly harm religious freedom and set a dangerous precedent

for other constitutional protections.

Sincerely,

K Hollyn Hollman,

General Counsel.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our next speaker, the gentleman from Georgia in his opening remarks, you know, talked about our veterans in the context of rationalizing a vote in favor of this bill. So let me just talk for a second about our veterans.

One of the things that is particularly frustrating to so many of us on this side is that here we are, about to adjourn on Friday or Saturday, and we have not done what we promised to do for our veterans.

The Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, and almost every Democrat has sent a letter to President Bush complaining about his administration's record of underfunding the VA by at least $9 billion over the last 6 years. And the budgets that he has submitted this year reduce veterans funding by $10 billion over the next 5 years.

If we want to honor our veterans, then we should be debating and we should be enacting legislation to fund the VA, to give them the health care benefits and the protections that they are entitled to, to making sure that we have a military construction bill that is adequately funded so the families of our veterans and our soldiers do not have to live in substandard housing.

It is frustrating. I mean, it takes my breath away that you waste the time of the Members of this House on something like this and you turn your back on the fact that we are underfunding programs to benefit our veterans.

You want to talk about veterans. Let us talk about veterans. And, Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record at this point the letter that our Democratic leader and every Democrat has signed to the President complaining about his horrendous record in supporting our veterans.

200 House Democrats Urge President Bush To Provide Necessary Funding

for Veterans' Health Care

Washington, DC.--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and

199 House Democrats sent the following letter to President

Bush today urging him to provide the necessary funding for

veterans' health care in his FY2008 budget.

Below is the text of the letter:

September 25, 2006.

Hon. George W. Bush, The President,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: As your administration continues to

formulate its FY 2008 budget submission, we write to request

that you provide the necessary funding for the Department of

Veterans' Affairs (VA) health care system and related

benefits programs. Unfortunately, we believe it is necessary

to express our serious concern in this matter due to your

administration's record of under-funding the VA by at least

$9 billion over the last 6 years. We are particularly

concerned about veterans funding next year and in the future

as your budget submission this year reduced veterans' funding

by $10 billion over the next 5 years.

Providing for our military veterans and their families is a

continuing cost of war and should be an important component

of our national defense policy. Indeed, President George

Washington recognized this point, saying, ``[t]he willingness

with which our young people are likely to serve in any war,

no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to

how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated

and appreciated by their nation.'' Mr. President, the time is

right for your administration to change course and fully fund

the VA, cease efforts to shift the costs of health care onto

the backs of veterans, and finally recognize and implement

the concept of `shared sacrifice' with respect to the federal

budget.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along with the aging of

our World War II, Korea and Vietnam War veterans have

increased demand for VA services. However, year after year

you request inadequate funding for veterans' health care.

Each year your budget submission includes proposals to

increase veterans' co-payments and fees, essentially taxing

certain veterans for their health care. Each year your VA

budget fails to request what is needed and relies on

accounting gimmicks such as ``management efficiencies'' and

inaccurate health care projections. Such efforts are

transparent as the true consequences of your administration's

budget flaws are being realized by current and future

veterans. Indeed, recently VA officials themselves

acknowledged that greater funding was needed to care for our

servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering

from mental health disorders and traumatic brain injuries.

Mr. President, during your tenure, health care waiting

lines have increased, appointments and medical procedures

delayed, more than 250,000 veterans have been turned away

from entering the VA health care system, and disability and

education claims backlogs have grown to unreasonable rates.

Moreover, Congress has been forced to add billions of dollars

in supplemental VA funding due to embarrassing funding

shortfalls.

What we request of you and your administration is simple--

provide funding in your FY 2008 budget submission to ensure

that our servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan

and the heroes from our previous conflicts receive the care

and benefits they have earned and deserve.

Without question, Mr. President, the federal budget is a

reflection of national policies and ultimately a reflection

of our moral priorities. Please join us in working to provide

the necessary resources in the fiscal year 2008 budget to

fully fund the VA and to take care of our veterans and their

families.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi,

House Democratic Leader.

