[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 7 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S328-S336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HELMS:
  S. 73. A bill to prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State 
or local educational agency that denies or prevents participation in 
constitutional prayer in schools; read the first time.
  S. 74. A bill to prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State 
or local educational agency that distributes or provides morning-after 
pills to schoolchildren; read the first time.
  S. 75. A bill to protect the lives of unborn human beings; read the 
first time.
  S. 76. A bill to make it a violation of a right secured by the 
Constitution and laws of the United States to perform an abortion with 
the knowledge that the abortion is being performed solely because of 
the gender of the fetus; read the first time.
  S. 78. A bill to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make 
preferential treatment an unlawful employment practice, and for other 
purposes; read the first time.
  S. 79. A bill to encourage drug-free and safe schools; read the first 
time.


           LEGISLATION TO CORRECT PERMISSIVE SOCIAL POLICIES

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it is customary for me to introduce 
legislation on the first day of a new Congress that addresses what 
countless Americans believe are our Nation's most serious social 
problems. These problems are not new--and the solutions are familiar--
but I shall nonetheless devote a few moments to explaining the 
importance of these bills, and why, more than ever, it is so crucial to 
correct a number of permissive social policies that are creating a 
moral and spiritual crisis in our country.
  During the past several years, Mr. President, I have been delighted 
that the responsible fiscal policies of the Republican Congress, 
coupled with strong and stable monetary policy engineered by the 
Federal Reserve, has proved a successful combination for the economy. 
The resulting expansion--fueled not by government but by the limitless 
entrepreneurial energy of the American people--has been highly 
gratifying.
  But while the American people have been largely optimistic about the 
state of the economy, there is a curious dichotomy between those 
positive feelings and their unease about the state of American society. 
Because for every positive report Americans read on the financial page, 
there seems to be 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.
  Two years ago, I told the story of the young New Jersey woman who in 
May of 1997 gave birth to an infant in a public bathroom stall during 
her senior prom. She promptly strangled her newborn baby boy, placed 
his little body in a trash can, adjusted her makeup, and returned to 
the dance floor.
  The American people were justly shocked by such callousness, and I 
was even more stunned to learn that stories of a similar nature are 
common.
  Consider the following examples reported in the media in December of 
the year 2000.
  Portland Oregonian, December 5, 2000: ``A teen-ager accused of 
drowning her newborn baby in the bathtub at a family gathering in July 
in Eagle Creek pleaded guilty on Monday to second-degree 
manslaughter.''
  Chicago Tribune, December 9, 2000: ``A 21-year-old Fox Lake man 
pleaded guilty Friday to first-degree murder in the death of his 
girlfriend's 2-month-old daughter, who authorities said was brutally 
shaken and thrown during the last days of her life.
  Orlando Sentinel, December 24, 2000: ``A 17-month-old baby has died 
after his stepfather beat the infant in the head with his fists.
  News Tribune (Tacoma, Washington), December 1, 2000: ``A Lakewood 
mother and her live-in boyfriend have been charged with homicide-by-
abuse in the mid-September death of the woman's 2-month-old son.''

  Salt Lake Tribune, December 5, 2000: The mother of a newborn boy 
found dead after being abandoned in a shed at a St. George amusement 
park was bound over Monday for trial on a charge of first-degree 
murder.
  Should we really be surprised, Mr. President, that a Nation that not 
only

