[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 78 (Thursday, June 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5536-S5543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
S. 2617. A bill to protect the rights of American consumers to
diagnose, service, and repair motor vehicles purchased in the United
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Motor
Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of 2002. This legislation would
protect the viability of independent service station and repair shops
and ensure that consumers will continue to have a choice of automotive
service providers.
The 1990 Clean Air Act mandated that vehicle manufacturers install
computer systems to monitor emissions in 1994 model year cars and
beyond. Today, many vehicle systems are integrated into the car's
computer system, making auto repair an increasingly ``high tech''
business and making access to the computer and the information it
contains vital to the ability to perform repairs.
Increasingly, however, independent repair shops are being barred
access to the codes and diagnostic tools necessary to repair newer
model cars. The effect is to reduce consumer choice for auto repair
services, and to endanger the livelihood thousands of small, family
owned repair shops across the country.
On April 10, I met with a group of repair shop owners from Minnesota.
The explained that new practices by some auto manufactures were
preventing them from competing on an even playing field. One thing we
don't need is another industry where all the little guys, the small,
independent businesses, are driven out. This is terrible for our
communities. And reduced competition means higher prices for consumers
Specifically, the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act would
simply require a manufacturer of a motor vehicle sold in the United
States to disclose to the vehicle owner, a repair facility, and the
Federal Trade Commission, FTC, the information necessary to diagnose,
service, or repair the vehicle. The bill bars the FTC from requiring
disclosure of any information entitled to protection as a
manufacturer's trade secret.
This legislation is an example of what is good for small business is
good for the consumer. The bill is endorsed by the 44 million member
American Automobile Association, AAA, as well as the Automotive Service
Association, the trade association of automotive service professionals.
To reiterate, I want to introduce a bill and tell colleagues about
it. I have sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. This is very much a
pro-consumer bill as well. It is called the Motor Vehicle and Owners
Right to Repair Act. There has to be a better title.
Basically, this is the issue. The automotive industry, for 100 years,
has always shared information with mechanics. But post-1994, you have
cars with very computerized systems. All of a sudden, the automotive
industry is now saying to independent mechanics, we will not share with
you the information about the computer system so you can get into the
computer system, do the diagnosis and the repair, in which case I think
it is a blatant anticompetitive practice.
[[Page S5537]]
It puts the independent mechanics, the small guys, out of business.
In addition, it says to the consumers: Listen, you might want to take
your car back to the dealership for repair, but now that is your only
choice because you may want to go to the neighborhood mechanic you have
worked with for years and he might want your business, but we are going
to make it impossible for him to get your business. We are going to
make it impossible for you to go there.
I like this piece of legislation because it is little guy versus big
guy. It feels right to me. At 5 feet, 5 inches, I like the little guys.
In April, some mechanics came by our office and talked with Perry
Lang, who works with me, and they said this is happening to us and
asked for some help.
I say on the floor of the Senate two things: No. 1, I am circulating
a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. I hope to get a lot of support. I think
there will be a lot of support.
This is going on in the House with a lot of Republicans as well as
Democrats.
The second thing that I am saying to the industry today on the floor
of the Senate--and I think they are watching this carefully--is we are
going to get a good head of steam on this. If you want to sit down and
negotiate an agreement with the mechanics that is fair to these
independent mechanics, go ahead. Then we won't have to pass the
legislation. But I could not believe when I heard the report of what
they are dealing with.
Again, you have a blatant anticompetitive practice of the industry
basically saying we will not share with you any information about our
computerized systems. If the industry wants to say there is some kind
of a trade patent secret which they can't share, they can go to the FTC
and get approval for that. Otherwise, for 100 years, this has not
happened. Now we get into a blatant collusion, anticompetitive practice
that is unfair to the independent mechanics who a lot of Senators know
as friends and as small businesspeople. I am aiming to stop it.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
S. 2619. A bill to provide for the analysis of the incidence and
effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and local institutions and to
provide information, resources, recommendations, and funding to protect
individuals from prison rape; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as the Supreme Court has made clear,
``being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty
that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.''
Government officials have a duty under the Constitution to prevent
prison violence.
Too often, however, officials fail to take obvious steps to protect
vulnerable inmates. Prison rape is a serious problem in our Nation's
prisons, jails, and detention facilities. Of the two million prisoners
in the United States, it is conservatively estimated that one in ten
has been raped. According to a 1996 study, 22 percent of prisoners in
Nebraska had been pressured or forced to have sex against their will
while incarcerated. Human Rights Watch recently reported, ``shockingly
high rates of sexual abuse'' in U.S. prisons.
