[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 51 (Tuesday, May 3, 1994)] [Senate] [Page S] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of great concern to the citizens of Utah and every other State. This past year, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is a landmark bill designed to restore strong protections to citizens exercising their religion against unreasonable Government interference. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration, with breathtaking speed, has interpreted the act in a manner that effectively guts it. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was described by many religious leaders--accurately so--as one of the most significant pieces of legislation in support of religious freedom to ever come out of Congress. It was intended to restore to all Americans a fundamental right guaranteed by the first amendment to our Constitution: the free exercise of religion. The act had widespread support from a broad and diverse coalition of religious and civil rights organizations, from the ACLU to the Free Congress Foundation. I was the leading sponsor of this act along with Senator Kennedy. Recently, I became aware that the Department of Justice intervened in what I believe is the first appellate case involving the interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. To my deep chagrin, I learned that the Department had committed itself to a position in its amicus curiae brief that is contrary to the plain meaning of the act, to the detriment of religious freedom. Despite the act's widespread support and its clearly defined and agreed upon objective, its purpose is being undermined by this administration. I might add that the core meaning of the bill was never a subject of controversy in Congress. The underlying case, Christians versus Crystal Evangelical Church, involves a bankruptcy court decision which ordered a Protestant Christian congregation to return money to a Government bankruptcy trustee that was tithed by two members of the church who later filed a bankruptcy petition. The tithes were offered over a period of years in good faith, in the exercise of their religious beliefs and without any fraudulent intent. Under the bankruptcy code, any transfer of assets made within 1 year of a bankruptcy may be recovered by the trustee to pay creditors. This provision is intended to prevent debtors from fraudulently disposing of or shielding their assets. The tithes that issued in this case were made out of sincere religious belief within 1 year of filing a bankruptcy petition. No one challenges the importance of the Government's interest in preventing fraud. Preventing fraud would probably satisfy a compelling State interest, which would be all right under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However, as in this case, the Government's interest is simply in enlarging the pool of assets for creditors, not preventing fraud. This interest does not satisfy the compelling Government interest standard that must be met under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In my view, the interest in collecting for creditors, while very important, would almost never be compelling when weighed against the interests embodied in the first amendment. In its brief, the Department argues that the Government's interest in protecting the financial interests of creditors conclusively establishes a compelling interest that overrides any religious free exercise right. If the Department's position prevails, it will have a disastrous impact on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, rendering it virtually meaningless. The department's very broad definition of the compelling State interest test, if adopted by the courts, will once again eliminate any real protection of religious liberty under the first amendment. Mr. President, just 6 short months ago, President Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a glorious ceremony on the south lawn of the White House before a large group of religious leaders. In his remarks he noted correctly that the act requires that the Government should be held to a very high level of proof before it can interfere with anyone's free exercise of religion. In fact, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act sets forth a specific standard that requires the Government interest to be a compelling State interest, an interest of the highest order. It is difficult for me to imagine that providing an economic advantage to a pool of creditors satisfies the compelling governmental interests necessary to override our first amendment protection of religious free exercise, but the Department argues this position. And especially is the Department wrong since there was no fraud in this case, or no attempt to defraud. I intend to ask Attorney General Janet Reno to reconsider the Department's position in this case. Perhaps this is the kind of limited protection President Clinton envisioned when he committed himself to the protection of one of the most precious of all-American liberties-- religious freedom--but I can say quite confidently that this is not the type of protection Congress fought so hard and so long to restore. The Department's position is a slap in the face to our religious community, and it should not stand. I personally believe that President Clinton must not know what they are doing, or he would put a stop to it. So, in a sense, it is a slap in his face, as well, since he was one of the strongest supporters of what we were trying to do. I hope that he will get involved and direct the Department to back off--especially since there is no fraud here-- and allow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to have the widespread, broad coverage that we intended here in Congress in the first place. I urge my colleagues to join with me in defending the religious liberties guaranteed by the first amendment and reestablished under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. Under the previous order, the Senator is permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes. ____________________