[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 111 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6668-H6669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   HONORING THE LIFE OF BETTY SHABAZZ

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight be discharged from further 
consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 183) honoring the life of 
Betty Shabazz, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California so 
much for giving me the opportunity to explain that seldom in the United 
States do we get a chance to pay tribute to the life of those people 
who live an ordinary life and yet have done extraordinary things.
  When the late Betty Shabazz died, having known her husband and her 
for so many years, I almost thought that she belonged to Harlem and she 
belonged to African-Americans, and I was so pleasantly surprised when 
she passed away, as a result of a sad and cruel act of her grandson, 
that so many Republicans and Democrats came over and offered sympathy 
to me because we had lost in this country a great American.
  And so, in August, there will be communities all over the country 
attempting to say, thank you, Betty Shabazz, for the life that you led, 
that you lost your husband, he was assassinated, but instead of just 
weeping and crying, which she did do, was pick your life up, go to 
school, educate 6 children, and become a role model for Americans, 
whether they are white or black or Jewish or Christian.
  And so, as we leave and America pays tribute to this great woman, I 
would like to have the Congress join in in just honoring a great life 
who serves as a model for all Americans and people throughout the 
world.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

[[Page H6669]]

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and my 
good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] in honor of an 
outstanding constituent from Yonkers, New York, Betty Shabazz.
  We have worked on so many issues, fighting for families, fighting for 
women, fighting for children. Just recently, I served on a panel with 
Betty Shabazz, could not have been more than probably a couple months 
ago. So I thank my good friend from New York, [Mr. Rangel] for 
introducing this resolution which I support.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, 
there were some other reservations for other bills that were made under 
all of these unanimous consent requests. And although I support the 
initiative of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and his bill, I 
would have to object until these reservations can be worked out by the 
leadership.
  We were told these UC's were worked out and, at the last moment 
someone from his side of the aisle was going to object to one of these 
UC's. If that is the case, I will object until that can be worked out.
  Mr. RANGEL. If the gentleman will yield further, I understand the 
concern of the gentleman. But I would just like to share with him that 
I knew about this problem before I dealt with the Republican 
leadership; and because so many Members of Congress felt that strongly 
about it, what we did was went to the leadership and asked our side not 
to go through these extraordinary parliamentary procedures that they 
could have gone through in order to show their deep concern about it.
  When you think about it, yes, there has to be ways that our concerns 
are met and we have to be able to use the parliamentary procedure to do 
it. But I ask my friend to really consider what we are doing when 
communities throughout this country are going to commemorate a life 
anyway, with or without this resolution.
  It would seem to me that, even when we have to use the parliamentary 
cause to emphasize how deep we feel about an issue, that we are 
sensitive to the communities that are affected, we are sensitive to the 
daughters that we pay tribute to, and that we just do not use the 
parliamentary procedures when we have just lost a great American.
  I would ask the gentleman to reconsider using the life of Betty 
Shabazz and the memories that are held by so many Americans and the 
memories held by her children and family as they go through life.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Further reserving the right to object, I would say to 
my friend, and I would reiterate that I fully support the words that he 
just spoke and would associate, but unfortunately, we have the same 
kind of concerns on another UC request that affects the lives of many 
of the people on the West Coast, thousands of people, as a matter of 
fact. And it is not the loss of someone, but this is the loss of jobs, 
the loss of livelihood.
  There was an agreement made under these UC's, and evidently the 
agreement has been broken. I would still be willing to work this out in 
a matter of a few minutes. If this is not the case and this is worked 
out, if the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] would bring up the 
same UC a few moments later and we can work this out among us, I think 
I would support the gentleman.
  Mr. RANGEL. I would just hope that, with all the good work that my 
colleague has done for this country throughout his life, that he would 
not want to be recorded in the Congressional Record as having been the 
person that, for whatever reason, has caused this Congress not to 
commemorate the life of this great American.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say to my friend that I will support the 
gentleman in commemorating it in a few minutes if this can be worked 
out. After the agreement is made, I will be very happy and I will not 
object. But until that is made, the lives and livelihood of many of my 
constituents are at stake.
  And I would say to the same gentleman, someone on his side of the 
aisle was just about ready to make that decision, which would affect 
adversely and in which a vote in the Senate was 99-to-0, and because 
there is an objection to the UC, would affect negatively many of the 
lives. And until that point, I am going to be forced to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________