the right of the two Houses of Congress to hire chaplains and to open their sessions with prayer.

When my father, A. Willis Robertson, was a Member of this distinguished body, he met every Wednesday with colleagues to pray in the Senate dining room-and to him that was the highlight of his week. There were Senators from both sides of the aisles; they were enriched by fellowship, prayer, Bible study, and it was a great strength to him. It is my understanding, gentlemen, that if the recent Supreme Court decisions are constitutionally sound, the Senate prayer breakfasts are unconstitutional.

But if Senators have the privilege of praying and reading the Bible on Government property-and certainly they do-then little children should have the same privilege in the schools of our Nation.

Switching from some of the history and judicial interpretations to a few practical issues, just three I want to mention just very briefly. First of all, the decline in morality in America has crippled public education in many parts of this land. Since 1962 many of our public schools have become jungles. Some teachers show evidence of nervous disorders associated with battle fatigue. Drug use is epidemic. Large numbers of children as young as 10 and 11 are confirmed alcoholics. Over 600,000 babies are born out of wedlock to teenage mothers each year. Of the 3 million new cases of syphilis and gonorrhea, over half are teenagers. A new venereal disease, Herpes Simplex, thought to be incurable, has infected an estimated 20 million Americans, many of them teenagers and young adults. Since 1962 the average of the Scholastic Aptitude Test scores among the Nation's high school students has declined steadily every single year without exception. Many high school students are functional illiterates, unable to read a newspaper or to compute the correct change from simple purchases at a supermarket.

In short, without some kind of moral restraint, there can be no effective education.

Second, it is my contention that the functioning of a free society depends at its core on the inner moral restraints of its people. If a people lose their belief in God and their belief in the concept of ultimate rewards and punishment, they will refuse to practice the voluntary restraint and sacrifice needed to preserve freedom.

I want to assure you that the $285 billion lost to the underground economy this year and the incessant demands on government by selfishly motivated special interest groups are just the beginning of what we will see if this Nation continues its turn away from God and His standards. Soon America will face a choice between anarchy or a dictatorship from the right or the left. As Benjamin Franklin put it, and I quote, "We will either be governed by God or we will be ruled by tyrants.'

And, third, the American people overwhelmingly want a reversal of the antireligious court rulings of the past 20 years and the restoration of prayer and faith in our schools.

My personal polls on television, made from a sampling of people in 2,700 American communities, indicate that 96 percent of those responding favored a constitutional amendment to restore religious liberties. The Gallup and Harris polls have shown that approxi

mately 73 percent of Americans favor an amendment to restore prayer in the public schools.

Some religious leaders have appeared before this committee in opposition to this amendment, but I am convinced that some of these officials do not speak for the rank and file of American people.

According to my friend, George Gallup, Jr., 94 percent of the people in America believe in God. Without question those who believe must give the 6 percent who do not believe freedom to speak, to write, to broadcast, to disagree. But I submit to this committee, I do not think that the believing majority owes any obligation to the disbelieving 6 percent minority to dismantle our entire public affirmation of faith in God, nor do we owe this 6 percent minority an absolute veto over a constitutional amendment which would reaffirm our freedom to address Almighty God in our schools and public places.

And, Senator East, you have pointed out so eloquently today the alternatives, and I would reaffirm the fact that our Constitution gives the Congress the freedom to propose amendments to the Constitution, to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal court system, and to carry out the legislative function of the Federal Government.

And I would respectfully urge this committee to use all its constitutional powers to curb the intrusion of the Federal judiciary into the free exercise of religion in this country, and, as a first step, to approve Senate Joint Resolution 199.

Thank you.

Senator EAST. Dr. Robertson, I appreciate your remarks. I, too, had wanted to point out that your father, from the great State of Virginia, at one time had been a Member of this body, and a very distinguished and able Member of it as a matter of fact. And, obviously, you have gone on to great success in a career of your choosing-and I wanted to note that, too-so it's an honor to have you here this morning. And it does particularly increase that honor, knowing that your father had served with such great distinction here in the U.S. Senate. He would probably say that you have gone on to even greater and better things. One could make a very strong case for that.