[[Page S333]]

tolerates, but actively defends the practice of partial birth abortion 
would produce these gruesome headlines? And should we be surprised that 
the extraordinary level of disrespect for human life to which America 
has fallen has not been limited to infant abuse on the part of 
caregivers, but now pervades every part of our society?
  In fact, Mr. President, the abortion-on-demand zealots holding sway 
over the media and much of the intellectual and political establishment 
are becoming ever more brazen in their assault on the unborn. Just this 
month, the National Abortion Rights Action League, known as NARAL, 
began an outrageously offensive television advertising campaign seeking 
to cloak the divisive practice of abortion under the guise of 
patriotism. Amidst images of families and children, and accompanied by 
stirring music, the text of the advertisement falsely treats this 
painful procedure as a cause for celebration. ``What's life,'' the 
commercial asks, ``without choice?''
  The deliberate destruction of the most innocent, most helpless human 
beings imaginable has nothing whatsoever to do with ``life.''
  We have a moral crisis in our country. But too often, the mainstream 
media doesn't seek to remedy our decaying culture; they actually 
celebrate it. During the past two years, the FOX network has become 
notorious for trivializing our most cherished institutions with so-
called ``reality entertainment'' programs like ``Who Wants to Marry a 
Multi-Millionaire'' and its most recent assault on good taste, 
``Temptation Island''.
  On this program, which debuted just weeks ago, contestants--or 
perhaps I should say exhibitionists--exchange their real-life 
relationships for promiscuous affairs, solely to divert the viewing 
public. And instead of responding with outrage--or at the very least, 
indifference--a sizeable portion of the American public rewarded the 
program with high ratings.
  It is increasingly apparent that American society has lost its 
moorings. But 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.
  When we make good choices, such as passing comprehensive welfare 
reform, the American people are rewarded with declining welfare 
caseloads with a corresponding decrease in crime and poverty. When 
Congress pursues responsible fiscal policy and balances the budget, it 
is possible to return to the American people more of their hard-earned 
money in the form of a tax cut.
  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 voluntary prayer in schools; that take steps to end the 
scourge of drug use among our children; 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 these six bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 73

       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.
                                  ____


                                 S. 74

       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 ``Schoolchildren's Health 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. SCHOOLCHILDREN'S HEALTH PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including the specific provisions described in subsection 
     (b)), no funds made available through the Department of 
     Education shall be provided to any State or local educational 
     agency that distributes or provides postcoital emergency 
     contraception, or distributes or provides a prescription for 
     postcoital emergency contraception, to an unemancipated 
     minor, on the premises or in the facilities of any elementary 
     school or secondary school.
       (b) Specific Provisions.--The specific provisions referred 
     to in subsection (a) are section 330 and title X of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b, 300 et seq.) and 
     title V and XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et 
     seq., 1396 et seq.).
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Elementary school; secondary school.--The terms 
     ``elementary school'' and ``secondary school'' have the 
     meanings given the terms in section 14101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (2) Unemancipated minor.--The term ``unemancipated minor'' 
     means an unmarried individual who is 17 years of age or 
     younger and is a dependent, as defined in section 152(a) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                  ____


                                 S. 75

       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.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ATTORNEYS' FEES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, 
     attorneys' fees shall not be allowable in any civil action in 
     Federal court

[[Page S334]]

     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. 1252. 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.''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 76

       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.''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 78

       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 2001''.

     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.).
                                  ____


                                 S. 79

       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 ``Safe Schools Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. SAFE SCHOOLS.

