[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 23, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1541-H1547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 AFFIRMING THE CONGRESS' OPPOSITION TO ALL FORMS OF RACISM AND BIGOTRY

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H.Res. 121) affirming the Congress' opposition to all forms 
of racism and bigotry.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 121

       Whereas the United States of America has been enriched and 
     strengthened by the diversity and mutual respect of its 
     people;
       Whereas the injustices and inequities of the past continue 
     to demand our forceful commitment, both as individuals and as 
     an institution, to equal justice under law and full 
     opportunity for every American;
       Whereas a racist attack upon any group of Americans is an 
     affront to every one who cherishes the promise of America and 
     the values that sustain our democracy; and
       Whereas every Member of Congress has a responsibility to 
     foster the best traditions and highest values of this nation: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) insists that no individual's rights are negotiable or 
     open to compromise; and
       (2) reaffirms the determination of all its Members to 
     oppose any individuals or organizations which seek to divide 
     Americans on the grounds of race, religion, or ethnic origin; 
     and
       (3) denounces all those who practice or promote racism, 
     anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance; 
     and
       (4) calls upon all Americans of good will to reject the 
     forces of hatred and bigotry wherever and in whatever form 
     they may be found.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.Res. 121, the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter before us. I 
want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) for causing 
this embarrassing substitute to be brought to bear. The scheduling and 
the substance of this resolution is an utter affront to all believers 
of civil rights and regular order in the House of Representatives. I 
appeal to every Member to vote against the underhanded processes 
involved in bringing H. Res. 121 to the floor this afternoon.
  First, a word about bipartisan cooperation, since we have all come 
back from Hershey over the weekend. Without the courtesy of a simple 
phone call from the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), this bill was discharged from the 
committee with no hearing, no markup; another example of how Committee 
on the Judiciary Democrats are still being treated unfairly at every 
turn of the process, not even a single phone call. The leadership 
continues to mistreat what is almost an equal number of Democrats as 
Republicans in the House.
  Secondly, this bill, I think, is intended to be serious but it is 
really just a joke. A generalized, amorphous, meaningless resolution is 
an idea taken from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and is now 
so watered down as to be insulting.
  It is a cover for those Republicans who do not want to condemn the 
Council of Conservative Citizens because so many Republican leaders 
have been associated with this racist group. They have cloaked 
themselves in mainstream conservatism, but it is masking an underlying 
racist agenda. Its leader is the former Midwest director of the White 
Citizens Council. Their web site reads like something out of the Third 
Reich.
  What are we doing here today? I urge that the Members vote ``no'' on 
this resolution
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Speaker pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady) will control the 20 minutes on the majority side.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, hatred expressed through racial, 
religious or ethnic prejudice is an affront to the institutions of 
freedom, equal justice and individual rights that together form the 
bedrock of the American republic.
  We need no reminder that bigotry lives on in America. The heinous 
murder of James Byrd, Jr., shocked us all with the graphic portrait of 
racism in its most vile form. So this resolution before us is not meant 
to be a mere reminder, nor is it meant to single out for condemnation 
any one organization or individual.
  To be so particular would be to commit a crime of omission by giving 
a pass to other groups that espouse prejudiced, racist views, in effect 
saying that their bigotry is not so offensive as to be worthy of our 
condemnation. The Southern Poverty Law Center says that 537 hate groups 
exist in the United States. We cannot possibly condemn each bigoted 
organization, person or act individually.
  In any event, there is a better course to take. Today we can make one 
sweeping statement of principle that acknowledges the existence of 
bigotry, condemns those who promote or practice it, and affirms the 
rights of individuals of all races, religions and ethnic backgrounds.
  Passing this resolution will not reverse the horrible tragedy of 
James Byrd's death, nor will it directly prevent future tragedies of 
the same sort. It will not eliminate the more subtle but more common 
kind of bigotry that rears its ugly head every single day, like when a 
man gets on a subway, when a man of a certain color gets on a subway 
car and instinctively sits next to the person of his color instead of a 
person of another color; or when a Jewish family on the block is not 
fully accepted by some of their Protestant neighbors; or when a 
Hispanic kid walks into a store and is watched under a suspicious eye.
  Let us also celebrate the great strides we have made as a Nation and 
as a people in moving toward a more unified America. Let us salute 
great men and women like Frederick Douglas and Rosa Parks and John 
Lewis and Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as 
the millions of others whose names we do not know but whose efforts 
have torn down many of the walls that far too long divided us.
  Every American must keep working toward that goal of a hate-free 
America. So today, in this Chamber, let us stand and be counted. Today 
let us condemn all forms of racial, religious and ethnic prejudice.
  Some will say this afternoon that because this resolution did not 
name a certain group, did not specifically name certain groups, that 
this resolution has no bearing. Why do we make racism and bigotry that 
small? What happens is that if someone names a certain group? Then 
someone else will offer a resolution to name another group, and then 
somebody will organize another resolution to name another group. What 
we get, Mr. Speaker, we get a tit for tat, we get an eye for an eye and 
tooth for a tooth.
  Let me remind my colleagues what Dr. King said. He said when we have 
an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, it leaves America toothless 
and blind.
  Let us carry on the fight for an America where Dr. King's dream can 
become a reality, an America where freedom rings crisply in the ears of 
every member of our national family, and an America where equal justice 
and equal opportunity are no longer mere goals but instead true 
hallmarks of our Nation's character. Please support this resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

