ing of churches, synagogues, and mosques ultimately harms houses of worship by undermining their independence and by creating a public impression that they are nothing more than a bureaucratic arm of the state. If anyone doubts that, simply look at church attendance on the Sabbath in European nations that fund their churches.

Perhaps this lesson of history, these three lessons are why I would warn religious leaders and people of all faiths to be cautious when any politician, me or you or anyone else, say, "I am from the Government and I am here to help you."

Mr. Chairman, as this Subcommittee and House committees move forward on the important question of the proper role between church and state-and I salute you for focusing on this issue-I would respectfully make three suggestions.

First, since the issue of religious freedom is so important to all Americans, and since our Founding Fathers debated this question for years and then chose to make church/state separation the first principle enunciated in the Bill of Rights, I hope this Subcommittee will hold a number of in-depth hearings on this issue, inviting legal, religious, and academic scholars from differing viewpoints. To do anything less in the House or Senate would be a disservice to the First Amendment and the religious freedom and tolerance it has protected so magnificently for over two centuries.

Second, this Committee's public notice said it will examine, and I quote, "Government discrimination against religious expression." In doing so, I hope you will have hearings on the implications of denying American citizens tax-funded jobs solely because of their religious faith. While I support many parts of President Bush's faith-based initiatives, I strongly disagree with the provisions that make it legal for hiring and firing decisions for public jobs to be based solely solely on one's religious faith. No American citizen should have to pass another citizen's private religious test to qualify for a tax-funded public job. That type of religious discrimination deserves this Committee's attention.

Also on the issue of discrimination, as a Christian I revere and try to live by those Commandments every day and do my best to teach them to our two young sons. But I hope you will address these questions regarding the Ten Commandments. Do we really want politicians and public officials to decide which specific religious doctrine or beliefs should and should not be prominently placed in public buildings, courthouses, and public schoolhouses?

Mr. Chairman, it is a Pandora's box. Either all groups, including religious supporters of Islamic militants, Wiccans, several hundred of which live in my district, the Church of the Creator, and others, be allowed to display their religious beliefs on public buildings or perhaps on the wall behind you, or we can follow the Chinese Government's model where politicians have the power to decide which religious doctrine is officially approved by the state and which is

not.

Third, let's debate both sides of this vital and complicated issue of church/state separation with respect for those with differing viewpoints. I have great respect for Mr. Towey of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, and I am genuine about that respect. But I believe he went too far last week when he defined the

church/state debate as a "cultural war." Groups such as the Joint Baptist Committee, Methodists, and the American Jewish Committee are strong defenders of church/state separation. Are they guilty of fighting a cultural war against religious expression in the public place? I think not.

Even if you genuinely disagree with these religious groups' views, we should respect the fact that these people of faith believe what they are fighting for is to protect religious freedom from Government entanglement. I believe Mr. Towey owes many people of faith an apology for suggesting they are involved in perpetrating a cultural war, in effect, a religious war.

As we fight together against Osama bin Laden and the war on terrorism, let's leave the lexicon of war to our Army generals in Iraq and Afghanistan and keep it out of honest debates on religious freedom here at home. Our Nation doesn't deserve the kind of divisiveness that could be caused by putting religious debates in the context of being a war, cultural, religious, or otherwise.

This Committee, in announcing and naming this hearing, did not go so far as to describe this debate as a war, and I appreciate that and respect you for that. However, it did use phrases such as "hostility to religion" and "hostile religious expression." Perhaps there are some in this country that are hostile to religion, but not many of the people of great faith, of genuine faith, who will stand up in defense of the Establishment Clause and keeping Government out of our churches and out of our religious faith.

The debate, as I said, is not about who is on God's side and who is not. Religious critics were dead wrong when they attacked Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson two centuries ago and accused them of being anti-religion because of their belief in church/state separation. Let us not make that mistake again today.