Lane Evans,

Ranking Member, Veterans Affairs Committee.

198 House Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Texas for making clear what this bill is trying to do, which is to undermine the Constitution. It is frightening to see what could potentially happen should the other side gain seats in the next election.

I also think it is frustrating and I think it is offensive that we all know this bill is going nowhere and that we are taking our time up debating this when we should be debating ways to improve the quality of life for our veterans and raising the minimum wage and a whole bunch of other things.

One final thing. We have heard the word democracy mentioned several times over there. All the rules in this Congress that have been reported out by the Rules Committee, with the exception of appropriations bills, have been closed, with the exception of one bill. It is about time we had a little democracy in this House of Representatives.

If you respect the Constitution and you respect this institution, we need to have a different process.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which we have already considered in this Congress, poses a real threat to the lives and health of young women. It would require a minor who is pregnant, possibly as a result of parental abuse, incest, to carry the parental notification laws of her home State on her back to another State and hold doctors, grandparents, clergy and anyone else who tries to help her a criminal. The sponsors, not satisfied with extending State laws into other States, now want to enforce those State laws in other countries.

Not since the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 have we used the power of the Federal Government to enforce the laws of one State on the territory of another.

This latest crazy quilt of restrictions obviously has but one purpose, to impede the practice of medicine, to ensure that young women will have as few options as possible, to make criminals of relatives and adults, or minors, for that manner, who try to help them, and to teach those States, such as mine, that do not believe that these laws promote adolescent health, that Congress knows best and our citizens and our States do not.

Often, that adult assisting the minor is a grandparent, a sibling or member of the clergy. In some cases, the young woman may not be able to go to her parents because the parents are a danger to her.

We all agree that, ideally, a young woman faced with a choice of having abortion should go to her parents. But

in some cases she may not be able to. That is what happened to Spring Adams, a 13-year-old from Idaho. She was shot to death by her father after he found out that she planned to terminate a pregnancy, a pregnancy caused by his own act of incest. But, under this bill, anyone who helped her cross the State line to get an abortion without telling her father so she could get shot would be guilty of a crime.

This bill also uses a narrow definition of medical emergency that seems to have been lifted from one of Attorney General Gonzalez's infamous torture memos. The prohibition ``does not apply if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor because her life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself or because in the reasonable medical judgment of the minor's attending physician the delay in performing the abortion occasioned by fulfilling the prior requirement would cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the minor arising from continued pregnancy, not including psychological or emotional condition,'' so long as the physician notifies the parent within 24 hours.

The bill now also excludes ectopic pregnancies and the removal of a dead fetus, for which I suppose civilized people should be grateful.

It is progress, although it still falls far short of the protection for a woman's health required by the Constitution, which the courts have ruled requires an explicit exception to protect the life or health of the woman, not just those few conditions a few extremists find acceptable.

No mental health exception? That is the only justification for helping a young woman who has been raped by her father. There is certainly no physical risk, yet this bill would require a doctor to seek that father's permission.

There are many things far short of death or a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function that can endanger a young woman. She deserves prompt and professional medical care, and no matter how much some people don't like it, the Constitution protects her right to receive that care.

In a perfect world, loving, supportive and understanding families would join together to face these challenges. That is what happens in the majority of cases, with or without a law.

But we do not live in a perfect world. Some parents are violent. Some parents are rapists. Some young people can turn only to their clergy or to a grandparent or a sibling or some other trusted adult. And this bill would turn those people into criminals.

If a 16-year-old girl was accompanied across a State line by her 16- year-old boyfriend for an abortion, this would make the boyfriend a criminal. If a rabbi or priest or minister helped her across the State line, knowing that her father or mother were violent and therefore they couldn't dare ask for parental notification, this would turn them into a criminal. The same thing with a grandfather or a brother or a sister. We should not be turning people who are helping people in distress into criminals. That is wrong.

This bill, although slightly modified, is as wrong and as dangerous today as it was when this House considered this last time.

There is another thing, too. We believe in 50 different States in this country. We believe in State sovereignty within the Federal limits. We call the States laboratories of democracy.