[[Page H1542]]

  Mr. Speaker, I say to my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Watts), who could not join the organization that he is covering up 
for, the Council of Conservative Citizens, if he applied, that this is 
not tit for tat.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Wexler), a distinguished attorney and a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary who caused the Republicans to bring this forward.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are debating today is 
unfortunately nothing but a sham because it subverts the intent of the 
147 Republican and Democratic cosponsors of the Wexler-Clyburn-Forbes 
resolution.
  Our bipartisan resolution, House Resolution 35, was introduced seven 
weeks ago, and confronts head-on the ghosts of America's past, 
condemning the racism that has divided us as a Nation and exposing the 
insidious and hateful agenda of the Council of Conservative Citizens, 
the CCC.
  The Watts resolution was introduced just Thursday. It has, I 
understand, no cosponsors. It confronts nothing. It was rushed to the 
floor today without committee consideration. The Watts resolution is 
designed only to derail our resolution and, if successful, hands the 
CCC an unconscionable victory.
  Revealing the true identity of the Council of Conservative Citizens 
is the right thing to do. The CCC attempts to mask its hateful ideology 
by posing as a mainstream conservative organization, but the racist 
agenda of this group is undeniable. The CCC has directed its hatred 
towards millions of Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, 
Jewish Americans, homosexuals, immigrants and virtually all minorities.