In conclusion, the Bill of Rights has never been amended in over two centuries, especially when it comes to the first freedom, which we all revere-religious freedom. We should move carefully and thoughtfully before we tamper with a system of religious freedom and tolerance that is the model and hope of the world.

It would be ironic to have Americans preaching the principle of church/state separation in Iraq while not practicing it here at home. We should practice what we preach.

The American people and the issue of how to best protect religious freedom deserve a thoughtful, reasoned debate, and I thank the Chairman and the Members for allowing that debate to begin today.

[The prepared statement of Representative Edwards appears as a submission for the record.]

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much, Congressman Edwards. I thank you for expressing your views, your strongly held views, and I hope that you will get a chance to stick around for the rest of this hearing because I think what you described, which would be a more or less comprehensive review, including testimony from legal scholars on this issue, would be just exactly what it is that you asked us to do. And certainly this hearing was not billed as asking whether people were for God or against God. Really, rather than the establishment concerns that you addressed, we are

also looking at recognition of religious liberty interests, and that is the primary thrust.

But let me just ask you to clarify something you mentioned. You said-well, let me ask: You do not support the President's faithbased initiative which would allow the use of Government funds on a neutral basis to religious organizations that provide social services, say, to the homeless or people who are addicted to drugs and that sort of thing? Could you clarify your position?

Representative EDWARDS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. For years, before the President's faith-based initiative, the Federal Government has been providing funding for religious faith-based groups that do good social work. This has been going on for decades. Ask the Catholic Charities about that, and Lutheran Social Services. But they did so under three conditions that I think are proper and constitutional requirements.

First, you couldn't send that money directly to a house of worship. I do disagree when the Department of Housing and Urban Development wanted to actually have direct Federal tax funding of houses of worship, not faith-based groups but literally the houses of worship themselves. If we bring Government dollars into our churches, synagogues, mosques, and houses of worship, guess what follows? Government regulations. We don't need Government auditors and regulators running through the halls of our houses of worship.

Secondly, the law, longstanding for decades, allowing faith-based funding said that you can't proselytize with tax dollars. I believe the Bush administration has gone on record as saying it agrees with that. I shouldn't be able to take your tax dollars and force my religion on somebody else with those dollars.

The third provision which the President's proposal is trying to amend is under longstanding law, you have not been able to discriminate in job hiring using tax dollars based solely on someone's personal religious faith. For example, if I get a $5 million job training grant from the Federal Government, I don't think for job training positions I should be able to give Members of this Committee, if you applied to me for a job, paid for by the taxpayers, give you a private religious test and say, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Feingold, you did real well on Questions 1 through 16, but I really don't like your answer to my religious question, number 17, so I am not going to hire you or I might fire you from this federally funded job.

I think the Federal Government doesn't need to be in the business of subsidizing discrimination based on religion. We can continue faith-based work. I reject the notion we have to discriminate against American citizens, make him or her choose between his or her job and his or her faith simply to qualify for a secular, federally funded job. On that point, I strongly disagree with that particular part, an important part of the faith-based initiatives.

Chairman CORNYN. Not to dwell too much on this, but one last question in that regard. Just to use a hypothetical, because it helps maybe clarify it a little bit, if you have a church, let's say, that provides a soup kitchen to feed the homeless and they apply on a competitive basis for some sort of grant that the Government might supply on a neutral basis, no proselytizing going on, just feeding

hungry people, but they insist on the right to be able to hire people who only subscribe to that particular religious organization's faith, you would object to that?

Representative EDWARDS. Yes, I would, because I don't see why in order to be qualified to serve soup at a federally funded, taxfunded program one must follow someone else's religious faith. We all understand why Baptist Church can use its own money to hire a Baptist pastor or a Jewish synagogue can hire a Jewish rabbi. But when you are using tax dollars, public dollars, I think to make those jobs dependent upon my passing your private religious test or your passing my religious test is wrong. And if that is not religious discrimination, to force you to choose between your faith and your job, I don't know what is.

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much.

Representative EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman CORNYN. Senator Feingold?

