[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________