[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2994-S3010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAXPAYER FIRST ACT OF 2019--Continued
H.R. 1957
Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, yesterday, we had a series of
successful votes to move forward on the Great American Outdoors Act. I
am excited with the votes we have taken last week and the votes last
night and that we will finally move to passage of the legislation, the
Great American Outdoors Act, tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support
this bill.
We had the opportunity over the last several weeks--last week, in
particular--to talk about what it means for every State in the country,
what it means for every county in the country, and the significant
opportunity for conservation, which is the crown jewel of conservation
programs and, of course, our national parks. It is not just national
parks, of course. It is our forests, and it is our BLM grounds and the
efforts we have with the Bureau of Indian Education.
I thought I would talk specifically about some Colorado projects
today and what the Land and Water Conservation Fund has meant for
Colorado.
This is a photo of Wilson Peak in Colorado. It rises over Telluride
in southwest Colorado. Wilson Peak is one of the 54 mountains in
Colorado that top 14,000 feet. Climbers and hikers eager to summit the
14,500-foot peak, located in the Lizard Head Wilderness, have been
frustrated for years by key land access routes being blocked, which
made it impossible to get to. In addition, Wilson Peak long remained
the last ``fourteener'' in Colorado without public access.
Through 9 years, very complex land exchange negotiations, and work to
assemble suitable exchange properties and funding, the Trust for Public
Land purchased 25 patented mining claims, including the summit and key
portions of the main summit trail from multiple private owners. In
2011, the Trust for Public Land formally transferred ownership of land
to the U.S. Forest Service, ensuring in perpetuity the public access to
Wilson Peak summit.
If you go to the next one, this is a photograph of the Big Thompson
River. In 1976, rains began to pour near Estes Park, CO, and caused one
of the biggest natural disasters in Colorado's history. A remarkable 12
inches of rain fell in about 4 hours. As a reminder, there are areas of
Colorado that only get about 14 inches of moisture a year. A remarkable
12 inches of rain fell in about 4 hours, bringing the Big Thompson
River to 19 feet above its normal level, and sending 31,000 cubic feet
per second of water racing downstream, down the canyon, carrying with
it everything and anything in its path. The flood claimed 145 lives,
418 homes, 52 businesses, and caused millions and millions of dollars
of damage in 1976.
In the aftermath of the disaster, Larimer County recognized that
simply rebuilding new homes in harm's way within the floodway didn't
make sense. The county turned to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
as an important part of the solution. With just over $1 million from
Land and Water Conservation Fund and some other matching resources, the
county acquired a number of properties along the Big Thompson River,
which provided
[[Page S2995]]
new outdoor recreation opportunities to residents and visitors on 156
acres of land along the river, highlighted by four new county parks.
This has been an incredible recreation opportunity, but it has
certainly led to greater safety for Coloradans.
The Blanca Wetlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern is another
incredible area of Colorado. The Bureau of Land Management has
benefited. After decades of water overappropriation caused the lowering
of the valley's water table, the rapid disappearance of wetlands and
plummeting bird population, State and Federal agencies initiated the
Wetland Restoration Effort in the 1960s, including this wetlands area.
You can see the work we have done with the Land and Water Conservation
Fund on this.
Red Mountain Pass is another example. It is a multiphased project
completed by the Trust for Public Lands and Colorado Partners with
funding from the LWCF. It is a scenic property lying above the town of
Ouray that forms portions of the panoramic backdrop used by motorists
from Highway 550's Red Mountain Pass and on Ouray and San Juan
Counties' rugged alpine loops. It is an incredible experience. You can
see the work we have done with it here.
If you go to the Uncompahgre National Forest, over the years, LWCF
has invested nearly $27 million into the Uncompahgre[-]San Juan
National Forest of Colorado to protect this valley, which is a 10-year-
long process that ultimately resulted in the conservation of thousands
of acres surrounding the town. It is incredible for recreation and
preservation--this critical habitat and environmental treasure and
conservation accomplishment for all of the country.
I also want to point out some of the great news about this bill back
in Colorado.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record this article from the Durango Herald, which was written on June
13, and an article from the Denver Post, dated June 9, 2020
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Durango Herald, June 13, 2020]
`Holy Grail' Conservation Bill Advances in U.S. Senate
(By Jacob Wallace)
A new bill funding maintenance and improvement projects for
public lands is gaining steam in the U.S. Senate.
The Great American Outdoors Act would permanently fund the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, a trust set up by the U.S.
government to pay for park maintenance projects, and
establish a consistent source of revenue for park
conservation that would reduce years of maintenance backlog
throughout public lands.
The bill, spearheaded by Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., passed on an 80-17 vote Monday,
allowing it to proceed to floor debate in the Senate.
``This is a historic opportunity for us, in a bipartisan
fashion, to pass the most significant conservation measure in
over 50 years,'' Gardner said.
More than 800 conservation and outdoor recreation groups
have signed on to a letter published in March supporting the
bill, arguing that it was a permanent fix to a long-neglected
issue. The Outdoor Alliance, one of the nonprofit
organizations that signed the letter, pushed to expand the
legislation to include the Bureau of Land Management and
other public agencies in addition to the National Park
Service.
``This is definitely the biggest investment in parks and
public lands that we've seen in years, in decades,'' said
Tania Lown-Hecht, spokeswoman for the Outdoor Alliance.
``This is not to be underestimated.''
If passed, the bill would mandate $1.9 billion in money
raised from offshore oil and gas leases, and other energy
projects would go toward outdoor maintenance and recreation
projects through 2025. It would also fully fund the about
$900 million budget of the LWCF, with the money split between
the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of
Indian Education, with the bulk of the money going to
national parks.
Lown-Hecht and others have been making the pitch that
conservation spending is a strong job creator: One study
found that every $1 million spent on the LWCF could support
between 16.8 and 30.8 jobs.
``It will put people to work in public lands, and that's an
investment that will bring back more than a dollar for every
dollar spent,'' Lown-Hecht said.
The LWCF was created in 1964 and was based on the idea that
the depletion of one natural resource, offshore oil and gas,
should be offset by the care of other natural resources
protected as parks.
Since that time, however, Congress has often failed to
appropriate the full amount of money that the fund could have
received each year, creating a logjam of maintenance projects
in national parks across the country that have totaled to
more than $30 billion in deferred maintenance, according to
the fund's own account.
The bill gained momentum after Sens. Gardner and Steve
Daines, R-Mont., visited the White House in March to convince
President Donald Trump to support the bill. Since then, the
bill has earned the attention of Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell as well as other Republican senators eager to
support a bipartisan bill during an election year.
Gardner also noted that the timing of the bill is
especially prescient as rural communities in Southwest
Colorado and elsewhere have been hard hit by a drop in
tourism and job losses during the pandemic. Advocates agree,
arguing park projects could be part of a broader plan for
recovery.
``We see this as a way to not only address the maintenance
backlog on these lands but to put jobs on the ground for
people where they've lost them,'' said Tom Cors, policy
director for The Nature Conservancy.
The Senate will continue to debate the bill throughout the
week. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., has also announced his
support of the bill. If it passes, the House of
Representatives will then have the option to vote on an
identical companion bill introduced last week.
Cors is cautiously optimistic about the bill's chances,
saying it is a conservation win 55 years in the making.
``We've been working on this for years and years and this
is the holy grail of the conservation community,'' Cors said.
``We're ecstatic that this is happening''
____
[From the Denver Post, June 9, 2020]
With Cory Gardner Leading the Charge, Senate Takes Up Great American
Outdoors Act
(By Bruce Finley)
Colorado senators are leading a congressional push to pass
landmark conservation legislation that would deploy $9.5
billion to maintain overrun national parks and permanently
direct $900 million a year for outdoor recreation on public
lands.
President Donald Trump has said he will sign this Great
American Outdoors Act if lawmakers get it to his desk.
Senators this week took up the issue, aiming for a vote next
Tuesday, and around 200 House members have said they'll
support similar legislation.
Conservationists for decades have prioritized these
measures as crucial steps to ensure healthy public lands,
increasingly seen as essential for a booming recreation
industry that has become an economic mainstay, especially in
Colorado and the West.
Congress has failed to provide the full $900 million a year
for land acquisition and other spending that the 1965 Land
and Water Conservation Act requires. Lawmakers have approved
spending between $255 million and $450 million a year since
2008 and only twice in 55 years provided the full $900
million.
National Park Service officials have estimated deferred
maintenance as land and facilities deteriorate will cost more
than $20 billion.
``We've been trying for decades to get this done. Now we
have an historic window to actually achieve it. This is a
moment where we need to capitalize to get this great
achievement accomplished,'' Sen. Cory Gardner said in an
interview Tuesday.
On March 3, Gardner, of Yuma, went to the White House and,
in a discussion with Trump, showed a photo he'd taken on his
iPhone of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park in
Colorado. Trump said it was beautiful. Gardner also said he
pointed to a portrait of President Teddy Roosevelt, a leading
conservationist, in suggesting that Trump support could lead
to a major achievement. He said Trump gazed up at the
portrait and said he would sign the legislation.
Sen. Michael Bennet of Denver is one of some 60 Senate
sponsors of the Great American Outdoors Act but is proposing
amending it to include the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and
Economy (CORE) Act, which would protect about 400,000 acres
of public land in Colorado, establishing new wilderness and
recreation opportunities.
``This week, we have an opportunity to secure new
protections for public lands in Colorado that were left out
of the public lands bill Congress passed last year,'' Bennet
said, urging colleagues to incorporate the CORE Act ``or to
quickly pass'' it on its own.
Gardner said, regarding the amendment, that Bennet ``may
try to get a vote on that. That is his bill. The GAOA
certainly will help the CORE Act.''
A June 3 letter to congressional leaders from six former
Department of Interior secretaries, including Ken Salazar
(2009-2013) and Gale Norton (2001-2006) of Colorado, urged
swift passage of the GAOA ``without any amendments.''
This push to provide permanent full funding for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund and step up public lands
maintenance reflects years of wrangling in Congress to
support outdoors recreation on public land.
The Land and Water Conservation Act, passed in 1965, says
money should go to federal agencies to acquire land and to
states for acquisition of land and waters and to develop
recreation facilities.
[[Page S2996]]
The Great American Outdoors Act combines two previous bills
that each had strong majority bipartisan support. One part
would provide full and permanent funding of $900 million each
year, the amount the fund is authorized to receive, from
offshore oil and gas revenues--not tax dollars. The other
aims for parks restoration by investing $1.9 billion annually
for the next five years to maintain land managed by the
National Park Service, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Indian Education and Bureau of Land
Management.
Conservation groups have welcomed the bill.
``This will be a remarkable gift for the future and also is
important for the present. It's going to put up to 100,000
people to work each year fixing our national parks,'' said
Tracy Stone-Manning, associate vice president for public
lands at the National Wildlife Federation, a conservation
group with 6 million members.
Beyond national parks and forests, the congressional
spending each year could help cities such as Denver and
Missoula, where urban voters are pushing leaders to acquire
more land for parks and other open space.
``Our parks and open space set-asides need to grow with our
population. We've seen, during the pandemic, the importance
of the ability to be safely outside in parks,'' Stone-Manning
said.
``Denver could identify property that is worth acquiring
and use Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars to help
acquire it,'' she said. ``Humans have to have access to
nature for our health, and we have a long-term need to
protect our larger landscapes.''
Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, this article is entitled the `` `Holy
Grail' conservation bill advances in U.S. Senate.'' If you take a look
at the article, it quotes conservationists and people across the
country who are working on the legislation, and it ends with this:
``We've been working on this for years and years and this
is the holy grail of conservation community,'' Cors said.
We're ecstatic that this is happening.
That is from a member of the Nature Conservancy.
The article from the Denver Post talks about the legislation and,
again, the conservation community that supports the legislation.
``This will be a remarkable gift for the future and also is
important for the present. It's going to put up to 100,000
people to work each year fixing our national parks,'' said
Tracy-Stone Manning, associate vice president for public
lands at the National Wildlife Federation, a conservation
group with 6 million members.
It goes on to point out ``cities such as Denver and Missoula, where
urban voters are pushing leaders to acquire more land for parks and
other open space.''
This is an opportunity for us to achieve those goals in our urban
areas.
Finally, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a letter from a number of Coloradans in support of the Great
American Outdoors Act sent to Congress a few weeks ago
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Dear Senators & Representatives: As Colorado-based
businesses and organizations, we urge you to support our
state's great outdoors through full funding of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund {LWCF}. We ask that you lend your
full support to passing the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Permanent Funding Act, so that our nation's most successful
conservation program can continue its long track record of
success.
LWCF is built on a simple idea: that a portion of offshore
drilling fees should be used to protect important land and
water for all Americans. Through its over 50-year history,
LWCF has invested more than $278 million in Colorado's public
lands and outdoor recreation. Funds have gone toward public
lands including Colorado crown jewels like the Black Canyon
of the Gunnison and Rocky Mountain National Parks, toward
healthy working forests through the public-private
partnerships of the Forest Legacy Program, and toward local
parks and trail projects in communities across the state.
These investments not only benefit the public lands and
outdoor opportunities that are a valued part of our Colorado
way of life, but also promote tourism and the outdoor
recreation industry which are among our state's most
important economic drivers. The Outdoor Industry Association
reports that active outdoor recreation in Colorado generates
$28 billion in consumer spending, supporting 229,000 Colorado
jobs. Our great outdoors isn't just good fun--it's good
business.
Congress last year passed permanent reauthorization of the
LWCF; now it is time to ensure that it is fully funded now
and into the future. Please support passage of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Permanent Funding Act, to benefit
Colorado's vital outdoor recreation economy and the quality
of life we enjoy as Coloradans.
Sincerely,
David Nickum, Executive Director, Colorado Trout Unlimited;
Suzanne O'Neill, Executive Director, Colorado Wildlife
Federation; Don Holmstrom, Co-chair, Backcountry Hunters &
Anglers; April Archer, CEO, SaraBella Fishing LLC; Ben Kurtz,
President, Fishpond; David Dragoo, President, Mayfly
Outdoors; Julie Mach, Conservation Director, Colorado
Mountain Club; Matt Rice, Director, Colorado River Basin
Program, American Rivers; Corinne & Garrison Doctor, Co-
owners, Rep Your Water; Henry Wood, VP of Sales & Marketing,
Upslope Brewing; Randy Hicks, Owner, Rocky Mountain Anglers,
Boulder; Buck Skillen, President, Five Rivers Chapter,
Durango; Mark Seaton, President, San Luis Valley Chapter,
Alamosa.
Michele White, Owner, Tumbling Trout Fly Shop, Lake George;
Pete Ashman, President, Grand Valley Anglers, Grand Junction;
Johnny Spillane, Owner, Steamboat Fly Fishers, Steamboat
Springs; Erik Myhre, Founder & President, Basin + Bend,
Evergreen; Allyn Kratz, President, Pikes Peak Chapter,
Colorado Springs; Christopher Smith, Board President, Left
Hand Watershed Group, Longmont; Dan Chovan, President, Yampa
Valley Fly Fishers, Steamboat Springs; Nick Noesen,
President, Eagle Valley Chapter, Eagle; Mike Larned,
President, Alpine Anglers, Estes Park; Brandon Mathis,
Marketing Coordinator, Backcountry Experience, Durango;
Tucker Ladd, President/Owner, Trouts Fly Fishing, Denver;
Brendan Besetzny, President, Boulder Flycasters; Mike Kruise,
Owner, Laughing Grizzly Fly Shop, Longmont.
Mickey McGuire, President, Rocky Mountain Flycasters, Ft.
Collins; Barbara Luneau, President, St. Vrain Anglers,
Longmont; Steve Wolfe, President, Southern Colorado
Greenbacks Chapter, Pueblo; Chris Keeley, Principal, Anglers
All, Littleton; David Leinweber, Owner, Angler's Covey,
Colorado Springs; Trent Hannafious, President, Gunnison Gorge
Anglers, Montrose; Jack Llewellyn, Executive Director,
Durango Chamber of Commerce; Rob Schmidt, Manager,
Duranglers, Durango; Grant Smith, Owner, Riverwalk Theater,
Edwards, Edwards Supply Company, Edwards; Kirk Klancke,
President, Colorado River Headwaters Chapter, Fraser; Cole
Glenn, Manager, San Juan Angler, Durango; Karla Baise, CSR
Community Engagement Specialist, Odell Brewing Company, Ft.
Collins; Jake Jones, Managing Director, Eleven Outdoors,
Crested Butte.
Charlie Craven, Owner, Charlie's Fly Box, Arvada; Jackson
Streit, Owner, The Mountain Angler, Breckenridge; Kyle
Perkins, Fishing Manager, Golden River Sports, Golden; Allen
Adinoff, President Cutthroat Chapter, Littleton; Jeff Poole,
President, North Fork Ranch Guide Service, Shawnee; Ed
Calmus, President, West Denver Chapter, Golden; Bill Dvorak,
Owner, Dvorak Expeditions, Nathrop; Greg Hardy, President,
Gore Range Anglers, Silverthorne; Dennis Steinbeck,
President/Co-owner, Blue Quill Angler, Evergreen; Jeremy
Dakan, Owner, Pine Needle Mountaineering, Durango; Shaun
Hargerave, Partner, Boulder Boat Works, Carbondale; Peter
Stitcher, Owner, Ascent Fly Fishing, Littleton; Greg Felt,
Chaffee County Commissioner.
Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, this is signed by David Nickum,
executive director of Colorado Trout Unlimited; Suzanne O'Neill,
executive director of Colorado Wildlife Federation; and Colorado
Mountain Club, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Odell Brewing Company in
Fort Collins, on and on, talking about the LWCF being built on a simple
idea and the fact that we can help restore our national parks and our
greatest treasures with the combined efforts of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and the Great American Outdoors Act in this
legislation.
As Members prepare for this vote tomorrow, I hope they will consider
the impact this will have on generations to come.
Yesterday, we talked about a letter written by the great-grandson of
President Teddy Roosevelt. The fact that we are continuing today that
legacy to build on the conservation and the environmental successes
that started well over 100 years ago in this country and our public
lands is an incredible treasure that this country has and that we can
build on for generations to come.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Justice in Policing Act
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to speak about an
overwhelming and urgent need to reform the way our country approaches
policing. The death of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Breonna Taylor,
George Floyd, Tony McDade, Andrew Kearse, and countless others are
deeply disturbing and, most unfortunately, nothing new.
The truth is, for every name we know, there are countless more that
we don't. This type of oppression and brutality has been part of Black-
American lives for far too long. It should not happen, and in the
horrific instances when it does, it should not take a viral video
[[Page S2997]]
and a nationwide protest to get some measure of justice.
We are at a moment of moral reckoning in this country, and we must
take action. Our country needs bold reforms to address the systemic and
institutional racism that plagues our criminal justice system. The
Justice in Policing Act of 2020, introduced by my colleagues Senators
Booker and Harris, would make crucial and much needed changes to
address our Nation's policing practices and policies. We should pass
this bill as soon as possible.
We were reminded, sadly, of the urgency of this legislation on
Friday, when Rayshard Brooks was shot in the back by police in Atlanta.
It is clear that we don't have time to waste. Lives are on the line
today. We need reform now. We need accountability, and we need it to
happen now.
The Justice in Policing Act of 2020 would ban the no-knock warrant
police used to enter Breonna Taylor's apartment before killing her. It
would prevent unnecessary deaths like Rayshard Brooks by requiring that
officers use deescalation techniques and resort to deadly force only as
the last resort.
It also includes a provision that I worked on with Congressman Hakeem
Jeffries, the Eric Garner Excessive Force Prevention Act. It would ban
the types of choke holds and carotid holds that killed George Floyd and
Eric Garner by making the use of these dangerous maneuvers a Federal
civil rights violation.
Black Americans are killed by police at more than twice the rate of
White Americans, despite accounting for less than 13 percent of our
population. This legislation would not only end racial and religious
profiling, but it would mandate training on racial bias and on an
officer's duty to intervene.
The bill would also improve accountability by requiring Federal
uniform police officers to wear body cameras and require State and
local law enforcement to use existing Federal funding to ensure their
officers use body cameras as well.
Too often, after these unthinkable incidents of brutality, we learn
that law enforcement officers responsible had a history of misconduct.
This bill would collect better and more accurate data on police
misconduct and the use of force and create a national registry that
would track officers' complaint records throughout their careers. And
it would improve the use of pattern and practice investigations into
unconstitutional and discriminatory policing practice at the Federal,
State, and local levels.
The fact is that 99 percent of killings by police do not result in
any charges. Convictions on those charges are even rarer. This bill
would amend the Federal criminal statute that has made it extremely
difficult to prosecute law enforcement officers.
Finally, the bill would take the long overdue step of making lynching
a Federal crime. After the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, it is clear that
this problem must be addressed. We can never bring back those who we
have been lost in these horrific killings or even begin to make these
families whole. But we can and must take steps toward making sure that
these tragedies never happen again.
An Executive order that merely restates the law that Congress passed
in 1994 is clearly not enough. Establishing justice is at the heart of
the preamble of our Constitution, and we must deliver on the promise
that we made as a nation. We must match the efforts of those working to
change the system from the outside with the efforts of those who are
changing the system from the inside, with efforts to change it for
good. We have a lot of work ahead of us, and this bill will ensure that
we start on the right foot.
I would like to read a passage of Scripture that informs me on this
issue. Matthew 25, verse 44:
They also will answer: Lord, when did we see you hungry or
thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in
prison, and did not help you?
He will reply: Truly, I tell you, whatever you did not do
for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.
Then, they will go away to eternal punishment but the
righteous to eternal life.
We have a moral obligation. We have an obligation given our shared
commitment to upholding the Constitution. We have a moral
responsibility to not let this moment pass.
Who are we? What defines us? What kind of people are we? If we refuse
to act now when the country is raging--rightfully so--we decline to do
what is right.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Remembering Larry Walsh, Sr.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, earlier this month, Illinois lost a
local legend after a courageous 5-year battle against cancer.
A lifelong Illinoisan and a 50-year public servant, Larry Walsh, Sr.,
was known for his booming voice and big smile. He was a warm, welcoming
presence in my life and the lives of his family, friends, and countless
others.
Larry, much like the communities he would come to represent on the
local, county, and State levels, embodied the spirit and ethos of
Illinois. He was born in Elwood, into a family with deep roots in the
farming community. Dedicating his early life to the family trade, he
graduated Joliet Junior College, class of 1968, earning his associate's
degree in agriculture.
