Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business on Thursday, January 19, the Federal debt stood at $4,795,323,651,745.86 meaning that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,203.13 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, anyone even remotely familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows that no President can spend a dime of Federal tax money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress, both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. So when you hear a politician or an editor or a commentator declare that ``Reagan ran up the Federal debt'' or that ``Bush ran it up,'' bear in mind that it was, and is, the constitutional duty of Congress to control Federal spending. We'd better get busy correcting this because Congress has failed miserably to do it for about 50 years. The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress has created a Federal debt which stood at $4,806,933,452,098.25 as of the close of business Wednesday, January 10. Averaged out, every man, woman, and child in America owes a share of this massive debt, and that per capita share is $18,247.20.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about the Federal debt, let's do that little pop quiz again: How many million dollars are in a trillion dollars? (When you arrive at an answer, remember that it was Congress that ran up a debt exceeding $4.8 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, January 17, the Federal debt (down to the penny) at $4,802,867,735,976.01-- remaining that every man, woman, and child in America now owes $18,231.09 computed on a per capita basis. Mr. President, to answer the pop quiz question (how many million in a trillion?) there are a million million in a trillion, and you can thank the U.S. Congress for the present Federal debt of $4\1/2\ trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the incredibly enormous Federal debt is like the weather--everybody talks about it but up to now hardly anybody has undertaken the responsibility of doing anything about it. The Congress now had better get cracking--time's a-wasting and the debt is mushrooming. In the past, a lot of politicians talked a good game--when they were back home--about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. But many of these same politicians regularly voted in support of bloated spending bills that rolled through the Senate. The American people took note of that on November 8. As of Friday, January 13, at the close of business, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly the Congress of the United States. The Founding Fathers decreed that the big-spending bureaucrats in the executive branch of the U.S. Government should never be able to spend even a dime unless and until the spending had been authorized and appropriated by the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Constitution is quite specific about that, as every schoolboy is supposed to know. And do not be misled by declarations by politicians that the Federal debt was run up by some previous President or another, depending on party affiliation. Sometimes you hear false claims that Ronald Reagan ran it up; sometimes they play hit and run with George Bush. These buckpassing declarations are false, as I said earlier, because the Congress of the United States is the culprit. The Senate and the House of Representatives are the big spenders. Mr. President, most citizens cannot conceive of a billion of anything, let alone a trillion. It may provide a bit of perspective to bear in mind that a billion seconds ago, Mr. President, the Cuban missile crisis was in progress. A billion minutes ago, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ had occurred not long before. Which sort of puts it in perspective, does it not, that Congress has run up this incredible Federal debt totaling 4,808 of those billions-- of dollars. In other words, the Federal debt, as I said earlier, stood this morning at 4 trillion, 808 billion, 661 million, 268 thousand, 393 dollars and 04 cents. It will be even greater at closing time today.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business on Thursday, January 12, the Federal debt stood at $4,809,182,675,997.48 meaning that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,255.74 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I doubt that there have been many, if any, candidates for the Senate who have not solemnly pledged to do something during the past half-century or more. But Congress, both House and Senate, has never toned down the deficit spending that sent the Federal debt into the stratosphere and beyond. We must pray that this year, inasmuch as the American people spoke so clearly this past November, will be different, that Federal spending will indeed be reduced drastically. Indeed, if we care about America's future, there must be some changes. You see, Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, January 11, the Federal debt stood, down to the penny, at exactly $4,802,565,300,968.62. This means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,230.62 as his or her share of the Federal debt. Compare this, Mr. President, to the total debt about 2 years ago-- January 5, 1993--when the debt stood at exactly $4,167,872,986,583.67, or averaged out, $15,986.56 for every American. During the past 2 years, that is during the 103d Congress, the Federal debt increased over $6 billion. This illustrates, Mr. President, the point that so many politicians talk a good game--at home--about bringing the Federal debt under control, but vote in support of bloated spending bills when they get back to Washington. If the Republicans do not do a better job of getting a handle on this enormous debt, their constituents are not likely to overlook it 2 years hence.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, anyone even remotely familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows that no President can spend a dime of Federal tax money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress-- both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. So when you hear a politician or an editor or a commentator declare that ``Reagan ran up the Federal debt'' or that ``Bush ran it up,'' bear in mind that it was, and is, the constitutional duty and responsibility of Congress to control Federal spending. Congress has failed miserably in that task for about 50 years. The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress has created a Federal debt which stood at $4,798,792,100,063.36 as of the close of business Tuesday, January 10. Averaged out, every man, woman, and child in America owes a share of this massive debt, and that per capita share is $18,216.30.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about the Federal debt, let's have a little pop quiz: How many million dollars would you say are in a trillion dollars? In answering, remember that Congress has run up a debt exceeding $4\1/2\ trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, Monday, January 9, the Federal debt--down to the penny--at $4,795,838,481,378.56. This means that every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,205.09 computed on a per capita basis. Mr. President, to answer the pop quiz question--how many million in a trillion?