[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S478-S482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICA AT A MORAL CROSSROADS
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have sent to the desk a slate of
legislation that addresses a number of our Nation's most pressing
social problems. I have introduced a great many of these bills in prior
Congressional sessions and Senators who have been around for a while
will find these proposals familiar.
Nonetheless, I shall devote a few minutes to explain the importance
of these bills and why it is so crucial to address permissive social
policies that are creating a moral and spiritual crisis in our country.
I am delighted, Mr. President, that our Nation's economy has grown
and prospered for the last two years--helped along, not incidentally,
by the responsible fiscal policies insisted upon by the Republican
Congress. But the good news on the financial pages is too often
overshadowed by utterly horrifying stories elsewhere, stories which
detail a moral sickness at the heart of our culture, stories which
chronicle the devaluation of human life in our society, symbolized by
the tragic 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.
The most notorious of these appalling stories was the episode
involving a young New Jersey woman who in May of 1997 gave birth to an
infant in a public bathroom stall during her senior prom. She then
strangled her newborn baby boy, placed the body in a trash can,
adjusted her makeup, and returned to the dance floor.
Mr. President, this chilling tale cries out that something is badly
wrong in the culture that produced it. The American people were
justifiably stunned by the furor surrounding this crime--and they are
surely even more shocked to learn that this is not an isolated
incident.
Consider this: In November of 1997, in Tucson, Arizona, a 15-year-old
boy found a newborn in a 3-pound coffee can. After an investigation,
police arrested the boy's sister, then 19 years of age. She had given
birth to the baby and promptly drowned it in the toilet, covered its
little head with a plastic ice cream wrapper, wrapped the body in a
flannel shirt and hidden it. She said she had intended to bury it
later.
Despite these largely uncontested facts, an Arizona jury--browbeaten
into submission by a defense team suggesting that its client was in
fact the victim of a strict Catholic upbringing-- returned a guilty
verdict only on a charge of negligent homicide, the least severe
conviction applicable. This woman, who had murdered her own baby,
received a sentence of one year, and during her prison term, she will
be released during daytime hours on a work furlough program.
This is the tip of the iceberg, Mr. President. National Public Radio
recently reported that the bodies of about 250 newborns are callously
discarded each year. In some of these cases the babies were stillborn,
but in others, the newborns were murdered.
Lest anyone think I am exaggerating, pick up almost any newspaper in
America, and a distressing story is likely to be found. For example:
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 12, 1997: Teenage Mother Admits
Slaying: Newborn was Found Dead in Gym Bag in Garage of Home
The Record, Northern New Jersey, December 24,1997: 12 Years for Mom
Who Killed Baby: Newborn Tossed From Window
Associated Press, Atlantic City, New Jersey, July 14, 1997: Baby Born
in Toilet Stall, Left in Atlantic City Bus Terminal
St. Petersburg Times, December 20, 1997: Girl Charged who Left Baby
in Trash
Dallas Morning News, October 29, 1997: Teen Jailed in Baby's Death
Hid Pregnancy, Parents say Newborn Boy Was Found Suffocated in Garbage
Bag
Should we really be surprised, Mr. President, that a Nation that not
only tolerates, but actively defends the practice of partial birth
abortion would produce these gruesome headlines? And the extraordinary
level of disrespect for human life to which America has fallen isn't
limited to the horrible practice of neonaticide on the part of young
mothers. It pervades every part of our society.
In Pennsylvania, two teenagers were stabbed during a showing of a so-
called ``horror movie'' that itself featured two characters being
brutally stabbed to death watching a horror film. In Oregon, much of
the Nation watched in disbelief as news reports described the case of a
young man who, after killing his parents, walked into a crowded school
cafeteria and opened fire on his fellow students.
No one Act of Congress or court decision is solely responsible for
these tragedies, of course. But can it be denied that the decline in
moral values in American culture helped set the stage for these
notorious crimes? The American people believe this is true. Last year,
CBS and CNN/Time both conducted polls indicating more Americans believe
that a lack of moral values was the most important problem facing the
United States--more important than crime, more important than
[[Page S479]]
taxes, more important than health care, more important than education.
