School Prayer: The Congressional Response, 1962 - 1998

School Prayer: The Congressional Response, 1962 - 1998

96-846 A
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
School Prayer: The Congressional
Response, 1962 - 1998
Updated December 1, 1998
(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT
Since 1962 school prayer has been one of the most volatile issues in American politics. As
a result, Congress has repeatedly been embroiled in debates on measures ranging from
constitutional amendments to appropriations riders to restore or protect devotional exercises
in the schools; and it has enacted four proposals into law. This report gives an overview of
the measures considered and enacted and a Congress-by-Congress review of legislative
action on the subject.

School Prayer: The CongressionalResponse, 1962 - 1998
Summary
For at least a century and a half the issue of school prayer has periodically
convulsed the body politic. But only in recent times — since 1962 when the
Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale held government sponsorship of devotional
activities in the public schools to be unconstitutional — has Congress become
persistently involved.
Since that decision Congress has considered a variety of measures to promote
or permit devotional activities in the public schools: (1) Constitutional
amendments — Numerous proposals have been introduced in every Congress since
Engel to overturn or limit the Court’s decisions by amending the Constitution, and
numerous hearings have been held. The House has voted on a constitutional
amendment twice (in 1971 and 1998), the Senate four times (in 1966, 1970, and
twice in 1984). But only in the Senate vote in 1970 did such a proposal garner the
two-thirds majority necessary for adoption, and that vote was perceived less as a vote
on school prayer than as a vote to kill the measure to which the school prayer
proposal was attached — the Equal Rights Amendment. (2) Limitations on federal
court jurisdiction — Proposals were introduced in every Congress from the 93d
through the 103d to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over the school prayer
issue. The Senate voted in favor of such a measure the first time it came up for a
vote in 1979; but in 1982, 1985, and 1988 it rejected the proposal by increasingly
wide margins. (3) Equal access proposals — Following the Supreme Court’s 1981
decision in Widmar v. Vincent holding student-initiated religious groups to be
entitled to meet on the same basis as other student-initiated groups at public colleges
and universities, Congress in 1984 enacted the “Equal Access Act” extending the
principle to student-initiated religious groups at the public secondary school level.
(4) Appropriations riders — Since fiscal 1981 Congress has added a prophylactic
rider (the Walker amendment) to the annual appropriations bills for the Department
of Education barring funds from being used “to prevent the implementation of
programs of voluntary prayer and meditation in the public schools.” (5) Cutoff of
funds — Since 1984 both the House and the Senate have voted on various
amendments to cut off federal education funds from state and local educational
agencies that prevent individuals from participating in voluntary prayer. In 1994
Congress enacted the Kassebaum amendment and converted several school prayer
amendments to the “Goals 2000: Educate America Act” into a mandate to state and
local educational agencies similar to the Walker amendment. (6) Sense-of-the-
Congress resolutions — Measures to express Congress’ views on what devotional
activities remain permissible in the public schools under the Court’s rulings have
frequently been offered as alternatives to constitutional amendments. The Senate has
rejected two such proposals (in 1966) and approved one (in 1994), but none have
become law.
This report provides a Congress-by-Congress review of legislative action on the
school prayer issue from 1962 through 1998.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
(1) Constitutional amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
(2) Limitations on federal court jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
(3) Equal access proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
(4) Appropriations riders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
(5) Funds cutoff proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
(6) Sense-of-the-Congress resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
(7) Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Congress-by-Congress Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
87th Congress (1961-62) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
88th Congress (1963-64) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
89th Congress (1965-66) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
90th Congress (1967-68) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
91st Congress (1969-70) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
92nd Congress (1971-72) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
93rd-95th Congresses (1973-1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
96th Congress (1979-80) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federal court jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Department of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appropriations rider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
97th Congress (1981-82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
President Reagan’s constitutional amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Federal court jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Department of Education appropriations riders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Department of Justice appropriations riders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other appropriations riders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
98th Congress (1983-84) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Constitutional amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Equal access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appropriations riders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Funds cutoff proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
99th Congress (1985-86) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
100th Congress (1987-88) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
101st Congress (1989-90) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
102d Congress (1991-92) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
103d Congress (1993-94) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Goals 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ESEA reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appropriations riders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
104th Congress (1995-96) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Constitutional amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Federal court jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appropriations riders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
105th Congress (1997-98) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Constitutional amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appropriations riders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Cutoff of funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Congressional Hearings Related to School Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Constitutional Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Limitations on Federal Court Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Equal Access Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Statutes Relating to School Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
(1) Condition Attached to the Department of Education Appropriations Act (the
Walker Amendment) Since Fiscal 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
(2) Equal Access Act (P.L. 98-377, Title VIII (Aug. 11, 1984); 98 Stat. 1302-
04; 20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
(3) Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227, Title X, § 1011 (March
31, 1994); 108 Stat. 265; 20 U.S.C. 6061): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
(4) Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (The Kassebaum Amendment)
(P.L. 103-382, Title XIV, § 14510 (October 20, 1994); 108 Stat. 3518; 20
U.S.C. 8900: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

School Prayer: The Congressional
Response, 1962 - 1998
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Engel v. Vitale1 in 1962 and Abington School
District v. Schempp2 in 1963 holding government sponsorship of prayer and Bible
reading in the public schools to be unconstitutional loosed a firestorm of opposition
which continues to reverberate through the body politic. Within three days of the
Court’s ruling in Engel, more than fifty constitutional amendments to override or
otherwise limit that decision had been introduced in Congress; and during the 88th
Congress, after Abington, one hundred sixty were offered. Two decades later in the
98th Congress, the issue precipitated five sets of hearings in the House and Senate,
an extended Senate debate on a Presidential proposal to amend the Constitution, four
committee reports, and the enactment of two statutes relevant to the issue. Three and
a half decades after Engel the issue was still a central part of an ambitious effort in
the 105th Congress to alter the Supreme Court's church-state jurisprudence by means
of a constitutional amendment.
During these three and a half decades Congress has considered several types of
legislation in response to the Court’s school prayer decisions:
(1) Constitutional amendments. Every Congress since Engel has witnessed
the introduction of numerous proposals to overturn or limit the Court’s decisions and
their judicial progeny by amending the Constitution. The proposals have taken a
variety of forms and have been the subject of numerous hearings (see Appendix I).
The Senate has voted four times on such measures (in 1966, 1970, and twice in 1984)
and the House twice (in 1971 and 1998). But only in the Senate vote in 1970 did a
constitutional amendment garner the two-thirds majority necessary for adoption, and
that vote was perceived less as a vote on school prayer than as a vote to kill the
measure to which the school prayer amendment was attached — the Equal Rights
Amendment. In the 104th and 105th Congresses debate about a constitutional
amendment on the subject broadened to include the question of whether other aspects
of the Court’s church-state jurisprudence should also be addressed, and in the 105th
Congress the House voted on such a broad-based proposal (H.J.Res. 78). The vote
fell substantially short of the two-thirds majority necessary for adoption, however.
(2) Limitations on federal court jurisdiction. In every Congress from the 93d
through the 103d proposals were introduced to strip the federal courts of all
jurisdiction over cases involving the school prayer issue. Several hearings were held
1 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
2 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

CRS-2
on the proposals, and the Senate voted in favor of such a measure in 1979.
Subsequently, however, the Senate rejected such proposals by increasingly wide
margins in 1982, 1985, and 1988.
(3) Equal access proposals. In 1981 in Widmar v. Vincent3 the Supreme Court
held that student-initiated religious groups in public universities have a constitutional
right to meet in school facilities on the same basis as other student-initiated groups.
That decision gave rise to Congressional proposals to ensure student-initiated
religious groups at the high school level the same extracurricular rights and
privileges as non-religious student groups. Several hearings were held on the
subject, and in 1984 Congress enacted into law the “Equal Access Act”4 (for the text,
see Appendix II).
(4) Appropriations riders. Beginning in 1980 efforts were made to attach
riders to the appropriations acts for the Department of Education barring the use of
funds “to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer and meditation
in the public schools.” Neither the House nor the Senate has ever taken a recorded
vote on the matter, but the rider (known as the Walker amendment) has been
included in all of the measures funding the Department of Education since fiscal
1981. Efforts to attach the same rider to the appropriations bills for the Department
of Justice for fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984 and to a supplemental appropriations
bill for fiscal 1982 failed and have not been renewed, despite favorable recorded
votes in both the House and the Senate on the first measure.
(5) Funds cutoff proposals. Since 1984 both the House and the Senate have
voted periodically on amendments to cut off federal education funds from any state
or local educational agency that prevents individuals from participating in voluntary
prayer. Such proposals have been approved twice in both the House (in 1989 and
1994) and the Senate (both in 1994), and rejected once in each body (in 1984 in the
House, in 1994 in the Senate.) A limited version of a funds cutoff proposal — the
Kassebaum amendment — was enacted into law in 1994 as part of the “Improving
America’s Schools Act of 1994”5 (for text, see Appendix II). In addition, Congress
modified two Senate-passed funds cutoff proposals to the “Goals 2000: Educate
America Act” in 1994 to bar funds under the Act from being used by state or local
educational agencies “to adopt policies that prevent voluntary prayer and meditation
in public schools.”6
(6) Sense-of-the-Congress resolutions. A number of resolutions have been
introduced since Engel that would express Congress’ view on what devotional
activities in the public schools remain permissible under the Court’s decisions. The
resolutions have sometimes been perceived as an alternative to a constitutional
amendment, but they have not won extensive support. The Senate rejected two such
proposals in 1966 while adopting one in 1994, but the latter proposal was deleted in
conference.
3 454 U.S. 263 (1981).
4 P.L. 98-377, Title VIII (Aug. 11, 1984); 98 Stat. 1302-04; 20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.
5 P.L. 103-382, Title XIV, § 14510 (Oct. 20, 1994); 108 Stat. 3518; 20 U.S.C. 8900.
6 P.L. 103-227, Title X, § 1011 (March 31, 1994); 108 Stat. 265; 20 U.S.C. 6061.

CRS-3
(7) Miscellaneous. In 1979 the House voted to amend the bill creating the
Department of Education to provide that one of its purposes would be “to permit in
all public schools ... a daily opportunity for prayer or meditation ...,” but the
amendment was deleted in conference. In 1984 the House voted for an amendment
providing generally that “[n]o State or local educational agency shall deny
individuals ... the opportunity to participate in moments of silent prayer,” but the
amendment was again deleted in conference. In 1994 the House defeated a proposal
barring funds in an education bill from being used by state and local educational
agencies to “adopt policies to prevent voluntary prayer and meditation.” In 1992 the
Senate rejected a resolution urging the Supreme Court to overturn Engel and
Abington.
Thus, the political furor over the school prayer issue during the past thirty-six
years has not precipitated the adoption of a constitutional amendment or the
elimination of federal court jurisdiction over the issue. But it has led to the
enactment of the following four statutory measures:
(1) a requirement that public secondary schools which receive federal
financial assistance afford student-initiated religious, philosophical, and
political groups the same opportunity to meet during the school day as is
afforded other student-initiated extracurricular groups (the Equal Access
Act);
(2) a prophylactic rider to the appropriations acts for the Department
of Education, added since fiscal 1981, providing that none of the funds
“may be used to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary
prayer and meditation in the public schools”;
(3) an amendment to the “Goals 2000: Educate America Act” barring
state and local education agencies from using funds under the Act “to
adopt policies that prevent voluntary prayer and meditation in public
schools”; and
(4) an amendment to the “Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994"
cutting off federal education funds to any state or local education agency
that refuses to abide by a court decision holding it in violation of the
constitutional right of a student with respect to prayer in the public schools
(the Kassebaum amendment).
This report provides a Congress-by-Congress summary of legislative actions
relevant to the issue of the conduct of devotional activities in the public schools from
1962 through 1998, i.e., from the 87th Congress through the 105th Congress.7
7 For a detailed summary of the Supreme Court's decisions concerning religious
activities in the public schools and a comprehensive narrative overview of the legal standards
that govern the conduct of religious activities in the public schools, see CRS Report No. 93-
680, Prayer and Religion in the Public Schools: What Is, and Is Not, Constitutionally
Permitted, by (name redacted).

