[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18-S21]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REVERSING HISTORICAL IRONY
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the English word ``irony'' comes to us from
an Ancient Greek word meaning ``a dissembler in speech.''
The English word ``irony'' is defined as the contrast between
something that somebody thinks to be true, as revealed in speech,
action, or common wisdom, and that which an audience or a reader knows
to be true.
Mr. President, permit me to give an example.
If anyone in the hearing of my voice will take out a U.S. one-dollar
bill and turn that one-dollar bill over onto its obverse side, he or
she will read in clear script, ``In God We Trust.''
Permit me to introduce another example.
Every day of each new meeting of the Senate and House of
Representatives, an official Chaplain of each of those two Chambers of
Congress--or a designated substitute--will stride to the dais and
address a sometimes elegant prayer to the Deity.
Again, every day in courtrooms across this country, hundreds of
witnesses will take their place at the front of the court chamber, put
their hands on incalculable numbers of Bibles, and swear to tell the
truth, ``* * * so help me God.''
Only today, I and several other Senators swore an oath, standing
there near the Presiding Officer where he sits now, swore an oath that
we would support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that we would bear true
allegiance to the same, that we took this obligation, freely without
mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that we would well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which we were about to
enter ``so help me God.''
Additionally, daily, thousands of men and women in a variety of
groups, and millions upon millions of boys and girls in our schools
will pledge allegiance to our flag, uttering among others the words ``*
* * one nation, under God, * * *''
I was a Member of the Congress when Congress inserted those words
into the Pledge of Allegiance.
And here is the irony: in spite of that chain of rituals that I have
just related, in situation after situation, anecdotal and documented
both, public school authorities, ostensibly following rulings of the
Supreme Court dating from at least the 1960's, have prohibited the
utterance of prayers at school functions, in classrooms, at school
commencement exercises, even when the students themselves wanted to
have a voluntary prayer which they themselves would compose, or even in
groups or privately on public school property.
Mr. President, as I read my U.S. Constitution, such a prohibition of
prayer in school flies in the face of the First Amendment, which
declares, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof * * *.''
Therefore, our Government is supposed to be absolutely neutral in
this matter, and the Constitution provides that neutrality when it says
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, on
the one hand, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, on the other.
That is absolute--absolute--neutrality.
So please note those words again: ``* * * or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof * * *''
That passage was explicitly written into our Bill of Rights at the
insistence of none other than James Madison--commonly remembered as the
father of the Constitution--based on direct appeals to Madison by
Baptist ministers in Virginia who had been forced to support the
official state church during the Colonial Era, and whose practice of
their own religious choice had been officially denied, proscribed, or
penalized by Colonial officials.
How ironic that from that understandable Constitutional safeguard in
support of the free exercise of religious faith, opponents of any
religion have turned that passage of the First Amendment on its head to
prohibit--I said, to prohibit--the free exercise of religion in our
public life and, particularly, to drive religious faith out of our
public schools.
It is equally ironic that, as religion is making a public resurgence
in the long atheistic former Soviet Union, our Nation, whose
protofoundations stand on the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of
early colonists whose primary inspiration in coming to America in the
first place--Congregationalists, Calvinists, Baptists, Jews, Catholics,
Orthodox, and others--whose primary purpose in coming to America in the
first place, I repeat, was a yearning for religious liberty against
those who would deny them the right of religious liberty--that our
Nation should be embarked on a course which, in effect, denies
religious liberty to many of its citizens.
Mr. President, I have heard increasing concerns about the lack of
moral orientation among so many younger Americans--about a rising drug
epidemic among our children, about rampant sexual promiscuity, about
children murdering children, about gangs of teenage thugs terrorizing
their neighborhoods, and about a pervading moral malaise among youth in
both our inner cities and our suburbs.
Is there any wonder that so many young Americans should be drifting
with seemingly no ethical moorings in the face of an apparent effort to
strip every shred of recognizable ethics, of teachings about values,
and spirituality from the setting in which those young Americans spend
most of their waking hours--our public schools?
Mr. President, in an effort to restore something of a spiritual
balance to our public schools and to extracurricular activities in our
public schools, I am today introducing a joint resolution to propose an
Amendment to the Constitution clarifying the intent of the Constitution
with regard to public school prayer.