Too often, however, the mainstream media doesn't seek to remedy our
decaying culture; they actively celebrate it. Just last fall, the
supposedly responsible news magazine ``60 Minutes'' elected to show the
videotaped death of a man via Dr. Jack Kevorkian's so-called ``suicide
machine''. In voice-over, Kevorkian was allowed to comment on the
procedure--no, strike that, the murder--that the viewer was watching.
All the while he defended his abhorrent belief in assisted suicide. And
instead of responding with outrage, a portion of the American public
rewarded the program with its highest ratings of the year.
Has America become so hard-hearted and callous, Mr. President? Or is
it just responding to so-called cultural elitists who celebrate
abortion, euthanasia, and promiscuity, while with unrestrained zeal
endeavor to destroy all traces of religion in American public life.
Too many politicians blithely suggest that government and morality
are not and should not be related; too many producers in Hollywood
claim that the filth that passes for entertainment does not corrupt our
culture; and too many educators claim the academy does not have a place
in addressing the difference between right and wrong.
Mr. President, they are the ones who are wrong. We fool ourselves and
we fool the public if we suggest that there is no connection between
the business we do in Congress and the state of public morality in our
society. We are the caretakers of our own culture. And we must not
shrink from the responsibility of passing laws that promote what is
right and prevent what is wrong in our society.
We make judgements between right and wrong every day, Mr. President
in every vote we cast and every action we take. And when we judge
correctly, the positive results can be wonderfully encouraging.
Consider this: On August 1, 1996, the Senate passed the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. It was
subsequently enacted into law. This landmark legislation, commonly
referred to as ``welfare reform'', injected the time-honored values of
hard work and personal responsibility into our social welfare system.
Welfare reform has been successful beyond even its supporters'
wildest expectations--and, in my view, has tangible indirect benefits
as well.
The numbers are stunning: According to the Department of Health and
Human Services, the percentage of Americans receiving welfare benefits
has plunged from 5.5% in 1995 to 3.3% in 1998. In three short years--
and aided by the polices of a number of creative, innovative Governors
and state leaders--welfare reform almost halved the welfare rolls.
The success of welfare reform is not limited to the dramatic decline
of the welfare recipients, though the numbers are impressive indeed.
Putting people back to work has started to mend other social problems.
The January/February 1999 edition of The American Enterprise reports
the following good news:
The number of homicides has dropped from 11 Americans per 100,000 in
1990 to only 7 in 1998, with a noticeably steep decline in the curve
since 1995.
Poverty among Black Americans has declined sharply, to a 30-year low
of 27%. (U.S. Bureau of the Census)
Divorce rates in the last three years are dropping, while marriage
rates over the same time period are inching upward. (U.S. National
Center for Health Statistics)
I for one do not doubt that welfare reform is partially responsible
for these encouraging statistics.
In short, Mr. President, good laws help make good societies. And that
is the reason I continue to introduce bills in each and every Congress
that limit the modern tragedy of abortion and its insidious effects;
that allow for prayer in schools while taking steps to ease the scourge
of drug use among our children; that protect the rights of federal
employees to speak their minds about moral issues; and that make sure
our civil rights laws treat Americans as individuals rather than
faceless members of racial groups, religious groups, or of a certain
gender.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my explanation of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act has
several goals. First, it puts the Senate on record as declaring that
one, every abortion destroys deliberately the life of an unborn child;
two, that the U.S. Constitution sanctions no right to abortion; and
three, that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided.
Second, this legislation will prohibit Federal funding to pay for, or
promote, abortion. Further, this legislation proposes to de-fund
abortion permanently, thereby relieving Congress of annual legislative
battles about abortion restrictions in appropriation bills.
Third, the Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act proposes to end
indirect Federal funding for abortions by one, prohibiting
discrimination, at all federally funded institutions, against citizens
who as a matter of conscience object to abortion and two, curtailing
attorney fees in abortion-related cases.
