
Christian Coalition Presents

The Contract With The American Family


     _________________________________________________________________

   



Introduction



In the 1994 midterm elections, the American people elected the first

   Republican Congress in 40 years in what was the largest transfer of

   power from a minority party to a majority party in the twentieth

   century. The message of the election was clear: the American people

   want lower taxes, less government, strong families, protection of

   innocent human life, and traditional values.




 
   The 104th Congress devoted its first hundred days to the Contract with

   America, including a Balanced Budget Amendment, tax relief for

   families, welfare reform, and term limits. Christian Coalition

   enthusiastically supported the Contract and launched one of the most

   extensive grassroots campaigns in its history to support the

   Contract's passage. The Coalition will continue this effort as the 

   Contract moves through the Senate.


   The problems our nation faces are not all fiscal in nature. The

   American people are increasingly concerned about the coarsening of the

   culture, the breakup of the family, and a decline incivility. A

   recent Los Angeles Times poll reported that 53 percent of Americans

   believe the moral problems facing our country are more important than

   the economic problems.1 Other survey data indicates that 80 percent 

   of Americans believe there is a problem of declining morality within

   our nation.2

The Contract with the American Family is a bold agenda for Congress tended to
strengthen families and restore common-sense values. The

   Contract represents a valuable contribution to a congressional agenda


3

   beyond the first hundred days. These provisions are the ten           

   suggestions, not  the Ten Commandments. There is no deadline 

   specified time period during which they are to be enacted. But

   Congress would be well advised to act with al due and deliberate   

   speed. The provisions in the Contract enjoy support from 60 to 90

   percent of the American people.

   
These items do not represent the pro-family movement's entire agenda. re are many
other prominent pro-family organizations that will work

   on many other issues - women in combat, welfare reform, budget policy 

   - in the months ahead. This contract is designed to be the first word,

   not the last word, in developing a bold and incremental start to   

   strengthening the family and restoring values.

   

            


   


Restoring Religious Equality


4

   
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROTECT THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES OF AMERICANS IN

  PUBLIC PLACES.

   


With each passing year, people of faith  grow increasingly distressed

   by the hostility of public institutions toward religious expression. 

   Public interest law firms dedicated to preserving religious liberties 

   receive thousands  of calls every year on issues pertaining to the    

   rights of students in public schools.

   
Examples of hostility toward religious and those who hold them

   abound. In Nevada, an elementary school student chosen to sing a solo

   in the school's Christmas pageant was forbidden from singing"The

   First Noel" because of its religious overtones.3 At a public

   elementary school in Rhode Island, the principal announced shortly

   before the  beginning of a Christmas concert that he had censored all

   of the pageant's songs.4 A Scarsdale, New York school board banned

   all religious celebrations from schools, although parties with


5

   non-holiday themes were still permitted. According to the Catholic

   League for Religious and Civil Rights, the ban included "displays or        

   exhibits, such as wreaths, garlands, caroling and menorahs that appear

   to promote or give approval to religious matters," as well as "candy

   canes, bells, holiday music, and Hanukkah or Christmas parties and

   concerts."5 Teachers in New Jersey were told to avoid references to

   Easter, including jelly beans and the colors purple and yellow.     

   
Children have been told they cannot read the Bible during silent      reading
time.6 In one school, a little girl was told there was a 

   problem with the book she chose to read to her class- it mentioned

   "God" four times.7

This anti-religious bigotry is not confined to the classroom. Nativity

   scenes are now barred from federal post offices,8 and from the lawns

   of public buildings unless accompanied by a non-religious display such

   as Santa Claus. Some courthouses are prohibited from displaying the

   Ten Commandments (despite the fact that they are chiseled into the  

   walls of the United States Supreme Court). And landlords have been

   sued by the state for discrimination because they refused to rent to


6

   unmarried couples for religious reasons.9

This hostility toward faith is the result of 30 years of confusing and

   often quixotic jurisprudence in establishment clause cases. The     

   Supreme Court's application of the three-pronged "Lemon test," first

   developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971),10 has become so tortuous that

   some court decisions allow states to lend textbooks, but not movie

   projectors, maps, or laboratory equipment to parochial schools; to

   supply guidance counseling services outside of parochial schools, such

   as mobile units, but not within the schools; and to provide bus 

   services to and from parochial schools, but not for school field   

   trips.11 Justice Scalia, who like many has argued for ending the use

   of this confusing test, has likened it to "some ghoul in a late-night

   horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad,

   after being repeatedly killed and buried-"12

Despite such rollbacks in religious rights, he American public    

   consistently support freedom of religious expression in the public

   square. An April 1994 Wirthlin poll indicates that reinstating    

   voluntary school prayer not only continues to receive overwhelming  


7

   support (78 percent of Americans), but it also enjoys support across a

   broad spectrum of Americans: 79 percent of African Americans and 80

   percent of whites support school prayer; 85 percent of low income and 

   71 percent of high income Americans support school prayer; and 65

   percent of non-Christians and between 80 and 94 percent of Christians

   support school prayer.

   
The Religious Equality Amendment would not restore compulsory,     sectarian
prayer or Bible-reading dictated by government officials.   

   Instead, we seek a balanced approach that allows voluntary, student

   and citizen-initiated free speech in non-compulsory settings such as

   courthouse lawns, high school graduation ceremonies, and sports     

   events. 

   
A survey by the Luntz Research Company found that 78 percent of all

   Americans support a Religious Equality Amendment. We urge the 104th

   Congress to pass an amendment that not only protects the rights of

   students, but the religious liberties of all Americas.           

   



8

   


Returning Education Control to the Local Level 

   
TRANSFER FUNDING OF THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO FAMILIES AND LOCAL

  SCHOOL BOARDS.         