In 1970, at only the age of 21, he made his foray into politics,
winning an election to the local school board. Just 3 years later, he
was elected as Jackson Township supervisor--a position he took great
pride in and continued to hold until December of 2004.
He was first elected to the Will County Board in 1974--a county he
would ultimately lead as county executive for the last 16 years of his
life.
Will County is a great cross-section of Illinois. It is where the
farmlands of Central and Southern Illinois converge with the industry
of Chicago and Joliet. It is not only home to over 100,000 acres of
farmland, but it is also a booming transportation hub anchored by North
America's largest inland port, the CenterPoint Intermodal Center--a
project that Larry helped to land. Larry was one of the few Illinois
politicians who could credibly represent and be an advocate for both
Illinois's farming community and understand the region's need for
industrial expansion.
Throughout his career in public service, he was steadfastly committed
to bipartisanship--an absolute must for a leader who would help guide
Will County's development into the fastest growing county in our State.
Before he returned to the county board in 2004, Larry served in the
Illinois Senate, representing the 43rd District. In Springfield, he
befriended a fellow freshman Senator and seatmate on the floor, Barack
Obama. Their friendship would prove critical, as Larry helped introduce
him to the farming community in Will, Kankakee, and Iroquois Counties
and then became the first State senator to endorse him in what was then
considered a long-shot run for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
Larry's list of accomplishments is quite long and spans a crucial
time in Will County's development. During Larry's time in the State
senate and his return to lead the Will County Board, the county
experienced a 53-percent growth in size and now is the fourth largest
county in the State. Throughout his 16-year tenure as Will County
executive--the longest Will County executive tenure ever--he redoubled
his commitment to bipartisan, responsible community development. In
addition to helping land CenterPoint Intermodal, he helped establish
the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie Reserve, championed the
construction of a new Will County sheriff's office law enforcement
center, and broke ground on the new Will County Courthouse that will
open this fall.
Beyond elected service, he remained deeply rooted in and dedicated to
his community. He was a member of the Joliet Exchange Club, the Elwood
Lions Club, Friends of Hospice, and many local chambers of commerce. He
passionately contributed to local charities, like MorningStar Mission,
Make-A-Wish Foundation, Boy Scouts of America, and Cornerstone, among
many others.
He was a lifelong parishioner of St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church in
Wilmington. He attended daily Mass and was a Eucharistic minister and a
member of the Knights of Columbus.
I can't begin to do justice to the legacy that Larry leaves behind,
but to his wife, Irene, of 50 years, his six children, and all the rest
of his loved ones, please know how much we all cared for
[[Page S2998]]
and how much we all respected Larry and how greatly he will be missed.
Thank you
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Senate Legislative Agenda
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, as I do every week, this past
weekend, I went back to Tennessee. I will tell you, it really did my
heart a lot of good to see people who are out and about and enjoying
beautiful weather and enjoying our beautiful State. Nashville is
beginning to open the doors of our music venues. Our church bells are
ringing, people are attending services, and our hikers are back
exploring our beautiful State parks and the Smokies.
Here on Capitol Hill, though, things really do look a lot different.
When we come back into town, we still return to empty offices and
emptier hallways. I will tell you, I have had a lot of people ask me:
What in the world is happening in Washington these days? Well, even
though the Chamber will look empty to those who are watching on TV, I
want everybody who is watching to know that the Senate is here, and the
Senate is at work.
Before the pandemic sent everyone home, we had made great progress
repairing our Nation's judiciary and filling empty seats at important
Federal agencies. The Senate has placed 198 well-qualified,
constitutionalist judges on the Federal bench. This week, we are going
to hit that 200 number. We will be considering more of our district
court nominations in coming weeks.
We are also preparing to consider the nomination of a former member
of our House Republican Study Committee team. Russ Vought has been
serving as OMB's Acting Director since January of 2019, and soon we
will decide whether to make that position permanent. I will tell you, I
think Russ is more than worthy of that honor, and I encourage my
colleagues to support his confirmation when the time comes for that
vote.
China
At this point, we know for a fact that the Chinese Government
withheld information about the novel coronavirus that could have spared
the American people a lot of heartache and even prevented the COVID-19
outbreak from escalating into a global pandemic. Their lies have
already had catastrophic effects on the American economy, on loss of
life, on people's livelihoods, and on their well-being. But I think it
is important to reiterate that this kind of behavior from China is not
new. It is not new. It is just newly realized.
For a long time now, corporations, educational institutions, and even
Members of this body have been happy to ignore the problem because of
profits. I have spoken at length about the many ways that Big Tech's
entanglement with Beijing has jeopardized our privacy, intellectual
property, and our Nation's security.
Everyone here is familiar with the Chinese Communist Party's
shameless use of political violence against the Uighurs, the Tibetans,
and the Hong Kong freedom fighters, but what many don't know is that
the Chinese Communist Party has been using their Confucius Institute
program to fly under the radar at American colleges and universities
and to suppress information about the true nature of the Chinese
Government's role.
These so-called institutes are pitched as opportunities to promote
cultural studies, but in reality they are propaganda mills directly
funded by the Chinese Communist Party. By design, they threaten
academic liberty and free speech. But somehow Beijing has managed to
place 72 Confucius Institutes on American college campuses. It is hard
to believe, but 72 of our Nation's colleges and universities are hosts
to these Chinese Communist Party-funded Confucius Institutes. They even
say that this is part of their soft power and their propaganda.
American students deserve to know who is really talking to them at
these institutes. Last week, we took the first step toward protecting
the integrity of our universities by passing the bipartisan CONFUCIUS
Act by unanimous consent. The bill would grant full managerial
authority to the universities that host Confucius Institutes and
prohibit the application of any foreign law on any campus of a host
institution. This is one piece of a larger effort to expose the Chinese
Communist Party's efforts to pollute the minds of our young people. We
thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership in passing this legislation
last week.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Transparency for Confucius
Institutes Act, which would require ``program participation
agreements'' between these institutes and their American hosts to
address the way Chinese officials influence what can and cannot be
taught in these programs.
I also led a group of colleagues in urging Education Secretary Betsy
DeVos to increase agency oversight of these programs so that we--the
American people, the American taxpayer, students, and their families--
know what is being taught and the programs that are being offered in
these institutes and, also, know who is paying for this.
Since March, life in America has changed dramatically, but the
challenges and threats this country faces have not gone away. Because
of that, it is important that, yes, we keep our attention on these
issues that are still out there. Even though our attention has been
placed on the crisis and the matter at hand, we still have a duty to
govern and to protect the country and her institutions from destructive
influences at home and those that come from far away.
I encourage my colleagues to remember this and to stay focused as we
begin another week of negotiations and votes.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia
Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I rise today to offer a few thoughts
about the Bostock case handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday. I
have it here. I have now had a chance to read the case, the decision by
the majority of the Court, and the two dissenting opinions.
I have to say I agree with the news reports that have said that this
is truly a seismic decision. It is truly a historic decision. It is
truly a historic piece of legislation.
This piece of legislation changes the scope of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. It changes the meaning of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It changes
the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, you might well argue it
is one of the most significant and far-reaching updates to that
historic piece of legislation since it was adopted all of those years
ago.
Make no mistake, this decision, this piece of legislation will have
effects that range from employment law to sports to churches.
There is only one problem with this piece of legislation. It was
issued by a court, not by a legislature. It was written by judges, not
by the elected representatives of the people. And it did what this
Congress has pointedly declined to do for years now, which is to change
the text and the meaning and the application and the scope of a
historic piece of legislation.
I think it is significant for another reason as well. This decision,
this Bostock case and the majority who wrote it, represents the end of
something. It represents the end of the conservative legal movement or
the conservative legal project as we know it. After Bostock, that
effort as we know it, as it has existed up to now, is over. I say this
because if textualism and originalism give you this decision, if you
can invoke textualism and originalism in order to reach a decision, an
outcome fundamentally that changes the scope--meaning and application
of statutory law--then textualism, originalism, and all of those
phrases don't mean much at all.
Those are the things we have been fighting for. That is what I
thought we had been fighting for. Those who call ourselves legal
conservatives, if we have been fighting for legalism and textualism and
this is the result of that, then I have to say that it turns out we
haven't been fighting for very much, or maybe we have been fighting for
quite a lot, but it has been exactly the opposite of what we thought we
were fighting for.
[[Page S2999]]
This is a very significant decision. It marks a turning point for
every conservative, and it marks a turning point for the legal
conservative movement. The legal conservative project has always
depended on one group of people in particular, in order to carry the
weight of the votes, to actually support this out in public, to get out
there and make it possible electorally, and those are religious
conservatives. I am one myself.
Evangelicals, conservative Catholics, conservative Jews--they are the
ones--let's be honest--they are the ones who have been the core of the
legal conservative effort. The reason for that is--it dates back
decades now, back to the 1970s. The reason for that is these religious
conservatives are from different backgrounds, but what they have
consistently sought together was protection for their right to worship,
for their right to freely exercise their faith, as the First Amendment
guarantees, for their right to gather in their communities, for their
right to pursue the way of life that their scriptures variously command
and that the Constitution absolutely protects. That is what they have
asked for, that is what they have sought all these years.
Yet, as to those religious conservatives, how do they fare in
yesterday's decision? What will this decision mean, this rewrite of
Title VII? What will it mean for churches? What will it mean for
religious schools? What will it mean for religious charities?
Well, in the many pages of its opinion--33 pages to be exact--the
majority does finally get around to say something about religious
liberty on one page. What does it say? Here is the substance of the
Court's analysis: How ``doctrines protecting religious liberty interact
with Title VII,'' as reinterpreted now by the Court, ``are questions
for future cases.'' Let's have that again. How ``doctrines protecting
religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future
cases.'' No doubt they are huge questions.
We eagerly await what our super-legislators across the street in the
Supreme Court building there at One First Street will legislate on this
question. What will become of church-hiring liberty? What will become
of the policies of religious schools? What will become of the fate of
religious charities? Who knows? Who is to say? They are questions for
future cases.
I will say this in defense of the Court: It is difficult to
anticipate in one case all future possible implications. That is why
courts are supposed to leave legislating to legislators. That is why
article III does not give the U.S. Supreme Court or any Federal court
the power to legislate but only the judicial power to decide cases and
controversies, not to decide policies.
I will also say this: Everybody knows--every honest person knows that
the laws in this country today are made almost entirely by unelected
bureaucrats and courts; they are not made by this body. Why not?
Because this body doesn't want to make law, that is why not. In order
to make law, you have to take a vote. In order to vote, you have to be
on the record, and to be on the record is to be held accountable, and
that is what this body fears above all else. This body is terrified of
being held accountable for anything on any subject. So can we be
surprised that where the legislature fears to tread, where the article
I body--this body that is charged by the Constitution for legislating--
refuses to do its job, courts rush in and bureaucrats too? Are they
accountable to the people? No, not at all. Do we have any resource? Not
really. What should we do? Now we must wait to see what the super-
legislators will say about our rights in future cases.
If this case makes anything clear, it is that the bargain that has
been offered to religious conservatives for years now is a bad one. It
is time to reject it. The bargain has never been necessarily explicitly
articulated, but religious conservatives know what it is. The bargain
is that you go along with the party establishment, you support their
policies and priorities--or at least keep your mouth shut about it--and
in return, the establishment will put some judges on the bench who
supposedly will protect your constitutional right to freedom of worship
and freedom of exercise. That is what we have been told for years now.