--there are a million millions in a trillion, for which you can thank the U.S. Congress for the present Federal debt of $4\1/2\ trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee will meet on Wednesday, January 11, 1995, at 10 a.m.; in SD-419. The committee will consider and vote on the following committee organizational matters: committee rules for 104th Congress; subcommittee jurisdiction and membership for 104th Congress; and committee funding resolution for 1995-97. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the incredibly enormous Federal debt is like [[Page S619]] the weather--everybody talks about it but nobody ever does anything about it. A lot of politicians talk a good game--when they are back home--about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. But just look at how so many of these same politicians so regularly voted in support of bloated spending bills that roll through the Senate. The American people took note of that on November 8. As of Friday, January 8, at the close of business, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,802,133,808,513.71. This debt, remember, was run up by the Congress of the United States. The Founding Fathers decreed that the big-spending bureaucrats in the executive branch of the U.S. Government should never be able to spend even a dime unless and until the spending had been authorized and appropriated by the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Constitution is quite specific about that, as every school boy is supposed to know. And do not be misled by declarations by politicians that the Federal debt was run up by some previous President or another, depending on party affiliation. Sometimes you hear false claims that Ronald Reagan ran it up; sometimes they play hit-and-run with George Bush. These buck-passing declarations are false, as I said earlier, because the Congress of the United States is the culprit. The Senate and the House of Representatives are the big spenders. Mr. President, most citizens cannot conceive of a billion of anything, let alone a trillion. It may provide a bit of perspective to bear in mind that a billion seconds ago, Mr. President, the Cuban missile crisis was in progress. A billion minutes ago, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ had occurred not long before. Which sort of puts it in perspective, does it not, that Congress has run up this incredible Federal debt totaling 4,802 of those billions-- of dollars. In other words, the Federal debt, as I said earlier, stood this morning at four trillion, 802 billion, 133 million, 808 thousand, 513 dollars, and 71 cents. It'll be even greater at closing time today.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, anyone even remotely familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows that no President can spend a dime of Federal tax money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress-- both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. So when you hear a politician or an editor or a commentator declare that ``Reagan ran up the Federal debt'' or that ``Bush ran it up,'' bear in mind that it was, and is, the constitutional duty and responsibility of Congress to control Federal spending. Congress has failed miserably in that task for about 50 years. The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress has created a Federal debt which stood at $4,805,835,231,225.14 as of the close of business Thursday, January 5. Averaged out, every man, woman, and child in America owes a share of this massive debt, and that per capita share is $18,243.03.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about the Federal debt, let us have a little pop quiz: How many million dollars would you say are in a trillion dollars? And when you arrive at an answer, remember that Congress has run up a debt exceeding $4\1/2\ trillion dollars. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, January 4, the Federal debt, down to the penny, at $4,801,793,426,032.89. This means that every man, woman and child in America owes $18,227.69 computed on a per capita basis. Mr. President, to answer the pop quiz question--how many million in a trillion?--there are a million million in a trillion, for which you can thank the U.S. Congress for the present Federal debt of $4\1/2\ trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it became an embarrassment to the decency of the American people last year that in many high places within Government, free speech was to be permitted only when organized homosexuals agreed to it. There was an episode on July 20, 1994, when 58 Senators voted in defense of a faithful and longtime employee of the Department of Agriculture--Dr. Karl Mertz, whose first amendment rights were callously violated after he dared to stand up against sodomy. Took a stand, on his own time, by stating his opposition to special rights for homosexuals. As a result of that Senate vote and my holding up USDA nominations and legislation, the former Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy, restored that employee, Dr. Karl Mertz, to his previous position. While the amendment I offered last summer only protected the first amendment rights of employees at the USDA, I said at the time that it was also imperative that all employees throughout the Federal Government be assured that they are able to exercise, without fear of reprisal, their right to question the special rights for homosexuals that have been proposed by numerous Federal agencies. And that is the intent for the legislation I am introducing today. For Senators who did not hear the text of the bill when it was read by the clerk, let me read it again. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employee of the Federal Government shall be peremptorily removed without public hearings from his or her position because of remarks made during personal time in opposition to the Federal Government's policies, or proposed policies, regarding homosexuals, and any such individual so removed prior to date of this Act shall be reinstated to his or her previous position. Senators might belittle this bill as needless. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, this bill protects the rights of Federal employees to speak their mind on their own time when it comes to matters of moral and spiritual significance. If they lose this right--as Dr. Mertz almost did at the Department of Argriculture--then all Americans lose. Mr. President, Americans have very strong feelings about the religious and moral implications of homosexuality. And Americans opposed to it have every bit as much a right to oppose the Government's efforts to extend special rights to homosexuals. As the homosexuals have to ask for special rights, privileges, and protections from the Government. Allowing homosexuals to characterize free speech opposing their agenda as hate speech--as the news media does as well--is one thing; but allowing the Federal Government to take their side in the public debate--and in the Federal workplace--is quite another. That is why this legislation is designed, if enacted, to ensure that the Federal Government remains neutral in the on-going cultural debate over homosexuality. Federal employees will be able to state their true feelings on the issue without having to worry about so-called politically correct bureaucrats getting them fired.