My amendment is an effort to make clear that neither the
Constitution, or the amendments thereto, require, nor do they prohibit,
voluntary prayer in
[[Page S19]] the public schools or in the extracurricular activities of
the public schools. Anyone who fears that the language of my amendment
would allow public schools to mandate the recitation of daily prayer,
or that school administrators will become the authors of such prayers,
need not worry. This amendment does not supplant the clear proscription
contained in the ``establishment'' clause of the First Amendment. My
amendment is an effort to make clear that the words that the
Constitution uses with regard to religious freedom do not mean that
voluntary prayer is prohibited from our public schools or public school
activities.
In short, I hope to end a three-decades-long tyranny of the minority
in denying to the majority of Americans the least vestige of the
exercise of a liberty otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution--the
right of American children in our public school system to pray in
accordance with their own consciences and in the privacy of their
voluntary associations within our public schools.
That right I sincerely believe the Constitution already grants, but I
want to spell out in that same Constitution, by way of an amendment
thereto, that permission to pray voluntarily in our public schools does
not constitute ``an establishment of religion.''
Mr. President, on this, the first day of the 104th Congress, a
Congress in which the controlling mantra seems to have become
``change'' and ``reform,'' I would suggest that Members listen to the
American people.
Every Senator who stands here proposes to speak in accordance with
the wishes of the American people. Each Senator arrogates to himself
the right to speak on behalf of the American people. I would suggest
that Members listen to the American people. Indeed, Mr. President, I
would call my colleagues' attention to a recent poll reprinted in the
December 17 issue of National Journal in which passage of a
constitutional amendment allowing school prayer was the number one
legislative priority the public wanted us to consider. Not the balanced
budget amendment. Not the line-item veto. Not amending the filibuster
rule so as to permit the invoking of cloture by a mere majority of the
Senate. Who cares about that, out there beyond the Beltway?
Rather, the American people clearly understand the need for us to
begin to restore the moral underpinnings of this Nation.
With introduction, and I hope eventual passage of my amendment, we
can finally begin the 7-year-long process to answer the people's
concerns. We can begin to restore the spiritual compass that has been
lost in the lives of so many of our citizens. And most importantly, we
can begin to return to our children the moral orientation that they so
desperately need and desire.
I urge those who want to deliver on the wishes of the American people
to join me in this effort.
Mr. President, I shall introduce this for referral to a committee. I
have notified the minority, the now majority--it is going to be a
little difficult for me to stop thinking in those terms. I am going to
have to, for a while at least. I have also notified the majority that I
intend to try to put this resolution on the calendar under rule 14. If
nobody objects to further proceedings at that point, I will, but I
believe Mr. Kempthorne is aware of what I am about to do and he will be
prepared to object at the right time.
So, Mr. President, first I will attempt to get this resolution on the
calendar under the provisions of rule 14, and then I will introduce it
as a resolution to be referred.
Mr. President, I send to the desk a resolution. Let me read it so
that everybody will understand clearly what it says:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall be
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution
when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
several States within seven years after the date of its
submission to the States for ratification:
``Article--
``Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution, or amendments
thereto, shall be construed to prohibit or require voluntary
prayer in public schools, or to prohibit or require voluntary
prayer at public school extracurricular activities.''.
Mr. President, I send this joint resolution to the desk, and I ask
that it be read the first time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the joint resolution for
the first time.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S.J. Res. 7) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to clarify the intent of
the Constitution to neither prohibit nor require public
school prayer.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that the resolution be read a second
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I object.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator withhold his objection until it is read
the second time, and then he can object and it will go on the calendar.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request for a second reading
of the resolution today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.
Mr. BYRD. It will automatically come up for a second reading on the
next legislative day; am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. I ask unanimous consent
that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] have his name added as
a cosponsor of the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the Senator and it will be so
ordered.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
(The remarks of Mr. Kempthorne pertaining to the introduction of S. 1
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if you could explain the rules today, may
I have my 10 minutes now from the time of the Democratic leader?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair very much.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate those
Senators--both Democratic and Republican--who took the oath of office
today, and I come to the floor of the Senate to look ahead to the
future.
Those of us who serve here are truly blessed with an opportunity
quite rate--to represent our States in the greatest deliberative body
in the world--one with a rich legacy of dedicated men and women whose
service is always judged by history.
Like 1992, 1994 has been a year of political change. In 1992, 105
million Americans went to the polls and voted for a Democratic
President, dislodging a Republican President. In 1994, 70 million
Americans went to the polls and voted for a Republican Congress,
dislodging a Democratic Congress.
