In striking down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on constitutional grounds, the Court clearly made the task of passing effective legislation to protect religious liberties more difficult. But too often in our society today, thoughtless and insensitive actions by governments at every level interferes with individual religious freedoms, even though no valid public purpose is served by the governmental action.  

Our goal in proposing this legislation is to reach a reasonable and constitutionally sound balance between respecting the compelling interests of government and protecting the ability of people freely to exercise their religion. We believe that the legislation being introduced today accomplishes this goal in two areas where infringement of this right has frequently occurred — the application of land use laws, and treatment of persons who are institutionalized. In both of these areas, our bill will protect the Constitutional right to worship, free from unnecessary government interference.  

After numerous Congressional hearings on religious liberties, the evidence is clear that local land use laws often have the discriminatory effect of burdening the free exercise of religion. It is also clear that institutionalized persons are often unreasonably denied the opportunity to practice their religion, even when their observance would not undermine discipline, order, or safety in the facilities.  

Relying upon the findings from Congressional hearings, we have developed a bill — based upon well-established constitutional authority — that will protect the free exercise of religion in these two important areas. Our bill has the support of the Free Exercise Coalition, which represents over 50 diverse and respected groups, including the Family Research Council, Christian Legal Society, American Civil Liberties Union, and People for the American Way. The bill also has the endorsement of the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights.  

The broad support that this bill enjoys among religious groups and the civil rights community is the result of many months of difficult, but important negotiations. We carefully considered ways to strengthen religious liberties in other ways in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. We were mindful of not undermining existing laws intended to protect other important civil rights and civil liberties. It would have been counterproductive if this effort to protect religious liberties led to confrontation and conflict between the civil rights community and the religious community, or to a further court decision striking down the new law. We believe that our bill succeeds in avoiding these difficulties by addressing the most obvious threats to religious liberty and by leaving open the question of what future Congressional action, if any, will be needed to protect religious freedom in America.  

The land use provision covers regulations defined as `zoning and landmarking' laws. Under this provision, if a zoning or landmarking law substantially burdens a person's free exercise of religion, the government involved must demonstrate that the particular law is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. This provision is based upon the constitutional authority of Congress under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, as well as the Commerce and Spending powers of Congress. The institutionalized persons section applies the strict scrutiny standard to cases in which the free exercise rights of such persons are substantially burdened. This provision is based upon Congress's constitutional authority under the Spending and Commerce powers.  

Applying a strict scrutiny standard to prison regulations would not lead, as some have suggested, to a flood of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners, and it will not undermine safety, order, or discipline in correctional facilities. Arguments opposing this provision have been made in the past, but they were based on speculation. Now, the arguments can be proven demonstrably false by the facts.  

Since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was enacted in 1993, strict scrutiny has been the applicable standard in religious liberties case brought by inmates in federal prisons. Yet, according to the Department of Justice, among the 96 federally run facilities, housing over 140,000 inmates, less than 75 cases have ever been brought under the Act — most of which have never gone to trial. On average, over seven years, that's less than 1 case in each federal facility. It's hardly a flood of litigation or a reason to deny this protection to prisoners.  

Following the enactment of the 1993 Act, Congress also passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which includes a number of procedural rules to limit frivolous prisoner litigation. Those procedural rules will apply in cases brought under the bill we are introducing today. Based upon these protections and the data on prison litigation, it is clear that this provision in our bill will not lead to a flood of frivolous lawsuits or threaten the safety, order, or discipline in correctional facilities. Sincere faith and worship can be an indispensable part of rehabilitation, and these protections should be an important part of that process.  

In sum, our bill is an important step forward in protecting religious liberty in America. It reflects the Senate's long tradition of bipartisan support for the Constitution and the nation's fundamental freedoms, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

United Methodist Church, Portland, OR. In February 2000, a city official in Portland, Oregon ordered a local United Methodist Church to limit attendance at its services to 70 worshipers and shut down a meals program for the homeless and the working poor that the church had been operating for sixteen years. The church can hold up to 500 persons. The land use official announced that her job was `quasi-judicial,' and that `she was not required to explain decisions.' After a public outcry, the Portland City Council unanimously rejected the attendance cap and voted to allow church programs to continue, contingent on an agreement being reached among neighbors, neighborhood businesses and the city about the management of the church programs. (`Church ordered to limit attendance,' Washington Times, February 18, 2000: `Church wins on attendance,' The Oregonian, March 2, 2000).

Church Attendance Caps in Colorado. Officials in Arapahoe County, Colorado imposed numerical limits on the number of students who could enroll in religious schools and on the size of congregations of various churches, as a way of limiting their growth. These limits directly conflicted with the mission of evangelical churches, whose fundamental goal is to attract new believers.

In Douglas County, Colorado, administrative officials proposed limiting the operational hours of a church in much the same way as they limit commercial facilities. As Mark Chopko noted in his Congressional testimony, limiting a church's operational hours means that a church may not lawfully engage in certain acts of service and devotion or overnight spiritual retreats. (Testimony of Mark Chopko before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998).