Prison rape causes severe physical and psychological pain to its
victims. It also leads to the increased transmission of HIV, hepatitis,
and other diseases. The brutalization in prison also makes it more
likely that prisoners will commit crimes after they are released, as
600,000 prisoners are each year.
To deal with this serious problem, Senator Sessions and I are today
introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. This bipartisan
legislation is intended to address the prison-rape epidemic in an
effective and comprehensive manner, while still respecting the primary
role of States and local governments in administering prisons and
jails.
Our bill directs the Department of Justice to conduct an annual
statistical review and analysis of the frequency and effects of prison
rape. It establishes a special panel to conduct hearings on prison
systems, prisons, and jails where the incidence of rape is high. It
directs the Attorney General to collect complaints of rape from
inmates, transmit them to the appropriate authorities, and review how
the authorities respond. It also directs the Attorney General to
provide information, assistance, and training to Federal, State, and
local authorities on the prevention, investigation, and punishment of
prison rape.
Our bill also authorizes $40 million in grants to enhance the
prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. These grants
will strengthen the ability of state and local officials to prevent
these abuses.
Finally, our bill establishes a commission that will conduct hearings
over two years and recommend national correctional standards on a wide
range of issues, including inmate classification, investigation of rape
complaints, trauma case for rape victims, disease prevention, and staff
training. These standards should apply as soon as possible to the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prison accreditation organizations that
receive Federal funding should also adopt the standards. States should
adopt the standards too. If they ``opt out'' by passing a statute, they
will suffer no penalty, but States that fail to act at all will lose 20
percent of their prison-related federal funding.
Our bill is supported by a broad coalition of religious, civil
rights, and human rights organizations, including the Salvation Army,
the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of
Evangelicals, Prison Fellowship, Focus on the Family, the Presbyterian
Church, the Justice Policy Institute, the Sentencing Project, Youth Law
Center, Human Rights Watch, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, and the National Council of La Raza.
Together, these diverse groups have demonstrated impressive moral
leadership on this issue.
It is a privilege to work on this legislation with Congressmen Frank
Wolf and Bobby Scott in the House and Senator Sessions in the Senate.
While we may disagree on other issues relating to criminal justice, we
all recognize that rape is unacceptable, and it is long past time to
end it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to commend Senator Kennedy for
his leadership on the important issue of reducing prison rape. I have
enjoyed working with him to craft and refine the legislation that we
are introducing today, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. Though
Senator Kennedy and I come from different backgrounds and have
different political philosophies, we both agree that Congress should
act to reduce prison rape.
I would also like to thank Congressman Frank Wolf and Bobby Scott for
their important leadership on this bill in the House of
Representatives. Congressman Wolf is a recognized champion for human
dignity across the globe and this legislation to reduce prison rape is
consistent with his philosophy. Congressman Scott is very knowledgeable
on criminal law issues. While he and I have agreed and disagreed on
many issues over the years, we agree on the need to reduce prison rape.
As a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and as Attorney General of
Alabama, I sent many guilty criminals to prison where they belong. I
believed that they should be treated fairly in court, and I treated
them fairly. I also believe that they should be treated fairly in
prison. Most prison wardens and sheriffs are outstanding public
servants that do an excellent job of supervising inmates, and I commend
my friends in the law enforcement community for their hard work in this
area.
However, knowingly subjecting a prisoner to rape is cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. Some studies have estimated that over 10 percent of the inmates
in certain prisons are subject to rape. I hope that this statistic is
an exaggeration. Nonetheless, it is the duty of Government officials to
ensure that criminals who are convicted and sentenced to prison serve
the sentence imposed by the judge and rape is not a part of any lawful
sentence.
This bill responds to the problem of rape of prison inmates in three
principal ways. First, the bill establishes a bipartisan National
Commission that will study prison rape at the federal, state, and local
levels. Within 2 years, the commission will publish the results
[[Page S5538]]
of its study and make recommendations on how to reduce prison rape.
Second, the bill directs the Attorney General to issue a rule for the
reduction of prison rape in Federal prisons. To avoid a 20 percent
reduction in certain Federal funds, each State will have to pass a
statute that either adopts or rejects the standards for State prisons.
This bill contains no unfunded mandate to order States how to deal with
prison rape. It does, however, require that they address the issue.
Third, the bill will require the Department of Justice to conduct
statistical surveys on prison rape for Federal, State, and local
prisons and jails. Further, the Department of Justice will select
officials in charge of certain prisons with an incidence of prison rape
exceeding the national average by 30 percent to come to Washington and
testify to the Department about the prison rape problem in their
institution. If they refuse to testify, the prison will lose 20 percent
of certain Federal funds.