Many States, I think more than half, have chosen to have parental consent notification laws. Other States have chosen not to. We ought to respect the States that have chosen not to, as well as those that have chosen to do so. And to say that because someone comes from a State with a parental notification law, if she goes to a State without a parental notification law, someone who helps her to go there is committing a crime, I think that is unconstitutional and is a violation of the right to interstate commerce, to interstate travel.

But it also, as I said before, is an attempt to say to New York, which does not require parental notification and consent, that the law of some other State which does must prevail in your State as long as the person comes from that State. She can't escape it. She carries it with her on her back.

We have never tried to enforce the laws of one State in another like that since the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s. It is not a good precedent. This bill deserves to be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions about this bill that are completely aside from the merits. One is, why are we doing this bill? We passed the bill earlier. We passed essentially this bill earlier this session, the Senate passed a bill, and now we are passing a bill that isn't the same as the Senate bill. Why? So that no law, so nothing becomes law this year.

So I would like to ask the chairman, the distinguished chairman, why we are not passing the same bill the Senate passed? Because, otherwise, there is no possibility, as I see it, of getting an agreement before we leave.

I will yield.

Then why are we passing a bill again that we already passed earlier this year if the Senate bill is not the same and is not satisfactory?

Reclaiming my time. In other words, we pass the bill, the Senate passed a different bill which the distinguished chairman thinks has

many loopholes, and may have, I haven't read it, and so we are coming back.

Here we are, the last week before we adjourn, we haven't passed any of the appropriations bills into law, not one, and we are spending time on this bill when we have already passed it. And if the Senate has not passed it and they want to, they should negotiate with the Senate, they should have a conference committee. Instead, we are passing it again.

And I have to assume that the real reason we are doing it is just for political reasons, to rev up the troops of the antiabortion people for the election, and there is no real intent to pass a bill.

I have another question. This bill says in the key line: Whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line with the intent that such minor obtains an abortion, blah, blah shall be fined or imprisoned.

My question, sir, and I will yield to you, is what does ``transport'' mean?

Well, then reclaiming my time, I think that this bill is simply not very well drafted in that case, because in the Mann Act certain things are obvious.

Let's assume that you have a young woman and a young man, her boyfriend, who jointly go across State lines to get her an abortion. She is driving. She is transporting him, not the other way around. Should someone be guilty or not guilty depending on who is driving and who is not driving? That doesn't seem to make sense.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments against this bill are manifold.

Number one, the arguments against parental notification and consent are where you have a violent parent or where you have a parent that the child cannot confide in, you shouldn't require that. Ninety percent of the time there is no problem, it is fine. Sometimes there is, and you risk the life or the health of the child to require that she tell the parent that she is pregnant.

Number two, in such a situation, the child may confide, hopefully, there is someone she can confide in, her brother, her sister, her best friend, her clergyman, her teacher, and we would make them criminals if they help her.

The gentleman from New Jersey talked about the abortionist conspiring to take her across State lines. It is not the abortionist. It is a friend or a colleague or a clergyman or a grandparent. You shouldn't make criminals of them. Nor should we seek to enforce the law of one State in another State.

And. Finally, and after this statement I will yield, this law also says that if someone is asked to perform, if a doctor is asked to perform an abortion on a young woman, on a minor from another State, he must notify the parents in that State whether or not that State requires parental notification. So we are expanding, we are now putting the Federal Government and saying to a State when only two States are involved, neither which have a parental notification law, you must because we say so. There is no justification for that.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Reclaiming my time. I can understand that particular concern if this bill made it a crime to transport a minor across State lines for the purpose of getting an abortion, et cetera, et cetera, for money. If that person transporting that young girl were being paid to do it, then I think that there might be something we would want to do about that. But we are not talking about that. Well, we may be talking about that, but the bill is certainly not limited to that.

The bill applies to the situation where the person, quote, unquote, transporting her may be her boyfriend, her brother or sister, her grandmother, her uncle, her aunt, her best friend or clergyman or a teacher. Anyone who is doing it with the best motives to help her, with whom some of us here may disagree that that is the best motive, but it is not a predatory motive.

