Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "158700708",
    "label": "Confederate Flag [2]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/158700708"
}

{
    "id": "158700708",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/158700708",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Confederate Flag [2]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/158700708",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Irene Bueno's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2017/2017-1120-S/42-t-7367472-20171120S-011-010-2019.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2017/2017-1120-S/42-t-7367472-20171120S-011-010-2019.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2017/2017-1120-S/42-t-7367472-20171120S-011-010-2019.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/158700708",
    "naId": 158700708,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-7367472-20171120S-011-010-2019"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2017/2017-1120-S/42-t-7367472-20171120S-011-010-2019.pdf",
    "mediaId": "d79b0c5c3a3208a6",
    "ocrText": "Page 3\n2ND STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nCopyright 1999 Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc.\nThe Bulletin's Frontrunner\nOctober 20, 1999\nLENGTH: 195 words\nHEADLINE: Clintons Asked To Honor NAACP Boycott Of South Carolina.\nBODY:\nThe State/AP (10/20) reported, \"A Columbia attorney is urging Bill and\nHillary Rodham Clinton to forgo their annual New Year's trip to Hilton Head\nIsland to honor the NAACP boycott of the state. This weekend, the National\nAssociation for the Advancement of Colored People formally called for a tourism\nboycott of South Carolina until the Confederate flag is removed from the State\nHouse dome.\" The Clintons, who \"are friends with Renaissance Weekend\nco-founders and part-time Hilton Head residents Phil and Linda Lader, have\nattended \"the private New Year's Eve event for 14 consecutive years. The event\ndraws high- profile guests from around the world to its off-the-record\ndiscussions. The State continued, \"In letters to the White House this month,\nColumbia lawyer Tom Turnipseed asked the Clintons to stay away in a show of\nsolidarity and to boost Hillary Clinton's New York senatorial campaign.' White\nHouse press secretary Joe Lockhart \"said Tuesday that no decision had been made\non the Clintons' New Year's plans and he did not know if they would take the\nboycott into account. The boycott is set to begin on Jan. 1, when Renaissance\nWeekend ends. \"\nLANGUAGE: ENGLISH\nLOAD-DATE: October 20, 1999\nPage 3\n4TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nThe Associated Press State & Local Wire\nThe materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. These\nmaterials may not be republished without the express written consent of The\nAssociated Press.\nOctober 19, 1999, Tuesday, BC cycle\nSECTION: State and Regional\nLENGTH: 383 words\nHEADLINE: Clintons urged to honor NAACP boycott, avoid Renaissance Weekend\nDATELINE: CHARLESTON, S.C.\nBODY:\nA Columbia attorney is urging Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton to forgo their\nannual New Year's trip to Hilton Head Island to honor the NAACP boycott of the\nstate.\nThis weekend, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People\nformally called for a tourism boycott of South Carolina until the Confederate\nbattle flag is removed from the Statehouse dome.\nThe Clintons, who are friends with Renaissance Weekend co-founders and\npart-time Hilton Head residents Phil and Linda Lader, have attended the private\nNew Year's Eve event for 14 consecutive years. The event draws high-profile\nguests from around the world to its off-the-record discussions.\nIn letters to the White House this month, Columbia lawyer Tom Turnipseed\nasked the Clintons to stay away in a show of solidarity and to boost Mrs.\nClinton's New York senatorial campaign.\n\"I strongly support your candidacy,' Turnipseed wrote the first lady. \"I ask\nyou to exercise leadership and stand up against this continuing symbol of\neconomic and social oppression of African-Americans by supporting our struggle.'\nTurnipseed also asked Renaissance Weekend founder Phil Lader to move the\nannual gathering out of South Carolina. Lader, Clinton's appointee as U.S.\nambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was\ntraveling Monday and could not be reached for comment.\nWhite House press secretary Joe Lockhart said Tuesday that no decision had\nbeen made on the Clintons' New Year's plans and he did not know if they would\ntake the boycott into account.\nThe boycott is set to begin on Jan. 1, when Renaissance Weekend ends.\nSouth Carolina NAACP Executive Director Dwight James would not discuss\nTurnipseed's letter Monday, but group spokesman Jim Wiggins said James will\nPage 4\nThe Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 19, 1999\naddress it formally during a news conference Thursday at the start of the\nSouth Carolina NAACP convention. That convention has been moved to Charlotte,\nN.C., because of the boycott.\nThe local chapter also is considering stepping up its campaign to include\ngoods made in South Carolina, especially by high-profile manufacturers, such as\nBMW, Michelin, General Electric and Hitachi.\n\"We're considering cars and tires,\" said Nelson Rivers III, NAACP national\nfield operations director. \"The pain has to be spread around.\"\nLANGUAGE: ENGLISH\nLOAD-DATE: October 19, 1999\nPage 3\n15TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nCopyright 1999 The National Journal Group, Inc.\nThe Hotline\nOctober 18, 1999\nSECTION: IN THE STATES\nLENGTH: 82 words\nHEADLINE: SOUTH CAROLINA: NAACP SAYS NO TO SC\nBODY:\nThe NAACP's national board on 10/16 unanimously approved a\ntourism boycott of SC until the state stops flying the\nConfederate flag from its Capitol. The NAACP also asked the\nJustice Dept. to investigate whether flying the flag \"infringed\non the civil rights of black people.\" The tourism boycott will\nbegin 1/00, but NAACP officials said that 42 \"state and national\norganizations\" have already cancelled meetings in SC\n(AP/Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 10/17).\nLANGUAGE: ENGLISH\nLOAD-DATE: October 18, 1999\nPage 3\n12TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nThe Associated Press State & Local Wire\nThe materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. These\nmaterials may not be republished without the express written consent of The\nAssociated Press.\nOctober 18, 1999, Monday, BC cycle\nSECTION: State and Regional\nLENGTH: 105 words\nDATELINE: COLUMBIA, S.C.\nBODY:\nAn Oct. 15 Associated Press story that said Seventh-day Adventists would\nmove a youth conference to North Carolina because the Confederate flag flies\nabove South Carolina's Statehouse failed to specify which branch of the church\nwas involved.\nThe mostly black South Atlantic Conference of the church joins more than 40\ngroups that have dropped plans for South Carolina events in response to a\nboycott called by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored\nPeople.\nThe mostly white Carolinas Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has made no\nplans to support the boycott, its president, Kenneth Coonley, said Monday.\nLANGUAGE: ENGLISH\nLOAD-DATE: October 18, 1999\nPage 3\n9TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nCopyright 1999 The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)\nThe Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)\nOctober 19, 1999, Tuesday, POST AND COURIER EDITION\nSECTION: A, Pg. 1\nLENGTH: 494 words\nHEADLINE: Clintons urged to honor boycott\nBODY:\nAH:Skip Renaissance Weekend, leading Democrat advises H:Color mug of\nTurnipseed BY: SCHUYLER KROPF Of The Post and Courier\nA leading Democrat says Bill and Hillary Clinton will have to skip the New\nYear's Eve Renaissance Weekend on Hilton Head Island to honor the NAACP's\nConfederate flag boycott.\nIn letters to the White House this month, Columbia lawyer Tom Turnipseed\nasked the Clintons to stay away in a show of solidarity and to boost her New\nYork senatorial campaign.\n\"I strongly support your candidacy,\" Turnipseed wrote the first lady. \"I ask\nyou to exercise leadership and stand up against this continuing symbol of\neconomic and social oppression of African-Americans by supporting our struggle.\"\nIn a separate telephone interview Monday, Turnipseed added that the stakes\nare too great in the New York race for Mrs. Clinton to make an appearance in\nSouth Carolina this year.\n\"I don't think Hillary can possibly show up given the political situation of\nrunning for Senate in New York, he said.\nTurnipseed also asked Renaissance Weekend founder Phil Lader to move the\nannual gathering out of South Carolina.\nLader, Clinton's appointee as U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great\nBritain and Northern Ireland, was traveling in the U.S. on Monday and could not\nbe reached.\nA White House spokesperson said the first couple's New Year's schedule had\nnot been set and couldn't comment about their sympathies to the NAACP boycott.\nThe boycott is set to officially begin on Jan. 1, when Renaissance Weekend\nends.\nS.C. NAACP Executive Director Dwight James declined to comment Monday about\nTurnipseed's letter, but group spokesman Jim Wiggins said James will address it\nformally during a press conference Thursday at the start of the S.C. NAACP\nconvention.\nPage 4\nThe Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), October 19, 1999\nThat convention has already been moved to Charlotte because of the boycott.\nBoycott organizers have never hidden their push to make Renaissance Weekend a\ntarget because of its high profile draw in the days between Christmas and Jan. 1\nevery year. The Clintons have attended Renaissance Weekend every year since the\nmid-1980s.\nAn organization pamphlet describes the Renaissance getaway as a forum for\npeople \"to broaden their perspectives, stretch their minds, share their views\nand their experiences.\"\nIt draws politicians, artists, writers, business leaders, judges, military\nleaders and others to Hilton Head each year for off-the-record discussions.\nLader, former head of the U.S. Small Business Administration who held other\nhigh posts as well in the Clinton White House, is perhaps best known as the\nfounder and co-host, with his wife Linda.\nHe is also a former president of Winthrop University and was an unsuccessful\ngubernatorial candidate in 1986.\nTurnipseed, who is white, has been a NAACP member for 25 years. He lost in a\nbid for the attorney general's post last year.\nMrs. Clinton is expected to formally declare her Senate bid in January.\nLOAD-DATE: October 20, 1999\nPage 3\n28TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nCopyright 1999 The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)\nThe Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)\nOctober 17, 1999, Sunday, SUNDAY EDITION\nSECTION: I, Pg. 1\nLENGTH: 1262 words\nHEADLINE: A CIVIL ACTION\nWill a tourism boycott by black groups coming to South Carolina help bring down\nthe Confederate flag over the Statehouse?\nBYLINE: STEPHANIE HARVIN; Of The Post and Courier\nBODY:\nBoycott.\nThe term was coined after Capt. Charles C. Boycott, a land agent in Ireland,\nwas ostracized by his tenants for charging high rents in 1880.\nThe definition, according to Webster's New World College Dictionary, is: 1.\nto join together in refusing to deal with, so as to punish, coerce, etc. or 2.\nto refuse to buy, sell, or use.\nThis summer, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People\nstarted using that definition when it called for a tourism boycott by black\ngroups coming to South Carolina in protest of the continued flying of the\nConfederate flag over the Statehouse.\nAt stake is the more, than $ 280 million that black travelers are believed to\nspend each year in the state. In response to the boycott, some organizations,\nsuch as the National Urban League, the S.C. Legislative Black Caucus, the N.C.\nAcademy of Trial Lawyers, the Association of State Democratic Party Chairs and\nthe Southern Christian Leadership Conference have already canceled events in\nSouth Carolina.\nWhat boycotts do\nBut do boycotts really accomplish what they set out to do? And how do you\nmeasure the impact?\n\"Impact of a boycott is not just linked to the dollars involved, \" says\nWilliam Moore, a political science professor at the College of Charleston.\n\"There is also an image factor that is more intangible and harder to\nmeasure.'\n=\nMoore sees the current NAACP boycott as having \"an insignificant impact\"\nsince it mainly targets black businesses and conventions coming to South\nCarolina.\nPage 4\nThe Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), October 17, 1999\n\"It is probably a more minimal impact than if they were targeting all the\ntourism industry.\"\nMoore says boycotts used during the civil rights era were successful when\nthey began to hurt businessmen who were losing money, and not just the political\nstructure of the times.\n\"Those (boycotts) went beyond sit-ins at the lunch counters. The civil rights\nmovement targeted Woolworth's, and not just those in the South, but in the\nNorth, too. \"\nBoycotts were only one factor in several that came into play during\ndesegregation, says Moore. And there are always those who fight on the other\nside.\n\"There was what is called the Citizens' Council that was pro-segregation. It\nformed after the Brown vs. Brown decision, and it was the same type of fighting\nin reverse. \"\nThe only way to measure the actual impact of a NAACP boycott would be to\ncompile tourism figures from year to year, says Moore.\n\"If there were a drop over several years, you might be able to say there was\nan impact.\"\nBut the fighting does have an impact on the public consciousness. Moore says\nthe impact that can't be measured is a symbolic one - how the image of South\nCarolina is perceived by areas outside the state.\n\"These are the ones where individuals might decide not to vacation at Myrtle\nBeach, or a business decides not to locate here because of the boycott. These\nare individual decisions that happen and you have no way of knowing it,\" says\nMoore.\nIn Arizona, the economic impact was measurable when, in 1990, voters failed\nto pass a Martin Luther King Jr. paid state holiday.\nIn response, the National Football League withdrew Super Bowl XXVII, which\nwas to be played there in 1993. The Super Bowl was moved to the Rose Bowl in\nPasadena, Calif., after a great deal of national publicity.\nAccording to The Houston Chronicle, at the same meeting where the owners\ndecided to move the game, they held out the possibility of the Super Bowl in\n1996 in Tempe, Ariz. While no conditions were stated, committee members\ninterested in having the Super Bowl in Arizona realized they needed to have the\nholiday passed in the 1992 election.\nThe second time the vote passed, and the Super Bowl was held in Arizona in\n1996.\nThe impact to the state was measured by the Greater Phoenix Convention and\nVisitors Bureau. From the defeat of the MLK holiday in November of 1990 until\nits approval in 1992, 108 conventions canceled, causing a direct loss of $ 69.4\nmillion which affected 2,200 jobs. The indirect impact was an additional $ 62.5\nmillion plus a tax loss of $ 14.4 million. The total impact was $ 141.9 million\nPage 5\nThe Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), October 17, 1999\ndollars in lost revenue.\nAs of January 1996, resolicited and new businesses in that area were pouring\n$ 103 million (with a tax gain of $ 7.8 million) back into the local economy.\nBlacks have a long history of using boycotts successfully, says Dr. Marvin\nDulaney, executive director of the Avery Research Center and chairman of the\ndepartment of history at the College of Charleston. He cites transportation\nboycotts by blacks going back to the days of street trolleys in Charleston, as\nwell as numerous other boycotts in both Southern and Northern states prior to\nthe famous boycott of the Montgomery, Ala., city bus system in 1955.\nIn the Montgomery boycott, the city had a municipal law which required its\nblack citizens to ride in the back of the city's buses. On Dec. 1, 1955, Rosa\nParks, a 42-year-old seamstress, boarded a city bus and sat in the first row of\nseats in the black section of the bus. When some white men got on the bus, the\ndriver, James F. Blake, asked her to move to the back of the bus. When she\nrefused, he called the police to have her arrested.\nOver the weekend that followed, preachers and civil rights leaders, including\nMartin Luther King Jr., called for a boycott of the buses. It was an immediate\nsuccess. According to bus company receipts, about 90 percent of the blacks who\nusually rode the buses joined the boycott and found other means of\ntransportation on that Monday.\n\"The reason that boycott was so successful was that there was already a\nground swell of support for it. The churches and the professors at the college\nhad already been educating people,\" says Dulaney.\nDiversity may hurt\nThe success of a boycott depends on the decisions of the people.\n\"I teach history and I'm always telling my students that it is the people who\nmake these decisions, and then the leaders emerge to implement them. I use the\nexample of George Washington. If the people hadn't wanted to separate from Great\nBritain, Washington would never have emerged as a leader. He would have been\nhanged by British supporters.\n\"The same thing happened with Martin Luther King Jr. He emerged as a leader\nbecause he was needed.'\nBut Dulaney sees a lack of cohesion in this boycott.\n\"There is tremendous diversity in the black community now. There are plenty\nof people who live outside of the community, who work in corporate America, who\ndon't go to the traditional Baptist churches. Some don't see their interests as\nbeing part of the black community.\n\"The big difference here is that the movement is coming from the leadership\ndown, instead of from the grass-roots level where it belongs.'\nState leaders at the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce are taking the\nboycott seriously, says Paula Harper Bethea, chairman of the board and a Hilton\nHead businesswoman.\nPage 6\nThe Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), October 17, 1999\nThe Chamber takes the position that the flag should be removed, and they are\nworking behind the scenes to see that it happens.\n\"Our position is that a boycott is a lose-lose situation, says Bethea.\n\"Nobody wins and those who can least afford it are the most affected.\"\nCanceled events and conventions are most likely to affect those who live\nalong the coast, and she includes those people who work in the hotel and\nhospitality industries.\n\"If the conventions don't come, then there is no work. Everybody loses in an\neconomic boycott.\"\n\"My hope is that as we further open the lines of communication, we will see\nmovement on this issue.\"\nGRAPHIC: Three Color and One B&W AP Photos: President and CEO of the National\nAssociation for the Advancement of Colored People, Kweisi Mfume (right), listens\nas NAACP Chairman Julian Bond responds to questions during a news conference at\nthe NAACP's 90th Annual Convention in New York Saturday. As an expected 14,000\nmembers trickled into New York for Saturday's start of the six-day conference,\nNAACP officials mourned Friday's death of James Farmer, founder of the Congress\nof Racial Equality and the last survivor of the \"Big Four,\" who guided the civil\nrights battles of the 1950s and 1960s, One of The National Football League\nwithdrew Super Bowl XXVII, which was to be played in Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe,\nAriz., in 1993 after the state's voters failed to pass a Martin Luther King Jr.