In addition, the bill provides for $40 million in grants to States
for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of prison rape. This
will help the States to reduce repeat offenses by inmates.
A broad and bipartisan array of organizations and individuals have
added their support to this bill. The list includes: American
Psychological Association; American Values; Biblical Witness
Fellowship, UCC; Camp Fire USA; Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom
House; Christian Rescue Committee; Citizens United for Rehabilitation
of Errants--Virginia, Inc. (Virginia CURE); Disciple Renewal; Focus on
the Family; Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard
Law School; Good News, UMC; Human Rights Watch; Human Rights and the
Drug War; Institute on Religion and Democracy; Justice Policy
Institute; Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs; National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People; National Association
of Evangelicals; National Association of School Psychologists; National
Center on Institutions and Alternatives; National Council for La Raza;
National Network for Youth; National Mental Health Association; Marvin
Olasky, Editor--World Magazine; Partnership for Responsible Drug
Information; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Prison Fellowship; Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism; Renew Network; Research and Policy
Reform, Inc.; Salvation Army; The Sentencing Project; Southern Baptist
Convention; Stop Prison Rape; Unitarian Universalists for Juvenile
Justice; Volunteers of America; and Youth Law Center.
I am especially proud of the evangelical Christian groups for their
work in gathering support for the bill. They have worked tirelessly for
ethics and compassion in government, and this legislation reflects
those values.
I would also like to thank Linda Chavez and Mike Horowitz for the
ideas that started this legislative initiative. Well-conceived,
carefully crafted ideas drive many legislative and political
initiatives that become law after people work together to form a
bipartisan, moral position.
I also want to commend the hard work of Bill Pryor, the attorney
general of Alabama, who will end up dealing with the effects of this
legislation at the state level. Bill has worked with Prison Fellowship,
has talked with Alabama prison officials, and has worked with me on
this legislation. In addition to being an outstanding legal scholar and
leader among all the States' attorneys general, Bill cares about people
and demands fairness in how the State treats both victims and
prisoners. I was very pleased that Attorney General Pryor joined us at
the press conference to express his support of the bill.
This bill will address prison rape, not through unfunded mandates and
lawsuits, but through examining the problem and allowing sunshine to
expose deficiencies that need to be addressed. This bill is a necessary
step to reform and a bipartisan step toward justice.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Biden);
S. 2621. A bill to provide a definition of vehicle for purposes of
criminal penalties relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of
violence against mass transportation systems; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation today
with Senator Biden to clarify that an airplane is a vehicle for
purposes of terrorist and other violent acts against mass
transportation systems. A significant question about this point has
been raised in an important criminal case and deserves our prompt
attention.
Earlier this week, on June 11, 2002, a U.S. District Judge in Boston
dismissed one of the nine charges against Richard Reid stemming from
his alleged attempt to detonate an explosive device in his shoe while
onboard an international flight from Paris to Miami on December 22,
2001. The dismissed count charged defendant Reid with violating section
1993 of title 18, United States Code, by attempting to ``wreck, set
fire to, and disable a mass transportation vehicle.''
Section 1993 is a new criminal law that was added, as section 801, to
the USA PATRIOT Act to punish terrorist attacks and other acts of
violence against, inter alia, a ``mass transportation'' vehicle or
ferry, or against a passenger or employee of a mass transportation
provider. I had urged that this provision be included in the final
anti-terrorism law considered by the Congress. A similar provision was
originally part of S. 2783, the ``21st Century Law Enforcement and
Public Safety Act,'' that I introduced in the last Congress in June,
2000 on the request of the Clinton Administration.
The district court rejected defendant Reid's arguments to dismiss the
section 1993 charge on grounds that 1. the penalty provision does not
apply to an ``attempt'' and 2. an airplane is not engaged in ``mass
transportation.'' ``Mass transportation'' is defined in section 1993 by
reference to the ``the meaning given to that term in section 5302(a)(7)
of title 49, U.S.C., except that the term shall include schoolbus,
charter and sightseeing transportation.'' Section 5302(a)(7), in turn,
provides the following definition: ``mass transportation'' means
transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing
general or special transportation to the public, but does not include
school bus, charter or sightseeing transportation.'' The court
explained that ``commercial aircraft transport large numbers of people
every day'' and that the definition of ``mass transportation'' ``when
read in an ordinary or natural way, encompasses aircraft of the kind at
issue here.'' U.S. v. Reid, CR No. 02-10013, at p. 10, 12 (D. MA, June
11, 2002).