So if you want to write a bill against a predatory person, write a bill against the predatory person. Write a bill against someone who does it for a commercial reason, for pay, but not against all these other people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, some States have chosen to enact parental consent and notification laws, others haven't. There is a case against parental notification laws and consent laws because basically there are a certain number of parents, certain families where you can't ask the young girl to confide in her parents because they may subject her to violence. Or she feels she can't.

But you do want a young woman to confide in somebody, not to be alone in this time of great strain for her. You want her to be able to confide in a brother or sister or clergyman or priest or rabbi or uncle or aunt or grandparent or a teacher. And those people want to be able to help her.

Now, as I said before, there may be room for legislation to say that you shouldn't take people across State lines for the purpose of getting an abortion for commercial purposes.

But to make a criminal out of anybody who is trying to help a young girl, as they see helping her, as she sees helping her because she cannot confide in her parents, and especially if that helper may be the grandparent or the brother or the sister or a clergyman is simply wrong.

So this legislation is far too broad. It will place young women who need help in a situation where they cannot get help. It doesn't serve any useful purpose, and it should be defeated.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has been an eloquent, true conservative on the question of the entanglement of religion and government, because he expresses what every religious leader ought to share, the distrust of government if it seeks to intervene in religious matters.

Religion needs no protection from government in this country. Yes, there are times when you may need protection if there are people trying to interfere physically with your right to worship, but in a free society like ours, religion flourishes independently. It does not need the government's stamp of approval. What theology says is that for religion to be freely practiced, the government has to say it is okay, the government has to put forward a symbol.

So my friend from Texas has expressed a true conservative vision, but he did not fully describe how flawed this bill is. I guess he could not fully understand the reasoning. He said that, even if you win to decide attorney's fees. No, only if you win. Let me read from the bill.

``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition against the establishment of religion brought against the United States.''

Now, this is not the most actually honest piece of legislation I have ever seen. They describe some of what they are talking about: a veterans memorial, not a veterans cemetery. By the

way, there is no prohibition anyone has ever thought of the families of any veterans to put any religious symbol he or she wants on that grave, except there was an effort to block a victim who wanted to put the symbol on, but they prevailed as, of course, they have to under this theory not just of this bill but of freedom of religion.

But it says the Boy Scouts, a Federal building containing religious words, but it also says this bill shall include but not be limited to these examples. In other words, the examples are there because they kind of add a little spice to the bill because, understand what this bill would purport to do.

Any violation of the Establishment Clause, any activity by a State or a Federal agency to establish a religion, to favor a particular religion, this is not limited to signs in the cemetery. It says any violation of the Establishment Clause, if you win you do not get your attorney's fees.

Now, the gentleman from Georgia correctly said this bill does not take away rights. I understand that. I also understand that there is a lot of frustration on that side of the aisle that they cannot. They would like to take away the rights. This goes as far as they can diminishing them.

The gentleman says, well, the ACLU will be able to do it. Has he become an agent of the ACLU, Mr. Speaker? Is he interested in giving the ACLU a monopoly on bringing these lawsuits? I am not. Whether or not the ACLU is bringing the lawsuit is not determinative. What about the right of an average citizen who might disagree with the ACLU and who would not be able to pay the attorney's fees? And, again, it only applies if you win.

Now, I know people on the other side have had a phrase that they like in tort law called ``loser pays.'' That may be controversial, but this one is a lulu. This is winner pays. Bring a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause, not limited to the examples here. It is what the language says. Bring a lawsuit against a State or a city or a county or the Federal Government that favors a particular religion, that says we are going to teach this particular religion's tenets in the school and win the lawsuit and get no money.

Well, now, obviously that is because they do not trust the courts. They think the courts cannot be given the freedom to do this. The United States Supreme Court consists of nine members, seven of them appointed by Republicans. Six, because I know they do not count Gerald Ford, Mr. Speaker. He is kind of suspiciously liberal by Congress Republican standards. But Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George Bush have appointed six of the nine justices.