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American people declared on November 8, that there's more government running their lives than is either wanted or needed--and certainly more wasteful government than the American people should be forced to pay for. And Congress, for a half century, has been wasting billions of dollars, running up a Federal debt of $4.8 trillion. As a matter of fact, the exact Federal debt as of the close of business on December 30 was $4,800,149,946,143. I know of no American who favors adding to this horrendous Federal debt--some, of course, don't care as long as the Federal Government continues to conduct seminars, fund programs--or hire staff for the purpose of persuading, indeed, intimidating--Federal employees to accept homosexuality as a legitimate and normal lifestyle. But that is precisely how so much of the taxpayer's money is being used at numerous Federal agencies including the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Defense. Here are just a few examples of how the taxpayer's money is being spent: On March 25, 1994, the USDA officially sanctioned GLOBE--The Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Employee Organization, thus allowing USDA time, money, and resources to be used to promote GLOBE's agenda. I might add, GLOBE chapters exist in many Federal agencies. The Department of Agriculture went further when they created a Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Program Manager position within the Foreign Agriculture Service. The Family Research Council reports that on September 8, 1994, the Clinton administration, under the auspices of the U.S. Navy, hosted pro-gay and anti-religious diversity training for civilian and military Federal employees. The costs of Diversity Day '94, as it was named, included: The pay for hundreds of Federal employees, speakers fees, use of leased space, transportation, live diversity entertainment, Diversity Day '94 trinkets, video and equipment rental costs, and reproduction of printed material. For Senators who may not have been in the Chamber when the text of the bill was read by the clerk, let me read it again for the Record: No funds appropriated out of the Treasury of the United States may be used by any entity to fund, promote, or carry out any seminar or program for employees of the Government, or to fund any position in the Government, the purpose of which is to compel, instruct, encourage, urge, or persuade employees or officials to-- (1) recruit, on the basis of sexual orientation, homosexuals for employment with the Government; or (2) embrace, accept, condone, or celebrate homosexuality as a legitimate or normal lifestyle. This legislation is similar to an amendment offered by this Senator to the 1995 Agriculture Appropriations bill. Although the amendment was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 92 to 8, it was subsequently dropped in conference. That amendment applied to only the Department of Agriculture. The legislation I introduce today applies to USDA and to all other agencies of the Federal Government. That, Mr. President, is the only difference. I wish this legislation was not necessary. But it is and it is a sad day for America because of it. You see, the Clinton administration has conducted a concerted effort to give homosexual rights, privileges, and protections throughout the Federal agencies--to extend the homosexuals special rights in the Federal workplace, rights not accorded to most other groups and individuals. No other group in America is given special rights based on their sexual preferences. So, I urge Senators members to consider this bill in light of the mandate given by the American people regarding wasteful government spending. But I also ask them to consider it in light of whether it is proper for the Federal Government to use tax dollars to promote, ratify, and protect a lifestyle that most Americans, and most religions, consider a sexual and moral perversion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and the Family Research Council article titled ``Federal Government Promotes Homosexuality Using `Diversity' Cover'' be included in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, like so many others, I often contemplate the obvious fact that America is in the midst of an historic struggle between the heritage of traditional values envisioned by our Founding Fathers and those who, on the other hand, contend that anything goes no matter how destructive--especially when the Federal Government finances it. Seldom mentioned is the fact that the Federal Government has no money except that which it forcibly extracts from the pockets of the American taxpayers back home in our States. So, what we have is a struggle for the soul of America. How it is finally resolved will determine whether America will move forward--or end up on history's ash heap, as have so many nations before us. The American people are more aware than ever before about what is at stake. They are sick and tired of crime, pornography, mediocre schools, and politicians who cater to every fringe group and perverse lifestyle. The voters resoundingly and unmistakably demonstrated their anger at the polls this past November. Mr. President, Reader's Digest presaged this public outcry when it published an article a few years ago titled ``Let Us Pray'', in which the magazine reported the results of a Wirthlin poll. That poll found that 80 percent of the American people resent the Supreme Court's ruling that it is unconstitutional for prayers to be offered at high school graduations. The poll showed that 75 percent of Americans favor prayer in public schools. But a profound impression was found in the subtitle which read ``Why can't the voice of the people be heard on prayer in schools?'' As Reader's Digest pointed out, those pro-prayer opinions ``were expressed by Democrats, Republicans, blacks and whites, rich and poor, high-school dropouts and college graduates--reflecting a profound disparity between the citizenry and the Court.'' Yet, despite this massive outcry, the liberals in Congress and in the media prate that the Constitution somehow forbids governmental establishment of religion and ipso facto prayer in school cannot be permitted. Well, the voice of the people was unmistakable this past November 8. The question before us now is whether we in the Congress are going to really listen to them for a change--that's the real change the people voted for. For instance, seldom is it heard on the issue of school prayer that the Constitution also forbids governmental restrictions on the free exercise of religion, or that the Constitution protects students' free speech--whether religious or not--and that student-initiated, voluntary prayer expressed at an appropriate time, place and manner has never been outlawed by the Supreme Court. But back to the Reader's Digest question: ``Why can't the voice of the people be heard on prayer in schools?'' The simple answer is that many of the Nation's politicians have misled--and continue to mislead-- the voters about where they really stand on the issue of school prayer. They go home at election time--some even run campaign commericals-- proclaiming their staunch support for school prayer and traditional family values. Back in Washington they vote otherwise. Yet while these same people are in Washington, they knowingly and willingly allow the liberal Democratic leadership in the Congress to beat back school prayer time after time. That's so these so-called moderate family values politicians can vote with a wink and a nod for school prayer on the floor of the House and Senate and then go home again and