I would make several observations based upon your testimony about this amendment, as valuable and as useful as it may be. It enjoys the support of a very broad spectrum of people in the United States, although I certainly appreciate it also has its oppo

nents.

I think it's a little bit, though, a sign of our times-and an unfortunate sign of our times-that the issue should even be in question. I find it somewhat fascinating that we should be spending hours here in the U.S. Senate looking at a constitutional amendment which would permit voluntary prayers in the public schools of this country. I am sure if the framers were here, not to overromanticize the framers, but to understand as I understand their conception of what the first amendment and American federalism were, I think they would be appalled and wonder what in the world you good gents are doing sitting here arguing or debating. But here we are. We have noted here today the chilling effect of Engel v. Vitale plus

current recent cases-you have pointed them out-that do increasingly tend to demand the elimination of all vestiges of traditional religious belief in the public schools of the United States.

And I simply reemphasize a point I made before, not only could this trend be a contributing factor to a degree of very troublesome moral decline in this country, which you have so eloquently noted, but it brings us perilously close to the idea that the Supreme Court should be enforcing a national religion of nonbelief, that you can do everything else under the sun in the name of the first amendment on the public school grounds, but the moment that you do anything that would suggest an identity with, or connection to, the traditional religious values of the United States or of the Western World generally, that is forbidden. This, I would submit, as a practical matter, is state-enforced religion, the religion of secularism, the religion of nonbelief. Call it what you will.

And so I repeat: It occurs to me you have come full circle in which the central Government today in our Federal system does have an enforced national religion, the religion of nonbelief, the religion of materialism, of naturalism, of anything but traditional religious values.

Now, I think all I would request is maybe a little balance, equal time, a little more tolerant attitude, a return to the idea that varieties of points of view ought to be able to be expressed in our public schools, including traditional religious values. Why would they be excluded and all the rest encouraged, or permitted? I don't know. There is a certain perversity there, I would submit, with all due respect for contrary points of view.

Dr. ROBERTSON. I would agree with you, Senator, and point out that the very group that is the most vociferous about taking prayer and Bible reading and other religious occasions and observances away from our society is the one that is at the forefront of legalizing pornography, including child pornography, and establishing, quote, the constitutional rights of the youth to view x rated movies. So there has been a reversal of our sociological and religious and moral values over the last hundred years; it is very profound and will have far-reaching consequences if we don't do something to stop it.

Senator EAST. I would like to make one final point on your comments. Again, I was suggesting one feels somewhat strange arguing here whether such a modest amendment as this would even be necessary; I would think that in an earlier period in American history it wouldn't even have been necessary to debate the issue.

Interestingly, last night, Senator Specter and I had the opportunity to be on the McNeil-Lehrer program on the abortion issue. The Senate is debating the abortion issue right now in the Chamber in connection with Senator Helms' proposal, and in due course they expect to get to a constitutional amendment that Senator Hatch is offering. My point is, it's curious, from the Senate's perspective, to see the subtle but profound transformation that is taking place in policymaking in the United States. Nowadays policymaking follows this scenario: The Supreme Court issues an edict, a policy decision, and that's it; it isn't deliberated through the normal political processes; the justices simply issue an edict declaring that the unborn will be unprotected under the Constitution

from conception to birth. That is the policy decision. Once the Supreme Court announces its decision it is imposed throughout the land. How do you change such an edict? Well, many people feel that the only way you can change it is through the amending proc

ess.

People are saying these days; well, you good chaps are spending too much time considering amendments to the Constitution. The reason we are is that the Supreme Court-totally out of keeping with what it ought to be doing, in my judgment-is making these major policy decisions, and one of the few ways we can get out from underneath the constitutional rubble is to utilize the amending process.

But you see what that does-it's a fascinating alteration in the Federal system, because now our power as a legislative body is now shared with States, and vice versa. In order to get an amendment through we have to have two-thirds votes here and ratification by three-quarters of the States; that is a very long and laborious process. And in effect increasingly major policy decisions in the United States are made today, one, on the initiative of the Court; two, on the efforts of the Congress and the States through the amending process to try to alter that policy.