                              {time}  1530

  Listen, listen to what the leader of the CCC said about his group's 
strategy. I will replace his use of the N word with the word 
``blacks.''
  ``The Jews are going to fall from the inside, not from the outside, 
and the ``blacks'' will be a puppet on a string for us. The power is 
not out there in the gun, it is inside Congress. . .We've got to do it 
from the inside.''
  The CCC is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and with racially motivated 
crimes on the rise, it is imperative that Congress go on record 
exposing them for the bigots they are. That is why the alternative 
resolution before us today is empty. It gives lip service to condemning 
racism, but it does not specifically cite the CCC, nor does it 
strengthen our civil rights laws. It does nothing real. It offers 
cover, not content.
  In 1994 when this Congress voted overwhelmingly to condemn the 
racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic speech of Khalid Abdul Muhammad of 
the Nation of Islam, there was no outcry about singling out one man for 
criticism. There was no rush to promote a generic statement about all 
racism, instead of identifying a specific and dangerous speech that had 
outraged millions of Americans.
  So I guess what it all comes down to is that when it is a black 
person who is a racist it is okay for Congress to condemn him, but when 
it is a white person or a white group that is racist, then Congress 
does nothing, and we become, as the chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde) said in 1994, accessories by silence, by 
inaction.
  I respectfully urge Members to vote no on House Resolution 121. Let 
us bring House Resolution 35 to the floor for a meaningful vote.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friend, 
the gentleman from Florida, that it is an amazing thing to me that over 
the last 4 years when I have been attacked, when I have had racist 
comments made about me, my friend from Florida never came to the floor 
and spoke up.
  The gentleman from Michigan, when I have had racist attacks made 
against me by people in the white community back in Oklahoma, the State 
Democrat party back in Oklahoma, Slate magazine, which is a national 
magazine, no one ran to the floor to condemn that.
  I think my resolution is much broader. My resolution condemns the New 
Order Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, Aryan Nation, 
the CCC. Anybody that advocates these racist, bigoted, vile views is 
condemned in my resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would let my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Watts) know that I did not know he was attacked. If he was 
attacked in his home area, it was by right-wing zealots that may have 
been in the Council of Conservative Citizens.
  But since the gentleman mentioned the names of these hate groups, why 
does the gentleman not put them in the resolution? Why do we not just 
debate them?
  The gentleman spoke about no one came to his defense. I would have 
loved to have come to the defense of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Watts).
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 121, which was introduced by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), affirms the opposition of the 
Congress to all forms of racism and bigotry. The resolution recognizes 
the grievous harm caused by racism, and emphasizes the responsibility 
of every Member of Congress to foster the best traditions and highest 
values of this Nation.
  At the heart of the American experience is the ideal of respect for 
the dignity of the individual set forth in the Declaration of 
Independence. All men are created equal, and are endowed by their 
creator with certain unalienable rights.
  This ideal has never been more eloquently expressed than by Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Junior. According to Dr. King, the image of God 
``is universally shared in equal portions by all men. There is no 
graded scale of essential worth. Every human being has etched in his 
personality the indelible stamp of the Creator. . . The worth of an 
individual does not lie in the measure of his intellect, his racial 
origin, or his social position. Human worth lies in relatedness to God. 
Whenever this is recognized, 'whiteness' and 'blackness' pass away as 
determinants in a relationship, and son and brother are substituted.''
  Dr. King explicitly linked this view of man and woman created in the 
image of God to the philosophical foundation of the United States. This 
is what Dr. King says about the foundation of America:
  ``Its pillars were soundly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-
Christian heritage: All men are made in the image of God; all men are 
brothers; all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of 
dignity and worth; every man has rights that are neither conferred by 
nor derived from the state, they are God-given.''
  These fundamental principles are at odds with any theory that 
distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. 
These principles condemn any effort to reduce individual human beings 
to the status of racial entities.
  In this resolution, the House of Representatives recognizes that 
anyone, or any group, whether they are the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan 
Nation, or the Council of Conservative Citizens, which fails to honor 
and respect these principles has attacked the very foundation of our 
Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 13 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, as an original author of the Martin Luther King holiday 
bill, and one who worked and knew Dr. King, I am sure happy to see that 
at least the other side has been reading about King and have 
appropriate quotations to bring to this debate, falsely implying that 
he might not be supporting what we are trying to do.
  The gentleman ought to name the organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Michael Forbes), pointing out that he could not get time 
on the other side.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us belabors the obvious, that 
Congress is opposed to racism and hatred. The people watching this 
debate must be scratching their heads thinking, but surely this most 
American of all American institutions is already against

[[Page H1543]]