\nstate paid holiday in a 1990 election. However, Super Bowl XXX was played there\nin 1996 after the holiday was approved in a 1992 election, One ofRosa Parks,\nwhose refusal to move to the back of a bus touched off the Montgomery, Ala., bus\nboycott and the beginning of the civil rights movement in America, is\nfingerprinted by Deputy Sheriff D.H. Lackey in Montgomery on Feb. 22, 1956. She\nwas among some 100 people charged with violating segregation laws and One of The\nConfederate flag flies above South Carolina's copper-domed Statehouse on the\nsouth side of downtown Columbia. For some, the flag is a symbol of pride; for\nothers, a reminder of oppression.\nLOAD-DATE: October 20, 1999\nPage 3\n29TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nCopyright 1999 Bergen Record Corp.\nThe Record (Bergen County, NJ)\nOctober 17, 1999, SUNDAY; ALL EDITIONS\nSECTION: NEWS; Pg. A15\nLENGTH: 393 words\nHEADLINE: NAACP BOARD OKS TOURISM BOYCOTT OF S. CAROLINA\nSOURCE: Wire services\nBYLINE: SETH HETTENA, The Associated Press\nDATELINE: LINTHICUM, Md.\nBODY:\nThe NAACP's national board on Saturday approved a tourism boycott of\nSouth Carolina until the state removes the Confederate flag from the\nStatehouse dome.\n\"The ratification officially mobilizes all of our chapters and\nmembers to not visit or spend dollars in South Carolina until the flag\nis removed, \"said NAACP spokeswoman Sheila Douglas.\nA spokeswoman for Gov. Jim Hodges said the boycott decision will\nmake it harder to get a compromise to resolve the issue.\nNina Brook also criticized the House, and Republican Speaker David\nWilkins, for the failure to reach a compromise.\n\"A very real obstacle remains, a majority in the House who say they\nwill not vote for a compromise, and the speaker of the House who says he\nwill not vote for a compromise, \"Brook said.\nThe House rejected a compromise to move the flag to a Confederate\nmonument on the Statehouse grounds several years ago.\n\"I have not seen a significant change or shift in the House's\nposition on that, \"Wilkins said.\nSupporters say the flag represents Southern heritage and honors\nSouth Carolinians who died in the Civil War. The NAACP says it is a\nsymbol of racism.\nThe South Carolina branch of the National Association for the\nAdvancement of Colored People proposed the tourism boycott of the state\nin July. It would begin Jan. 1.. The NAACP's national leaders say they are\nworking to make sure South\nCarolina will feel economic pain from the national boycott.\nPage 4\nThe Record (Bergen County, NJ), October 17, 1999\nMore than $ 280 million a year that African-American travelers spend\nin South Carolina could be at stake.\n\"We know that economic sanctions work, \"said Lonnie Randolph Jr.\n,\nchairman of the NAACP's programs and research committee.\nSeveral groups from across the nation have already canceled plans to\nhold meetings and conventions in South Carolina since the NAACP called\nfor the boycott.\nLast week, the Seventh-day Adventist Church canceled a meeting that\nwould have brought 7,000 people to Columbia for four days in March.\nOfficials said the event would have brought $ 500,000 worth of tourism\nbusiness.\nThe flag controversy has embroiled South Carolina for years. The\nstate is the only one in the nation to fly the Confederate flag over its\nStatehouse, although Georgia and Mississippi incorporate part of the\ndesign into their state flags.\nLANGUAGE: English\nLOAD-DATE: October 18, 1999\nPage 3\n32ND STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nCopyright 1999 Sun-Sentinel Company\nSun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)\nOctober 17, 1999, Sunday, Broward Metro EDITION\nSECTION: NATIONAL, Pg. 3A\nLENGTH: 483 words\nHEADLINE: CLINTON, CLASS OF '64 GATHER FOR REUNION\nBYLINE: SUN-SENTINEL WIRE SERVICES\nBODY:\nWASHINGTON\nPresident Clinton and classmates of the 1964 class of Hot Springs High School\nin Arkansas celebrated the 35th anniversary of their graduation Saturday at the\nWhite House.\nAbout 300 people, classmates and their families, attended a reception in the\nWhite House with the president. Clinton had missed the 35th reunion party that\nthe class held earlier because of a scheduling conflict - - the first time he had\nmissed a high school reunion. So he invited the class to a White House\ncelebration. NORTHEAST Woodstock to aid a rape hotline\nROME, N.Y. Some proceeds from a compact disc and a video of the Woodstock\n'99 concert which ended with reports of rapes and other sexual assaults\nwill go toward a national rape hotline.\nBesides the donation, every copy of the Woodstock '99 CD and home video will\ninclude information about the hotline. Rape Abuse and Incest National Network\nspokesman Scott Berkowitz said the money also will be used to expand the group's\noutreach and educational programs. SOUTH NAACP board OKs tourism boycott\nLINTHICUM, Md. The NAACP's national board on Saturday approved a tourism\nboycott of South Carolina until the state removes the Confederate battle flag\nfrom the Statehouse dome.\nThe NAACP has 2,200 branches with about 500,000 members nationwide.\nThe NAACP's national leaders say they're working to make sure South Carolina\nwill feel economic pain from the national boycott, which would begin Jan. 1.\nMore than $ 280 million a year that black travelers spend in the state could be\nat stake. MIDWEST Crash in stolen car kills four students\nGRAND HAVEN, Mich. Four high school freshmen riding in a stolen car were\nkilled early Saturday when the vehicle struck a tree, authorities said.\nThe teen-agers were not wearing seat belts and died at the scene of the crash\nPage 4\nSun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale), October 17, 1999\nabout 12:50 a.m. near this western Michigan community, authorities said.\nMichigan State Police identified the victims as driver John Mogielski, and\npassengers Ryan Lyles, Adam Bennett and David Morgan. Morgan was 15, the\nothers 14. WEST JonBenet case is not over yet\nBOULDER, Colo. -- Gov. Bill Owens will meet with Boulder District Attorney\nAlex Hunter on Monday to discuss the possibility of appointing a special\nprosecutor for the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, one of Hunter's advisers said.\nThe grand jury investigation of the Ramsey case, launched by Hunter Sept. 15,\n1998, ended Wednesday without any indictments. Adams County District Attorney\nBob Grant, who is part of Hunter's team of advisers on the Ramsey case, said of\nthe meeting: \"The only person I'm sure will be there is me, since I haven't\ntalked to anyone else.\"\nGrant said he expects Hunter's grand jury team of Michael Kane, Bruce Levin,\nMitch Morrissey and Denver-area prosecutors Bill Ritter, Dave Thomas and Jim\nPeters to be present at the meeting as well.\nLOAD-DATE: October 20, 1999\nPage 3\n48TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nThe Associated Press State & Local Wire\nThe materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. These\nmaterials may not be republished without the express written consent of The\nAssociated Press.\nOctober 16, 1999, Saturday, AM cycle\nSECTION: Domestic News\nLENGTH: 513 words\nHEADLINE: NAACP board votes to boycott South Carolina\nBYLINE: By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer\nDATELINE: LINTHICUM, Md.\nBODY:\nThe NAACP's national board on Saturday unanimously approved a tourism\nboycott of South Carolina until the state stops flying the Confederate flag from\nits Capitol.\nThe National Association for the Advancement of Colored People also asked the\nU.S. Justice Department to investigate whether official display of the symbol\ninfringed on the civil rights of blacks.\nThe aim of the boycott is to use the full force of the nation's oldest civil\nrights organization, with 500,000 members in 2,200 branches, to pressure the\nSouth Carolina Legislature to lower the flag or risk losing the estimated $ 280\nmillion that black travelers spend in the state each year.\nThe NAACP's tourism boycott will officially begin Jan. 1, 2000. The South\nCarolina branch of the organization first sought the boycott in July, and the\ncontroversy has already prompted 42 state and national organizations to cancel\nmeetings or conventions in the state, NAACP officials said.\nThe text of the NAACP resolution calls the flag \"an unspoken symbol of\nresistance to the battle for civil rights and equality,\" the main symbol for\nnumerous groups advocating white supremacy and an \"affront to the sensibilities\nand dignity\" of the state's blacks. Blacks account for more than a third of\nSouth Carolina's population.\n\"For people of African ancestry in this country, the flying of the\nConfederate flag and the symbolism of it represents one of the most\nreprehensible aspects of our country's history,' said NAACP President Kweisi\nMfume.\nSupporters say the flag represents Southern heritage and honors South\nCarolinians who died in the Civil War.\nPage 4\nThe Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 16, 1999\nThe resolution also called on the U.S. Justice Department's Division of Civil\nRights to investigate whether flying what many blacks view as a symbol of\noppression from the Statehouse dome violated federal civil rights law.\nThe NAACP board voted 53-0 to approve the recommendation, with 11 members not\npresent.\n\"We know that economic sanctions work,\" said Lonnie Randolph Jr., President\nof the Columbia, S.C., NAACP chapter.\nSouth Carolina, the only state to fly the Confederate battle flag over its\nStatehouse, first raised the flag in 1962 to commemorate the Civil War's\ncentennial. Legislators, who have the sole power to remove it, have quashed past\nattempts to remove the flag, including a lawsuit by business leaders.\nNina Brook, a spokeswoman for South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, said the\nboycott decision will make it harder to resolve the issue. Hodges is talking to\nlegislators, ministers, business leaders and others in an attempt to find a\ncompromise, she said.\nBut she also criticized the House, and Republican Speaker David Wilkins.\n\"A very real obstacle remains, a majority in the House who say they will not\nvote for a compromise, and the speaker of the House who says he will not vote\nfor a compromise,\" Ms. Brook said.\nThe House rejected a proposal to move the flag to a Confederate monument on\nthe Statehouse grounds several years ago.\n\"I have not seen a significant change or shift in the House's position on\nthat,\" Wilkins said.\nLANGUAGE: ENGLISH\nLOAD-DATE: October 16, 1999\nPage 3\n52ND STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nCopyright 1999 McClatchy Newspapers Inc.\nThe Herald (Rock Hill, S.C.)\nOctober 16, 1999 Saturday 1ST EDITION\nSECTION: OPINION; Pg. 7A\nLENGTH: 421 words\nHEADLINE: To the contrary: Flag rally was a success\nBYLINE: John Hill Special to The Herald\nBODY:\nOur recent Confederate flag rally on Saturday, Oct. 9, at the State Capitol\nwas a monumental event. With a colorful motorcycle escort, the flag waving and\nchanting marchers, we paraded down Main Street to the Capitol steps.\nContrary to some newspaper reports, the turnout of 300 to 450 supporters was\nexcellent, as we had sent few invitations, relying instead on the Internet and\nradio. Both Patrick Buchanan and David Duke had been discussed as possible\nspeakers. In his presidential campaign, Pat Buchanan had said the flag was a\nSouth Carolina issue for the residents. We discounted the idea of Duke, as we\ncould not pay his expenses.\nI contacted Duke Headquarters in Louisiana two days prior to the rally and\nwas told that, although David Duke was in Washington being interviewed by the\nBritish Broadcasting Corporation, he would be glad to donate his time to fly to\nour rally at his own expense, round trip out of D.C.\nHis speech on the steps of the Statehouse was electrifying. The essence of\nhis speech was that if the Confederate flag is forced down by a minority, if the\ncivil rights of the majority of the voters are denied, then the\ninternationalists of the culture war will go after our historical monuments of\nleaders such as Washington and Jefferson, and eventually our constitutional\nfreedoms that represent our society.\nDavid Duke, like Sen. Robert Byrd, had a Klan affiliation in his youth but\nthe media never lets up on his youthful association. Conversely, Ben Chaves,\nformer head of the NAACP, served time for involvement with the 1970s riots in\nWilmington, N.C. that left several people dead. It is obvious that the\ninternational Ssocialists who are destroying our national sovereignty, who seek\nto flood the United States with destitute Third World immigrants, and who export\nour industries to cheap, foreign labor markets, are petrified of an \"America\nFirst\" leader.\nThe majority of the board of the S.C. Council of Conservative Citizens, on\nlast minute notice, agreed to let David Duke have their speaking time. As a\nformer Louisiana legislator, presidential candidate and current president of the\nlargest Republican parish in Louisiana, Mr. Duke is an international figure and\nthe most articulate defender of American sovereignty and the Constitution. As he\nstated, \"the real battle over the Confederate flag is to preserve our American\nPage 4\nThe Herald (Rock Hill, S.C.) October 16, 1999 Saturday\nway of life. \"\nThe real issue is majority rule. A referendum on this issue is the only\nsolution. Minority rule is tyranny.\nJohn Hill\nLadson\nLANGUAGE: ENGLISH\nLOAD-DATE: October 19, 1999\nEugenia Chough\n10/21/99 10:33:57 AM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nIrene Bueno/OPD/EOP\nCC:\nSubject: flag\nJust spoke with Ron Jones at OMB -- on 7/20/93, we issued a SAP in support of the National Community\nSupport Act of 1993, and then Helms introduced his Amendment on 7/22. It was voted down shortly\nthereafter, so we never had to make a statement then. For our records, Ron is faxing us the SAP on the\nlarger bill.\nAny other trees to bark up?\nOCT-21-1999 10:46\nOMB/LRD/ESGG\n202 395 3109 P.01/06\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOffice of Management and Budget\nLegislative Reference Division\n7222 New Executive Office Building\n725 17th Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20503-0001\nOctober 21, 1999\nTO:\nAGENCY:\nFAX Phone\nRecipient's Phone\nEugenie Chough\n67431\n65566\ncc: cc:|Rene 1 Bueno\n*******\nFROM: Ronald Jones\nPHONE: (202) 395-3386 FAX:(202) 395-3109\nEMAIL: [email protected]\nSUBJECT: Helms United Daughters of the Confederacy. Amendment and SAP for S919\nCOMMENTS:\nPer our phone conversation\nOCT-21-1999 10:46\nOMB/LRD/ESGG\n202 395 3109\nP.02/06\nHELMS (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 610 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\n[Page: S9300]\nMr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Thurmond)\nproposed an amendment to the bill (S. 919), supra, as follows:\nAt the appropriate place add the following new section:\nSEC. EXTENSION OF PATENT FOR INSIGNIA.\nA certain design patent issued by the United States Patent Office on November 8, 1898, being patent\nnumbered 29,611, which is the insignia of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which was renewed\nand extended for a period of fourteen years by the Act entitled 'An Act granting an extension of patent to\nthe United Daughters of the Confederacy', approved November 11, 1977 (Public Law 95-168, 91 Stat.\n1349), is renewed and extended for an additional period of fourteen years from and after the date of\nenactment of this Act, with all the rights and privileges pertaining to the same, being generally known as\nthe insignia of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.\nEND\nl of l\n10/21/1999 10:20 AM\nOCT-21-1999 10:46\nOMB/LRD/ESGG\n202 395 3109 P.03/06\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nSTATE STATE CENTED\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nJuly 20, 1993 (SENT)\n(Senate)\nSTATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY\n(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)\nS. 919 - National Service Trust Act of 1993\n(Kennedy (D) MA and 19 others)\nThe Administration strongly supports S. 919. The bill\nestablishes an innovative Corporation for National Service to\noffer Americans educational awards in return for service to their\ncountry. In addition, the bill provides for a variety of other\nprograms to develop citizenship among Americans of all ages,\nranging from elementary school \"service learning\" projects to the\nNational Senior Volunteer Corps. Enactment of this legislation\nwill encourage service by all citizens and reaffirm an American\ncommunity that transcends race, region, or religion.\nThe Administration has concerns with a number of amendments to be\nconsidered on the floor. The Administration opposes amendments\nto S. 919 that would: (1) require means-testing, (2) impose a\n\"trigger\" to limit availability of funds, (3) reduce educational\nawards, (4) weaken provisions regarding labor unions, or\n(5) otherwise weaken the bill.\nPay-As-You-Go Scoring\nS. 919 would affect direct spending and receipts; therefore, it\nReconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA). The bill does not contain\nis subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement of the Omnibus Budget\nprovisions if to offset the increased direct spending. Therefore,\nto a sequester of mandatory programs.\nthis bill were enacted, its deficit effects could contribute\nOMB's preliminary scoring estimates for this bill are presented\nin the table below. Final scoring of this legislation\ndeviate from these estimates. If S. 919 were enacted, may final OMB\nscoring estimates would be published within five days of\nenacted legislation on direct spending and receipts will be\nenactment, as required by OBRA. The cumulative effects of all\nrequired by OBRA.\nreported to Congress at the end of the congressional session, as\nPay-As-You-Go Estimates\n($ in thousands)\n1994\n1995\n1996\nOutlays\n1997\n1998\n*\n*\n1994-1998\n*\n*\n*\n*\n* - less than $500,000\n*******\nOCT-21-1999 10:46\nOMB/LRD/ESGG\n202 395 3109 P.04/06\n2\n(Do Not Distribute Outside the Executive Office of the President)\nThe position to strongly support the bill was developed by LRD\n(Mustain) in consultation with HR (Van Wie), BASD (Stigile), GM\n(Johnson), OFFM (Green), IA (Sandy), and OIRA (Semenuk). The\nDepartments of Education (Heindel), Labor (Morin), Health and\nHuman Services (White), Justice (Taylor), the Interior (Harris),\nand the Treasury (Dorsey), and the Office of Personnel Management\n(Woodruff), the Office of National Service (Lew, Gordon), ACTION\n(Fleming), and the Peace Corps (Martin) agree with this position.\nThe discussion of objectionable amendments was provided by the\nOffice of National Service (Lew). HR (Van Wie) and White House\nLegislative Affairs (Brophy) concur.\nS. 919 is substantially the same as the draft bill transmitted by\nthe President on May 6, 1993. The Senate Labor and Human\nResources Committee reported the bill on June 29, 1993.\nMajor Provisions of S. 919\nstructure. S. 919 would establish a Corporation for National\nService. The Corporation would provide: (1) grants to\norganizations to carry out national service programs and\n(2) educational awards to participants in the programs. Eligible\norganizations would include nonprofit organizations, institutions\nof higher education, school districts, local governments, States,\nand Federal agencies. The Federal share of assistance to operate\na national service program would be 75 percent, exclusive of\nliving allowances, health insurance, or child care assistance.