lie to their constituents again about how strongly they support school prayer when they are in Washington. Mr. President, last year was a perfect example of the continuing deceit politicians have perpetrated against the voters. The liberal Democrats in Congress--and specifically the senior Senator from Massachusetts--killed school prayer not once, but twice last year, despite overwhelming 3 to 1 votes for school prayer in both the House and Senate. However, with the help of the press and the other news media, they tried once again to keep the voters in the dark about who the true voices are in support of school prayer when they walked into the voting booths this past November. But no matter how the media tries to explain it away, for once the people--the voters--were not fooled in November. They know who has been responsible for wrecking the American dream over the past four decades--a dream which was built on individual responsibility and an acknowledgement of God's governance in the affairs of men. Mr. President, my friend Bill Bennett told me recently that America has become the kind of country that civilized countries once dispatched missionaries to centuries ago. If we care about cleaning up the streets and the classrooms, if we care about the long term survival of our Nation--how could there be anything more important for Congress to protect than the right of America's children to participate in voluntary, constitutionally-protected prayer in their schools? We already spend more money per pupil than any other industrialized country and what has it bought? We have the lowest math scores, the lowest language scores, and the highest crime rate of any of our major trading partners. We can spend all the money we can tax out of people and it will not improve our children's achievement, happiness, or well- being one whit unless and until we take traditional morality out of government-imposed exile and restore it to the prominence and respect it once enjoyed. As Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out: There is no issue in American life in which the public will is so clear and the political establishment is so heedless. The cultural and political elites have simply ignored the overwhelming support of the American people for voluntary school prayer--indeed for the role of religion and faith in the nation's life. Mr. President, since the sea change wrought by the November elections, there has been a great deal of discussion concerning a constitutional amendment regarding school prayer. I must admit that I was a bit shocked by the number of so-called friends of school prayer who have changed their tune now that it appears Congress might actually be able to enact such an amendment--or at least see it brought up for discussion on the House and Senate floors. Some groups now question either the wisdom of, or the need for, a Constitutional amendment while other groups are wrangling over the proper wording for such an amendment. However, before we get mired in myriad debates about a Constitutional amendment, Congress can do something immediately to protect school prayer. Congress can enact into the law the school prayer amendment that last year overwhelming passed the Senate once, 75-22, and the House twice, 367-55 and 345-64. Senators will recall that this was the amendment which was dropped in the closing 60 seconds of a conference with no debate, no discussion, no vote, just a wink and a nod between the Senator from Massachusetts and his counterpart on the House side. That amendment, offered by Senator Lott and this Senator would have prevented public schools from prohibiting constitutionally-protected, voluntary student-initiated school prayer. The amendment did not, as was falsely asserted, mandate school prayer. It did not require schools to write any particular prayer, nor did it compel any student to participate in prayer. It did not stop 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 free speech in the schools. Again, what the amendment would have done 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. And that is why the amendment met with such vehement opposition and subterfuge. It exploded the myth popular among school administrators and bureaucrats--a myth perpetuated by liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union--that the United States Constitution somehow prohibits every last vestige of religion from the public schools. However, even the ACLU when it gets to court acknowledges that voluntary, student-initiated school prayer may be protected under the Constitution on the same basis that students' other non-religious free speech is protected--i.e. as long as the place, and manner, such that the speech does not materially disrupt the school day. Once the Helms-Lott amendment exploded the old school prayer myths, those opposed to school prayer at all costs switched to the argument that it was unfair to put school administrators in the position of having to be Constitutional scholars in order to determine what religious activities must be allowed to prevent their federal funding from being put at risk. They missed the whole point--which was that school administrators for almost 3 decades have already been acting as Constitutional scholars--and bad ones at that--by uniformly prohibiting all students from praying or exercising their religion at school in any way at any time. Why is it that under the liberals' double standard they are so concerned that a school district's funding might be adversely affected by a school official's Constitutional ignorance, but they don't give one whit that an individual child's Constitutional rights might be trampled on by such Constitutional ignorance on the part of school officials? So much for the liberals always casting themselves as the eternal defenders of the individual against the powers of the state. The answer is that contrary to the neutrality they profess about religious issues, liberals are in fact virulently anti-religious and have taken sides in the cultural war against America's--and the Founding Fathers'--Judeo-Christian traditions. Mr. President, that is why I am introducing the Helms-Lott amendment as a bill in the 104th Congress to be known as the ``Voluntary School Prayer Protection Act.'' I reiterate that the intent of the bill is to counteract the unbalanced pressure currently being exerted on school boards by the ACLU and their legal allies, groups which are in the legal driver's seat as far as this issue is concerned. They swoop down on any offending school district and threaten its official with a law suit if any kind of voluntary student-initiated prayer or religious activity is even rumored. Under the proposed legislation, school districts could not continue-- in Constitutional ignorance--enforcing blanket denials of students' rights to voluntary prayer and religious activity in the schools. Schools for the first time would be faced with some real consequences for making uninformed and unconstitutional decisions prohibiting all voluntary prayer. The bill thus creates a complete system of checks and balances to ensure that school districts do not shortchange their students one way or the other. Mr. President, the bill would ensure that student-initiated prayer is treated the same as all other student-initiated free speech--which the United States Supreme Court has upheld as constitutionally-protected as 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.] George