On the recordFebruary 23, 1994
I join in supporting this resolution. Let me explain why I think it is reasonable to single out Mr. Muhammad's speech from the welter of vicious nonsense that is out there. Unfortunately the auspices of that speech, and particularly Mr. Farrakhan's implicit affirmation of its substance, and I disagreed with its tone, but he said he could not repudiate its substance, so unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that has given it an aura of respectability in some quarters. We are not talking now just about some raving lunatic. We are talking about a raving lunatic, but he is, unfortunately, not just a raving lunatic. He was a high-ranking representative of Mr. Farrakhan's movement, supported in his substance by Mr. Farrakhan, and that does, I think, require us to speak out. I agree with those like the gentleman from Maryland who eloquently pointed out that we have not criticized others. I wish we would change the rule that immunizes Members of the U.S. Senate from ever being discussed by us. We can respond to anybody in the world except the U.S. Senate. That is a bad rule, but I do not allow that bad rule to say that we cannot respond to other cases, and the response and reception that Mr. Muhammad has been receiving on college campuses and the support he has gotten from Mr. Farrakhan justifies our saying that we think this is vicious nonsense. It is not, from my standpoint, a perfect resolution.
Source
govinfo.gov