   

The need for education reform is plainly evident if one considers the

   trends of recent decades. SAT scores have dropped by more than 75   

   points since 1960.13 Ten nations outperform U.S. 13-year-olds in

   math and science tests.14 And as education performance drops, the

   level of school violence in our schools is on the rise. The dramatic

   increase in shootings and violence-related injuries occurring in our

   nation's schools is well-known. Because of the prevalence of weapons,

   many American students are greeted with metal detectors when they 

   arrive for school in the morning. In 1992, 10 percent of tenth-graders

   admitted they had taken a weapon to school during the past month.15 There are
250,000 crimes committed on school property each year.


9


   Parents are distressed over the failure of schools to teach children

   basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Too often, sex

   education emphasizes contraception and condom use rather than

   abstinence and self-control. Homosexuality is promoted as an                

   acceptable alternative lifestyle. Outcome-based education (OBE)

   supplants basic skills. Psychological counseling takes place without

   parental involvement or notification.16 Christian Coalition members

   believe schools should reinforce rather than undermine the values

   taught in homes, churches and synagogues.

   
Parental involvement and local control is the most pressing need in

   education today. A current report by the U.S. Department of Education,

   "Strong Families, Strong Schools," corroborates the fact that parental
involvement in children's education results in higher student       

   performance.17 Many local and state reform initiatives focus on      

   increasing parental rights and participation in their children's 

   education. 

   
Despite this trend at the local level, the federal government has done


  Contract With The American Family (p10

   little to advance these initiatives. In 1993 and 1994, Congress

   tightened the federal choke hold on local schools by passing Goals  

   2000, the Educate America Ac18 and the Improving America's Schools

   Act, which re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

   (ESEA).19

Christian Coalition seeks to return greater power and control over our

   children's education to parents and local communities. This reform  gins by
transferring much f the funding for the U.S. Department of

   Education to families and local school boards, and applying the

   remainder to deficit reduction.

   
The U.S. currently spends approximately $275 billion per year on      

   public education.20 Yet student performance and educational           

   achiedo not reflect this financial investment. As Time magazine

   recently noted, "The U.S. spends a greater percentage of its gross

   national product on education (7.5 percent) than any other country except
Israel, and yet is out-performed in math and science among

   13-year-olds by more than 10 nations, including Hungary, Taiwan and

   the former Soviet Union."21 Less than half of federal education       


1

   dollars reach classrooms for instruction.22

Increased spending is not the answer. In fact, the 10 states ranking

   highest in education performance do not top per-pupil expenditures.23 Rather,
the answer lies in eliminating bureaucracies, administrative

   costs, and federal restrictions that prevent effective reform at the

   local level.

   
Since the time of its creation in 1980, the U.S. Department of        has grown
in magnitude to the point that it now consists of

   241 separate programs, a budget of $30 billion,24 and more than

   5,000 employees.25 Moreover, federal control over education has

   dramatically increased, ultimately culminating with the 1994 passage

   of Goals 2000 and H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act.

   
Goals 2000 established several new federal bureaucracies, including

   the National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC), 

   which many view as equivalent to a national school board. NESIC has

   powerful authority to certify national education standards regarding

   educational content and student performance. Although these standards


2

   are not binding on states, they do have national stature, and states

   have to "voluntarily" develop comparable standards in order to receive

   a portion of the billions of dollars in federal funding authorized  

   under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

   
When Congress passed Goals 2000, many people predicted it would lead

   to the establishment of "politically-correct" national education

   standards, resulting in the introduction of outcome-based education

   (OBE) on a national scale. Verification of this prediction came

   quickly.

   
With 1994's release f national history standards, developed with $2.2

   million in federal funding from the National Endowment for the      

   Humanities and the U.S. Department of Education, it became obvious

   that national education standards would not be objective.26 Criticism of the
biased and distorted views prevalent in both sets of

   standards - the Nnal Standards for United States History, as well

   as the National Standards for World History - was widespread.      

   Criticism of the U.S. History standards included the fact that the  

   United States Constitution was never mentioned in any of the 31      


3

   standards, and was relegated to the supporting materials;27 the     

   establishment of the National Organization of Women and Sierra Club   

   were viewed as notable events, but not the first assembling f the

   United States Congress;28 and according to one reviewer, the

   material revealed only one quotation from a congressional leader, and

   that was Tip O'Neill calling Ronald Reagan "a cheerleader for       

   selfishness."29 The World History standards drew widespread     

   criticism also, particularly for their anti-Western bias.30        

   
The bias in these standards was so grave that the United States Senate

   overwhelmingly adopted (99 to 1) a resolution condemning the standards

   and expressing the sense of the Senate that NESIC not certify them.31 

   Nevertheless, 10,000 copies of these standards already have been

   mailed to school administrators and others throughout the nation.32 These
national standards undermine parental involvement and local

   control of education.

   
The time to return federal education control to parents and local

   communities through elimination of the United States Department of

   Education is long overdue, and a good first step would include 


4

   repealing Goals 2000 legislation.

   




Promoting School Choice

   
ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION THAT WILL ENHANCE PARENTS' CHOICE OF SCHOOLS FOR

  THEIR CHILDREN.

   


School choice initiatives are sweeping the nation like wildfire.

   Sixty-two percent of Americans favor choice among public schools, and

   50 percent favor vouchers.33 School choice legislation was either

   introduced or pending in 34 states in 1993.34 These initiatives take

   a number of forms, including voucher programs, tax credits and charter

   schools. 

   
Voucher programs provide monetary assistance to parents for use at the


5

   school of their choice. Tuition tax credits achieve the same goal of

   school choice, and are preferred by some communities. Charter schools

   are a creative new initiative through which states charter and fund

   alternative schools designed to meet the needs of a diverse student

   population. Other local initiatives include the privatization of

   public ss, such as in Baltimore, Maryland and Hartford,

   Connecticut. As parents and local communities strive to reform our

   country's educational system, the federal government must do more to   

   assist these efforts.


   One  possible example of federal school choice legislation is S. 618,

   the Coats-Lieberman Low-income School Choice Demonstration Act. This

   legislation would establish up to 20 demonstration projects that would

   provide financial assistance to low-income parents to help them send 

   their children to the school of their choice, whether public or  

   private. The legislation requires an evaluation of the effectiveness

   of this demonstration initiative in order to provide objective        

   documentation of the merits of school choice. With almost half of high

   school students in inner city schools failing to graduate,35 educational
reform for low-income parents in these cities is becoming 


6

   increasingly urgent.

