{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1995-01-04-pt1-PgS18", "1995-01-04", 104, 1, null, null, "REVERSING HISTORICAL IRONY", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S18", "S21", "[{\"name\": \"Robert C. Byrd\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Dirk Kempthorne\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Barbara Boxer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ted Stevens\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John H. Glenn Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John F. Kerry\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"SJRES\", \"number\": \"7\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"49\"}]", "141 Cong. Rec. S18", "Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S18-S21]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                       REVERSING HISTORICAL IRONY\n\n  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the English word ``irony'' comes to us from\nan Ancient Greek word meaning ``a dissembler in speech.''\n  The English word ``irony'' is defined as the contrast between\nsomething that somebody thinks to be true, as revealed in speech,\naction, or common wisdom, and that which an audience or a reader knows\nto be true.\n  Mr. President, permit me to give an example.\n  If anyone in the hearing of my voice will take out a U.S. one-dollar\nbill and turn that one-dollar bill over onto its obverse side, he or\nshe will read in clear script, ``In God We Trust.''\n  Permit me to introduce another example.\n  Every day of each new meeting of the Senate and House of\nRepresentatives, an official Chaplain of each of those two Chambers of\nCongress--or a designated substitute--will stride to the dais and\naddress a sometimes elegant prayer to the Deity.\n  Again, every day in courtrooms across this country, hundreds of\nwitnesses will take their place at the front of the court chamber, put\ntheir hands on incalculable numbers of Bibles, and swear to tell the\ntruth, ``* * * so help me God.''\n  Only today, I and several other Senators swore an oath, standing\nthere near the Presiding Officer where he sits now, swore an oath that\nwe would support and defend the Constitution of the United States\nagainst all enemies, foreign and domestic, that we would bear true\nallegiance to the same, that we took this obligation, freely without\nmental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that we would well and\nfaithfully discharge the duties of the office on which we were about to\nenter ``so help me God.''\n  Additionally, daily, thousands of men and women in a variety of\ngroups, and millions upon millions of boys and girls in our schools\nwill pledge allegiance to our flag, uttering among others the words ``*\n* * one nation, under God, * * *''\n  I was a Member of the Congress when Congress inserted those words\ninto the Pledge of Allegiance.\n  And here is the irony: in spite of that chain of rituals that I have\njust related, in situation after situation, anecdotal and documented\nboth, public school authorities, ostensibly following rulings of the\nSupreme Court dating from at least the 1960's, have prohibited the\nutterance of prayers at school functions, in classrooms, at school\ncommencement exercises, even when the students themselves wanted to\nhave a voluntary prayer which they themselves would compose, or even in\ngroups or privately on public school property.\n  Mr. President, as I read my U.S. Constitution, such a prohibition of\nprayer in school flies in the face of the First Amendment, which\ndeclares, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of\nreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof * * *.''\n  Therefore, our Government is supposed to be absolutely neutral in\nthis matter, and the Constitution provides that neutrality when it says\nCongress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, on\nthe one hand, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, on the other.\nThat is absolute--absolute--neutrality.\n  So please note those words again: ``* * * or prohibiting the free\nexercise thereof * * *''\n  That passage was explicitly written into our Bill of Rights at the\ninsistence of none other than James Madison--commonly remembered as the\nfather of the Constitution--based on direct appeals to Madison by\nBaptist ministers in Virginia who had been forced to support the\nofficial state church during the Colonial Era, and whose practice of\ntheir own religious choice had been officially denied, proscribed, or\npenalized by Colonial officials.\n  How ironic that from that understandable Constitutional safeguard in\nsupport of the free exercise of religious faith, opponents of any\nreligion have turned that passage of the First Amendment on its head to\nprohibit--I said, to prohibit--the free exercise of religion in our\npublic life and, particularly, to drive religious faith out of our\npublic schools.\n  It is equally ironic that, as religion is making a public resurgence\nin the long atheistic former Soviet Union, our Nation, whose\nprotofoundations stand on the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of\nearly colonists whose primary inspiration in coming to America in the\nfirst place--Congregationalists, Calvinists, Baptists, Jews, Catholics,\nOrthodox, and others--whose primary purpose in coming to America in the\nfirst place, I repeat, was a yearning for religious liberty against\nthose who would deny them the right of religious liberty--that our\nNation should be embarked on a course which, in effect, denies\nreligious liberty to many of its citizens.