[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 13544]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          SAY NO TO H.R. 7, PRESIDENT'S FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this House will vote on H.R. 7, 
the President's faith-based initiative.
  The question before the House is not whether faith is a powerful 
force; it is. The question is not whether faith-based groups do good 
works; they do. The question is not even whether government can assist 
faith-based groups in their social work. The government does and has so 
for years.
  Rather, the vote on this bill boils down to two fundamental 
questions. First, do we want American citizens' tax dollars directly 
funding churches and houses of worship, as this bill does; and, second, 
is it right to discriminate in job hiring when using Federal dollars.
  I would suggest the answer to both of those questions is no, 
emphatically so.
  The question of using tax dollars to fund churches is not a new one. 
It was debated at length by our Founding Fathers over two centuries 
ago. They not only said no to that idea; they felt so strongly about it 
that they embedded the principle of church-State separation into the 
first 16 words of the Bill of Rights by keeping government funding and 
regulations out of our churches for over 200 years.
  Mr. Speaker, America has become the envy of the world when it comes 
to religious freedom, tolerance, and vitality. I challenge the 
proponents of this bill to show me tomorrow one nation in the world, 
one nation where government funding of churches has resulted in more 
religious liberty or tolerance or vitality than right here in the 
United States. All of human history proves that government involvement 
in religion harms religion, not helps it.

                              {time}  2200

  Our Founding Fathers understood that fact, and today's world proves 
that fact. Just look around. In China, citizens are in prison for their 
religious beliefs. In the Middle East, religious differences have 
perpetrated conflict and death. In Afghanistan, religious minorities 
are being branded with Nazi-like tactics. In Europe, government-funding 
of churches has led to low church attendance.
  As a person of faith, I thank God that our Founding Fathers 
understood that religious liberty is best preserved by keeping 
government funding and regulations out of our churches.
  To my conservative colleagues, and to those across this country, I 
would suggest that they should be the first to fear the government 
regulation of religion that would inevitably result from billions of 
taxpayer dollars going directly to our churches and houses of worship.
  Surely it was one significant reason why over 1,000 religious 
leaders, from Baptists to Jews to Methodists, have signed petitions 
opposing H.R. 7. These people of faith understand that direct Federal 
funding of our churches would not only be unconstitutional, it would 
result in government regulation, audits, and yes, even prosecutions 
against our churches and religious leaders.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great personal respect for President Bush, but on 
the question of Federal funding using tax dollars to fund our churches, 
I must stand with Madison, Jefferson, and the Bill of Rights. The 
principle of church-State separation has protected Americans' religious 
freedom magnificently for over 200 years. We tamper with that sacred 
principle at our own peril.
  Mr. Speaker, now let me address a second question I raised regarding 
this legislation: Is it right to discriminate in job hiring when using 
Federal tax dollars for those jobs? I believe the vast majority of 
Americans would say no.
  Under H.R. 7, citizens could be denied or fired from federally-funded 
jobs because of no other reason than their personal religious faith. I 
would suggest that having the government subsidize religious job 
discrimination would be a huge step backwards in our march for civil 
rights.
  No American citizen, not one, should have to pass anyone else's 
religious test in order to qualify for a federally-funded tax-supported 
job.
  Under H.R. 7, a church associated with Bob Jones University could put 
out a sign ``Paid for by taxpayers. No Catholics need apply here for a 
federally-funded job.'' That is wrong.
  Under H.R. 7, federally-funded jobs could be denied to otherwise 
qualified workers simply because of their personal faith being 
different from that of their employers. That is wrong.
  Under H.R. 7, churches that believe women should not work which use 
Federal dollars could put out a sign saying, ``No women need apply here 
for a federally-funded job.'' That is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, we all understand why churches, synagogues, and mosques 
could hire people for their own religious faith with their own private 
dollars. But it is altogether different, altogether different as night 
to day to allow tax dollars to be used to subsidize job discrimination 
for secular jobs.
  There is also something ironic about a bill that is supposedly 
designed to stop religious discrimination but actually ends up not only 
allowing but subsidizing religious discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, this is also a bill built on a false foundation, the 
premise that not sending tax dollars to our churches and houses of 
worship is somehow discrimination against religion.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Bill of Rights, our 
Founding Fathers wisely built this sacred wall of separation to protect 
religion from government and politicians. This bill would obliterate 
that wall and ultimately put at risk our religious liberty, the crown 
jewel of America's experiment in democracy.
  To Members who genuinely want to help religious charities do good 
work, I would say that present law already allows Federal funding of 
faith-based groups if they agree not to proselytize with those Federal 
dollars or to discriminate with Federal funds. This bill is thus a 
solution in search of a problem.
  Should we have Federal funding of our churches? The answer is no. 
Should we discriminate in job hiring based on religion when using 
Federal dollars? The answer is no.
  And if Members' answers to these two questions is no as well, they 
should vote no on H.R. 7. Protecting our churches from government 
regulation and our citizens from religious discrimination are 
fundamental principles. They deserve our support today, tomorrow, and 
every day.
  By voting no on H.R. 7, we in this House can defend the principles 
embedded in the Bill of Rights that have protected our religious 
freedom so magnificently well for over two centuries.

                          ____________________