   
We urge the swift passage of school choice legislation such as S. 618

   during the 104th Congress as a means of promoting school choice for parents.
We believe passage of this bill will spur grassroots efforts

   to reform education and give parents greater choice in selecting the

   best school for their children.

   




Protecting Parental Rights

   
ENACTMENT OF A PARENTAL RIGHTS ACT AND DEFEAT OF THE U.N.
CONVENTION ON THE

  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD.

   


The United States Constitution does not explicitly set forth

   protections for parental rights, but a long line of court cases have 


7

   held that the United States Constitution protects the right of parents

   to control the upbringing of their children. The rights of parents,

   however, are under increasing assault in modern day society.         

   
For example, state officials removed an eighth-grade girl from her   

   home because she objected to the ground rules (regarding use of drugs,

   curfew hours, etc.) her parents had set.36 One mother's child was

   removed from her home because the mother refused to continue to take

   her first-grade child to therapy lessons for hyperactivity.37 And in

   1992, a San Diego grand jury found that 35 to 70 percent of the

   county's foster children "never should have been removed from their

   parental homes."38     


   Enactment of a Parental Rights Act will ensure that parental rights       

   are not violated and ensure that parents have the foremost duty and

   responsibility to direct the upbringing of their children.

   Representatives Steve Largent (R-OK)and Mike Parker(D-MS) in the

   House, and Senators Charles Grassley(R-IA) and Howell Heflin (D-AL)

   in the Senate, are drafting a parental rights act to address this

   critical problem. While language is still being finalized, the authors


8

   intend that the Parental Rights Act of 1995 will clarify that "the    

   right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children," includes

   overseeing their children's education, health care, discipline, and

   religious training. Moreover, it requires that any governmental

   interference in the parent-child relationship be justified by "clear

   and convincing evidence" that it "is essential to accomplish a        
compelling governmental interest" and that it is applied in "the least
restrictive means" possible.

   
The threat to the rights of America's parents is very real, as the

   movement to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child  

   exemplifies. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a human

   rights treaty adopted in 1989 by the General Assembly of the United

   Nations. It has not been ratified in the United States. In the past,

   the United States has not supported the treaty due to concerns that it

   may concede jurisdiction over United States citizens to an

   international body and international court.39

Christian Coalition opposes the treaty because it interfere with the

   parent-child relationship, threatens the sovereignty of U.S. law, and 


9

   elevates as "rights" such dubious provisions as access to television

   and mass media. The following are some of the examples of the absolute

   rights given to children through this treaty: 

   


  * "No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference

       with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence - The child has
the right to the protection of the law against such

       interference or attacks."40

  * "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this

       right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart       

       information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,    

       either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or     

       through any other media of the child's choice."41     

   
  * With respect to the right of the child to freedom of association

       or peaceful assembly, "[n]o restrictions may be placed on the    

       exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity  


20

       with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in 

       the interests of national security or public safety, public order,

       he protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others."42

Under the treaty, parents could well lose their right to prevent their

   child from associating with disreputable individuals such as          

   delinquents, or receiving literature or gaining access to mass media

   communication (including films and television) that is not      

   age-appropriate.               


   Pursuant to the treaty, a Committee on the Rights of the Child ha

   been established to review reports from nations regarding their

   progress in implementing the treaty. The committee has urged that in

   the area of sex education, parents be required to give the opinion of

   the child equal weight. The committee warned that "the possibility for

   parents in England and Wales to withdraw their children from parts of

   the sex education programmes in schools" undermines "the right of the

   child to express his/her opinion."43



1

   The committee's concern about soliciting children's views prior to 

   "exclusion from school" should be of particular concern to parents who

   educate their children at home. It is clear that rejection of this    

   treaty by the United States Senate would be in the best interests of

   American parents.

   




Family-Friendly Tax Relief


   

Reduce the tax burden on the American family, eliminate the marriage penalty, and
pass the Mothers and Homemakers' Rights Act to remedy  

   the unequal treatment that homemakers receive under the Internal      

   Revenue Service Code with respect to saving for retirement.         

   
It has been said that the intact family is the most successful

   Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ever conceived. Yet the


2

   federal government, through he tax code, has punished families for

   working, saving, and staying together. The Contract with the American 

   Family addresses not only the cultural pressures on families, but  he
financial pressures as well.

                    


   1. Tax relief for families with children.

In 1950 the average family of four in America paid just 2 percent

       of its adjusted gross income in federal income taxes. Today that same
family sends one out of every four dollars to Washington. When state and local
taxes are added, the average family of four pays 38 percent of its entire income
in taxes, more than it spends

       on such essentials as housing, clothing and food.               

   
    Christian Coalition's top legislative priority since 1993 has been

       tax relief for America's hard-working families. We strongly favor the $500
tax credit for children that has been passed by the House

       and awaits action in the Senate. Our long-term goal is to restore

       the standard deduction for children to its inflation-adjusted 1946


3

       value: $8,000 to $10,000 per dependent child.

   
    Christian Coalition also supports in concept a flat or flattened

       tax (with a generous personal exemption for children) as an ultimate goal
to simplify the tax code, reward work and savings, and reduce the crushing tax
burden on families.

   

    
2. Eliminate the marriage penalty.

Under current law, many married couples pay more in taxes than   they would if
they remained single because their combined income   puts them into a higher tax
bracket. On April 5, 1995, as part of the American Dream Restoration Act, the
House of Representatives voted to restore tax fairness for married couples. H.R.
1215 makes married couples eligible for a tax rebate of up to $145 if their 

ax liability goes up as a result of being married. In a time when family breakups
are so common, the Senate should pass this        legislation to encourage
marriage and ease the burden on families 


4
trying to form and stay together.            