\n  Mr. President, I have heard increasing concerns about the lack of\nmoral orientation among so many younger Americans--about a rising drug\nepidemic among our children, about rampant sexual promiscuity, about\nchildren murdering children, about gangs of teenage thugs terrorizing\ntheir neighborhoods, and about a pervading moral malaise among youth in\nboth our inner cities and our suburbs.\n  Is there any wonder that so many young Americans should be drifting\nwith seemingly no ethical moorings in the face of an apparent effort to\nstrip every shred of recognizable ethics, of teachings about values,\nand spirituality from the setting in which those young Americans spend\nmost of their waking hours--our public schools?\n  Mr. President, in an effort to restore something of a spiritual\nbalance to our public schools and to extracurricular activities in our\npublic schools, I am today introducing a joint resolution to propose an\nAmendment to the Constitution clarifying the intent of the Constitution\nwith regard to public school prayer.\n  My amendment is an effort to make clear that neither the\nConstitution, or the amendments thereto, require, nor do they prohibit,\nvoluntary prayer in\n[[Page S19]] the public schools or in the extracurricular activities of\nthe public schools. Anyone who fears that the language of my amendment\nwould allow public schools to mandate the recitation of daily prayer,\nor that school administrators will become the authors of such prayers,\nneed not worry. This amendment does not supplant the clear proscription\ncontained in the ``establishment'' clause of the First Amendment. My\namendment is an effort to make clear that the words that the\nConstitution uses with regard to religious freedom do not mean that\nvoluntary prayer is prohibited from our public schools or public school\nactivities.\n  In short, I hope to end a three-decades-long tyranny of the minority\nin denying to the majority of Americans the least vestige of the\nexercise of a liberty otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution--the\nright of American children in our public school system to pray in\naccordance with their own consciences and in the privacy of their\nvoluntary associations within our public schools.\n  That right I sincerely believe the Constitution already grants, but I\nwant to spell out in that same Constitution, by way of an amendment\nthereto, that permission to pray voluntarily in our public schools does\nnot constitute ``an establishment of religion.''\n  Mr. President, on this, the first day of the 104th Congress, a\nCongress in which the controlling mantra seems to have become\n``change'' and ``reform,'' I would suggest that Members listen to the\nAmerican people.\n  Every Senator who stands here proposes to speak in accordance with\nthe wishes of the American people. Each Senator arrogates to himself\nthe right to speak on behalf of the American people. I would suggest\nthat Members listen to the American people. Indeed, Mr. President, I\nwould call my colleagues' attention to a recent poll reprinted in the\nDecember 17 issue of National Journal in which passage of a\nconstitutional amendment allowing school prayer was the number one\nlegislative priority the public wanted us to consider. Not the balanced\nbudget amendment. Not the line-item veto. Not amending the filibuster\nrule so as to permit the invoking of cloture by a mere majority of the\nSenate. Who cares about that, out there beyond the Beltway?\n  Rather, the American people clearly understand the need for us to\nbegin to restore the moral underpinnings of this Nation.\n  With introduction, and I hope eventual passage of my amendment, we\ncan finally begin the 7-year-long process to answer the people's\nconcerns. We can begin to restore the spiritual compass that has been\nlost in the lives of so many of our citizens. And most importantly, we\ncan begin to return to our children the moral orientation that they so\ndesperately need and desire.\n  I urge those who want to deliver on the wishes of the American people\nto join me in this effort.\n  Mr. President, I shall introduce this for referral to a committee. I\nhave notified the minority, the now majority--it is going to be a\nlittle difficult for me to stop thinking in those terms. I am going to\nhave to, for a while at least. I have also notified the majority that I\nintend to try to put this resolution on the calendar under rule 14. If\nnobody objects to further proceedings at that point, I will, but I\nbelieve Mr. Kempthorne is aware of what I am about to do and he will be\nprepared to object at the right time.\n  So, Mr. President, first I will attempt to get this resolution on the\ncalendar under the provisions of rule 14, and then I will introduce it\nas a resolution to be referred.