[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               LEAVE GRANTED PURSUANT TO THE SENATE RULES

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, after the National Prayer Breakfast this 
morning, the senior Senator from Alaska entered the hospital to undergo 
a simple surgical procedure to remove a bone spur from his back which 
is pressing against his sciatic nerve.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens be granted leave from 
the Senate pursuant to rule VI, paragraph 2 of the Standing Rules of 
the Senate while he recuperates from this procedure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. HELMS. I believe, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts has a unanimous-consent request he is about to propose?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had not expected to propound the 
consent request but I will formulate it now. If the Senator wants to 
put his amendment through and then I will propound the request--I will 
do so.
  Mr. HELMS. Let me ask the Senator if what we just discussed 5 minutes 
ago in the Cloakroom is what he has in mind for the unanimous-consent 
request, when he propounds it, to the effect that when I call up my 
amendment relating to school prayer, that amendment will be disposed of 
with an up-or-down vote and that no second-degree amendment will be in 
order. Is that correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. Very well. But, as I understand it, the Senator has not 
formulated his unanimous-consent request yet?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. What would be intended is that 
the Senator would offer the amendment, take what time the Senator would 
desire on that amendment. Following that, there would be a time at 
which either myself or a designee--I think Senator Danforth or Senator 
Jeffords--would send to the desk an amendment. Then there would be time 
on that for a discussion.
  At the conclusion of that discussion, there would be back-to-back 
votes on the two different proposals with the first vote being on the 
Senator's amendment and the second vote to follow immediately would be 
on the other amendment. And that there would be no second-degree 
amendments or intervening action.
  That would be what the unanimous-consent request would include, and I 
would propound that in just a moment or two, as it is being drafted by 
the clerk.
  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will yield, that seems to me to be a clear 
statement of what the proposal would be.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that proposal be propounded as a 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. HELMS. Did the Chair understand that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands there to be an agreement 
that two amendments will be offered, one following the other, that 
second-degrees will not be in order to either of them, that the Senator 
from North Carolina's amendment will be voted upon first and then the 
amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts will be voted upon 
thereafter.
  Mr. HELMS. That seems to be clear to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That there be an up-or-down vote on either 
one.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Either one. An up-or-down vote on Senator Helms' 
amendment first and up-or-down vote on the second amendment, should the 
second amendment be offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there consent? There 
seems to be unanimous consent. The action of the Senate will follow 
that course.


        Mother Teresa's Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before I say anything else, let me say 
hurrah for Mother Teresa. What a wonderful little lady she is. I want 
to see certain people and certain newspapers criticize her for the 
strong stand that she took against abortion this morning. She laid it 
on the line with some, may I say, right interesting people sitting 
there listening to her.
  I know some of these ``interesting'' people were squirming in their 
seats. I am not going to call any names, but I think it is perfectly 
clear about whom I am talking.
  God bless Mother Teresa. She stood up nobly and eloquently for the 
sanctity of life. I am so proud of her.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of her remarks be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Whatever You Did Unto One of the Least, You Did Unto Me

                     (By Mother Teresa of Calcutta)