Fourth, this bill proposes that appeals to the Supreme Court be
provided as a right if and when any lower Federal court declares
restrictions on abortion unconstitutional, thus effectively assuring
Supreme Court reconsideration of the abortion issue.
Mr. President, I believe this bill begins to remedy some of the
damage done to America by the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
I continue to believe that a majority of my colleagues will one day
agree, and I will never give up doing everything in my power to protect
the most vulnerable Americans of all: the unborn.
S. 40
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Unborn Children's Civil
Rights Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) scientific evidence demonstrates that abortion takes
the life of an unborn child who is a living human being;
(2) a right to abortion is not secured by the Constitution;
(3) in the cases of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) and
Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179 (1973)) the Supreme Court erred
in not recognizing the humanity of the unborn child and the
compelling interest of the States in protecting the life of
each person before birth.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR ABORTION.
No funds appropriated by Congress shall be used to take the
life of an unborn child, except that such funds may be used
only for those medical procedures required to prevent the
death of either the pregnant woman or her unborn child so
long as every reasonable effort is made to preserve the life
of each.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO ENCOURAGE OR PROMOTE
ABORTION.
No funds appropriated by Congress shall be used to promote,
encourage, counsel for, refer for, pay for (including travel
expenses), or do research on, any procedure to take the life
of an unborn child, except that such funds may be used in
connection with only those medical procedures required to
prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her unborn
child so long as every reasonable effort is made to preserve
the life of each.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON ENTERING INTO CERTAIN INSURANCE
CONTRACTS.
Neither the United States, nor any agency or department
thereof shall enter into any contract for insurance that
provides for payment or reimbursement for any procedure to
take the life of an unborn child, except that the United
States, or an agency or department thereof may enter into
contracts for payment or reimbursement for only those medical
procedures required to prevent the death of either the
pregnant woman or her unborn child so long as every
reasonable effort is made to preserve the life of each.
SEC. 6. LIMITATIONS ON RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.
No institution, organization, or other entity receiving
Federal financial assistance shall--
(1) discriminate against any employee, applicant for
employment, student, or applicant for admission as a student
on the basis of such person's opposition to procedures to
take the life of an unborn child or to counseling for or
assisting in such procedures;
(2) require any employee or student to participate,
directly or indirectly, in a health insurance program which
includes procedures to take the life of an unborn child or
which provides counseling or referral for such procedures; or
(3) require any employee or student to participate,
directly or indirectly, in procedures to take the life of an
unborn child or in counseling, referral, or any other
administrative arrangements for such procedures.
[[Page S480]]
SEC. 7. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ATTORNEY'S FEES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law,
attorneys' fees shall not be allowable in any civil action in
Federal court involving, directly or indirectly, a law,
ordinance, regulation, or rule prohibiting or restricting
procedures to take the life of an unborn child.
SEC. 8. APPEALS OF CERTAIN CASES.
Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after section 1251, the following:
``Sec. 1251. Appeals of certain cases.
``Notwithstanding the absence of the United States as a
party, if any State or any subdivision of any State enforces
or enacts a law, ordinance, regulation, or rule prohibiting
procedures to take the life of an unborn child, and such law,
ordinance, regulation, or rule is declared unconstitutional
in an interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of
any court of the United States, any party in such a case may
appeal such case to the Supreme Court, notwithstanding any
other provision of law.''.
Civil Rights of Infants Act
Mr. HELMS. In 1989, our distinguished colleague from New Hampshire,
Senator Gordon Humphrey, first called attention to the incredibly
brutal practice of abortions performed solely because prospective
parents prefer a child of a gender different from that of the baby in
the mother's womb.
The Civil Rights of Infants Act makes sure nobody could ever act upon
this unthinkable decision by specifically amending title 42 of the
United States Code governing civil rights. Anyone who administers an
abortion for the purpose of choosing the gender of the infant will be
subject to the same laws which protects any other citizen who is a
victim of discrimination.
Nobody--even the most radical feminists--can ignore the absurdity of
denying a child the right to life simply because the parents happened
to prefer a child of the opposite gender. I hope the 106th Congress
will swiftly act to fulfill the desires of the American people, who
rightfully believe it is immoral to destroy unborn babies simply
because the parents demand a child of a different gender.
