[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 37 (Monday, April 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    WHY CAN'T THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE BE HEARD ON PRAYER IN SCHOOLS?

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, during the final 2 or 3 days prior to the 
Senate's Easter recess, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. 
Mitchell, and Senator Kennedy, conducted another one of those--I am not 
sure what you call it but I am going to call it a filibuster for the 
lack of a better descriptive word. They were careful to blame others 
for delaying the Senate when in fact it was they who were holding up 
the Senate's work.
  The record will show it was the majority leader, at the urging of 
Senator Kennedy, who delayed the departure of Senators for the Easter 
recess--a recess, mind you, that had been scheduled and announced early 
in the year by the majority leader, and a recess for which most 
Senators had made travel plans on the assumption that the majority 
leader would not keep the Senate in session in anything resembling a 
power grab unbecoming to the Senate.
  Madam President, the record should be made clear on what happened in 
the hope--perhaps a vain hope--that the majority leader will not again 
allow this injustice to his fellow Senators.
  It was the school prayer amendment offered by Senator Lott of 
Mississippi, and me, that started it all. The Senate on February 3, 
1994, overwhelmingly approved 75 to 22, the following language now 
referred to in the media as the Helms amendment, which I emphasize was 
cosponsored by the able Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott].
  Here is what the amendment said, and it was approved by the Senate on 
a rollcall vote of 75 to 22:
       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, 
     constitutionally protected 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 constitutionally-protected prayer in such 
     public schools.

  That, Mr. President, was the language approved by the Senate on 
February 3, 1994, by a lopsided vote.
  I might add, Madam President, that Senator Kennedy has never to my 
knowledge failed to resist all school prayer legislation, whether 
offered by me or any other Senator. It apparently does not matter to 
the Senator from Massachusetts that the vast majority of his colleagues 
disagree with him. It does not matter apparently, that 75 to 80 percent 
of the American people, in poll after poll, disagree with the Senator 
and with the ACLU. The American people want--in fact, they are 
demanding--a restoration of moral and spiritual principles in America.
  But the able Senator from Massachusetts apparently--apparently--
believes that he is wiser than the overwhelming majority of his 
colleagues in the Senate, and that he knows better than the 
overwhelming majority of members of the House of Representatives, and 
that he knows better than 75 to 80 percent of the American people.
  He obviously has vowed that there will be no return to school prayer 
in America, and using the majority leader's powerful leverage just 
before Easter, Senator Kennedy had his way in a spectacle, riding 
roughshod over the will of the U.S. Senate, the House of 
Representatives--and the will of 75 to 80 percent of the American 
people.
  All that is bad enough. But some astonishing statements attributed to 
the Senator from Massachusetts by individuals in the news media were 
clearly intended to blame the able Senator from Mississippi and this 
Senator from North Carolina, and Republicans in general, for the delay 
in the Senate recess for Easter and Passover.

  Now the Senator from Massachusetts is bound to know that this was 
absolutely not so. I acknowledge that I opposed the so-called Goals 
2000 bill--S. 1150/H.R. 1804--to which the Helms-Lott school prayer 
amendment was added by a vote of 75 to 22 on February 3, 1994.
  But the record will show, and I will demonstrate this to be the case 
momentarily, that I repeatedly offered the majority leader and Senator 
Kennedy an agreement that would have enabled there to be a final 
passage vote on the conference report to H.R. 1804, the Goals 2000 bill 
long before Senators were forced to stay past midnight on March 25 for 
a cloture vote.
  All that, Madam President, just to defeat the Helms-Lott school 
prayer amendment.
  As I indicated earlier, Senator Kennedy is reported to have made some 
astonishing declarations to the media, perhaps in an effort to cover 
his tracks when he deliberately and calculatedly overrode the will of 
the Senate, the House and the American people.
  He told one reporter in effect that Helms wanted to kill the Goals 
2000 conference report because he said it contained restrictions on 
smoking in schools.
  That was absolutely without foundation.
  I do not know of anybody--anybody--who opposes restrictions on 
smoking in school. Certainly, I do not and never have. As a matter of 
fact, students were not allowed to smoke in school when I came along.
  Senator Kennedy also reportedly described the Helms-Lott school 
prayer amendment as some sort of Republican plot to frustrate President 
Clinton's agenda, a statement too absurd to dignify with a response. 
And besides, Madam President, Mr. Clinton is doing a fair job himself 
at frustrating his own agenda.
  But to pin the tail on the donkey and to illustrate that it was 
Senator Kennedy who needlessly kept Senators in session until after 
midnight on March 25, I will refer the Chair to page S3534 of the 
Congressional Record of March 23, 1994, and I will ask the Chair if the 
following unanimous-consent request was propounded. Let me quote the 
request:

       Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
     proceed to the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
     230, to correct the enrollment of the conference report to 
     accompany H.R. 1804; and that it be in order for the Senator 
     from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] to modify the resolution with 
     the text of amendment No. 1382; and that there be then 30 
     minutes to be equally divided in the usual form; and that 
     upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate, without 
     any intervening action or debate, vote on the concurrent 
     resolution.
       I further ask unanimous consent that once the Senate has 
     adopted the concurrent resolution, as modified, and 
     immediately upon the receipt of the House message that the 
     House has agreed to House Concurrent Resolution 230, without 
     further modification, the conference report to accompany H.R. 
     1804 be deemed agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid 
     upon the table.
       I further ask unanimous consent that if the Senate does not 
     receive the House message re: action on the concurrent 
     resolution, prior to the end of business on Friday, March 25, 
     or receives the message that the House has further modified 
     the concurrent resolution, that the conference report then 
     become the pending business on Monday, April 11, and that 
     following 1 hour of debate, a cloture vote occur on the 
     conference report under the provisions of rule 22.
       Further, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following 
     the disposition of the concurrent resolution, the Senate 
     resume consideration of the budget resolution.

  Madam President, does that unanimous consent language appear on page 
S3534 of the Record of March 23, 1994?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Record appears to show that.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, who propounded that unanimous-consent request, 
according to the Record?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, was that unanimous-consent request that I just 
referred to objected to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it was.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, may I ask whom the Record identifies as 
having objected to the unanimous-consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, let me again read that unanimous-consent request, 
made by this Senator from North Carolina, on the evening of March 23, 
1994. As I have already indicated, it appears on page S3534 of the 
Congressional Record, and my exact words were:

       Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
     proceed to the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
     230, to correct the enrollment of the conference report to 
     accompany H.R. 1804; and that it be in order for the Senator 
     from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] to modify the resolution with 
     the text of amendment No. 1382: and that there be then 30 
     minutes to be equally divided in the usual form; and that 
     upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate, without 
     any intervening action or debate, vote on the concurrent 
     resolution.
       I further ask unanimous consent that once the Senate has 
     adopted the concurrent resolution, as modified, and 
     immediately upon the receipt of the House message that the 
     House has agreed to House Concurrent Resolution 230, without 
     further modification, the conference report to accompany H.R. 
     1804 be deemed agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid 
     upon the table.
       I further ask unanimous consent that if the Senate does not 
     receive the House message re: action on the concurrent 
     resolution, prior to the business on Friday, March 25, or 
     receives the message that the House has further modified the 
     concurrent resolution that the conference report then become 
     the pending business on Monday, April 11, and that following 
     1 hour of debate, a cloture vote occur on the conference 
     report, under the provisions of rule 22.
       Further, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following 
     the disposition of the concurrent resolution, the Senate 
     resume consideration of the budget resolution.

  The point is this: All of this badgering, calling back Senators, 
holding up Senators, for a cloture vote right after midnight on Friday, 
March 25, came to pass after this unanimous-consent request that has 
just been read--read twice in the Record--was rejected.
  Then this Senator, and others on this side of the aisle, tried again 
to make it possible for the Senate to go home as the majority leader 
had pledged early in the year.
  But, no, the scheme around this place is to back the Senate into a 
recess or an adjournment and say: ``You don't get to go home unless you 
pass this exactly as we want it. We're not going to give you any vote 
on it. You have to pass it like we want it,''--like Mr. Kennedy from 
Massachusetts wants it. You know, the one who runs the U.S. Senate.
  In any case, at about 3 o'clock on the afternoon of March 25, several 
of us offered to the majority leader and to the Senator from 
Massachusetts another proposed unanimous-consent agreement which, if it 
had been accepted, would have permitted Senators to leave for the 
Easter recess long before suppertime.
  The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] had the text of this proposed 
agreement placed in the Record for that day. It is on page S4028, and 
let me read it. This is what I proposed to Senator Kennedy. This is 
what I proposed to the majority leader.
  The language read as follows:

       I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education bill, S. 1513, or its 
     House companion, H.R. 6, that the only amendments or motions 
     dealing with the subject of prayer in schools be a first 
     degree amendment to be offered by Senator Helms.

  You remember, he is the guy who offered the original amendment that 
was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate and by the House of 
Representatives at the request of 75 to 80 percent of the American 
people. Let me pick up:

     a first degree amendment to be offered by Senator Helms, 
     which is the exact language as adopted on H.R. 1804, in the 
     Senate on February 3, and one first degree amendment 
     consisting of the exact language of the Levin amendment 
     adopted by the Senate February 8, or the exact language of 
     the Danforth amendment adopted by the Senate on February 8, 
     or the exact language of the Williams amendment offered on 
     the House floor during consideration of H.R. 6, to be offered 
     by Senator Kennedy.