       On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, 
     ``Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me 
     food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you 
     visited me.'' Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand 
     and say, ``Depart from me because I was hungry and you did 
     not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, 
     I was sick and you did not visit me.'' These will ask Him, 
     ``When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not 
     come to Your help?'' And Jesus will answer them, ``Whatever 
     you neglected to do unto one of the least of these, you 
     neglected to do unto Me!''
       As we have gathered here to pray together, I think it will 
     be beautiful if we begin with a prayer that expresses very 
     well what Jesus wants us to do for the least. St. Francis of 
     Assisi understood very well these words of Jesus and His life 
     is very well expressed by a prayer. And this prayer, which we 
     say every day after Holy Communion, always surprises me very 
     much, because it is very fitting for each one of us. And I 
     always wonder whether 800 years ago when St. Francis lived, 
     they had the same difficulties that we have today. I think 
     that some of you already have this prayer of peace--so we 
     will pray it together.
       Let us thank God for the opportunity He has given us today 
     to have come here to pray together. We have come here 
     especially to pray for peace, joy and love. We are reminded 
     that Jesus came to bring the good news to the poor. He had 
     told us what is that good news when He said: ``My peace I 
     leave with you, My peace I give unto you.'' He came not to 
     give the peace of the world which is only that we don't 
     bother each other. He came to give the peace of heart which 
     comes from loving--from doing good to others.
       And God loved the world so much that He gave His son--it 
     was a giving. God gave His son to the Virgin Mary, and what 
     did she do with Him? As soon as Jesus came into Mary's life, 
     immediately she went in haste to give that good news. And as 
     she came into the house of her cousin, Elizabeth, Scripture 
     tells us that the unborn child--the child in the womb of 
     Elizabeth--leapt with joy. While still in the womb of Mary--
     Jesus brought peace to John the Baptist who leapt for joy in 
     the womb of Elizabeth.
       And as if that were not enough, as if it were not enough 
     that God the Son should become one of us and bring peace and 
     joy while still in the womb of Mary, Jesus also died on the 
     Cross to show that greater love. He died for you and for me, 
     and for that leper and for that man dying of hunger and that 
     naked person lying in the street, not only of Calcutta, but 
     of Africa, and everywhere. Our Sisters serve these poor 
     people in 105 countries throughout the world. Jesus insisted 
     that we love one another as He loves each one of us. Jesus 
     gave His life to love us and He tells us that we also have to 
     give whatever it takes to do good to one another. And in the 
     Gospel Jesus says very clearly: ``Love as I have loved you.''
       Jesus died on the Cross because that is what it took for 
     Him to do good to us--to save us for our selfishness in sin. 
     He gave up everything to do the Father's will--to show us 
     that we too must be willing to give up everything to do God's 
     will--to love one another as he loves each of us. If we are 
     not willing to give whatever it takes to do good to one 
     another, sin is still in us. That is why we too must give to 
     each other until it hurts.
       It is not enough for us to say: ``I love God.'' but I also 
     have to love my neighbor. St John says that you are a liar if 
     you say you love God and you don't love your neighbor. How 
     can you love God whom you do not see, if you do not love your 
     neighbor whom you see, whom you touch, with whom you live? 
     And so it is very important for us to realize that love, to 
     be true, has to hurt. I must be willing to give whatever it 
     takes not to harm other people and, in fact, to do good to 
     them. This requires that I be willing to give until it hurts. 
     Otherwise, there is no true love in me and I bring injustice, 
     not peace, to those around me.
       It hurt Jesus to love us. We have been created in His image 
     for greater things, to love and to be loved. We must ``put on 
     Christ'' as Scripture tells us. And so, we have been created 
     to love as He love us. Jesus makes Himself the hungry one, 
     the naked one, the homeless one, the unwanted one, and He 
     says, ``You did it to Me.'' On the last day He will say to 
     those on His right, ``whatever you did to the least of these, 
     you did to Me, and He will also say to those on His left, 
     what-ever you neglected to do for the least of these, you 
     neglected to do it for Me.''
       When He was dying on the Cross, Jesus said, ``I thirst.'' 
     Jesus is thirsting for our love, and this is the thirst of 
     everyone, poor and rich alike. We all thirst for the love of 
     others, that they go out of their way to avoid harming us and 
     to do good to us. This is the meaning of true love, to give 
     until it hurts.
       I can never forget the experience I had in visiting a home 
     where they kept all these old parents of sons and daughters 
     who had just put them into an institution and forgotten 
     them--maybe. I saw that in that home these old people had 
     everything--good food, comfortable place, television, 
     everything, but everyone was looking toward the door. And I 
     did not see a single one with a smile on the face. I turned 
     to Sister and I asked: ``Why do these people who have every 
     comfort here, why are they all looking toward the door? Why 
     are they not smiling?''
       I am so used by seeing the smiles on our people, even the 
     dying ones smile. And Sister said: ``This is the way it is 
     nearly every day. They are expecting, they are hoping that a 
     son or daughter will come to visit them. They are hurt 
     because they are forgotten.'' And see, this neglect to love 
     brings spiritual poverty. Maybe in our own family we have 
     somebody who is feeling lonely, who is feeling sick, who is 
     feeling worried. Are we there? Are we willing to give until 
     it hurts in order to be with our families, or do we put our 
     own interests first? These are the questions we must ask 
     ourselves, especially as we begin this year of the family. We 
     must remember that love begins at home and we must also 
     remember that `the future of humanity passes through the 
     family.'
       I was surprised in the West to see so many young boys and 
     girls given to drugs. And I tried to find out why. Why is it 
     like that, when those in the West have so many more things 
     than those in the East? And the answer was: ``Because there 
     is no one in the family to receive them.'' Our children 
     depend on us for everything--their health, their nutrition, 
     their security, their coming to know and love God. For all of 
     this, they look to us with trust, hope and expectation. But 
     often father and mother are so busy they have no time for 
     their children, or perhaps they are not even married or have 
     given up on their marriage. So the children go to the streets 
     and get involved in drugs or other things. We are talking of 
     love of the child, which is where love and peace must begin. 
     These are the things that break peace.
       But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is 
     abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct 
     killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. 
     And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, 
     how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do 
     we persuade a women not have an abortion? As always, we must 
     persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love 
     means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even 
     His life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of 
     abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until is 
     hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her 
     child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also 
     give until it hurts.
       By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills 
     even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, 
     the father is told that he does not have to take any 
     responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the 
     world. That father is likely to put other women into the same 
     trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country 
     that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but 
     to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the 
     greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
       Many people are very, very concerned with the children of 
     India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of 
     hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all 
     the violence in this great country of the United States. 
     These concerns are very good. But often these same people are 
     not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the 
     deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is 
     the greatest destroyer of peace--abortion which brings people 
     to such blindness.
       And for this I appeal in India and I appeal everywhere--
     ``Let us bring the child back.'' The child is God's gift to 
     the family. Each child is created in the special image and 
     likeness of God for greater things--to love and to be loved. 
     In this year of the family we must bring the child back to 
     the center of our care and concern. This is the only way that 
     our world can survive because our children are the only hope 
     for the future. As older people are called to God, only their 
     children can take their places.
       But what does God say to us? He says: ``Even if a mother 
     could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved 
     you in the palm of my hand.'' We are carved in the palm of 
     His hand; that unborn child has been carved in the hand of 
     God from conception and is called by God to love and to be 
     loved, not only now in this life, but forever. God can never 
     forget us.
       I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting 
     abortion by adoption--by care of the mother and adoption for 
     her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word 
     to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: 
     ``Please don't destroy the child; we will take the child.'' 
     So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: 
     ``Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your 
     child.'' And we have a tremendous demand from couples who 
     cannot have a child--but I never give a child to a couple who 
     have done something not to have a child. Jesus said, ``Anyone 
     who receives a child in my name, receives me.'' By adopting a 
     child, these couples receive Jesus but, by aborting a child, 
     a couple refuses to receive Jesus.
       Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give 
     me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be 
     aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will 
     love the child and be loved by the child. From our children's 
     home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children 
     from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy 
     to their adopting parents and have grown up so full of love 
     and joy.
       I know that couples have to plan their family and for that 
     there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family 
     is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying 
     the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or 
     wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to 
     self and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In 
     loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each 
     other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, 
     as happens in contraception. Once that living love is 
     destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.
       I also know that there are great problems in the world--
     that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice 
     natural family planning. We cannot solve all the problems in 
     the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of 
     all, and that is to destroy love. And this is what happens 
     when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion.
       The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many 
     beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for 
     teaching her natural family planning and said: ``You people 
     who have practiced chastity, you are the best people to teach 
     us natural family planning because it is nothing more than 
     self-control out of love for each other.'' And what this poor 
     person said is very true. These poor people maybe have 
     nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but 
     they can still be great people when they are spiritually 
     rich.
       When I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him 
     a plate of rice, a piece of bread. But a person who is shut 
     out, who feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person who 
     has been thrown out of society--that spiritual poverty is 
     much harder to overcome. And abortion, which often follows 
     from contraception, brings a people to be spiritually poor, 
     and that is the worst poverty and the most difficult to 
     overcome.
       Those who are materially poor can be very wonderful people. 
     One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the 
     street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition. I 
     told the Sisters: ``You take care of the other three; I will 
     take care of the one who looks worse.'' So I did for her all 
     that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was such a 
     beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, as she 
     said one word only: ``thank you''--and she died.
       I could not help but examine my conscience before her. And 
     I asked: ``What would I say if I were in her place?'' And my 
     answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little 
     attention to myself. I would have said: ``I am hungry, I am 
     dying, I am cold, I am in pain,'' or something. But she gave 
     me much more--she gave me her grateful love. And she died 
     with a smile on her face. Then there was the man we picked up 
     from the drain, half eaten by worms and, after we had 
     brought him to the home, he only said ``I have lived like 
     an animal in the street, but I am going to die as an 
     angel, loved and cared for.'' Then, after we had removed 
     all the worms from his body, all he said, with a big 
     smile, was: ``Sister, I am going home to God''--and he 
     died. It was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man 
     who could speak like that without blaming anybody, without 
     comparing anything. Like an angel--this is the greatness 
     of people who are spiritually rich even when they are 
     materially poor.
       We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in 
     the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the 
     heart of the world. For we must bring that presence of God 
     into your family, for the family that prays together, stays 
     together. There is so much hatred, so much misery, and we 
     with our prayer, with our sacrifice, are beginning at home. 
     Love begins at home, and it is not how much we do, but how 
     much love we put into what we do.
       If we are contemplatives in the heart of the world with all 
     its problems, these problems can never discourage us. We must 
     always remember what God tells us in Scripture: ``Even if a 
     mother could forget the child in her womb--something 
     impossible, but even if she could forget--I will never forget 
     you.
       And so here I am talking to you. I want you to find the 
     poor here, right in your own home first. And begin love here. 
     Ben that good news to your own people first. And find out 
     about your next-door neighbors. Do you know who they are?
       I had the most extraordinary experience of love of neighbor 
     with a Hindu family. A gentleman came to our house and said: 
     ``Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so 
     long. Do something.'' So I took some rice and went there 
     immediately. And I saw the children--their eyes shining with 
     hunger, I don't know if you have every seen hunger. But I 
     have seen it very often. And the mother of the family took 
     the rice I gave her and went out. When she came back, I asked 
     her: ``Where did you go? What did you do?'' And she gave me a 
     very simple answer: ``They are hungry also.'' What struck me 
     was that she knew--and who are they? A Muslim family--and she 
     knew. I didn't bring any more rice that evening because I 
     wanted them, Hindus and Muslims, to enjoy the joy of sharing.
       But there were those children, radiating joy, sharing the 
     joy and peace with their mother because she had the love to 
     give until it hurts. And you see this is where love begins--
     at home in the family.
       So, as the example of this family shows, God will never 
     forget us and there is something you and I can always do. We 
     can keep the joy of loving Jesus in our hearts, and share 
     that joy with all we come in contact with. Let us make that 
     one point--that no child will be unwanted, unloved, uncared 
     for, or killed and thrown away. And give until it hurts--with 
     a smile.
       Because I talk so much of giving with a smile, once a 
     professor from the United States asked me: ``Are you 
     married?'' And I said: ``Yes, and I find it sometimes very 
     difficult to smile at my spouse, Jesus, because He can be 
     very demanding--sometimes.'' This is really something true. 
     And there is where love comes in--when it is demanding, and 
     yet we can give it with joy.
       One of the most demanding things for me is travelling 
     everywhere--and with publicity. I have said to Jesus that if 
     I don't go to heaven for anything else, I will be going to 
     heaven for all the travelling with all the publicity, because 
     it has purified me and sacrificed me and made me really ready 
     to go to heaven.
       If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love 
     others as He loves us, then America can become a sign of 
     peace for the world. From here, a sign of care for the 
     weakest of the weak--the unborn child--must go out to the 
     world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in 
     the world, then really you will be true to what the founders 
     of this country stood for. God bless you.


                  School Prayer and Children's Values

  Now then, Mr. President, shortly I will offer an amendment, but I 
shall defer doing so momentarily, at least.
  Mr. President, millions of Americans listened to President Clinton's 
State of the Union speech during which he made a number of appeals to 
our Nation, one of them being--let me quote it since he said it so 
eloquently and with great passion:

       And so I say to you tonight, let us give our children a 
     future. Let us take away their guns and give them books. Let 
     us overcome their despair and replace it with hope. Let us, 
     by our example, teach them to obey the law, respect our 
     neighbors, and cherish our values.