S. 41
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Civil Rights of Infants
Act''.
SEC. 2. DEPRIVING PERSONS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS
BEFORE BIRTH.
Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Every person''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) For purposes of subsection (a), it shall be a
deprivation of a `right' secured by the laws of the United
States for an individual to perform an abortion with the
knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion
solely because of the gender of the fetus. No pregnant woman
who seeks to obtain an abortion solely because of the gender
of the fetus shall be liable for such abortion in any manner
under this section.''.
Federal Adoption Services Act of 1999
Mr. HELMS. I am also pleased to intoduce the Federal Adoption
Services Act of 1999. This bill proposes to amend title X of the Public
Health Service Act to permit federally funded planning services to
provide adoption services based on two factors: (1) the needs of the
community in which the clinic is located, and (2), the ability of an
individual clinic to provide such services.
Under this legislation, no woman will be threatened or cajoled into
giving up her child for adoption. Family planning clinics will not be
required to provide adoption services. Rather, this legislation will
make it clear that Federal policy will allow, or even encourage
adoption as a means of family planning. Women who use title X services,
will be in a better position to make informed, compassionate judgments
about the unborn children they are carrying.
With so many loving, caring parents available to care for unwanted
children, the federal government should do everything it properly can
to make sure that adoption is an alternative for expectant mothers. I
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this reasonable proposal.
S. 42
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Adoption Services
Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. ADOPTION SERVICES.
Section 1001(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300(a)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the
following: ``Such projects may also offer adoption services.
Any adoption services provided under such projects shall be
nondiscriminatory as to race, color, religion, or national
origin.''.
Voluntary School Prayer Protection Act
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Voluntary School Prayer Protection Act
will make sure that student-initiated prayer is treated the same as all
other student-initiated free speech--which the U.S. Supreme Court has
upheld as constitutionally protected so long as it is done in an
appropriate time, place and manner such that it ``does not materially
disrupt the school day.'' [Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393
U.S. 503.]
Under this bill, school districts could not continue--in
constitutional ignorance--enforcing blanket denials of students' rights
to voluntary prayer and religious activity in the schools. For the
first time, schools would be faced with real consequences for making
uninformed and unconstitutional decisions prohibiting all voluntary
prayer. The bill creates a complete system of checks and balances to
make sure that school districts do not shortchange their students one
way or the other.
This proposal, Mr. President, prevents public schools from
prohibiting constitutionally protected voluntary student-initiated
prayer. It does not mandate school prayer and suggestions to the
contrary are simply in error. Nor does it require schools to write any
particular prayer, or compel any student to participate in prayer. It
does not prevent school districts from establishing appropriate time,
place, and manner restrictions on voluntary prayer--the same kind of
restrictions that are placed on other forms of speech in the schools.
What this proposal will do is prevent school districts from
establishing official policies or procedures with the intent of
prohibiting students from exercising their constitutionally protected
right to lead, or participate in, voluntary prayer in school.
S. 43
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Voluntary School Prayer
Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. FUNDING CONTINGENT ON RESPECT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOOL PRAYER.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds made available through the Department of
Education shall be provided to any State or local educational
agency that has a policy of denying, or that effectively
prevents participation in, constitutional prayer in public
schools by individuals on a voluntary basis.
(b) Limitation.--No person shall be required to participate
in prayer, or shall influence the form or content of any
constitutional prayer, in a public school.
Safe Schools Act of 1999
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, government has no higher obligation than
the protection of the most vulnerable among us--our children. Outside
of their own home, there is no place that a child should feel more
secure and protected than while at school.
That is why I joined with several other Senators last Congress in
introducing the Safe Schools Act. This legislation directly confronts
the issue of illegal drug use and juvenile violence by requiring
schools that accept federal education funds to adopt a ``zero
tolerance'' policy when a student is found in possession of illegal
drugs at school.