  Let me parenthetically point out that what I was offering was to let 
us have Senator Helms' amendment voted on and let us have Senator 
Kennedy's amendment voted on and stop all this tomfoolery.
  I further added:

     that no amendments be in order to either amendment and that 
     no tabling motions be in order with respect to either 
     amendment and that a rollcall vote occur first on the Helms 
     amendment.

  Madam President, what do you know? This proposed unanimous-consent 
request which, as I have said, would have avoided the need for the 
Senate to stay in past midnight on March 25, was rejected, as was the 
agreement proposed on March 23.
  See, they were going to have it their way or the Senate would just 
stay in session and we would have cloture vote and cloture vote and 
cloture vote. And it was said right there by the majority leader that 
that is exactly what would happen. The threat went out.
  In any case, the Record clearly shows that it was the Senator from 
Massachusetts who delayed the recess of the Senate because he did not 
want the Helms-Lott school prayer amendment in the bill. The Senate had 
voted it in. The House voted twice in favor of it. But no, no, that was 
not good enough. Senator Kennedy did not like it, so it did not get in, 
and I will explain in just a minute how this occurred.
  All of this just went by like a ship at night, as far as the news 
media were concerned. The Associated Press did not touch it. And the 
Associated Press was told about it--what was going on. But the news 
media accounts made it appear that the Republicans and Jesse Helms and 
Senator Lott were delaying the Senate when it was not so.
  The Record clearly shows, I reiterate, that it was the Senator from 
Massachusetts who delayed the recess of the Senate, and it was the 
Senator from Massachusetts who totally disregarded and reversed the 
will and wishes of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, 
and 75 to 80 percent of the American people, as reflected in poll after 
poll of public opinion.
  Madam President, so much for this unpleasant little legislative power 
play.
  But before I conclude, a bit of legislative history may be in order. 
About 2 months ago, on February 3, Senator Lott and I came to the floor 
and beseeched Senators to make clear to the American people that there 
is a constitutional right to pray in school.
  I displayed a chart, right here. C-SPAN carried it. The chart 
identified the Senate's telephone number and I suggested that 
interested Americans might want to call their Senators if they were in 
favor of the Helms-Lott amendment--or if they were opposed to it. I 
thought they ought to get involved in this one way or another.
  Madam President, did they ever get involved! The staff in office 
after office said, ``What in the heck is going on? Our switchboard is 
overloaded with people saying, `We want the Helms-Lott prayer 
amendment.'''
  Shortly thereafter, the Senate voted, as I have said two or three 
times earlier, 75 to 22 to approve the Helms-Lott school prayer 
amendment. And that was February 3, I reiterate for emphasis.
  Twenty days later, the House of Representatives responded 
overwhelmingly when Congressman Duncan of Tennessee offered a motion to 
instruct the House of Representatives conferees to that Goals 2000 bill 
to accept the Helms-Lott school prayer language. On February 23, that 
vote in favor of the Helms-Lott school prayer amendment in the House of 
Representatives was 367 to 55.
  How do you like them apples? But it did not mean a thing to Senator 
Kennedy, not a thing. ``Ha, ha, ha,'' he said. ``We will take care of 
that when it gets to conference.''
  Overwhelming votes in both Houses of Congress supported the Helms-
Lott school prayer amendment. And in supporting this amendment the 
Members of these two bodies were reflecting, as I have said over and 
over again today, the wishes of 75 to 80 percent of the American people 
who want school prayer restored to their schools.
  But despite this overwhelming support, this provision was dropped in 
the conference by the House and Senate conferees. The Senate conferees 
were headed by, guess who? Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. The provision 
was dropped and then replaced with meaningless language. And this was 
done with a nod and a wink: See, we have done it again to old Helms. We 
took his amendment out. We took Trent Lott's amendment out. Chuckle, 
chuckle, chuckle.
  According to some who were present at the time, the conference spent 
less than 60 seconds, less than a minute on the school prayer issue--
and that was the last 60 seconds of the conference on the Goals 2000 
bill. A deal had obviously been cut by Senator Kennedy and Congressman 
Ford.
  We have testimony by a number of staff members, representing a number 
of Senators, who agree that Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, Pell, and 
Jeffords were preparing to leave the final session of the House-Senate 
conference when Senator Kennedy sort of casually asked Representative 
William Ford, who is chairman of the House Education and Labor 
Committee, if there were any other issues to be taken up.
  By obvious prearrangement, Representative Ford said, ``Yes, the 
school prayer issue remains.'' and Senator Kennedy then asked if there 
was a proposal in that regard. And Mr. Ford said, ``Yes.''
  See, this is a one-act play. Mr. Ford said, ``Yes.'' He and 
Representative Kildee had substitute language authored by 
Representative Pat Williams.
  Well, what do you know? Senator Kennedy's concluding line in this 
one-act play was to the effect that this was fine with him, and he 
left. Everybody left, as a matter of fact. There was not a vote by the 
conferees on the school prayer issue or, for that matter, on the 
passage of the conference report itself. If the transcript says that 
there was, somebody doctored it.
  This is not the first time, Madam President, that this sort of power 
assumption has occurred. For instance, in June 1990, the Senator from 
Massachusetts single-handedly dropped an amendment, in the House-Senate 
conference on the Americans With Disabilities Act, which would have 
exempted restaurants from being required--being forced by the Federal 
Government--to hire in their kitchens, foodhandlers who tested positive 
for HIV virus. The Senator prevented that provision from becoming law 
despite substantial votes in both the House and Senate in favor of the 
amendment. Senator Kennedy is recorded as having assured the conferees 
that the Senate vote was basically meaningless.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article in this 
regard be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, the Goals 2000 conferees dropped the 
Helms-Lott school prayer amendment. But on March 21, 1994, the House of 
Representatives again overwhelmingly voted to approve the precise 
language of the Helms-Lott prayer amendment by a vote of 345 to 64. The 
House specifically rejected Representative Williams' language 239-171 
as part of H.R. 6, the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Reauthorization Act.
  All of this was ignored by the great news media, and I come from the 
news media.
  But in doing so the House of Representatives reconfirmed what I have 
already described as a prearrangement between Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Williams, and others that led to the will of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives and the American people being deliberately scuttled.
  Madam President, the November 1992 issue of Reader's Digest contained 
an article by Eugene H. Methvin, who noted that 75 percent of Americans 
at that time supported school prayer. The title of the article included 
a question, ``Why can't the voice of the people be heard on prayer in 
schools?''
  Why, indeed, Madam President, why, indeed? He is not here now, but 
the Senator from Massachusetts is why. The American people should now 
know the answer to that question.
  Small wonder that Congress is held in such low esteem when the votes 
of a majority, a vast majority of Senators and a vast majority of the 
House of Representatives, are rendered meaningless by two or three 
House-Senate conferees. I rest my case, and I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, June 26, 1990]

