[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10711-S10712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  RYAN WHITE CARE REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 1854

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of amounts made available under this act 
for the promotion or encouragement of homosexuality or intravenous drug 
                                  use)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have an amendment. I send it to the desk 
and ask it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1854.
       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC.  . PROHIBITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF FEDERAL 
                   FUNDS

       (a) Promotion or Encouragement of Certain Activities.--No 
     funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be 
     used to promote or encourage, directly or indirectly, 
     homosexuality, or intravenous drug use.
       (b) Definition.--As used in subsection (a), the term `to 
     promote or encourage, directly or indirectly, homosexuality' 
     includes, but is not limited to, affirming homosexuality as 
     natural, normal, or healthy, or, in the process of addressing 
     related `at-risk' issues, affirming in any way that engaging 
     in a homosexual act is desirable, acceptable, or permissible, 
     or, describing in any way techniques of homosexual sex.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the distinguished clerk has just 
indicated, this amendment is simple. Forest Gump could understand this 
one.
  I do not intend to take up a lot of time. I just say it is just a 
simple act of responsibility on the part of the Senate to make sure 
that no taxpayers' money--not a cent, not a farthing--distributed under 
the Ryan White legislation, shall be used in the promotion of 
homosexuality as being natural or normal--or that poppycock about just 
another lifestyle. None of the above is the case.
  This amendment, therefore, takes another important step toward 
removing the Ryan White Act from politics. It provides a safeguard to 
make sure that Federal funds--that is to say the American taxpayers' 
money--ostensibly provided to help victims of the AIDS virus, these 
funds shall not be used to push the radical agenda of the homosexual 
activists.
  I have said many times--and a lot of people do not like my saying it; 
that suits me all right. I do not like them not liking it. But, if the 
proponents of this bill really want to help those in need, let us make 
sure that we help those in need and not let the Ryan White funds be 
used for such outrageous, extraneous things.
  This is not the first time I brought up this subject. About 8 years 
ago, I think it was, I submitted an amendment that prevented any funds 
used by the Centers for Disease Control for 

[[Page S10712]]