  I wish the President had been a little more specific about whose 
values and what values. But nevertheless, it was good rhetoric. And I 
enjoyed listening, particularly as my mind raced backwards in time to 
various campaign promises and various criticisms and actions taken a 
little over a year ago.
  Anyway, ``cherish our values, respect our neighbors.'' It struck me 
that the best way to do that is right here in our hearts. It is also in 
print and available to everybody in this country. A book that is well 
known, it is called The Holy Bible. It is a dust catcher in a lot of 
places, but it is the greatest book ever written.
  So, while the President's rhetoric was all well and good, the fact is 
that America's children cannot even read from this book in their 
classrooms, which the politicians publicly acknowledge is the source of 
our values and our laws as a nation. But the politicians do not really 
mean that. Their real belief, based on their actions, is that the 
Government is the source of our values. They believe in big Government.
  That is why the American taxpayers' dollars are being used by 
bureaucrats to distribute condoms in the schools of America at the same 
time children are prohibited from reading the Bible.
  What kind of message, Mr. President--and I refer to Mr. President 
Clinton when I say this--what kind of message does this state of 
affairs send to young people? When our Government forbids reading from 
the Bible, but pays for the distribution of condoms in the schools, 
what kind of message does the combination of those two Governmental 
actions send?
  How can we expect schoolchildren, as President Clinton put it, ``to 
obey the law, respect our neighbors and cherish our values'' if the 
U.S. Government says that the Bible and prayer do not belong in the 
school, but condoms do?
  The President engaged in the rhetorical exhortation that ``by our 
example, let's teach our children to obey the law and respect our 
neighbors and cherish our values.'' I say, ``Very well, Mr. President, 
but then what did you do at the first crack of the bat when you took 
office, except to negate everything that Mother Teresa said this 
morning at the National Prayer Breakfast. As soon as possible, I am 
going to get a copy of what Mother Teresa said, and I am going to put 
it in the Congressional Record. And before this month is out, I may 
also read it into the Record three or four times because it needs to be 
understood where our values do and do not come from.
  Mr. President, I have an amendment that the Senator from 
Massachusetts has now agreed to allow the Senate to vote on. Yesterday, 
we had quite a discussion, and the Senator first said, ``No, but go 
ahead'' and then his aides intervened and said, ``No, Senator Helms 
can't have that.'' The text on the easel to my right is the language of 
the amendment that Senator Kennedy and his staff did not want the 
Senate to vote on yesterday. He does not want Senators to be 
embarrassed by having to vote on it up and down. I replied, ``OK'' and 
I went home. But as I left I said I was going to impress upon the 
American people what is at stake.
  Overnight, we contacted, directly and indirectly, thousands of people 
and alerted them that we were going to offer the amendment today. Let 
me read it from the chart on the easel:

       No funds made available through the Department of Education 
     under this act, or any other act, shall be available to any 
     State or local educational agency which has a policy of 
     denying, or which effectively prevents participation in, 
     prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary basis. 
     Neither the United States nor any State nor any local 
     educational agency shall require any person to participate in 
     prayer or influence the form or content of any prayer in such 
     public schools.

  Mr. President, that is just about as clear as you can make an 
amendment. But Senator Kennedy and his Education Committee staff said, 
``Oh, no, we can't take that one; we're going to second degree you if 
you offer it.''
  Now, let me state the realities of the situation as the Senate is 
constituted today. The distinguished Senators on the other side of the 
aisle, the Democrats, control the Senate since they have a majority of 
the votes. So, only Democrats get to sit in the chair and preside over 
the Senate. And time and time again only Democrats are recognized to 
speak or offer amendments at crucial times--when push comes to shove--
on an issue. Therefore, it is not possible for a Republican Senator to 
even offer an amendment without having it gutted if the Democratic 
manager of a bill persists in the notion that the Senate should not 
even vote on a particular amendment--such as the one I have just read 
to you.
  I am now going to be able to offer that amendment in just a few 
minutes, and get it voted on by the Senate, because the Senator  from 
Massachusetts had a change of heart overnight--perhaps because I fully 
intended to spend 7 or 8 hours on this floor discussing the amendment 
until I could offer it.

  What is going to happen next is totally predictable. I shall offer 
the amendment and get a rollcall vote set for it. Then Senator Kennedy 
is going to bring in Senator John Danforth, or somebody else, and they 
will attempt to muddy the water about what the issue raised by the 
amendment is. But I want the people of America to understand exactly 
what it is that really upsets them. It is this amendment language on 
the easel, which says that:

       No funds made available through the Department of Education 
     under this act, or any other act, shall be available to any 
     State or local educational agency which has a policy of 
     denying, or which effectively prevents participation in, 
     prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary basis. 
     Neither the United States nor any State nor any local 
     educational agency shall require any person to participate in 
     prayer or influence the form or content of any prayer in such 
     public schools.

  For those Americans who may be watching on C-SPAN, I suggest that you 
begin right now--if you favor this amendment on school prayer--to call 
your Senator. The telephone number is on the easel, let me read it, 1-
202-224-3121. Ask for your Senators from your state and tell them how 
you feel about the amendment. If you are opposed to this amendment, 
tell them that. But please help ensure that the Senate has a vote on it 
that is meaningful.
  Mr. President, I am going to refer to the text of this amendment from 
time to time so it will be clearly understood by the public and 
Senators. All of the exhortations and obfuscations you will hear later 
you can make up your own mind about.
  An almost identical amendment to this one was passed in 1989 by the 
House of Representatives by a vote of 269 to 135--I repeat, 269 to 135, 
almost two to one. This amendment--I shall reiterate time and time 
again in this discussion--will prevent any school district which has a 
policy of prohibiting voluntary student-initiated prayer in the schools 
from receiving any Federal funds authorized by this act or any other 
act.
  Let me make it clear that this amendment does not mandate school 
prayer or require schools to write any particular prayer. It simply 
forbids school districts from setting up official policies or 
procedures with the intent and purpose of prohibiting individuals from 
voluntarily saying prayers at school.
  Senator Danforth and others may come in here and say, ``Oh, how are 
you going to do this,'' and ``How are you going to do that?'' But let 
me remind Senators that for over 50 years this century--no 60 years in 
this century--there was no problem. Prayers were said everyday in my 
grammar school and high school--public schools--until that lady from 
Pennsylvania, using her little boy as a pawn, agitated on the issue 
until it came before the Supreme Court. And we know what the final 
result was.
  Mr. President, in short under the amendment, if a school district 
actively prohibits voluntary student-initiated prayer in school, then 
under this amendment, yes, that is right, old Helms is proposing that 
that school district lose its Federal funding. However, if the school 
district does not address the issue of prayer at all, then the funds 
will not be cut off. As long as they do not take a position one way or 
another--because that will restore the situation to what it was before 
all this foolishness started and when principles meant something in the 
schools--and I mean p-r-i-n-c-i-p-l-e-s.
  Again, so there will be no confusion, a school is not required under 
this language to do anything in favor of voluntary prayer. It merely 
must refrain from instituting policies prohibiting voluntary student 
prayer.
  As I said, Senators are going to hear all sorts of obfuscating 
remarks, but I hope the C-SPAN cameras will focus on language on the 
easel again, just so there will be no mistake. This is what the 
amendment says. This is all the amendment says:

       No funds made available through the Department of Education 
     under this act, or any other act, shall be available to any 
     State or local educational agency which has a policy of 
     denying, or which effectively prevents participation in, 
     prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary basis. 
     Neither the United States nor any State nor any local 
     educational agency shall require any person to participate in 
     prayer or influence the form or content of any prayer in such 
     public schools.

  And if those of you listening out there in America are in favor of 
this amendment, I implore you to put in a call to your Senator. If you 
cannot get your Senator personally, talk to their administrative 
assistant or their legislative assistant. If they will not talk to you 
about it, you can pretty well assume that that Senator is not going to 
vote for the amendment. Maybe not in all cases, though.
  Once again, there is the phone number on the easel: 202-224-3121. 
Call and ask for your Senator and say, ``Where do you stand on school 
prayer?'' If you get a ``non-answer,'' you can consider that that is an 
answer.
  Mr. President, let me mention for the Record that language similar to 
the amendment that I will offer has been a part of every education 
appropriations bill since 1982. For instance, section 304 of the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations Act of 1993, passed just this past October, states that:

       No funds appropriated under this Act may be used to prevent 
     the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer and 
     meditation in the public schools.

  Perhaps there are some parents out there watching this debate can 
attest that the principals or superintendents of their schools are 
scared of their shadows and have shut off any consideration of 
voluntary student-initiated school prayer for fear that they will be 
called on the carpet by the Federal bureaucrats or the ACLU--the 
dreaded American Civil Liberties Union.
  That is the formidable intimidation that exists right now, Mr. 
President.
  Now, let me read you from this other little book. It is called the 
Congressional Record. This is the issue for February 2, which is 
yesterday, and what do you know--the first thing entered in the 
Congressional Record for the House of Representatives yesterday reads 
as follows:

       The House met at 2 p.m.
       The Reverend Donald Frederick Lindstrom, Jr., Episcopal 
     Church of the Mediator, Meridian, MS, offered the following 
     prayer.