\nThe Corporation may waive the 75 percent limit under certain\nconditions. The Corporation also has authority to make a variety\nof grants to encourage the establishment of State Commissions for\nNational Service and for other purposes.\nOrganizations wishing to administer a national service program\nmust apply either through their State Commission or directly to\nthe Corporation. Proposed programs must meet unmet human,\neducational, environmental, or public safety needs. The\nCorporation would distribute available funds for programs and\neducational awards in three equal parts: (1) by formula to\nStates, (2) competitively to States, and (3) competitively to\norganizations (including States) applying directly to the\nCorporation.\nEducational Benefits. The Corporation would pay educational\nawards of $5,000 to participants in national service programs.\nParticipants, generally age 17 and up, would be allowed to earn\nup to two awards, one for each term of service (1,700 hours).\nIndividuals may use educational awards to repay student loans, to\npay for attendance at an institution of higher education, or to\npay for expenses in an approved school-to-work program.\nOCT-21-1999 10:46\nOMB/LRD/ESGG\n202 395 3109\nP.05/06\n3\nFunds available for educational awards would be held in an\nNational Service Trust account. The Trust would consist of:\namounts appropriated by Congress, gifts and bequests, and\ninterest and proceeds generated from the sale or redemption of\nobligations held by the Trust.\nOther Benefits. Participants would also receive a living\nallowance that may be no less than the Volunteers In Service To\nAmerica (VISTA) average annual subsistence allowance. The\nCorporation would pay 85 percent of the allowances; organizations\nadministering the national service program would pay the\nremaining 15 percent.\nParticipants would also receive basic health insurance if they\nare not otherwise covered by a health insurance policy. The\nCorporation would pay for 85 percent of the insurance;\norganizations administering the program would pay the remainder.\nFinally, the Corporation would provide a child care allowance to\nfull-time participants who require such services. The\nCorporation would establish guidelines for the availability of\nchild care.\nMiscellaneous. S. 919 would also amend the National and\nCommunity Service Act to improve school and community-based\nservice learning programs.\nThe programs administered by ACTION would be transferred to the\nCorporation and the Chairperson of the Corporation would assume\nthe duties of the Director of ACTION. In addition, the functions\nof the Commission on National and Community Service would be\ntransferred to the Corporation.\nS. 919 would also reauthorize the Domestic Volunteer Service Act\nof 1973 and the National and Community Service Act of 1990.\nAuthorization of Appropriations. S. 919 would authorize total\nappropriations of $687 million in FY 1994 and such sums as may be\nnecessary in FYs 1995 and 1996. The largest authorization of\nappropriations is a combined amount for the National Service\nTrust programs and Service learning programs, totalling $434\nmillion in FY 1994 and such sums as may be necessary in FYs 1995\nand 1996. Approximately 89 percent of the $434 million would be\ndesignated for the National Service Trust programs.\nDifferences between the Administration's Draft Bill and S. 919\nThe majority of the differences between the Administration's bill\nand S. 919 are technical in nature. The most significant\ndifferences relate to (1) the civil service status of ACTION\nemployees transferred to the Corporation for National Service and\n(2) the retirement credit provided to certain former ACTION\nvolunteers.\nOCT-21-1999 10:47\nOMB/LRD/ESGG\n202 395 3109 P.06/06\n4\nPay-As-You-Go Scoring\nPer GM (Johnson), S. 919 is subject to the pay-as-you-go\nrequirement of OBRA because it affects direct spending and\nreceipts. The bill contains several provisions that would\nincrease receipts by authorizing Federal entities to receive\ngifts and bequests. OMB assumes that such receipts would be\nspent, and therefore estimates the pay-as-you-go effect to be\nzero. In addition, the retirement provisions regarding ACTION\nvolunteers would affect direct spending and receipts, with a net\nincrease in direct spending estimated at less than $500,000 in\neach fiscal year.\nIn its final estimate, CBO is unable to estimate the deficit\neffect of gift and bequest authority and concurs with OMB\nregarding the pension provisions.\nLEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION\nJuly 20, 1993 - 1:00 p.m.\nTOTAL P.06\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-+103ypA6jSe49843\nin\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nCR\nDoc Contents\nof 15\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nonline\nMr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wofford). Without objection, it is so ordered.\nwhodel for 104d shart\nAMENDMENT NO. 610\nOMB\n(PURPOSE: TO GRANT AN EXTENSION OF PATENT TO THE UNITED DAUGHTERS OF\nTHE CONFEDERACY)\nMr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\nThe assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\nThe Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Faircloth,\nand Mr. Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 610.\nAt the appropriate place add the following new section:\nSEC. EXTENSION OF PATENT FOR INSIGNIA.\nA certain design patent issued by the United States Patent Office on November 8, 1998, being patent\nnumbered 29,611, which is the insignia of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which was renewed\nand extended for a period of fourteen years by the Act entitled `An Act granting an extension of patent to\nthe United Daughters of the Confederacy' approved November 11, 1977 (Public Law 95-1468; 91 Stat\n1349), is renewed and extended for an additional period of fourteen years from and after the date of\nenactment of this Act, with all the rights and privileges pertaining to the same, being generally known as\nthe insignia of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.\nMr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending amendment, cosponsored by Senators Lott, Faircloth,\nCoverdell, and Cochran, has to do with an action taken by the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 6,\nwhich I am inclined to believe--and I certainly hope I am correct--that the distinguished Senators on that\ncommittee did not intend.\nThe action was, I am sure, an unintended rebuke unfairly aimed at about 24,000 ladies who belong to the\nUnited Daughters of the Confederacy, most of them elderly, all of them gentle souls who meet together\nand work together as unpaid volunteers at veterans hospitals and many, many other places.\nThese ladies, for example, present awards each year at West Point, the Naval Academy, and other\nmilitary institutions, to honor young people whose academic achievements merit special attention. These\nladies raise and/or contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in scholarships. They perform\ncharitable work at homeless shelters, at food banks, at homes for battered women. They are the only\nprivate organization authorized by the Defense Department to award crosses of military service and\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:33 PM\nhttp://thonas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6)Se49843\nnational defense medals. When the military calls, the Daughters of the Confederacy always answer.\nMost of these ladies, as I say, are elderly, and are not the kind of gentle souls when the Senate Judiciary\nCommittee should want to offend deliberately, let alone rebuke. I am sure that the committee's action on\nMay 6 was not intended to have that effect.\nTherefore, Mr. President, I have offered the pending amendment to set matters straight with these 24,000\ndelightful ladies, many of whom live in the few remaining rest homes established decades ago to care for\nthe widows and daughters of Confederate soldiers.\nLet me say again that I believe that the May 6 action by the Judiciary Committee was the result of a\ngood faith misunderstanding. I sincerely hope that we can remedy that error now.\nI have to be honest, Mr. President. I was not aware that many organizations--for example, the American\nLegion, the Sons of Union Veterans, the Daughters of Union Veterans, the Ladies of the Grand Army of\nthe Republics, and the United Daughters of the Confederacy, among others--have been given patent\nprotection by Congress for many, many decades. All of these organizations, and others, have their own\ninsignias and badges, and so forth. Since 1898, Congress has granted patent protection for the\nidentifying insignia and badges of various patriotic organizations. That patent protection runs for 14\nyears for each organization, and has been renewed automatically for these organizations in various years.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:33 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e6495.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\n[Page: S9253]\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to respond to this amendment and to suggest that\nit is absolutely ill-founded and to oppose the amendment.\nMr. President, I understand that we do not have a germaneness rule here in the Senate. But I would\nsubmit that, in the first instance, this amendment is not germane, either to this bill or, frankly, to\nanything else.\nThe real bottom line with regard to this amendment and to the request for a design patent extension by\nthe United Daughters of the Confederacy is that it is not needed. This was recognized by the Judiciary\nCommittee when, on the 12th of May of this year, it considered the extension of design patents and, by a\nvote of 13 to 2, I believe, rejected the appeal of the United Daughters of the Confederacy for renewal\nand extension of this particular design patent.\nI think it is important to note what a design patent is. It is not just a matter of simple recognition. It is a\nrare honor given to an organization. There are very few of them given. In fact, design patents have only\nbeen conferred on fewer than 10 organizations in this century. They are given for a period of some 14\nyears. And it just is rarely done, in any event, for any organization.\nThere are a number of fine organizations throughout this country that are well known that do not enjoy\nor do not have design patents. But this organization, by a matter of oversight or whatever, has--this last\nyear, as was brought to the attention of the Judiciary Committee, and the design patent was refused or\nwithheld. Now the Senator from South Carolina has come to the floor attempting to undo the work of the\nJudiciary Committee, attempting to undo the decision of that committee that a design patent was not\nnecessary in this case.\nI submit further that the design patent is not needed in terms of the work of the organization. The\nSenator from South Carolina has gone on at great length to talk about the charitable work of the United\nDaughters of the Confederacy. The fact of the matter is the refusal to extend this extraordinary honor by\nthis body does not stop them from doing whatever it is they do, from continuing their work in the\ncommunity and the like.\nThe Senator has not explained, however, why the Daughters need this extraordinary congressional action\nto continue the work of their organization or protect against the unauthorized use of their insignia. He\nhas not addressed at all the conclusions that have been set forth from the Treasury, which were\naddressed in the committee, that say it is not only extraordinary but probably inappropriate to have a\ndesign patent issued in this regard.\nWhen members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy came to my office to discuss this issue\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:36 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/~103ypA6jS:e66495.\nwhen we were involved with consideration of the issue before the Judiciary Committee, they could not\neven then answer the question why it was necessary to have a design patent. They can continue to\nfundraise. They can continue to exist. They can continue to use the insignia. Nothing changes in terms of\nwhat it is they do. The only issue is whether or not this body is prepared to put its imprimatur on the\nConfederate insignia used by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.\nI submit to you, Mr. President, and the Members who are listening to this debate, as I did in the\nJudiciary Committee, that the United Daughters of the Confederacy have every right to honor their\nancestors and to choose the Confederate flag as their symbol if they like. However, those of us whose\nancestors fought on a different side in the Civil War, or who were held, frankly, as human chattel under\nthe Confederate flag are duty bound to honor our ancestors as well by asking whether such recognition\nby the U.S. Senate is appropriate.\nThe United Daughters of the Confederacy did not require this action to either conduct the affairs of their\norganization or to protect their insignia against unauthorized use. As the Patent Commissioner, Mr. Kirk,\nwrote in a letter issued April 30:\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:36 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e7571:\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, he answered this question: Is it common practice for nonprofit\ngroups to obtain design patents for their insignia and logos?\nThe answer is this:\nFirst, logos are generally words or word combinations and are not articles of manufacture. As a\nconsequence, they cannot be protected by design patents, but may be appropriate subject matter for\ntrademark protection.\nI point out that this is a design patent involved in this situation.\nObtaining design patent protection for a nonprofit group's insignia and emblems used to be more\nfrequent in past years than today. However, obtaining renewal and extension of design patents for the\ninsignia of such groups is the exception rather than the rule. This may well be due to the fact that\nnumerous organizations have acquired exclusive rights to their seals, emblems and badges under title 36,\nU.S. Code, which pertains to patriotic societies and observances. It should be noted, however, that under\nthis statute some organizations are granted exclusive rights to their names, emblems, seals and badges,\nwhile others have exclusive rights to their names only.\nIn other words, what he is saying is that most organizations have other kinds of protections and do not\nhave this design patent, which is sought today by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.\nHe goes on:\nFor example, 36 U.S.C., section 48 confers to the American Legion only the exclusive right to its name.\nThe Boy Scouts have exclusive right to their name. But neither of these organizations enjoy a design\npatent.\nHe goes on:\n`In that regard, the Boy Scouts'--with regard to their fleur-de-lis emblem--`* did not obtain an\nextension' of the design patent that they had at the turn of the century when it expired.\nSo this organization has now had a design patent, from what I understand, for two renewals and they are\nextraordinary in their request to have it renewed.\nThe next question asked in the letter is: Are design patents typically renewed? The answer to this\nquestion I think is significant to this body:\nYou are correct in understanding that design patents normally terminate after 14 years and, as a rule, are\nnot renewed.\nSo while I will not finish reading the rest of the letter, because I have no intent right now to stand here\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:37 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jSe75571.\nand filibuster this issue, I think it is important to note that these patents are rarely renewed.\nThis is more than a second renewal for this organization. It is not necessary to begin with. They can\ncontinue to use their insignia. It does not interfere with their fundraising. It does not interfere with their\ncharitable activities. It interferes in no way with their real activities, but rather is a symbolism of what is\nsought here with this amendment, which is so troublesome.\nI submit to the body that the Judiciary Committee, in voting 13 to 2, recognized how singularly\ninappropriate it would be to renew the patent for the United Daughters of the Confederacy and it is\nsingularly inappropriate for this amendment to be accepted.\nExhibit 1\nU.S. Department of Commerce,\nWashington, DC, April 30, 1993.\nHon. Carol Moseley-Braun,\nU.S. Senate,\nWashington, DC.\nDear Senator Moseley-Braun: Thank you for your letter requesting information about design patents. I\nam pleased to furnish the following answers to your questions:\nWhat are the criteria for granting a design patent?\nIn accordance with section 171 of title 35, United States Code, anyone who invents a new, original and\nornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions\nand requirements of title 35, United States Code. In that respect, the requirement that a design be `new'\nis equivalent to the novelty requirements applied to utility inventions under 35 U.S.C. 102. Similarly, the\nrequirement of nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is also applied to design inventions. On the other\nhand, the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101, which is a patentability criterion for inventions protected\nby utility patents, is not applicable to design inventions. Instead, designs must meet the requirement of\nbeing ornamental. There are also a few differences in formality requirements between an application for\na design patent and a utility patent application. Further, unlike utility patent applications that are entitled\nto a right of priority of twelve months under 35 U.S.C. 119, design patent applications are limited to a\nright of priority of six months under 35 U.S.C. 172.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:37 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jSe78645.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nExhibit 1\nU.S. Department of Commerce,\nWashington, DC, April 30, 1993.\nHon. Carol Moseley-Braun,\nU.S. Senate,\nWashington, DC.\nDear Senator Moseley-Braun: Thank you for your letter requesting information about design patents. I\nam pleased to furnish the following answers to your questions:\nWhat are the criteria for granting a design patent?\nIn accordance with section 171 of title 35, United States Code, anyone who invents a new, original and\nornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions\nand requirements of title 35, United States Code. In that respect, the requirement that a design be `new'\nis equivalent to the novelty requirements applied to utility inventions under 35 U.S.C. 102. Similarly, the\nrequirement of nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is also applied to design inventions. On the other\nhand, the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101, which is a patentability criterion for inventions protected\nby utility patents, is not applicable to design inventions. Instead, designs must meet the requirement of\nbeing ornamental. There are also a few differences in formality requirements between an application for\na design patent and a utility patent application. Further, unlike utility patent applications that are entitled\nto a right of priority of twelve months under 35 U.S.C. 119, design patent applications are limited to a\nright of priority of six months under 35 U.S.C. 172.