[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 60 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4987-S4988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN'S DISTURBING REMARK

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to a statement 
made by President Clinton's chief spokesperson Michael McCurry, as 
reported in the March 22 Washington Times.
  In discussing the Republican Presidential field and candidate Pat 
Buchanan in particular, Mr. McCurry said: ``Mr. Buchanan and his 
mutaween will be out there parading across America, and we can track 
them down.''
  Mr. McCurry's reference is to Saudi religious officers, to whom I 
gather he is equating American conservatives who are both religious and 
interested in playing a role in politics.
  With this statement, Mr. McCurry has managed no mean feat: he has 
slurred religious Americans, he has slurred individuals of Arab 
descent, and he has misused his position as White House spokesman.
  Mr. President, I believe it is wrong to attack those who are 
religious and involved in politics as zealots and extremists. These 
attacks are unfair, divisive and destructive. They challenge the right 
to engage in important moral arguments in public life, to everyone's 
detriment.
  People of strong faith always have been involved in politics and 
their faith has influenced their political action--to America's 
benefit.
  Even before our Nation was founded, people of faith brought Americans 
together through their eloquent advocacy of religious, moral and 
political principles. During the Revolutionary War ministers used 
political sermons to expound and elaborate on Thomas Jefferson's famous 
words in the Declaration of Independence--that all men are created 
equal and ``endowed by their creator'' with rights to life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness. They told Americans that it was their 
religious as well as political duty to protect their rights and the 
rights of their children and grandchildren by fighting for 
independence.
  These brave ministers established an American political and religious 
tradition that continued to thrive, through the Civil War and on into 
this century. 
[[Page S4988]] Martin Luther King, Jr., drew on this tradition. He was, 
of course, the Reverend Martin Luther King--a religious minister. His 
crusade for racial justice and equality of opportunity drew explicitly 
on references to God and God's will.
  Reverend King called for racial equality, not because some mere 
philosophical, academic principle demanded it, but because God demands 
that we treat one another with respect, according to the content of our 
character and not the color of our skin. In this way he showed 
Americans their duty toward one another, and brought us together in 
pursuit of a just equality of opportunity.
  Today, however, conservative people of faith are attacked as 
intolerant extremists for having the temerity to make demands on our 
conscience. Mr. McCurry's statement is only the latest in such regard. 
Peaceful pro-life protesters are condemned as religious bigots for 
opposing what they feel is a great moral crime. The Christian Coalition 
and other similar groups are often depicted as a dark force whose 
participation in the political process is somehow inappropriate.
  Mr. President, we must reject this kind of antireligious bigotry in 
whatever form it takes. After all, should Martin Luther King have been 
dismissed as an intolerant religious fanatic?
  I certainly hope not, for that would have denied our country his 
moral force, which contributed mightily to the civil rights movement's 
success. Yet Mr. McCurry's apparent disdain for the involvement of 
people of faith in the political process would surely have kept 
Reverend King out of politics, unless, of course, such intolerance only 
applies to conservative people of faith.
  I also am concerned about Mr. McCurry's comments because, frankly, I 
believe that it perpetuates in American public life the stereotype that 
anyone connected to the Arab world must be an extremist.
  As an American of Lebanese descent, I take great exception to Mr. 
McCurry's use of his White House podium in this fashion. I believe it 
is inappropriate to employ ethnic-based references or comparisons as a 
means of insulting or demeaning others.
  Arab-Americans have worked hard to assimilate and succeed in America. 
According to the 1990 census, 82 percent of Arab-Americans graduated 
from high school, while more than half, 52 percent had at least a 
college degree and a full 15 percent held some form of graduate degree. 
Furthermore 36.4 percent, more than one-third, of Arab-Americans are 
represented in managerial positions or the professions.
  However, it is difficult for any ethnic group to enjoy full 
acceptance and assimilation if they remain targets of scorn or if 
people of their heritage are employed as negative symbols. Whenever 
someone is insulted for being ``stupid'' or ``lazy'' or ``fanatical''--
``just like'' people of a certain ethnic group--we reinforce the notion 
that all the members of the ethnic group so referenced are a people who 
are stupid or lazy or fanatic. The result is ethnic division, bad 
feelings and unfounded prejudice.
  That is what Mr. McCurry's statement does. Moreover, invoking as it 
does the prestige of the White House inevitably will heighten anti-Arab 
feelings in this country and place an unfair burden on people who are 
hard-working, loyal, tax paying citizens.
  Finally, I am concerned about Mr. McCurry's statement because it 
seems clear to me that a Presidential Press Secretary, whose salary is 
paid for by the taxpayers, should not engage in such blatantly partisan 
activity.
  I am not here supporting Pat Buchanan's run for the Presidency. But 
in my view Mr. McCurry stepped over an important line when he attacked 
Mr. Buchanan in the way he did. The American people are not paying Mr. 
McCurry so that he can make insensitive stereotyping statements 
intended, among other things, to help his boss' chances in the next 
election.
  The President has many avenues available to him if he wishes to make 
campaign statements. He also has the option of going through the steps 
necessary to make an open bid for reelection. Within this context it 
would be understandable that his campaign spokesman would make partisan 
statements.
  But to have a public employee making such blatantly political 
attacks, capitalizing on the media access and prestige of the 
Presidency for purely political ends, is simply unacceptable.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________