We were told that we are supposed to shut up while the party
establishment focuses more on cutting taxes and handing out favors to
corporations--multinational corporations that don't share our values,
that will not stand up for American principles, and that are only too
happy to ship American jobs overseas. But we are supposed to say
nothing about that.
We are supposed to keep our mouths shut because maybe we will get a
judge out of the deal. That was the implicit bargain. We are supposed
to keep our mouths shut while the party establishment opens borders and
while the party establishment pursues ruinous trade policies. We are
supposed to keep our mouths shut while those at the upper end of the
income bracket get all of the attention while working families and
college students and those who don't want to go to college but can't
get a good job--they get what attention?
Workers. Children. What about parents looking for help with the cost
of raising children; looking for help with the culture in which they
have to raise children; looking for help with the communities,
rebuilding the communities in which they must carry out their family
life? What about college students trying to find an education that
isn't ruinously expensive and then trying to figure out some way to pay
back that ruinous debt? What about those who don't have a college
degree and don't want one but would like to get a good job? What about
them?
We are supposed to stay quiet about all of that and more because
there will be pro-constitutional religious liberty judges--except that
there aren't; except that these judges don't follow the Constitution;
except that these judges invoke textualism and originalism in order to
reach their preferred outcome.
I want to be clear. I am not personally criticizing any Justice who
joined the majority opinion or wrote it. I believe 100 percent that the
Justice who principally offered this--Justice Gorsuch--and those who
joined him are sincere and were writing to the best of their ability,
reasoning to the best of their ability. Whatever else you might say
about the opinion, it is not sloppily reasoned. I think they were doing
what they thought was best and using all of the skills and gifts they
have.
I question how we got here. I question how judges who hold to this
philosophy ended up on that bench. I question the bargain that people
of faith have been offered and asked to hold to for all of these years.
The truth is, to those who have objected to my own questioning of
judicial nominees in this body, to those who said I was wrong to
question judges who came before the Judiciary Committee, to those who
chided me for asking tough questions even of nominees by a Republican
President, to those who said I was slowing down the process and I was
out of line, and to the supposedly conservative groups who threatened
to buy television time in my own State to punish me for asking
questions about conservative judges, I just have this to say: This is
why I ask questions. This is why I won't stop. And I wish some more
people would ask some harder questions because this outcome is not
acceptable, and the bargain religious conservatives have been offered
is not tenable.
I would just say it is not the time for religious conservatives to
shut up. We have done that for too long. It is time for religious
conservatives to stand up and to speak out. It is time for religious
conservatives to bring forward the best of our ideas on every policy
affecting this Nation. We should be out in the forefront leading on
economics, on trade, on race, on class, on every subject that matters
for what our Founders called the ``general welfare'' because we have a
lot to offer, not just to protect our own rights but for the good of
all of our fellow citizens.
As religious believers, we know that serving our fellow citizens--
whatever their religious faith or whatever their commitments may be--we
know that serving them, aiding them, working for them is one of the
signature ways we show a love of neighbor. It is time for religious
conservatives to do that. It is time for religious conservatives to
take the lead rather than being pushed to the back. It is time for
religious conservatives to stand up and speak out rather than being
told to sit down and shut up.
I am confident that people of faith and good will all across this
country are ready to do that and want to do
[[Page S3000]]
that and have something to offer this country and every person in this
country, whatever their background or income or race or religion, and
because of that, I am confident in the future. I am also confident that
the old ways will not do. Let this be a departure. Let this be a new
beginning. Let this be the start of something better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter From Birmingham Jail
Mr. JONES. Madam President, one of the greatest indictments I believe
ever written was written on scraps of paper in a lonely jail cell in
Birmingham, AL, in 1963. The letter from a Birmingham jail written by
Dr. Martin Luther King is a call to action.
Last year, for the first time in the history of this body, the entire
letter was read on the Senate floor by three Republicans, three
Democrats--a bipartisan effort, a bipartisan reading of a letter that
is so important, the words of which still resonate today.
Today, we do it again. I am pleased that we have once again three
Republicans and three Democrats to take part in this historic reading.
At this point, as we get to that letter, I would like to yield the
floor to my friend from South Carolina, Senator Scott, for a special
introduction for this important reading
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, we are at a critical
time in our Nation's history. I think we can all sense the opportunity
that is before us. Through the challenges of COVID and the death of
George Floyd and its aftermath, we can affect real, lasting change.
Perhaps the most famous line in Dr. King's letter from Birmingham
jail is ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Let
me say that one more time. ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere.'' More than at any time I can remember, people of all ages
and races are standing up together for the idea that Lady Justice must
be blind.
Although COVID has delayed this now-annual reading of Dr. King's
letter, it has truly never been more important than it is right now.
I want to thank all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for
reading today and Senator Jones for putting this together again.
Every time we hear them, the words of Dr. King teach us something
new. I hope the Nation hears these words with an open mind and an open
heart and we all come together unified for a bigger purpose.
Senator Jones, let me close by saying that the letter from the
Birmingham jail was a letter written to the clergy of the time. As
Senator Hawley was speaking about the importance of standing up for our
religious liberties, the one thing he said at the end was that we
should stand up now for all the issues facing our Nation--the economic
issues, the racial issues.
I thought it important and appropriate that following that speech,
you have the reading of the letter from the Birmingham jail to the
leaders, the religious leaders, to become involved and engaged in this
current struggle. That is how change comes to America. Thank you for
leading this process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, with me today is one of my colleagues
from my office, Mr. Blain Callas.
In the words of Dr. King's letter from a Birmingham jail:
April 16, 1963.
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came
across your recent statement calling my present activities
``unwise and untimely.'' Seldom do I pause to answer
criticism of my working ideas. If I sought to answer all of
the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have
little time for anything other than such correspondence in
the course of a day, and I would have no time for
constructive work. But since I feel you are men of genuine
good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I
will try to answer your statement in what I hope will be
patient and reasonable terms.
I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham,
since you have been influenced by the view which argues
against ``outsiders coming in.'' I have the honor of serving
as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,
an organization operating in every southern state, with
headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five
affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is
the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently
we share staff, educational and financial resources with our
affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in
Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent
direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We
readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our
promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am
here because I was invited here. I am here because I have
organizational ties here.
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is
here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left
their villages and carried their ``thus saith the Lord'' far
beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the
Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the
gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman
world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom
beyond my home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to
the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all
communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and
not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in
an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment
of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all
indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the
narrow, provincial ``outside agitator'' idea.
Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be
considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
Now, you deplore the demonstrations taking place in
Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to
express a similar concern for the conditions that brought
about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would
want to rest content with the superficial kind of social
analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple
with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations
are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more
unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the
[African-American] community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps:
collection of the facts to determine whether injustices
exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We
have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be
no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this
community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly
segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of
brutality is widely known. [African Americans] have
experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There
have been more unsolved bombings of [African-American] homes
and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the
nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the
basis of these conditions, [African-American] leaders sought
to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter
consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of
Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations,
certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the
stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the
Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian
Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations.
As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims
of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others
remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted,
and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no
alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would
present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the
conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the
difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self
purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we
repeatedly asked ourselves: ``Are you able to accept the blows without
retaliating?'' ``Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?''
We decided to schedule our direct action program for the
Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is
the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong
economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct
action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring
pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.
Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election
was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone
action until after election day. When we discovered that the
Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene ``Bull'' Connor, had
piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again
to postpone action until the day after the run off so that
the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues.
Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and
to this end, we endured
[[Page S3001]]
postponement after postponement. Having aided in this
community need, we felt our direct action program could be
delayed no longer.
The words of Dr. King. A letter from a Birmingham jail, April 16,
1963.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama
Mr. JONES. Madam President, continuing reading the letter from
Birmingham jail:
You may well ask: ``Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches
and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?'' You are
quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the
very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks
to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a
community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced
to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue
that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of
tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may
sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not
afraid of the word ``tension.'' I have earnestly opposed
violent tension, but there is a type of constructive,
nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Such as
Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in
the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of
myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative
analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for
nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society
that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and
racism to the majestic heights of understanding and
brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to
create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably
open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in
your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland
been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in a monologue
rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement is that the
action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is
untimely. Some have asked: ``Why didn't you give the new city
administration time to act?'' The only answer that I can give
to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must
be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will
act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of
Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to
Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person
than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to
the maintenance of the status quo. I have hoped that Mr.
Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of
massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this
without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I
must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil
rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure.
Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups
seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may
see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust
posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend
to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never
voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by
the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct
action campaign that was ``well timed'' in the view of those
who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.
For years now I have heard the word ``Wait!'' It rings in the
ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ``Wait''
has almost always meant ``Never.'' We must come to see, with
one of our distinguished jurists, that ``justice too long
delayed is just denied.''
We have waited for more than 340 years for our
constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and
Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political
independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace
toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it
is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of
segregation to say, ``Wait.'' But when you have seen vicious
mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your
sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled
policeman curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and
sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty
million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of
poverty in the midst of an affluent society . . . when you
take a cross country drive and find it necessary to sleep,
night after night, in the uncomfortable corners of your
automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are
humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading
``white'' and ``colored''; when your first name becomes [an
expletive], your middle named becomes ``boy'' (however old
you are) and your last name becomes ``John,'' and your wife
and mother are never given the respected title ``Mrs.''; when
you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that
you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never
quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner
fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a
degenerating sense of ``nobodiness''--then you will
understand why we find it difficult to wait.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. ``There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs
over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of
despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and
unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our
willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern.
Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision
of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it
may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may
well ask: `How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?'
The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: Just and
unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not
only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely,
one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree
with St. Augustine that `an unjust law is no law at all.'''
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one
determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a
man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of
God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the
moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An
unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law
and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is
just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All
segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts
the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator
a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense
of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the
Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an ``I it''
relationship for an ``I though'' relationship and ends up
relegating persons to the status of things. Hence,
segregation is not only politically, economically and
sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul
Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation
an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his
awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that
I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme
Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to
disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust
laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or a power
majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not
make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the
same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a
minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself.
This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation.
A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a
result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in
enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the
legislature of Alabama which set up that State's segregation
laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts
of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming
registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even
though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a
single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such
circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its
application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge
of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in
having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But
such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain
segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment
privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to
point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the
law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to
anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly,
lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I
submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience
tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of
imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the
community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the
highest respect for the law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil
disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of
Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at
stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who
were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain
of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws
of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a
reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.
In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive
act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in
Germany was ``legal'' and everything the Hungarian freedom
fighters did in Hungary was ``illegal.'' It was ``illegal''
to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am
sure that had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have
aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a
Communist country where certain principles dear to the
Christian faith
[[Page S3002]]
are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that
country's antireligious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and
Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few
years I have been gravely disappointed with the white
moderate.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the
Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is
not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but
the white moderate, who is more devoted to ``order'' than to
justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of
tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice;
who constantly says: ``I agree with you in the goal you seek,
but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action''; who
paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for
another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of
time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a
``more convenient season.'' Shallow understanding from people
of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute
misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance
is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that
law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice
and that when they fail in this purpose they become the
dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social
progress.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that
the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the
transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the
Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive
and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity
and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in
nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We
merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is
already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be
seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so
long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its
ugliness for the natural medicines of air and light,
injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure
creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of
national opinion before it can be cured.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, a letter from Birmingham jail by Dr.