\nWhat are the rights and privileges of the owner of a design patent?\nLike a utility patent, a design patent grants its owner the right to exclude others from making, using, or\nselling the invention under 35 U.S.C. 154. In that regard, all remedies under chapter 29 of title 35,\nUnited States Code, for infringement of a patent are available to the owner of a design patent. Unlike\nutility patents, however, whose term is seventeen years, design patents are limited to a term of fourteen\nyears under 35 U.S.C. 173.\nIs it common practice for nonprofit groups to obtain design patents for their insignia and logos?\nFirst, logos are generally words or word combinations and are not articles of manufacture. As a\nconsequence, they cannot be protected by design patents, but may be appropriate subject matter for\ntrademark protection. Obtaining design patent protection for a nonprofit group's insignia and emblems\nused to be more frequent in past years then today. However, obtaining renewal and extension of design\npatents for the insignia of such groups is the\nexception rather than the rule. This may well be due to the fact that numerous organizations have\nacquired exclusive rights to their seals, emblems and badges under title 36, United States Code, which\npertains to patriotic societies and observances. It should be noted, however, that under this statute some\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:37 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jSe78645.\norganizations are granted exclusive rights to their names, emblems, seals and badges, while others have\nexclusive rights to their names only.\nFor example, 36 U.S.C. 48 confers to the American Legion only the exclusive right to its name. By\ncontrast, 36 U.S.C. 27 conveys to the Boy Scouts of America the exclusive right to use all emblems,\nbadges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases used by the Boy Scouts organization in\ncarrying out its program. In that regard, the Boy Scouts also obtained a design patent on their fleur-de-lis\nemblem on May 30, 1911, but did not obtain an extension when the patent expired. We have no record\nthat any design patent was ever issued to the Campfire Girls.\nAre design patents typically renewed?\nYou are correct in understanding that design patents normally terminate after 14 years and, as a rule, are\nnot renewed.\nDo the insignia, badges and logos of nonprofit organizations enjoy any legal protection in the absence of\na design patent?\nAs already mentioned, numerous organizations are granted the exclusive rights to their names and\ninsignias under various provisions of title 36, United States Code. Other statutes offer additional\nprotection, such as 18 U.S.C. 705, which provides criminal sanctions against the unauthorized use on\nmerchandise of any insignia or colorable imitation thereof any veterans' organization incorporated by\nenactment of Congress. As a matter of interest, the signs of the American National Red Cross and the\n4-H club are also protected under sections 706 and 707, respectively, of title 18, United States Code.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:37 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/Dr103:2:./temp/r103ypA6jS:e85845.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I, therefore, move that amendment 610--this amendment--be\ntabled.\nMr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.\nMr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas and nays.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\nThere is a sufficient second.\nThe yeas and nays were ordered.\nMr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will kindly withdraw and give me about 4\nminutes to make a further statement.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent-\nMr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be\ngiven 4 minutes to respond, that the Senator from Ohio be given an equal amount, 4 minutes, in order to\nsupport the tabling motion, and if the Senator from North Carolina wants 4 minutes, I have no objection\nto that either.\nMr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.\nMr. President, will the Senator permit me to make a parliamentary inquiry? Did you declare there to be a\nsufficient second?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. I did declare there was a sufficient second.\nMr. HELMS. Well, fine. Just in case I might want to use it, I would appreciate 4 minutes more, too, but I\ndo not want to delay the proceedings.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without objection, it is so ordered. The\nSenator from South Carolina is recognized for 4 minutes.\nMr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the opponents of the design patent extension for the insignia of the\nUnited Daughters of the Confederacy [UDC] assert that the Congress should not act because there is\nabsolutely no need for the protection of a design patent when other options may be available. In fact,\nhowever, a design patent provides protection which differs from that available under trademark and\ncopyright law. Each type of legal protection has been created for specific usages which overlap but are\nnot identical. The courts of the United States have emphasized the distinctions under the law between\ndesign patents and either trademarks or copyrights. The decision in Application of Mogen David Wine\nCorp. illustrates this point and holds that a design patent is not the same as other forms of protection.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:38 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/~r103ypA6jS:e85845.\nThe extension of the design patent will permit the UDC to prevent others from improperly using its\ninsignia in circumstances which the UDC might not be able to prevent with a mere trademark or\ncopyright action. Such circumstances might exist, for example, if a slightly modified version of UDC's\nemblem were used without permission. Design patent protection, which the UDC cannot obtain apart\nfrom this extension, does not require the different and more onerous showings that are required under the\ntrademark or copyright laws to stop an infringer. Acting Commissioner Kirk agrees that a design patent\noffers separate and distinct protection from that available under trademark and copyright law.\nMr. President, the insignia of the UDC does not receive any protection under the provisions of titles 18\nor 36 of the United States Code, which were mentioned by Acting Commissioner Kirk. Title 36 provides\na Federal charter and perpetual protection to the Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War and other\nsimilar organizations, but not the United Daughters of the Confederacy. In contrast, this amendment\nsimply provides a 14-year patent extension for the insignia of the UDC. For these reasons, I urge my\ncolleagues to support the amendment offered by Senator Helms.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.\nMr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Senator from Illinois for her eloquent\npresentation in connection with this particular issue. She has pointed out that there is no real reason nor\nneed for an extension of the design patent for the United Daughters of the Confederacy. There are only\nless than 10 groups in the country that have it. Nobody is going to be in the position to steal their\ninsignia. That is protected by reason of other laws.\nI commend my friend from South Carolina for stating the fine work that this organization allegedly does.\nBut that does not provide any reason why we have to provide this kind of an affront to so many\nAmericans who are offended by that for which the Confederacy stood over a period of so many years. It\nis time for us to unite. It is not time for us to be divisive, and there is a kind of divisiveness that is\nimplicit in the offering of this amendment.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:38 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:/temp/-r103ypA6jSe85948\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.\nMr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas and nays.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\nThere is a sufficient second.\nThe yeas and nays were ordered.\nMr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will kindly withdraw and give me about 4\nminutes to make a further statement.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent\nMr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be\ngiven 4 minutes to respond, that the Senator from Ohio be given an equal amount, 4 minutes, in order to\nsupport the tabling motion, and if the Senator from North Carolina wants 4 minutes, I have no objection\nto that either.\nMr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.\nMr. President, will the Senator permit me to make a parliamentary inquiry? Did you declare there to be a\nsufficient second?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. I did declare there was a sufficient second.\nMr. HELMS. Well, fine. Just in case I might want to use it, I would appreciate 4 minutes more, too, but I\ndo not want to delay the proceedings.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without objection, it is so ordered. The\nSenator from South Carolina is recognized for 4 minutes.\nMr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the opponents of the design patent extension for the insignia of the\nUnited Daughters of the Confederacy [UDC] assert that the Congress should not act because there is\nabsolutely no need for the protection of a design patent when other options may be available. In fact,\nhowever, a design patent provides protection which differs from that available under trademark and\ncopyright law. Each type of legal protection has been created for specific usages which overlap but are\nnot identical. The courts of the United States have emphasized the distinctions under the law between\ndesign patents and either trademarks or copyrights. The decision in Application of Mogen David Wine\nCorp. illustrates this point and holds that a design patent is not the same as other forms of protection.\nThe extension of the design patent will permit the UDC to prevent others from improperly using its\ninsignia in circumstances which the UDC might not be able to prevent with a mere trademark or\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:38 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:/temp/-r103ypA6jSe85948\ncopyright action. Such circumstances might exist, for example, if a slightly modified version of UDC's\nemblem were used without permission. Design patent protection, which the UDC cannot obtain apart\nfrom this extension, does not require the different and more onerous showings that are required under the\ntrademark or copyright laws to stop an infringer. Acting Commissioner Kirk agrees that a design patent\noffers separate and distinct protection from that available under trademark and copyright law.\nMr. President, the insignia of the UDC does not receive any protection under the provisions of titles 18\nor 36 of the United States Code, which were mentioned by Acting Commissioner Kirk. Title 36 provides\na Federal charter and perpetual protection to the Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War and other\nsimilar organizations, but not the United Daughters of the Confederacy. In contrast, this amendment\nsimply provides a 14-year patent extension for the insignia of the UDC. For these reasons, I urge my\ncolleagues to support the amendment offered by Senator Helms.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.\nMr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Senator from Illinois for her eloquent\npresentation in connection with this particular issue. She has pointed out that there is no real reason nor\nneed for an extension of the design patent for the United Daughters of the Confederacy. There are only\nless than 10 groups in the country that have it. Nobody is going to be in the position to steal their\ninsignia. That is protected by reason of other laws.\nI commend my friend from South Carolina for stating the fine work that this organization allegedly does.\nBut that does not provide any reason why we have to provide this kind of an affront to so many\nAmericans who are offended by that for which the Confederacy stood over a period of so many years. It\nis time for us to unite. It is not time for us to be divisive, and there is a kind of divisiveness that is\nimplicit in the offering of this amendment.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:38 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:/temp/~r103ypA6jS:e9135.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to remind the Senator, Senator DeConcini, as well as\nmyself, supported the amendment.\nMr. METZENBAUM. It is a fact the Senator did receive one Democratic vote.\nI yield back the remainder of my time.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized for 4 minutes\nMr. HELMS. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will not have a dyspeptic confrontation on this matter.\nThe situation is perfectly clear. The United Daughters of the Confederacy was singled out for punitive\naction and the pending amendment will remedy that.\nAnd, by the way, it's worthy of note that the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] on\nthree occasions has voted to renew the patent protection for UDC. The fact that he reverses himself\ntoday is instructive from a political standpoint.\nThe last thing the Senate should do is to engage in clearly an inflammatory action. As far as I know, race\nrelations in North Carolina are excellent--they may not be good in Illinois, or Ohio--I do not know about\nthat, but in North Carolina they are fine.\nThe point is this: Why was the UDC singled out for such a punitive rebuke? These fine, gentle ladies do\nnot deserve to be singled out for such abuse, made the target under an implied pretense that the UDC is\nsome sort of evil organization--which it absolutely is not. I have never heard the UDC mentioned as\nhaving created any dissension whatsoever, racial or otherwise.\nI hope the Senator from Illinois has not embarked upon an inflammatory political gambit. We should\navoid theatrics. There should be no ad hominem attacks either way, either side. But I must say that the\nSenate may be making a very, very bad mistake in reverse of the very thing that the distinguished\nSenator from Illinois has talked about; there are going to be hard feelings about the action of the Senator\nfrom Illinois. There should be no hard feelings.\nAnd there certainly should be none in States where thousands upon thousands of people from other\nsections of the country have moved in to and enjoyed the good living in North Carolina, people who\nlove our State and they love the South.\nAs far as I know, there is no bitterness between the races. But this motion to table the pending\namendment, let me guarantee you, is bound to create bitterness. If a Senator is going to use tactics of this\nsort, it would be better if she would pick on somebody her size. Leave the United Daughters of the\nConfederacy alone. These good ladies have a fine history and they do not deserve to have been singled\nout for an undeserved rebuke.\nI reserve the remainder of my time.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D/r103:2:./temp/r103ypA6jS:e9135.5.\nMrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of my dear friend and colleague, Senator Carol\nMoseley-Braun, and against racism and its symbols.\nI know her sense of frustration. I recognize her outrage. As a woman, I share some understanding of her\nsituation. But I cannot know her sense of isolation being the only African-American in this body.\nI thank her for standing up today and telling the truth about the racism embodied in the amendment we\nare debating. The issue here is not one of insensitivity or tradition. It is racism, pure and simple.\nWithout Senator Moseley-Braun's courageous stand against this amendment, the American people\nwould think it's business as usual in this body--that they had not, in fact, voted for change last\nNovember. What we've seen today is clear evidence of change. We will not allow deference to notions\nof tradition to hide racism or any other form of discrimination or intolerance.\nI am proud to stand with the Senator from Illinois and to serve with her in the U.S. Senate.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator from Illinois proceeding?\nMr. HELMS. What is the request?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has no time.\nA motion to table is not debatable. There were three 4-minutes pieces allocated.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yielded to Senator Metzenbaum. Senator Metzenbaum assented to the\nSenator from South Carolina and the Senator from\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/r103ypA6jS:e99007.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is what this vote really means.\nI started off--maybe--I do not know--it is just my day to get to talk about race. Maybe I am just lucky\nabout that today.\nI have to tell you this vote is about race. It is about racial symbolism. It is about racial symbols, the\nracial past, and the single most painful episode in American history.\nI have just gone through--in fact in committee yesterday I leaned over to my colleague Dianne Feinstein\nand I said, You know, Dianne, I am stunned about how often and how much race comes up in\nconversation and debate in this general assembly.' Did not I say that?\nI have the floor.\nMr. MOYNIHAN. The Senate is not in order. The Senator from Illinois is making an important\nstatement, and the Senate is not in order.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.\nMr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, please ask that conversations leave this floor while the Senator\nfrom Illinois is heard.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York makes the point. All conversations will cease.\nAnyone wishing to conduct conversations, please continue in the Cloakroom.\nThe Senator from Illinois.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. So I turned to my colleague, Dianne Feinstein. You know, I am really\nstunned by how often and how much the issue of race, the subject of racism, comes up in this U.S.\nSenate, comes up in this body and how I have to, on many occasions, as the only African-American\nhere, constrain myself to be calm, to be laid back, to talk about these issues in very intellectual,\nnonemotional terms, and that is what I do on a regular basis, Madam President. That is part and parcel of\nmy daily existence.\nBut at the same time, when the issue of the design patent extension for the United Daughters of the\nConfederacy first came up, I looked at it. I did not make a big deal of it. It came as part of the work of\nthe Judiciary Committee. I looked at it, and I said, well, I am not going to vote for that.\nWhen I announced I was not going to vote for it, the chairman, as is his due, began to poll the members.\nWe talked about it, and I found myself getting drawn into a debate that I frankly never expected.\nWho would have expected a design patent for the Confederate flag ? And there are those in this body\nwho say this really is not the Confederate flag The other thing we did know was a Confederate flag\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:/temp/~r103ypA6jSe99007\nI did my research, and I looked it up as I am wont to do, and guess what? That is the real Confederate\nflag . The thing we see all the time and are accustomed to is the battle flag In fact, there is some history\non this issue. I would like to read the following quote from the `Flag Book of the United States.'