Now, what this bills say is if the appointees of George Bush, George Bush and Ronald Reagan decide that there has been a clear-cut violation of the Establishment Clause, the person who brought the lawsuit cannot get legal fees. It is probably right that the ACLU would not be retarded, but, as I said, I agree with the ACLU on many issues. I am not interested in promoting them a monopoly over litigation in the United States.

I want to address this notion, too, well, you have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and history. People who came to this country, some of them were objecting to being forced to profess other religions or support other religions. Religious freedom means that your religious practice, whether it exists or does not exist, is none of the government's business. The notion that your right not to be religious does not exist is appalling to me.

The gentleman from Georgia said you have freedom of religion, not from religion. Agnostics, atheists, people whose religion you may not think worthy, they do not have freedom in this country? What kind of a distortion of the principle of freedom is that?

The notion that you do not have freedom from religion means, literally, I guess, that you can be told, okay, look, you have got to pick a religion, pick one; you cannot have none whatsoever. That is not the American Constitution.

What we have here is not going to pass, we understand that, and I have to say I do not fully agree with my colleagues when they lament the fact that we are wasting time. Because given the penchant of the majority for atrocious legislation, I would rather have them waste their time than use it on something that might become law. Because when they do make laws, they make bad ones. So wasting time is better.

Although I do find it very offensive that in defense of constitutional principles we once again have a closed rule. Democracy to them is a spectator sport. They want to look at it somewhere else, they want to watch it in other countries, but not practice it on the floor of the House. A closed rule on a fundamental matter of constitutional principle is an abomination.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, I would ask the gentleman, he says he is not for keeping these things from going to court. Am I incorrect, I had thought that the gentleman from Indiana, when we were on the committee together, before I took leave and on the floor, had supported legislation in the area of church and state taking jurisdiction away from the courts.

Would the gentleman reconcile for me his support of legislation that would remove jurisdiction from the Federal courts, in many cases, with his support for letting the cases go to court?

Well, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana did not reconcile the position. He said, we are Congress, and if we want to take these cases away, we can. I understand that, but that is not consistent with saying they ought to go to court.

Secondly, there are two parts to this bill. One says you should not have monetary damages. That is relevant to his argument about intimidation. But the other section says if you bring a claim based on a violation of the establishment clause, no matter how blatant, if a county or city or any other government entity formally prefers one religion over others, one denomination over others, and provides funding for that, if you bring a lawsuit challenging that and you win, you don't get attorneys fees.

And the answer again is, well, the ACLU can do it. Again, I am not letting only the ACLU be involved here. And that has nothing to do with intimidation of the county. The question is, and, again, it is only if you win. Let me read what it says: ``No court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses to the prevailing party on the claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition of the establishment clause.''

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

That is just nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Absolute nonsense.

There is nothing that keeps the county or the city from defending because the other side will get attorneys fees. The gentleman is trying to collapse a couple of things. The threat of monetary damages arguably would keep you from going to court, but a denial of attorneys fees to an individual plaintiff who does not happen to have an organization, that is not the fact that the other side may get attorneys fees if they win.

And, remember, the gentleman suggested that people were being deterred from bringing lawsuits that they could win, or defending lawsuits they could win by the threat of what would be the expense. But in this case, you only get the fees if you win. This only denies successful plaintiffs the fees.

So that is what this bill does. It has nothing to do with keeping it from going to court. It is trying to discourage things from going to court. I guess what they say is, you can't bring such a lawsuit unless you get the ACLU. If you are an individual that has a different theory about this, and you don't have the money for an attorney, you can't go to court. And the gentleman said, well, that is whatever happened before the 1976 act. Singling out one class of cases for the denial of attorneys fees when every other one gets them does seem to me an odd way to

run a constitution. This right and that right.

And, by the way, no one should think that if this ever became law, which, of course, no one thinks it will, that it would stop here. There would be other unfavored rights where a minority would be at risk, where you would be denied legal fees. So let's not collapse two issues. This has no deterrent effect, the part about attorneys fees. It is an effort on the other side to keep people out of court in case they might win.