       (a) Amendments to the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994.--Part F 
     of title XIV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 8921 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 14601 (20 U.S.C. 8921)--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking ``Gun-Free'' and inserting ``Safe''; and
       (ii) by striking ``1994'' and inserting ``2001'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting after ``determined'' 
     the following: ``to be in possession of felonious quantities 
     of an illegal drug, on school property under the jurisdiction 
     of, or in a vehicle operated by an employee or agent of, a 
     local educational agency in that State, or''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(4)--
       (i) by striking ``Definitions.--For the purpose of this 
     section, the'' and inserting the following: ``Definitions.--
     For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Weapon.--The''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       `'(2) Illegal drug.--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 such Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) 
     or under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
     U.S.C. 951 et seq.), but does not include 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 that section shall 
     be applied by inserting `or under the Controlled Substances 
     Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.)' before the 
     period.
       ``(4) Felonious quantities of an illegal drug.--The term 
     `felonious quantities of an illegal drug' means any quantity 
     of an illegal drug--
       ``(A) possession of which (quantity) would, under Federal, 
     State, or local law, either constitute a felony or indicate 
     an intent to distribute; or
       ``(B) that is possessed with an intent to distribute.'';
       (D) in subsection (d)(2)(C), by inserting ``illegal drugs 
     or'' before ``weapons''; and
       (E) by striking subsection (f);(2) in section 14602(a) (20 
     U.S.C. 8922(a))--
       (A) by inserting after ``who'' the following: ``is in 
     possession of an illegal drug, or illegal drug paraphernalia, 
     on school property under the jurisdiction of, or in a vehicle 
     operated by an employee or agent of, such agency, or who''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``served by'' and inserting ``under the 
     jurisdiction of''; and
       (3) in section 14603 (20 U.S.C. 8923)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``policy of the Department in effect on the 
     date of enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 
     1994'' and inserting ``policy in effect on the date of 
     enactment of the Safe Schools Act of 2001''; and
       (ii) by adding ``and'' at the end; (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``engaging'' and inserting ``possessing 
     illegal drugs, or illegal drug paraphernalia, on school 
     property, or in vehicles operated by employees or agents of, 
     schools or local educational agencies, or engaging''; and
       (ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (3).
       (b) Compliance Date Reporting.--
       (1) Compliance date.--A State shall have 2 years from the 
     date of enactment of this Act to comply with the requirements 
     established under the amendments made by subsection (a).
       (2) Reports.--
       (A) On approaches for discipline.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Education shall submit to Congress a report analyzing the 
     strengths and weaknesses of approaches regarding the 
     disciplining of children with disabilities.
       (B) On compliance.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall 
     submit to Congress a report on any State that is not in 
     compliance with the requirements of this part.


                 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.


                 schoolchildren's health protection act

  Mr. President, there is a significant question pending before the 
Senate: should schools receiving federal funds be able to distribute 
``morning after pills''--also identified as abortion pills--to 
schoolchildren? The answer is unequivocally no. Which is why I am

[[Page S335]]

introducing the Schoolchildren's Health Protection Act. This pivotal 
legislation will put an end to elementary and secondary schools 
receiving federal funds from distributing ``morning after pills'' to 
schoolchildren as young as 12 years old.
  The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has not only confirmed that 
Federal law permits school-based health clinics receiving federal 
family planning money to distribute ``Morning-after pills,'' but CRS 
has also reported that at least 180 schools in America are in fact 
distributing these abortion pills to schoolchildren. Obviously, Mr. 
President, we are no longer just talking about condoms being handed out 
at school.
  What's more is that federal law currently allows schools to provide 
these abortion-inducing drugs to children behind the backs of parents. 
In a handful of cases, the federal courts have struck down parental 
consent laws, ruling that any federal family planning program trumps a 
state or county parental consent statute because federal law prohibits 
parental consent requirements.
  Just as disturbing, if not more so, Mr. President, is that schools 
distributing ``morning after pills'' are placing the health of these 
young children in jeopardy. In fact, the manufacturer--PREVEN--warns 
that ``Morning after pills'' can cause severe health risks, such as: 
blood clots; liver tumors; elevated blood pressure; heart attacks and 
strokes.
  It is well worth noting that the current policy in the majority of 
U.S. public schools prohibits the distribution of aspirin to 
schoolchildren unless parental consent is given. Yet, here we are 
legally permitting schools to secretly provide these dangerous abortion 
pills to minors without the knowledge of parents.
  Under this bill, this unethical practice will no longer continue. 
Planned Parenthood and its cronies will no longer be able to use public 
school facilities to covertly get abortion pills into the mouths of 
children.
  As Americans may recall, I offered a similar bill in amendment form 
last Congress to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, which rightfully 
passed both the Senate and the House. Even though this language was not 
included in the final budget deal struck last year, I am hopeful 
Congress will revisit this issue once more, and put a complete end to 
the unthinkable practice of giving children abortion pills at school.