Martin Luther, Jr.:
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though
peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate
violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like
condemning a robbed man because his possession of money
precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like
condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to
truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by
the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock?
Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God
consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will
precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see
that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is
wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his
basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate
violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the
robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject
the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for
freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother
in Texas. He writes: ``All Christians know that the colored
people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is
possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has
taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish
what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to
earth.'' Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception
of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is
something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure
all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used
either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel
that the people of ill will have used time much more
effectively than have the people of good will. We will have
to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words
and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence
of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels
of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of
men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard
work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social
stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge
that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to
make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending
national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is
the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of
racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At
first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would
see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began
thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two
opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of
complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of
long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect in
the sense of ``somebodiness'' that they have adjusted to
segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes
who, because of a degree of academic and economic security
and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have
become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The
other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes
perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed
in the various black nationalist groups that are springing
up across the nation, the largest and best known being
Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the
Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial
discrimination, this movement is made up of people who
have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated
Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is
an incorrigible ``devil.''
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that
we need emulate neither the ``do nothingism'' of the
complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black
nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and
nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the
influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became
an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not
emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am
convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced
that if our white brothers dismiss as ``rabble rousers'' and
``outside agitators'' those of us who employ nonviolent
direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent
efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and
despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist
ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a
frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The
yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is
what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has
reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something
without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously
or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and
with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow
brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United
States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward
the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this
vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should
readily understand why public demonstrations are taking
place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent
frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let
him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on
freedom rides--and try to understand why he must do so. If
his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways,
they will seek expression through violence; this is not a
threat but a fact of history.
So I have not said to my people: ``Get rid of your
discontent.'' Rather, I have tried to say that this normal
and healthy discontent can be channeled through into the
creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this
approach is being termed extremist. But though I was
initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist,
as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a
measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an
extremist for love: ``Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
which despitefully use you, and persecute you.'' Was not Amos
an extremist for justice: ``Let justice roll down like waters
and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.'' Was not Paul
an extremist for the Christian gospel: ``I bear in my body
the marks of the Lord Jesus.'' Was not Martin Luther an
extremist: ``Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me
God.'' And John Bunyan: ``I will stay in jail to the end of
my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.'' And
Abraham Lincoln: ``This nation cannot survive half slave and
half free.'' And Thomas Jefferson: ``We hold these truths to
be self evident, that all men are created equal . . .'' So
the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what
kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate
or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of
injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic
scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must
never forget that all three were crucified for the same
crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for
immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other,
Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness,
and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South,
the nation and the world are in dire need of creative
extremists.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah
Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I continue reading the letter from the
Birmingham jail by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
I had hoped the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps
I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose
I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race
can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of
the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see
that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and
determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our
white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this
social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are
still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality.
Some--such as Ralph McGill, Lillian
[[Page S3003]]
Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and
Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in
eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us
down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in
filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and
brutality of policemen who view them as ``dirty
niggerlovers.'' Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and
sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and
sensed the need for powerful ``action'' antidotes to combat
the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other
major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed
with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there
are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact
that each of you has taken some significant stands on this
issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian
stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your
worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the
Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill
College several years ago.
But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly
reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do
not say this as one of those negative critics who can always
find something wrong with the church. I say this as a
minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was
nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its
spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as
the cord of life shall lengthen.
When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the
bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt
we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the
white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be
among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright
opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and
misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been
more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind
the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows. In spite
of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope
that the white religious leadership of this community would
see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern,
would serve as the channel through which our just grievances
could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you
would understand. But again I have been disappointed.
I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish
their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision
because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white
ministers declare: ``Follow this decree because integration
is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.'' In
the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I
have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth
pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the
midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and
economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: ``Those
are social issues, with which the gospel has no real
concern.'' And I have watched many churches commit themselves
to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange,
un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the
sacred and the secular.
I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama,
Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering
summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the
South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing
heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her
massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have
found myself asking: ``What kind of people worship here? Who
is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of
Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and
nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a
clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices
of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided
to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright
hills of creative protest?''
Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep
disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But
be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There
can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep
love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I
am in the rather unique position of being the son, the
grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see
the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have
blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and
through fear of being nonconformists.
There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the
time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed
worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the
church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas
and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that
transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early
Christians entered a town, the people in power became
disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians
for being ``disturbers of the peace'' and ``outside
agitators.'' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction
that they were ``a colony of heaven,'' called to obey God
rather than man. Small in number, they were big in
commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be
``astronomically intimidated.'' By their effort and example
they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and
gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the
contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an
uncertain sound. So often it is an arch defender of the
status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the
church, the power structure of the average community is
consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--
sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before.
If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit
of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit
the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant
social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every
day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church
has turned into outright disgust.
Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized
religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our
nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the
inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the
true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am
thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of
organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing
chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the
struggle for freedom. They have left their secure
congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with
us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous
rides for freedom.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I continue with the reading of the
letter from Birmingham jail, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been
dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their
bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the
faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.
Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved
the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times.
They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain
of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the
challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does
not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the
future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in
Birmingham, even if our motives at present are misunderstood.
We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over
the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused
and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with
America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we
were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic
words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of
history, we were here. For more than two centuries, our
forebears labored in this country without wages; they made
cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while
suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation--and yet
out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and
develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not
stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will
win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and
the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.
Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in
your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly
commended the Birmingham police force for keeping ``order''
and ``preventing violence.'' I doubt that you would have so
warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs
sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt
that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were
to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here
in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse
old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see
them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were
to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give
us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I
cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police
department.
It is true that the police have exercised a degree of
discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they
have conducted themselves rather ``nonviolently'' in public.
But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of
segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently
preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must
be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make it clear
that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.
But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps
even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.
Perhaps, Mr. Connor and his policemen had been rather
nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany,
Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to
maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Elliot
has said: ``The last temptation is the greatest treason: To
do the right deed for the wrong reason.''
I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and
demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their
willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the
midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize
its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the
noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and
hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that
characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old,
oppressed battered Negro women symbolized in a seventy two
year old woman in Montgomery,
[[Page S3004]]
Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her
people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who
responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired
about her weariness: ``My feets is tired, but my soul is at
rest.'' They will be the young high school and college
students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of
their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at
lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience'
sake. One day the South will know that when these
disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they
were in reality standing up for what is best in the American
dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo Christian
heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great
wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding
founders in their formulation of the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence.
Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it
is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you
that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing
from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is
alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters,
think long thoughts, and pray long prayers?
If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the
truth and indicates an unreasonably impatience, I beg you to
forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the
truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to
settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to
forgive me.
I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also
hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to
meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights
leader but as a fellow clergymen and a Christian brother. Let
us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will
soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be
lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not
too distant tomorrow, the radiant stars of love and
brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their
scintillating beauty.
Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I want to first thank my colleagues who
joined me today.
As Senator Scott said, we had hoped to do this in April on the
anniversary of the writing of this letter. Unfortunately, the pandemic
overtook us. But, as Senator Scott said, I don't think the timing could
be any better than today.
Just as last year when we did this, I am sure that each of my
colleagues today will leave the floor with an even greater appreciation
of Dr. King's legacy and I hope a better understanding of where America
finds itself today.
When we think of Dr. King, we usually see him on the steps of the
Lincoln Memorial eloquently and passionately describing his dream for
America or behind a pulpit in Memphis urging his audience to press
forward, to not be discouraged in their quest for civil and equal
rights because he had been to the mountaintop and he had seen the
Promise Land.
It is, frankly, somewhat astounding to read his thoughts that were
read on the floor today and picture him in a small, dirty jail cell,
writing in longhand on napkins and scraps of paper and newspaper to a
group of ministers who were not hateful as much as they were
questioning the need for action at that particular moment in 1963.
There are some who would say that, to share my thoughts on our
situation today, I need to move beyond a letter written in 1963, beyond
a call of action so long ago. Certainly, it is true that there are more
contemporary voices and writings that explain how we should see our
times and what actions are needed today, now and in the present. After
all, although it was uncertain in the spring of 1963, Dr. King, in a
movement, would go on to achieve historic changes with the signing of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and so
many other legislative victories.
But I believe we are at a similar moment today, in this time, in this
place, and that Dr. King's words are as contemporary as they are
powerful. You see, in 1963, Alabama had become the focal point of the
racism and division and hatred that existed throughout our Nation.
Bombings and fires in Black neighborhoods were commonplace; suspects
never apprehended; a Governor promising segregation now, segregation
tomorrow, segregation forever; Bull Connor shocking the Nation when he
unleashed vicious police dogs and firehoses on innocent children
engaged in a peaceful protest; and later in that year, a church bombing
that killed four young girls simply because of the color of their skin.
The question on the day Dr. King was arrested was, Why now? Why the
risk of jail and perhaps death to protest conditions in a city that Dr.
King had described as the most segregated in America--a city, though,
that had just elected a new city government that had promised change?
It is a question Dr. King and all Black Americans had heard for too
long, and it was time for an answer
I believe the wisdom of this letter is perhaps the best frame to view
how we move forward during this moment, the movement of this time, the
movement of this generation. In passage after passage, Dr. King warns
us how easily people can fall back to accepting the status quo, how
easily people can hear the word ``wait'' when, in fact, the word means
``never.''
From a jail cell in Birmingham in 1963, Dr. King told us that action
in that moment was critical so that issues of racism and inequality
throughout the land would no longer be ignored. And here we are, 57
years later--57 years later--and his words are still just as timely.
The action in this moment, our moment, is likewise critical so that
issues of systemic racism and inequality can finally be erased.
While so many seem to be heeding Dr. King's call for action--across
the country, we see it time and again: hundreds, if not thousands, of
people heeding Dr. King's call for action today--my greatest fear at
this moment, quite frankly, is that so many people who have felt
powerless or unaffected who are willing to march and speak out, ready
to change the fairness of our laws and society--my greatest concern is
that these good people will get distracted. It is easy to be
overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem. It is understandable to
not know where to begin. But it is not enough to simply agree any
longer, to simply have a conversation.
Remember, Dr. King confesses to the ministers to whom he is
responding that he has been gravely disappointed with what he terms, in
1963, the ``White model.''
If a conversation is all that comes from the moment we are in, then
our society will have lost the greatest chance of our lifetime to
remedy wrongs that have compounded for centuries.
It is time for both our institutions and our society to meaningfully
reverse the degenerating sense of nobodiness.
In this moment, we have a critical mass of society that understands
the legitimate and unavoidable patience of which Dr. King spoke. The
last few months have made the truths of being Black in America clear to
all.
We have watched somewhat helplessly as a pandemic killed Black people
at the rate of almost 2\1/2\ times that of other Americans, not from a
mutation of the virus but from an underfunded health system that too
often deprives Black Americans care for diabetes, heart disease, and
other health issues that are now described as preexisting conditions.
We have watched an economic toll as Black-owned businesses failed at
twice the rate of others, and unemployment for Black Americans grows
faster and will stay higher than those of the rest of America.