The American people voted for change in 1992 but change didn't happen
fast enough, so they sent another message in 1994.
Change was on the lips of the American people in 1992 and change is
still on the Nation's lips of the American people in 1994.
Each of us is asked what change means.
First, I believe people want the American Dream restored; they want
economic security. American people feel they no longer can be sure of
having a job, of having health care coverage, of raising their standard
of living, no longer sure of our children having good paying jobs,
owning a home, having Social Security or personal
[[Page S20]] safety. As Robert Reich said, these changes have turned
the middle class into the anxiety class.
Second, I believe people want to feel safe in their neighborhoods.
They know that ideological fights will not get them safer
neighborhoods. The people recognize that we need a commonsense mix of
tougher punishment and effective prevention. To serve the people, we
must have the guts to keep all cop-killer bullets off the streets.
Third, I believe people want the deficit reduced by smart spending
cuts, leaving smart spending priorities. People want the Government to
stop wasting their money, but they want their Government to have a
strategy so we can be part of the solution.
Fourth, I believe people want to have a Government that doesn't
interfere in their lives, but defends their individual freedoms.
Fifth, I believe people want a Congress that acts in the best
interests of the people of the United States of America so that our
families have an unbought voice, our children have an unbought voice,
our environment has an unbought voice, and our country can rely on a
Congress whose Members don't cash in on their power. Let's keep out the
special interests and let's live by the same laws as all Americans do.
Now I want to say that I came to the Senate representing 31 million
people on that very platform in 1992, and nothing about the 1994
election tells me that that platform of hope, economic opportunity,
individual rights, and congressional reform has lost its significance.
Certainly, I stand ready to fulfill those goals in new and better
ways. None of us has all the answers, but together we can find them. We
should choose from all the best ideas from each political party, and
from new Senators as well as old. I stand ready to do that, and I have
already reached out to my Republican friends.
But let me tell you what I do not stand ready to do.
I do not stand ready to allow those who talk about reform to destroy
protections and rights guaranteed to all Americans.
I believe the Republican Contract With America calls for just that,
and since their goal is to pass it in 3 months, I feel I must speak
out.
The contract talks about bringing back the gag rule to health care
clinics. Here is the contract that professes less government on the one
hand, but uses the Republican hand to gag doctors and nurses in clinics
from telling their patients that abortion is legal option in this
country. When that fight comes, I will be right here. And speaking of
health care clinics, I trust my colleagues will support law and order
in a tragic escalation of violence waged against lawabiding Americans.
Law and order plays a big part in the contract which is fine. But,
sadly, it resurrects the old fight between punishment and prevention.
We should listen to law enforcement authorities who tell us we need
both. Let us not undo the crime bill that police worked so hard for. If
there is a move to rescind the crime bill in the name of fighting crime
I will be right here to fight it.
Middle-class tax relief? I am here. It was the President who promised
it during his campaign, and he has defined a very fair middle-class
bill of rights that helps families with children and eases the burden
of college tuition costs. I support this.
The Republican contract talks about the middle class, and I am with
them all the way. But if what they really mean is tax breaks for those
worth millions, I will be right here to point out the farce.
Tax relief should not help Members of Congress. We make enough. It
should help the middle class. There are still those with multiple
millions of dollars sneaking through tax loopholes. We do not need more
of that, we need less.
The contract talks about orphanages and poor children being denied
nutrition assistance. I will not stand by and allow children to starve
or be torn away from parents or grandparents in the name of reform. I
do not care if ``Boys Town'' is a good film. We better learn from the
past, not go back to it when it did not work.
I am ready to talk about work requirements and tough standards for
welfare.
That's absolutely essential. We must not reward laziness or excuses.
I am here to talk about smart incentives like workable group homes for
kids and those responsible for them; I am here to talk about real
punishment for those who neglect their kids. But if you push policies
that in the name of reform hurt these kids and make them hungry or
homeless or abused, I will be there to take them on.
The contract calls for securities litigation reform to end what the
contract calls ``frivolous laws suits.'' This sounds great, but when
you read the fine print you see a plan that would let greedy and
irresponsible parties completely off the hook after they dump risky
investments on the public.
The Republican contract would heighten the economic insecurity of
millions of Americans who save for the future; have a 401K savings
plan, a corporate pension plan, an IRA, or a mutual fund.