CRS-4
Congress-by-Congress Summary
87th Congress (1961-62)
On June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Engel v.
Vitale, supra, holding the daily recitation in the New York public schools of a prayer
composed by the state Board of Regents unconstitutional as a violation of the
establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment. Within three days more
than fifty constitutional amendments had been introduced in Congress to overturn the
decision, and by the time the 87th Congress adjourned less than four months later,
a total of fifty-seven constitutional amendments had been introduced. The Senate
Judiciary Committee held two days of hearings on the matter,8 but no further action
was taken.
88th Congress (1963-64)
On June 17, 1963, public opinion on the issue was further aroused by the
Supreme Court’s decision in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra. That
decision held unconstitutional government sponsorship of daily readings from the
Bible and unison recital of the Lord’s Prayer in the public schools. The resulting
public furor led to the introduction of one hundred sixty constitutional amendments
in the House and the Senate to overturn Engel and Abington. Rep. Emmanuel Celler
(D.-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, strongly opposed the
amendments and initially chose not to convene any hearings on the matter. But
record amounts of constituent mail and a growing number of signatures on a
discharge petition on the Becker amendment (H.J.Res. 9)9 led him to organize and
hold 18 days of hearings in April - June, 1964.
8 Prayers in Public Schools and Other Matters: Hearings Before the Senate Committee
on the Judiciary, 87th Congress, 2d Session (1962).
9 H.J.Res. 9 had been introduced by Rep. Becker (R.-N.Y.) at the opening of the 88th
Congress. But efforts to forge a consensus with other Members subsequently led him to
introduce H.J.Res. 693 as well, and it was agreed that if the discharge petition succeeded,
that language would be substituted for H.J.Res. 9. H.J.Res. 693 provided as follows:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohibit the offering, reading
from, or listening to prayers or Biblical Scriptures, if participation therein is on
a voluntary basis, in any governmental or public school, institution, or place.
Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohibit making reference to belief in,
reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or
public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place, or upon
any coinage, currency, or obligation of the United States.
Nothing in this Article shall constitute an establishment of religion.
The discharge petition on H.J.Res. 9 ultimately garnered 167 of the 218 signatures necessary
to take the legislation away from the Judiciary Committee.

CRS-5
During those hearings many established religious groups — the National
Council of Churches, the Synagogue Council of America, the United Presbyterian
Church, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Methodist Church, the
Episcopal Church, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Seventh Day
Adventists, etc. — came out in support of the Supreme Court’s decisions and in
opposition to proposals that would tamper with the First Amendment in order to
overturn them. Other groups — the Catholic Archdiocese of New York City, the
Committee for the Preservation of Prayer and Bible Reading in Public Schools,
Project Prayer, the Constitutional Prayer Foundation, the National Association of
Evangelicals, Project America, the American Legion, etc. — testified in favor of a
constitutional amendment. But the net effect of the hearings seemed to be to
dissipate the public fervor for immediate action, and no other legislative activity on
the matter occurred in the 88th Congress.
89th Congress (1965-66)
The number of constitutional amendments introduced to overturn the Court’s
decisions declined to 55 in the 89th Congress, but the issue came to a vote in the
Senate for the first time. On March 22, 1966, Senator Dirksen (R.-Ill.) proposed a
constitutional amendment on prayer (S.J.Res. 148) and announced his intention to
bring the measure to a vote sometime during the session. The operative section of
his amendment provided as follows:
Nothing contained in this Constitution shall prohibit the authority administering
any school, school system, educational institution or other public building
supported in whole or in part through the expenditure of public funds from
providing for or permitting the voluntary participation by students or others in
prayer. Nothing contained in this article shall authorize any such authority to
prescribe the form or content of any prayer.
A subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee held six days of hearings on the
proposal,10 but took no further action. On September 19, 1966, therefore, Sen.
Dirksen proposed his constitutional amendment as a substitute for a minor pending
bill designating October 31 of each year as National UNICEF Day. Senator Bayh
(D.-Ind.) in turn proposed as a substitute for the Dirksen proposal a sense-of-the-
Congress resolution simply affirming that the Supreme Court’s decisions continue
to permit moments of “silent, voluntary prayer or meditation” in the schools. After
extensive debate, the Senate rejected the Bayh substitute, 33-52, and then approved
substituting the text of the Dirksen proposal for the pending joint resolution, 51-36.
On the crucial vote on final passage, however, the Senate voted only 49-37 in favor,
nine votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority.11
Two weeks later the issue surfaced again in the Senate. Sen. Hartke (D.-Ind.)
proposed an amendment to a pending education bill providing as follows:
10 School Prayer: Hearings on S.J.Res. 148 Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional
Amendments of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Congress, 2d Session (1966).
11 For the debate and vote on the Dirksen and Bayh proposals, see 112 CONG. REC.
23063-23084, 23122-23147, 23155-23163, 23202-23207, 23531-23556 (1966).

CRS-6
It is the sense of the Congress that (1) notwithstanding the recent Supreme Court
decisions relating to the reading of the Bible and the offering of prayer in the
public schools, any public school system if it so chooses may provide time during
the school day for prayerful meditation if no public official prescribes or recites
the prayer which is offered; and (2) providing public school time for prayerful
meditation in no way violates the Constitution because each individual
participating therein would be permitted to pray as he chooses, but that such
practice is consonant with the free exercise of religion protected by the First
Amendment to the Constitution.
After brief debate in which the proposal was criticized by both opponents and
supporters of the Supreme Court’s decisions, the amendment was tabled by voice
vote.12
90th Congress (1967-68)
In this Congress 56 constitutional amendments and 3 sense-of-the-Congress
resolutions were proposed, but no further legislative action occurred.
91st Congress (1969-70)
In the 91st Congress the number of constitutional amendments proposed surged
to 96, and in 1970 a floor amendment and debate on prayer surfaced unexpectedly
in connection with the Senate’s consideration of the proposed Equal Rights
Amendment (ERA). On October 13, 1970, Sen. Baker (R.-Tenn.) proposed as an
amendment to the pending ERA the following:
Nothing contained in this Constitution shall abridge the right of persons lawfully
assembled, in any public building which is supported in whole or in part through
the expenditure of public funds, to participate in nondenominational prayer.
After brief debate, the Senate added this amendment to the ERA by a vote of 50-20.13
This vote was widely perceived, however, as a vote not solely on the merits of the
prayer issue, but as part of a strategy to so encumber the ERA with extraneous
matters that its supporters would let it die. When the Senate also added an
amendment to the ERA exempting women from the draft, this strategy was
successful. Thus, neither the ERA nor the amendments added to it went any further
in that Congress.
92nd Congress (1971-72)
The number of constitutional amendments proposed on the school prayer issue
dropped to 41 in the 92nd Congress, but the issue came to a vote in the House for the
first time in 1971. The focus of House action was H.J.Res. 191 sponsored by Rep.
Wylie (R.-Ohio), an amendment identical to the Baker Amendment that had been
12 For the debate on the Hartke Amendment, see 112 CONG. REC. 25485-25488 (Oct.
6, 1966).
13 For the debate and vote on the Baker amendment, see 116 CONG. REC. 36478-
36505 (Oct. 13, 1970).

CRS-7
attached to the ERA in 1970 (see previous section). Because the House Judiciary
Committee refused to report any of the proposed measures on the prayer issue that
were referred to it, the supporters of the Wylie amendment resorted to the little-used
tactic of a discharge petition.14 After an extensive lobbying and grass roots campaign
by such groups as the Prayer Campaign Committee, the Back to God Movement, and
the National Association of Evangelicals, the discharge petition on September 21,
1971, obtained the requisite 218 signatures to take the Wylie Amendment from the
Judiciary Committee and bring it to the floor of the House for a vote.
House rules, however, prevented the debate and vote from occurring until
November 8, 1971,15 giving both proponents and opponents of the Wylie Bill time
to mount intensive lobbying and grass roots campaigns. On November 8 the House
easily adopted the petition to discharge the Judiciary Committee from further
consideration of H.J.Res. 191, 242-157. After lengthy debate the House then
adopted by voice vote an amendment offered by Rep. Buchanan (D.-Ala.)
substituting the word “voluntary” for “nondenominational” and adding “meditation”
as a permissible activity — an amendment that its sponsors thought would answer
the primary arguments against the resolution and would eliminate the danger that a
state might prescribe religious activity. Thus, as amended, the Wylie proposal
provided as follows:
Nothing contained in this Constitution shall abridge the right of persons lawfully
assembled, in any public building which is supported in whole or in part through
the expenditure of public funds, to participate in voluntary prayer or meditation.
Notwithstanding these changes, however, the House vote on final passage fell
twenty-eight votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority of the 402 members
voting, 240-162.16
93rd-95th Congresses (1973-1978)
During these three Congresses the number of constitutional amendments
introduced gradually declined, from 42 in the 93rd to 35 in the 94th to 29 in the 95th.
In 1973 a Senate subcommittee held brief additional hearings on the school prayer
issue,17 and in 1974 Sen. Helms (R.-N. Car.) first introduced his bill to remove all
14 A discharge petition permits a majority of the House (218 members) to discharge a
committee from consideration of a bill if the bill has been pending before it for 30 days or
more by signing a petition to that effect in the well of the House.
15 The rules required that a discharge petition, once the requisite number of signatures
had been obtained, had to wait seven days before being brought before the House, and then
could be considered only on the second or fourth Monday of the month. Coupled with the
House’s holiday observance schedule, these requirements meant that the bill could not be
considered before November 8.
16 For the debate and vote on the Wylie amendment, see 117 CONG REC. 39886-39958
(Nov. 8, 1971).
17 Hearings on School Prayer Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 93rd Congress, lst Session (1973) (unpublished).

CRS-8
jurisdiction over the issue from the federal courts.18 But no further Congressional
action on the issue occurred until late in the decade.
96th Congress (1979-80)
In contrast to the quietude of the previous three Congresses on the issue, a spate
of floor amendments on the school prayer issue emerged in the 96th Congress. None
involved a constitutional amendment. Instead, the focus shifted to Sen. Helms’
proposal to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts and to limitations on the new
Department of Education, one of which was enacted into law.
Federal court jurisdiction. The Senate acted first. On April 5, 1979, Sen.
Helms offered his proposal to deny the federal courts all jurisdiction over the issue
as an amendment to S. 210, a bill to create a Cabinet-level Department of Education.
His amendment provided as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257 of this chapter,
the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of
certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any state statute, ordinance, rule,
regulation, or any part thereof, or arising out of an Act interpreting, applying, or
enforcing a state statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation, which relates to voluntary
prayers in public schools and public buildings.
....
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have
jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have
jurisdiction to review under Section 1259 of this Title.19
After brief debate the Senate, in votes that appeared to catch the proponents of S. 210
by surprise, rejected a motion to table the Helms amendment, 43-43, and adopted the
proposal, 47-37.20 After some parliamentary maneuvering and a more extensive
debate, however, the Senate on April 9 deleted the amendment from the Department
of Education bill, 53-40,21 and added it instead to a less major bill concerning the
Supreme Court’s jurisdiction (S. 450) by a vote of 51-40.22
Subsequently in the House, S. 450 became the subject of a discharge petition
campaign and of extensive hearings by a subcommittee of the House Judiciary
Committee.23 But the bill died at the end of the 96th Congress without coming up
for a vote either in subcommittee or committee or on the House floor.
18 Sen. Helms’ bill was introduced as S. 3981, 93rd Congress, 2d Session (1974).
19 See 125 CONG. REC. 7577 (April 5, 1979).
20 Id. at 7577-7581 (April 5, 1979).
21 Id. at 7649-7657 (April 9, 1979).
22 Id. at 7631-7644 (April 9, 1979).
23 Prayer in Public Schools and Buildings — Federal Court Jurisdiction: Hearings
Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the
House Committee on the Judiciary, 96th Congress, 2d Session (1980).