\n  Mr. President, I send to the desk a resolution. Let me read it so\nthat everybody will understand clearly what it says:\n\n       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the\n     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of\n     each House concurring therein), That the following article is\n     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall be\n     valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution\n     when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the\n     several States within seven years after the date of its\n     submission to the States for ratification:\n\n                              ``Article--\n\n       ``Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution, or amendments\n     thereto, shall be construed to prohibit or require voluntary\n     prayer in public schools, or to prohibit or require voluntary\n     prayer at public school extracurricular activities.''.\n\n  Mr. President, I send this joint resolution to the desk, and I ask\nthat it be read the first time.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the joint resolution for\nthe first time.\n  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       A resolution (S.J. Res. 7) proposing an amendment to the\n     Constitution of the United States to clarify the intent of\n     the Constitution to neither prohibit nor require public\n     school prayer.\n\n  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that the resolution be read a second\ntime.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I object.\n  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator withhold his objection until it is read\nthe second time, and then he can object and it will go on the calendar.\n  Mr. President, I yield the floor.\n  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for\nthe quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request for a second reading\nof the resolution today.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.\n  Mr. BYRD. It will automatically come up for a second reading on the\nnext legislative day; am I correct?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.\n  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. I ask unanimous consent\nthat the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] have his name added as\na cosponsor of the resolution.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the Senator and it will be so\nordered.\n  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n  (The remarks of Mr. Kempthorne pertaining to the introduction of S. 1\nare printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills\nand Joint Resolutions.'')\n  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.\n  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if you could explain the rules today, may\nI have my 10 minutes now from the time of the Democratic leader?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and\nit is so ordered.\n  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair very much.\n  Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate those\nSenators--both Democratic and Republican--who took the oath of office\ntoday, and I come to the floor of the Senate to look ahead to the\nfuture.\n  Those of us who serve here are truly blessed with an opportunity\nquite rate--to represent our States in the greatest deliberative body\nin the world--one with a rich legacy of dedicated men and women whose\nservice is always judged by history.\n  Like 1992, 1994 has been a year of political change. In 1992, 105\nmillion Americans went to the polls and voted for a Democratic\nPresident, dislodging a Republican President. In 1994, 70 million\nAmericans went to the polls and voted for a Republican Congress,\ndislodging a Democratic Congress.\n  The American people voted for change in 1992 but change didn't happen\nfast enough, so they sent another message in 1994.\n  Change was on the lips of the American people in 1992 and change is\nstill on the Nation's lips of the American people in 1994.\n  Each of us is asked what change means.\n  First, I believe people want the American Dream restored; they want\neconomic security. American people feel they no longer can be sure of\nhaving a job, of having health care coverage, of raising their standard\nof living, no longer sure of our children having good paying jobs,\nowning a home, having Social Security or personal\n[[Page S20]] safety. As Robert Reich said, these changes have turned\nthe middle class into the anxiety class.\n  Second, I believe people want to feel safe in their neighborhoods.\nThey know that ideological fights will not get them safer\nneighborhoods. The people recognize that we need a commonsense mix of\ntougher punishment and effective prevention. To serve the people, we\nmust have the guts to keep all cop-killer bullets off the streets.\n  Third, I believe people want the deficit reduced by smart spending\ncuts, leaving smart spending priorities. People want the Government to\nstop wasting their money, but they want their Government to have a\nstrategy so we can be part of the solution.\n  Fourth, I believe people want to have a Government that doesn't\ninterfere in their lives, but defends their individual freedoms.\n  Fifth, I believe people want a Congress that acts in the best\ninterests of the people of the United States of America so that our\nfamilies have an unbought voice, our children have an unbought voice,\nour environment has an unbought voice, and our country can rely on a\nCongress whose Members don't cash in on their power. Let's keep out the\nspecial interests and let's live by the same laws as all Americans do.