Of course, through this pandemic, we have also seen the heroes: Black
workers delivering packages, stocking grocery stores, and serving on
frontlines in hospitals and as first responders. But the economic
reality of being Black in America remains a sin of our Nation
There have certainly been many Black Americans who have pushed
through a system weighted against them to prosper, to find the American
dream. We celebrate those folks but must face the fact that
discrimination and institutional racism push much too hard against the
health, education, job opportunities, and financial security of those
whom this Government of the United States of America once counted as
only three-fifths of a person.
Then, while in the course of this pandemic, as we were seeing the
truths of this system and society that have been easy to pretend did
not really exist, on our screens came a video of a Black man being
killed with the knee of a police officer on the back of his neck.
[[Page S3005]]
The image of George Floyd on the ground--as low as one could
possibly, physically get in life--with the knee of a police officer--an
agent of the State--on his neck, keeping him on the ground, was far
more than just an image of the legalities of a violation of George
Floyd's civil rights and the color of law; it was an image of a society
and a culture that keep the knee on the necks of Black Americans
through systemic racism and discrimination.
George Floyd's cries of ``I can't breathe'' were not just the cries
of an innocent man pleading for his life but the cries of so many of
our fellow Americans who are choked by healthcare systems that deny
them access to quality and affordable healthcare; who are, in Dr.
King's words, ``smothering in an airtight cage of poverty,''; who can't
breathe the fresh air of affordable housing, education, and economic
opportunities; or who simply have to hold their own breath when they or
their sons or their daughters venture away from their home, fearing a
police encounter that will take their life.
Perhaps even more than the dogs and the firehoses in Birmingham or
the State trooper beatings on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL,
the video of George Floyd's last moments on Earth was a confluence of
events that gave our Nation an image of itself that it could no longer
bear.
I truly--I truly and fully believe that the soul of America has come
to the streets of America looking for a way for all of her people to
live in a more just society; that we are at a time when what I have
called a crisis trifecta of health, economic, and inequality has
resulted in a careful examination and introspection of our beliefs and
our priorities about race and about poverty; that we have come to
understand more than at any time in the history of our country that
whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.
Standing on the floor of the U.S. Senate, though, I know that this
moment requires more than introspection on our part. We in this body
and in government as a whole have the power to effect actual change. To
not do so with speed would be forever unpardonable.
As a person, as an individual, as a citizen of the United States, I
know that I must, like everyone in this country, open my heart and my
mind to listen with concern and empathy and to act as an individual.
But I also know that as a U.S. Senator, I am ready to act, freely
admitting that I might not have the ideal solution or all of the
answers but not letting the theoretical perfect be the enemy of
tangible change that we must see, not asking our citizens to wait any
longer than they already have.
As a body, we have acted before, and we should act again. To that
end, we are seeing proposals for law enforcement reform from the
administration, from congressional leaders on both sides of the
political aisle, and in both Houses of the U.S. Congress. I am
hopeful--even optimistic--that we can find the common ground necessary
to achieve meaningful reform, but we will need to do more for this
country.
As Dr. King reminds us, sometimes a law is just on its face and
unjust in its application. I would add to that that a law that seemed
to hold such promise at one time can be eroded to the point where it
becomes unjust.
To that end, I respectfully submit that we should review the Voting
Rights Act to make sure that easy success at the ballot box is a
reality, especially in the midst of a healthcare crisis. We should
examine existing laws and practices in education to make sure everyone
has equal access to a quality education. We should examine existing
laws to ensure that everyone has equal economic opportunities,
including protections from employment discrimination.
To that extent, I should add that, with the historic Supreme Court
decision yesterday--one which I applaud, even though some in this body
may not--we should immediately bring the Equality Act to the floor of
the Senate and affirm our commitment to ending discrimination in the
workplace in any form, against any individual.
We should examine again existing laws that continue to deny quality,
affordable healthcare to poor and low-income households, including
giving States like Alabama the incentives necessary to expand Medicaid
to get those Federal dollars to help lift those individuals who not
only struggled before this pandemic but have lost their healthcare
during this pandemic.
We need to examine laws like the Fair Housing Act, signed only a week
after Dr. King's assassination, in order to ensure that that act
fulfills the promise upon which it was enacted.
We spend billions of dollars each year to perpetuate housing that
keeps people without means, especially Black families, trapped in
places where it is difficult to access education, healthy food, and
economic opportunities. Unfortunately, all signs are pointing to a
worsening housing crisis because of the pandemic.
As a people and as a Congress, we cannot let this moment pass. By
saying that, I mean more than just passing reforms. Surely reforms are
needed, but the greater need is not just to reform but to transform, to
make a dramatic change in the nature and character of our institutions
and our culture toward a more just government and society.
To that end, as we focus on heeding Dr. King's call to action written
in 1963, we should also remember his words written just 3 years after
the passage of the Civil Rights Act and 2 years after the passage of
the Voting Rights Act. In his 1967 final book ``Where Do We Go From
Here: Chaos Or Community?'' Dr. King wrote:
[America] has been sincere and even ardent in welcoming
some change. But too quickly apathy and disinterest rise to
the surface when the next logical steps are to be taken. Laws
are passed in a crisis mood after a Birmingham or a Selma,
but no substantial fervor survives the formal signing of
legislation. The recording of the law in itself is treated as
the reality of the reform.
The point is simply, but significantly, to those of you who have
suffered long for equality and for opportunity: Keep this moment alive.
Keep it alive beyond the crisis mood we find ourselves in today by
continuing to engage those who have more recently seen your plight
through new eyes. Demand that we not just meet this moment with more
division, intolerance, and anger at one another that pulls us farther
apart and deeper into chaos where we have failed to heal. That cannot
be America's future.
Demand that it not be, as Dr. King's letter warned, simply a moment
for another conversation that makes it sound like something is changing
but it never does.
The path from the first slave ship to land on these shores, to the
lone, barren jail cell in Birmingham, AL, where Dr. King wrote his
letter that we read today, to the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna
Taylor and Rayshard Brooks--that path is a long one--too long. It is a
path of a multigenerational failure to be the America of our ideals,
where the Civil War is actually over and we are truly one Nation, with
liberty and justice for all.
I will tell you, as a son of the South--the Deep South--that we
should not lose this moment. We in the South have been at the center of
this divide for too long, and we can be at the center of healing it and
leading the Nation to a more just society.
Since our country's inception, we have said the words: ``All are
created equal.'' We have pledged that we are a nation with justice for
all--all, not some--all. But we know that we have never lived up to
that ideal. We all know it.
In response to many of the protests that are taking place across this
country today, where voices and T-shirts and face masks proclaim that
``Black lives matter,'' some insist on saying that ``all lives
matter.'' Of course they do, but we will not be a country where we are
all truly equal and where justice is for all until we can all say the
words ``Black lives matter'' and mean it.
We have to mean it now. All of us must reject the voices of hatred
and intolerance and division. All of us must embrace taking action to
root out injustice and to seek justice and opportunity for all. The
road to racial justice in America has taken far too long, but it is a
path we must walk together if we are to reach the mountaintop.
To my colleagues, I say: Join me and others. To the people of Alabama
and our Nation I say: Join together.
It is time, America. It is time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today is the second time in the last 2 years
that
[[Page S3006]]
I have had the opportunity to join the Senator from Alabama, coming
together with a bipartisan group of Senators to read Dr. King's letter
from the Birmingham jail.
I want to thank the Senator from Alabama for his leadership and
bringing this group together. I have read that letter many times
before, but I had never read it out loud. I had never heard the words
spoken, much less heard them spoken in this historic Chamber.
I think today is a time when every American should listen to those
words. Today is a time that every American should look back at the
incredible call to justice that Dr. King gave us.
This is a time where our Nation is grieving. This is a time where
there is anger, division, rage. This is a time where our country is
divided on racial lines in a way it hasn't been in a long, long time.
This is a time where we need to hear a call to unity--a call to unity
and a call to justice. Dr. King's call was powerful for both, for unity
and for justice.
I would like to just briefly make three observations about this
historic letter. The first is that this was a letter from a pastor
written to pastors. We refer to Dr. King as ``Dr. King,'' and it is
easy to forget that he was also Reverend King. He was a Christian
minister who preached the Gospel.
The very first words of this letter are ``My Dear Fellow Clergymen.''
That is to whom this was addressed, the leaders in the church, where he
had a message of get off your rear ends and stand for justice.
If you are a person of faith, then, justice, defeating racial
discrimination, defeating bigotry is not just a matter of truth, but it
is a matter of morality.
Here is what Dr. King said about it in the opening paragraphs of the
letter: ``I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.''
Understand how much this was a call to church leaders. He says:
``Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages
and carried''. . . . their message. . . . ``just as the Apostle Paul
left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to
the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry
the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town.''
At a time when our Nation is grieving, is in anguish, is in anger, is
in division, Dr. King's--Reverend King's--message to church leaders to
stand up for justice, to stand up for truth resonates clear as a bell
today.
As a second observation, Dr. King, in this letter and throughout his
ministry, throughout his public leadership, called over and over and
over to resist violence. Against the voices of those who agreed with
him about the injustices, he was calling out where he said violence is
not the way.
As we have seen rioting in our cities, as we have seen small
businesses burned to the ground, as we have seen police officers
assaulted and wounded and murdered in violent and angry protests and
riots and looting, the words of Dr. King calling out to resist violence
and to speak for justice--those words--should be heard by all of us.
A third observation, in calling for justice, Dr. King appealed to our
founding principles. There are some, particularly young people, today,
who are angry, who are being peddled, I think, what is a bill of
goods--a lie--that America is fundamentally unjust, that it is an evil
society built upon racism.
That is simply not true. Is there evil in the world? Yes. Is there
racism in the world? Yes. Is there oppression in the world? Yes. Is all
of that present in the United States? Absolutely.
But Dr. King, in this letter, didn't endeavor to tear down the
foundations of our Nation. Instead, he made an explicit appeal that the
promises this Nation was founded upon--the promises of freedom, the
promises of equality--we have not yet fully achieved that, but we can.
That is the beauty of this American experiment. We are a nation
founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, even though
our history has been troubled in achieving that objective.
So I thank my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, who came
today to reread this letter. We need to hear these words. We need to
hear this message. We need to stand for justice and stand for unity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, there is a reason why 800 conservation
organizations, every U.S. Secretary of Interior from Babbitt to Zinke,
and the President of the United States, President Trump, support the
legislation we are going to be voting on at about noon tomorrow, and
that is because, in my view and in the view of many others, it is the
most important piece of conservation legislation this country will have
passed in at least half a century. And why is that? It is because it
takes nearly $14 billion--up to $14 billion--over the next 5 years from
energy exploration on our public lands and spends it to cut in half the
deferred maintenance backlog in our national parks, our national
forests, and our national refuges, and also to rebuild Indian schools.
In addition to that, it does something that Congress has been trying
to do for 60 years, since the midsixties. It permanently funds the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, which supplies to both the Federal
Government and States money to create national parks and routes to
fishing access and to other places in the country that we all treasure.
In the middle of the Great Depression in the 1930s, the people of
eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina looked around and said:
Why are all the national parks out West? Well, it was because the
Federal Government owned a lot of the land out West and carved a bunch
of it up to make national parks--Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon,
and other places that we know. So they looked around the United States
in the east and said: Where can we have a national park? And they
settled on the Great Smoky Mountains. So they created a park that is
half in Tennessee and half in North Carolina. It wasn't easy to do in
the midst of the Great Depression.