CRS-9
Department of Education. The House did vote on two other proposals during
the 96th Congress, however. On June 11, 1979, the House added, by a vote of 255-
122, an amendment to its version of the bill to create a Department of Education
(H.R. 2444) stating one of the Department’s purposes to be
to permit in all public schools providing an elementary or secondary education
a daily opportunity for prayer or meditation, participation in which would be on
a voluntary basis.
As originally proposed by Rep. Walker (R.-Pa.), the amendment stated the
Department’s purpose to be “to promote ... a daily opportunity for prayer or
meditation ....” But prior to adopting the amendment, the House accepted by voice
vote an amendment by Rep. Erdahl (R.-Minn.) changing the word “promote” to
“permit”. The Walker amendment was deleted in conference, however, and thus was
not part of the Department of Education bill as enacted into law.24
Appropriations rider. The second amendment was enacted into law and
subsequently has been added to every Department of Education appropriations bill.
On August 27, 1980, Rep. Walker proposed on the House floor the following
amendment to the fiscal 1981 appropriations bill for the Department of Education
(H.R. 7998):
No funds appropriated under this Act may be used to prevent the implementation
of programs of voluntary prayer and meditation in the public schools.
Rep. Walker stated during debate that the Department of Education had previously
taken no action in this regard and that there were no funds in the bill for that purpose
for fiscal 1981. But he termed the amendment necessary as “a preventive measure”
to assure that the Department could not initiate any such action. After brief debate,
the House adopted the measure by voice vote.25 The Senate did not act on the
Department’s appropriation bill prior to adjournment, but Congress included in the
continuing resolution it adopted to fund the Department and other agencies whose
appropriations had not been enacted for fiscal 1981 the following similar provision,
applicable not only to the Department of Education but also to the Departments of
Labor and of Health and Human Services26:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution except Section 102,
none of the funds made available by this joint resolution for programs and
activities for which appropriations would be available in H.R. 7998, entitled the
Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1981, as passed the House of Representatives on
August 27, 1980, shall be used to prevent the implementation of programs of
voluntary prayer and meditation in the public schools.
24 For the debate and vote on Rep. Walker’s proposal, see 125 CONG. REC. 14226-
14233 (June 11, 1979).
25 126 CONG. REC. 23499-23500 (Aug. 27, 1980).
26 P.L. 96-536, § 108 (Jan. 3, 1981); 94 Stat. 3170.

CRS-10
As enacted, the continuing resolution, including this provision, was effective not for
the entire fiscal year but only until June 5, 1981.
97th Congress (1981-82)
The pace of activity on the school prayer issue increased further in the 97th
Congress, with President Reagan proposing a constitutional amendment, the Senate
having an extensive debate on Sen. Helms’ court jurisdiction bill, and Rep. Walker
attempting to extend the rider attached to the Department of Education appropriation
to the appropriation for the Department of Justice. Again, however, the only
measures enacted were prophylactic riders to the two appropriations acts for the
Department of Education.
President Reagan’s constitutional amendment. In the most significant
development, President Reagan became the first President to propose a constitutional
amendment on school prayer since the Engel and Abington decisions. On May 17,
1982, he recommended to the Congress that the following language be added as an
amendment to the Constitution:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group
prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required
by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer.27
The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the President’s proposal,28 but no
further action ensued.
Federal court jurisdiction. The Senate did have an extensive debate on Sen.
Helms’ proposal to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts over school prayer.
Introduced since 1974 as an alternative to the cumbersome process of amending the
Constitution on this issue and adopted by the Senate in the previous Congress, the
proposal, together with similar initiatives on abortion and busing, became the focal
point of political debate on the prayer issue in the 97th Congress.
In 1981 subcommittees in both the Senate and the House held hearings on the
proposals to limit federal court jurisdiction over prayer, abortion, and busing29 but
took no further action. On August 18, 1982, Sen. Helms offered his amendment to
eliminate the original jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over cases concerning “voluntary prayers in public
27 The proposed language was introduced as S.J.Res. 199 by Senators Thurmond and
Hatch and as H.J.Res. 493 by Representatives Kindness, Lott, and Beard. See 128 CONG.
REC. 10371 (May 18, 1982) and 11780 (May 25, 1982), respectively.
28 Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Permit Voluntary Prayer: Hearings on
S.J.Res. 199 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Congress, 2d Session
(1982).
29 Constitutional Restraints Upon the Judiciary: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on
the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981).
Statutory Limitations on Federal Jurisdiction: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on
Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the
Judiciary, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981) (unpublished).

CRS-11
schools and public buildings” to a pending debt-limit increase bill (H.J.Res. 520),30
along with another amendment to restrict abortion. Senators Weicker (R.-Conn.) and
Baucus (D.-Mont.), in turn, offered amendments to Sen. Helms’ proposals31 and
together with Sen. Packwood (R.-Ore.) engaged periodically over the following five
weeks in “extended debate” on the prayer and abortion issues.
During the course of that debate the Senate refused, 38-59, to table the Weicker-
Baucus amendments32; refused as well to table the Helms prayer proposal, 47-5333;
and refused on seven occasions to invoke cloture and bring further debate on the
amendments to a close.34 Finally, Sen. Helms moved to recommit the debt ceiling
bill to committee with instructions to report back a clean bill with his prayer
30 128 CONG. REC. 21835 (Aug. 18, 1982). Sen. Helms’ prayer amendment, titled the
“Voluntary School Prayer Act of 1982,” provided as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 1253, 1254, and 1257 of this chapter,
the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of
certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any state statute, ordinance, rule,
regulation, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, or
enforcing a state statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation, which relates to voluntary
prayers in public schools and public buildings.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have
jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have
jurisdiction to review under Section 1259 of this Title.
31 128 CONG. REC. 21840 (Aug. 18, 1982). Sen. Weicker’s amendment provided as
follows:
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to limit in any manner the Department of
Justice in enforcing the Constitution of the United States nor shall anything in
this Act be interpreted to modify or diminish the authority of the courts of the
United States to enforce fully the Constitution of the United States.
Sen. Baucus’ amendment provided as follows:
It is the sense of the Congress that the federal courts must remain open to litigants
whose claims arise out of the federal Constitution. Furthermore, it is
emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law
is and Article 5 of the Constitution specifically provides a mechanism to respond
to the Constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court.
32 128 CONG. REC. 21840-41 (Aug. 18, 1982).
33 128 CONG. REC. 24585 (Sept. 22, 1982).
34 The first three cloture votes were to end debate on Sen. Helms’ abortion amendment;
the last four were to end debate on his proposal concerning Federal court jurisdiction over
prayer cases. The votes all fell short of the 60 votes required for cloture, and were, in order,
as follows: 41-47, 45-35, 50-44, 50-39, 53-47, 54-46, and 53-45. See 128 CONG. REC.
23092 (Sept. 9, 1982), 23255 (Sept. 13, 1982), 23617 (Sept. 15, 1982), 24169 (Sept. 20,
1982), 24471 (Sept. 21, 1982), 24583 (Sept. 22, 1982), and 24776 (Sept. 23, 1982),
respectively.

CRS-12
amendment included, but the Senate tabled the motion, 51-48,35 and adopted instead
a motion to recommit with instructions to report the bill back unencumbered by any
amendments, 79-16.36 Thus, Sen. Helms’ initiative to eliminate federal court
jurisdiction over prayer was defeated.
Department of Education appropriations riders. The 97th Congress did re-
enact Rep. Walker’s appropriations riders on school prayer, however, although again
without taking any recorded votes on the matter. Initially, it continued in effect the
limitation enacted by the 96th Congress on the appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education through the rest of fiscal
198137 and the first part of fiscal 1982.38 For the rest of fiscal 198239 and for fiscal
1983,40 however, Congress reverted to the original language that Rep. Walker had
proposed in the previous Congress and limited its applicability to the Department of
Education. The limitation provided as follows:
No funds appropriated under the Act may be used to prevent the implementation
of programs of voluntary prayer and meditation in the public schools.
Department of Justice appropriations riders. Rep. Walker also offered this
language as a limitation on the appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal
1982 and for fiscal 1983, but his proposal was not enacted. Again, as in the original
debate regarding the limitation when offered to the Department of Education
appropriation, Rep. Walker stated that the Department of Justice had previously
35 128 CONG. REC. 24777 (Sept. 23, 1982).
36 Id. at 24792.
37 P.L. 97-12, Title IV, § 401 (June 5, 1981); 95 Stat. 95.
38 Congress funded those departments for the first part of fiscal 1982 by two continuing
resolutions. P.L. 97-51, § 101 (Oct. 1, 1981); 95 Stat. 958 provided funds through Nov. 20,
1981, subject to the conditions contained in the Departments’ 1981 appropriation. P.L. 97-
85 (Nov. 23, 1981); 95 Stat. 1098 simply extended the effective date of that continuing
resolution to Dec. 15, 1981.
39 The third continuing resolution for fiscal 1982 (P.L. 97-92, § 101 (Dec. 15, 1981);
95 Stat. 1183) provided funding authority through March 31, 1982, and incorporated by
reference the language that had been included in the Department of Education appropriations
bill for fiscal 1982 (H.R. 4560) as it had been reported to, and adopted by, the House (see
H. Rept. No. 97-251 and 127 CONG. REC. 23406 (Oct. 6, 1981), respectively) and as
reported to the Senate (S. Rept. No. 97-268). The fourth continuing resolution for fiscal
1982 (P.L. 97-161 (March 31, 1982); 96 Stat. 22) simply extended the third one through the
remainder of fiscal 1982.
40 The first continuing resolution for fiscal 1983 provided funding authority through
Dec. 17, 1982, and incorporated the Walker language by reference to the third continuing
resolution of the previous fiscal year. P.L. 97-276, § 101(b) (Oct. 1, 1982); 96 Stat. 1187.
After the Walker language had been included in the regular appropriations bill for the
Department of Education (H.R. 7205) as reported by the House Appropriations Committee
(H. Rept. No. 97-894), as adopted by the House (128 CONG. REC. 28184 (Dec. 1, 1982)),
and as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. Rept. No. 97-680), it was also
included as part of the “Department of Education Appropriation Act, 1983" enacted as part
of the continuing resolution funding various government agencies through the rest of fiscal
1983. P.L. 97-377, § 101(e) (Dec. 21, 1982); 96 Stat. 1901.