Provision on AIDS Workers Scrapped--Conferees on Disability Legislation 
                     Bar Transfers of Food Handlers

                            (By Helen Dewar)

       A proposal to allow employers to transfer workers with AIDS 
     out of food-handling jobs was killed yesterday by House-
     Senate conferees even though the provision had been approved 
     by majorities of both houses for inclusion in sweeping 
     legislation to protect the disabled from discrimination.
       It is rare for a conference committee to defy majority 
     votes of both houses, and the conferees' action could lead to 
     another row over the food handlers issue when the bill goes 
     back to the House and Senate for final approval, probably 
     later this week.
       The legislation, which would guarantee employment, public 
     access and other rights to the disabled, was approved by the 
     Senate last year without the food handlers provision. But 
     after the House voted 199 to 187 to add the provision to its 
     version of the legislation this year, the Senate took the 
     unusual step of voted 53 to 40 to approve a proposal from 
     Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) to instruct its conferees to go along 
     with the House language.
       Such instructions are nonbinding, and Senate Labor and 
     Human Resources Committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy (D-
     Mass), a principal backer of the legislation and foe of the 
     food handlers provision told the conferees that he regarded 
     the Senate vote on the issue as ``basically meaningless.'' 
     Kennedy asked the House conferees to drop the proposal, and 
     they did by a vote of 12 to 10 over protests from Rep. Steve 
     Bartlett (R-Tex.) that such a move could jeopardize passage 
     of the bill. ``We would slow down and perhaps kill the bill 
     for this session if we go against a majority of both 
     houses,'' Bartlett said.
       The conferees' agreement is scheduled to go first to the 
     Senate, where proponents of the food handlers provision could 
     force a vote on the issue. The House could then accept or 
     reject the measure as approved by the Senate.
       The provision allows job transfers for food handlers, who 
     have communicable diseases, such as AIDS, even if the disease 
     is not transmitted in food, and requires employers to make 
     ``reasonable accommodation'' for alternative employment.
       Proponents of the provision said many restaurants would 
     lose customers and could be forced out of business if AIDS 
     patients cannot be prevented from handling food.

                          ____________________