[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.

                          ____________________