CRS-13
engaged in no activity to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer
and meditation and that it did not contemplate engaging in such activity. But he said
the limitation was necessary to remove the “chilling effect” the mere possibility of
such action by the Justice Department was having on school districts that might
initiate such programs. After brief debate, the House, after first appearing to reject
the proposed limitation on a voice vote, adopted it as part of the Department of
Justice’s fiscal 1982 appropriation on a recorded vote of 333-54.41 In the Senate,
however, the limitation was deleted by the Senate Appropriations Committee,42
restored by vote of the full Senate (70-12) on a motion by Sen. Hollings (D.-S.
Car.),43 and then subjected to repeated amendment and the threat of “extended
debate” on the Senate floor.44 As a consequence, the Department’s appropriation bill
for fiscal 1982 was never enacted, and the Department was funded for fiscal 1982 by
means of a continuing resolution that did not include the Walker amendment.45
When the Department’s regular appropriation bill for fiscal 1983 came to the
House floor on December 9, 1982, the House again added the Walker Amendment
to it, this time by voice vote.46 But the Senate did not act on that bill, and once again
the Department was funded by a continuing resolution that did not include the
Walker amendment.47
Other appropriations riders. Finally, Rep. Walker proposed similar language
as an amendment to the regular supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal 1982
41 127 CONG. REC. 6051 (Sept. 9, 1981).
42 See H.R. 4169 as reported on Oct. 30, 1981 (S. Rept. No. 97-265).
43 127 CONG. REC. 27490 (Nov. 16, 1981). The vote was on a motion to table the
Committee’s deletion of the limitation.
44 See 127 CONG. REC. 27490-97 (Nov. 16, 1981); 27705-06 (Nov. 17, 1981); and
27895-96 (Nov. 18, 1981). The Senate debate proceeded as follows: Sen. Weicker (R.-
Conn.) proposed to amend the limitation so that it would bar the use of funds only to
“prevent implementation of constitutional programs of voluntary prayer and meditation in
the public schools.” That amendment was tabled, 51-34. Similarly, a motion to reconsider
that vote was tabled, 54-36. The following day the Senate voted 93-0 to accept an
amendment by Sen. Weicker adding to the limitation the words “except that nothing in this
Act shall be interpreted as the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” Sen. Helms (D.-N. Car.) then proposed adding the words “provided further, that
nothing in this provision shall be interpreted in derogation of the limitation on expenditures
stated herein,” and on November 18 the Senate adopted the Helms proviso, 58-38.
Subsequently, a cloture motion was introduced on the bill, but it failed to get the 60 votes
necessary (the vote was 59-35) and the bill was then dropped. See 127 CONG. REC. 30904
(Dec. 11, 1981).
45 P.L. 97-92, § 101 (h) (Dec. 18, 1981); 95 Stat. 1190.
46 128 CONG. REC. 29678 (Dec. 9, 1982). The Department was funded for the first
part of fiscal 1983 (until Dec. 17, 1982) by a continuing resolution. P.L. 97-276 (Oct. 1,
1982). But because the Walker language had not been included in the Department’s regular
appropriations bill as reported by either the House Appropriations Committee (H. Rept. 97-
721 (Aug. 10, 1982)) or the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. Rept. 97-584 (Sept. 27,
1982)), it was not incorporated by reference in that continuing resolution.
47 P.L. 97-377, § 101 (Dec. 21, 1982); 96 Stat. 1871.

CRS-14
(H.R. 6863). After very brief debate, however, the House rejected the amendment
by voice vote.48
98th Congress (1983-84)
The debate about the conduct of devotional activities in the public schools
intensified even further during the 98th Congress. In the most significant action
Congress enacted into law an equal access requirement designed to allow student-
initiated religious groups to hold meetings in public secondary schools during
extracurricular time. In addition, it continued to include the Walker limitation in the
appropriations acts for the Department of Education. But the Senate, after an
extended debate, rejected a modified version of President Reagan’s proposed
constitutional amendment on school prayer, and the House rejected an amendment
to a pending education bill to deny federal funds to public schools which prevent
individuals from participating in prayer. The House, instead, added to the bill a
requirement that the schools permit individuals to participate in silent prayer, but that
requirement was deleted from the bill in conference and thus was not enacted into
law.
Constitutional amendments. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings
on proposed constitutional amendments on the subject in 1983,49 and in early 1984
it became the first Congressional committee to report a constitutional amendment on
the school prayer issue. But the Committee was divided on the issue, and as a result
it reported two constitutional amendments — S.J.Res. 73 and S.J.Res. 212, both
without recommendation.50 S.J.Res. 73 was a modified version of President
Reagan’s initiative on the matter and provided for organized vocal prayer in the
public schools and other public institutions, as follows:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group
prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required
by the United States or by any state to participate in prayer. Neither the United
States nor any state shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public
schools.51
S.J.Res. 212, in turn, was an initiative of Sen. Hatch (R.-Utah) and concerned silent
prayer and equal access, as follows:
48 128 CONG. REC. 18639-41 (July 29, 1982).
49 Voluntary School Prayer Constitutional Amendment: Hearings on S.J.Res. 73 and
S.J.Res. 212 Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, 98th Congress, 1st Session (1983).
50 S. Rept. No. 98-347 (Jan. 24, 1984), reporting S.J.Res. 212, and S. Rept. No. 98-348
(Jan. 24, 1984), reporting S.J.Res. 73. The Committee also reported a third proposal to
provide statutory protection to student religious groups in public elementary and secondary
schools. See infra, at 17.
51 President Reagan’s proposal had included only the first two sentences. See
Constitutional Amendment Concerning Prayer: Message from the President of the United
States, H.R. Doc. No. 26, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983).

CRS-15
SECTION 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit
individual or group silent prayer or meditation in public schools. Neither the
United States nor any state shall require any person to participate in such prayer
or meditation, nor shall they encourage any particular form of prayer or
meditation.
SECTION 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit equal
access to the use of public school facilities by all voluntary student groups.
On March 2, 1984, S.J.Res. 73 was made the pending business in the Senate,52
and for the next two and a half weeks that body engaged in an extensive debate on
the issue.53 During the course of the debate several alternatives to the President’s
proposal were proffered by various Senators.54 But no consensus developed behind
any of the alternatives, and in the end the Senate took up-or-down votes on only two
proposals. On March 15 the Senate tabled a substitute proposal offered by Sen.
Dixon (D.-Ill.) concerning silent prayer and equal access, 81-15.55 And on March 20
a majority of the Senate voted in favor of S.J.Res. 73, 56-44,56 but that vote was
eleven votes short of the two-thirds majority necessary for the measure to be
adopted.
Equal access. A consensus did develop in both the House and the Senate
around the equal access concept, however. In 1981 the Supreme Court in Widmar
v. Vincent, supra, had held accommodation of student-initiated religious groups at
the public university level to be constitutionally mandated by the free speech clause
of the First Amendment. But both before and after this decision, several state and
federal appellate courts had held it to be unconstitutional for public secondary
52 130 CONG. REC. 4288 (March 2, 1984).
53 See 130 CONG. REC. 4318-4345 (March 5, 1984); 4578-4592 (March 6, 1984);
4737-4770 and 4747-4759 (March 7, 1984); 4886-4900 (March 8, 1984); 5152-5157 (March
12, 1984); 5264-5322 (March 13, 1984); 5418-5450 (March 14, 1984); 5712-5714 and 5723-
5734 (March 15, 1984); 5833-5839 (March 19, 1984); and 5895-5922 (March 20, 1984).
Supporters in the House engaged in an all-night “prayer vigil” in support of the amendment.
See 130 CONG. REC. 4465-4523 (March 5, 1984).
54 See, e.g., the proposals offered by Senators Baker (R.-Tenn.) And Gorton (R.-Wash.),
respectively, at 130 CONG. REC. 4609 (March 6, 1984) and 4897 (March 8, 1984).
55 130 CONG. REC. 5733 (March 15, 1984). Sen. Dixon’s proposal was worded as
follows:
SECTION 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit
individual or group silent prayer or silent reflection in public schools. No person
shall be required by the United States or by any state to participate in such prayer
or reflection. Neither the United States nor any state shall compose any prayer
or encourage any particular form of prayer or reflection.
SECTION 2. The authorization by the United States or any state of equal
access to the use of public facilities by student voluntary religious groups shall
not constitute an establishment of religion.
130 CONG. REC. S2458 (daily ed. March 8, 1984).
56 130 CONG. REC. 5619 (March 20, 1984).

CRS-16
schools to accommodate meetings of student-initiated religious groups on school
property during the school day.57
Congressional interest in this situation was first evidenced by a bill introduced
by Sen. Hatfield (R.-Ore.) late in the 97th Congress to provide statutory protection
to student-initiated religious groups in public secondary schools.58 In the 98th
Congress interest in the issue surged, as eleven equal access measures were
introduced59 and four sets of hearings on the issue were held in both the House and
the Senate.60 In early 1984 committees in both the Senate and the House favorably
reported equal access measures for floor action.61 When the committee-reported bill
in the House (H.R. 5345) was brought up on May 15, it received a substantial
majority, 270-151.62 But H.R. 5345 was not adopted at that time, because the
measure had been brought up under a procedure (suspension of the rules) requiring
a two-thirds majority for adoption, and the vote fell 11 votes short of that margin.
The measure that became law originated in the Senate as a floor amendment to
a House-passed education bill (H.R. 1310). Proffered by Senators Denton (R.-Ala.)
and Hatfield (R.-Ore.), the measure provided that public secondary schools which
receive federal financial assistance and which permit one or more noncurriculum-
related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time may
not deny a similar opportunity to meet to any student-initiated group due to the
religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech to be exercised at
such meetings. After the measure was modified during the Senate debate to make
57 Johnson v. Huntington Beach Union High School District, 137 Cal. Rptr. 43, 68 Cal.
App. 3d 1, cert. den. 434 U.S. 877 (1977); Trietley v. Board of Education of the City of
Buffalo, 65 A.D. 2d 1, 409 N.Y.S. 2d 912 (1978); Brandon v. Board of Education of
Guilderland Central School District, 635 F.2d 971 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. den. 454 U.S. 1123
(1981); Lubbock Civil Liberties Union v. Lubbock Independent School District, 669 F.2d
1038 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. den. 459 U.S. 1155 (1983). A similar decision by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was rendered just the day before the final
House vote on the equal access legislation. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School
District, 741 F.2d 538 (3d Cir., 1984), vacated for want of jurisdiction, 475 U.S. 534 (1986).
58 S. 2928, 97th Congress, 2d Session (Sept. 17, 1982).
59 See H.R. 2732, H.R. 4172, H.R. 4996, H.R. 5345, H.R. 5439, S. 425, S. 815, S. 1059,
and three Senate floor amendments — 130 CONG. REC. 9321 (April 12, 1984); 15053 (June
6, 1984); and 19400 (June 27, 1984).
60 Equal Access: A First Amendment Question: Hearings Before the Senate Committee
on the Judiciary, 98th Congress, 1st Session (April 28 and August 3, (1983).
Hearings on the Equal Access Act (H.R. 2732) Before the Subcommittee on
Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the House Committee on Education
and Labor, 98th Congress, 1st Session (June 16 and October 18-20, 1983).
Religious Speech Protection Act (H.R. 4996): Hearing Before the Subcommittee on
Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the House Committee on Education
and Labor, 98th Congress, 2d Session (March 28, 1984).
Hearing on the Secondary School Equality of Access Act (H.R. 5439) Before the
Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the House Judiciary Committee, 98th Congress,
2d Session (April 26, 1984)(unpublished).
61 See S. Rept. No. 98-357 (Feb. 22, 1984) and H. Rept. No. 98-710 (April 26, 1984).
62 130 CONG. REC. 12214-40, 12263-64 (May 15, 1984).