                   Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act

  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.


                      Civil Rights of Infants Act

  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 in 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.


                      Civil Rights Restoration Act

  Mr. President, the last of these bills is entitled the Civil Rights 
Restoration Act. 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 rollcall 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 sections 
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 37 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.


                        safe schools act of 2001

  Mr. President, the protection of the most vulnerable among us--our 
children--is the highest responsibility of government. Government's 
obligation to protect our children from harm is

[[Page S336]]

nowhere more important than while they are in the care of public 
employees at school. Tragically, in too many of America's classrooms, 
this fundamental responsibility is not being met.
  That is why I have worked with other concerned Senators in recent 
years to introduce and promote the Safe Schools Act. During the 106th 
Congress, the Senate passed the Act as an amendment to other 
legislation. Regrettably, neither of the bills it was attached to 
successfully navigated both the conference and final floor 
consideration processes.
  The Safe Schools Act directly confronts the issue of illegal drug use 
and juvenile violence by equalizing the treatment of students who 
choose to carry either felonious quantities of illegal drugs or 
firearms to a public school. When enacted, this legislation will 
provide a consistent federal policy with respect to the possession of 
both firearms and illegal drugs in America's public school classrooms.
  For students and parents, the message of the Safe Schools Act is that 
there are serious consequences for anyone willingly choosing to violate 
the law and to jeopardize the safety and security of their fellow 
students, teachers, and school personnel.
  Mr. President, by enacting the Gun-Free Schools Act in 1994, the 
federal government encouraged states to adopt a stringent uniform 
standard with respect to students who willingly chose to carry a 
firearm to school. The act did this by conditioning eligibility for 
federal education dollars on state adoption of a policy requiring the 
expulsion for not less than one year of any student who brought a 
firearm to school. The Safe Schools Act extends this same common sense 
policy to any student who willingly takes a felonious quantity of 
illegal drugs to school.
  Recently, some authorities have reported a modest reduction in 
criminal activity at our schools. While this news is encouraging, we 
can not satisfy ourselves with modest reductions. Instead, we should 
demand that every student be educated in a safe and crime-free 
classroom. Achieving this goal requires that we do more to eliminate 
drug-related activity from our nation's classrooms.
  Anyone who doubts this need only review the latest results from the 
National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education survey, or 
PRIDE survey as it is called, which found that:
  Gun-toting students were twenty-four times more likely to use cocaine 
than those who didn't bring a gun to school;
  Gang members were nineteen times more likely to use cocaine than non-
gang members;
  Students who threatened others were six times more likely to be 
cocaine users than others.
  Faced with the clear relationship between school violence and drugs 
in our classrooms, it should be evident that we must do more to protect 
America's school children.
  In deciding what to do, I believe that we should respect the advice 
of those who are daily confronted with the variety of evils that result 
from the increasing availability of drugs in our classrooms--our 
students, teachers and school administrators. When surveyed, these 
groups have reported overwhelming support for the approach embodied in 
the Safe Schools Act.
  Mr. President, students consistently say that the number one problem 
they face is the scourge of illegal drugs. Perhaps even more disturbing 
is the fact that students of all ages, including elementary ages, 
report that drugs are readily available to them.
  The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia 
University has documented the extent of this national tragedy by 
documenting that two-thirds (66%) of students report going to schools 
where students keep, use and sell drugs and that over half (51%) of 
high school students believe that the drug problem is getting worse.
  Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join with me and build on 
the progress that we made last Congress in addressing this vital issue. 
It is undeniable that reducing drug activity at schools will result in 
a better learning environment, increased discipline, and a reduction in 
violence. It is long past time to take action to restore schools that 
are secure and conducive to the education of the vast majority of 
students who are eager to learn. America's students and teachers 
deserve nothing less.
  Mr. President, I do not pretend that enacting 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 social policy at the turn of the century.
  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.
                                 ______