‘Contract With Family’ Brings Out Irreconcilable Differences

N o two San Fernando Valley-area congressmen are farther apart on the political spectrum than Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), an unabashed liberal, and Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale), once named the most conservative member of the House. When it comes to social issues, they rarely find common ground. The “contract with the American family,” a 10-point legislative program backed by the Christian Coalition, is no exception. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders recently endorsed the conservative platform and vowed to bring it to the House floor for a vote. When it arrives, Waxman and Moorhead will probably part ways once again. They discussed their positions in recent interviews with Times staff writer Marc Lacey.

Speaker Gingrich has said that some form of school prayer legislation will probably be brought to a vote this term. The “contract with the American family” calls for a Religious Equality Amendment that would amend the Constitution to allow religious expression in public places, such as at high school graduation ceremonies and sporting events. Backers say they are not calling for mandatory classroom prayer. What do you think?

Moorhead: I have not read the “contract with the American family” and I don’t think that school prayer should be mandated. But I don’t think you should deprive children of things that are available to everyone else in the world. We open up all sorts of service club meetings and every other kind of meeting you can imagine with a prayer. I can’t see telling kids they can’t do something everyone else can do. I don’t want mandates and when you say, “You can’t do it,” you’re mandating. Some school principals are afraid of being sued if anything like that goes on in their school, so they say no.

Waxman: I don’t see what the problem is that they are concerned about. I think they are trying to correct a problem that doesn’t exist. I would be extremely slow to tamper with the Constitution of the United States unless there is a clear, egregious problem that interferes with people’s rights. Everyone rhetorically says they support the separation between church and state. You have to ask “What are their motives?”

School choice is another issue that has resurfaced. Are voucher programs and tuition tax credits a good idea to promote private and religious education?

Moorhead: For many years, in California, you had to go to the community college that was within your own district. Now you have a choice and can go to any community college in the state. Those schools that are doing a top-notch job are growing and doing very well. Those who have not done as good a job are having a little bit of a struggle. It encourages quality work. I don’t think a kid who lives in an area where the school is not up to standard should be compelled to go to school in that area. In these days, a little choice wouldn’t hurt. As for making private schools available, that’s a little more complicated because it depends if the money is available.

Waxman: The biggest concern I have is it would destroy public education. I think it would be tremendously expensive. I don’t think we could afford it. I certainly don’t see cutting programs for the elderly and the poor to give a tax break to people to send their kids to a parochial school.

The Christian Coalition is seeking to end federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corp. for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corp. Would that be a good move?

Moorhead: I think they are well down the line in priority compared to many of the other items that are in the federal budget. If you have money for those things, that’s one thing. If you don’t have the money, they are way down in priority compared to the many other purposes of government. I personally have supported public television because I think it offers top-quality programming. As for the National Endowment of the Arts, they’ve used some horrible judgments in some of the things they’ve funded. I don’t know if I could back it right now, especially because we’re cutting everything else under the sun right now.

Waxman: I cannot see how this is a religious issue in any way, shape or form. I just think a number of these people who call themselves Christians are really Republican operatives who are pursuing a politically conservative agenda. They would rather have privately funded television be the only outlet for entertainment and news. The fact of the matter is the private sector did not do a very good job in each of those areas. The private sector did not provide enough lawyers for people who needed them. The private sector did not offer high-caliber programs like those on public broadcasting. The NEA represents the failure of corporate investors to want to take a chance on anything except the most non-controversial, accepted artistic activities. I think there is no doubt we would suffer culturally as a nation if we did not have public funds to assist in efforts such as the endowments for the arts and humanities and public broadcasting.

The U.S. Department of Education is slated to be dismantled. Would this give more power and resources back to schools themselves?

Moorhead: I don’t think we need a Department of Education. I never thought we needed one. The reason they created it is because you had the budget for education together with the budget for public welfare. It is up to the states and local school districts to run the schools. They can use the money a whole lot more than they can use advice from the federal government. I would not weep over the loss of the Department of Education.

Waxman: I find it ironic that the Republicans want to reduce welfare but at the same time they want to eliminate the Department of Education. What we need is a greater emphasis on education to prepare people for the jobs of the future and not cut back on education on any level.

On abortion, the Christian Coalition is recommending limits on late-term abortions and an end to federal funding of groups that provide abortion counseling. The group also recommends a reversal of the Clinton Administration policy requiring states to use Medicaid dollars for abortions in cases of incest and rape. What do you think of the group’s stand?

Moorhead: I am not an advocate of abortions but I haven’t read their exact position. I have a very good voting record with the Christian Coalition but I don’t make pledges to anybody. I may vote for everything they’ve got but I don’t think my job is to make pledges to people. I keep a pledge if I make it. I pledged to vote for term limits when I signed the other “contract” but I don’t really believe in them. I don’t want to get stuck in a position where I pledge something I don’t wholeheartedly support.

Waxman: We here have a fundamental disagreement. They are opposed to abortion under any circumstances. They would deny abortion services to low-income women even if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. My view is the view of the Supreme Court, that the determination of whether to have an abortion or not is not government’s business but the individual woman’s. I think this is definitely going to be an issue. The Republicans are getting ready to deny poor women an abortion if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest. And they may well have the votes to do it. I think they are going to go so far as to reinstate a gag rule to stop discussion of abortion as an option. I think they may even go further and keep groups like Planned Parenthood from getting any federal funds. I think the Republican House leaders feel they owe too much to the antiabortion groups, especially the Religious Right.