racism and bigotry and the intolerant acts this that seek to divide us 
as a people.
  Certainly an integral part of the charter of this place, it would 
seem evident, is our basic, unadulterated opposition to racism. So why 
this effort?
  The resolution before us denounces ``all those who practice or 
promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious 
intolerance.'' It is a general statement by Congress against racism and 
bigotry, where a specific one is not only warranted but demanded.
  The need for a swift and sure condemnation of the activities of a 
specific group, in this case the Council of Conservative Citizens, is 
necessary because under the cloak of portraying itself as a Main Street 
grass roots organization dedicated to conservative ideals, the CCC 
further attempted to legitimatize itself by having Members of Congress 
appear before the group. Where its words and its rhetoric would never 
render this hate group credible, they sought to have Members of this 
very institution legitimatize their very illegitimate behavior.
  It is worth noting that Members have denounced the group's 
activities. The CCC has been noted as a direct outgrowth of the White 
Citizens Council of the fifties and sixties, known as the White-Collar 
Clan. A glance at their web site, as we have heard previously, shows 
they continue an allegiance to promoting anti-Semitic, racist rhetoric 
and ideas.
  When an organization or a group such as the CCC attempts to misuse 
the good offices of those who are elected to represent all the people, 
the Congress does have an obligation, I believe, to take decisive 
action against such groups.
  In 1994, it has been noted that the Congress swiftly dealt with the 
hate-mongering remarks of Khalid Muhammed when he appeared before Kean 
College. Three hundred and sixty-one to 34, his bigotry and hatred was 
denounced on the Floor of this very Chamber.
  The matter before us restates an opposition to bigotry and hatred 
that should be evident. I might point out that later on, this body will 
also deal with a specific reference to anti-Semitic comments made by 
the members of the Russian Duma, so we do single out people when we 
feel they are wrong. Unfortunately, the resolution fails to repudiate 
an organization that sought legitimacy by involving Members of this 
great institution.
  I would encourage reconsideration and allow House Resolution 35 to 
repudiate, as we hoped it would.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would respond to a couple of points made by the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  In quoting Dr. King, I did not mean to imply that he would take one 
position or another in the controversy between the two sides here 
today. I simply quoted him for the fundamental proposition concerning 
the nature of racism and the nature of the political foundations of 
this country, and I believe that is something that all of us could 
agree on. I hope that we all would agree on it. I know that the 
gentleman from Michigan would agree with what Dr. King had to say, 
though he may disagree with the way it was used.
  I would also point out that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) 
did not request time from this side, so the statement that the 
gentleman made that the gentleman from New York was unable to receive 
time from this side is simply untrue. If the gentleman had requested 
it, it would have been granted to him. No such request was made.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Canady), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, on which I am proud to serve, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to just maybe sit back, stand back, 
take a deep breath, and think a little bit about the many things that 
we have in common on both sides of the aisle, and practice what is far 
too frequently lacking in this Chamber and in the surrounding hallways, 
and that is a little bit of consistency.
  Mr. Speaker, the Minority Leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) spoke on at least two occasions to a predecessor group of the 
CCC, associated therewith. He has since condemned groups such as the 
CCC, as I have and as I do. Yet, in those who rail against anybody who 
might have inadvertently spoken to this group, strangely silent is any 
criticism remotely similar to the criticism leveled at others if it 
just happens to be somebody on their side of the aisle.
  So I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
practice a little consistency, both with regard to those people who 
might have spoken to such groups that we all have and always will 
condemn, as well as a little consistency with regard to those groups 
that we do condemn, such as the CCC.
  Arguing that one person should be treated differently because of the 
color of their skin, the church in which they worship, the country of 
their birth, it always has been, on this side of the aisle and on that 
side of the aisle, and always will be wrong.
  Our country fought a great Civil War, as a matter of fact, over such 
principles. Yet we still remain troubled today by a small number of 
Americans who persist in arguing against a color-blind society. Yes, 
those associated with and under the label of the CCC do that. We 
condemn them. I condemn them. I join my colleague from Florida in 
condemning them and my colleague from Michigan in condemning them.
  I would certainly hope that they would believe in the sincerity of 
these remarks delivered in these hallowed halls by myself, the same as 
I have done in writing, just the same as they believe it when one of 
their colleagues condemns a group they might have spoken with, and 
found out later that they harbor views that are abhorrent to the 
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), just as 
they are abhorrent to me.

                              {time}  1545

  So let us step back, practice a little bit of consistency, a little 
bit of fairness, and recognize that we have a great deal in common in 
supporting this resolution today.
  Maybe it does not go as far as some Members would like, but I do 
think there is great merit in passing a resolution worded as the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) has that goes far beyond simply 
condemning a specific group and being silent on other groups.
  These matters are too important. We should support this. Condemn all 
racist views on whichever side of the political spectrum and put this 
matter to rest right now once and for all.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution, not 
because of what it says, but because of what it fails to say and 
because of the procedure which brings this resolution to the floor and 
what that procedure says to all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard Dr. King quoted here pretty often today. I 
would like to share with my colleagues another quote from Dr. King. Dr. 
King wrote, as he sat in the Birmingham city jail, that ``we are going 
to be made to repent in this generation, not just for the vitriolic 
words and deeds of bad people, but for the appalling silence of good 
people.''
  I think that this resolution is silent over what we are here to 
denounce today. It is fine for us to reaffirm the obvious, but I think 
that the Congress must now condemn the kind of rhetoric, the kind of 
ideas, the kinds of thoughts that are being enunciated by the Council 
of Conservative Citizens.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) has asked, why have we not 
defended him against certain similar instances. The fact of the matter 
is I do not remember the gentleman from Oklahoma defending me when the 
Council of Conservative Citizens attacked me in my last two campaigns. 
Probably he did not know I was attacked. Of course we did not know he 
was attacked either.
  The fact is, though, we are here with 150 cosponsors with a 
resolution that