Washington's final counsel--and warning--to the Nation is significant and just as relevant today as 200 years ago. Washington counseled the new nation, Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 3\1/2\ years ago, on June 25, 1991, I offered an amendment to the Omnibus Crime Bill to do away with quotas in the workplace by amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I recall an article in the August 12 of the New Republic magazine which reported that my amendment had caused a great deal of agitation in the Senate because it required Senators who claimed back home that they were opposed to quotas to take a stand on outlawing the practice of racial preferences. The New Republic went on to say that in order to force ``a showdown on preferences in hiring and promotion.'' I should accept a modification of the original amendment offered by the distinguished Republican Leader, (Mr. Dole). Senators may recall that Senator Dole did propose during the June 1991 debate, that the Helms amendment contain language which would permit special recruitment of minorities and women for the employer's applicant pool--i.e, a broadly acceptable form of affirmative action. At the time I agreed that Senator Dole's modification would be an important addition to my amendment. However, Democrats objected to such a modification, and it never happened. Mr. President, the legislation I'm introducing today--the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1995--offers Senators the opportunity to pick up the gauntlet laid down by Senator Dole and me. This legislation is quite simple: It prevents Federal agencies, and the Federal courts, from interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to permit an employer to grant preferential treatment in employment to any group or individual on account of race. The Helms proposal prohibits the use of racial quotas in employment once and for all. During the past 2 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. I am not here merely on behalf of businesses, large, medium, or small. I am here on behalf of working people of all races, ethnic groups and gender all over this Nation. The working people don't have 500 organizations trying to ``protect'' their civil rights. They are not organized into Washington pressure groups. They simply want to work for a living free of discrimination. Unfortunately, Government-imposed and Government-encouraged quotas are a fact of life. According to the June 3, 1991, edition of Newsweek magazine, a substantial number of Fortune 500 companies have very clear minority hiring ``goals'' which is a euphemism for quotas. In a survey of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, 72 percent acknowledged that they use some form of--now get this--quota hiring system. Only 14 percent of the CEOs claimed that they hire solely on merit. I note with interest that the Business Roundtable favored the socalled Civil Rights Act passed in the last Congress. Mr. President, for whom does the Business Roundtable speak? Surely not for the little man. As the Newsweek article suggests, these are big businesses that regularly engage in reverse discrimination. They are interested in public relations, not the civil rights of their individual workers. Mr. President, all the Helms legislation says is, that from here on out, employers must hire on a race neutral basis. They can reach out into the community to the disadvantaged--something all Senators support--and they can even have businesses with 80 percent, 90 percent, minority workforces as long as the motivating factor in employment is not race. The Helms legislation 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 employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor committee that is subject to this title to grant preferential treatment, with respect to selection, compensation, terms, condition, or privileges of employment or union membership, to any individual or to any group of individuals on account of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group for any purpose, except as provided in subsection (e) of this section. It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for any person described in paragraph (1) to establish an affirmative action program designed to recruit qualified minorities and women to expand the applicant pool of the person. Mr. President, this legislation is necessary because in the 29 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. 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. This legislation will forbid the Federal Government from ever again terrorizing the small businesses of this country with threats and fines for not meeting some bureaucrat's vision of a proportionalized and racially ``correct'' society. Perhaps Senators are familiar with the Daniel Lamp Company, a small Chicago lamp factory recently visited by the investigators of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC]. On March 24, 1991 the CBS News program, 50 Minutes, blew the cover off of the EEOC's attempt to impose its quota mentality on one defenseless businessman. As Morley Safer put it, the Daniel Lamp Company ``is guilty of not playing the numbers game.'' You see, the EEOC found the owner of the Daniel Lamp Company to be a practitioner of racial discrimination and leveled a fine of $148,000 against him. What was interesting about the charges was the fact that of the company's 28 employees the only two who were neither black nor Hispanic were the owner and his father--who, by the way, is a survivor of Auschwitz. There were 18 Hispanics and 8 blacks on the payroll when 60 Minutes began its investigation. The trouble began when a disgruntled job applicant filed an EEOC racial discrimination complaint against the Daniel Lamp Company. The EEOC demanded the records of the company. The owner, who hired only minorities, was proud of his work force and happy to allow the Federal Government to inspect the ledger. He thought he might be commended for providing jobs for minorities. How wrong he was. In its investigation CBS found that the only information the EEOC was using against the Daniel Lamp Company was the agency's computerized quota numbers. The EEOC's computer told the agency that based on the employment statistics of Chicago businesses with over 100 employees--a fascinating comparison since the Lamp Company never had more than thirty workers--the Daniel Lamp Company had to employ exactly 8.45 blacks. That sounds like a quota to me, and it even sounded like a quota to Morley Safer who was puzzled as to why the agency was disobeying the law which as Mr. Safer put it ``says the EEOC can't set quotas.'' Despite the denials by the EEOC, Mr. Safer concluded that, ``it --the EEOC--did set numbers by telling Mike--the owner of the company--that based on other larger companies' personnel, Daniel Lamp should employ 8.45 intimidation of the EEOC, the agency tightened the noose. Not only did the company have to meet the quota and pay a huge fine, it also had to spend $10,000 to advertise in newspapers to tell other job applicants that they might have been discriminated against and to please contact the Daniel Lamp Company for a potential financial windfall. Mr. President, do you see what is going on here? The Daniel Lamp Company wasn't one of those Fortune 500 companies that can afford a gaggle bunch of lawyers and can placate the various special interest groups by hiring according to quotas. The Daniel