  Is it possible that the Supreme Court has not said anything about 
prayers in the Senate Chamber or the House Chamber. Official prayers 
are offered every day in both houses.
  Now let us read the Senate proceedings in the Record to see how the 
Senate began yesterday morning.
  Well, what do you know--first page of the Congressional Record for 
the Senate for Wednesday, February 2 reads as follows:

       The chaplain, the Reverend Richard C. Halverson, offered 
     the following prayer.

  He said:

       Let us pray.
       Eternal God, Lord of history, Ruler of the nations, with 
     profound gratitude we thank You for the words with which the 
     Constitution begins.

  Then Dick Halverson continued with his typically eloquent prayer.
  So you see, Mr. President, the Senate and the House can begin their 
days activities by praying with impunity, but not so American children 
in the public schools.
  Now, I fully expect some Senators to argue later, ``Oh, yes they can. 
Helms is wrong.''
  But Mr. Helms is not wrong. The American people perceive a lot of 
things, and that is the reason an overwhelming majority of them support 
restoring prayer to the schools. I do not know how Senators are going 
to vote. I do not even know whether the American people are calling 
their Senators' offices right now on the number I gave out. But is it 
not astounding that the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, all begin 
with a prayer. Yet, you cannot do that in the schools--it is taboo.
  I watched, a little over a year ago, the present President of the 
United States take the oath of office. And where do you reckon his hand 
was placed when he took that solemn oath? On the Bible. Yet the Supreme 
Court of the United States says school children cannot have anything to 
do with prayer when they are at school.
  But, thank the Lord, in the polls, every poll that I have ever seen, 
the vast majority of the American people readily recognize the moral 
and practical imperatives of restoring school prayer. I hear it every 
time I go home. About a third of the mail that I get from parents makes 
the same plea, ``Why? Why can you guys pray but my child can't?'' We 
are going to answer that question shortly with a rollcall vote.
  Mr. President, Reader's Digest magazine commissioned the Wirthlin 
Group to conduct a poll on the school prayer issue back in 1992. The 
Wirthlin Group found that, what do you know, 80 percent --eight, zero 
percent--of the American people disapprove of the Supreme Court's 
ruling that it is unconstitutional for prayers to be offered at high 
school graduations. What a silly ruling. I do not know what the Court 
was doing when it decided that case.
  The Wirthlin poll also showed that 75 percent of Americans favor 
prayer in the public schools. And Reader's Digest pointed out that 
these opinions in favor of school prayer were expressed by Democrats, 
Republicans, blacks and whites, rich and poor, high school dropouts, 
college graduates, reflecting a profound disparity between the 
citizenry and the Court.
  Despite this massive public support, all we ever hear on this matter 
is that the Constitution prohibits governmental establishment of 
religion. So what? That has nothing to do with the issue.
  Read the first amendment. See if you can find any basis for the 
despicable situation in which we find ourselves in this country, when 
kids are shooting each other, when no moral principles survive in the 
schools or in many families, or anywhere else. We have run the gamut. 
Of course, the social engineers blame it all on poverty. They blame it 
on not spending enough Federal money. But what we really not have 
enough of is the moral character and backbone in this country needed to 
restore the family by restoring the principles that once guided us as a 
nation and as individuals in this country.
  Despite all of this massive public support, all we hear from the 
media and the lawyers is that the Constitution prohibits governmental 
establishment of religion. But that has nothing to do with school 
prayer.
  Because if it did, Mr. President, if the establishment clause really 
outlawed officially sponsored prayer, we would not be praying in this 
Chamber and the Supreme Court itself would not be able to open its own 
sessions with prayer. And the President of the United States would not 
put his hand on the Holy Book as he takes the oath of office. It is 
reductio ad absurdum, the ultimate absurdity, to interpret the first 
amendment as so many have interpreted it to prohibit school prayer.
  Justice Potter Stewart, one of my favorite people--I miss him--
dissented in one of the Supreme Court's earliest school prayer cases 
and I applaud him for it. Potter Stewart said in that dissent, and let 
me quote him:

       A compulsory state educational system so structures a 
     child's life that if religious exercises are held to be an 
     impermissible activity in school, religion is placed at an 
     artificial and state-created disadvantage.

  In other words, the Government creates a disadvantage for religion if 
it keeps religion out of the schools, and that has surely been the 
result. To continue Potter Stewart's comments, he said:

       Viewed in this light, permission of such exercises for 
     those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to 
     be neutral in the matter of religion.

  Of course, Potter Stewart was absolutely right. Then he continued:

       And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, 
     not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the 
     establishment of a religion of secularism.

  Mr. President, Potter Stewart accurately predicted that governmental 
intolerance of religion would be the natural and precise effect of the 
Court's decision to ban school prayer. And can there be any doubt that 
the Supreme Court's myriad of school prayer decisions have in fact 
fueled governmental intolerance--and assaults--on any vestige of 
Christianity in the public schools?
  Let me pause at this point to repeat to anybody who may be watching 
the Senate session who is interested in the school prayer issue, if you 
are in favor of the amendment that I am talking about, call 202-224-
3121 and ask for your Senator. If they shove  your call aside, make a 
note of it. But you deserve an answer. You are entitled to know how 
your Senator stands on the issue, and how they intend to vote.

  Mr. President, let me cite a few examples of government's overzealous 
assaults on religion in the schools. Even in my State of North 
Carolina, which some of my liberal friends sarcastically refer to as 
being part of the Bible Belt--and I will proudly plead guilty to being 
from the Bible Belt--the confusion growing out of the Supreme Court 
decisions has left its mark.
  There was a teacher in Lexington, NC, a man named Ronald Chapman, who 
resigned his job because he refused to end his 32-year tradition of 
reading the Bible and praying with his special education students. For 
32 years, he had the enthusiastic approval of both students and their 
parents. But the school authorities put the heat on him about it until 
he quit. He said, ``If I cannot have a prayer and give them hope from 
the Bible, forget this job. I quit.'' I do not think he should have 
quit. But I can understand the frustration that led him to it.
  Then, in Thomasville, NC--a furniture manufacturing center in the 
same county--a school superintendent banned the decades-old tradition 
of permitting a public prayer before high school football games--
somebody had protested to the ACLU of course.
  And then a Federal court prohibited a State judge in Charlotte from 
opening his own court session with a prayer for wisdom and guidance 
from God, even though the Supreme Court itself, which caused all of 
this absurdity, opens every one of its sessions with prayer.
  Since governments have put restraints on religious freedom in public 
all over this country, confusion has become rampant and people are 
discontent because moral principles and rights are being watered down.
  I think it is possible to pinpoint when the decline of this country 
really began. It began when Madalyn Murray O'Hair--according to Madalyn 
Murray O'Hair's own son--conspired with Communist attorneys who came to 
her home to orchestrate the lawsuit that resulted in the first Supreme 
Court decision banning prayer.
  Since that time, America has been on the slippery slope. Morality has 
been all but forgotten. It is scoffed at in a lot of circles. As I said 
earlier, right here in Washington, DC, if you have kids killing kids 
with guns, they say: OK, we have to have the Brady bill and control the 
guns, not the kids. But that will not stop it.
  And of course it will not. The District of Columbia, I should observe 
parenthetically, has the toughest gun control law I believe in 
existence anywhere; certainly in this country. Yet, Washington, DC, is 
known as the ``Murder Capital of the World,'' and the ``Crime Capital 
of the World.''
  I believe, and millions of Americans believe, it is because we took 
this Book out of the schools. Away with it, and along with it went all 
regard for principles, fundamental principles including those 
concerning love for our fellow man and respect for human life.
  Mr. President, in the State of Florida not too long ago, a school 
principal felt personally obliged to use his scissors to remove 
pictures of the Bible Club from each and every copy of the high school 
annual because he felt the Supreme Court's school prayer decisions 
required it.
  So he took his scissors and took each one of the high school annuals 
and clipped pictures that might have any relationship whatsoever with 
religious matters out of the book.
  In a number of States, believe it or not--and I am not making this 
up--students have been prohibited--forbidden--from praying in their 
cars in school parking lots before school even begins or during lunch. 
They cannot even bring their Bibles into the schools with them.
  In Colorado, a Denver school tried to have all copies of the Bible 
removed from school libraries on the grounds that their presence on the 
shelves was an infringement of the Supreme Court decisions on school 
prayer. The lawyers can say they misread the Court's decision if they 
want to, but I am talking about the practical effect of the decisions 
all across the country.
  There have been at least three separate studies, and maybe more than 
that, Mr. President, that have noted the textbooks in the public 
schools systematically shun the role of religion in molding the Nation 
and motivating our leaders because the publishers believe that the 
Supreme Court decisions require such censorship. I do not think they 
do. I do not think the Court intended that.
  My older daughter is an elementary school principal. Governor Martin 
appointed her--Jane Helms Knox--to two successive terms on the State 
Textbook Commission, and Jane was appalled at what the textbook 
publishers have been doing. Bless her heart. I am proud of her. She 
said, ``I am not going to approve these books unless you put some of 
our religious history back in.''
  Then, of course, there are my favorite organizations, the American 
Civil Liberties Union, and all the other liberal extremists. They are 
running all over the country using the Supreme Court ruling in the 
Weisman case to force school boards to ban public prayers at high 
school football, basketball games, commencements, and other school 
activities.
  But, thank the Lord, all over this country good, old, plain American 
citizens are fighting back, and I am here today because I want them to 
know I am proud to be on the same team with them. We may lose today, 
but I say to them that we are going to continue to fight. If this 
amendment is not approved today, it is going to be back again and again 
and again, as Franklin Roosevelt once said.
  In many cities and towns, school officials are providing a moment of 
silence in lieu of public prayer, and the people are grasping the 
opportunity to spontaneously recite the Lord's Prayer in unison. I 
guess the American Civil Liberties Union considers that to be a 
rebellion. But if that is a rebellion, Mr. President, let the people 
make the most of it.
  But these spontaneous acts of prayer have been too much for the 
antireligious bigots in some cities and with the American Civil 
Liberties Union's help they have gone back to the Federal courts to try 
to block even moments of silence before ball games and other events.
  Finally, there is the episode in Mississippi where the principal of a 
high school, Dr. Bishop Knox, was suspended and then fired, believe it 
or not, for allowing the students to read a short interdenominational 
prayer over the school intercom. What a terrible thing to let a student 
do, but that is how far we have  come. The students themselves--and 
this is the point, Mr. President--in the Mississippi school had voted 
490 to 96 in favor of having this brief prayer read during morning 
announcements.