\nThe real flower in the southern flag began in November 1860, when the election of Lincoln to the\nPresident caused widespread fear the Federal Government will try to make changes in the institution of\nslavery. The winter of 1860 to 1861, rallies and speeches were held throughout the South and, frankly,\nthe United States flag was replaced by a local banner.\nThis flag is the real flag of the Confederacy. If there is anybody in this Chamber anybody, indeed\nanybody in this world, that has a doubt that the Confederate effort was around preserving the institution\nof slavery, I am prepared and I believe history is prepared to dispute them to the nth. There is no\nquestion but that battle was fought to try to preserve our Nation, to keep the States from separating\nthemselves over the issue of whether or not my ancestors could be held as property, as chattel, as objects\nof commerce and trade in this country.\nAnd people died. More Americans died in the Civil War than any war they have ever gone through\nsince. People died over the\nproposition that indeed these United States stood for the proposition that every person was created equal\nwithout regard to race, that we are all American citizens.\nI am sorry, Madam President. I will lower my voice. I am getting excited, because, quite frankly, that is\nthe very issue. The issue is whether or not Americans, such as myself, who believe in the promise of this\ncountry, who feel strongly and who are patriots in this country, will have to suffer the indignity of being\nreminded time and time again, that at one point in this country's history we were human chattel. We\nwere property. We could be traded, bought, and sold.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D)r103:2./temp/-r103ypA6jSe109924\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. If I have to stand here until this room freezes over, Madam President, I am\ngoing to do so. Because I will tell you, this is something that has no place in our modern times. It has no\nplace in this body. It has no place in the Senate. It has no place in our society.\nAnd the fact is, Madam President, that I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the\naisle--Republican and Democrat; those who thought, `Well, we are just going to do this, you know,\nbecause it is no big deal'--to understand what a very big deal indeed it is--that the imprimatur that is\nbeing sought here today sends a sign out to the rest of this country that that peculiar institution has not\nbeen put to bed for once and for all; that, indeed, like Dracula, it has come back to haunt us time and\ntime and time again; and that, in spite of the fact that we have made strides forward, the fact of the\nmatter is that there are those who would keep us slipping back into the darkness of division, into the\nsnake pit of racial hatred, of racial antagonism and of support for symbols--symbols of the struggle to\nkeep African-Americans, Americans of African descent, in bondage.\nMadam President, may I yield, without losing my right to the floor, to the Senator from California?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\nHearing none, the Senator from California.\nMrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam President.\nMadam President, I am afraid the issue has been joined and I find myself in agreement with my\ncolleague from Illinois.\nThis great party has to stand up and take a position on this issue.\nMadam President, I am a new member of the Judiciary Committee, along with Senator Moseley-Braun\nfrom Illinois. I watched her make this presentation in committee. It was thoughtful, it was considered,\nand she received an overwhelming majority of the votes in the committee.\nMadam President, I would like to make this appeal to the members of my party from the Southern States\nto listen to what Senator Moseley-Braun said about the impact of the Confederate flag has on a major\nportion of the American constituency; those who are African-American; those who carry with them the\nheritage of a nation which at one time and to a great extent still has a certain racism and bias in much of\nwhat we do.\nMadam President, it is my hope that members of the Southern delegation, and members of the\nRepublican party, after hearing the eloquent words of the Senator from Illinois, would be willing to\nrecognize the importance of this issue and the statement that it sends to all Americans. We should not\ngrant a patent for a flag which to many people represents the condoning of slavery in the United States.\nIt is not the way to heal the wounds of this Nation. It is not the way to bring people together.\nSo I would like to submit to you Madam President, that Senator Carol Moseley-Braun is correct.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/~r103ypA6jS:e1099241\nCarol, I think you said it the way it had to be said. You said it eloquently. You said it beautifully.\nI am hopeful that members of the Republican Party and of our very own party, will come forward with\ngood will and provide the necessary votes to change this previous vote.\nMr. BRADLEY. Will the Senator from Illinois yield?\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yield to Senator Bradley for a question.\nMr. BRADLEY. Madam President, in a very profound way, this is a sad moment. This is very sad for\nthe U.S. Senate.\nDecisions are made in this body from time to time that are viewed as procedural, processed as legal, and\nthe symbolic is often lost that there is power in symbols--power in symbols.\nThis is a powerful symbol that sits on the other side of this Chamber. It is the symbol that signifies a\nlarge part of this Nation's past that we have strived to put behind us and to move on.\nThis amendment is an easy amendment that elicits old divisions and opens up older wounds. I wish it\nwere not so. I wish it were not so, but it is.\nI appeal to people who voted for this amendment to understand not just the wisdom, but the passion and\nthe depth of feeling from which Senator Moseley-Braun spoke.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r1032:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:el18953.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator very much. I would like to respond to the Senator from\nNew Jersey, first to say in response to a series of questions that this amendment took many by surprise.\nIn fact, I was over in the Judiciary Committee in the midst of confirmation hearings for the next\nSupreme Court Justice when I got a note on my desk that this Dracula had come back. I had believed\nthat it had been killed dispositively by the Judiciary Committee previously when it voted 13 to 2 not to\nadopt this amendment. Lo and behold, it was being talked about on the floor as I sat on the Judiciary\nCommittee. So I came dashing over here. I had not had occasion or time to alert my staff even. They had\nto bring over the book later. But I started to respond. I would catch people as they came on the floor. At\nthe time the amendment was first put there were only three people on the floor.\nSo, as people came in I tried to tell them what this was about, but it was difficult because the vote was\noccurring. And I think the Senator's point is well taken. A lot of people thought, 'Well, this is not a big\nthing. This will never be noticed.' And did not understand the implications of what this means, not only\nto me personally, but what it means to every descendant of that peculiar institution, what it means to the\npeople who fought on both sides of that war, what it means to America now, and what it will mean to\nAmerica in the future: Whether or not we can put this behind us and move forward.\nI know there are a number of Senators who have questions and I would like to yield for questions only.\nSeveral Senators addressed the Chair.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes.\nMr. BENNETT. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. I have a parliamentary inquiry which I think\nis privileged.\nWith respect to this, the motion to table having been defeated, what is the business before the floor? Is it\nthe original amendment or is it some other business?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is the pending question, and the Senator from Illinois has\nthe floor.\nMr. BENNETT. So there is the possibility for an up-or-down vote on the amendment?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.\nMr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question without yielding her right to the floor?\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes, for a question.\nMr. EXON. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I will ask a question in just a moment. The Senator from\nUtah asked a question a moment ago. It may not be fully understood what the parliamentary situation is.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:/temp/-r103ypA6jS:e118953.\nAs I understand the parliamentary situation, the amendment that is opposed--and justifiably so, by a\ncolleague from Illinois--was not tabled but the usual procedure then did not take place, wherein a motion\nis made to reconsider and that is laid on the table. So, someone who is on the prevailing side of the\nfailure of the tabling motion--I think we can find some people to do that--would be in order if they chose\nto get up and say: I want a reconsideration of the vote. And if the Senator who made that motion was on\nthe prevailing side of the failure of the tabling motion, then we could reconsider? I ask if that is not the\ncorrect interpretation, from a parliamentary situation?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator--a Senator who voted on the prevailing side, or who did not\nvote at all, is eligible to move to reconsider.\nMr. EXON. That is another way of saying yes without the Chair having said the question was stated\ncorrectly by the Senator from Nebraska. Is that correct, I ask the Chair?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding, yes.\nMr. EXON. Thank you. Sometimes I like to have a nonlegal answer to a legitimate, straightforward\nquestion.\nI thank the Chair.\nLet me speak on this matter as one who has indicated earlier, because of the cost consideration, I am\ngoing to vote against this motion when it does get to a final vote, up or down, on whether we want to\ninstitute this policy. Although I happen to feel that those who would advance this education measure,\nthis measure that has to do with voluntarism, are well-intentioned, I think this is not the time to be going\nto this program.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:/temp/-r103ypA6jS:e12531\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator for his question. The fact is, I did not look for a filibuster.\nI was not looking for a fight. I would very much like to have this resolved. I would like to put a stake\nthrough the heart of this particular Dracula and hope it never comes up again. It came up in Judiciary\nand was defeated soundly, with only three members of that entire committee-it is a large\ncommittee--two voting for it and one abstaining. The bulk of the Judicary Committee, both Republican\nand Democrat alike, voted against this amendment. I would like to see that same result obtained today.\nI yield to the Senator from New York for a question.\nMr. FORD. Parliamentary inquiry.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his parliamentary inquiry.\nMr. FORD. As we stand now, the motion to table has been defeated. We are on the amendment itself.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.\nMr. FORD. Would it be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to table was\ndefeated, provided a Senator who voted on the prevailing side made that motion?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be in order.\nMr. FORD. Then, Madam President, the tabling motion is not debatable.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.\nMr. FORD. And on the tabling motion, the yeas and nays had been ordered?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.\nMr. FORD. If in this request to reconsider, and that is agreed to, could the motion to vitiate the yeas and\nnays then be in order and a voice vote on the motion to table be agreed to?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. That would require a unanimous consent vote.\nMr. FORD. I understand, but the motion to vitiate could be offered and it would be unanimous consent\nand then it would take only one Senator to object to that and we would be, again then, on the tabling\nmotion with the yeas and nays and we would vote then to either yea or nay the tabling motion.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.\nMr. FORD. I thank the Chair.\nMr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:/temp/-r103ypA6jS:e125531:\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The Senator from New York.\nMr. MOYNIHAN. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois that in my 17 years in this body,\nI have been not so moved as by her statement. She spoke of what in Christian faith would be called an\nepiphany, a sudden shining through of an internal reality that had not been there. I do not think the\nSenate knew it could do what it has just done. I do not think we had any idea how it would be undone.\nBut I say this to the Senator:\nWhen each of us comes to this body, and marches to the podium and we take an oath to uphold and\ndefend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I say to the body\nthat when I first took that oath, I thought it read 'foreign or domestic,' the idea that there would be a\npresumption of domestic enemies of the Constitution being odd.\nThen I learned originally it did, but after the Civil War it was changed: `Foreign and domestic.' And that\nConstitution which was forged in the Civil War is so clearly in spirit at odds with the proposal we have\njust voted on.\nShe could not have been more clear about the rights of free speech. Anybody who wants to wear that\nflag, anybody who wants to wave it, who wants to wrap himself or herself in it are free to do so, but for\nthe Senate to endorse it is something I do not think we had any idea we were capable of.\nI will ask the Senator one question: Will she not yield the floor until this matter is resolved to her\nsatisfaction and to the honor of the U.S. Senate?\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator very much. That is correct. The Senator is absolutely\ncorrect. I am prepared to do whatever is necessary. I will defend this flag against all enemies, foreign\nand domestic. I will do everything I can to see to it that this body does not disgrace itself by giving its\nimprimatur to a symbol of a flag that was defeated in the Civil War.\nMr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?\nMr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield for a question?\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/~r103ypA6jS:e134577\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Delaware very much.\nMr. BIDEN. It is the only question I could think of.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Redemption is always possible, and I would look very much forward to\ngetting beyond this problem.\nThe Senator from Colorado came over and asked me about a question a few minutes ago, and I would\nlike to respond to him without giving up the floor.\nMr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleague.\nAs has already been put into practice by several of my colleagues, I will get around to my question in a\nshort time. Let me say that I came over to the floor and voted a while ago with Carol Moseley-Braun,\nwent back to my office, as many of us did, and was answering some mail and watching television and it\nsort of exploded in my office on television.\nI just wanted to tell her in front of this body that I was so proud that she stood up and kind of took on\nthis issue. She is an outstanding legislator, and I am very proud to be able to serve with her. And I guess\nas the only other so-called person of color in this body, perhaps I have some insight that some of my\ncolleagues may not except Carol.\nIf I can ask her forgiveness, I would also say that I now there are some places in this country yet where\nAmerican Indians are called prairie niggers, which is about the most vulgar term I can think of, or\ncalling any African-American a name and certainly American Indians, too.\nI know that some of my colleagues who did not support her in this last issue feel they were upholding\ntradition. I would point out to them that slavery was once a tradition, like killing Indians like animals\nwas once a tradition. That did not make them right, and we sought, as a body, as a Nation, to correct\nthat. There are still remnants.\nUnfortunately, too many of our children are taught anger and insensitivity, not love, patience, and\ntolerance, and we have a long way to go. I think probably some of the people who did not support\nSenator Braun did not do it out of malice. They did it out of some kind of a misguided idea that they\nwere preserving some kind of tradition.\nI had a couple of experiences when I ran for this body just last fall that reminded me you never get to a\npoint in America where we are going to totally erase some of the roots of prejudices. In one place, in\nfact--I am a veteran of the Korean conflict and very proud of our country, proud of the fact I was in the\nAir Force and proud of the fact that I carried the flag of the 1964 Olympic games when Bill Bradley and\nI were teammates in 1964 in Tokyo. And yet when I was endorsed by a veterans group and they asked\nthe VFW, of which I am a member in one town in my State, if I could be endorsed in that VFW, they\nsaid we are not letting any Indians be endorsed in this body.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2./temp/~r103ypA6jS:e134577\nThe VFW certainly apologized for that and whoever said that as a specific person did not speak for the\nVFW, which is by and large a good, patriotic, wonderful group of Americans, and I am very supportive\nof them. But it does tell from firsthand experience that you never get away from that stuff. And maybe\nbecause of that kind of constant reminder, even when you are a Senator, we develop maybe some raw\nnerves that other people do not have.\nI wanted to point that out. That was only one of several things that happened to me just in the last year or\nso. But one thing is clear. Symbols are important in this country; otherwise what is that flag about that I\nsaid I once carried and what is the Statue of Liberty about? They are meant to do several things. One is\nto uphold and uplift the spirits of people and to draw them together. But, clearly, other symbols, such as\nthe swastika, was meant to symbolize a division and draw people apart.\nThat is what we are talking about. Do we want to validate and ratify symbols in this country through this\nbody? And I\nthink historically we have tried to say we want to validate and ratify those symbols which are positive\nand which point out to all of us that we are all Americans and have a common goal, perhaps a common\nbackground, and we need to work together and not validate those symbols that are going to divide us and\nmade us enemies of each other.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:39 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e144672\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I would just respond by saying that they did not notice. I mean, that was said\nin debate earlier. It just happened. It just happened because there was nobody around to bring attention\nto what was clearly and obviously a mistake, what was clearly and obviously something that this body\ndid not need to do. I mean, that is the issue.