Well, I appreciate this eloquent defense of his bill that it doesn't do very much, but I do question that. And I understand your concern about monetary damages; but if the restriction on attorneys fees only for the party that wins in a case doesn't do anything, what is it in here for?

I feel like I am in Dickens, the artful dodger is apparently about to leave.

I repeat the question: If banning attorneys fees from people who win a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the establishment clause, which this bill does, doesn't do anything, what is it in there for? Is it just an expression of dislike for people who happen to enforce a part of the Constitution that people on the other side don't like? What is it in there for?

Would the gentleman please answer the question? He asked me to yield. Why are you banning attorneys fees from people who win a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the establishment clause? Why are you doing that?

But the gentleman is for letting it go to court, I thought.

And only under this bill, if you bring a lawsuit and you win, and the court decides that you are correct and there was a blatant violation of the establishment clause, you don't get your attorneys fees, and I still don't understand why.

Historically, I know the gentleman from Indiana previously had a location issue on Mr. Jefferson, but he was in France during the debate on the Constitution. You said he was in France during the debate on the Bill of Rights. I don't think that is accurate. I know there were slow boats then, but I think he had gotten back by that time.

I thank the gentleman. History gets misused and used as a tool, but I think one

thing is very clear. The people who are pushing this, had they been contemporaries of Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have been great fans of his.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1038 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1038 is a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 1038 also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, as you and many others may have noticed, if you look up from the front podium, in the center of the molding above the gallery is a sculpture of Moses, the man who freed the slaves in Egypt and introduced God's law to man. Moses is at the forefront of all of the great legal scholars depicted in this Chamber because of his responsibilities as both a religious leader and the custodian of God's law.

The Ten Commandments are the foundation of common law and the ``rights endowed by our Creator.'' However, in recent decades, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols, and religious liberties in general have been under attack. More specifically, they have been under attack by the same interests that claim to represent civil liberties and free speech.

On July 19, 2005, a month after the Supreme Court ruled on the two Kentucky Ten Commandments cases, United States District Court Judge William O'Kelley ruled in my home State of Georgia that the courthouse in Barrow County, my daughter-in-law's home, had to remove a framed poster of the Ten Commandments and awarded the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, $150,000.

Mr. Speaker, small counties like Barrow cannot afford these costly lawsuits; and my daughter-in-law's parents, Emory and Pat House of Winder, Georgia, experienced an increase in their taxes to help pay for these court costs and the legal fees.

This past July, we had a debate over legislation to preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, from having to remove a cross. Mr. Speaker, one can only wonder how those Korean War veterans, many of whom gave their lives for this country, might have felt had that cross been removed from their memorial cemetery. Thankfully, Mr. Hunter's legislation passed and was signed into law, but I am stunned at how far our society has fallen when people are compelled to sue a major city to have a cross removed from, of all places, a memorial cemetery.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow frivolous and, frankly, unwarranted lawsuits to stifle the beliefs and self-determination of our great communities. This is a textbook example of an issue that needs to be addressed by this Congress.

I have always believed that one man's rights end where another man's rights begin, and we need to draw the line to clarify our first amendment and ensure impartiality for legal challenges.

The rule we are debating today would allow for the consideration of H.R. 2679, the Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Act of 2006. I want to thank Mr. Hostettler for sponsoring this legislation and Chairman Sensenbrenner for the opportunity to discourage frivolous obstruction to our constitutional rights of religious expression.

The Public Expression of Religion Act would prevent Federal courts from

awarding monetary relief to parties claiming violations based on the constitutionally prohibited ``establishment of religion.'' In addition, H.R. 2679 would prevent plaintiffs who have won such claims from being awarded attorneys' fees and so-called court expenses.

However, what is more concerning is when a defendant decides, a city or county like Barrow and Winder, Georgia, to settle without challenging the frivolous accusations not because they could not win but because they cannot match the challenger's legal war chest. H.R. 2679 will ensure that each party in an Establishment Clause lawsuit shoulders its own costs.

Mr. Speaker, beyond the issue of religious expression, this is an issue about lawsuit reform. We need to move away from this current sue- or-be-sued society, which offers little to no repercussions for those seeking financial gain or the advancement of some personal or political agenda.