  Let me tell you, I was discussing this issue the other day with a 
friend from North Carolina. He said you spend a lot of time with young 
people. The truth is that I have never failed to meet with a young 
person or a group of young people who have come to see me--I met with a 
group, took them into the Vice President's Office just a little while 
ago before I began to speak today. I told them, as I so customarily do, 
that I get sick and tired of hearing that old expression about young 
people going to the dogs, that the younger generation is going to the 
dogs.
  Mr. President, it is not so. They said that in the ancient time of 
Demosthenes. It was not so then and it is not now. The fact is that the 
young people who come to see me are fabulous--and I cannot believe only 
the young people who are conservative come because a lot of them say 
they do not agree with me on various things. By the way, I do not spend 
any time, I invest a lot of time with young people. But just last 
week--and this has happened a number of times in the past 20 years--I 
met with a group of people and the voting light came on and I said, 
``Well, I have got to go vote. Would you like to see the Senate in a 
roll call vote?'' They said yes, so we came over. Before we did, 
however, one young lady took my hand and she said ``Senator, before we 
leave, can we have a word of prayer?'' And we did, standing there in my 
office.
  I would not have thought about doing that if I ever had the privilege 
of meeting a Governor, a Senator when I was that age. But these young 
people are groping and grasping for role models. They want to do the 
right thing but they have so many forces pulling and tugging and say, 
oh, that is politically incorrect when they know what they need to do 
and these young people know what should be right. They have a 
familiarity with this Book and they have a desire to communicate with 
their God. No thanks to school administrators--no thanks to the U.S. 
Supreme Court, no thanks to the Congress of the United States.
  But going back to where I started, what are we doing when we do not 
pass an amendment like this because we bring in the sophisticates to 
say, ``Oh, what are you going to do if there is an Arab prayer?'' I 
tell you what I would do. I would let there be an Arab prayer, anybody 
who wants to pray. You are going to hear that kind of argument in 
rebuttal to this amendment but the Senators are going to have a chance 
to vote for this amendment whether they make that argument or not.
  Perhaps the irony of ironies in the whole situation, Mr. President, 
are the news reports recently about the spiritual resurgence in the 
republics of the former Soviet Union. Billy Graham, who I consider to 
be one of the greatest products North Carolina has ever exported, has 
told me about his experiences in the Soviet Union when it was the 
Communist Soviet Union and his experiences after that time.
  A similar account was given in a January 4, 1998 Newsweek article 
detailing how the republics now, the former members of the Soviet 
Union, are allowing prayer and religious instruction in the public 
schools--and this was from Newsweek magazine. Let me quote:

       ``[T]here is a religious revival in Russia, and educators--
     pressured, at times, by parents--are searching for ways to 
     give students an ethic to live by. In a change as radical as 
     its embrace of democracy, Russia--like several other former 
     Soviet republics--has embarked on a massive effort to bring 
     the teaching of religion back into its 160,000 schools.

  There is the story of one Soviet schoolteacher, a lady. She has been 
teaching for 40 years and is an atheist. She understands the need for 
religious foundations in order to maintain her country's social fabric 
at this difficult time.
  She said:

       Now [our] belief [in Lenin] is gone and that is why we have 
     to turn to Jesus.

  Oh, mercy. Can you not imagine the consternation among some Senators 
and some people in the administration and maybe in the Supreme Court, 
not to mention the ACLU at such a statement? Think of this woman being 
so dumb as to say that we must turn to Jesus in the Soviet Union.
  There might be some Moslem over there who does not like to hear about 
Jesus, so we just have to throw the whole baby out with the bath water.
  This Soviet teacher went on to say:

       Either the children will learn from his example, or they 
     will turn to crime, drugs, and alcohol.

  Wonder where she got such a misconception? I think she must know what 
is going on in America today.
  The former Soviet republics obviously learned the hard way that 
without the underpinning of religion, no society, no economy, can 
survive, much less prosper. Unfortunately, it appears that the cultural 
and media elite in this country are determined to force us to learn the 
same lesson the hard way, with or without the consent of the majority 
of Americans who favor this amendment, whether Senators vote for it in 
the majority or not.
  And then there is George Washington's final counsel. Do you remember 
that, Mr. President? His words are just as applicable today as they 
were the day he said them over 200 years ago. He gave a warning to this 
new Nation, which he had headed. He said:

       Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political 
     prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. 
     In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who 
     should labor to subvert these great pillars of human 
     happiness.


                           Amendment No. 1382

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk. And as 
the clerk reads the language of the amendment slowly, I hope the C-SPAN 
cameras will focus on that language on the easel here so that the 
people at home can see.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendment will 
be set aside.
  The clerk will report
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1382.