3. The Mothers and Homemakers Rights Act.

The Contract with the American Family calls for the enactment of legislation such
as the Hutchinson-Mikulski Individual Retirement Account equity bill (S. 287),
which will allow homemakers to contribute up to$2,000 annually toward an IRA,
thereby providing equitable treatment to spouses who work at home.

The Internal Revenue Code currently allows a double-income married couple to
contribute up to $4,000 per year toward retirement by allowing them to contribute
up to $2,000 each toward an IRA.     However, in the case of a single-income
married couple, the couple can only contribute up to $2,250 per year toward
retirement      through an IRA, with the homemaker's contribution limited to
$250. This inequity in the taxcode reflects a disrespect for the      valuable
role of the homemaker in our society. Christian Coalition urges Congress to
remedy this injustice by amending the tax code to allow homemakers to contribute
equally up to $2,000 annually  


5

toward an IRA. This could provide an increase of up to $150,000 in savings for a
couple after 30 years.44 Furthermore, because the value of families never
decreases, the contribution amount should be indexed to inflation.





Restoring Respect for Human Life


  PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF STATES THAT DO NOT FUND ABORTION, PROTECTING  

  INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE BY PLACING REAL LIMITS ON LATE-TERM ABORTIONS, AND ENDING

  FUNDS TO ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE AND PERFORM ABORTIONS.       



In speaking to the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, Mother Teresa

   delivered an eloquent and stirring defense of the rights of innocent  

   human life. "The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion,"    

   Mother Teresa of Calcutta said at the National Prayer Breakfast in 


6

   February 1994. "It is a war against the child, a direct killing of the

   innocent child."45

The foundation of all our rights as Americans - to speech, assembly,

   and religious expression - are all built upon the right to life. The

   genius of the American idea is that every person is endowed by his

   Creator with certain inalienable rights, the first of which is the

   right to life.

   Christian Coalition seeks by all lawful and non-violent means to

   protect innocent human life for the disabled, the elderly, the infirm,

   and the unborn. We support constitutional and statutory protection for      

   the unborn child. Our ultimate goal is to establish the humanity of

   the unborn child and to see a day when every child is safe in their

   mother's womb.


   We urge Congress to take the following action as a beginning toward

   that end. 

   



7

   1. Real limits on late-term abortions by providing legal protection   

       to children in the latter months of pregnancy and ending the practice of
"partial-birth abortions."

    Most Americans would be shocked to learn about the methods that 

       are used in late-term abortions in America today. These methods

       have reached the point to where a fully formed child can be   

       completely delivered alive, with the exception of the child's head, and
then the abortionist is free to end the child's life.

       This "partial-birth abortion" procedure is also known as "dilation

       and extraction," or D&X, in which forceps are used to remove      

       second and third-trimester babies, with only the head remaining   

       inside the uterus. The child's life is then ended, and the dead

       child is delivered.46
              
Most tragic of all is the fact that the majority of these babies

       are alive until the end of the proceeding.47 Indeed, virtually 

       all of the victims are beyond the 24th week of pregnancy, and many can
survive outside the womb.



8

       It is difficult to estimate the number of partial-birth abortions
performed, because abortion statistics in general are unreliable. The Alan
Guttmacher Institute, a research group affiliated with Planned Parenthood,
estimates that about 10 percent of abortions occur in the second or third
trimester. One abortionist who     specializes in D&X procedures testified in
1992 that he had     performed 700 of them.48

Establishing real limits on late-term abortions is one of the most important
steps Congress can take to protect innocent human life.  A child has a better
than 50-percent chance of survival outside its mother's womb at 26 weeks.49 But
the D&X technique has been used on children up to 40 weeks gestation, which is a
full-term pregnancy.50 One physician experienced in this procedure
admitted to having mixed feelings on its morality:

"I do have moral compunctions. And if I see a case that's later, like after 20
weeks where it frankly is a child to me, I really    agonize over it because the
potential is so imminently there. I think, 'Gee, it's too bad that this child
couldn't be


9
adopted.'"51

We call on the 104th Congress to enact restrictions on late-term abortions and
end the practice of D&X abortion. Children at any  stage of pregnancy should not
be subject to this cruel and  inhumane form of death, but such treatment of those
who can clearly survive outside the mother's womb is particularly cruel.

2. Protect the rights of states that do not wish to use taxpayer   funds to take
innocent human life.

In 1993 Congress re-authorized the Hyde Amendment, in effect since 1977, with
rape and incest exceptions. Christian Coalition      believes taxpayer funds
should only be used to pay for an abortion when the mother's life is in danger.  
          

The Clinton administration issued a new interpretation of the Hyde Amendment, and
rather than permitting states to use Medicaid    dollars to fund abortion in rape
and incest cases, it requires 

hem to do so. This created havoc in the states because 30 states


30
prohibited public funding of abortion, with the life of the mother being the sole
exception. Another six states had reporting requirements for abortions due to
rape and incest which were     invalidated under this new directive. As a result,
many states are now involved in litigation over this issue and seven states are
facing administrative enforcement proceedings which could   ultimately result in
the termination of federal Medicaid funding to the state. Moreover, as a result
of litigation, two state constitutional provisions have been invalidated and now
the states are required to pay for abortion for  any reason, with state funds.
Enacting legislation to clarify the congressional intent behind the Hyde
amendment and t protect states' rights in this area is a matter of urgency for
the 104th Congress.                

The Coalition urges Congress to adopt the Istook/Exxon Amendment that would
protect the rights of the citizens of states that do not use taxpayer funds t
take human life.

3. End taxpayer subsidies to organizations that promote and    perform abortions.


1

We call for an end to federal funding for organizations that promote and perform
abortions. This includes an end to funding for

international family planning organizations that promote and       perform
abortions.