[[Page H1544]]

we have asked to be brought to this floor to give all of us an 
opportunity to express our views on this group of people. We have not 
been granted that opportunity. I do not see where this resolution in 
any way takes away from what we are attempting to do.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should be today condemning 
specific expressions by a specific group, the Council of Conservative 
Citizens. I do not think that we can afford to ignore this kind of vile 
rhetoric in the climate in which we live, a climate of racial 
profiling, a climate of ethnic bashing, a climate of religious 
intolerance. It is time for us to speak up and stand up for those 
people that we are here to represent.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember the words of Martin Niemoller of Germany who 
once wrote: In Germany, first they came for the Jews, and I did not 
speak up because I was not Jewish. Then they came for the Catholics. I 
did not speak up, because I was Protestant. Then they came for the 
trade unionists and the industrialists, and I did not speak up because 
I was not a member of either group. Finally, they came for me. And by 
that time, there was no one left to speak up.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 121, 
condemning hatred and bigotry in all forms. But I rise today with a 
certain amount of sadness about the nature of this debate. If my 
colleagues do not mind, I would like to talk in a personal way about my 
family and life experience as it comes to this issue and what my hope 
is for my service and my contribution to this body.
  In 1963, the day I was born, my father was elected as county attorney 
in Jones County, Mississippi, one of the most violent and turbulent 
places in the country during the civil rights initiative. During that 
period of time, he testified against the Imperial Wizard of the KKK, 
Sam Bowers.
  In 1968, because of his stand against the Klan and against the 
violence, and because he testified against Sam Bowers, he lost his next 
election. But I can tell my colleagues that, as his son, I am very 
proud of what he did during that time. He left me a rich legacy, an 
example of courage. I hope I can do the same for my five boys.
  In 1969, my first grade class was the first to be integrated in 
Mississippi. I want to be part of a new generation that brings 
reconciliation among our races.
  This debate today, I am afraid, is not about reconciliation, and it 
is not about unity. It is about dividing. It is about personal 
destruction. It is about partisan advantage.
  I hope we can all step back and look not only at the objective of 
racial reconciliation and condemning all bigotry and all hatred, but to 
see it this way, that this House, that this body can come together in 
everything we do with a true goal, a true purpose of reconciliation, of 
unity. Then this country and this House will be a better place because 
of it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I was so moved by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Pickering). Could the gentleman from Mississippi explain how racial 
conciliation can come from the Council of Conservative Citizens, a 
racist group?
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, we all know why we are here. 
We are here because of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist 
group. This resolution does not speak to that. It is silent. By its 
silence, it speaks volumes. It speaks volumes of this institution's 
refusal to confront racism.
  The reason this institution refuses to confront racism is because it 
is uncomfortable for some Members here, and that is just too bad 
because, until we confront racism, it is going to continue. If we 
simply excuse it, whitewash it, apologize for it or ignore it, it is 
going to continue.
  There is nothing wrong with the words in this resolution. They simply 
do not confront the real problem. I think it is ironic that on the same 
day that we have a resolution, in essence, condemning a member of the 
Duma for antisemitic comments that we do not do the same thing to 
confront racism in our own country. We are ready to condemn it in 
Russia, but we are not ready to condemn it here; and that is the 
tragedy of what we are doing today.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) that I have felt racism. It is not fun. It 
is very uncomfortable.
  So I would just say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I believe I know 
his heart on this issue and I know that his motives are true or that 
they are in the right place, but we are talking about naming names. I 
would like for the gentleman from Wisconsin to name names as to who is 
uncomfortable with stating that racism is wrong.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to H. Res. 121 
denouncing all individuals and all organizations that would seek to 
perpetuate hate against any groups or individuals.
  We are all aware that there has been a dramatic increase in the 
number of hate crimes perpetrated against minorities in the United 
States. Too often we hear in the news of acts of violence perpetrated 
against groups or individuals simply because of their race or 
ethnicity.
  The recent incident in Jasper, Texas, resulting in the tragic death 
of James Byrd, remains a strong reminder that Congress needs to address 
these kind of crimes to ensure that those who commit them will be 
punished accordingly.
  Many of us in the Congress who have witnessed such acts firsthand of 
bigotry, racism, and prejudice are deeply committed to doing all we can 
and all that is possible to diminish these acts committed by people who 
utilize prejudice to spread an agenda of hate among others simply 
because of differences of race, color, or creed that may exist between 
them.
  The passage of this measure, H.R. 121, affirming the opposition of 
Congress to all forms of racism and bigotry, I think is an important 
first step toward recognizing such crimes as well as ensuring that at 
long last we may see the beginnings to an end of such unjust acts. 
Accordingly, I am pleased to lend my support to this measure and urge 
our colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts). He asked me to name names. I said 
the institution. I think that this institution has an obligation to 
come out against racism. That is the name I name.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Watts 
resolution. This is just another example of the Republicans trying to 
have their cake and eat it too. On one hand, they claim to be against 
racism, but the Republican leadership refuses to condemn the Council of 
Conservative Citizens, or CCC, a modern-day KKK.
  By killing a resolution condemning the racism and bigotry of the 
Council of Conservative Citizens, the Republican leadership denied 
itself the opportunity to attack the problem of racism.
  House Resolution 35, of which I am an original cosponsor, has 142 
cosponsors, including 13 Republicans, as well as the support of a broad 
base of civil rights leaders, religious organizations, and conservative 
activists. This has never been brought to the floor.
  House Resolution 121, which was dropped last Friday, was rushed to 
the floor without even a single cosponsor and does not mention this 
terrible group. Fellows, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, 
and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
  By killing a resolution condemning ``the racism and bigotry espoused 
by the Council of Conservative Citizens,'' the Republican leadership 
denied itself the opportunity to attack the