Defendant Reid also argued that the section 1993 charge should be
dismissed because an airplane is not a ``vehicle.'' The court agreed,
citing the fact that the term ``vehicle'' is not defined in section
1993 and that the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. Sec. 4, narrowly defines
``vehicle'' to include ``every description of carriage or other
artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation on land.'' Emphasis in original opinion. Notwithstanding
common parlance and other court decisions that have interpreted this
Dictionary Act definition to encompass aircraft, the district court
relied on the narrow definition to conclude that an aircraft is not a
``vehicle'' within the meaning of section 1993.
The new section 1993 was intended to provide broad federal criminal
jurisdiction over terrorist and violent acts against all mass
transportation systems, not only bus services but also commercial
airplanes, cruise ships, railroads and other forms of transportation
available for public carriage. The bill I introduce today would add a
definition of ``vehicle'' to section 1993 and clarify that an airplane
is a ``vehicle'' both in common parlance and under this new criminal
law to protect mass transportation systems. Specifically, the bill
would define this term to mean ``any carriage or other contrivance
used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land,
water or through the air.''
I urge the Senate to act promptly and pass this legislation. I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2621
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEFINITION.
Section 1993(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
[[Page S5539]]
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) the term `vehicle' means any carriage or other
contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation on land, water, or through the air.''.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 2622. A bill to authorize the President to posthumously award a
gold medal on behalf of Congress to Joseph A. De Laine in recognition
of his contributions to the Nation; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to present Reverend Joseph A. De Laine the Congressional Gold Medal in
honor of his heroic sacrifices to desegregate our public schools. His
crusade to break down barriers in education forever scarred his own
life, but led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954.
Eight years before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus,
Rev. De Laine, a minister and principal, organized African-American
parents to petition the Summerton, SC, school board for a bus and
gasoline so their children would not have to walk 10 miles to attend a
segregated school. A year later, in Briggs v. Elliott, the parents sued
to end segregation. It was a case that as a young lawyer I watched
Thurgood Marshall argue before the Supreme Court as one of the five
cases collectively known as Brown v. Board of Education. For this
Senator, their arguments helped to shape my view on racial matters.
For his efforts, Rev. De Laine was subjected to a reign of domestic
terrorism. He lost his job. He watched his church and home burn. He was
charged with assault and battery with intent to kill after shots were
fired at his home and he fired back to mark the car. He had to leave
South Carolina forever; relocate to New York, where he started an AME
Church, and he eventually retired in North Carolina. Not until the year
2000, 26 years after his death and 45 years after the incident in his
home was Rev. De Laine cleared of all charges.
Last month, I spoke to the 100 descendants of Briggs v. Elliott, and
I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record, which
show the bravery of Rev. De Laine during a troubled time in our
Nation's past, and which point to the immeasurable benefits he has
given our Nation.
There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Briggs v. Elliott Descendants Re-union Banquet, Summerton, South
Carolina, May 11, 2002
I want to give you an insight into exactly what happened to
your parents 50 years ago in Summerton, SC, that led to the
desegregation of our Nation's schools by the Supreme Court of
the United States.
I speak with some trepidation, because right now I can see
Harry Briggs' son walking down that dirt road all the way
here to Scotts Branch School, and that school bus passing,
all for the white children. Yet all your families were asking
for was a bus. But they were told: ``you don't pay any taxes,
so how can you ask for a bus?'' What they didn't say is you
didn't have a job, whereby you could make a living and be
able to pay the taxes. They didn't say that.
I think of the threats, the burnings, the shooting up of
Reverend John De Laine's home. I think about how they turned
him into a fugitive. He had to leave his home in South
Carolina, never to return. Harry Briggs had to leave his home
and go to Florida to earn a living. It's not for me to tell
the descendants of the Briggs v. Elliott case how they have
suffered.
I didn't try this case, don't misunderstand me. My
beginnings with Briggs v. Elliott started in 1948 when I was
elected to the House of Representatives in Columbia.
The previous year James Hinton, the head of the NAACP in
the State gave a speech in Columbia. He talked about the need
to get separate but equal facilities. He got Rev. De Laine
from Summerton in the audience all fired up. Rev. De Laine,
who was the principal here, put together a petition signed by
20 parents, of 46 children, the Summerton 66.
I'll never forget the day after I was sworn into the
Legislature the superintendent of schools in Charleston
County took me across the Cooper River Bridge, down the
Mathis Ferry Road, to the Freedom School, the black school.
He said I want to show you what we really do, he used the
word at that time, ``for a Negro education.''