Christian Coalition, along with numerous American taxpayers,     believes that
abortion is the taking of innocent human life and that tax dollars should not be
used to promote it. Yet,            organizations that receive funding under
Title X are required to   counsel and refer young adolescents on abortion. This
implicitly sends the message to these youngsters that abortion is an        
acceptable method of family planning.    

merits of continued funding of the Title X program have long been questioned. It
is estimated that one-third of the clients  served through Title X funding are
teen-agers.52 And yet, during the course of the 25 years of Title X's existence,
the
out-of-wedlock birth rate among girls aged 15-19 has increased 100 percent, the
abortion rate for teens has more than doubled, and


2
sexually transmitted diseases among teens also have increased.53 Today, one out
of every four sexually experienced teen-agers becomes infected with a sexually
transmitted disease annually.54  

Family planning expenditures for all ages under Medicaid now approximate $252
million annually,55 and the annual
appropriation to the Title X family planning program is now $193 million,56 one-
third of which is expended on adolescents. The  

time is long overdue for the United States Congress to eliminate funding for such
programs. 

Similarly, the American taxpayer should not be forced to fund international
family planning organizations that promote abortion overseas. The United States
contributed $50 million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) alone for
this  year,57 despite   its involvement in China's coercive population-control
program that includes forced abortions.58 Amnesty International USA      recently
outlined some of the reports coming out of China
regarding the method used to enforce its "one-child" policy:      



3
[D]etainees were beaten and tortured to accelerate the payment of fines. Some
were reportedly hung upside down, others received electric shocks on their tongue
with electric batons or live     wires-

One man who could not bear to see his wife tortured in a cell for days attempted
to sell their children in Beijing- other women    pregnant eight or nine months
were given - against their will -injections to induce miscarriages.59

In fiscal year 1993, the United States contributed at least $580

   million toward world family planning programs.60 Any of this money

   that is contributed to organizations that encourage or perform       

   abortions should be eliminated. Moreover, the entire budget should be

   reviewed to determine the success of the program to insure that, like

   Title X, we are not subsidizing failed programs.






4

Encouraging Support of Private Charities


  ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION TO ENHANCE CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRIVATE CHARITIES AS A

  FIRST STEP TOWARD TRANSFORMING THE BUREAUCRATIC WELFARE STATE INTO A SYSTEM

  OF PRIVATE AND FAITH-BASED COMPASSION.



A 1994 report by the National Center for Policy Analysis details the

   growing evidence that private sector charities do a better job than

   government "of getting prompt aid to those who need it most,    

   encouraging self-sufficiency and self-reliance, preserving the family

   unit and using resources [more] efficiently."61 According to the

   same report, "94 percent of all shelters for the homeless in the U.S.

   are operated by private sector organizations."62 Studies have shown  

   that "as many as 80 percent of low-income people turn to the private

   sector first when facing a crisis."63

In light of this evidence, as well as the growing evidence of the

   failure of government programs to discourage welfare dependency, the


5

   federal government should take steps to encourage donations to private

   charities which serve the needy.

  
 In their Contract with America, House Republicans have enacted the        

   most dramatic and sweeping welfare reform in decades. By turning

   welfare spending over to the states in the form of block grants, this

   reform will encourage innovation at the local level, promoting work

   and personal responsibility.

   
The Contract with the American Family takes the next step. We      

   propose unleashing the charitable capacity of the American people by

   providing private, non-governmental solutions to the problems of the 
underclass. Through the Salvation Army and other private charities,

   millions of Americans will be able to provide compassionate assistance

   to those in need without sending more tax dollars to a failed,     

   discredited bureaucratic welfare state.

   
Many citizens are not as generous in their contributions to private

   charitable organizations thee days because they already are     

   overtaxed. However, if given the choice between having their tax    


6

   dollars subsidize government welfare programs or subsidize private    

table programs, many would prefer to designate the money to a

   private charity of their choice. Christian Coalition urges the United

   States Congress to enact legislation to give taxpayers this       

   opportunity.

   
One possible means to do so would be to allow individuals to designate

   on their income tax returns a limited amount of their taxes to

   qualified private charities. Another would be to create pilot programs

   through federal welfare block grants that earmark funding to encourage

   charitable giving and assistance to needy individuals through       

   charities and religious organizations. For every dollar the taxpayer

   designates toward a private charity, the federal welfare funding to

   that taxpayer's state would be equally reduced.64 As a result,        

   "private charities would compete on an equal footing with government

   welfare programs for the portion of he federal budget that is

   allocated to poverty programs," thereby increasing competition. This

   will not only change government, it will change our citizenry's    

   pattern of thinking - people will once again feel more of a civic duty

   toward their fellow man.


7

   
In the words of Acton Institute head Father Robert A. Sirico,     

   "[G]overnment has no monopoly on compassion. Indeed, government is   

   compassion's least able practitioner." Through a private charity

   check-off or other means, the 104th Congress can replace the welfare

   state with a culture of caring.

   




Restricting Pornography

   
PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM EXPOSURE TO PORNOGRAPHY ON THE INTERNET AND CABLE

  TELEVISION, AND FROM THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILD
PORNOGRAPHERS.

   



1. Enactment of legislation to protect children from being exposed to 

       pornography on the Internet.


8


       Pornography, both soft core and hard core, is freely available on

       the Internet to virtual anyone with a home computer. Several

       magazines post pornographic images that can be viewed by anyone,

       including children, for free. There are also numerous sites on the

       Internet where hard core pornography depicting a variety of explicit
sexual acts, even rape scenes and bestiality, are available free and can be
accessed with a few clicks of a computer button.


       Christian Coalition urges Congress to enact legislation to protect
children from being exposed to pornography on the Internet.

       criminal law should be amended to prohibit distribution of, or       

       making available, any pornography, soft core or hard, to children, and to
prohibit distribution of obscene hard core pornography to adults.

2. Enactment of legislation to require cable television companies     to
completely block the video and audio on pornography channels   to non-
subscribers.         


9

Many children throughout the country are exposed to pornography,  often had core,
on cable television because of incomplete     scrambling of the signal on
pornography channels. Cable companies have asserted that it is the parents'
responsibility to guard      their children. Christian Coalition believes that
the      responsibility should be on the cable companies to help parents keep
pornography out of their homes. Cable companies should not be allowed to transmit
pornography to non-subscribers. We urge Congress to require cable television
companies to completely block the video and audio on pornography channels to non-
subscribers.   