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Chairman, we often don't ask questions of Members of Congress at the beginning, but I will tell you, I am glad you did, Mr. Chairman, because what Representative Edwards just demonstrated is that he is, in my view, the preeminent force in our entire Congress for trying to get this faith-based thing right. It was his efforts, when he came to see us in the Senate, that brought us together to pass a Senate version of the bill that actually does properly balance the concerns about making sure we help our faith-based institutions and respecting the Constitution.

So I want to thank you for that wonderful leadership that you have shown throughout the Congress, and we know you have very important responsibilities in the House, and we thank you for the time that you have given us already today. I understand you probably cannot stay for the rest of the hearing, but obviously we will make sure you get a copy of the proceedings. And I just want to say personally how much I appreciate your leadership on these issues, Representative Edwards.

Representative EDWARDS. Senator, thank you very much, and I am going to stay. I can't imagine anything more important, a more important issue being debated in Congress today. And, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

Let me just say, too, I didn't suggest and didn't want to even imply that you were saying this is a choice of who is for God and who is against God. But I do think we need to be careful, when we talk about hostility against religion in the public place, that we not suggest that everyone who might disagree with Judge Moore, everyone who might disagree with some of us in this room, somehow is hostile to religion. In 1800, some attacked Mr. Jefferson for his belief in church/state separation by saying, and I quote his election in 1800, "The effects would be to destroy religion, introduce immorality, and loosen all the bonds of society." That was said about Mr. Jefferson over 200 years ago simply because he believed in the principle of church/state separation as a way to accomplish religious liberty, which that is a goal we all want, religious liberty. I hope we will be respectful, both sides, frankly, as we discuss this terribly important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here.

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a statement from Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, be entered into the record.

Chairman CORNYN. Certainly. Without objection.

We will now proceed to panel number two, and I would like to ask the members of the second panel to take their seats at the witness table.

We are pleased to have a panel of citizens and representatives of citizens' groups here with us today to discuss their own experiences in the area of religious expression in the public square. I will introduce the panel, and then I will ask each of them to give an opening statement.

Nashala Hearn is a middle school student from Muskogee, Oklahoma. She traveled here with her father, Eyvine Hearn. In my written remarks, I briefly summarized the hostility that she faced because of her adherence to her Muslim faith. She was suspended for wearing her hijab to school in accordance with the dictates of her faith. From what I have gathered, it was precisely because of the pervasive Government hostility to faith that we have seen in our legal culture in general that this particular school thought it could get away with refusing to respect this brave young girl's sincerely held religious beliefs. And only after the Justice Department intervened did the school finally back down and settle the case out of court just last month.

Steven Rosenauer is here with us from Bradenton, Florida. Steven and his wife, Carol, are members of the Jewish faith. In May 2003, they and their son were invited to a school board meeting so their son could be honored for his academic achievements. The Chairman of the board began that meeting by asking everyone to stand for a recitation of the Lord's Prayer. After Mr. Rosenauer filed suit, the parties reached an agreement which I believe is a reasonable resolution under our First Amendment. Specifically, the agreement permits the board to open its meetings with a nonsectarian invocation.

William, better known as "Barney," Clark is a citizen of Balch Springs, a wonderful small town in my home State of Texas, just outside of Dallas. Mr. Clark is a proud World War II vet, and he and his wife were regular attendees at the Balch Springs Senior Center. I might add that while Barney is here, he has got an opportunity, I hope, to visit the World War II memorial.

Mr. CLARK. I did.

Chairman CORNYN. And we are glad you had that chance while you are here as well.

As I mentioned in my written remarks, that city-owned senior center, that is, Balch Springs Senior Center, barred a group of seniors, including Mr. Clark, from privately engaging in prayer and singing religious hymns. After the intervention of public interest lawyers from the Liberty Legal Institute and, once again, the support of the Justice Department, the city backed down.

J. Brent Walker is Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs here in Washington, D.C. He is an ordained minister as well as an attorney. In addition, he serves as