The contract would make it almost impossible for small investors to
successfully sue well-heeled investment bankers for fraud. It would
require small investors to prove their case--to know what went on in
the mind of anyone who defrauded them--before they file suit. It
requires small investors to be mind readers.
How would this Republican contract have affected Ramonna Jacobs of
Los Angeles. Mrs. Jacobs, unwittingly, invested money earmarked for her
disabled daughter in Charles Keating's junk bonds.
Mrs. Jacobs could not have successfully sued Charles Keating if the
Republican contract was in effect. There was no way Mrs. Jacobs could
have known, at the get-go, how Charles Keating schemed to defraud her,
what Charles Keating knew and when he knew it.
Deception is the essence of securities fraud. The Republican contract
ignores that. In doing so it will increase the insecurity--economic and
otherwise--of millions of Americans.
I will fight that kind of destructive legislation disguised as
reform.
I will not stand by and allow our people to be hurt by gutting air
and water quality standards in the name of deregulation as the contract
says.
If you want to talk about streamlining regulations that bureaucrats
are bungling I'll be right there. There is no need to have people hung
out to dry while we figure out how to apply environmental laws. I agree
with that.
But if by ``streamlining'' you really mean destroying or ripping away
sensible environmental protection laws, I'll be right here to call it
the way I see it.
I ran as a fighter for the people of California and as I figure it,
if you cannot breathe you cannot work or live. Today a baby born in Los
Angeles has a 15 percent lower lung capacity then a baby born in a
clear air area. That's wrong.
And let us cut spending where it makes sense to do so. We have
opportunities all over the Federal budget. I look forward to working
constructively to do that on the Budget Committee and on the Senate
floor. But the Republican contract calls for fencing off one part of
the budget so savings cannot be used for anything else. Why should one
part of the budget be treated differently? The contract puts the
military budget in a separate area behind the fence and it throws away
the key. They do not do that for Social Security. They do not do that
for Medicare--they don't do that for education or for law enforcement.
They only do that for the military budget.
Now I am all for a strong military and against wasteful military
spending. In the eighties we found out we were buying $7,500 coffee
pots and $600 toilet seats and $350 ``No Smoking'' signs and spending
millions on weapons that blew up fans in portable toilets instead of
helicopters and billions on star wars when tests were rigged to make it
look good.
And I have news for you even today: with all the reforms we've
enacted, we still have generals taking $200,000 military flights. An
Air Force general recently had a VIP C-141B Starlifter fly from New
Jersey to pick him up--along with his cat and an aide--in Naples,
Italy, and fly him to Colorado. The flight cost between $120,000 and
$200,000. A commercial ticket would have cost less than $1,500.
And believe it or not, we are paying convicted felons in the military
mil-
[[Page S21]] lions of dollars a year while they sit in jail. No one
could get away with that in the private sector.
In the meantime, we continue to spend two to three times more on the
military than all other enemies combined.
So let us not have any sacred cows. It makes us weaker as a nation,
not stronger.
Let's determine what it takes to meet the threats we face--debate the
appropriate level of funding, always be ready to procure the funding
for emergencies but let's not fence off one part of the responsibility.
Let me read from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish, this
Constitution for the United States of America.
It doesn't say provide for the common defense only.
It does not say, ``provide for the common defense and, if you feel
like, promote the general welfare.''
It does not say that providing for the common defense takes
precedence over establishing justice.
It says to do all those things.
I believe in our Constitution. Some of the things I hear lead me to
believe that the preamble of the Constitution has become meaningless to
some Members of Congress--I fervently hope not.
I have great confidence in the institutions of our Government. They
have prevailed through many political and economic times more trying
than these.
But they are always tested.
I intend to make sure our institutions pass this test.
That the Government of, by, and for the people will prevail and not
be destroyed in the name of slogans and rhetoric.
I look forward to a legitimate debate on how we can make this the
most prosperous country, the fairest country, and the healthiest
country in the world. I hold out my hand in the search for constructive
solutions, but I hold up my hand to destructive political posturing.
The American people want us to work together. They want the
filibuster abuse to end--they want us to take the best ideas--whoever
has them--and turn them into policies.
They want us to work with the executive branch for progress.
Let us do that.
But I also believe the people from my State of California expect me
to fight for them above all, and if that means standing on the floor of
the Senate all by myself to do that, I will--any day, any hour. That's
the promise I made to them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized, Mr.
Stevens.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Kerry pertaining to the
introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 49
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Glenn pertaining to the introduction of
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
____________________