3. Amending the federal child pornography law to make illegal the possession of
any child pornography.

Sexual exploitation of children through child pornography
continues to be a major problem in society. Possession of child pornography
should be a crime. President Reagan proposed such a   law in 1988, hoping that
those with collections of child        pornography would destroy them for fear of
federal prosecution. In


40
an 11th hour compromise on the bill, however, a conference committee of House and
Senate members changed the Reagan bill to criminalize only the possession of
"three or more" items of child pornography, videos, magazines, etc. Thus, federal
law sanctions  the possession of some child pornography - less than three pieces.
A person with two hour-long videotapes depicting the rape of a child cannot be
charged with a federal crime, ye a person with three photos depicting a child in
a lascivious pose can. Christian Coalition urges that the federal child
pornography law should be amended to make illegal the possession of any child
pornography.  





Privatizing the Arts


  THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES,

  CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING, AND LEGAL SERVICES
CORPORATION SHOULD

  BECOME VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS FUNDED THROUGH PRIVATE
CONTRIBUTIONS.



1


Christian Coalition urges the privatization of the National Endowment

   for the Arts (NEA) because we do not view such funding as a proper  

   role for the United States Government. The issue is not whether the   

   arts should receive funding, but rather which entity should do so -
   the government or the private sector.

Through its grant selection process, the NEA acts as an arbiter of art

   and places is endorsement or "seal of approval" on certain works.  

   This federal imprimatur is as important to artists as is the funding

   which accompanies the grant. And yet, as William Bennett pointed out

   during his testimony calling for elimination of the NEA, this role of

   arbiter itself should be questioned, as well as the "seal of approval"

   which gives the "official blessing -the blessing of the people of the

   United States - to things both worthy and horrible."65 This federal

   endorsement is particularly objectionable when it applies to              

   obscenity, pornography, or attacks on religion.

  
 Despite repeated attempts by the United States Congress to place


2

   common-sense restrictions on federal funding of the arts, NEA dollars

   continue to go toward controversial works that denigrate the religious

   beliefs and moral values of mainstream Americans.66 William Donohue, 

   president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, has

   joined the call for de-funding the NEA, stating: "We, as Catholics,

   have rights too, and among them is e right not to be defamed, and this is
especially true when defamation is funded with government

   money."

   
At a time of fiscal restraint and budget austerity, cultural agencies

   cannot expect to be exempt from the broader ealitie of declining  

   federal spending. Americans spend more than $7 billion annually on the

   arts; only $173 million is derived from federal funding. The         

   privatization of the NEA into a voluntary, charitable organization     could
unleash the creative capacity of the American people and        

   de-politicize one of the mos controversial agencies in recent years.

   It is an idea whose time has come.

   
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) also would be improved

   by privatization. Lynne Cheney, the NEH Chairman from 1986 to 1992,


3

   testified in January in support of ending federal funding for the    

   agency. During her testimony she explained, "The humanities - like the

   arts - have become highly politicized. Many academics and artists now

   see their purpose not as revealing truth or beauty, but as achieving

   social and political transformation. Government should not be funding

   those whose main interest is promoting an agenda."67 The           

   controversial national history standards, which NEH funding assisted

   in bringing into existence, are one such example.68

William Bennett cites another example of the NEH's use of taxpayer   

   dollars: "[T]he NEH provides funding for the Modern Language      

   Association (MLA) - Their annual convention attracts over 10,000      

   professors and students and reveals the type of agenda that NEH grants

   make possible. Past panels include such topics as 'Lesbian Tongues

   Untied;' 'Henry James and Queer Perfrmativity;' [and] 'Status of

   Gender and Feminism in Queer Theory;'-"69 It is clear that at a time 

   when 24 percent of the average American family's budget goes to the

   federal government in taxes, we can find a better use for these tax

   dollars than through continued funding of the NEH.

   


4

   The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is another entity that

   should rely on private funding. Federal subsidies to the Public       

   Broadcasting Service cost taxpayers $350 million a year, an example of

   transfer payments from the middle-class to the well-to-do.          

   
Children Television Workshop, producer of "Sesame Street," reaps more

   than $100 million in licensing fees annually. Its chief executive   

   officer earns $647,000 annually in salary and benefits. A rate card

   sent out by Washington, D.C. PBS affiliate WETA in 1992 noted that the

   average net worth of its contributors was $627,000; one in eight was a

   millionaire; one in seven owned a wine cellar; one in three had been

   to Europe in the previous three years.

   
Would privatization cause the death-knell of public broadcasting? 

   Hardly. Private and corporate contributions already make up the vast

   majority of public broadcasting's revenue. Only 14 percent of the   

   Public Broadcasting Service's (PBS) budget comes from the federal  

   government, and only 3 percent of the National Public Radio's (NPR)

   budget is composed of federal funds.              



5

   Lastly, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a federally chartered

   corporation established to provide legal assistance to the poor. It

   received an appropriation of $415 million for FY 1995. What many      

   Americans don't realize is that divorce proceedings are a high

   priority for many legal services grantees.70 The  LSC alone paid for

   210,000 divorces in 1990, at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $50   

   million. Yet, as study after study has revealed, divorce is not  

   helping our nation's poor break out of poverty. Rather, as historian

   Barbara Dafoe Whitehead has pointed out: "Children in single-parent   

   families are six times as likely to be poor. Twenty-two percent of   

   children in one-parent families will experience poverty during      

   childhood for seven years or more, a compared with only two percent

   of children in two-parent families."71 Therefore, an agency that was

   established to help ameliorate poverty is instead fostering it through

   its financing of divorce actions.

   
Christian Coalition urges Congress to privatize all four entities, the

   NEA, NEH, CPB, and LSC, and turn them into organizations funded    

   through private contributions.      



6

   



Crime Victim Restitution

   
FUNDS GIVEN TO STATES TO BUILD PRISONS SHOULD ENCOURAGE WORK, STUDY, AND DRUG

  TESTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PRISONERS IN STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, AS WELL

  AS REQUIRING RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS SUBSEQUENT TO RELEASE.           