[[Page H1545]]

problem of this new, more subtle kind of racism head on, the type 
sponsored by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
  This is just another example of the Republicans trying to have their 
cake and eat it too. On one hand, they claim to be against racism and 
attack it, yet on the other, members of their leadership have ties to 
the CCC, which is in reality, a new form of the KKK. In fact, the CCC 
is an outgrowth of the abhorrent ``White Citizens Council,'' which 
helped enforce segregation in the 1950s and 1960s. With ties to the Ku 
Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, the CCC promotes a 
blatantly racist agenda, while masking its true ideology by acting as a 
mainstream conservative organization. Indeed, I say that if it looks 
like duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is in fact, a 
duck.
  I believe that House Resolution 121, which is merely a watered down 
version of House Resolution 35, was brought to the floor in order to 
shield the Republican party from criticism for their relationship with 
the Council of Conservative Citizens. Indeed, while House Resolution 
35, which has 142 cosponsors, including 13 Republicans, as well as the 
support of a broad base of civil rights leaders, religious 
organizations, and conservative activists, was never brought to the 
House Floor. This resolution, which was dropped just last Friday, was 
rushed to the Floor without even a single cosponsor. I believe this is 
a completely inauthentic resolution, and is being utilized purely as a 
political ploy to blunt criticism of certain members of the Republican 
party for their affiliation with the Conservative Council.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the House Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to join the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) as a cosponsor of this important resolution 
condemning racism.
  America was founded on the fundamental principle that God endowed 
each and every human being with an innate value and equality which 
stands above any man-made institution or authority.
  This fundamental principle that human beings, with their rights and 
responsibilities, are the foundation upon which all good societies are 
built, is what has separated this great Nation from nearly every other 
civilization in history.
  That said, we know human beings are flawed and that this country 
suffers from many of the same evils that we see tearing apart people 
and communities across the globe.
  Racism divides us. Bigotry closes our minds and our hearts to others. 
Religious and ethnic intolerance eat away at our soul and reduce our 
humanity.
  Therefore, we must repeat the message of racial and religious 
tolerance, not only to ourselves, but to our children who are the 
future.
  We rise today unequivocally, not to state that our past is pure, not 
that we are without sin, not that we will not fail in the future, but 
that we will strive to live up to Abraham Lincoln's vision of America, 
``A nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that 
all men are created equal.''