The Safe Schools Act provides a logical and commonsense extension of
1994's Gun-Free Schools Act by conditioning receipt of federal
education dollars on state adoption of a policy requiring the expulsion
for not less than one year of any student who brings illegal drugs to
school.
Anyone who questions the link between school violence and drugs
should merely turn their attention to the results of a recent National
Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education survey, or PRIDE survey
as it is called, which found that:
Gun-toting students were twenty times more likely to use cocaine than
those who didn't bring a gun to school;
Gang members were twelve times more likely to use cocaine than non-
gang members;
And students who threatened others were six times more likely to be
cocaine users than others.
These frightening statistics combined with students own reports that
[[Page S481]]
drugs are the number one problem they face and that illegal drugs are
readily available to students of all ages illustrate the need for
immediate action. The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at
Columbia University has documented that two-thirds (66%) of students
report that they go to schools where students keep, use and sell drugs
and that over half (51%) of high school students believe the drug
problem is getting worse. In contrast, CASA has found that most
principals see drugs ``virtually nowhere.''
Mr. President, the Center for the Prevention of School Violence in
North Carolina tracks the incidence of criminal acts on school
property. For the last four years, ``possession of a controlled
substance'' has been either the first or second most reported category
of incident. It is past time that we restore an environment that is
secure and conducive to the education of the vast majority of students
who are eager to learn. Our students and teachers deserve nothing less.
S. 44
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SAFE SCHOOLS.
(a) Amendments.--Part F of title XIV of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8921 et seq.) is
amended to read as follows:
``PART F--ILLEGAL DRUG AND GUN POSSESSION
``SEC. 14601. DRUG-FREE AND GUN-FREE REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the `Safe
Schools Act of 1999'.
``(b) Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Each State receiving Federal funds under
this Act shall have in effect a State law requiring local
educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not
less than 1 year a student who is determined--
``(A) to be in possession of an illegal drug, or illegal
drug paraphernalia, on school property under the jurisdiction
of, or on a vehicle operated by an employee or agent of, a
local educational agency in that State; or
``(B) to have brought a firearm to a school under the
jurisdiction of a local educational agency in that State,
except that the State law shall allow the chief administering
officer of the local educational agency to modify the
expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis.
``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to prevent a State from allowing a local
educational agency that has expelled a student from the
student's regular school setting from providing educational
services to the student in an alternative setting.
``(c) Special Rule.--The provisions of this section shall
be construed in a manner consistent with the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
``(d) Application.--Each local educational agency
requesting assistance from a State educational agency that is
to be provided from funds made available to the State under
this Act shall provide to the State, in the application
requesting assistance--
``(1) an assurance that the local educational agency is in
compliance with the State law required by subsection (b); and
``(2) a description of the circumstances surrounding any
expulsions imposed under the State law required by subsection
(b), including--
``(A) the name of the school concerned;
``(B) the number of students expelled from the school; and
``(C) the type of illegal drugs, illegal drug
paraphernalia, or firearms concerned.
``(e) Report to Secretary.--Each State shall report the
information described in subsection (d) to the Secretary on
an annual basis.
``(f) Report to Congress.--Not later than two years after
the date of enactment of the Safe Schools Act of 1999, the
Secretary shall report to Congress with respect to any State
that is not in compliance with the requirements of this part.
``SEC. 14602. POLICY REGARDING CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
REFERRAL.
``(a) In General.--No funds shall be made available under
this Act to any local educational agency unless the agency
has a policy requiring referral, to the criminal justice or
juvenile delinquency system, of any student who is in
possession of an illegal drug, or illegal drug paraphernalia,
on school property under the jurisdiction of, or on a vehicle
operated by an employee or agent of, the agency, or who
brings a firearm to a school under the jurisdiction of the
agency.
``(b) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section, the
term `school' has the meaning given the term in section
921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
``SEC. 14603. DATA AND POLICY DISSEMINATION UNDER IDEA.