AIDS education, the kind of education that would be used to promote 
homosexuality. And, believe me, it was going on.
  This amendment passed the Senate 94 to 2. I certainly can think of no 
reason why this amendment, the pending one, should not pass by a 
similar margin. But if any Senator wishes, he or she can come by this 
desk and we can look at the rollcall of 7 or 8 years ago. We do have 
it.
  The promotion of homosexual conduct as acceptable or permissible or 
just another lifestyle flies directly in the face of what a sound AIDS 
policy ought to be. Mr. President, 53 percent of AIDS cases, more than 
half of the AIDS cases in America, have come about through male/male 
sexual relations. This being true--and the Centers for Disease Control 
has documented it to be true--then why on Earth should any Federal 
money, even a penny, be used to promote activity that has proven to be 
the leading cause of AIDS?
  Mr. President, I wish I had a nickel for every time I have come on 
this floor and implored Senators to treat the AIDS disease as a public 
health issue instead of a civil rights issue. But, judging from the 
clamor and shouting over the past several weeks, these words continue 
to be ignored--certainly in the media, and certainly by the AIDS 
activists. They have run up and down the corridors of the Senate, 
buttonholed Senators, and all the rest of it. We will see how effective 
they have been.
  If this bill passes without any one of the amendments that I intend 
to offer, we will know something about the effectiveness of the AIDS 
lobbyists.
  I am going to say it again and be through. AIDS is not a civil rights 
issue, it is a public health issue and a serious one, and the money 
ought to be spent in that regard, not for the promotion of 
homosexuality or the advocacy that homosexuality is just another 
lifestyle. The last thing Congress should do is to allow any of the 
American taxpayers' money to be used to promote the very behavior that 
is responsible for spreading this disease.
  What homosexuals do behind closed doors is their own business. But 
they have no claim--none--on the taxpayers' money. This amendment 
simply prevents the use of tax money to portray homosexual conduct as 
acceptable or permissible. The Federal Government has no business 
financing the promotion of homosexuality, it never should, and as long 
as I am a Member of the Senate, I am going to be on my feet protesting 
the use of moneys in that way--or the misuse of it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I was trying to get a copy of the 
language that had been used. The Senator from North Carolina mentioned 
we had passed that before? He mentioned it had passed by a large vote 
before. I was just wondering if it was the same language as in this, 
the exact same language?
  I do not think anyone could quarrel with the language that would say 
none of the funds authorized under a title should be used to fund AIDS 
programs or to develop materials to promote, encourage, directly or 
indirectly, homosexuality or intravenous drug use. But I was uncertain 
about getting into a definition of homosexuality. But I clearly have no 
objection to say that no funds should be authorized to be used for 
promotion. If I may, I want to look at the language that we passed 
before.
  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator, the manager of the bill, let me know if we 
can get the yeas and nays, to set this one aside, and make it one back-
to-back rollcall vote at 6 o'clock.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is 20 minutes of. We have been interested in getting 
to this amendment. I was just handed this amendment. It is on a subject 
matter that I am hopeful that we can work through in terms of what I 
think would be an agreeable--may not be agreeable to all--but at least 
an approach which I think would achieve the stated objective but would 
not necessarily prohibit medical services, for example, to a targeted 
community. But quite frankly I did not have this. We just received this 
amendment, and I have no idea what the next amendment is. So as much as 
I would like to move this along, we could move along much faster if we 
did have an opportunity to examine the amendments prior to the time 
that they are addressed and called up.
  Mr. President, we all agree that it is not the business of the 
Federal Government to promote or encourage any kind of sexual 
activities whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, and it is 
certainly not the business of Government to promote or encourage 
illegal activities such as drug use. I hold that view, as do 99 of my 
Senate colleagues, I am sure. But that is not to prohibit desperately 
needed funds for organizations on the front lines of this epidemic. The 
thrust of the amendment has been to deny funding to organizations that 
serve gay communities or HIV drug users, like the highly respected AIDS 
Action Committee in Boston or AIDS Atlanta. Over the years similar 
amendments have been offered to restrict the use of AIDS prevention 
funds under the theory that targeted AIDS education that acknowledges 
the existence of homosexuality or drug use somehow promotes such 
activity.
  That is the nub of the concern that we would have, or at least I 
would in terms of the reaction to the Senator's amendment.
  We have, as the Senator from Kansas pointed out, addressed this at 
other times. If we had had the opportunity to at least know that this 
was going to be up, we would have been able to be perhaps more 
relevant. But the thrust of this amendment has been to restrict the use 
of any AIDS prevention funds under the theory that targeted AIDS 
education that acknowledges the existence of homosexuality or drug use 
somehow promotes such activity.
  If you had an organization, for example, that is providing services, 
and that included volunteers, are you encouraging, are you promoting or 
are you not promoting? Are you effectively limiting the opportunities 
for those organizations that are attempting to try and deal with the 
public health issue? Are you curtailing their opportunities to have 
some kind of impact in a public health way?
  I think this is the principal concern that we would have on this 
particular issue.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate being able to see a copy 
of what perhaps was before, which was an amendment on the 
appropriations bill, not the Ryan White legislation. And it did not 
have a definition in it either. Again, it was language designed to 
prohibit funds to be used for promotion activities. As I said, I 
certainly think there would be concurrence with that.
  If the Senator from North Carolina wants the legislation in the 
amendment that he has presented to be voted on without any need of 
amending it, I certainly respect that and we will have an up-or-down 
vote. I will intend later on to offer an amendment which would be the 
same language as the Senator from North Carolina but without the 
definition part, and would suggest perhaps, if we want to go ahead with 
the second amendment, as the Senator says, we could have back-to-back 
votes.
  Mr. HELMS. It is not necessary to get the yeas and nays yet on this 
pending amendment.
  So we will lay that aside, if the Chair will permit us to do so, and 
I ask unanimous consent to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator be good enough to yield for the purpose 
of a quorum call?
  Mr. HELMS. Certainly.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. DORGAN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________