Lamp Company was a small, struggling enterprise which can afford to pay its few employees a scant $4.00 an hour. This company hired only minorities. But that wasn't good enough for the quota bureaucrats in Washington. They said the company didn't hire enough of the ``right'' minorities. This bill will put an end to this disgraceful power play by the quota crowd in the Federal bureaucracy. Mr. President, do we want a nation where privilege and employment are handed out on the basis of group identity rather than merit? Already police and firemen in our major cities are clashing over who can be classified as black or Hispanic to ensure they receive job preference because of their minority status. Check the newspapers in San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston to see if I'm correct. The Helms legislation protects the Daniel Lamp Company and the firemen and the policemen, of whatever race, who are out there working hard at their jobs in the belief that they will be rewarded for their hard work--not judged on the color of their skin. This proposal also includes an important safeguard which will protect those businesses and institutions whose special needs require personnel qualified for the job on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin. Like the other sections of title VII, this amendment protects the religious school or institution which grants preferences in hiring or admission to those of its own religion. It protects those ethnic-based enterprises which require special language skills and familiarity with particular customs. Mr. President, some may defensively claim that the Helms legislation destroys affirmative action and outreach programs. That flimsy strawman comes tumbling down with even a casual examination of the legislation. If one equates affirmative action with ``goals'' otherwise known as hiring by the numbers, it is clear that this bill does indeed forbid that practice. But Senators who support race conscious programs, and who support race norming tests, will be rebuffed by this legislation and that's why they oppose it. Those Senators who equate affirmative action with outreach programs have had nothing to worry about. Under the language supplied in 1991 by the distinguished Republican Leader, 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--Senator Dole calls it good affirmative action--is specifically provided for under this act. Mr. President, America was founded on the philosophy of individual rights with no group entitlement. With that understanding, the former Mayor of the City of New York, Ed Koch addressed the issue of numbers oriented affirmative action. In a letter to me, Mr. Koch made the following observation: As to the already existing social problems caused by preferential affirmative action programs, several scholars, including the noted professor and sociologist Thomas Sowell, have observed that racial quotas and discriminatory affirmative action programs have not helped the intended beneficiaries. Those who are often preferred are the very ones who could have competed with the best * * * if we are to uphold our commitment to civil rights--as we should--we must set in motion programs to ensure that all deprived persons--without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin--have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. We should focus our attention on assisting minorities who have suffered from unequal opportunity * * * never excluding from programs others equally poor or deprived simply because they are white. The solution is not to place unqualified minority workers, or others of different national origin, in jobs for which they are not adequately trained as a band-aid to end discrimination. If anything that is the way to destroy the self-esteem of many workers, heightening anger and discrimination among fellow employees when some members of the workforce are unable to carry their fair share of the load * * * such practices unfairly reflect upon many minority members who were hired because they were qualified and are better than other applicants. They unfairly become judged, not individuals, but as members of a protected class, not able to compete with others. Mayor Koch's comments cut to the heart of the matter. It makes absolutely no sense to that Congress should support programs that discriminate against the poor Asians from San Francisco, or the poor whites from any where in America simply because they don't fall into the class of protected minorities. Mr. President, a few days ago I came across a scholarly paper titled, ``Equality and the American Creed: Understanding the Affirmative Action Debate,'' by Seymour Lipset. By the way, this paper was sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Council. The central thesis of this paper was summed up in this fashion: Affirmative action policies--hiring or promoting people by the numbers or group identify--challenge the basic American tenet that rights to equal treatment should be guaranteed to individuals, and that remedial preferences should not be given to groups. And given the strength of individualism in American tradition, it is not surprising that most Americans, including a considerable majority of women and a plurality of blacks, have continued to reject applying emphasis on protected rights to groups. It is crucial that civil rights leaders, liberals, and Democrats rethink the politics of special preference. The American Left from Jefferson to Humphrey stood for making equality of opportunity a reality. Mr. President, those sentiments are right on the mark. I applaud the DLC for its foresight and hope its members join the fight to eliminate the use of quotas in our society. The Helms proposition puts America back on the course that Thomas Jefferson, Hubert Humphrey, and Sam Ervin envisioned. It offers Senators an opportunity to back up their speeches and press statements against quotas. It gives Senators an opportunity to vote against quotas, and this they should do. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 2 years ago and on occasions prior to that, I have offered the Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act, which proposes to take that important first step in reversing the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Today, as the 104th Congress is beginning its work, I hope that all Senators will give thought to the need to put an end to the legalized slaughter of innocent, helpless babies. The Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act proposes four things: First, to put Congress clearly on record in declaring that (1) every abortion destroys deliberately, the life of an unborn child, (2) that the U.S. Constitution sanctions no right to abortion, and (3) that Roe versus Wade was improperly decided. Second, this legislation will prohibit Federal funding to pay for, or to promote, abortion. Further, this legislation proposes to defund 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 (1) prohibiting discrimination, at all federally-funded institutions, against citizens who as a matter of conscience object to abortion and (2) curtailing attorney's fees in abortion-related cases. Fourth, this legislation 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, if even the warning was applicable that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it--this is it. Fifty years ago, millions of European Jews and others died at the hands of Hitler's