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, to clear the record the minority leader has 
not spoken to the Council of Conservative Citizens. His civil rights 
record is excellent and he is a sponsor of the resolution condemning 
the CCC.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee), the dedicated civil rights and 
constitutional expert on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  I imagine that the people of the United States are wondering what 
happens here? What have we wrought, Mr. Speaker? What have we brought 
about? We have our good friends, the Republicans, debating that they 
are against bigotry and racism, and I believe in their hearts and in 
their minds they are.
  I had hoped, having visited the Gettysburg scene this past weekend, 
where the north and south rose up against each other, that we would 
come today on the floor of the House and join together as one voice 
against racism and bigotry, and that one voice is H.R. Resolution 35, 
the resolution by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) that specifically denounces 
the CCC.
  I ask my colleagues, why can we not come together as one to recognize 
that racism and bigotry is wrong? In this instance it is one 
organization that has gone against Jews in anti-Semitism, denigrating 
American leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. We lose 
today the spirit of unity and the reflection that the United States 
Congress stands as one by putting 121 over 35.
  I ask the leadership to please bring us together and vote for H.R. 
35. Bring it to the floor. We are not angry, we want to be one. The CCC 
should be denounced.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair 
concerning the amount of time remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman Florida (Mr. 
Canady) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) has 1 minute and 35 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  My colleagues, it can now be perceived that this bill is a ruse; that 
it is totally characteristic of Republicans who want civil rights on 
the cheap in a futile attempt to show the country that they are really 
not Neanderthals. But when it comes to real substance, they attack 
civil rights laws at nearly every turn. We do not need meaningless 
words. We want action. But when it comes to real action, the Republican 
Congress turns its back.
  When we try to raise the problem of civil rights laws being enforced, 
they respond by repealing key antidiscrimination laws.
  We see the horrors of hate crimes every day. Jasper, Texas. James 
Byrd as an example. But we cannot move on hate crimes legislation.
  We raise problems of police brutality, the spraying of 41 bullets 
into an unarmed black man. The tragic cases of Abner Louima and Mr. 
Diablo. We get no response from the committee that has jurisdiction. We 
could not even get funds for a hearing or a stenographer in Brooklyn, 
New York.
  So we try to fully fund enforcement of civil rights laws at the 
Justice Department, but the Republican members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary turn their backs on us. And now they ask us in good faith to 
support these words. We cannot do it, my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of H. Res. 121.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, again I repeat that hatred, 
expressed through racial, religious or ethnic prejudice, is an affront 
to the institutions of freedom, equal justice and individual rights 
that together form the bedrock of the American republic.
  H. Res. 121 urges the House of Representatives to oppose all, A-L-L, 
all hate organizations, including the Council of Conservative Citizens 
and others. The New Order Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the National 
Alliance, Aryan Nations, the National Association for the Advancement 
of White People, Knights of Freedom, and any other that would espouse 
the vile views that these organizations espouse needs to be rejected, 
and H. Res. 121 does that. I ask for its passage from my colleagues.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my 
colleagues, Congressmen Wexler, Clyburn, and Forbes and urge the 
Speaker to pull H. Res. 121, which simply affirms Congress' opposition 
to all forms of racism and bigotry, and substitute for it H. Res. 35, 
which condemns specific acts and expressions of racism by specific 
individuals and groups such as the Council of Conservative Citizens 
(CCC). H. Res. 35 deals with an important issue that affects all 
Americans, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. We must 
denounce racism and bigotry because it is dividing our country. We 
cannot tolerate narrow-mindedness from anyone or any group.

[[Page H1546]]