Governor Austin Peay of Tennessee brought the legislature--mostly
Democrats--to Republican East Tennessee twice by train to see this
500,000 acres of land. The State of Tennessee couldn't come up with
enough money to buy it, and neither could North Carolina. Then John D.
Rockefeller, Jr., offered $5 million in honor of his mother, Laura
Spelman Rockefeller, if anybody would match it. So the State
legislatures in both States--Tennessee and North Carolina--appropriated
$2 million each, and then the remaining million was raised by public
subscription--schoolchildren, teachers. People all over the region
raised the money, and that $10 million bought 500,000 acres that today
is visited by 12 million Americans every year. It is by far the most
visited national park, attracting two, three--four times as many
visitors as many of our most popular western parks because it is
located in the east and because it has the highest mountains in the
east.
But here is the problem with the Great Smoky Mountains National Park:
The 12 million visitors a year are about to use it up. Too many of the
800-plus miles of trails are worn, so when you walk on them, you
stumble. Too many of the roads are potholed. Too many of the roofs
leak.
There is one campground that I can see from my house almost on
Chilhowee Mountain at the edge of the park called the Look Rock
Campground that has been closed for 5 or 6 years because the sewage
system won't work--5,000 families want to go up there and can't, and
the sewage system won't work. Obviously these aren't just Tennessee
families; they are from all over the country. We have 6 or 7 million
people living in Tennessee. We have 14 million visitors a year.
So what this bill does is it says to the Great Smoky Mountains: All
right. You have $224 million of deferred maintenance--of potholes, of
worn trails, of sewage systems, of leaky roofs--$224 million. Your
operating budget is only $20 million a year. This deferred maintenance
is 10 to 12 times the amount of your operating budget. It will never
get done. It will never get done without a bill like this or this bill,
which will say to the Smokies and to the National Mall and to the Pearl
Harbor Visitor Center and to the Grand Canyon and to all 419 of our
national parks: We are going to cut half of the $12 billion deferred
maintenance bill--we are going to cut half of that out over the next 5
years, and we are going to take money
[[Page S3007]]
from energy exploration on public lands and use some of it for that.
Not just our national parks, President Trump agreed--in fact, I
talked to him about it on his trip to Tennessee when he came to visit
after the tornadoes.
I said: Mr. President, the sponsors of our bill, Democrats and
Republicans, would like to add to the bill our other public lands. We
would like to add the national forests.
The Cherokee National Forest, for example, is in Tennessee and North
Carolina. It is even bigger than the Smokies. It has 3 million visitors
a year. It also has about $27 million of deferred maintenance. It will
never be able to do that without this bill or something like it.
I said: How about our wildlife refuges, Mr. President? We have the
Tennessee Wildlife Refuge. It has $8 million in deferred maintenance.
It won't be able to get the boat ramps right so people can go fishing
over by Kentucky Lake.
The President said: I will support it. Put it in if the Democrats and
Republicans cosponsoring the bill want it in there.
Because he did, it is in there.
It is in there just like the House of Representatives brought the
bill out of its committee--it had those public lands in there. We
didn't when it came out of our committee. It had the Land and Water
Conservation Fund in the House, just as we did when it came out.
Let's talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund for a minute.
That was supposed to be $900 million a year from oil and gas revenues
that are spent by the Federal Government and by State governments to
buy treasured lands.
The Senator from Montana, Senator Daines, says that in his State, 80
percent of the fishing accesses have been purchased by the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.
In my State, the Governor opened a new park, Rocky Fork, a
magnificent place in Upper East Tennessee, much of it purchased by Land
and Water Conservation Fund money--$221 million into Tennessee since
1964.
But that is not as much as it was supposed to be because when this
was enacted by Congress in 1964, at the recommendation of the
Rockefeller Commission--the first outdoor recreation review
commission--it was supposed to be $900 million a year. Environmental
burden--that is the oil and gas drilling; environmental benefit--that
is the purchase of conservation land. The money gets credited over in
the Treasury Department, but it doesn't get spent every year. This
changes that.
This is not just an idea of the Lawrence Rockefeller Commission in
the sixties. In 1985 and 1986, President Reagan appointed the
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. I chaired that
Commission, and the No. 1 recommendation of the Commission was
permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
So since the midsixties, good people in this body and good people
outside of this body have been working to make the Land and Water
Conservation Fund permanent and haven't been able to do that, but now
we can.
Now let's talk about the money for a minute.
Senator Portman, a former director of the budget office, points out
that we are spending real money to reduce an unpaid debt. This isn't
like just adding to the budget, which we do sometimes without paying
for it. This is real money. If we don't produce enough oil this year--
and last year we produced about 11.6 billion by selling energy produced
on our public lands--if we don't produce the money, we don't spend
it. Some have objected that it is mandatory and not paid for. That is a
difference of opinion. The Office of Management and Budget has approved
it, and the President's budget has approved it. I think it is paid for
because it is real money to reduce unpaid debt.
For example, we take some of the money from energy exploration, and
if you live in Wyoming, you get 50 percent of it right off the top. If
you live in Alaska, you get 90 percent right off the top. If you live
in Louisiana, you get 27\1/2\ percent, or in any other coastal State,
or you might get 37\1/2\ percent from another area. All that money is
mandatory in the sense that it has to be paid to those States every
year. We are just taking some of that kind of money out of that pot,
after the others have been paid, and spending it for this purpose.
This would not have happened if it weren't for an unusual group of
Senators who worked on this for a long time: Senators Burr and
Cantwell; Senators Gardner, Manchin, and Daines on the Land and Water
Conservation Fund; and then on the parks, Senator Warner and Senator
Portman, who went to work early.
Secretary Zinke came to see me in Tennessee 3 years ago and asked me
to work on the parks bill, and I was delighted to find, when Senators
King and Heinrich and I began working on it, that there were a number
of us with the same idea.
As I mentioned, President Trump has been behind it from the beginning
and behind the expansion of it, and he is the first President that has
allowed us to use money from energy exploration for this purpose, and
he should deserve credit for that.
Senator McConnell deserves credit. He has a lot that he could put on
the floor, and he put this bill on the floor for 2 weeks. Only the
majority leader can do that, and he did it.
I am grateful to Senator Schumer and the Democratic leadership for
creating an environment in which we could pass this bill in a
bipartisan way.
It is said that if you want to pass a big piece of legislation in the
U.S. Senate, you need three things. One is that it is an important
objective that is good for the country. One is good relationships among
the sponsoring Senators. And one is a superior staff. We have had all
three of those, and I would like to place into the Record--or I think I
will read them--the names of some of the staff members who have been so
helpful to us: Curtis Swager and Jennifer Loraine of Senator Gardner's
office; Jason Thielman, Joshua Sizemore, and Holly Hinojosa of Senator
Daines' office; Lance West, David Brooks, and Renae Black of Senator
Manchin's office; Pam Thiessen and Sarah Peery of Senator Portman's
office; Elizabeth Falcone and Micah Barbour of Senator Warner's office;
David Cleary, Lindsay Garcia, Allison Martin, and Anna Newton of my
staff; Chad Metzler, Morgan Cashwell, and Kate Durost of Senator King's
office; Amit Ronen of Senator Cantwell's office; Maya Hermann and
Virgilio Barrera of Senator Heinrich's office. We thank them for their
work.
And then there are the advocates. Not many bills have more than 800
groups in its support. It is quite a coalition when you get President
Trump and virtually all of the conservation, sportsmen, angler, and
environmental groups behind the same bill. We owe all of them thanks
for that. Sally Jewell, the former Secretary of the Interior, has been
at the forefront of much of that. We hope that once this passes the
Senate tomorrow with a big vote, they will carry it across the finish
line in the House of Representatives.
The Federal Government is not always the most popular entity in the
United States, but sometimes we are. When our military keeps our
country safe, we are grateful for that. When the National Institutes of
Health creates medical miracles, we are grateful for that. We are
grateful when the Federal Government creates 419 properties--from the
National Mall to Pearl Harbor, to the Grand Canyon, to the Great
Smokies--for us to enjoy and preserve.
England has its history, Italy has its art, and Egypt has its
pyramids. But the United States of America has the great American
outdoors. It is an essential part of the American character, and the
Great American Outdoors Act is an essential part of being good stewards
of what Ken Burns has called our best idea, so that the next generation
can enjoy the outdoors as this generation has been privileged to do
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise to speak about the Great
American Outdoors Act or, more particularly, about the absence of a
coastal resiliency amendment that I wish to have included.
Let me begin by congratulating Senators Cory Gardner and Steve
Daines, from Colorado and Montana, respectively, of their pending
success in passing the Great American Outdoors Act. It takes lots of
work to build enough support to get legislation
[[Page S3008]]
to this floor for a vote, and even more to see that it passes. The
people of Montana and Colorado should be proud of how their Senators
fought and delivered billions to restore their national parks. I
commend my colleagues.
Those who have followed the debate know that I have opposed the bill
as written. National parks are national treasures, but what led to my
opposition is, I believe, that the Senate had the opportunity to help
the more than 135 million Americans who live in a coastal parish or
county by concomitantly funding flood mitigation and coastal resiliency
projects. I fought hard to include a provision that would have invested
in the coast to fortify against hurricanes and other catastrophic
flooding events. Funding coastal resiliency would have passed as part
of this legislation. It is an opportunity lost, but I have been
reassured that enough Senators care about the issue, and perhaps they
care about the issue because of the arguments that I have made.
I will review these arguments first for the Nation and then for the
area of the Nation most affected by coastal erosion, which is
Louisiana, and then speak about possible solutions.
First, over 272 million Americans live in coastal States, and 134
million Americans live in a parish or county directly on the coast, and
they know sea levels are rising. Because sea levels are rising, they
are increasingly exposed to flooding. Now, if Congress does not act on
coastal resiliency, these Americans, their lives, their communities,
and livelihood will be increasingly in danger.
By the way, the American taxpayer will spend billions in disaster
recovery because the Federal Government declined to invest in
prevention on the front end. Just to make this point, I will show my
first poster.
These are major coastal flood events since 2003, and these are only
the named storms. It does not include the flood events that were not
named, and some everybody remembers. Ivan was $20.5 billion. Katrina
was $125 billion. Ike was $30 billion. Sandy was $65 billion. Isaac was
$10 billion. Harvey was $125 billion. Irma was $50 billion. And Maria
was $90 billion. If you are in one of the States affected by one of
these storms, to say that name brings to mind friends that were lost,
communities that were devastated, and lives that were overturned. This
is merely the accounting, which totals, since 2003, that the Federal
Government has spent $617.9 billion in recovery after these storms, and
that does not include unnamed flood events.
Just as examples, people along the coast, wherever you are on the
coast in the United States, including the Great Lakes, are at increased
risk for large scale devastation, in part, because of sea levels
rising, and natural barriers to absorb storm surge are eroding away.
Let's just go around the Nation. Let's first look at the Alaskan
village of Kivalina, located on an island that is literally vanishing
because of sea level rise. There you see kind of a rock jetty around
it, but the rock jetty is kind of missing over here. But you can
imagine, as sea levels rise, and waves, which in this picture are not
there but you know in that area of the world are high at times, this
will fulfill the Army Corps of Engineers' prediction that in 10 years,
this island will be uninhabitable.