Nazis. Today many forget that horror--and the lesson that all human life is sacred. We are today reliving another kind of holocaust, by another name. It is called abortion, but it is the same horrible fate--except that now, in our time, it is being met by millions of unborn children in America. Killing unborn babies has become a sort of tool-of-convenience in today's permissive society. At latest count, more than 32 million unborn children have been deliberately, intentionally, destroyed. Mr. President, Roe versus Wade has no foundation whatsoever in the text or history of the constitution. It was a callous invention. Mr. Justice White said it best in his dissent: ``Roe was an exercise in raw judicial power,'' he declared. Why has this Supreme Court exercise in raw judicial power been allowed to stand? Why have we stood idly by for 22 years while 4,000 unborn babies are deliberately, intentionally destroyed every day as a result of legalized abortion? The answer is simple, Mr. President. Even though Roe versus Wade was and is an unconstitutional decision, Congress has been unwilling to exercise its powers to check and balance a Supreme Court that deliberately destroyed the lives of the most defenseless, most innocent humanity imaginable. So, Mr. President, Roe versus Wade still stands and the holocaust continues. It is not a failure of the Constitution. It is a failure of the supreme Court--but, more importantly, it is the failure of Congress for 22 years to do its duty, to overturn Roe versus Wade. Untold millions of innocent, helpless little ones have been slaughtered. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a significant question about the use of the American taxpayers' money is: should family planning clinics, funded under Title X of the Public Health Services Act, be forbidden to offer adoption services to pregnant women? My own answer is: Absolutely not. To the contrary such clinics should regard the advocacy of adopting babies, instead of deliberately destroying them, their number one responsibility. And there are numerous polls indicating that the vast majority of Americans agree. With this in mind, I offer today the Federal Adoption Services Act of 1995, a bill that proposes to amend Title X of the Public Health Services Act to permit federally-funded family 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. Mr. President, those familiar with the many Senate debates of the past regarding Title X will recall the excessive emphasis placed on preventing and/or spacing of pregnancies, and limiting the size of the American family. I hope that this year, we can refocus this debate, to shift the emphasis to the need to affirm life rather than preventing or terminating it. Sure, the radical feminists and other pro-abortionists will voice their usual hysterical outcries. So before they raise their voices, let's make clear what this legislation will not do. For example: 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, even encourage adoption as a means of family planning to help assure women who use Title X services--one-third of whom are teenagers--will be in a better position to make informed, compassionate judgments about the as yet unborn children they are carrying. Mr. President, adoption has rightly been called ``the loving adoption''. It brought joy to my own family as well as to countless others. In a world where hundreds of children are destroyed every day-- some because their mothers prefer another gender--is it not time to stop and ponder the question: Why not give life a chance? Is it not the responsibility of civilized society to protect the most innocent, most helpless among us? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Federal Adoption Services Act of 1995 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, all who value the rights of the unborn are indebted to our distinguished former colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Humphrey. From the day he arrived in the Senate, until the day he left, he championed the cause of the most innocent, most helpless, victims of the permissive society that plagues America. It was Senator Humphrey who in 1989 brought to the attention of the Senate a new and particularly brutal form of discrimination in America--abortions performed solely because the prospective mother prefers a child of a gender other than that of the fetus in her womb. Senator Humphrey brought to Senators' attention a New York Times article published on Christmas morning of 1988, headed ``Fetal Sex Test used as Step to Abortion.'' I remember well my own consternation when I read the article, which began: In a major change in medical attitudes and practices, many doctors are providing prenatal diagnoses to pregnant women who want to abort a fetus on the basis of the gender of the unborn child. Geneticists say that the reasons for this change in attitude are an increased availability of diagnostic technologies, a growing disinclination of doctors to be paternalistic, deciding for patients what is best, and an increasing tendency for patients to ask for the tests. Many geneticists and ethicists say they are disturbed by the trend. Professor George Annas of the Boston University School of Medicine was quoted as saying: I think the [medical] profession should set limits and I think most people would be outraged and properly so at the notion that you would have an abortion because you don't want a boy or you don't want a girl. If you are worried about a woman's right to an abortion, the easiest way to lose it is not set any limits on this technology. Mr. President, I recall my disbelief after having read the article that any mother in a civilized society would be willing to destroy her unborn female child simply when she preferred a male--or vice-versa. But believe it. It has happened and continues to happen with the acquiescence of the U.S. Government. That is why I am today again offering legislation to limit this cruel and inhumane practice. The 103d Congress declined to act on my legislation in this regard. I pray that the 104th Congress will take action to end this callous cruelty. Specifically, the legislation I've sent to the desk proposes to amend title 42 of the United States Code--the statute governing civil rights--so as to provide that abortionists who administer an abortion-- because the mother doesn't subject to the same laws which protect other citizens who are victims of other forms of discrimination. Then, Mr. President, there was a USA Today article published February 2, 1989, which reported: In a break with past medical attitudes more geneticists are open to identifying gender for parents early--so they can decide whether to abort. The change has ethicists debating where a parent's right to information ends and the rights of the unborn begin. A recent national survey of 212 medical geneticists found 20 percent approved of performing prenatal testing for sex selection; in a 1973 survey, only 1 percent approved. ``Probably 99 percent of nonmedical requests for prenatal diagnosis are made because people want a boy,'' says Dr. Mark Evans, an obstetrician and geneticist at Wayne State University, Detroit. Some experts are concerned about the social impact. Evans turns down nonmedical sex selection requests. ``Being female,'' he says, ``is not a disease.'' Mr. President, how can various feminist groups such as the National Organization of Women remain silent while America hurtles down