  We must denounce racism and bigotry! The Red Shirts, the Knights of 
the White Camellia, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Council of Conservative 
Citizens are all groups aimed at preventing equal protection under the 
law for all Americans--and we must denounce them specifically for their 
actions and their rhetoric.
  The Ku Klux Klan was formed in 1866 and it was a secret body that 
soon reached throughout the South and part of the North. Some people 
formed the Ku Klux Klan to stop newly freed slaves from exercising 
their rights as citizens pursuant to the 13th, 14th, and 15th 
Amendments to the Constitution.
  We must denounce racism and bigotry! Traditionally. Klansmen, as they 
call themselves, were masked and dressed in white, and usually operated 
under a cover of darkness. But today, this group has traded its robe 
and hood for suits, ties and briefcases. They have traded their 
billboards for Internet websites, but we still know them because their 
rhetoric of hate remains the same.
  Historically these groups have singled out all Negroes, Catholics, 
Jews, and foreigners that displease them by threats, whippings, setting 
fires or anything that will make their victim submit to the terroristic 
threats.
  We must denounce racism and bigotry! This resolution will serve as 
notice that Congress condemns racism and that it has no place in an 
orderly society. The Constitution of the United States guarantees every 
citizen the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A 
prosperous American must develop a mutual respect and tolerance of 
diversity.
  We must denounce racism and bigotry! America is a nation of migrants. 
A mosaic of different cultures and traditions, and that's why this is a 
great nation. We can no longer remain silent on this important issue. 
We can no longer ignore the fact that specific groups, like the CCC and 
the KKK, exist in this society and do nothing but foster hatred for 
humankind.
  We must denounce racism and bigotry! Everyone must pull together to 
stamp out hate and bitterness. The Twenty-first century is upon us--all 
of Europe is unifying in a cooperative effort to work together for 
financial synergy, and we here still deal with groups unwilling to 
acknowledge that segregation has ended.
  We must denounce racism and bigotry! We must become a testimony for 
and nation, under God with liberty and justice of all. We must come 
together as Americans to make the pledge of allegiance a reality for 
everyone.
  We must denounce racism and bigotry! Racism has no place in America--
we must begin to move beyond the color line--put aside our racial 
differences--move our country forward. Red, Yellow, Black, or White we 
are all precious in God's sight.
  We must denounce racism and bigotry! it is essential that we vote NO 
on H. Res. 121 and I urge the House Leadership to schedule H. Res. 35 
for a floor vote. Congress must take an active role through legislation 
and publicly state that acts of racism and bigotry are divisive tools 
that are utilized by small groups, including the CCC, to prevent unity 
and harmony amongst Americans.
  We must denounce groups that organize simply to disseminate messages 
harmful to our society. Congress must act, in unison, not only to 
condemn racism and bigotry, but also to condemn acts of racism and 
bigotry. I urge each of you to vote to support H. Res. 35.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I will not waste time 
denouncing the CCC. This organization has already been exposed as the 
racist, hate-mongering, bigoted group that we all know it to be.
  H. Res. 121 was brought before this body today as an attempt to 
``whitewash'' real, meaningful legislation that will condemn a specific 
group for specific acts. It is not the altruistic piece of legislation 
Members on the other side of the aisle want you to think it is. To the 
contrary, it is a prime example that the CCC has been successful in 
achieving its goal of infiltrating the United States Congress.
  All of a sudden, the reasons given by Republicans for their 1994 
denunciation of Kalhid Mohammed don't apply to this legislation. Even 
today, the Republicans have said it is acceptable to condemn the 
members of a Russian organization for making anti-Semitic statements, 
but they won't allow the House to take the same action against an 
American group that has attacked blacks, Latinos, immigrants, 
homosexuals, and Jews.
  Republican actions warrant a specific question, ``What is the problem 
with denouncing the blatantly racist actions of an American group that 
has its roots planted in the cesspool of racial separatism and white 
supremacy?''
  Maybe the answer to this question lies in statements made by Gordon 
Baum, the national CEO of the CCC. I think it explains why Republicans, 
especially Southern Republicans, refuse to distance themselves from 
this group:
  When Jim Nicholson, RNC Chairman, asked Republicans to distance 
themselves from the group, Baum said, ``He doesn't know what he is 
talking about.''
  Baum said that Nicholson is alienating key GOP voters: ``The Wallace-
Reagan Democrats are the ones who made the Republicans have enough 
votes to win. Without the Wallace-Reagan Democrats, the Republicans 
aren't going to have near the voting strength.''
  Baum contended Nicholson and other party leaders ``are doing a pretty 
good job running them [white, working-class voters] off * * * Sometimes 
it's remarkable how dumb they are. They let the liberal media run their 
campaigns. They apparently don't even know why these people vote 
Republicans half the time.
  Lott recently has renounced the group, and Baum warned that the 
majority leader could pay a political price in his home State. ``It 
could be [there will be a backlash]. If he keeps it up, if he keeps 
distancing himself from everything. A sizable segment knows the truth, 
that we are very much in tune with the people of Mississippi on most 
issues.''
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 121 is deceptive. It is a distraction, and it is 
doomed for failure. Once the Republicans finish trying to pass this 
farce of a bill off on the American public, I have a fence they can use 
the rest of their white wash on. That's about the only thing its good 
for.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 121.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The postponed votes on the three earlier suspensions will be voted on 
following this vote. This will be a 15-minute vote followed by three 5-
minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 254, 
nays 152, answered ``present'' 24, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               YEAS--254

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey

[[Page H1547]]


     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--152

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Spratt
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--24

     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Clayton
     Clement
     Cramer
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     Dicks
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Forbes
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nadler
     Price (NC)
     Scott
     Slaughter
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Watt (NC)
     Wise

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Emerson
     Lantos
     Myrick
     Stupak

                              {time}  1630

  Messrs. MOAKLEY, HINOJOSA, MALONEY of Connecticut, DINGELL, SANFORD 
and BARCIA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. ROTHMAN, GREEN of Texas, SANDLIN, COSTELLO and McNULTY 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Ms. ESHOO and Messrs. BOYD, CRAMER and CROWLEY, and Ms. LOFGREN 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
  Mr. NADLER, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mrs. LOWEY, Ms. SLAUGHTER, 
Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. WISE and Mr. CLEMENT changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``present.''
  So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 60, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________