\nSenator Heflin has a question for me, and I would like to yield to him only for a question and without\nlosing my right to the floor.\nMr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Illinois very much. It is a very difficult\nissue. She handled it magnificently. I thank her.\nMr. FORD. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from Illinois to allow me to make a\nstatement or to try to bring this to a grinding halt, if I may?\nI would like to know how many more would like to make statements so\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Kentucky\nMr. FORD. There are at least four on the Democratic side, and two on the Republican side.\nWould it be in order that after Senator Heflin, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Riegle of\nMichigan, Senator Simon of California, Senator Boxer of California, Senator Wofford from\nPennsylvania--and I see we are going to have too many. I think the Senator is going to have to yield the\nfloor, or perhaps we can get a unanimous-consent agreement that after these statements are made,\nSenator Bennett and I will make a motion to reconsider the vote.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I only yielded for a question. I am not yielding the floor.\nMr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent that I might make this statement, without you losing the right to the\nfloor. I would never allow the Senator to lose her right to the floor. I would like to put it in some\nperspective here, because at the rate we are going, it will be a long afternoon.\nWould the distinguished assistant Republican leader on the floor help me with trying to work out\nprocedure here so that we can get a number and make a unanimous consent shortly?\nMr. SIMPSON. I certainly will, Mr. President.\nMr. FORD. I will yield the floor, and I will try to work it out so we can get to a motion to reconsider the\nvote by which the motion was not tabled.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator.\nThe Senator from Alabama has a question he would like to put.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:40 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D/r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6iS:e144672\nI yield for that purpose, without losing my right to the floor.\n(Mr. WELLSTONE assumed the chair.)\nMr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise with a conflict that is deeply rooted in many aspects of controversy.\nFirst, the conflict arises for the love of my southland. I feel today, however, that we also have a conflict\nin modern America.\nI come from a family background that is deeply rooted in the Confederacy. My great-grandfather on my\nmother's side was one of the signers of the Ordinance of Secession by which the State of Alabama\nseceded from the Union. My grandfather on my father's side was a surgeon in the Confederate Army.\nI have many connections through my family with the Daughters of the Confederacy organization and the\nChildren of the Confederacy, and I have a deep feeling, relative to my family's background, that what\nthey did at the time they thought was right.\nHistory, as we look back, always can give perspectives on what existed at the particular time. But I\nrevere my family, and I respect those who thought whatever they were doing was right at that particular\ntime in our Nation's history.\nBut we live today in a different world. We live in a Nation that every day is trying to heal the scars of\nracism that have occurred in the past. We are trying to heal problems of racism in the world in which we\nlive today. Perhaps racism is one of the great scars and one of the most serious illnesses that we still\nsuffer today.\nThe United Daughters of the Confederacy has done a lot of good work. Its support for soldiers in arms in\ntimes of war and national conflicts, and its support for the sale of war bonds, and its charitable donations\nto orphans, and the countless hours donated to veterans in our national veterans hospitals, are certainly\nadmirable.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:40 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e151928.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I say to Senator Heflin, my senior Senator, Senator Simon, has been so nice\nin standing by me throughout this debate today.\nThe Senator has a question without losing my right to the floor.\nMr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to make a unanimous consent--without losing her\nright to the floor--to make a unanimous-consent agreement at this time?\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. So long as I do not lose the floor.\nMr. FORD. I so ask unanimous consent.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\nMr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized for\nstatements and that the time announced for each be recognized, and that it will alternate from one side of\nthe aisle to the other. They are 10 Senators; and at the end of the last speech that Senator Bennett of\nUtah and myself be recognized for a bipartisan motion to reconsider the vote by which the amendment\nwas not tabled.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\nMr. HELMS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the Chair interrupted the Senator from Kentucky. He needs to\ncontinue first with his request and then I will ask if there is any objection.\nMr. FORD. Senator Riegle, 7 minutes; Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, 5 minutes; Senator Boxer, 5\nminutes; Senator Conrad, 3 minutes; Senator Metzenbaum, 3 minutes; Senator Simon 2 minutes;\nSenator Wofford, 2 minutes; Senator Specter, 3 minutes; Senator McConnell, 3 minutes; Senator\nBennett, 3 minutes; Senator Kennedy, 3 minutes; and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, 5 minutes; and at\nthe end of that time Senator Bennett and I be recognized to make the motion.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\nMr. HELMS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has the floor.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina just was responding. The Senator from\nIllinois still has the floor.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:40 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jSe151928\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Just checking.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina reserves the right to object.\nMr. HELMS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object pending a response to a question. I do not care\nhow many Senators speak on the motion to reconsider. That is irrelevant, and the time ought not to be\ntaken for that anyhow. But that is not for me to judge. What I want to be sure of is that no action is going\nto be taken to limit the debate on the amendment when it becomes the pending business. The Senator\nfrom Kentucky has no idea of limiting debate on that, does he?\nMr. FORD. If the amendment gets to the floor, the Senator can have it.\nMr. HELMS. You bet. I do not object.\nMr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.\nMr. SPECTER. If I may have the attention of Senator Ford.\nMr. FORD. I want to be sure.\nMr. SPECTER. I want to be sure this is alternated here.\nMr. FORD. That is part of my unanimous-consent agreement.\nMr. SPECTER. Do the Republicans get the first speech, with the last one the Democrats?\nMr. FORD. I had not decided that yet, but since the Senator is here and I would not want to keep him on\nthe floor longer than necessary I will be more than glad to ask him to speak first.\nMr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\nWithout objection, it is so ordered.\nThe Senator from Kentucky is recognized.\nMr. FORD. Now, Mr. President, we have a unanimous consent agreement, and I would like to amend\nmy unanimous-consent agreement, that Senator Lautenberg be recognized for 3 minutes, Senator Kohl\nbe recognized for 3 minutes, and also Senator Feinstein from California be recognized for 2 minutes.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:40 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:/temp/-r103ypA6fSe159015\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. SIMON. Mr. President, I simply want to tell my colleague from Illinois how proud I am of her at\nthis moment.\nThis discussion, frankly, has been good for the Senate and good for the Nation. I also want to tell you\nthat I am very, very proud today to be your colleague. It took courage to do what you have done. The\nreality is symbols are important.\nThe Senator from Colorado, Senator Nighthorse Campbell, has talked about the offense that the use of\nthe name Washington Redskins gives to native Americans. We have to face these problems and we have\nto be sensitive.\nWhen I see a pickup truck driving down the highways of Illinois with a Confederate battle flag on the\nback of that pickup truck, I know that is not a symbol for understanding. It is a symbol that is not good.\nAnd what my colleague from Illinois has done today is to say let us use symbols that bring us together\nwhen we grant special opportunities to groups.\nThis group can continue to do that, I do not question that they do good things. But if they want to have\nthis Federal charter renewed, come back with a different kind of a symbol. I am proud of my colleague,\nproud of the U.S. Senate today.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.\nMr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Illinois for her effective\npresentation. I understand the passion that she feels for this.\nI would like to bring a slightly different perspective to it. My roots, like the senior Senator from\nAlabama, run deep in the South. Ironically just over the last 10 days I have been doing some work on my\nfamily genealogy.\nMy great grandmother's first husband was killed in the Civil War. I have learned that he was not a\nslaveholder, but he, like others in Alabama, viewed that conflict through the lenses of those days. And\nhis view was that it was a fight for his region.\nMy grandmother belonged to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. I know she did not support\nslavery.\nSo it has been my view in growing up that the UDC largely was a group not about the purpose of\nglorifying slavery, but a group that very much revered the lives of those who were lost during that great\nconflict which was the most costly conflict this country has ever endured. More Americans were killed\nin the Civil War than any other war in our history.\nSo I voted in opposition to the Senator from Illinois, certainly not because I, in any way, advocate\nslavery nor do I believe that UDC advocates slavery, but out of respect for my forefathers who did what\nthey thought was appropriate for their region of the country during this most difficult time.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:40 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e1590154\nI would hate to have this vote to be construed as somehow a refighting, if you will, of the Civil War or\nan endorsement of racism in any way. The Civil War happened. It is part of our history. Many of us, as\nwe reach our fifties, get interested in our family histories, as I have been in the last months.\nI revere those forefathers of mine, not because I approve of slavery, but they did what they thought was\nappropriate in their time. And so I do not feel we should deny this patent to the United Daughters of the\nConfederacy.\nIt never occured to me in casting my vote a while ago that it would be interpreted as somehow an\nendorsement of racism or slavery, but rather I did it out of respect for my ancestors and their roots which\nran deep in the South.\nThat same family that supplied a Confederate solider also supplied a drummer boy in the American\nRevolution. So my descendents have fought to establish the country, some of us thought to divide us\ninto two countries. I am glad that position did not prevail.\nBut I do not think the UDC has done anything to be punished for or to have this particular patent\nwithdrawn.\nSo, Mr. President, I am going to, when we vote on this again, vote the same way I did the first time,\nsimply out of reverence for my ancestors whose roots run deep in the Southern part of our country.\nI yield the floor.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 7 minutes.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:40 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e168973.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. KERRY. Mr. President, I probably will not use that time. I join my colleague from Michigan and\nother colleagues who have, first of all, applauded the courage of the Senator from Alabama. Standing\nright behind him, one could feel as well as see the emotion that consumed him as he expressed a reversal\nwhich for him, where he comes from, is very, very hard to explain to some people and very hard to\nsummon up on quick notice, if you will. I think it was great courage. Most importantly, it was\nleadership.\nWhat is remarkable to me, as I stand here, is that there is a real discomfort as I think about the fact that\nwe are 96 white men and women debating whether or not we ought to be sensitive to the expression of\none African-American and one native American. If that does not tell us what the problem is, then\nnothing will.\nI heard my very good friend from Wyoming, who I know does not have a racist streak in him, who is a\ngood soul and friend of all of ours, cite the fact that four times in the past the U.S. Senate has just let this\ngo by. But that is also the problem. Because you cannot look to the Senate of the twenties and the\nthirties and the forties and the fifties as an example of either what was right or how you ought to respond\non an issue regarding the perception of people to something about race and about past history that we\nknow was wrong. This institution did not begin to have much of a record on this subject until the 1960's.\nYou can turn to my colleague, Senator Kennedy, and others, and ask what a struggle that was in the\ndays of real filibusters, or long weeks, of all-night sessions, when they struggled to do what was right.\nSo the fact we are here now, reminded by one African-American, the first elected in her own right on\nthis side of the aisle in the history of this institution, ought to give us pause to think about the message\nthat she carries on behalf of millions of other people in this country.\nThis is not an issue of punishing an institution for what it believes. This is not an issue of denying\npeople the right to fly the Confederate flag This is not an issue of denying people the right to be proud\nof where they come from in this country, or of the history of their families.\nThis is an issue of sensitivity, about whether or not we, this mostly white institution, are going to\nexpress an understanding of a symbol that carries with it the capacity to make people literally fear for\nthemselves. I have learned something about that in the last years as I have talked to African-Americans\nwho tell me about the fear they can feel just crossing Harvard Square, or walking in Washington, DC,\nwhen they get into the wrong part of town and people look at them differently.\nWhen you see the Confederacy symbolized--maybe not for a lot of people in this institution, but for an\nawful lot of Americans--it summons up and conjures up images that are painful and difficult. This is a\nquestion of whether or not we are going to ratify, as a Federal institution, a symbol that carries that fear.\nOr whether we will do what the Senator from Alabama has done so courageously: Summon up the will\nto acknowledge that this is a different time in this country; it demands a different response. And today is\na great learning moment for the U.S. Senate, a moment where we, all of us in America, can gain a new\nsensitivity to the realities of this great Nation of ours.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:40 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D/r103:2./temp/r103ypA6jSe168973.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] is recognized for 5 minutes.\nMrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so honored to be in this Chamber, standing SO close to leadership and\ncourage as I was, as I sat in the Chair and watched the Senator from Illinois speak from the deepest\nrecesses of her soul, and at the same time from a very strong intellectual part; and to stand near the\nSenator from Alabama as he spoke to us and showed the most extraordinary courage I have seen in very\nmany, many years.\nWhen I was a little girl, my father used to say it is in the Senate where you see the courage. I thank the\nSenator from Alabama for making me feel so good that I am in this institution. For what he has done\ntoday, and the way he did it, speaks to the best in every American. If ever there was proof that diversity\nin this institution is important, we got that proof today.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:40 PM\nhttp://thomas.lc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/~r103ypA6jSe175190\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the statement of the Senator from Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun, I think,\nwas perhaps the most powerful, moving statement I have heard on the floor of the Senate since I came\nhere 7 years ago. I was proud to vote with her, and prouder still of my colleagues who stood up, one\nafter another, to say what is true: Senator Bradley, Senator Campbell, especially Senator Heflin,\nSenator Riegle, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and many more.\nThe fact is, something very important happened this afternoon on the floor of the U.S. Senate because\nwe have confronted something ugly in this country, something very ugly in our past, something that\nhaunts us still.\nMy relatives fought in the Civil War. They fought on the side of the North. They fought because they\ndeeply believed in preserving the Union and they were deeply and morally opposed to slavery.\nMr. President, the Confederate flag is a symbol. It is an important symbol. It is a symbol of a system\nthat allowed slavery. The Vice President of the Confederacy, in the letter the Senator from Illinois read\nfrom, said:\nThe cornerstone of the Confederacy rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white\nman.\nMr. President, African-American soldiers were equal to white soldiers when they died to preserve that\nflag --the American flag --in the Civil War. African-American soldiers were equal to white soldiers\nwhen they died to preserve that flag --the American flag --in World War I and in World War II. They\nwere equal to white soldiers when they died to preserve this country in the Korean war and the Vietnam\nwar and in every other conflict.\nThe Vice President of the Confederacy said that the other side, led by Jefferson, saw that enslavement\nwas wrong in principle, wrong socially, morally, and politically. They were right.\nThe Senate should not, in my judgment, indeed cannot, put its stamp of approval on a symbol of\nsomething that was so wrong.\nSo, Mr. President, I hope and urge my colleagues that we will overturn a mistake that was made earlier.\nThis is a great opportunity to confront something that is ugly in our present and in our past. I thank the\nChair.\nMr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 3 minutes.\nMr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise because I have seen something here today that I have not\nseen since I have been in the Senate. I saw one person, who was able to make a difference, stand up and\nfight for what she believes in, and she gave a message to this body that electrified the body. I want to\ntake my hat off to her because I think that she has not only won her point, but she has elevated this body.