[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CONTRACT WITH THE AMERICAN FAMILY

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the proposed Contract With the American Family which was the subject of 
an early morning ``Good Morning America'' telecast where Ralph Reed, 
Jr., appeared as the spokesman in favor of the Contract With the 
American Family, and I was invited to appear and did appear in 
expressing my personal views on that subject.
  It is my view, Mr. President, that we have the fundamental contract 
which governs the relationship of Americans with their Government, U.S. 
citizens with their Government, and the relationships among U.S. 
citizens, and that basic contract is called the Constitution of the 
United States. It is a document which has served this country very, 
very well since 1787. And there is appended to the U.S. Constitution a 
Bill of Rights which has served this country very well since 1791.
  The first amendment of that Bill of Rights provides for freedom of 
religion, which is the very basis of our American society--freedom of 
religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, 
freedom to petition our Government.
  The United States was founded by the Pilgrims who came to this 
country in the early 1600's, coming for religious freedom. And if I may 
on a personal note, Mr. President, say that my parents came to this 
country in the early 1900's for the same reason.
  When the so-called Contract With the American Family calls for a 
constitutional amendment involving freedom of religion and the first 
amendment, I believe it is not well placed. I believe that the 
Jeffersonian wall of separation of church and state is firmly 
established for the benefit of America, and I think it is most unwise 
to have an amendment to the first amendment freedom of religion, which 
is what is called for by this newly drafted Contract With the American 
Family.
  When Mr. Ralph Reed, Jr., speaks on behalf of that contract, and when 
his mentor, Rev. Pat Robertson, speaks on the subject, Reverend 
Robertson makes the statement that there is no constitutional doctrine 
of separation of church and state, that it is a lie of the left, I 
believe that is directly contrary to the Constitution itself, to the 
intent of the Founding Fathers. Certainly this is not Arlen Specter's 
statement. This is the statement of Thomas Jefferson, articulating the 
doctrine of separation of church and state.
  When Mr. Ralph Reed, Jr., articulates a need to change the law of the 
land as articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Casey 
versus Planned Parenthood and Roe versus Wade, which held on a 
constitutional basis that a woman has a right to choose, there again we 
are looking for constitutional change, which I submit is unwise and is 
unwarranted.
  There are some parts of the proposals which I think are fine. When 
they call for an attack on criminals and in support of benefits for 
victims, I heartily endorse that and have done that for many years 
since my days as an assistant district attorney, through the DA of 
Philadelphia, through my service in this body with special reference to 
the Judiciary Committee.
  When they call to crack down on pornography as it relates to 
children, there is no doubt that the Supreme Court of the United States 
has set a very rigid standard and we should do all we can to enforce 
that standard. There, again, is something I have done personally over 
the years in the district attorney's office in Philadelphia and here in 
the U.S. Senate.
  And when there is a call to have women who are homemakers have 
available to them the same opportunities for individual retirement 
accounts, I say that is just and right.
  We have a contract with America in the Constitution which has served 
this country so well. And in the House of Representatives there has 
been a Contract With America which has been adopted in large measure in 
the House and has been adopted to some extent in the Senate and is 
under further consideration and I think will be adopted with few 
significant changes.
  But if every group comes forward to insist, Mr. President, on their 
own view of what there should be in the relationship between the 
Government and its citizens, among its citizens, then I suggest to you 
that we are going to be a very, very fragmented society, and that it is 
not wise to have any one group seek to determine the social mores of 
this country.
  This country is strong because it is a melting pot. It is strong 
because we recognize diversity. America is strong because we do not 
break into individual groups and have one group seek to impose its 
ideas on any other group.
  So when an idea comes forward that there ought to be an amendment to 
the Constitution, I say no. When the idea comes forward that there 
ought to be a change in the first amendment's freedom-of-religion 
provision, I say no. When the idea comes forward that there ought to be 
a change in the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme 
Court of the United States on a woman's right to choose, I say no.
  It is time, Mr. President, in America for unifying actions, not for 
divisive actions. One Contract With America from the Congress elected 
by the people of the United States is sufficient. What we really need 
to do is rely on the basic contract with America, and that is the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________