   


Today's prisons are not designed either to punish convicts or provide

   justice to victims. In Pennsylvania, felons can receive in-cell cable

   TV.72 At a facility in Fallsburg, New York, outdoor weight training   

   areas feature televisions prisoners can view as they work out.73 Hard labor
has been replaced in many prisons with recreational

   activities.

   
Christian Coalition urges Congress to enact legislation THAT WILL

   encourage states to instill work and study requirements for prisoners.


7

   More than one million inmates are imprisoned in our country's

   correctional facilities - 919,143 instate prisons and 93,708 in

   federal prisons.74 Although a majority of institutions have academic

   programs, many prisoners do not participate in them.75 In fact, a

   1990 census found that "[a]pproximately 570,000 inmates, accounting

   for two-thirds or more of both sexes in State and Federal facilities,       

   were not participating in any academic activities." Moreover, about a      

   third of the prison population had no work assignment, and 25 percent

   of the population was idle -meaning prisoners neither worked nor

   participated in an academic program.76

An estimated 70 percent of inmates in U.S. prisons are functionally  

   illiterate. Without the ability to read and write, these individuals 

   are unable to find work outside prison, a contributing facto giving

   the United States one of the highest prison recidivism rates in the

   Western world. Literacy programs - many of which can be provided by

   private charities and prison ministries at low cost - will give

   prisoners hope and give society a better chance to absorb former

   inmates upon their release.

   


8
over, with one out of four American households victimized by crime

   each year, as well as more than 700,000 days of hospitalization 

   resulting from crime-related injuries, victim restitution is very   

   necessary.77 Requiring an offender to make restitution to the victim

   will not only force the offender to confront the consequences of his

   actions, but also compensate the victim monetarily.

   
Christian Coalition urges Congress t remedy this by conditioning the

   receipt of federal prison construction funding by  states on  

   enactment of work and study requirements. Moreover, we urge that

   restitution to victims subsequent to release also be required.

   




Conclusion 

   


The Contract with the American Family is the first word, not the


9

   last word, on a cultural agenda for the 104th Congress during the     

   post-100-day period. The ideas included in this document are   

   suggestions, not demands, and are designed to be a help, nota   

   hindrance, to Members of Congress as they seek to fulfill their     

   mandate for dramatic change.

   
Christian Coalition welcomes the support of Republicans and Democrats

   alike as it seeks passage of the items in this bold legislative      

   agenda. There is no specified deadline on acting on the Contract. The

   Coalition and its grassroots members will work on behalf of these

   mainstream proposals in this Congress and in as many subsequent

   sessions of Congress as necessary to secure passage.


   The Contract with the American Family emerged from a survey of

   Christian Coalition members and supporters conducted in March and

   April, 1995.It has been improved during the drafting process by

   extensive polling and focus groups and consultations with members of

   Congress and their staffs. Each item in the Contract enjoys support

   from between 60 and 90 percent of the American people. More than half

   of the items in the Contract already have legislative sponsors, and


50

   several have already been passed by committee.

   
The American people now have a Congress that is receptive to their

   desire for religious liberty, stronger families, lower taxes, local

   control of education, and tougher laws against crime. With the

   Contract with the American Family, the nation now has an agenda

   with broad support that addresses time-honored values and cultural   

   issues for the 104th Congress and beyond. 

   

  _________________________________________________________________

   
Endnotes

1. Ronald Brownstein, "Dissatisfied Public May Spell Democrat Losses,"

   Los Angeles Times, July 28, 1994. 

   2. Nationwide survey by Luntz Research and Strategic Services,      

   conducted February 11-12, 1995. Sample Size: 1000. Theoretical margin

   of sampling error: + or - 3.1%.

   3. Keith A. Fournier, Religious Cleansing in the American Republic,


1

   1993, p. 17.The decision w later reversed after counsel intervened.


   4. Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 1994 Catholic  

   League's 1994 Report on Anti-Catholicism, p. 14. 

   5. Ibid.

   6. Keith A. Fournier, Religious Cleansing in the American Republic,

   1993, p. 16. In both instances, the children were allowed to read 

   their Bibles after legal counsel intervened.

   7. Only after the student's parent contacted the school board was the

   book allowed.

   8. Mark Kellner, "Postal Grinch Who Stole Christmas," The Washington

   Times, November 20, 1994; Catholic League for Religious and Civil

   Rights,  1994 Catholic League's 1994 Report on Anti-Catholicism, p. 17.


   9. Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 1994 Catholic      
League's 1994 Report on Anti-Catholicism, p.16.

   10. 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

   11. Jesse H. Choper, The Establishment Clause and Aid to Parochial   

   Schools - An Update, 75 Cal.L.Rev. 5, 6-7. (1987).

   12. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School Dist., 113 S.Ct. 2141, 


2

   2149 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring).

   13. William J. Bennett, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators

   (March 1993), p. 17.

   14. "[T]he U.S. spends a greater percentage of its gross national

   product on education(7.5%) than any other country except Israel, and

   yet is out performed in math and science among 13-year-olds by more

   than 10 nations, including Hungary, Taiwan and the former Soviet 

   Union." Claudia Wallis, "A Class of Their Own," Time, Oct. 31, 1994,

   56 
15. 140 Congressional Record S9917 (daily ed. July 27, 1994).

   16. Maria Koklanaris, "Virginia parents may get option to exclude   

   pupils from counseling," The Washington Times, Oct. 28, 1994.    

   17. U.S. Department of Education, Strong Families, Strong Schools     

   (September 1994).

   18. Pub. L. 103-227.

   19. Pub. L. 103-382.

   20. Claudia Wallis, "A Class of Their Own," Time, October 31, 1994, p.

   56. 
21. Claudia Wallis, "A Class of Their Own," Time, October 31, 1994,

   pp. 53, 56, citing a 1992 report by the Educational Testing Service.


3
2. Claudia Wallis, "A Class of Their Own," Time, October 31, 1994,

   pp. 53, 56. 

   23. Carol Innerst, "Education Still Lacking Bang for Buck, The

   Washington Times, September 21, 1994.