CRS-17
clear that it in no way impinged on the disciplinary authority of school officials, the
Senate adopted it, 88-11.63
The House vote on the measure came only after considerable parliamentary
maneuvering. When H.R. 1310 as amended came back to the House, Rep. Perkins
(D.-Ky.) moved that conferees on the bill be appointed. But Speaker O’Neill
announced that he had already referred the equal access portion of the bill to both the
Judiciary Committee and the Education and Labor Committee for their consideration
until August 6.64 Rep. Perkins chose not to wait for that date to arrive, however. On
July 25 he moved that the House suspend the rules, discharge the two committees
from further consideration of the Senate amendment, and concur in that amendment.
After one hour of debate, the House did so, 337-77.65 Subsequently, the House
concurred in the rest of H.R. 1310 as amended by the Senate and sent the bill to the
President, who signed it into law on August 11, 1984.66 (See Appendix II for the text
of the Equal Access Act.)
Appropriations riders. In addition to enacting the “Equal Access Act,”67 the
98th Congress continued to include language barring the use of funds to “prevent the
implementation of programs of voluntary prayer and meditation in the public
schools” in the acts appropriating funds for the Department of Education for fiscal
198468 and for fiscal 1985,69 although not without controversy. However, when
63 For the Senate debate and vote, see 130 CONG. REC. 19211-19252 (June 27, 1984).
64 130 CONG. REC. 19770 (June 28, 1984).
65 Id. at 20932-20951 (July 25, 1984).
66 P.L. 98-377, Title VIII (Aug. 11, 1984); 98 Stat. 1302-04; 20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.
67 Although the measure did not specifically concern school prayer, it might be noted
that Congress also included in P.L. 98-377 a new magnet schools desegregation
authorization that contained the following provision concerning secular humanism:
Grants under this title may not be used for ... courses of instruction the substance
of which is secular humanism.
P.L. 98-377, Title VII, § 709 (Aug. 11, 1984); 98 Stat. 1302; 20 U.S.C. 4059.
This provision was part of a Senate floor amendment sponsored by Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) and
others to add a magnet schools authorization to a pending education bill (H.R. 1310) but was
not specifically debated by the Senate prior to the adoption of that amendment on June 6,
1984. 130 CONG. REC. 15027-36 (June 6, 1984). In the House the amendment was only
briefly discussed before that body concurred in the Senate amendments on July 25, 1984.
Id. at 20952, 20956 (July 25, 1984). Nonetheless, the provision became law when President
Reagan signed the bill on August 11, 1984.
68 This language was initially incorporated by reference in the continuing resolution
funding various government agencies for the first part of fiscal 1984. P.L. 98-107, §
101(a)(1)(Oct. 1, 1983); 97 Stat. 733. On the Department’s regular appropriation bill, the
limitation was included in the bill as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.
Rept. 98-357 (Sept. 16, 1983)), and as adopted by the House (129 CONG. REC. 25425
(Sept. 22, 1983)); but it was stricken by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. Rept. No.
98-247 (Sept. 28, 1983)) and was not included in the bill as adopted by the Senate (129
CONG. REC. 27021 (Oct. 4, 1983)). The language was restored by the conference
(continued...)

CRS-18
similar language was proposed in the House as an amendment to the fiscal 1984
appropriations for the Department of Justice, the amendment was ruled out of order,
and that ruling was sustained on a voice vote.70
Funds cutoff proposal. Finally, on July 26, 1984, the House also rejected a
floor amendment sponsored by Rep. Coats (R.-Ind.) to cut off federal aid to any state
or local education agency which had “a policy of denying or which effectively
prevents participation in prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary
basis,” 194-215. In its place the House, first by voice vote and then by recorded
68(...continued)
committee, however, (H. Conf. Rept. No. 98-442 (Oct. 19, 1983)), and thus was part of the
Department’s fiscal 1984 appropriation as finally enacted into law. P.L. 98-139, Title III,
§ 307 (Oct. 31, 1983); 97 Stat. 895.
69 This language was initially incorporated by reference in a series of continuing
resolutions funding the Department of Education and various other agencies and departments
for fiscal 1985. See P.L. 98-441, § 101(a) (Oct. 3, 1984), 98 Stat. 1699; P.L. 98-453 (Oct.
5, 1984), 98 Stat. 1731; P.L. 98-455 (Oct. 6, 1984), 98 Stat. 1747; P.L. 98-461 (Oct. 10,
1984); 98 Stat. 1814; and P.L. 98-473, 101(a)(Oct. 12, 1984), 98 Stat. 1837. On the
Department’s regular appropriations bill (H.R. 6028), the language was included in the bill
as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H. Rept. No. 98-911 (July 26, 1984))
and as adopted by the House (130 CONG. REC. 21872-73 (Aug. 1, 1984)); but it was
stricken by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. Rept. No. 98-544 (June 29, 1984)).
Sen. Helms (R-N. Car.) offered the Walker language as a floor amendment, but the Senate
accepted the amendment by voice vote only after Sen. Helms modified it to read as follows:
“None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to prevent individual voluntary
prayer and meditation in the public schools.” 130 CONG. REC. 26681, 26684-88 (Sept. 25,
1984). After the House conferees refused to accept the Senate’s modification (H. Rept. No.
98-1132 (Oct. 3, 1984), at 35), the House insisted on its version of the language and the
Senate acceded. See 130 CONG. REC. 31404, 31304 (Oct. 10, 1984). Thus, the Walker
language was again included in the Department’s appropriation act for fiscal 1985 as signed
into law on November 8, 1984. P.L. 98-619, § 307 (Nov. 8, 1984); 98 Stat. 3329.
70 129 CONG. REC. 24624-25, 24646-47 (Sept. 19, 1983).

CRS-19
votes of 378-29 and 356-50,71 substituted the following language proposed by Rep.
Gunderson (R.-Wisc.):
No State or local educational agency shall deny individuals in public schools the
opportunity to participate in moments of silent prayer. Neither the United States
nor any State or local educational agency shall require any person to participate
in prayer or influence the form or content of any prayer in such public schools.
This amendment was deleted in conference, however,72 and thus was not part of the
bill as enacted into law.73
99th Congress (1985-86)
On June 4, 1985, the Supreme Court in Wallace v. Jaffree74 held
unconstitutional an Alabama statute providing for a daily moment of silence in the
public schools “for meditation or voluntary prayer.” Nonetheless, Congressional
action on the school prayer issue slowed considerably in the 99th Congress. During
the first session a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on
a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn Wallace,75 and the Committee
favorably reported S.J.Res. 2, as follows:
71 This series of votes resulted from the complex parliamentary situation that developed
on the House floor during consideration of Rep. Coats’ amendment. Rep. Coats’ amendment
was a first-degree amendment to the pending education bill (H.R. 11) and provided as
follows:
No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any State or
local educational agency which has a policy of denying or which effectively
prevents participation in prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary
basis. Neither the United States nor any State nor any local educational agency
shall require any person to participate in prayer or influence the form or content
of any prayer in such public schools.
130 CONG. REC. 21231 (July 26, 1984).
Rep. Gunderson proposed to change the first sentence of this amendment to the language
noted in the text. When the House accepted the Gunderson amendment by voice vote, Rep.
Walker (R.-Pa.) proposed another second-degree amendment which, in slightly modified
form, incorporated the original language of the Coats amendment. The House rejected that
amendment, 194-215. But Rep. Hunter (R.-Cal.) had proposed an identical amendment as
a substitute for the Coats amendment. Before a vote could occur on that substitute, however,
Rep. Gunderson again offered his language as an amendment to the Hunter substitute. As
a result, the House in rapid order voted to accept the Gunderson amendment to the Hunter
substitute, 378-29; substituted the amended Hunter amendment for the original Coats
amendment, as amended by voice vote; and finally adopted the substitute amendment, 356-
50. See 130 CONG. REC. 21231-21256 (July 26, 1984).
72 H. Rept. No. 98-1128 (Oct. 2, 1984), at 53.
73 P.L. 98-473 (Oct. 12, 1984); 98 Stat. 1837.
74 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
75 Constitutional Amendment Relating to School Prayer: Hearing on S.J.Res. 2 Before
the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 99th
Congress, lst Session (1985).

CRS-20
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group
silent prayer or reflection in public schools. Neither the United States nor any
State shall require any person to participate in such prayer or reflection, nor shall
they encourage any particular form of silent prayer or reflection.76
But no floor debate or vote occurred on the proposal in either the first or second
session. Also during the first session, the Senate on September 10, 1985, engaged
in a desultory debate on Sen. Helms’ proposal to limit the jurisdiction of the federal
courts over the school prayer issue (S. 47), but decisively rejected the proposal, 62-
36.77
Congress did, however, continue to enact the Walker rider to the appropriations
acts for the Department of Education. Although no votes or debates occurred on the
proposal, the matter was not entirely free from controversy. In the first session the
rider was included in the version of the fiscal 1986 appropriations bill for the
Department (H.R. 3424) as reported to,78 and adopted by, the House79; but it was not
included in the version reported to,80 and adopted by, the Senate.81 The rider was
restored in the House-Senate conference, however, and H.R. 3424 was enacted into
law.82
The same pattern developed during the second session on the Department’s
fiscal 1987 appropriations bill (H.R. 5233). The Walker rider was included in the
version reported to,83 and adopted by, the House84; but it was again deleted in the
version reported to,85 and adopted by, the Senate.86 As in 1985, the rider was
restored by the House-Senate conference committee,87 and the conference agreement
76 S. Rept. No. 99-165, 99th Congress, 1st Session (Oct. 29, 1985).
77 131 CONG. REC.. 23210 (Sept. 10, 1985). For the full debate, see 131 CONG.
REC. 23174-23210 (Sept. 10, 1985).
78 H.Rept. No. 99-289, 99th Congress, lst Session (Sept. 26, 1985).
79 131 CONG. REC. 25710 (Oct. 2, 1985).
80 S. Rept. No. 99-151, 99th Congress, 1st Session (Oct. 4, 1985).
81 131 CONG. REC. 28391 (Oct. 22, 1985).
82 P.L. 99-178, § 306 (Dec. 12, 1985). Prior to enactment of the appropriations bill, the
Department had been funded by means of several continuing resolutions which incorporated
by reference the terms and conditions, including the Walker rider, of the fiscal 1985
appropriation for the Department. See P.L. 99-103, § 101 (b)(1) (Sept. 30, 1985); P.L. 99-
154 (Nov. 14, l985); and P.L. 99-179 (Dec. 13, 1985).
83 H. Rept. No. 99-711, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (July 24, 1986).
84 132 CONG. REC. 18302-03 (July 31, 1986).
85 S. Rept. No. 99-408, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (Aug. 15, 1986).
86 132 CONG. REC. 22582 (Sept. 10, 1986).
87 H. Conf. Rept. No. 99-960, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 2, 1986).

