[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.

                          ____________________