\n  Now I want to say that I came to the Senate representing 31 million\npeople on that very platform in 1992, and nothing about the 1994\nelection tells me that that platform of hope, economic opportunity,\nindividual rights, and congressional reform has lost its significance.\n  Certainly, I stand ready to fulfill those goals in new and better\nways. None of us has all the answers, but together we can find them. We\nshould choose from all the best ideas from each political party, and\nfrom new Senators as well as old. I stand ready to do that, and I have\nalready reached out to my Republican friends.\n  But let me tell you what I do not stand ready to do.\n  I do not stand ready to allow those who talk about reform to destroy\nprotections and rights guaranteed to all Americans.\n  I believe the Republican Contract With America calls for just that,\nand since their goal is to pass it in 3 months, I feel I must speak\nout.\n  The contract talks about bringing back the gag rule to health care\nclinics. Here is the contract that professes less government on the one\nhand, but uses the Republican hand to gag doctors and nurses in clinics\nfrom telling their patients that abortion is legal option in this\ncountry. When that fight comes, I will be right here. And speaking of\nhealth care clinics, I trust my colleagues will support law and order\nin a tragic escalation of violence waged against lawabiding Americans.\n  Law and order plays a big part in the contract which is fine. But,\nsadly, it resurrects the old fight between punishment and prevention.\nWe should listen to law enforcement authorities who tell us we need\nboth. Let us not undo the crime bill that police worked so hard for. If\nthere is a move to rescind the crime bill in the name of fighting crime\nI will be right here to fight it.\n  Middle-class tax relief? I am here. It was the President who promised\nit during his campaign, and he has defined a very fair middle-class\nbill of rights that helps families with children and eases the burden\nof college tuition costs. I support this.\n  The Republican contract talks about the middle class, and I am with\nthem all the way. But if what they really mean is tax breaks for those\nworth millions, I will be right here to point out the farce.\n  Tax relief should not help Members of Congress. We make enough. It\nshould help the middle class. There are still those with multiple\nmillions of dollars sneaking through tax loopholes. We do not need more\nof that, we need less.\n  The contract talks about orphanages and poor children being denied\nnutrition assistance. I will not stand by and allow children to starve\nor be torn away from parents or grandparents in the name of reform. I\ndo not care if ``Boys Town'' is a good film. We better learn from the\npast, not go back to it when it did not work.\n  I am ready to talk about work requirements and tough standards for\nwelfare.\n  That's absolutely essential. We must not reward laziness or excuses.\nI am here to talk about smart incentives like workable group homes for\nkids and those responsible for them; I am here to talk about real\npunishment for those who neglect their kids. But if you push policies\nthat in the name of reform hurt these kids and make them hungry or\nhomeless or abused, I will be there to take them on.\n  The contract calls for securities litigation reform to end what the\ncontract calls ``frivolous laws suits.'' This sounds great, but when\nyou read the fine print you see a plan that would let greedy and\nirresponsible parties completely off the hook after they dump risky\ninvestments on the public.\n  The Republican contract would heighten the economic insecurity of\nmillions of Americans who save for the future; have a 401K savings\nplan, a corporate pension plan, an IRA, or a mutual fund.\n  The contract would make it almost impossible for small investors to\nsuccessfully sue well-heeled investment bankers for fraud. It would\nrequire small investors to prove their case--to know what went on in\nthe mind of anyone who defrauded them--before they file suit. It\nrequires small investors to be mind readers.\n  How would this Republican contract have affected Ramonna Jacobs of\nLos Angeles. Mrs. Jacobs, unwittingly, invested money earmarked for her\ndisabled daughter in Charles Keating's junk bonds.\n  Mrs. Jacobs could not have successfully sued Charles Keating if the\nRepublican contract was in effect. There was no way Mrs. Jacobs could\nhave known, at the get-go, how Charles Keating schemed to defraud her,\nwhat Charles Keating knew and when he knew it.\n  Deception is the essence of securities fraud. The Republican contract\nignores that. In doing so it will increase the insecurity--economic and\notherwise--of millions of Americans.\n  I will fight that kind of destructive legislation disguised as\nreform.\n  I will not stand by and allow our people to be hurt by gutting air\nand water quality standards in the name of deregulation as the contract\nsays.\n  If you want to talk about streamlining regulations that bureaucrats\nare bungling I'll be right there. There is no need to have people hung\nout to dry while we figure out how to apply environmental laws. I agree\nwith that.\n  But if by ``streamlining'' you really mean destroying or ripping away\nsensible environmental protection laws, I'll be right here to call it\nthe way I see it.