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:40 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D/r103:2./temp/-r103ypA6jSe175190.\nBy her eloquence, she has shown that this body can be electrified. She had a losing hand. I stood there\nand tried to help her get votes. She had lost 52 to 48. I saw Members of this body vote the wrong way,\nand it was a difficult situation. She went back to her chair and she said, 'I'm going to stand here as long\nas I have to. This amendment is not going to pass.' There is no question about it, she will prevail.\nBut what is SO important to me is that this body--not always, but in this instance--has proven that it can\nbe prodded to do what is right. What a magnificent moment for this Senate when the Senator from\nAlabama, who voted against the Senator from Illinois, stands up and makes that most beautiful speech. It\ntook a lot of courage to make that speech. I think each of us in this body recognize the difficulties of a\nSenator from Alabama speaking to this particular issue.\nI just want to say that I personally am grateful to her. I am grateful to her for getting elected. I am\ngrateful to the people of Illinois for sending her here. It was long past due that we have a woman of color\nin the U.S. Senate, and I am so pleased she is a Member of the body that I belong to.\nBut more important than that even is the fact that she showed us today how one person can change the\nposition of this body, and she did it in a most eloquent way. We all owe her a great debt of gratitude.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:40 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6iS:e182900.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. WOFFORD addressed the Chair.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Wofford,\nfor 2 minutes.\nMr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has shown not only that one person can make a\ndifference, but that even a Senator can make a difference. I think this time has been very worthwhile\ntoday, even though I cannot think of an amendment more extraneous, irrelevant, and impertinent to a bill\non national service than a bill for extending the patent of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.\nIt has been worthwhile if only for having seen once again the profile in courage of Senator Heflin from\nAlabama and to stir some of us into thinking about our own families and background and my two\ngrandmothers who were members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and who survived by\ngoing to Howard Law School and joining the civil rights movement, and to think back on the past, but\nalso as the Senator from Alabama said the America of today.\nI ask the Senator from Illinois and our friends here, is there anything that is more the opposite of the bill\nfor national service that we are returning to soon than the divisive issue we have just taken up? And is\nnot the national service bill itself designed for just the opposite, to being our country together, rich and\npoor, North and South, young and old, black and white, cities, suburbs, and farms?\nI hope, as we get moving on to the business at hand of the bill for national service, the better angels of\nour nature, as Lincoln would wish, do prevail in this Chamber tonight.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Pennsylvania has expired.\nWho seeks recognition?\nMr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader, Senator Mitchell.\nMr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in commending the Senator from Illinois as well\nas the Senators from Alabama and Utah and all of those who have spoken on this subject this afternoon.\nThe eloquence, the conviction, the power of the remarks made by the Senator from Illinois, the\npersuasiveness as seen in the subsequent remarks, is something rarely seen in the Senate or anyplace else\nin our society, and I commend her for the conviction and the principle and the courage she has brought\nto this matter.\nRace has been the most divisive issue in American history. It continues to be. Let us hope that in a way\nthat no one could have foreseen, and perhaps unintended, this issue, this debate, what we hope will be\nthe result, will serve to help us get past this issue in our country.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:41 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/~r103ypA6jS:e182900.\nI would like also to ask all Senators to reflect on another important issue presented by what has occurred\nhere this afternoon. The Senate is a unique institution, and among the rules which make it unique are that\nany Senator can offer any amendment, anytime he or she wants, even though it has no relationship to the\nbill being considered, and without giving any notice.\nIndeed, the sad reality is that many of the amendments we vote on we do not even know about until after\nthey have been offered and they are read for the first time. Every Member of this Senate knows we are\nrepeatedly confronted with amendments of this type that deal with seemingly less than nationally\nsignificant issues, that are unrelated to the bill being considered, on which there has been no notice, no\ndebate, no discussion, and consideration. The first instinct of almost every Member of this Senate is to\nbe cautious and to cast a vote that will not cause any problems later. And so time and time and time\nagain we are confronted with amendments of this type and we have gone ahead and voted for them as a\nbody because it is the easy way out.\nI hope Senators will reflect upon this, and that, first, we will see a reduction in these kinds of\namendments, amendments that are unrelated to the bill, amendments on which there has not been any\ntime to reflect and consider and make a reasoned judgment before voting, and Senators in the future,\nthanks to the courage of the Senator from Illinois, will think long and hard before they take the easy way\nout and vote for an amendment of this type. It is the kind of thing we regularly confront. This is an\nimportant issue in its own right, but it is also important to cause every Member of the Senate to pause\nand reflect on the way we do business in this institution.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:41 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:/temp/-r103ypA6jSe191409\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. LEVIN. Mr. President, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, the past few hours in the Senate were the\nworst of times and the best of times.\nI was distressed to see the Senate vote against tabling the amendment by Senator Helms when it was\nfirst offered. The amendment would have continued what amounts to a Federal seal of approval on a\nsymbol that is offensive to millions of Americans. The vote represented an insensitive display of\nbusiness as usual--its OK to do something again because we have done it before. I voted in favor of\ntabling the Helms amendment.\nHowever, it appears that we are about to reverse that decision. In doing so, the Senate has demonstrated\nits ability to listen to the courageous voice of a new member and to correct its mistake. Instead of putting\nits stamp of approval on a symbol that has divided this Nation, the Senate has shown the benefit of\ndebate and diversity. Instead of dredging up the horrors and prejudices of the past, it has shown its\nability to look to the future with sensitivity and the hope of renewal. For these reasons, I will be pleased\nto vote for the motion to reconsider the motion to table the Helms amendment.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah for the purpose of making a\nmotion.\nMr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which we moved to table the\namendment.\nMr. FORD. Mr. President, joining with the Senator from Utah, I ask for the yeas and nays.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.\nThe yeas and nays were ordered.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Utah to\nreconsider the previous motion to table. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the\nclerk will call the roll.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?\nThe result was announced--yeas 76, nays 24, as follows:\nRollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.\n[Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]\nYEAS--76\nAkaka\nBaucus\n1 of 4\n10/20/1999 6:41 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e191409.\nBennett\nBiden\nBingaman\nBoren\nBoxer\nBradley\nBreaux\nBrown\nBryan\nBumpers\nCampbell\nChafee\nCoats\nCohen\nConrad\nD'Amato\nDanforth\nDaschle\nDeConcini\nDodd\nDomenici\nDorgan\nDurenberger\nExon\nFeingold\nFeinstein\nFord\nGlenn\nGorton\nGraham\nGregg\nHarkin\nHeflin\nHollings\nHutchison\nInouye\nJeffords\nJohnston\nKassebaum\nKennedy\nKerrey\nKerry\nKohl\nLautenberg\nLeahy\nLevin\nLieberman\nLugar\nMathews\nMetzenbaum\nMikulski\nMitchell\nMoseley-Braun\nMoynihan\nMurkowski\nMurray\nNunn\n2 of 4\n10/20/1999 6:41 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e191409.\nPell\nPressler\nPryor\nReid\nRiegle\nRobb\nRockefeller\nRoth\nSarbanes\nSasser\nShelby\nSimon\nSimpson\nSpecter\nWarner\nWellstone\nWofford\nNAYS--24\nBond\nBurns\nByrd\nCochran\nCoverdell\nCraig\nDole\nFaircloth\nGramm\nGrassley\nHatch\nHatfield\nHelms\nKempthorne\nLott\nMack\nMcCain\nMcConnell\nNickles\nPackwood\nSmith\nStevens\nThurmond\nWallop\nNOT VOTING--0\nSo, the motion to reconsider was agreed to.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kentucky.\nMr. FORD. Mr. President, would it be in order to vitiate the yeas and nays?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator that will require unanimous consent.\nMr. HELMS. I object.\n3 of 4\n10/20/1999 6:41 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e191409.\nMr. FORD. Objection is heard, and I respect that.\nWe go to the motion to table without intervening business and the vote is 'yea' to table or `nay' to not\ntable.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.\nThe question on reconsideration is the motion to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from\nNorth Carolina. Under the precedents, the yeas and nays carry over.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n4 of 4\n10/20/1999 6:41 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D/r103:2:/temp/-r103ypA6Se199781\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. DANFORTH. Certainly.\nMr. DODD. That will be evenly divided; 30 minutes evenly divided.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\nMr. HELMS. Yes, there is, Madam President.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.\nSeveral Senators addressed Chair.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.\nMr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I believe there are other Senators who wish to do the same thing\nand I wonder if we could arrange it SO all would have a chance.\nDoes the Senator from North Carolina wish to address the Senate on the same subject?\nMr. HELMS. I think it would be appropriate, Mr. Leader, yes. I had intended to use a few minutes, but\nnot many. I decided to object to the unanimous-consent request. If I can have a few minutes? I do not\nwant to be limited. I will only use a few minutes but I do no want the Chair saying my time has expired.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.\nMr. MITCHELL. What I propose then is we now have, I believe, four Senators who wish to address the\nSenate on a previous subject. I would like to simply inquire of each what time they want and then\nencompass that in an agreement, and then we could proceed with that.\nThree minutes to the Senator from Missouri. How much time would the Senator from North Carolina\nlike?\nMr. HELMS. I do not think I will use more than 5 minutes. I do not think I will use that much, but I do\nnot want to be restrained because I have a few things I want to say. I will promise the leader I am not\ngoing to waste time.\nMr. MITCHELL. I accept that.\nThe Senator from New Jersey?\nMr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Leader, I would like 3 minutes and I will not waste time either.\nMr. MITCHELL. The Senator from Illinois? How much time does the Senator require?\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:42 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e199781.\nMs. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Two minutes will be fine.\nMr. DODD. I will take a minute.\nMr. MITCHELL. If the Senator from North Carolina will remain, I am going to put a request to\naccommodate everyone and I will not put a time limitation on his remarks.\nMr. HELMS. That will be fine, Mr. Leader. And I promise you I will not be too long.\nMr. MITCHELL. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from North Carolina be recognized to address the\nSenate; that upon completion of his remarks the Senator from Missouri be recognized to address the\nSenate for up to 3 minutes; that upon the completion of his remarks the Senator from New Jersey be\nrecognized to address the Senate for up to 3 minutes; that upon the completion of his remarks the\nSenator from Connecticut be recognized to address the Senate for up to 3 minutes; and that upon\ncompletion of his remarks the Senator from Illinois be\nrecognized to address the Senate for up to 3 minutes.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\nMr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, if the majority leader would withhold, I will probably not\nobject, but I reserve that right. I thought the Senator from North Carolina had declared that he was\ninterested in 5 minutes worth of time and I think we ought to honor that request and thereby limit it and\nbe able to move this along.\nMr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina indicated that he did not wish a time\nlimitation to be imposed, but he assured us that he would not use more than 5 minutes and I am prepared\nto accept his word on that.\nI would like to ask the Senator from North Carolina if we would permit the Senator from Illinois to\nproceed first for 3 minutes, to change the order so he would then go second?\nMr. HELMS. To the contrary, let me appear last. Let everybody have their say and then I will wind up. I\nthank the leader.\nMr. MITCHELL. I renew my request with the modification the Senator from Illinois proceed first and\nthe Senator from North Carolina proceed last, in the order stated, all other terms of the request being the\nsame.\nMr. HELMS. Madam President, just one moment. I think someone, either the distinguished Senator\nfrom New Jersey or maybe the majority leader, misstated what I said. I said I did not want any time\nlimitation but I did not plan to use more than 5 minutes. Is that what the Chair understood me to say?\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:42 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103.2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e208596.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. DANFORTH. Madam President, I simply want to take a few minutes to share with the Senate the\nprofound distress that I experienced during this last series of votes. It became clear after the first vote\nthat this was a highly symbolic question and that the symbolism that we were supposed to vote on was\nhow we felt about racism in America.\nIf there is going to be a symbolic vote on that question, I have to vote that racism in America is\nsomething that has to be absolutely condemned and there cannot be any question in anybody's mind as to\nhow I feel about it. That is why I voted.\nBut I was almost sick to my stomach when I cast that vote, and the reason was that in order to prove in a\nsymbolic way my feelings about how disgusting racism is, I had to tar with the brush of racism innocent\npeople who are members of an organization, for whatever reason, that they feel strongly about and they\nfeel dearly about and their motives have nothing to do with racism and nothing to do with approval of\nslavery.\nThere are plenty of people in this country who are proud of their heritage and who are members of the\nUnited Daughters of the Confederacy, or whatever the comparable organization is for the survivors of\nthe Union, who are not racists. They are just proud of their ancestors.\nI was reminded during this series of votes that on April 10, 1865, after Robert E. Lee surrendered at\nAppomattox, President Lincoln asked that night on the lawn of the White House that two songs be\nplayed by the band to the crowd that had gathered. One song was 'Yankee Doodle' and the other song\nwas 'Dixie.' I take it that if April 10, 1865, occurred today, we would be having symbolic votes on the\nfloor of the U.S. Senate to the effect that the band should not have played 'Dixie' on that occasion.\nI hope the Civil War is behind us, and I hope that we do not have to prove our dedication to the cause of\nracial justice any more by rubbing it in the faces of those who, for perfectly innocent reasons, are\nmembers of either the United Daughters of the Confederacy or any other organization.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.\nMr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I have been here 10 years now, and there have been few, if any,\noccasions in which the remarks of a U.S. Senator left the kind of impression that the comments made by\nSenator Moseley-Braun, of Illinois, have made because she touched the nerve of everybody who had\nthe opportunity to hear what she was saying. She was reminding us that to salute that symbol was,\nindeed, a salute to racism. She articulated it so clearly, and if one wants to see what the effects were, one\nneed only look at the vote count on votes two and three when repudiation and redemption took place as\npeople examined their consciences.\nWhat she did was very clearly and very loudly sound the alarm. She was the Paul Revere of this day to\nsay, `Beware of what we are looking at, beware of racism, beware of the ugly sight of bigotry.'\nI do not attribute a sinister intention to everyone who voted differently, but there is no doubt in my mind\nthat couched somewhere in this support to preserve that symbol was an intended reminder that there is\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:42 PM\nhttp://homas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/~r103ypA6jS:e208596\nan old tradition, a history that is revered and beloved.\nSenator Moseley-Braun was so clear as she reminded us that people who bore her color were slaves,\nchattel, property to be sold and dealt with as they saw fit.\nAnd so today I think the Senate has had an opportunity to rethink a decision that it earlier made. Once\nagain, I say that I do not attribute a sinister meaning to every vote that was against the position that\nSenator Moseley-Braun took, but this symbol is a salute to a period that was a dark one in American\nhistory.\nSo I just want to say, Madam President, that I am proud of all of my colleagues this day, but particularly\nthe Senator from Illinois, who has established herself as a voice to be heard on matters of fairness and\nequity in our society forever.\nI thank the Chair.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:42 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:/temp/-r103ypA6jSe216926\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. HELMS. Madam President, I find myself highly regretful that the media have left the galleries and\ndid not hear the distinguished and able President pro tempore of the Senate. He has stated the case\nprecisely, and if he could have done that a bit earlier, some of the things that happened this afternoon\nwould not have happened.