But there are some people-and I know, of course, their intentions are honorable-who will simply say you shouldn't even amend, you shouldn't try to amend, there is no authority to amend, there isn't any precedent to amend. Well, of course, there is, it's there, we have established that such power exists.

If we do not have an alternative to the Supreme Court's edicts in this area, we have dramatically transformed the nature of the American system from a democratic republic to, frankly, an aristocracy.

Dr. ROBERTSON. That's right. That is what President Jefferson warned us against.

Senator EAST. Yes, and we would have come full circle on that point, just as he feared might happen. I don't wish to exaggerate the point, but I am saying that there is that tendency, and I see it here. In the 11⁄2 years that Senator Specter and I have been here, we have spent an immense amount of time talking about proposed constitutional amendments on major policy questions to get out from under edicts of the Court. Under a more appropriate conception of the power of judicial review, the Court would have deferred these kinds of major policy judgments, as frankly the framers intended, including Jefferson, to the Congress or the States or a combination thereof. Let us work out our own destiny as a democratic republic on major policy questions and not have it imposed from on high with no alternative, but to amend the Constitution. Here we are dealing with a modest constitutional amendment on such a minor matter as a voluntary prayer in the public schools of America. What are we going to do when we get some of the other issues? We are going to have a Constitution 10 miles long because it's one of the few ways, not to overlook other alternatives, like regulation of court jurisdiction, to undo what the justices are doing. And that is, I suppose, the issue before the House here, that before we move ever further in the establishment of State-enforced secularism, the established religion of secularism, total, absolute, categorical, un

bending, unyielding-before we move ever further in that direction, we should throw up one little caution light, namely, voluntary prayer. It's a very modest proposal.

And in terms of the broader issues, I too think there is a problem, a legitimate one, without overreacting or overstating the case, of a certain degree of moral degeneracy in the country today approaching somewhat alarming proportions: drugs, pornography, gratuitous violence. I think many Americans not confined to political party, nor to a particular section of the political spectrum-can only be concerned and alarmed about those particular developments. Pornography at the neighborhood theater has got to be of some concern. When we have youth who are very much threatened by a serious drug problem today, a problem that no one takes lightly or casually we see that something must be wrong. There are limits, I suppose, ultimately as to what government can do about all of that. But you get down to the fundamental problems of the moral quality of life in a society. And, as that first great political scientist, Plato, said: society is merely the individual writ large.

When we are no longer able to have such a modest thing as voluntary prayer in the public schools of the United States, it causes me to wonder whether the broader problem of moral decline is not a symptom of the continued secularization of this society. I don't have a simple answer to this question, nor am I trying to impose an answer, but I don't think it is an irresponsible or unreasonable posture to take-and I sense you are taking it-to suggest those trends are there. And I think we ought to have some public dialog on it, and we are—and I appreciate your coming today and being a part of it. I know you have a very demanding schedule, and I don't wish to keep you beyond the appointed hour. If you have any other comment or observation you would like to make, we would be happy to have it. Otherwise we will thank you again for coming.

Dr. ROBERTSON. Just one comment. The Connecticut Mutual Insurance Co., did a very revealing survey of American attitudes about 1 year ago that speaks to your particular point of view, and found, surprisingly so, that there were elites in America who held views contrary to the vast majority of the people on a number of moral issues. And the elites especially were found in the legal profession and in the judiciary, and their views were out of step with the vast majority of Americans as much as 80 to 20 percent, or vice

versa.

Obviously it is easier for a small elite to get its will through one judge in one case than it would be to win an election at the ballot box and to get its representation through the legislature, which is what should be done, by the Constitution.

I think our cry would be for the legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to exercise its constitutionally mandated powers as the representatives of the people.

That summarizes, I believe, my position.

Senator EAST. Well, again, we appreciate your coming, and we extend our best regards.

Dr. ROBERTSON. Thank you very much, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:]