the path taken in India 5 years ago when a survey in Bombay 5 years ago revealed that of 8,000 abortions, 7,999 were female? Mr. President, I have never been able to countenance the senseless slaughter of unborn babies. I have sought in vain for someone to explain the logic--aside from the moral and spiritual aspects--of deliberately destroying literally millions of little baby boys and girls when hundreds of thousands of Americans are standing in line to adopt babies. A Boston Globe poll reported that 93 percent of the American people reject the taking of life as a means of gender selection. So, Mr. President, when NOW, NARAL, and the other antifamily groups invade Capitol Hill from time to time, Molly Yard, Patricia Ireland, and many others chant the mantra that when it comes to abortion-on-demand ``it's time for Congress to understand we are the majority,'' they may want to redo their calculations, based on the November 8 elections. Hopefully, this 104th Congress can take some early action to fulfill the desires of the 93 percent of the American people who rightfully believe it is immoral to destroy unborn babies because the mother happens to prefer a boy instead of a girl, or a girl instead of a boy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, during the last Congress neither the Senate nor the news media gave serious consideration toward making overdue changes in the Senate Ethics Committee. However, it's a safe assumption that when the next heated allegation comes before the Ethics Committee, a great deal will be heard about how the committee's structure renders it incapable of conducting its business with the public's full confidence. That criticism will be justified--unless the Senate takes steps now to correct the situation. Therefore, Mr. President, the purpose of the Senate resolution I am offering today is to avoid such criticism in the future by beginning now earnest consideration of plans to restructure the Ethics Committee. Mr. President, there must never again be a repeat of the Keating Five scenario which dragged on for months on end and ultimately cost the Senate a great deal in terms of public confidence. Having been a member of the Ethics Committee during the ordeal, I certainly imply no criticism of anyone who participated in the Keating Five proceedings; the fault was in the system--not in those who were trying to make the system work. The bottom line is that it took the Senate Ethics Committee almost 2 years to consider the Keating matter--it voted to commence its preliminary inquiry on December 21, 1989, and transmitted its report to the Senate on November 19, 1991. At that time, there was a chorus--from all across the political spectrum--demanding a reform of the Ethics Committee and its procedures. The Senate resolution which I am offering today, is certainly no end- all be-all--it is merely a starting point for discussion. The resolution proposes that the work of the current Ethics Committee be done by a committee of six private citizens--not Senators. At least two members should be retired Federal judges; and another two should be former members of the Senate. Three of the six members will be selected by the majority leader and three by the minority leader. Each member will serve 6 years-- except when initial appointments are made, at which time the terms will be staggered. Members of the committee will serve without compensation--but will be entitled to reimbursement for travel and per diem expenses in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Senate. I should emphasize again for the purpose of emphasis that this proposal is only a starting point. It is important, however, that we get started in reforming the Ethics Committee before the Senate is faced with another ethical dilemma on the front pages of the Nation's newspapers. Mr. President, some discussion was given to reforming the Senate Ethics Committee in the last Congress by the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. A proposal similar to the one outlined in my resolution was discussed at hearings held by the Joint Committee--but was not included in committee's final proposal--even though it was endorsed by Senator Bryan, the then-chairman of the Ethics Committee. The only changes the Joint Committee in fact approved regarding the Ethics Committee were new standards on disciplinary sanctions. The Senate too often has been found lagging in proposals to reform itself--thus becoming targets for media accusations of indifference and institutional arrogance. We have an opportunity with the proposed resolution, on the other hand, to start a process by which a strong signal may be sent to the American people that we are in fact willing to change with regards to the manner in which this institution polices its own members. Mr. President, the American people expect the power entrusted Senators to be used for the public good and never for our own benefit or the benefit of the few. Likewise, the American people have a right to expect that Senators who abuse their power and the public trust to be held accountable for their actions--swiftly and justly. I fully expect, and welcome, suggestion for accomplishing this goal. There will be, and should be, other ideas for reforming the Ethics Committee, ideas that no doubt will enhance and improve the suggestions I am making in my resolution. I reiterate: The time to begin is now, not when the Senate finds itself--again--in the midst of another institutional crisis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Yes.

Mr. HELMS. I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to send seven bills to the desk and that they be deemed to have been read the first time, and that my request for the second reading be deemed to have been objected to.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I am happy to call him that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I doubt that there have been many, if any, candidates for the Senate who have not pledged to do something about the enormous Federal debt run up by the Congress during the past half- century or more. But the Congress, both House and Senate, have never even toned down, let alone put an end to, the deficit spending that has sent the Federal debt into the stratosphere and beyond. Mr. President, we must pray that this year will be different, that Federal spending will indeed be reduced drastically. Indeed, if we care about America's future, there must be some changes. You see, Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, January 3, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,798,116,945,333.39. This means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,213.73 as his or her share of the Federal debt. Compare this, Mr. President, to the total debt about 2 years ago, January 5, 1993, when the debt stood at exactly $4,167,872,986,853.67-- or averaged out, $15,986.56 for every American. During the past 2 years--that is during the 103d Congress--the Federal debt increased by a total of $630,243,958,749.72. This illustrates, Mr. President, the point that so many politicians talk a good game--at home--about bringing the Federal debt under control, but vote in support of bloated spending bills when they get back to Washington. If the Republicans do not do a better job of getting a handle on this enormous debt, their constituents are not likely to overlook it 2 years hence.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.