CRS-21
was enacted into law by reference in the continuing resolution by which much of the
government was funded for fiscal 1987.88
100th Congress (1987-88)
Congressional action on school prayer declined further in the 100th Congress.
During the second session Sen. Helms again offered his proposal to eliminate the
jurisdiction of the federal courts over the issue, this time as an amendment to the
pending “Fair Housing Amendments Act” (H.R. 1158). Again, after brief debate the
Senate on August 1, 1988, rejected the proposal, 71-20.89
The only other action on the issue, again with neither debate nor vote, was the
continued inclusion of the Walker rider on the appropriations acts for the Department
of Education. This time there was no controversy over the rider. For fiscal 1988 the
rider was included in the Department’s appropriations bill (H.R. 3058) from its initial
approval by the House Appropriations Committee through its adoption by the
Senate,90 and was eventually included in the massive continuing resolution by which
the Department and other federal agencies were funded for fiscal 1988.91 For fiscal
1989 the rider was included in the Department’s appropriation bill (H.R. 4783) from
its inception through final enactment into law.92
101st Congress (1989-90)
Action on school prayer continued to be slight in the 101st Congress. Congress
did continue to include the Walker amendment in the Department of Education
88 P.L. 99-500, § 101(i) (Oct. 18, 1986); 100 Stat. 1783-287. Prior to the enactment of
this continuing resolution, the Department had been funded for the first few days of fiscal
1987 by a series of continuing resolutions which maintained the Walker rider. See P.L. 99-
434, § 101(a) (Oct. 1, 1986), 100 Stat. 1076; P.L. 99-464, § 101(e) (Oct. 9, 1986), 100 Stat.
1187; P.L. 99-465 (Oct. 11, 1986), 100 Stat. 1189; and P.L. 99-491 (Oct. 16, 1986), 100
Stat. 1239.
89 134 CONG. REC. 19728-48 (Aug. 1, l988).
90 H.R. 3058 was reported with the Walker rider included by the House Appropriations
Committee on July 30, 1987 (H. Rept. No. 100-257), adopted by the House on August 5,
1987 (133 CONG. REC. 22519-20), reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on
October 1, l987 (S. Rept. No. 100-189), and adopted by the Senate on October 14, 1987 (133
CONG. REC. 27805).
91 Prior to the enactment of the Department’s appropriation bill as part of the final
continuing resolution (P.L. 100-202, § 101(h) [Dec. 22, 1987]; 101 Stat. 1329-283), funding
for the Department had been provided by a series of continuing resolutions, all of which
continued the Walker rider in effect. See P.L. 100-120, § 101(a)(1) (Sept. 30, 1987), 101
Stat. 789; P.L. 100-162 (Nov. 10, 1987), 101 Stat. 903; P.L. 100-193 (Dec. 16, 1987), 101
Stat. 1310; and P.L. 100-197 (Dec. 20, 1987), 101 Stat. 1314.
92 H.R. 4783 was reported with the Walker rider included by the House Appropriations
Committee on June 10, 1988 (H. Rept. No. 100-689), passed by the House on June 15, 1988
(134 CONG. REC. 14468), reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 23,
1988 (S. Rept. No. 100-399), adopted in the Senate on July 27, 1988 (134 CONG. REC.
19059), reconciled in a conference committee (H. Conf. Rept. No. 100-880), and signed into
law as P.L. 100-436 on September 20, 1988.

CRS-22
appropriations acts for fiscal years 1990 and 1991, again without controversy or
debate.93 In addition, the House adopted, by a vote of 269-135, a funds cutoff
amendment by Rep. Dannemeyer to the “Applied Technology Education
Amendments of 1989" (H.R. 7) providing as follows:
No funds shall be made available under any applicable program in this Act to any
state or local educational agency which has a policy of denying or which
effectively prevents participation in prayer in public schools by individuals on a
voluntary basis.94
The provision was not included in the Senate version of the bill, however, and it was
dropped in conference.95
102d Congress (1991-92)
In the 102d Congress action on school prayer continued to be minimal. Sen.
Helms proposed a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to a pending education bill (S. 2)
that would have urged the Supreme Court to reverse its holdings in Engel and
Abington, as follows:
It is the sense of the Senate that when the Supreme Court considers the case of
Weisman v. Lee, it should use that opportunity to reverse the Supreme Court’s
earlier holdings in the Engel v. Vitale and the Abington School District v.
Schempp cases so that voluntary prayer, Bible reading, or religious meetings will
be permitted in public schools or public buildings to the extent that student
participation in such activities is not required by school authorities.
93 For fiscal 1990 the Walker amendment was included in the Department’s
appropriation bill as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H. Rept. 101-354
(Nov. 14, 1989)), as adopted by the House (135 CONG. REC. 28996 (Nov. 15, 1989)), as
adopted by the Senate (135 CONG. REC. 29343 (Nov. 16, 1989), and as signed into law
(P.L. 101-166, Title III, § 306 (Nov. 21, 1989); 103 Stat. 1179, 1185), after a previous
version had been vetoed by President Bush for unrelated reasons (H.R. 2990, vetoed on Oct.
21, 1989). For the first month and a half of the fiscal year the Department had been funded
through a series of continuing resolutions that incorporated the Walker amendment by
reference. See P.L. 101-100, § 101 (Sept. 29, 1989), 103 Stat. 638; P.L. 101-130 (Oct. 26,
1989), 103 Stat. 775; and P.L. 101-154 (Nov. 15, 1989), 103 Stat. 934.
For fiscal 1991 the Walker amendment was again included in the Department’s
appropriation bill as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H. Rept. 101-591
(July 12, 1990)), as adopted by the House (136 CONG. REC. 18314 (July 19, 1990)), as
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. Rept. 101-516 (Oct. 10, 1990), as
adopted by the Senate (136 CONG. REC. 28874 (Oct. 12, 1990)), and as enacted into law
(P.L. 101-517, Title III, § 305 (Nov. 5, 1990), 104 Stat. 2210, 2216). For the first month of
the fiscal year the Department was funded by a series of continuing resolutions that
incorporated the Walker amendment by reference. See P.L. 101-403, § 101 (Oct. 1, 1990),
104 Stat. 867; P.L. 101-412 (Oct. 9, 1990), 104 Stat. 894; P.L. 101-444 (Oct. 19, 1990), 104
Stat. 1030; P.L. 101-461 (Oct. 25, 1990), 104 Stat. 1075; and P.L. 101-407 (Oct. 28, 1990),
104 Stat. 1086.
94 135 CONG. REC. 8679-83 (May 9, 1989).
95 See H. Conf. Rept. 101-660, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (Aug. 2, 1990).

CRS-23
After brief debate, the Senate rejected the amendment, 38-5596; and subsequently, the
Court in Lee v. Weisman97 reaffirmed Engel and Abington by holding a public high
school's sponsorship of an invocation and benediction by a rabbi at its graduation
ceremony to be unconstitutional. In addition, the Walker amendment continued to
be included in the Department of Education appropriations acts for fiscal 1992 and
fiscal 1993, without controversy or debate.98
103d Congress (1993-94)
The pace of activity on school prayer increased considerably in the 103d
Congress, and two measures were enacted into law. The central focus of legislative
debate and action was a funds cutoff amendment first proposed by Sen. Helms to the
“Goals 2000: Educate America Act” (S. 1150, H.R. 1804) and later debated again
as an amendment to the bill reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (H.R. 6). But the amendment was not enacted as part of either bill. Instead, in
the Goals 2000 legislation Congress enacted a measure forbidding funds from being
used by state and local educational agencies “to adopt policies that prevent voluntary
prayer and meditation in public schools.” In the ESEA reauthorization it enacted an
alternative and more limited funds cutoff provision (the Kassebaum amendment).
The 103d Congress also continued to include the Walker amendment in the
appropriations measures for the Department of Education.
Goals 2000. On February 3, 1994, Sen. Helms proposed the following
amendment to the “Goals 2000: Educate America Act” (S. 1150):
No funds made available through the Department of Education under this Act, or
any other Act, shall be available to any state or local educational agency which
has a policy of denying or which effectively prevents participation in,
constitutionally protected prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary
basis. Neither the United States nor any state nor any local educational agency
96 138 CONG. REC. S 234-255 (daily ed. Jan. 23, 1992).
97 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
98 For fiscal 1992 the Department was initially funded through a series of continuing
resolutions that incorporated the Walker amendment by reference. See P.L. 102-109, § 101
(Sept. 30, 1991), 105 Stat. 551; P.L. 102-145, § 101 (Oct. 28, 1991), 105 Stat. 968; P.L. 102-
163 (Nov. 15, 1991), 105 Stat. 1048. In the Department’s regular appropriations bill the
Walker amendment was included in the versions adopted by the House and the Senate (137
CONG. REC. H 10925 and S 17782 (daily ed. Nov. 22, 1991) and enacted into law (P.L.
102-170, Title III, § 305 (Nov. 16, 1991), 105 Stat. 1128, 1136), after a previous version had
been vetoed by President Bush for unrelated reasons (H.R. 2707, vetoed on Nov. 19, 1991).
For fiscal 1993 the Department was initially funded by means of a continuing resolution that
incorporated the Walker amendment by reference. See P.L. 102-376, § 101 (Oct. 1, 1992);
106 Stat. 1311. The Walker amendment was then included at every stage of Congress’
consideration of the Department’s regular appropriations bill. See H. Rept. 102-708 (July
23, 1992), 138 CONG. REC. H 6753 (daily ed. July 28, 1992)(House passage), S. Rept. 102-
397 (Sept. 10, 1992), 138 CONG. REC. S 13982 (Sept. 18, 1992)(Senate passage), and P.L.
102-394, Title III, § 305 (Oct. 6, 1992), 106 Stat. 1813, 1820.

CRS-24
shall require any person to participate in prayer or influence the form or content
of any constitutionally protected prayer in such public schools.99
The words “constitutionally protected” were not in the amendment as initially
proposed by Sen. Helms but were added by him after an extended colloquy with Sen.
Packwood (R.-Ore.). With the addition of those words, the Senate adopted the
amendment after brief debate, 75-22.100
But the Senate also adopted two other amendments to the Goals 2000 legislation
having to do with school prayer. Both were proffered as alternatives or correctives
to the Helms amendment. The first was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution concerning
silent meditation offered by Sen. Danforth (R.-Mo.):
It is the sense of the Senate that local educational agencies should encourage a
brief period of daily silence for students for the purpose of contemplating their
aspirations; for considering what they hope and plan to accomplish that day; for
considering how their own actions of that day will affect themselves and others
around them, including their schoolmates, friends and families; for drawing
strength from whatever personal, moral or religious beliefs or positive values they
hold; and or such other introspection and reflection as will help them develop and
prepare them for achieving the goals of this bill.101
The Senate adopted the Danforth amendment, 78-8.102 The second amendment was
offered by Sen. Levin (D.-Mich.) and provided as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds made available through
the Department of Education under this Act, or any other Act, shall be denied to
any State or local educational agency because it has adopted a constitutional
policy relative to prayer in public school.103
That amendment the Senate also adopted, by voice vote.104
The House did not have any provisions relating to school prayer in its version
of the Goals 2000 legislation. But prior to the conference on the bill, Rep. Duncan
(R.-Tenn.) offered a motion to instruct the House conferees to accept the Helms
amendment. After Rep. Ford (D.-Mich.), the floor manager of the bill, stated he
accepted the motion, the House adopted it, 367-55.105
Nonetheless, none of the three amendments that had been adopted by the Senate
appeared in the final version of the Goals 2000 legislation. Instead, the conferees
reported a single provision modeled on the Walker amendment, as follows:
99 140 CONG. REC. S 727 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 1994).
100 Id. at S 756.
101 Id. at S 736.
102 Id. at S 841 (daily ed. Feb. 4, 1994).
103 Id. at S 910.
104 Id. at S 1118 (daily ed. Feb. 8, 1994).
105 Id. at H 648-50 (daily ed. Feb. 23, 1994).

