Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing on the Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998. This issue is of great importance to large numbers of our fellow citizens who find themselves denied a fundamental right in our democracy, the free exercise of their religion.

The Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Oregon v. Smith dealt a serious setback to the First Amendment. Before that decision, under long-established constitutional law, actions by federal, state, or local governments that interfered with a citizen’s ability to practice religion were prohibited, unless the restriction met a strict two-part test; first, that is was necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest, and second, that there was no less burdensome way to accomplish the goal.

The compelling interest test had been the prevailing legal standard protecting the free exercise of religion for nearly thirty years, and the standard had worked well. Yet, the Court in the Smith case saw fit to overrule that test. Essentially, the Court said individuals are free to believe in their religion, but they don’t necessarily have the right to exercise it.

In the years after the Smith decision, and before the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, we often saw restrictions imposed by state and federal laws on an individual’s right to free exercise of religion. Churches were zoned out of commercial areas, Jews were subjected to autopsies in violation of their faith, Jehovah’s Witnesses were denied employment after refusing to take loyalty oaths, and the Amish were asked to place orange reflective tape on their carriages, contrary to their religious beliefs.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993 to end such practices, restore the strict scrutiny test, and achieve a fairer balance between the free exercise rights of individuals and the interests of the government. We were disappointed when the Supreme Court ruled last year in Boerne v. Flores that the 1993 act was unconstitutional.

Earlier this month, Senator Hatch and I introduced new legislation that we believe will provide substantial protection to religious liberty and meet the Supreme Court’s requirements. The Religious Liberty Protection Act will restore the general rule that state or local officials may not substantially burden the free exercise of religion.

It extends the compelling governmental interest test to any religious practice that is “in or affects” commerce or any state or local program that receives federal funding. The bill also addresses the problem of land use regulations that unfairly burden religious freedom.

Like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, our new bill does not dictate a particular outcome. In some cases plaintiffs will win, and in others, they will lose. In many cases, a lawsuit will never be filed, and the Religious Liberty Protection Act will simply serve as a guidepost for negotiations between individuals and their local and state representatives.

We believe this bill is well within Congress’ legislative authority. It rests on Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause and Spending Clause, as well as our authority to enact remedial legislation pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, in accord with the Supreme Court’s decision Boerne v. Flores.

Congress must do the necessary fact-finding to support this legislation. I am confident that today’s hearing will help to lay a solid and irrefutable record in support of this needed legislation. I look forward to the testimony of today’s witnesses.