a few moments ago when the Speaker of the House said this bill is not a new idea, the gentleman was absolutely correct. The idea of having tax dollars subsidize our churches and houses of worship was debated 200 years ago by our Founding Fathers. In answering that question, they felt so strongly about it that they not only put it into law, they embedded it into the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, the proposition that religion in America is best served when we keep the hand of government regulation out of our houses of worship. When supporters of the bill today say we voted on funding of subsidizing religious discrimination in the past and we voted to directly fund churches in the past, they fail to point out that most of those debates were at 1:00 a.m. or 12:30 a.m. on the floor of the House with only two or three Members here on a 20-minute debate. I know because I have one of those three Members. Mr. Speaker, this bill was wrong at 1:00 a.m. in the morning, and it is wrong today. Direct funding of our churches was wrong 200 years ago, as evidenced by our Founding Fathers' writing of the Bill of Rights; and it is wrong today.
Editor's note · Context
Opposing a bill related to government funding of religious institutions.
Share
More from John Bel Edwards
Had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 392. ____________________
Today, I was unavoidably detained due to a flight delay, but below is how I would have voted. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 233 and YEA on Roll Call No. 234. personal explanation
The Chair thanks and congratulates Chairwoman Bice. The Chair now invites two former Members, Dennis Ross of Florida and Cheri Bustos of Illinois, to offer remarks.
there is a lot of noise coming from the other side claiming that House Republicans are cutting Medicaid with our commonsense work requirements. Let me be clear: That is just not true. You can't cut something from someone who was never or…





