Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to deliver my remarks seated at my desk.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending legislation makes a small revision in the United Nations reform legislation approved by Congress in 1999 known as the ``Helms-Biden'' law. This legislation justifiably used the leverage of the United States to press for reforms, by linking payment of the United States' so- called ``U.N. arrears'' to specific U.N. reforms. And it was the product of bipartisan cooperation in the Congress, cooperation between the Executive Branch and the Congress, and cooperation between the United States and the United Nations. And it worked, thereby producing millions of dollars in savings to the American people. The Helms-Biden law gave the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, the tools he needed to negotiate much-needed reforms, ranging from restoring the membership of the United States to the U.N.'s administrative and finance committee, known in the rarified language of the U.N. as the ``A-C-A-B-Q'', to the adoption of results- based budgeting. But the most important reforms restore an equitable burden-sharing for the enormous cost of operating the United Nations. This was achieved by reducing the U.S. share of the U.N.'s general budget and its peacekeeping budget. In painstaking negotiations, the U.S. faced opposition not merely from increasingly affluent non-Western nations, which were clinging to their cut-rate U.N. assessment rates, but from our rich NATO allies as well. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in persuading the United Nations member countries to reduce the U.S. share of the general U.N. budget to 22 percent, which was specified by Helms-Biden. This was the first reduction, in more than 28 years, in the American taxpayers' bloated share of the U.N.'s budget. Similarly, Ambassador Holbrooke persuaded U.N. member states to agree to a new scale for assessments for U.N. peacekeeping. This was an even more complicated undertaking because it required convincing several nations to give up the big discounts they had enjoyed for the better part of thirty years, when they were regarded as so-called ``developing'' countries. Our friends Israel, South Korea, Hungary, Estonia, and Slovenia were among those who gave up those discounts. We should be grateful to them--I certainly am--for their willingness to do that. On the other hand, some other nations in the Middle East and East Asia--which have become rich in recent years--dragged their feet--and shame on them. But when all is said and done, the U.N. put in place a six-year plan to reduce what the U.N. now says the U.S. owes for peacekeeping. Here's how it will work. The U.S. share of peacekeeping costs will drop: from 31 percent to about 28 percent in the first six months of 2001; and then, Mr. President, to about 27\1/2\ percent in the second half of 2001; and then, Mr. President, to about 26\1/2\ percent in 2002; and then, Mr. President, down to approximately the 25 percent benchmark specified in the Helms-Biden law. Now then, Mr. President, when all this is fully implemented it will eliminate at least $170 million each year from the amount that the United Nations had billed the American taxpayers. While this does not quite meet the Helms-Biden specification of a 25 percent peacekeeping dues rate, not yet, at least, it comes close. That is why Senator Biden, Senator Warner and I have offered this legislation to propose making a relatively small change in the arithmetic of the original Helms-Biden law. Based on the clear prospect of U.S. peacekeeping dues moving down to 25 percent in the coming years, we propose to agree to releasing the Year 2 dues payment of $582 million to the United Nations immediately-- in recognition of the savings already achieved for the American taxpayers. This $582 million payment is the largest of the three phases of arrears attached to reform conditions in the Helms-Biden law--and for good reason: the toughest conditions imposed upon the United Nations by the Helms-Biden law were included. These conditions have already been met largely, and I believe, in response, that the Senate should now reward the enormous progress made in New York last December when the U.N. adopted most of the Helms-Biden benchmarks agreed to when I met with Secretary-General Kofi Annan when we met shortly after he took office at the U.N. I emphasize that the United States does not owe the United Nations one dime more than 25 percent of the peacekeeping budget. In fact, in 1994, Senator Bob Dole led a bipartisan effort to institute a cap on how much the U.S. would pay to the U.N. for peacekeeping. That year, a Democrat-controlled Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, a 25 percent cap on the U.S. share of the U.N. peacekeeping assessment. I see no reason to abandon that bipartisan policy. Some may argue that, in addition to releasing the Year 2 arrears, we should remove that cap as well. I cannot and will not agree to that, though there may be a way that Senator Biden and I can work out to do something. We are already taking an important step by releasing $582 million in arrears. But we must not (and will not if I have anything to do with it) concede that the United States expects, in the coming years that the U.N. will ultimately reach the 25 percent rate mandated by Congress in two separate pieces of legislation. In any event, the Helms-Biden reform benchmarks are working, which brings us to the issue of: what next? What are principal remaining agenda items for the Congress regarding the U.N.? First, the Congress must continue to take public note of the size of the U.N. budget. There will of course be a major campaign in the U.N., and even by some in the American foreign policy establishment, to allow the U.N. to increase its budget. Congress must make sure that those seeking another explosion of budgetary growth at the U.N. are stopped dead in their tracks. It is one thing to allow adjustments in the U.N. budget for inflation and currency fluctuations. But Congress must not allow the floodgates for rampant bureaucratic spending to be opened. Fiscal discipline at the U.N. will remain a priority for Congress. Specifically, we need to focus on the biggest outrage in the U.N.-- the bloated public information bureaucracy. The U.N.'s ``PR bureaucracy'' is, quite simply, out of control. I agree completely with Ambassador Holbrooke's assessment made to the Foreign Relations Committee this past January 9, when he declared (and I quote): The Office of Public Information must be cut. It still has over 800 people. And I believe that is inappropriate. . . . And that should be one of the next major campaigns. . . . We need to attack the Office of Public Information and its over- padded structure. I say again, I wholeheartedly agree. Finally, Congress must keep a vigilant eye on plans to remodel and expand the U.N. headquarters in New York. The so-called ``U.N. Capital Plan'' estimates that it will cost more than $1 billion. The United States--the American taxpayers--will be asked to pay for at least 25 percent of that. I've asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a thorough study of the U.N.'s plans for the renovation. GAO's initial judgment is that the project will end up with major cost overruns well beyond the billion dollars estimated in the ``U.N. Capital Plan.'' And that U.N. plan calls for interest-free loans from the American taxpayers. New York City will be called upon to transfer even more land to the U.N. as a gift. Before building plush new offices for U.N. bureaucrats, let's first make sure that all of the reforms called for in the Helms-Biden law are completed first. For the moment, Mr. President, we are at an encouraging stage in U.S.-U.N. relations. The exchange of visits between the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and ambassadors on the U.N. Security Council last year in New York and Washington had a positive impact. I believe this exchange gave the U.N. Ambassadors a greater appreciation of the role of the U.S. Congress in shaping our nation's foreign policy. It certainly gave Senators a better understanding of views held at the U.N. I'm told that the exchange of visits helped bring about the diplomatic achievements of December of 2000 to reform the U.N.'s assessment scales. That kind of cooperation is certainly welcome. Mr. President, I must conclude. But before I do, I must note that any worthwhile and meaningful cooperation with the U.N. depends upon firm leadership by the United States--and particularly the United States Congress. Almost every reform that has been enacted by the U.N. in recent years was mandated by the Congress of the United States. Some at the U.N. will always object to so-called Congressional ``micro management'' of the U.N., and will chafe at the United States Government seeking to ``dictate'' reforms. But, Ambassador Holbrooke put it aptly in his final appearance before the Foreign Relations Committee: What I discovered was that since people assume the United States is overbearing and arrogant anyway, it is better to say what the U.S. view is. . . . America should be unafraid to say its views. . . . We were persistent. And sometimes to the point of being regarded as a little bit obnoxious, but not arrogant. And we got the job done. And I think that can be a model. Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee and I believe, the American taxpayers, are grateful to Ambassador Holbrooke for a job well done. Needless to say, Mr. President, I hope the Senate will support the pending legislation. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have been asked to make this unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. today the bill be advanced to third reading and final passage occur at 3 p.m., with no intervening action, motion, or debate; the time between now and 3 p.m. be equally divided between the two managers; and paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. You bet.