CRS-25
No funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be used by any State
or local educational agency to adopt policies that prevent voluntary prayer and
meditation in public schools.106
This compromise led to vigorous protests in both the House and the Senate, but the
protests proved unavailing. In the House Rep. Duncan proposed a motion to
recommit the bill to conference with instructions to the House conferees to accept
the Helms amendment, but the motion was defeated, 195-232.107 In the Senate Sen.
Helms led a filibuster against the conference report, but the Senate invoked cloture,
62-23, and adopted the report, 63-22.108 Thus, the compromise language became
law.109
ESEA reauthorization. A similar debate occurred on the bill to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the “Improving America’s Schools Act
of 1994" (H.R. 6), but this time the House took the initiative. On March 21, 1994,
Rep. Sam Johnson (R.-Tex.) proposed an amendment essentially identical to the
Helms amendment.110 Rep. Williams (D.-Mont.) proposed substituting language
similar to the compromise in the conference report on the Goals 2000 legislation111;
106 H. Conf. Rept. 103-446, Title X, § 1011 (March 21, 1994). The conference report
explained the provision as follows:
Students do not shed their right to religious liberty at the schoolhouse gate, just
as they do not lose other constitutional rights. In addition, private reflection is
valuable in permitting children to draw strength from their personal values and
beliefs so that they are prepared to learn and grow. Children would do well to
take time each day to consider what they hope to accomplish and how their
actions will affect themselves and others around them.
This section promotes these important values by providing that funds made
available under this Act may not be used to adopt policies designed to prevent
students from engaging in constitutionally protected prayer or silent reflection.
The conferees do not intend that this section confer new legal rights. Instead, the
section respects our long tradition of local control over educational decisions,
while ensuring that funds made available under this Act are not spent preventing
the exercise of cherished constitutional rights.
Id. at 204.
107 140 CONG. REC. 6091-92 (March 23, 1994).
108 Id. at 6982-89 (March 25, 1994).
109 P.L. 103-227, Title X, § 1011 (March 31, 1994); 108 Stat. 265; 20 U.S.C. 6061.
110 140 CONG. REC. H 1740 (daily ed. March 21, 1994). The only change from the
Helms amendment was the addition of the prefatory words “(n)notwithstanding any
provision of law.”
111 Id. at H 1741. Rep. Williams’ amendment provided as follows:
No funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be used by any State
or local education agency to adopt policies to prevent voluntary prayer and
meditation.

CRS-26
but his substitute was defeated, 171-239,112 and the Johnson amendment was
adopted, 345-64.113
When the Senate version of the reauthorization bill came up for consideration,
Sen. Helms offered his amendment again,114 and Sen. Kassebaum (R.-Kan.) offered
a more limited alternative that would cut off federal education funds only if a court
found that a school agency had violated a student’s constitutional rights with respect
to school prayer and then willfully refused to abide by the court’s order, as follows:
Any State or local education agency that is adjudged by a Federal court of
competent jurisdiction to have willfully violated a Federal court order mandating
that such local educational agency remedy a violation of the constitutional right
of any student with respect to prayer in public schools, in addition to any other
judicial remedies, shall be ineligible to receive Federal funds until such time as
the local educational agency complies with such order. Funds that are withheld
under this section shall not be reimbursed for the period during which the local
educational agency was in willful noncompliance.115
The Senate rejected the Helms amendment, 47-53, and then adopted the Kassebaum
amendment, 93-7.116
Once again, a motion to instruct the House conferees to insist on the House
provision with respect to school prayer was offered, this time by Rep. Gunderson
(R.-Wis.). And once again, after Rep. Ford stated he accepted the motion, the House
adopted it, 369-55.117 But the conference committee adopted the Kassebaum
amendment with only slight change instead118; and, as had been true on the Goals
2000 bill, this led to both a motion to recommit in the House and a filibuster in the
Senate. The House rejected the motion to recommit, 184-215,119 and the Senate
invoked cloture, 75-24.120 Thus, the Kassebaum amendment was enacted into law.121
112 Id. at H 1749-50.
113 Id. at H 1750-51.
114 140 CONG. REC. 18207 (July 27, 1994).
115 Id. at 18204.
116 Id. at 18229-30.
117 Id. at H 9249-53 (daily ed. Sept. 20, 1994).
118 H. Conf. Rept. 103-761, Title XIV, § 14510 (Sept. 28, 1994), reprinted at 140
CONG. REC. H 1009 et seq. (daily ed. Sept. 28, 1994). The conferees modified the
Kassebaum amendment by inserting the words “under this Act” after “Federal funds.”
119 140 CONG. REC. H10407 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1994).
120 Id. at S 14154 (daily ed. Oct. 5, 1994).
121 P.L. 103-382, Title XIV, § 14510 (Oct. 20, 1994); 108 Stat. 3518; 20 U.S.C. 8900.

CRS-27
Appropriations riders. The 103d Congress continued to include the Walker
amendment as a condition on the appropriations for the Department of Education for
fiscal 1994 and fiscal 1995, without controversy or debate.122
104th Congress (1995-96)
The Republican ascendancy in the 104th Congress promised to give renewed
vigor to the school prayer issue. But a split among the proponents of a constitutional
amendment on the issue prevented any legislation other than the Walker amendment
from moving forward. Nonetheless, political activity on the subject was intense, as
committees in the House and Senate held three sets of hearings, various Members
and interest groups sought to broaden the debate to include other church-state issues,
and President Clinton entered the fray with a significant initiative.
Constitutional amendments. School prayer had not been part of the “Contract
with America” on which the House Republicans had based much of their 1994
campaign effort. But soon after the election gave the Republicans control of both the
House and the Senate for the first time in more than 40 years, Speaker-to-be Newt
Gingrich (R.-Ga.) promised that the House would vote on a constitutional
amendment on school prayer no later than July 4, 1995; and he charged Rep. Istook
(R.-Ok.) with taking the lead on the matter. But the content of such an amendment
quickly proved problematic, as proponents both within and without the Congress
vigorously disagreed over what the amendment needed to address. Some wanted the
amendment to focus primarily on overturning the Supreme Court's jurisprudence
regarding public aid to religious institutions, while others wanted it primarily to
address recognition of the nation's religious heritage, including school prayer.
Hearings were held in both the House and the Senate on the general subject of
religious liberty,123 but no consensus on a possible amendment emerged.
In the meantime, the Clinton Administration took steps to pre-empt the debate
by clarifying the legal status of religion in the public schools. In April, 1995,
122 For fiscal 1994 the Department was initially funded by means of a continuing
resolution that incorporated the Walker amendment by reference. See P.L. 103-88, § 101
(Sept. 30, 1993); 107 Stat. 977. On the Department’s regular appropriations bill, the Walker
amendment was included at every stage of the bill’s passage through Congress, without
controversy. See H. Rept. 103-156 (June 24, 1993); 139 CONG. REC. H 4334 (daily ed.
June 30, 1993)(House passage); S. Rept. 103-143 (Sept. 15, 1993); 139 CONG. REC. S
12671 (Sept. 19, 1993); and P.L. 103-112, Title III, § 304 (Oct. 21, 1993), 107 Stat. 1100,
1108. For fiscal 1995, for the first time in over a decade, the Department’s regular
appropriations bill was enacted prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The Walker
amendment was included at every stage of the bill’s passage. See H. Rept. 103-553 (June
21, 1994); 140 CONG. REC. H 5339 (daily ed. June 29, 1990) (House passage); S. Rept.
103-318 (July 20, 1994); 140 CONG. REC. S 11080 (daily ed. August 10, 1994) (Senate
passage); and P.L. 103-333, Title III, § 304 (Sept. 30, 1994).
123 See Religious Liberty and the Bill of Rights: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on
the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995) and
The State of Religious Liberty in America: Hearings Before the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995).

CRS-28
Secretary of Education Riley joined with three dozen groups from across the political
spectrum in a declaration on “Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of
Current Law.” In July, 1995, President Clinton made an address on the subject and
directed that the Secretary send a version of that document to every school district
in the country. In August, 1995, Secretary Riley did so.124
Eventually, proponents of a constitutional amendment introduced competing
proposals. In November, 1995, Rep. Hyde (R.-Ill.) introduced H.J.Res. 121 (the
“Religious Equality Amendment”),125 and Rep. Istook introduced H.J.Res. 127 (the
“Religious Liberties Amendment”). Both proposals differed significantly from
earlier initiatives on the matter. H.J.Res. 121 sought to add a general
nondiscrimination standard with respect to religion to the Constitution126 and as such
seemed to address the issue of public aid to religious institutions more than school
prayer. H.J.Res. 127 also contained a nondiscrimination requirement but, in
addition, specifically addressed student-sponsored prayer as well as the subject of
governmental “acknowledgments” of the nation's religious heritage.127
Efforts to forge a consensus amendment continued throughout the 104th
Congress. Late in the second session House Majority Leader Armey introduced
H.J.Res. 184 as a possible compromise,128 and that proposal was the general focus
of a hearing before a House subcommittee.129 In the last month a statutory proposal
124 The text of the guidelines, as revised in 1998, can be found on the Department's web
site — www.ed.gov.
125 Sen. Hatch (R.-Utah) subsequently introduced Rep. Hyde’s proposal in the Senate
as S.J.Res. 45.
126 H.J.Res. 121/S.J.Res. 45 provided as follows:
Neither the United States nor any State shall deny benefits to or otherwise
discriminate against any private person or group on account of religious
expression, belief, or identity; nor shall the prohibition on laws respecting an
establishment of religion be construed to require such discrimination.
127 H.J.Res. 127 provided as follows:
To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of
conscience: Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit acknowledgments of the
religious heritage, beliefs, or traditions of the people, or prohibit student-
sponsored prayer in public schools. Neither the United States nor any State shall
compose any official prayer or compel joining in prayer, or discriminate against
religious expression or belief.
128 H.J.Res. 184 provided as follows:
In order to secure the right of the people to acknowledge and serve God
according to the dictates of conscience, neither the United States nor any State
shall deny any person equal access to a benefit, or otherwise discriminate against
any person, on account of religious belief, expression, or exercise. This
amendment does not authorize government to coerce or inhibit religious belief,
expression, or exercise.
129 Legislation To Further Protect Religious Freedom: Hearing Before the
(continued...)