\nBe that as it may, I am proud of Bob Byrd and I refer to him that why because he is a fellow North\nCarolinian by birth, and he is the most exemplary authority on the United States Senate that I have ever\nknown--and I have known a lot of Senators, having been here in the early 1950's before I came here as a\nSenator in January 1973.\nI felt at times this afternoon, not very seriously, when I heard all of the condemnations of the insignia of\nthe United Daughters of the Confederacy--I felt a little bit like Mrs. O'Leary's cow, when all I was trying\nto do was to restore a sense of fairness by the Senate to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. But\nthe Senate rose above principle this afternoon when the specter of race was introduced by contrivance\ninto the debate. Race should never have been introduced and would not have been except for the\npolitical rhetoric and partisan oratory that happened this afternoon.\nI knew a remarkable Senator in the early 1950's when I was here administrative assistant to two North\nCarolina Senators--the Senator with whom I came to Washington died in office and Governor Umstead\nasked me to stay on awhile with the successor to Senator Smith. I shall never forget Richard Brevard\nRussell, whom everybody called Dick Russell, the Senator from Georgia. What a great statesman he\nwas.\nSenator Russell and I were talking abut the Senate one day, and I said, `Senator, it must be a matter of\ngreat pride to be a Member of the Senate.' He said, `Most of the time. Most of the time.' But, he said,\n\"There are times when some Senators practice the world's second oldest profession.'\nI think some of that happened here this afternoon. Piety I guess is the word that describes some of the\noratory this afternoon. My friend Chub Seawell, son of a Chief Justice of North Carolina, used to call it\n'piousity' in speeches he made.\nI do wish--and I know it is not going to happen--that the media, for once, would make it clear it was not\nthose of us on this side who introduced race into the debate this afternoon. It was a political ploy to\nescape responsibility for false pretense that should not have happened in the first place.\nLet me given you an example of an inaccuracy. Some Senators would have you believe that this\nConfederate battle flag is on the insignia of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Not so. I said\nover and over and over again that it was not so, but the other side pretended that the battle flag of the\nConfederate Army was on the insignia.\nHere is the total insignia. No Confederate battle flag there at all. It's the first national flag of the\nConfederacy. Senator Robert C. Byrd is exactly right. What happened today, Madam President, was a\nmajor revision of history.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:42 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/r103ypA6jS:e216926.\nIn response to the argument, heard over and over and over again this afternoon--to the point that I felt\nthat I was going to throw up--let me quote a distinguished journalist, a Pulitzer Prize-winning editor,\nPaul Greenberg, who is editor of the Arkansas Democrat. Mr. Greenberg wrote about this issue not long\nago. He was asking this question of the distinguished Senator from Illinois.\nWhat of the thousands of black soldiers who served under the confederate flag ? Are they to be read out\nof the race? And it was not the Supreme Court of the Confederate States of America that declared\nNegro slaves chattel in 1887, but that of the United States, Roger B. Taney, presiding.\nShall that Star-Spangled Banner, too, be denied congressional recognition?\nThen Mr. Greenberg wrote:\nBeyond contentions over fact, the whole enterprise of using the dead and the cause they died for, Union\nor Confederate, in order to justify some petty meanness today wreaks.\nThen he added:\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:42 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e233837\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. DODD. Madam President, I have been informed that my unanimous-consent request of some time\nago actually was not entered into when got off on a tangent. I will not ask for 30 minutes, unless my\ncolleague from Idaho wants to. I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes, whatever time is left, and that\nno second-degree amendments intervene. I make that request.\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\nMr. DODD. I apologize. I thought it had been entered into.\nMadam President, first of all, let me say, like Yogi Berra, this is like `deja vu all over again.' I thought I\nhad heard the last of family and medical leave some months ago, and after 7 years and three different\nvotes on the floor of the Senate, an override of a Presidential veto, we finally adopted family and\nmedical leave legislation by the vote of 71-27, with strong bipartisan support.\nI am not going to go into the entire arguments of family and medical leave legislation, obviously, with\nthe time allocated here. Suffice it to say that I made the point over the years that family and medical\nleave was not a benefit but a right, a fundamental right, as distinguished between a dental plan or a few\ndays of vacation, but the fundamental principle of human decency. People confronted with family crises\nought not to be put in the position of jeopardizing their health care benefits or their employment. They\nought to be able to deal with those crises and come back to their positions of responsibility.\nWe did not necessarily get into a lengthy division over here between being a volunteer or a full-time\nemployee. In this case here we are talking about full-time volunteers, not somebody who is showing up a\nfew hours a week to be a good citizen, to contribute to a church or charity, but rather, full-time\nvolunteers and all that that entails. All of the provisions of the family and medical leave apply.\nIf you are not working at least 25 hours a week, 1,250 hours a year, full time, you do not get any of these\nbenefits.\nSo as the Senator pointed out, it would not even begin to apply until the second year. If you are in your\nsecond year as a full-time volunteer and a family crisis hits, all we say is you can go deal with that,\nassuming you meet the criteria and the employer does, employing so many people, whether it is a\nvoluntary agency or a paid agency or not, without losing your health care benefits. If you go, you run the\nrisk of losing your health care benefits and, of course, you have to come back and complete the full 2\nyears or you do not get the educational benefits, which is also something.\nSo you have to come back and complete the 24 months that the bill requires. So to suggest that we are\nmaking some huge distinction--incidentally, VISTA volunteers will be included, and Peace Corps will\nnot, because we do not cover them in this bill. I think they ought to. I called the Peace Corps and asked,\n'What have you dealt with over the years, prior to dealing with the family and medical leave legislation,\nwhen volunteers'--and I was one and, thank God, I was not confronted with a family crisis, but I knew\npeople who were, and they went home and dealt with the family crisis, and the Peace Corps allowed\nthem to come back and maintain their benefits. That was before we adopted the legislation.\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:43 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e233837.\nSo, historically that has applied, and I think a strong case can be made when we talk about the\nreauthorization of the Peace Corps we do not apply it. This will cover VISTA and full-time volunteers\ninvolved in the program.\nSome people are totally opposed to family and medical leave. I understand that. We had a long debate\nabout whether or not there ought to be family and medical leave policies. One of the arguments--in fact,\nit was the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] who strenuously made this point, and he was right. He said,\nyou know, you guys in Congress want to go around and apply these programs to everybody in the\nprivate sector but do not want to apply them to people in the public\nsector, in Government. You want to exempt them.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:43 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e241657.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TRUST ACT OF 1993 (Senate - July 22, 1993)\nMr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask the Chair how much time I have remaining?\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 2 minutes; the Senator from Connecticut 6\nminutes.\nMr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Kansas.\nMrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from\nIdaho.\nI really believe national service is a different situation. Certainly, the Senator from Connecticut was\npersuasive, as he has always been on the family and medical leave issues. However, I did not support\nfamily and medical leave when it was debated earlier this year, and I do not believe it is an appropriate\nbenefit for participants in a volunteer service corps.\nThe Senator talked about the Peace Corps. As you know, those volunteers perform their service\noverseas.\nHowever, I think when you are serving here in the United States, in a volunteer organization which\noffers all the benefits that S. 919 offers; that, the health benefits, the child-care benefits, et cetera then\nadding family and medical leave on top of these benefits, goes far beyond the scope of a community\nservice corps.\nMr. President, I add again my strong support to the amendment of the Senator from Idaho.\nMr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for that statement.\nLet me say in closing, I do not think the intent of this legislation is to rewrite Webster's definition of\nvoluntarism, but that is exactly what is going on.\nMy colleague, who is expressing opposition, constantly referred to the employee. These are volunteers.\nThese are not full-time employees. If they were I would be speaking differently today.\nYes, I am in opposition to this legislation. I do not plan to hide behind this amendment at all. I do not\nbelieve we ought to be spending $10 billion in a $300 billion deficit environment. But that is neither\nhere nor there.\nWhat I am saying is, there has been a substantial change in what we are doing here. If a person is a\nvolunteer, then let them step back from their voluntarism to go home and take care of their needs. That is\nunderstandable. That is the way it ought to be. Why should we put a burden on nonprofit organizations\nin a voluntary setting to try to deal with this?\nSo, I would suggest that although we do provide benefits and they do have necessary consequences in\nthis area, we ought to say no, these are volunteers making a choice to do this. These not private-sector\n1 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:43 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:2:./temp/-r103ypA6jS:e241637.\nemployees. These are not organizations for profits. These are nonprofits.\nWith that I yield the remainder of my time.\nMr. DODD. Madam President, I want to point out we are not talking about vacation time here, not\nsomeone who says it is a nice day, I am going fishing tomorrow; mind if I take a day off?\nThe family and medical leave covers crises, serious illness. This is not something you wish happens at\nall. For all full-time volunteer out there working in a situation and a crisis hits, we do have health care\nbenefits here for the people covered under this program. There is a danger of losing those benefits, as\nwould be the case under other situations. The fact that you are a volunteer or employee, it is unpaid\nleave.\nThe issue of being paid is not in question here because there is not any pay involved in either case. We\nare talking about if you are out there as a volunteer and working hard in North Carolina, or Kansas, or\nIdaho, or Connecticut, and all of a sudden the parent is taking care of the child or the spouse gets\nreally ill and you have to be with them.\nThe question is should you be with them or not? And can you be with them without losing your\nbenefits?\nThat was the essence of the debate that occurred several months ago. That is the essence of the debate.\nThat has not changed. We are not talking about the part-time people.\nSo, the essence here has not changed by this fact, by being against the whole concept of family and\nmedical leave. That I accept. And I understand people do not like that idea. But to say that this fact\nsituation presented by this bill is fundamentally different covered on a right, not a benefit as we\ndescribed in a earlier legislation, I think would be an incorrect characterization of it.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n2 of 2\n10/20/1999 6:43 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:1:/temp/-r103ypA6jS:\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\nCongressional Record article 1 of 50\nFull Display - 6,448 bytes. [Help]\nFRESHMAN TURNS SENATE SCARLET -- HON. LOUIS STOKES (Extension of Remarks -\nJuly 28, 1993)\n[Page: E1907]\nHON. LOUIS STOKES\nin the House of Representatives\nWEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1993\nMr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, the American people witnessed a historic moment as\nthe Nation's first black female Senator, Carol Moseley-Braun, during debate on the Senate floor,\ntaught her colleagues a valuable lesson about racism. The controversy centered around the\ngranting of a patent which featured the Confederate flag for the United Daughters of the\nConfederacy.\nDuring the intense debate, the distinguished Senator from Illinois remained staunch in her\nopposition to the approval of the patent design. She used the opportunity to deliver a powerful\nmessage about symbolism, slavery, and the danger of simply going along with the status quo.\nSenator Braun was not only successful in her effort to defeat the amendment, but she won the\nrespect and admiration of her colleagues who, in the end, stood proudly with her to defeat the\nmeasure.\nMr. Speaker, it took courage for Carol Moseley-Braun to take this strong stand. I rise today to\napplaud her for this courageous effort. In recent days, many others have come forward to offer\ntheir congratulations. I read with great interest a commentary concerning the Senate debate which\nappeared in the July 27, 1993, edition of the Washington Post. It is certainly worthwhile reading\nand I am pleased to share it with my colleagues.\nThe calls, the letters, the flowers, the faxes, are pouring into Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun's office, and no\nwonder. The first black female senator is a heroine to her people and to liberals of all shades. She took\nthe Senate by the lapels and made it do right. She KO'd the body's self-designated ogre, Sen. Jesse\nHelms (R-N.C.).\nThe issue was trifle, critics keep saying. Oh, yeah? It was just a little matter of being nice to some\n'gentle ladies' of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, said Helms, pushing for an extension of\npatent for the Daughters' Confederacy flag insignia. The idea had been defeated in committee, but\nHelms tried to slip it in as an amendment to the national service bill. Mosely-Braun hurried to the floor\nand furiously demanded the tabling of the amendment.\nThe Senate, for a number of reasons too dreary to tell, voted 52 to 48 against her. Her seatmate, Sen.\nDianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who was also elected because of the way the Senate treated another black\n1 of 3\n10/20/1999 6:31 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:1:/temp/-r103ypA6jS:\nwoman, reached over and took her hand. 'It's terrible,' she said, `but hang on. I think we can fix it.' The\ntwo women stood there with their hands clasped. It was a tableau to remind the Senate how much things\nhad changed since the all-male Judiciary Committee manhandled Anita Hill.\nEven the most obtuse realized that in 1993, the Senate could not vote for the Confederacy, even in a\nsymbolic way. Only stupidity or racism could explain it. Moseley-Braun, a veteran of the Illinois\nlegislature, understood what she had to do. And she had a clear idea, uncommon in a freshman, of the\npower she possessed. She had to hold the floor, so she could continue the fight and carry out her furious\nthreat to `talk until this chamber freezes over' if necessary.\nThe following several hours were not just dramatic, they were history-making. People actually listened\nto the debate. The Senate for once argued not about itself but about the country, about the right of one\ngroup to offend another. For once senators\nchanged their minds. Things that are usually decided in the cloakroom, were settled on the floor in plain\nsight. Stricken senators volunteered for emergency duty. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) offered to line up\nfellow Republicans. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) organized Democrats. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.)\nwarned his colleagues that `this was not a free vote.' He meant that those who meant merely to throw a\nbone to the Old South or to Jesse Helms would have no place to hide when the country saw what they\nhad wrought.\nSen. Wendell H. Ford (D-Ky.), who had earlier voted with Helms, introduced the resolution to\nreconsider the motion--under the rules, loser Moseley-Braun could not. Senators lined up to speak.\nHowell T. Heflin (D-Ala.), newly returned from heart surgery, heaved himself to his feet and said\nheavily, `Mr. President, I rise with a conflict that is deeply rooted in many aspects of controversy.'\nAn ancestor, he told the rapt chamber, had signed the order of secession. The women in his family had\nbeen members of the Daughters. 'But we live in a different world,' he sighed. Others were reminded\nabout black constituencies who felt about the issue exactly as Moseley-Braun. Sen. Daniel Patrick\nMoynihan (D-N.Y.) called it an `epiphany--a sudden shining through of an eternal reality that had not\nbeen there.'\nThe motion to reconsider passed by a 75 to 25 vote, and Helms huffed that `race should never have been\nintroduced'--as though the Confederate flat was in no way a provocative reminder of what\nMoseley-Braun called the `the single most painful episode in American history.'\nIts first black female senator had shamed the club into realizing that it is not an old boy's club and maybe\nnot a club at all, but a body with responsibilities for protecting minorities in the country as well as in its\nmembership. The immediate effect may be the confirmation of Joycelyn Elders as surgeon general, the\nfutility of opposing strong-minded black women having been shown anew. Moseley-Braun is aglow,\nknowing she has redeemed herself with Illinois voters who were disillusioned by her post-election\nextravagances.\nThe day after the operatic afternoon, she went to the Senate dining room and got an opera star's\nwelcome. Senators, grateful that she had rescued them from opprobrium, waved at her, blew kisses and\nintroduced their constituents.\nWhat probably meant as much to her was being surrounded by the black waiters and waitresses. Their\nusual diffidence overcome, they shook hands with her, they murmured, 'We appreciate what you did.\nThank you.'\nThey knew absolutely what it all meant.\n2 of 3\n10/20/1999 6:31 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:1:./temp/~103ypA6jS:\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDoc Contents\n3 of 3\n10/20/1999 6:31 PM"
}