Mr. HELMS. He did.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I yield such time as the Senator may need.

Mr. HELMS. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Records of the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Biden, that Paul Foldi, a State Department fellow on the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 248.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 7, 2001, to conduct a hearing on ``Establishing an Effective, Modern Framework for Export Controls.''

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 7, 2001, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a business meeting.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, February 7, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing on intelligence matters, and at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. HELMS

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 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.

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 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 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.

Mr. HELMS

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 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.

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 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 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.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I commend the able Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) for including the High Speed Rail Investment Act in this tax package. I'm glad he agress that we need to develop a national intercity passenger rail system.

Mr. HELMS. As the Senator from Delaware knows, the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, designated in title 23 U.S.C., Section 104(d)(2), is a vital part of the national transportation system. Within the corridor the Charlotte-Greensboro-Raleigh segment plays a crucial and essential role in linking the Northeast Corridor with other corridors. New modern world class stations in Raleigh and Charlotte as well as rail infrastructure investments linked to the Greensboro station will enhance the safety and efficiency of the system. It is my understanding that station investments are directly eligible projects under the proposed legislation.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chairman and commend him for his leadership.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this conference report is a splendid example of Congress reasserting its moral underpinning in U.S. foreign policy. It will effectively combat the disgrace of women and children being smuggled, bought and sold as pathetic commodities--most often for the human beasts who thrive on prostitution. The conference report deals with all aspects of sex trafficking, from helping victims to punishing perpetrators. Significantly, the legislation calls on the executive branch to identify clearly the nations where trafficking is the most prevalent. For regimes that know there is a problem within their borders, but refuse to do anything about it, there will be consequences. No country has a right to foreign aid. The worst trafficking nations must have such U.S. aid cut off. And if they don't receive U.S. bilateral aid, then their officials will be barred from coming onto American soil. Our principles demand these significant and important symbolic steps. Some may complain that this is another ``sanction'' in the alleged proliferation of sanctions Congress passes. But denying taxpayer- supported foreign aid is not a ``sanction.'' Foreign aid is not an entitlement. I commend Senator Brownback for his unyielding efforts to help the victims of sex trafficking, which is nothing less than modern-day slavery. The inevitable controversies over differences between House and Senate bills were ironed out because of Senator Brownback's leadership. Time and again, Senator Brownback personally intervened with conferees, with our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, and with the House and Senate leadership in order to obtain agreement on this important legislation. Sam Brownback is devoted to helping less fortunate citizens, whether they are farmers struggling to keep their farms in Kansas or the helpless women and children caught up in the trafficking of human beings. I salute Senator Brownback for his remarkable efforts. Also of particular significance is a provision authored by Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida, which will assist victims of terrorism. Senator Mack and others who have had a longstanding interest in this issue were instrumental in helping this provision find a place in the conference report. The provision helps families struck by the horrors such as the attack on Pan Am 103 get fair restitution, coming in part from the frozen assets of terrorist states. The conference report is a solid and effective measure to help the victims of violence and abuse, the kind of abuse which is nothing short of evil. Those victims are most often women and children, and this legislation goes a long way to protect them.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I congratulate Senators Mack, Kyl, Lautenberg, and Feinstein, for their fine work on getting this anti-terrorism legislation through the Congress and passed. I would like to point out the conferees agree with the comments mentioned by my colleagues and this has been so stated in the conference report to accompany this bill.