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       ``No funds made available through the Department of 
     Education under this Act, or any other Act, shall be 
     available to any state or local educational agency which has 
     a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents 
     participation in, prayer in public schools by individuals on 
     a voluntary basis. Neither the United States nor any state 
     nor any local educational agency shall require any person to 
     participate in prayer or influence the form or content of any 
     prayer in such public schools.''.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, two things. I believe we neglected to lay 
aside a pending amendment, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was granted by the Chair.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi 
[Mr. Lott] desires to cosponsor the amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
that his name be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. In conclusion, I call attention to the telephone number 
for the Senate. If anybody watching is interested, use your telephone.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, there are some things that cannot be 
done by people in the name of their religion on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. There are some things that must be done in one's own life and 
in one's own community.
  That realization that there are limits to what Government can do and 
what Government cannot do pertaining to religious activity is the 
rationale for this Senator, or one of the rationale for this Senator, 
leaving the Senate.
  That is not to say that important values cannot be stated on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate and even furthered on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. But what is done here in Washington can never be confused with 
religious observance or purely religious activity. At least, it does 
not encompass the totality of religious activity.
  So I would simply like to point out that when we deal with religious 
matters in Government, when we deal with religious matters in Congress, 
it is not necessarily a question of: Well, who is for religion and who 
is against religion? It is not a matter of let us go to the Senate 
floor and vote on whether or not we are going to be religious. Because, 
in fact, there is not any religious position that I know of on this 
legislation.
  There are various denominations, I am sure, that have various views 
on the efficacy of school prayer and the wisdom of having prayers in 
public schools.
  But this is not a vote or an amendment dealing with whether or not a 
Senator or whether or not the country itself is on God's side or not on 
God's side. That does not have anything to do with it.
  Nor is this a constitutional issue that is being raised today. The 
Senator from North Carolina has not offered a constitutional amendment. 
It is not possible to amend the Constitution of the U.S. by an act of 
Congress. Whether or not there are constitutional prohibitions on 
prayer in school, how the Supreme Court interprets those constitutional 
limitations is in no way affected by this amendment.
  This amendment implies that we take the Constitution as we find it, 
that we take Constitution as it has been interpreted by the United 
States Supreme Court. And, taking it as we find it, then we decide what 
to do about a particular amendment offered on the floor of the Senate.
  So this amendment does not open up new constitutional possibilities 
for prayer in school. No, it does not. It does something else.
  This amendment is what is known as a mandate. This is a mandate from 
Washington, or a proposed mandate from Washington, directed from us to 
the school districts of America.
  Now, there are those who believe that we should be uttering mandates 
from Washington about everything and anything that goes on at the local 
level. There are those who believe that we in Washington know how local 
school districts should conduct their affairs, and, knowing how local 
school districts should conduct their affairs, we then hand down our 
orders.
  Here is the way we hand down our orders from Washington. We say: Do 
you want our money? School districts of America, we have money in 
Washington, seemingly unlimited money. It does not matter if we raised 
it in taxes or not. If we do not have enough that we taxed from the 
American people, we borrow it. We have money. Would you like it? Would 
you like to have Washington's money? Well, if you want Washington's 
money, do things Washington's way. And that is exactly what this 
amendment does. It is a mandate.
  We in Congress, if we pass this, have decided that our money, 
Washington's money, will not be available through our Department, the 
Department of Education, under this act to State or local school 
districts that deny or effectively prevent participation in prayer. 
That is our mandate.
  My understanding of the debate heretofore on this bill that is now 
before us, Education 2000, was that a lot of people did not believe in 
Government mandates. A lot of people believe that the answers should be 
in the local school districts or in the States, not in the Congress of 
the United States; that we should be very reluctant to condition the 
granting or the withholding of Federal funds on people in the school 
districts doing things our way. That was my understanding of the debate 
prior to this afternoon.
  But now we are told, school prayer is different. We believe in it. 
And, really, we know the answers, and the decision should no longer be 
made in the school districts. We in Washington should make the 
decision. If the school districts want our money, then they should 
comply, like it or not; no discretion. No discretion. No ability to 
make a judgment on the basis of the particular needs or the judgment of 
the people on the school boards of America. Forget them. What do they 
know? Poor dumb clucks out there. We know the answers here in 
Washington. So we pass a mandate, conditioning the granting or the 
withholding of Federal funds on the school boards of America doing 
things our way.
  Let us suppose that there is a school district out there somewhere 
that is Northern Ireland writ small. Let us suppose there is a 
community somewhere in America where there is terrible dissension on 
the basis of religion. Let us suppose that it is someplace, say, in a 
State where Mr. Louis Farrakhan's representative has been making 2\1/
2\-hour speeches castigating Jews. Let us suppose that a school 
district would say to itself: In this kind of volatile atmosphere we 
really think it would be better if our schools would not be involved in 
the business of the practice of religion.
  We would say by this vote: We do not care about what you think. We do 
not care about the conditions in your school district. So what? What if 
there is disruption? What if people are at swords points in your 
community over religion? What if there have been all kinds of 
incidents, swastikas painted on buildings in your school district? What 
if Protestants are against Catholics? What if there is a true minority 
religion and it feels put upon in that community, and your school 
district says: Let our school be an island of peace. We do not care 
about that. Because if you want Federal money, you better do things our 
way. The central office has made the decision on this matter, not you 
in the local school districts.
  I would point out, incidentally, that this amendment may be a 
backdoor way of preventing Federal funds going to any school district 
because there are cases where the Supreme Court has said that, under 
certain circumstances, what could be denominated as voluntary prayer is 
unconstitutional. If a schoolteacher stands up and says, ``We are going 
to have a voluntary prayer in this school. You kids are free to join in 
it or not to join in it.'' It is my understanding that that is not 
permissible under the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme 
Court. This particular amendment does not do anything about the 
Constitution. But it does say that in that case, if a school district 
takes the position that it is going to comply with the Constitution, 
then that compliance with the Constitution is a limitation on voluntary 
prayer, thereby cutting off Federal funds.
  So I point out the fact that the way this amendment is drafted it 
could be a trap. It could be a trap that says to school districts that, 
unless your schools operate in an unconstitutional manner, the funds 
are no longer going to be available.
  I would also like to call the Senate's attention--I am sorry the 
exact form of the amendment, the wording, has been covered up. It is a 
very, very interesting last sentence which I will read to the Senate.
  ``Neither the United States nor any State nor any local educational 
agency shall require any person to participate in prayer''--so far, so 
good--``or influence the form or content of any prayer in such public 
schools.''
  Let me emphasize the key points. Educational agencies, school boards, 
cannot ``influence the form or content of any prayer in * * * public 
schools.''
  Under this amendment, if they do that, their money is cut off. School 
boards cannot influence the form of prayer. What does that mean? Let us 
suppose that, on a purely voluntary basis, a student in a public school 
decides that prayer out loud, in a loud voice, is the best kind of 
prayer. The student stands up in the middle of the class, disruptively, 
and begins to pray. Does this amendment say--and I think it does--why, 
the schools cannot do anything about that. This is prayer. We cannot 
influence that, because that is the form of prayer.
  Do we mean that there is an absolute first amendment right enforced 
by the granting or withholding of Federal funds for children in schools 
to do anything in the name of prayer they want to do? To pray in any 
form at any time in any voice with any degree of disruption in the 
classrooms, out of the classrooms, in-school hours, out-of-school 
hours, in the middle of the math class, during tests, various sects? 
What kinds of religion? Satanism? Native American religions relating to 
peyote? Is that a form of prayer? The schools cannot do anything about 
that.

  Mr. President, this is the kind of question that is raised when we in 
the U.S. Senate decide that we really do have all the answers, broad 
sweeping answers, answers to be mandated from Washington, answers to be 
issued to all people throughout this country in all school districts 
under all circumstances. We have all the answers to take away any 
discretion, any sense of responsibility that exists out there in 
America for people to say, here is what is in the best interests of our 
community.
  Maybe there are those of us who believe that there should be prayer 
in public school. That is a different issue. I would be prepared to 
debate that, and I have debated that issue on the floor of the Senate. 
That is a different issue, whether or not there should be the 
possibility of prayer in public school. That is an issue to be 
determined constitutionally, not by statute.
  But here we are not saying whether there should be the possibility of 
schools adopting some sort of program, we are saying from Washington, 
``Well, schools, you have to allow prayer in your schools and you 
cannot influence the form or the content of those prayers.'' It is a 
mandate. What is so great about that? What is so great about Government 
mandates? What is so great about Washington control? If we truly 
believe that there is a moral crisis in America--and I believe that--
how many of us truly believe that the answer to that moral crisis is on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate? If we believe that there is a moral 
crisis in America--and I do--how many of us truly believe that this 
great country is waiting with bated breath for yet another amendment to 
be adopted by 100 Senators in Washington, DC? Is this the moral problem 
in America? Are we kidding ourselves? Are we taking an inflated view of 
our own importance? Are we taking the people of America themselves and 
our families and our parents off the hook?
  Does the most fervent believer in prayer really think that the answer 
is in this kind of an amendment with mandates from Washington? Or is 
the answer much closer to the real world than this? Are the values in 
the home and are the values in the family and are the values in good 
parenting and in the churches? What is wrong with the churches? I 
thought that was where the religious nurture of children took place, 
not in public schools.
  I hope we defeat this amendment. I hope we defeat this amendment not 
only because it purports to put the answer where it is not, but because 
in the actual reading of this amendment, it is a trap: Funds granted or 
withheld according to sweeping principles established in Washington, no 
discretion in school districts and in school boards to try to handle 
specific problems, even disruptive and volatile problems in their own 
communities; no ability of a school district even to decide to comply 
with the Constitution of the United States for fear of losing funds; 
and no ability of schools or school boards or principles or teachers to 
maintain some kind of decorum in the school and in the classroom, 
because under this, governments at any level, including the school 
boards, cannot influence the form or content of any prayer. Wide, 
sweeping, broad, powerful, big-Government answer to the problems of our 
country. It is not a good amendment. I hope the Senate defeats it.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to speak against this 
amendment, but before doing so, I want to express my appreciation to 
the Senator from Missouri, who certainly set out the realities of this 
whole issue as we approach it. I think every Member of this body has a 
great deal of respect for the Senator from Missouri, an Episcopalian 
minister by profession, a Member of this body, a very well-regarded 
Member of this body. I think he has very explicitly, very eloquently, 
very clearly indicated why the Senate should not be going down the road 
of adopting this kind of an amendment.
  On behalf of myself, but I have the feeling I speak for 98 other 
Members of the U.S. Senate when I tell him how grateful I am for his 
leadership and his opposition to this amendment.
  I do want to speak to the amendment myself. I feel strongly about it. 
I want to say, as I understood the Senator from North Carolina, when he 
was presenting this proposal, he read from something and I thought he 
was suggesting and I thought I heard him say that this is the language 
of some present law. I may have misunderstood him. But I want it 
clearly understood, to the best of my knowledge, this is not the 
language of any present law. This would be new law. I hope it will not 
be new law.
  The Goals 2000 act, which we are considering and to which this 
amendment is being suggested, is probably one of the most important 
bills this Congress will pass this year. Productive and challenging 
schools are just as important for the future of our Nation as 
affordable health care, personal safety, economic prosperity. Yet, now 
we find ourselves diverted from the important business at hand so that 
some can make political points and hold up the President's agenda.
  At a time when we are seeking to find common ground for improving our 
schools--and God only knows we sure have an obligation to try to do 
that--the divisive issue of school prayer is needlessly being injected 
into the debate. The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of 
our Constitution. The Constitution's establishment clause separates 
church from state to ensure that the religious beliefs of our citizens 
are dictated solely by their conscience and not by their Government.
  Before they came to this country, our Founding Fathers had firsthand 
knowledge of a society with Government-supported churches. They 
understood the persecution and social divisiveness which results from 
the union of church and state. For well over 200 years, we have been 
fighting to preserve that separate position.
  As a matter of fact, I was looking at the Congressional Research 
Service report on this subject, and let me explain for those who are 
listening what is constitutionally permissible according to the 
Congressional Research Service.
  It says:

       Supreme Court decisions, coupled with dicta in the Court's 
     opinion and related State and lower Federal court decisions, 
     make clear that not all Government involvement with religion 
     in the public schools is constitutionally forbidden. The 
     courts have repeatedly affirmed, for instance, the 
     constitutionality of Government sponsorship of objective 
     instruction about religion, about religious literature such 
     as the Bible, and about religious holidays as part of a 
     secular program of education in the public schools.

  It goes on to say:

       Moreover, no decision bars an individual student or teacher 
     from engaging in private prayer or other religious activity 
     during the school day, at least so long as it is not 
     disruptive of the school environment and does not connote 
     school endorsement of the activity.

  But this amendment would go much further. This amendment would 
practically insist upon, require, the utilization of prayers in school.
  It is simply not true that prayer has been banned for public school 
students. The Supreme Court has never forbidden students from engaging 
in quiet, personal, and voluntary prayer. Students can also form and 
attend voluntary prayer groups and Bible clubs on school grounds. But 
the Helms amendment would go well beyond these well-established 
principles and practices. It could be argued that it would require 
schools to grant a student's request to designate a time at school for 
prayer. Even if the school-sponsored period of prayer is for voluntary 
and individual prayer, the Supreme Court has clearly held that such a 
prayer period amounts to Government endorsement of religion.
  In the case of Lee v. Weisman, the Supreme Court held that a school 
may not establish a period for prayer at a graduation. In that recent 
1992 decision, the Court concluded that by establishing a period for 
prayer, a student who objects ``has a reasonable perception that she is 
being forced by the State to pray in a manner her conscience will not 
allow.''
  Forcing someone to pray is not what this country stands for, but it 
is what this amendment stands for.
  Those of us who defend the principle of church and state are often 
accused of being antireligious. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. Anyone who truly cares about religious freedom should fight 
against any law that allows the Government, which includes public 
school officials, to tell us when, with whom, and how we should pray. 
Religion should be a matter of individual conscience and not Government 
edict.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  My colleague from North Carolina, when he offered this amendment, 
held up a large board for the TV camera to zero in on and said call 1-
202-224-3121 if you support the amendment. But I want anyone who might 
be within range of my voice to know that that same number can and 
should be called to indicate that you are opposed to prayer in the 
schools, and that the Helms amendment moves us in that direction. Call 
your Members of the Senate. Ask for your Senator and say you do not 
want prayers in the schools and you do not think the Senate ought to be 
butting into this area; that you believe the Senator from Missouri 
stated it very well when he indicated his opposition to this amendment 
because he was not certain how far it would go, and that he did not 
think this was the manner in which it should be done. He made it clear 
that at some point he might be in favor of considering the whole 
question of prayer in the schools but not in the Chamber of the Senate.
  So I say to anyone who feels strongly that we do not want prayer in 
the schools, we want to maintain the separation of church and state, 
indeed, pick up the phone and call 1-202-224-3121 and tell your Senator 
you do not want any amendment to be adopted in this Chamber that makes 
it possible for or requires schools to open their doors to prayer in 
the schools.
  That is not what this America is all about. It has not been that for 
over 200 years. There is no reason for us to move in that direction at 
the present time.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first I wish to say the comments of Senator 
Danforth simply illustrate why he is a valued Member of this body and 
why, after this year, we are going to miss him. He is absolutely on 
target.
  This is--let us label it correctly--compulsory voluntary prayer. It 
is a strange beast that is being thrust upon us. But it is a beast. The 
Supreme Court uses what they call the Lemon criteria for determining 
whether something is constitutional in this area of church and state. 
Unlike a phrase that is taken out of context from Thomas Jefferson, we 
do not have an absolute separation of church and state or a wall of 
separation between church and state. If the local Methodist church is 
on fire, we call out the fire department. But that same help is there 
for the Catholic church or the Jewish synagogue, or whatever it might 
be.
  But we have, in the Lemon criteria, said that any excessive 
entanglement between church and state is contrary to the Constitution. 
And I think this clearly violates what the Supreme Court has said.
  My father was a Lutheran minister. My brother is a Lutheran minister. 
I came from a home where I understand the desire of having genuine 
religion. But genuine religion has to come from the heart. Do not 
expect the Senate or our schools or some other organization to do what 
our homes should do, what our churches, our synagogues, and our mosques 
should do. And when you say that we are required to have voluntary 
prayer, whose prayer is it? For example, according to the last census, 
we now have more Muslims in the United States than we have 
Presbyterians in the United States. I do not think most people realize 
that. I can see a lot of communities that might be very unhappy to have 
a Muslim leading that opening prayer at whatever the occasion might be, 
whether it is a class or not.
  And then, when you say ``voluntary,'' let me tell you an example that 
a colleague of mine in the House told me, that I used in debate after 
debate when I ran for the Senate in 1984, when I was getting hit over 
the head for opposing a constitutional amendment on school prayer.
  Congressman Dan Glickman is a respected Member of the House of 
Representatives. When Dan Glickman was in the fourth grade, they had 
voluntary prayer in his school. Because he opposed this by his matter 
of conscience, every morning Danny Glickman, who happens to be Jewish, 
was excused from that fourth grade classroom and then brought back. 
Every morning, Danny Glickman was being told ``You're different,'' and 
all the other fourth graders were being told Danny Glickman was 
different.
  That is voluntary prayer. But let me tell you, that is something that 
is not good and something we should not have in this country.
  I am sure this amendment is well intentioned.
  I am equally sure that it is not good for the country. I hope we do 
the right thing. This amendment ought to be rejected, and rejected 
decisively.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as has been stated previously, we will 
have the opportunity to address the amendment of the Senator from North 
Carolina. Then we will have an opportunity to consider an alternative 
to that which will be presented momentarily. At this time, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum. Before doing that, I would expect we would not 
take very much time on the introduced amendment. So we are expecting, I 
imagine, two back-to-back votes in the very near future.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to speak just for a 
moment about the amendment before us. I am not sure that any words 
spoken on the floor will change minds. I think it is particularly 
appropriate that on a National Day of Prayer, with the prayer breakfast 
this morning, we are debating the question of whether there should be 
prayer in public schools. Some have raised the point that some schools 
have prayers offered, and some have not. I do not think there is anyone 
here who would, in any way, not want to state clearly and sincerely the 
importance of prayer in our daily lives. One can pray anywhere, and 
many do.
  I think those of us who have spent a good bit of time in the 
classroom--whether as teachers, whether as assistants, whether as 
tutors--recognize the challenges that come in a classroom. I believe 
the difficulty today is in developing a spoken prayer that recognizes 
the diversity of religious beliefs in this country and is 
constitutional. In the past, we have debated the issue of a moment of 
silence in which students can pray. In addition, there is nothing to 
prohibit one's offering a silent prayer in the classroom. From the 
number of hours and years I have spent in and out of classrooms when my 
own children were going through school, I believe it is important to 
start the day with a moment of silence.
  I think that everyone can pause and reflect on those things that are 
meaningful to them in their lives. I think it is important for young 
people to have that sense of discipline and responsibility in starting 
the day that way.
  But, I think for us to get involved in a debate in which we try to 
say that schools should have prayer at the beginning of the class 
really takes away from the importance, the meaning, and the depth of 
the belief that individuals should have in praying as they choose.
  Saying that this amendment is not the way to do it in no way negates 
the importance of prayer. But, for all of us who have spoken pro and 
con on the amendment, I think the question really is how to do it. On 
that point, we can and do differ.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think in a very short time the Senate 
will have an opportunity to express its view on the amendment of the 
Senator from North Carolina, and also an alternative view that will 
encourage individuals in schools to take time for meditation, 
reflection, contemplation, or perhaps even a silent prayer.
  I can remember back in 1962 when the Supreme Court actually made the 
decision on the prayer-in-school question. At that time, President 
Kennedy addressed the country and talked about the importance of prayer 
in the family and how important that dimension was in terms of 
individuals, in terms of families, and in terms of the spiritual well-
being and life of individuals in this country.
  He also reminded the American people of the role of the churches and 
the synagogues across this Nation, how important it was that all of us 
as individuals support those efforts, and how important it was that 
those great institutions have a powerful impact on the lives of all of 
us.
  At that time, Mr. President, it was really quite clear that, prior to 
that decision, there was very considerable concern that children, who 
are basically captive audiences--unlike those of us here in the U.S. 
Senate --and are impressionable, and are influenced by a great variety 
of different kinds of factors.

