Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to H.R. 7. The Founding Fathers established a separation of church and State out of a solicitude for religion and for the State; and this initiative as drafted, I believe, is a threat to both. It is a threat to the State and the efficient operation of its services by preventing the State from ensuring that Federal funds are spent.
Who among us in this body is prepared to ask for an audit of a Jewish synagogue or the Catholic Church or the Mormon Temple for its expenditures of Federal funds? I would say probably none of us. And so the effective delivery of services cannot be effectively audited.
But more than that, the risk of excessive entanglement of religion, of having religious denominations compete with each other for Federal grants, becoming vendors of Federal services, of being told if they receive Federal money they cannot talk about faith being a necessary part of recovery, is this a position we want the Government to be in, saying if you take the Federal money, you cannot talk about faith, but if you do not, you can?
This is not in the best interest of either State or church, and I urge a "no'' vote.
(break)
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, religious institutions have always played a vital role in serving the needs of society's most vulnerable members, our children, the poor, the disabled, the dispirited, not out of a motivation for public funding but driven by the beneficent dictates of their faith. That work goes on. It must go on. I applaud the administration for the desire to further this goal.
But this bill is not the way. Providing Federal funding directly or indirectly through a massive multi-billion dollar voucher program, practically without restriction, for religious or nonreligious activities related to the delivery of social service runs squarely into conflict with our Constitution.
Why does that matter? Perhaps the Founding Fathers got it wrong. Because there should be no separation of church and State. Perhaps the Founding Fathers were simply antagonistic to religion. No, they were not. The right of free exercise of religion and against the establishment of religion protected in our Bill of Rights are intertwined rights. They are inseparable. Allow the establishment of religion, and we do away with the free exercise of religion. Allow the excessive entanglement of church and State as represented in this bill, and we do not serve church or State.