   24. Family Research Council, "Freeing America's Schools[:] The Case  

   Against the U.S. Education Department," Family Policy, p. 5.       

   25. Letter from Terrel Bell, to The Washington Post, February 1, 1995.

   
26. Carol Inherst, "Some Historians See New Standards as Revisionist

   Coup," The Washington Times, October 27, 1994.               

   27. Lynne V. Cheney, "The End of History," The Wall Street Journal,

   October 20, 1994.

   28. Lynne V. Cheney, "The End of History," The Wall Street Journal,

   October 20, 1994

   29. Ibid.           

   30. See Congressional Record, S1025-1040, January 18, 1995.

   31. Congressional Record, January 18, 1995, S1025-2040.               

   32. Statement of Senator Slade Gorton, Congressional Record, January

   18, 1995, p. S1034. 

   33. U.S. Department of Education, Center for Choice in Education,   


4

   Issue Brief, "Public Opinion on Choice in Education" (March 1992), 

   Executive Summary.

   34. The Heritage Foundation, "School Choice Continues to Gain Ground,"

   Business/Education Insider (June/July 1994).

   35. Statement of Senator Coats, Congressional Record, March 24, 1995,

   S4582.

   36. In re Sumey, 94 Wash.2d 757, 621 P.2d 108 (1980).                 

   37. Matter of Ray, 408 N.Y.S.2d 737 (1978).

   38. K.L. Billingsley, "Sex, Lies and County Government: Abuse Case  

   Shows It All," The San DiegoUnion-Tribune, July 19,1992.

   39. Human Events, February 24, 1995.

   40. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 16.

   41. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 13.

   42. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 15.

   43. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Eighth Session,

   Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44

   of the Convention, p. 3.

   44. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Congressional Record,

   January 26, 1995.  

   45. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, remarks at the National Prayer    


5

   Breakfast, February 3, 1994.

   46. Illustration Adapted from Drawings Appearing in the February 1993

   Issue of "Life Advocate," National Right to Life New, July 14, 1993 

   p. 12.

   47. Diane M. Gianelli, "Shock-tactic ads target late-term abortion   

   procedure," American Medical News, July 5, 1993 (emphasis added to

   quotation).

   48. Douglas Johnson, "AMA Newspaper Investigative Report Supports NRLC

   Statements on Brutal 'D&X' Abortion Method," National Right to Life

   News, July 14, 1993, pp. 12,13.

   49. Ibid., p. 13. 

   50. Douglas Johnson, "AMA Newspaper Investigative Report Supports NRLC

   Statements on Brutal 'D&X' Abortion Method," National Right o Life  

   News, July 14, 1993, p. 12.

   51. Diane M. Gianelli, "Shock-tactic ads target late-term abortion

   procedure," American Medical News, July 5, 1993.

   52. Family Research Council,"Suffer the Children: Title X's Family

   Planning Failure," Insight, by Gracie S. Hsu; Family Research Council,

   "An Estimate of Federal Spending on Contraceptive-'Safe Sex' Services

   for Adolescents 1970-1993," Insight, by Charles A. Donovan, Sr., p. 2.


6

   
53. Ibid.

   54. Ibid.

   55. Family Research Council,"An Estimate of Federal Spending on

   Contraceptive-'Safe Sex" Services for Adolescents 1970-1993," Insight,

   by Charles A. Donovan, Sr., p. 2.

   56. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-733, 103d Cong.,2d Sess. 64 (1994).

   57. National Right to Life Committee, Inc. Memorandum, From Douglas   

   Johnson, Legislative Director, to "Interested Parties," April 20,  

   1995 p. 2.

   58. Ibid.        
9. Amnesty International USA, "People's Republic of China[:] Catholic

   Villagers in Hebei Province," March 14, 1995.

   60. National Right to Life Committee, Inc., "The Clinton

   Administration's Promotion of Abortion as a Tool of Population Control

   in Less-Developed Nations," June 1, 1994, page 2.

   61. National Center for Policy Analysis, "Why Not Abolish the welfare

   State?" (October 1994), Executive Summary.

   62. Ibid.

   63. Ibid.


7

   64. For a general discussion of this concept, see National Center for

   Policy Analysis, Why Not Abolish the Welfare State? (October 1994), p.

   30.      

   65. Written Testimony of William J. Bennett, Before the House   

   Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, January 24, 1995, p.3.       

   66. Rod Dreher, "S&M 'Art' Video Exceeds Shocking Stage Version," The

   Washington Times, January 26, 1995.

   67. Written Testimony of Lynne V. Cheney, Before the Interior      

   Appropriations Subcommittee on January 24, 1995, p.1.            

   68. Congressional Record, January 18, 1995, S1025-40.

   69. Written Testimony of William J. Bennett, Before the House

   Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, January 24,1995.            

   70. Kathleen B. DeBettencourt, Office of Policy Development, Legal

   Services Corporation, "Legal Services Corporation vs. The Family,"

   March 1988, p. 15.

   71. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, "Dan Quayle Was Right,"The Atlantic

   Monthly, April 1993, p. 47.

   72. Robert James Bidinotto, "Must Our Prisons Be Resorts?" Reader's

   Digest, November, 1994, pp. 65, 76.

   73. Robert James Bidinotto, "Must Our Prisons Be Resorts?" Reader's


8

   Digest, November, 1994, p. 65.

   74. U.S. Department of Justice, "State and Federal Prison Population  

   Tops One Million," October 27, 1994.

   75. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Census

   of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1990,"p. 11.    

   76. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Census

   of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1990,"p. 12. A survey

   of state prison inmates in 1991 also substantiated that approximately

   one-third of the inmates had no work assignments. See Bureau of

   Justice Statistics, "Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991," p. 27.

   77. H.R. Rep. No. 104-16, 104th Congress, 1st Sess. at 4 (1995).

   
  _________________________________________________________________

   
[IMAGE]           

     _________________________________________________________________

   
Copyright 1995 by The Christian Coalition of this page and all    

   contents. All Rights Reserved.     

   