Congregation Etz Chaim in Los Angeles, California. Congregation Etz Chaim, an Orthodox Jewish congregation in Los Angeles, was meeting in a rented house, or `shul', in Hancock Park, a residential zone. The rabbi of the congregation, Chaim Baruch Rubin, testified that ten to fifteen men would typically visit the house for daily meetings, and forty or fifty people (many elderly and disabled) would attend on the Sabbath or holidays to engage in quiet prayer and study. Orthodox Jews must walk to services on the Sabbath and on most holidays, because their religion does not permit them to use mechanical modes of transportation on those days. When neighbors complained about the effect on property values, the congregation requested a special use permit from the City Council to remain in the residential zone. The Council unanimously rejected the request, putting the neighborhood effectively off-limits for Orthodox Jews. The same Council, however, allowed other places of assembly in Hancock Park, including schools, book clubs, recreational uses and embassy parties. Rabbi Rubin testified that 84,000 cars traveled through this part of the neighborhood daily, and yet somehow the Council deemed a prayer meeting of a few who traveled by foot as harmful to the neighborhood. Rabbi Rubin concluded his testimony by stating, what do I tell my congregants — what do I tell an 84 year old survivor of Auschwitz, a man who used to risk his life in the concentration camp whenever possible to gather together to pray? (Testimony of Rabbi Chaim Baruch Rubin before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 26, 1998).

City of Forest Hills, Tennessee. In the process of creating a new zoning plan covering development in the city, the City of Forest Hills, Tennessee set up an `educational and religious zone' called an `ER' for schools and churches, but limited that designation to schools and churches that already existed within the city. No other land was zoned `ER' under the plan, so no other property was available for the construction of a new religious building. The City also established strict requirements for changing any zone. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints determined a need for a temple in Forest Hills, and sought a zone change for property that it owned within city limits. Forest Hills rejected the church's request. The church then bought another piece of property that had previously been home to a church. Churches of other denominations were nearby. Forest Hills nevertheless rejected the church's second request citing concern about traffic, and a court upheld this determination, effectively precluding Mormons from temple worship within city limits. (Testimony of Von G. Keetch before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998; Report of the House Judiciary Committee on the Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999, 106th Congress). 

Trinity Baptist Church in Richmond, Virginia. In 1997, the City of Richmond passed an ordinance which required places of worship wishing to feed more than thirty hungry and homeless people to apply for a conditional use permit at a cost of $1,000, plus $100 dollars per acre of affected property. The ordinance regulated only places of worship, not other institutions, and only eating by persons who are hungry and homeless. The ordinance also limited to seven days, and to the period between October 1 and April 1, the times when places of worship may feed the hungry and homeless. The City had complete discretion over the granting of conditional use permits based on its assessment of a number of subjective factors. The Rev. Patrick Wilson of Richmond, Virginia stated in his testimony: `A $1,000 fee is beyond the means of most churches, which operate with memberships of less than 100 persons and is therefore prohibitive. Imagine that — a statutorily imposed fee for the exercise of a basic and fundamental tenet of the Christian faith! . . . Health and safety issues can be and are addressed in less odious ways.' (Testimony of Rev. Patrick J. Wilson III before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 26, 1998; Preliminary and Jurisdictional Statement in Trinity Baptist Church v. City of Richmond, (E.D.Va. filed August 20, 1997.)

His Word Ministries to All Nations in Chicago, Illinois. Twenty-two of the twenty-nine zoning codes in the northern suburbs of Chicago effectively exclude churches, unless they have a special use permit. Zoning authorities hold almost wholly discretionary power over whether a house of worship may locate in these areas. John Mauck, a Chicago attorney who serves many churches in this area, handled the case of a church, His Word Ministries to All Nations, interested in buying property after it outgrew its space in the basement of a home. When it sought a special use permit in 1992, an alderman delayed the request three times, resulting in months of delay in the purchase of the building. After the third postponement of the hearing, the alderman had the church's property re-zoned as a manufacturing district. Because churches cannot locate in a manufacturing district, the church was forced to withdraw its application for special use after paying filing, attorney and appraiser fees. The church spent approximately $5,000 and wasted an entire year seeking the special use permit. (Testimony of John Mauck before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998; Affidavit of Virginia Kantor in Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 1994); Testimony of Douglas Laycock before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 14, 1998).

Orthodox Synagogues and Parking Spaces. In his testimony, Marc Stern stated that orthodox synagogues are often required to have a specific number of parking spaces, based on the number of seats in the sanctuary — even though the sanctuary will be filled with worshipers who do not drive. (Testimony of Marc Stern before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998).

Religious and Racial Bias. Chicago attorney John Mauck testified about several cases of racially motivated opposition to black churches, and about a case in which the mayor told his city manager that they didn't want Hispanics in the town. He also testified about other statements of bigotry. Marc Stern testified about a case in which a small congregation sought permission to convert a private home into a small synagogue. One council member considering the converted use `warned that if the application was granted, this nearly all white suburb would begin to resemble an adjoining city which was largely minority and full of storefront churches.' (Testimony of John Mauck before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998; Testimony of Douglas Laycock before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 14, 1998; Testimony of Marc Stern before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998).