CRS-29
by Rep. Hoke drew some attention.130 But none of the proposals moved out of
committee or became the subject of debate and vote on the House or Senate floors.131
Federal court jurisdiction. For the first time since the 93d Congress, no
proposals were introduced to eliminate federal court jurisdiction over the issue of
devotional activities in the public schools.
Appropriations riders. The 104th Congress continued to include the Walker
amendment as a condition on the appropriations for the Department of Education for
fiscal 1996 and fiscal 1997, without controversy or debate.132
105th Congress (1997-98)
In the 105th Congress the consensus that had eluded proponents of a
constitutional amendment in the 104th Congress was achieved; and an energetic effort
was made to enact H.J.Res. 78, a broad-based proposal concerning not only school
prayer but other aspects of the law of church and state. The House Judiciary
Committee became the first House committee to report a constitutional amendment
129(...continued)
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1996) (unprinted).
130 H.R. 4129 and H.R. 4130, both introduced by Rep. Hoke, authorized a Justice
Department hotline and civil suits by students to enforce the following rights designated in
the bill:
Students in public schools —
(1) have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious
discussions in or connected with school as they do to engage in other comparable
activity;
(2) may express their beliefs about religion in the form of homework, artwork,
and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious
content of their submissions;
(3) have a right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates on the same
terms as they are permitted to distribute other literature that is unrelated to school
curriculum or activities; and
(4) may display or otherwise communicate religious messages, including on items
of clothing, to the same extent they are permitted to display or communicate other
messages.
131 A number of other proposals had also been introduced in the House and the Senate
(see, e.g., House Joint Resolutions 10, 16, 19, 67, 94, 161, and 186; Senate Joint Resolutions
6, 7, 24, and 33; H.R. 2034 and H.R. 2669; and S. 27 and S. 319) and two of the measures
(S.J.Res. 7 and H.R. 27) had been placed directly on the Senate calendar. But no action
occurred on them.
132 For fiscal 1996 the Department was funded by a series of continuing resolutions
which incorporated the Walker amendment by reference. See P.L. 104-31 (Sept. 30, 1995),
109 Stat. 278; P.L. 104-54 (Nov. 19, 1995), 109 Stat. 540; P.L. 104-56 (Nov. 20, 1995), 109
Stat. 548; P.L. 104-94 (Jan. 6, 1996), 110 Stat. 25; and P.L. 104-99 (Jan. 26, 1996); 110 Stat.
26. For fiscal 1997 the Walker amendment was explicitly included in the Department’s
appropriation bill which was enacted as part of an omnibus appropriations measure. See P.L.
104-208, Title III, § 303 (Sept. 30, 1996).

CRS-30
relating to school prayer, and the House voted on the matter for the first time since
1971. But the vote fell far short of the two-thirds majority necessary for the
proposal's adoption. Congress did, however, continue to enact the Walker
amendment as part of the appropriations measures for the Department of Education.
Constitutional amendment. On May 8, 1997, Rep. Istook introduced H.J.Res.
78. The proposal blended together the elements that had been the subject of
controversy among proponents in the previous Congress and provided as follows:
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of
conscience: The people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs,
heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be
infringed. The Government shall not require any person to join in prayer or other
religious activity, initiate or designate school prayers, discriminate against
religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
A subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the proposal
on July 22, 1997,133 and reported a modified version to the full committee on a party-
line vote of 8-4 on October 28, 1997. The full committee reported the measure to the
House on May 19, 1998, without further change, again on a party-line vote of 16-
11.134
As modified, H.J.Res. 78 provided as follows:
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of
conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official
religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs,
heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be
infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join
in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against
religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
In both the subcommittee and full committee Democrats had proposed various
amendments to the proposal, including ones to delete the parts concerning access to
benefits and recognition of religious heritage, to add a civil rights proviso, to
substitute "freedom of religion" for "acknowledge God," and to substitute the current
language of the First Amendment. But all were defeated, largely on party-line votes.
The week prior to the consideration of H.J.Res. 78 on the House floor on June
4, 1998, President Clinton reissued a slightly revised version of the guidelines on
religious expression in the public schools that had been sent to all of the nation's
school districts in 1995 and devoted a radio address to the matter.135 During floor
consideration, only two amendments were proposed. Rep. Bishop (D.-Ga.) first
133 Hearing on Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Restoring Religious Freedom Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House
Judiciary Committee, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (July 22, 1997) (unprinted).
134 H.Rept.No. 105-543, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (May 19, 1998).
135 The text of the President's radio message can be found on the White House web site
— www.whitehouse.gov — and the text of the revised guidelines can be found at the
Department of Education's web site — www.ed.gov.

CRS-31
offered an amendment to substitute "freedom of religion" for "acknowledge God" in
the preamble of H.J.Res. 78. That was rejected, 419-6.136 His second amendment
addressed the funding part of the initiative and proposed to substitute the words "or
otherwise compel or discriminate against religion" for the language "discriminate
against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion." That
amendment was also rejected, 399-23.137 On the final vote on passage of H.J.Res.
78, the House voted in favor, 223-203138; but that vote fell 61 votes short of the two-
thirds majority necessary for adoption.139
Appropriations riders. Both the House and the Senate continued to include
the Walker amendment barring the use of Department of Education funds "to prevent
the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer and meditation in the public
schools." The condition was attached to the Department's appropriation for both
fiscal 1998 and fiscal 1999, without controversy.140
Cutoff of funds. Sen. Helms (R.-N.Car.) introduced two bills — S. 41 and S.
185 — to bar the Department of Education from funding "any State or local
educational agency that has a policy of denying, or that effectively prevents
participation in, constitutional prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary
basis." The first bill was placed directly on the Senate calendar without referral to
committee, but no further action was taken on either bill.
136 Id. at H4108-09.
137 Id. at H4109-10.
138 Id. at H4111.
139 The debate on H.J.Res. 78 can be found at 144 CONG. REC. H4069-H4112 (daily
ed. June 4, 1998).
140 For fiscal 1998 both the House and the Senate included the Walker amendment in
their versions of the appropriations bill for the Department of Education (H.R. 2264, S.
1061), and the condition was included in the version enacted into law. See P.L. 105-78
(Nov. 13, 1997). For fiscal 1999 the same pattern prevailed. Both the House and the Senate
included the condition in their versions of the Department's appropriation bill for fiscal 1999
(H.R. 4274, S. 2440), and the condition was included in the Department's appropriation
enacted as part of an omnibus bill at the end of the session. See P.L. 105-177 (Oct. 21,
1998).

CRS-32
Appendix I
Congressional Hearings Related to School Prayer
Constitutional Amendments
Senate
Prayers in Public Schools and Other Matters: Hearings before the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, 87th Congress, 2d Session (1962).
School Prayer: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional
Amendments of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Congress, 2d Session
(1966).
Hearings on School Prayer Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional
Amendments of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (1973)
(unpublished).
Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Permit Voluntary Prayer: Hearings
Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Congress, 2d Session (1982).
Voluntary School Prayer Constitutional Amendment: Hearings on S.J.Res. 73
and S.J.Res. 212 Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Congress, 1st Session (1983).
Constitutional Amendment Relating to School Prayer: Hearing on S.J.Res. 2
Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, 99th Congress, 1st Session (1985).
The State of Religious Liberty in America: Hearings Before the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Congress, 1st Session (1995).

House
School Prayers: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House
of Representatives, 88th Congress, 2d Session, Vol. I-III (1964).
Religious Liberty and the Bill of Rights: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on
the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Congress, 1st
Session (1995).
Legislation To Further Protect Religious Freedom: Hearing Before the
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 104th
Congress, 2d Session (1996) (unprinted).
Hearing on H.J.Res. 78 "Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the
U.S. Restoring Religious Freedom" Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of
the House Judiciary Committee, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (1997) (unprinted).

CRS-33
Limitations on Federal Court Jurisdiction
Senate
Constitutional Restraints Upon the Judiciary: Hearings Before the
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th
Congress, 1st Session (1981).
House
Prayers in Public Schools and Buildings—Federal Court Jurisdiction:
Hearings on S. 450 Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the
Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 96th Congress,
2d Session (1980).
Statutory Limitations on Federal Jurisdiction: Hearings Before the
Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the
House Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981) (unprinted).
Equal Access Proposals
Senate
Equal Access: A First Amendment Question: Hearings on S. 815 and S. 1059
Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 98th Congress, 1st Session (1983).
House
Hearings on the Equal Access Act (H.R. 2732) Before the Subcommittee on
Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the House Committee on
Education and Labor, 98th Congress, 1st Session (1983).
Religious Speech Protection Act: Hearing on H.R. 4996 Before the
Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the House
Committee on Education and Labor, 98th Congress 2d Session (1984).
Hearing on the Secondary School Equality of Access Act (H.R. 5439) Before the
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Judiciary Committee,
98th Congress, 2d Session (April 26, 1984).

CRS-34
Appendix II
Statutes Relating to School Prayer
(1) Condition Attached to the Department of Education
Appropriations Act (the Walker Amendment) Since Fiscal 1981
No funds appropriated under this Act may be used to prevent the implementation
of programs of voluntary prayer and meditation in the public schools.
(2) Equal Access Act (P.L. 98-377, Title VIII (Aug. 11, 1984); 98 Stat.
1302-04; 20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.)
Short Title
SEC. 801. This Title may be cited as “The Equal Access Act.”
Denial of Equal Access Prohibited
SEC. 802. (a) It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives
Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal
access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to
conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious,
political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.
(b) A public secondary school has a limited open forum whenever such
school grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more noncurriculum related
student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time.
(c) Schools shall be deemed to offer a fair opportunity to students who wish
to conduct a meeting within its limited open forum if such school uniformly
provides that—
(1) the meeting is voluntary and student-initiated;
(2) there is no sponsorship of the meeting by the school, the
government, or its agents or employees;
(3) employees or agents of the school or government are present at
religious meetings only in a nonparticipatory capacity;
(4) the meeting does no materially and substantially interfere with the
orderly conduct of educational activities within the school; and
(5) nonschool persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly
attend activities of student groups.
(d) Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the United States or
any State or political subdivision thereof —
(1) to influence the form or content of any prayer or other religious
activity;
(2) to require any person to participate in prayer or other religious
activity;
(3) to expend public funds beyond the incidental cost of providing the
space for student-initiated meetings;
(4) to compel any school agent or employee to attend a school meeting
if the content of the speech at the meeting is contrary to the beliefs of the
agent or employee;
(5) to sanction meetings that are otherwise unlawful;
(6) to limit the rights of groups of students which are not of a specified
numerical size; or

CRS-35
(7) to abridge the constitutional rights of any person.
(e) Notwithstanding the availability of any other remedy under the
Constitution or the laws of the United States, nothing in this title shall be
construed to authorize the United States to deny or withhold Federal financial
assistance to any school.
(f) Nothing in this title shall be construed to limit the authority of the
school, its agents or employees, to maintain order and discipline on school
premises, to protect the well-being of students and faculty, and to assure that
attendance of students at meetings is voluntary.
Definitions
SEC. 803. As used in this title —
(1) The term “secondary school” means a public school which provides
secondary education as determined by State law.
(2) The term “sponsorship” includes the act of promoting, leading, or
participating in a meeting. The assignment of a teacher, administrator, or other
school employee to a meeting for custodial purposes does not constitute
sponsorship of the meeting.
(3) The term “meeting” includes those activities of student groups which are
permitted under a school’s limited open forum and are not directly related to the
school curriculum.
(4) The term “noninstructional time” means time set aside by the school
before actual classroom instruction begins or after actual classroom instruction
ends.
Severability
SEC. 804. If any provision of this title or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is judicially determined to be invalid, the provisions of the
remainder of the title and the application to other persons or circumstances shall
not be affected thereby.
Construction
SEC. 805. The provisions of this title shall supersede all other provisions of
Federal law that are inconsistent with the provisions of this title.
(3) Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227, Title X, § 1011
(March 31, 1994); 108 Stat. 265; 20 U.S.C. 6061):
No funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be used by any State
or local educational agency to adopt policies that prevent voluntary prayer and
meditation in public schools.

CRS-36
(4) Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (The Kassebaum
Amendment) (P.L. 103-382, Title XIV, § 14510 (October 20, 1994);
108 Stat. 3518; 20 U.S.C. 8900:
Any State or local educational agency that is adjudged by a Federal court of
competent jurisdiction to have willfully violated a Federal court order mandating
that such local educational agency remedy a violation of the constitutional right
of any student with respect to prayer in public schools, in addition to any other
judicial remedies, shall be ineligible to receive Federal funds under this Act until
such time as the local educational agency complies with such order. Funds that
are withheld under this section shall not be reimbursed for the period during
which the local educational agency was in willful noncompliance

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.