Alaska's Senator, Lisa Murkowski, recognizes the threat to her State
should barrier islands disappear. I thank her for her support during
the debate on the Great American Outdoors Act for increased funds for
coastal resiliency.
That is our northern part. Let's go to the Virgin Islands.
Erosion has eliminated many trees and water vegetation that are vital
to absorbing storm surge. These problems were compounded by Hurricane
Irma, meaning that the next major hurricane could be worse. Could it be
worse than that? Look at the American Virgin Islands after Hurricane
Irma. If it is worse than that, then this may be as the island is in
Alaska--threatening to be uninhabitable.
Rising sea levels are threatening beaches up and down the coast of
California, eliminating barrier islands in North Carolina and Georgia,
and causing property values to fall and insurance rates to rise where
cases are at their worst.
But let me speak of the worst-case scenario of sea level rising and
land receding. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the worst area is in
Louisiana. By the time I am through with this speech, Louisiana will
have lost about half a football field of land from the coast; it is
washing away that fast. To date, we have lost land equal to the size of
Delaware. At the current rate, Louisiana will lose about 640,000 more
acres by 2050. That is like cutting Rhode Island out of the eastern
coast.
I mention Rhode Island and will take that opportunity to thank
Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island for recognizing the challenges
coasts face and working with me to provide more support for more
resiliency. He actually came down and looked at our plan.
Wherever you see red, in a very reasonable scenario, that land will
be gone by year 50. And you can see that New Orleans effectively
becomes an island. Can you imagine what the Federal Government would
have to pay if a big storm came through without any wetlands to
decrease the intensity? That would damage not just New Orleans but all
the ports that inland United States depend on to get their goods to the
rest of the world. I will have more on the importance of that port
system later.
As the marshes sink into the gulf, Louisiana is losing more than our
treasured wetlands and the wildlife that call them home; we are losing
natural barriers that save populated areas from the full brunt of
hurricane forces.
According to NOAA, peak floods can be reduced by up to 60 percent in
watersheds that contain 15 percent wetlands. These wetlands act as
natural sponges for floodwaters and buffer storm surges. The wetland
vegetation holds sediment in place with their roots, and this preserves
the land and further helps to absorb waves.
What I just described is a dire forecast, but it is also a reality
that is playing out. We had a storm a week ago. Tropical Storm
Cristobal struck Louisiana. Here we see images of a damaged levee
system in Grand Isle, where storm surge completely washed away 2,000
feet of protection.
Yes, those are buildings. Yes, that is a street. Yes, that is water
in the middle of the street between the buildings. I will add that
Grand Isle has lost about 9 feet of elevation over the past decades.
When this washed away, it exposed what is called a burrito levee
underneath, and that was damaged as well.
Mayor David Camardelle recently told the Times-Picayune--the
newspaper in New Orleans--that the damage Grand Isle suffers ``is a
crisis situation. I'm worried this island will be cut in half.''
Cristobal also flooded the old Mandeville neighborhood. This is
Mandeville, and this is Cristobal. This shows how Lake Pontchartrain,
which is the lake north of New Orleans, and the streets ashore
basically merged for this storm event.
This is just from a tropical storm. Imagine if a bigger hurricane had
landed instead--except we don't have to imagine. We can look at what
happened. And unfortunately it will happen again.
What is at stake in Louisiana without more investment in resiliency?
Let's start with lives. Hurricane Katrina killed 1,833 people and
damaged or destroyed 800,000 homes. That was in Louisiana, in
Mississippi, in Alabama, and in Florida. That is just one storm. We
have actually seen loss of life worse since then in Puerto Rico, where
Hurricane Maria claimed 3,057 lives. As I mentioned earlier, the dollar
amount was greater in Sandy, which hit New York and New Jersey, and the
most recent flooding events--Hurricane Harvey, for example, in the
Houston area flooded so many homes. It is not just my home State; it is
across the Nation.
By the way, impacting my home State impacts the rest of the Nation.
This is a picture from Hurricane Katrina. This Congress was very
helpful in the aftermath. But let me speak about what will happen if we
don't address these issues.
The Nation's energy infrastructure is threatened. The Gulf of Mexico
generates about 90 percent of the funds used to pay for the Great
American Outdoors Act. Oil and gas development, particularly in the
Outer Continental Shelf, is that which funds this bill. Failing to
secure the energy infrastructure can result in devastating damage
[[Page S3009]]
to the heart of America's energy production center should a major storm
destroy the roads, ports, wells, and pipelines that keep America
running.
There is a certain irony that this bill, which chose not to fund
coastal resiliency, relies upon funding from an infrastructure that is
endangered by the lack of coastal resiliency. But this, in turn,
threatens America's heartland.
Trade from America's heartland to the rest of the world flows.
Agricultural products are shipped down the Mississippi River to the
Louisiana ports and then internationally--that is, so long as the ports
keep functioning.
Again, let's look at the results of the damage to those ports--just
the Port of New Orleans--after Hurricane Katrina. Damage to the Port of
New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina resulted in corn exports falling 23
percent from the heartland--not from Louisiana but from Iowa, from the
heartland, from Missouri, et cetera. Barley exports fell 100 percent.
Wheat exports fell 54 percent. Soybean exports were down 25 percent.
Total grain exports were down 24 percent
It is clear that the United States benefits as a whole when
Louisiana's coastline is fully functional and secure, both its energy
supply--its funding for the Great American Outdoors Act--as well as the
ability of farmers in the heartland to ship their goods
internationally. But now the coastline is not secure. Aggressive action
is needed to save the coastline--not just in my State but all around--
to protect it from erosion and to protect it from flooding.
In Louisiana, the money generated from revenue sharing of offshore
energy production by an amendment in the Louisiana State Constitution
is invested into coastal resiliency. I am trying to make sure that we
have the resources to continue to do so.
That brings us to revenue sharing. As I have said before, oil and gas
development in the Gulf of Mexico generates 90 percent of the funding
for the Great American Outdoors Act, and the gulf coast contributes
billions of revenue to the Treasury annually, but the amount of money
that is shared with our coastline is quite small relative to what
inland States receive.
I bring this up because someone said: Well, Louisiana does get money
from the coast.
Let me just kind of explain this slide. In this slide, this is the
total amount of revenue for the Federal for fiscal year 2018 from oil
and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico. You can see there is close
to $5 billion generated. These States here--Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas--share $375 million of that money.
Let's look at the inland States. Here is all of the revenue from the
inland States. The best I can tell, in that same year, New Mexico got
about $1.25 billion. Wyoming got $1.15 billion. Colorado did pretty
well; it looks like they got about $400 million or $500 million. So the
Gulf Coast States split between them $375 million from a total of about
$4.8 billion. New Mexico gets 50 percent of the money generated in
their inland areas, and so they get close to $1.25 billion. Louisiana
could do so much with $1.25 billion to protect and to rebuild its
wetlands, the infrastructure for energy, the infrastructure for ports,
and I could go on.
So folks are right. We do currently participate in revenue sharing.
It is a shadow of what other States get with far less of a total
amount.
By the way, our amendment, which I have written with Senator
Whitehouse, is based upon what is called GOMESA, the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act. In that, Gulf States keep 37.5 percent of the
revenues, up until a cap of $375 million. I have mentioned that cap
already. Additionally, there is $125 million put into the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, that which is now going to receive an
additional $900 million annually from the Great American Outdoors Act.
My coastal amendment would remove that cap, meaning that Gulf States
would have a more equitable share of the revenue we produce.
The LWCF would continue to get the $125 million it would receive, but
there would be another amount of money that would go into the LWCF
portion of this that would, under our amendment, go into a coastal
resiliency fund. That coastal resiliency fund would be used all around
the Nation. It could be used in Florida, in Georgia, in Maine, in
Alaska, in Washington State, in Hawaii--you name it. Where we have
beach communities threatened and coastal parishes and counties
regularly flooding, this money would be available.
What I am asking for is fair treatment for the States that put in the
work and contribute so mightily to the rest of the country. Hopefully
with this, we can turn the tide of land loss.
By the way, the amendment we have is also combined with revenue
sharing for offshore wind. This is Sheldon Whitehouse's idea. So in the
immediate and intermediate, there would be revenue sharing from oil and
gas development, and in the long term, there would be revenue sharing
from offshore wind as our Nation transitions to more of that as an
energy source.
I have talked a lot about gloom and doom in this speech. Let's end on
a hopeful note. Not all is lost. With smart strategies in funding, we
can turn the tide on erosion, rebuild land, and strengthen the
coastline.
There are examples of what is working. Terrebonne Parish is in South
Louisiana. It is right on the Gulf of Mexico. It has a new flood wall,
which recently saved 10,000 households from flooding. We invested in
flood protection, and we saved 10,000 families from flooding. We saved
money for the National Flood Insurance Program. A community is intact.
Kids still go off on Saturday and play ball, and people still go to
their jobs on Monday. Investing on the front end saved a heck of a lot
on the back end--lives, communities, and money for the Federal
taxpayer.
Let's look at a coastal rebuilding project we have. Davis Pond is an
area along the Mississippi that has eroded. This is Google pictures.
Here, you can see that in February of 1998, erosion had occurred such
that all of this, which is along the coast, had eroded. You can see
kind of a big lake right there, and you can see kind of a breakup of
the land. You have a sense of an unhealthy nature. Even though this is
a black-and-white photo, nonetheless you have that sense.
A diversion was built so that Mississippi River water could flood
this area. In the 20 years since, you can see that the lake has filled
in, that it is still wetland, it is still marsh, but here you have
vegetation growing. Back here, if you stepped out of the boat, you sank
into water. Now, you step out of the boat, and the vegetation is so
thick that it supports you as you walk along. This is what can happen
with wise management.
Look at this community. This community is now protected because we
now have a barrier of wetlands. So rebuilding wetlands saves
communities. It allows nature to do its work. It saves the taxpayer
dollars in the long run.
I am going to show another example--Mardi Gras Pass, a naturally
forming distributary of the Mississippi River that is building new
land. Mardi Gras Pass has grown by 13 acres since 2012.
Let's see if I have my pictures straight here. Here is the
Mississippi River, and here is where the river kind of spontaneously
broke through right in this area right here.
Since then, as it continues to flow through, we have something which
doesn't look very healthy here, which increasingly has vegetation. Here
is a bayou, which increasingly is building up vegetation. I am not sure
these picture do it justice, but now you actually have trees growing,
and you have such a density of land being built that you now again have
oak trees, which Louisiana is famous for.
We can rebuild our coastline. The Mardi Gras Pass delivers fresh
water, nutrients, and sediments to 15,000 acres of coastal marsh.
These projects take time, but they never get started without the type
of funding I advocated to be included in the Great American Outdoors
Act--the amount we could spend on the front end and save lives and
dollars for the Federal taxpayer compared to the expenses required for
storm recovery.
Let me conclude. I end the day by once again commending my
colleagues, Senator Gardner and Daines, for getting their bill passed,
but I also end by saying that we must continue to fight for dollars for
coastal resiliency. The
[[Page S3010]]
need is far too great around the country. Lives and our economy depend
on finding that solution.
I hope the Senators who said they recognize coastal needs will join
the bipartisan coalition of Senators who now are asking that we invest
in the coastal parishes and counties where 82 percent of Americans live
in the States and 42 percent of Americans live in a parish or county,
where spending money now can save lives, communities, and billions in
taxpayer dollars later.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GARDNER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________