``The Secretary shall--
``(1) widely disseminate the policy of the Department, in
effect on the date of enactment of the Safe Schools Act of
1999, with respect to disciplining children with
disabilities;
``(2) collect data on the incidence of children with
disabilities (as the term is defined in section 602 of the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401))
possessing illegal drugs, or illegal drug paraphernalia, on
school property under the jurisdiction of, or on a vehicle
operated by an employee or agent of, a local educational
agency, engaging in life threatening behavior at school, or
bringing firearms to schools; and
``(3) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Safe Schools Act of 1999, prepare and submit to Congress
a report analyzing the strengths and problems with the
approaches regarding disciplining children with disabilities.
``SEC. 14604. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) Firearm.--The term `firearm' has the meaning given
the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
``(2) Illegal drug.--
``(A) In general.--The term `illegal drug' means a
controlled substance, as defined in section 102(6) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), the possession
of which is unlawful under the Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or
the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
951 et seq.).
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `illegal drug' does not mean a
controlled substance used pursuant to a valid prescription or
as authorized by law.
``(3) Illegal drug paraphernalia.--The term `illegal drug
paraphernalia' means drug paraphernalia, as defined in
section 422(d) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
863(d)), except that the first sentence of section 422(d) of
the Act shall be applied by inserting `or under the
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et
seq.)' before the period.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by
this Act take effect 6 months after the date of enactment of
this Act.
Freedom of Speech Act
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am also pleased to introduce the Freedom
of Speech Act, which makes sure that federal employees are not forced
to check their moral beliefs at the door when they arrive at the
federal workplace.
This bill attempts to make sure that President Clinton is not allowed
to do by Executive Order what Congress has declined to enact in the
past two Congressional sessions--namely, to treat homosexuals as a
special class protected under various titles of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Last year, President Clinton signed such an Executive Order, and
in so doing, infringed upon the Constitutional rights of Federal
employees who wish to express their moral and spiritual objections to
the homosexual lifestyle.
President Clinton has instructed Federal agencies and departments to
implement a policy that treats homosexuals as a special class protected
under various titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This necessarily
prevents federal employees who have strong religious or moral
objections to homosexuality from expressing those beliefs without
running afoul of what amounts to a workplace speech code. Apparently,
when the President's desire to write his belief system into federal
workplace regulations conflicted with the First Amendment right to free
speech, the Constitution lost.
Congress should jealously protect its Constitutional prerogative to
make laws, and prevent the executive branch from creating special
protections for homosexuals, particularly in a way that doesn't take
into account the Constitutional right of freedom of speech enjoyed by
all Federal employees. That is the purpose of the legislation I offer
today.
Under this bill, no Federal funds could be used to enforce President
Clinton's Executive Order #13807. Further, no Federal department or
agency would be able to implement or enforce any policy creating a
special class of individuals in Federal employment discrimination law.
This bill will also prevent the Federal government from trampling the
First Amendment rights of Federal employees to express their moral and
spiritual values in the workplace.
Mr. President, for many years the homosexual community has engaged in
a well-organized, concerted campaign to force Americans to accept, and
even legitimize, an immoral lifestyle. This bill is designed to prevent
President Clinton from advancing the homosexual agenda at the expense
of both the proper legislative role and the free speech rights of
Federal workers.
S. 45
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom of Speech Act''.
[[Page S482]]
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.
(a) In General.--No agency, officer, or employee of the
executive branch of the Federal Government shall issue,
implement, or enforce any policy establishing an additional
class of individuals that is protected against discrimination
in Federal employment, other than a class of individuals
specifically identified in a provision of Federal statutory
law that prohibits employment discrimination against the
class, including--
(1) title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e et seq.);
(2) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29
U.S.C. 621 et seq.); and
(3) title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
791 et seq.) or title I of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq.).
(b) Prohibition on Use of Federal Funds.--No agency,
officer, or employee of the executive branch of the Federal
Government shall use Federal funds to issue, implement, or
enforce a policy described in subsection (a), including
implementing and enforcing Executive Order 13087, including
any amendment made by such order.
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1999
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the last of these bills is entitled the
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1999. Specifically, this legislation
prevents Federal agencies, and the Federal courts, from interpreting
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to allow an employer to grant
preferential treatment in employment to any group or individual on
account of race.