  Just yesterday we took a vote in the U.S. Senate about the teaching 
of an individual who was understood to be a minister of a faith. We had 
on the floor the introduction of his speeches and statements that he 
had given at universities and colleges, and the characterization of 
those teachings or expressions by that minister that appealed to the 
darker and baser side of individuals, and which talked in a way of 
anti-Semitism, anti-Catholism, basically antireligious expressions.
  We can think of others who present themselves as individuals of the 
cloth. Right now even as we are here, we are seeing a trial of 
individuals who were followers of David Koresh, who presented himself 
as a man of the cloth--as a religious leader. What if it were a David 
Koresh follower talking about insights or religious thinking. If one of 
those individuals got up and made statements in the public schools, 
there would be other individuals who would say that those statements 
were not appropriate for the young people in this country.
  Under the particular amendment those school districts would be denied 
participation in this Goals 2000 legislation.
  We can remember even in the thirties a Father Coughlin, who was a 
member of my faith and who was known for his racist and anti-Semitic 
positions. And that individual preached in churches. I do not know 
whether he did in schools or not. But there was no question that he had 
a wide following, not only in terms of individuals who believed as he 
did, but also within his own religion as a whole. If those individuals 
who followed him were to speak in certain schools, and others said that 
those teachings were racist or anti-Semitic, and therefore not 
appropriate teachings, those individuals would say: ``Oh, no, no, this 
is prayer. This is prayer.'' What would be the impact of this 
amendment?
  It is quite clear. It would be to deny those schools any funds.
  So, Mr. President, the current law as spelled out in 1992 in 
appropriations and again in 1993 says:

       No funds appropriated under this act may be used to prevent 
     implementation of programs of voluntary prayer meditation in 
     the public schools.

  That is the current law and as I understand, sustained 
constitutionally.
  I know that there will be the proposal that will be put forth by the 
Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth] that will certainly encourage in 
our schools across this country those moments of contemplation, 
reflection, meditation, and silent prayer which are so enormously 
important in terms of the spiritual well-being of all of us.
  I would hope, Mr. President, that at the appropriate time the Senate 
would favor that as an alternative to the amendment put forward by the 
Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you Mr. President, for recognizing me at this time. I 
do wish to speak on this issue, and I would like to begin it by quoting 
a prayer.

       Almighty God, we ask that You bless our parents, teachers, 
     and country throughout this day. In Your name we pray. Amen.

  That was the prayer of the students read over the public address 
system in Jackson, MS, at Wingfield High School. That was the prayer 
read by a young lady who, I believe, was the president of the student 
body. It was a prayer that was written by the students, delivered by 
students, and voted for by an overwhelming majority of the students.
  The principal in that school said that that was OK. His name was 
Bishop Knox. He was an African-American principal who said the students 
have a right on a voluntary basis to read this prayer. It is not a very 
offensive prayer in anybody's mind.
  After the principal stood up for the students' right to do this, he 
was fired. Nineteen students were suspended because they skipped class, 
out of protest, in support of the principal. After the principal was 
fired, 4,000 people attended a rally on November 28, 1993, on the steps 
of the State Capitol.
  So, now, we are suspending students and we are firing principals 
because the students would like to have a voluntary prayer: A prayer 
they selected; a prayer that is nondenominational and is nonoffensive.
  That is what we are talking about here--the opportunity to have a 
prayer on a voluntary basis that is designed by the students. In the 
case of Wingfield High School in Jackson, MS, they are being told they 
cannot do that.
  We saw today, or I guess yesterday, in the newspaper where students 
tried to have a Bible club after school at a school, and they were told 
they could not do that--a Bible club. I mean just about anything else 
can meet at a high school or on school premises. But a Bible club was 
prohibited and, therefore, there is legal action now that has been 
taken by people saying, ``At least we should have that opportunity to 
have a Bible club just like any other club meets in the school on a 
voluntary basis after school hours, not during class hours.''
  Let me go back and remember. I was a student in the 1950's and 
1960's. I remember we had prayers. I do not remember anybody being run 
off or offended or mistreated. I remember it helped get us in the right 
frame of mind for the day. I remember it helped the teacher get control 
of the students. I remember that.
  I remember in the House of Representatives when I was in the House 
several years ago, led by former Congressman John Buchanan, we tried to 
get a constitutional amendment for a prayer. Basically on a procedural 
mistake we lost that vote. And there have been votes in the House and 
Senate over the years.
  A lot of our colleagues come to the floor and say, ``Oh, but not a 
constitutional amendment. Oh, not here; not that language; not this; 
not that.'' In the meantime, prayer has been taken out of our schools.
  And yet, every day when we begin a session of the United States 
Senate, we pray. Our students cannot pray, but we do in the Senate. 
Maybe that prayer is led by a Catholic priest or Greek Orthodox priest 
or Jewish rabbi or whatever, but we do it. We then turn right around 
and tell our students they cannot pray.
  It is OK to promote in our schools the distribution of condoms. That 
is OK. Sure. And we wonder what is happening to our kids in our 
schools.
  What happened to discipline? What happened to respect for authority? 
What happened to knowing the difference between right and wrong? When 
do we teach a little character?
  No, we can talk about all kinds of sex perversions, but we cannot 
have a voluntary prayer selected by the students.
  This is no crime. In fact, Senator Kennedy read language that is in 
the law that I thought sounded an awful lot like what this says.

       No funds made available through the Department of Education 
     under this Act, or any other Act, shall be made available to 
     any state or local educational agency which has a policy of 
     denying, or which effectively prevents participation in, 
     prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary basis. 
     Neither the United States nor any state nor any local 
     educational agency shall require any person to participate in 
     prayer or influence the form or content of any prayer in such 
     public schools.

  We have had a breakdown in our society of moral values. In my own 
State of Mississippi, where we have taken great pride over the years 
that our students respected authority and law and order. They were not 
prejudiced or bigoted. Students were raised, and are being raised, 
hopefully, to have an open mind and to not kill each other.
  But even Mississippi is having problems. Let me give you some 
examples from the newspapers:
  Jackson, MS: ``Seventh Grader Arrested After Roaming Halls With 
Loaded Pistol.''

  Philadelphia, MS: ``A Neshoba Central High School ninth-grader shot a 
classmate moments after the two were told to stop arguing and go to 
class.'' The student was 15 years old.
  I am not saying that not having prayer caused this sort of thing, but 
I am saying it is one of the things that led to the crisis we have in 
America today.
  This is no sweeping move to force anything on anybody. It is 
voluntary.
  Now, Members are going to rise as warriors and as preachers and 
express great concern. They are going to wring their hands and worry 
about how terrible this is going to be in our schools. I do not see it.
  We have an opportunity--an opportunity--to have a voluntary prayer. 
Who is that going to hurt? What is that going to do to undermine the 
spirit of America?

       Almighty God, we ask that You bless our parents, teachers 
     and country throughout the day. In Your name, we pray. Amen.

  That was the prayer at Wingfield High School, Jackson, MS. Tell me 
where the damage is with that prayer?
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

                          ____________________