\n  I ran as a fighter for the people of California and as I figure it,\nif you cannot breathe you cannot work or live. Today a baby born in Los\nAngeles has a 15 percent lower lung capacity then a baby born in a\nclear air area. That's wrong.\n  And let us cut spending where it makes sense to do so. We have\nopportunities all over the Federal budget. I look forward to working\nconstructively to do that on the Budget Committee and on the Senate\nfloor. But the Republican contract calls for fencing off one part of\nthe budget so savings cannot be used for anything else. Why should one\npart of the budget be treated differently? The contract puts the\nmilitary budget in a separate area behind the fence and it throws away\nthe key. They do not do that for Social Security. They do not do that\nfor Medicare--they don't do that for education or for law enforcement.\nThey only do that for the military budget.\n  Now I am all for a strong military and against wasteful military\nspending. In the eighties we found out we were buying $7,500 coffee\npots and $600 toilet seats and $350 ``No Smoking'' signs and spending\nmillions on weapons that blew up fans in portable toilets instead of\nhelicopters and billions on star wars when tests were rigged to make it\nlook good.\n  And I have news for you even today: with all the reforms we've\nenacted, we still have generals taking $200,000 military flights. An\nAir Force general recently had a VIP C-141B Starlifter fly from New\nJersey to pick him up--along with his cat and an aide--in Naples,\nItaly, and fly him to Colorado. The flight cost between $120,000 and\n$200,000. A commercial ticket would have cost less than $1,500.\n  And believe it or not, we are paying convicted felons in the military\nmil-\n[[Page S21]] lions of dollars a year while they sit in jail. No one\ncould get away with that in the private sector.\n  In the meantime, we continue to spend two to three times more on the\nmilitary than all other enemies combined.\n  So let us not have any sacred cows. It makes us weaker as a nation,\nnot stronger.\n Let's determine what it takes to meet the threats we face--debate the\nappropriate level of funding, always be ready to procure the funding\nfor emergencies but let's not fence off one part of the responsibility.\n\n  Let me read from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution:\n\n       We the People of the United States, in order to form a more\n     perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic\n     tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the\n     general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to\n     ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish, this\n     Constitution for the United States of America.\n\n  It doesn't say provide for the common defense only.\n  It does not say, ``provide for the common defense and, if you feel\nlike, promote the general welfare.''\n  It does not say that providing for the common defense takes\nprecedence over establishing justice.\n  It says to do all those things.\n  I believe in our Constitution. Some of the things I hear lead me to\nbelieve that the preamble of the Constitution has become meaningless to\nsome Members of Congress--I fervently hope not.\n  I have great confidence in the institutions of our Government. They\nhave prevailed through many political and economic times more trying\nthan these.\n  But they are always tested.\n  I intend to make sure our institutions pass this test.\n  That the Government of, by, and for the people will prevail and not\nbe destroyed in the name of slogans and rhetoric.\n  I look forward to a legitimate debate on how we can make this the\nmost prosperous country, the fairest country, and the healthiest\ncountry in the world. I hold out my hand in the search for constructive\nsolutions, but I hold up my hand to destructive political posturing.\n  The American people want us to work together. They want the\nfilibuster abuse to end--they want us to take the best ideas--whoever\nhas them--and turn them into policies.\n  They want us to work with the executive branch for progress.\n  Let us do that.\n  But I also believe the people from my State of California expect me\nto fight for them above all, and if that means standing on the floor of\nthe Senate all by myself to do that, I will--any day, any hour. That's\nthe promise I made to them.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized, Mr.\nStevens.\n  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.\n  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Kerry pertaining to the\nintroduction of legislation are located in today's Record under\n``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.\n  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.\n  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 49\nare located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills\nand Joint Resolutions.'')\n  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.\n  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.\n  (The remarks of Mr. Glenn pertaining to the introduction of\nlegislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on\nIntroduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')\n  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Massachusetts.\n  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1995-01-04-pt1-PgS18"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.5425009876489639, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}