This proposal prohibits the use of racial quotas once and for all.
During the past several years, almost every member of the Senate--and
the President of the United States--have proclaimed that they are
opposed to quotas. This bill will give Senators an opportunity to
reinforce their statements by voting in a roll call vote against
quotas.
Mr. President, this legislation emphasizes that from here on out,
employers must hire on a race neutral basis. They can reach out into
the community to the disadvantaged and they can even have businesses
with 80 percent or 90 percent minority workforces as long as the
motivating factor in employment is not race.
This bill clarifies section 703(j) of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 to make it consistent with the intent of its authors,
Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen. Let me state it for the Record:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any entity
that is an employer, employment agency, labor organization,
or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to
grant preferential treatment to any individual or group with
respect to selection for, discharge from, compensation for,
or the terms, conditions, or privileges of, employment or
union membership, on the basis of the race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin of such individual or group, for any
person, except as provided in subsection (e) or paragraph
(2).
It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an
entity described in paragraph (1) to recruit individuals of
an under-represented race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin, to expand the applicant pool of the individuals
seeking employment or union membership with the entity.
Specifically, this bill proposes to make part (j) of Section 703 of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act consistent with subsections (a) and (d) of
that section. It contains the identical language used in those section
to make preferential treatment on the basis of race (that is, quotas)
an unlawful employment practice.
Mr. President, I want to be clear that this legislation does not make
outreach programs an unlawful employment practice. Under language
suggested years ago by the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Bob Dole,
a company can recruit and hire in the inner city, prefer people who are
disadvantaged, create literacy programs, recruit in the schools,
establish day care programs, and expand its labor pool in the poorest
sections of the community. In other words, expansion of the employee
pool is specifically provided for under this act.
Mr. President, this legislation is necessary because in the 33 years
since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Government and
the courts have combined to corrupt the spirit of the Act as enumerated
by both Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen, who made clear that they
were unalterably opposed to racial quotas. Yet in spite of the clear
intent of Congress, businesses large and small must adhere to hiring
quotas in order to keep the all-powerful federal government off their
backs. This bill puts an end to that sort of nonsense once and for all.
S. 46
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Civil Rights Restoration Act
of 1999''.
SEC. 2. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.
(a) Unlawful Employment Practice.--Section 703(j) of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(j)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(j)(1) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for
any entity that is an employer, employment agency, labor
organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to
this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual
or group with respect to selection for, discharge from,
compensation for, or the terms, conditions, or privileges of,
employment or union membership, on the basis of the race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual
or group, for any purpose, except as provided in subsection
(e) or paragraph (2).
``(2) It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for
an entity described in paragraph (1) to recruit individuals
of an underrepresented race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin, to expand the applicant pool of the
individuals seeking employment or union membership with the
entity.''.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in the amendment made by
subsection (a) shall be construed to limit the authority of
courts to remedy, under section 706(g) of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)), intentional
discrimination under title VII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e
et seq.).
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I do not pretend that enaction of this
legislation will solve all of the pathologies of modern society. But
taken as a whole, they seek to turn the tide of the increasing apathy--
and in some cases, outright hostility--toward moral and spiritual
principles that have marked late twentieth-century social policy.
The Founding Fathers knew what would become of a society that ignores
traditional morality. I have often quoted the parting words of advice
our first President, George Washington, left his beloved new Nation. He
reminded his fellow citizens:
Of all the dispensations and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute to patriotism who
should labor to subvert these great pillars of human
happiness.
Mr. President, that distinguished world leader, Margaret Thatcher,
highlighted for us the words of Washington's successor, John Adams, who
said ``our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.''
Our Founding Fathers understood well the intricate relationship
between freedom of responsibility. They knew that the blessings of
liberty engendered certain obligations on the part of a free people--
namely, that citizens conduct their actions in such a way that society
can remain cohesive without excessive government intrusion. The
American experiment would never have succeeded without the traditional
moral and spiritual values of the American people--values that allow
people to govern themselves, rather than be governed.
____________________