As many of my colleagues know, before being elected to this Congress, I had a career as an OB/GYN physician. Most of my patients thought I was a successful, good doctor, but I was in constant fear of medical liability lawsuits, like many of my colleagues, and struggled to make these exorbitant malpractice insurance payments. As a result, one of my primary objectives as a retired doctor now and Member of Congress is to help pass medical malpractice reform and, as a direct result, reduce the cost of health care. What we have with the Establishment Clause litigation is very similar, because the multiple lawsuits tie up our court system and they affect everybody.

Mr. Speaker, the United States Constitution is a revolutionary and sacred document on many levels. Our Founding Fathers had great foresight when they designed our government. The first amendment is an absolute right and should not be misinterpreted to allow these attacks on our freedom of religion. The attack on our religious heritage is just as wrong as denying a person the freedom to worship. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And it is my hope that with the passage of this legislation we can prevent future Barrow County rulings and preserve our Nation's heritage.

I ask my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talking about the rights of people to sue, and that this bill would discourage that right because we are taking away the ability to recover monetary damages or legal fees and court costs, the American Civil Liberties Union probably files most of these lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs. They have said very clearly that their motivation is not fees, is not compensation. If there were no fees involved, they would continue to file these lawsuits even though in many cases of course there are tremendous legal fees and court costs awarded, monetary damages.

I want to just, Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous speaker, list a few examples of what I am talking about. I mentioned already in my home State of Georgia, Barrow County of the $150,000 cost. And that small struggling county elected to defend themselves. And that is what it ended up costing them.

Another example. The ACLU received $950,000 in a settlement with the city of San Diego in a case involving the San Diego Boy Scouts. The ACLU received $121,000 in Kentucky in a case to remove a Ten Commandments monument outside of the capitol.

The ACLU and two other groups received nearly $550,000 in an Alabama case to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse. I could go on and on and on. But in regard to rights, this case as we will hear, I am sure, from the author of the legislation as we discuss the bill, is not about removing anybody's rights under the establishment clause, not at all.

But we are talking about the rights of these small counties and cities, which represent a lot of people, and their ability to defend themselves when they have not violated the Constitution at all. The Constitution calls for a separation of church and state and a freedom from the imposition of a state religion, but it does not call for the total elimination of religion and the removal of a cross from a veterans cemetery in San Diego.

Mr. Speaker, if we continue down this line, pretty soon Moses will be removed from this Chamber based on the same argument. So I say to my friend from the other side that we need a balancing of rights. That is what this is all about. Let's level the playing field. We are not eliminating anybody's constitutional rights under the establishment clause.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the author of the bill.

(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana for the purpose of clarification and response to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I reserve my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to once again thank Mr. Hostettler for sponsoring the Public Expression of Religion Act and Chairman Sensenbrenner for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the principles of life, liberty, and property make up the foundation of our constitutional Republic. Under liberty, we are guaranteed the freedom to worship as we please, a freedom that should be protected and not taken for granted. The freedom of religion is one of the positive social institutions in our country, and we should encourage this constitutional protection throughout the world.

Almost every State in the Union has chosen to acknowledge God within its State constitutions. However, too often today, overzealous courts have infringed upon an individual's right to worship. Courts have attempted to ban holiday decorations reflecting religious traditions such as Christmas carols or Hanukkah songs from school events. Federal courts have demanded the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses across our country, sought to remove the words ``in God we trust'' from our currency, as well as remove emblems from State seals, flags and logos.

As I stated earlier, these attacks on our religious heritage are frivolous and unwarranted. For every decision a court makes, there are countless out-of-court settlements and even more pending lawsuits aimed at removing anything that acknowledges a divine authority.

The debate over religious freedom is old and contentious, but it should be fair. When organizations like the ACLU are rewarded, rewarded, for filing lawsuits, it is not a fair debate. Congress needs to close that loophole, to restore impartiality to our system of justice, and it needs to act on preventing frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act, will help protect the freedom of religion, restore impartiality and reduce lawsuits.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.