This was a cold November Day, and we went into a big one-
room building. That's all they had, one room, with a pot
belly stove in the middle. They had a class in this corner, a
class in that back corner, a class up front in this corner,
and a class here. Of course, they didn't have any desks, and
very few books, and one teacher teaching the four classes.
When I went to Columbia I was with a bunch of rebels. I
introduced an anti-lynching bill. I had never heard of
lynchings down in Charleston, but then they had one. As we
debated the bill, a fellow who was the grand dragon of the
Klan got up with all these Klansmen in the Gallery, and he
mumbled and raised cane. Speaker Blott got some order. But
several House members walked out. They said they wouldn't be
seated in the Legislature with a fellow like that. We passed
the anti-lynching bill.
I'm trying to give you this background, so you'll
understand the significance of what your parents did. We had
just had the case, whereby blacks could participate in the
Democratic primary. And we had just given women the right to
vote.
And in 1949 and 1950, I struggled because there was no
money in the state for separate but equal schools, or
anything else. I said we ought to put in a 3 percent sales
tax to pay for things. Governor Thurmond opposed it, and the
senators particularly opposed it. But I made the motion for a
one-cent tax on cigarettes; a one-cent tax on gasoline; and a
one-cent tax on beer. Beer, cigarettes, and gasoline.
We formed a House Committee with six of us to work on it.
We worked all summer. It's a long story, but let me cut it
and say by December we had it all written. I knew the
incoming governor, Governor Byrnes. I felt it would be good
to ask him to see if he could help me with this measure.
The second week in January, before he was sworn in, he
called me and said: ``You've got to come to Columbia, I'm
going to include this in my Inaugural address.'' Over
time, I made 79 talks on the proposal, until we finally
passed the sales tax, which provided some money for
separate but equal schools.
When the Briggs v. Elliott case came up, before Judge
Waring in Charleston, he questioned separate but equal. Then
in December 1952, the case went to the Supreme Court.
Governor Byrnes had served on the State Supreme Court, and he
wanted to make sure we won the case. In my mind, he was
absolutely sure that under Chief Justice Vinson the State
would win it.
But to make sure, he set aside Mr. Bob McC. Figg, who had
done all the work, and selected John W. Davis, as the
attorney for South Carolina against Thurgood Marshall, who
was representing Briggs and the NAACP. Mr. Davis had been the
Solicitor General of the United States. He had been the
Democratic nominee for president in 1924. He was considered
the greatest constitutional mind in the country.
The second thing the Governor did was to call me up and
say: ``I'm appointing you to go to Washington, because you
know intimately this law here that built the schools. You
have to go to Washington in case any questions of fact come
up.''
So we took a train to Washington. We came in at 6 o'clock
that morning at Union Station, and we sat down for breakfast.
I'll never forget it, because Thurgood Marshall walked in. He
and Bob McC. Figg had become real close friends. So he sat
down and was eating breakfast with us, and we began swapping
stories.
Mr. Marshall said ``Bob, you know that black family that
moved into that white neighborhood in Cicero, IL. They have
so much trouble. There are riots, and everything else going
on.'' And he said: ``Don't tell anybody, but I got hold of
Governor Adlai Stevenson.'' Stevenson was the governor of
Illinois at the time. And he said: ``I sent that family back
to Mississippi for safe keeping.'' And Thurgood added, ``for
God's sake, don't tell anybody that or it will ruin me.'' I
said: ``for God's sake, don't tell anybody I'm eating
breakfast with you, or I will never get elected again.''
I tell you that story so you can get a feel for 1952, for
what it was like 50 years ago.
We had wanted Briggs to be the lead case before the Supreme
Court. It was one of five cases that they would hear
collectively. But soon after our breakfast, we found out that
Roy Wilkens from the NAACP had gotten together with the
Solicitor General and moved the Kansas case in front of the
South Carolina case. Some reports said the reason was because
they wanted a northern case. That was not it. There was
another case from the State of Delaware, which was just as
north as the State of Kansas.
Kansas was selected because up until the sixth grade, yes,
it was segregated. But thereafter it was a local option, and
the schools were mostly integrated.
Before the court John W. Davis obviously made a very
impassioned, constitutional argument. But Thurgood Marshall
made the real argument, there wasn't any question about it.
He had been with this case. He had the feel, and everything
else of that kind.
I can still hear and see Justice Frankfurter on the Court
leaning over and saying, ``Mr. Marshall, Mr. Marshall, you've
won your case, you've won your case. What happens next''? And
Thurgood Marshall said, well, if he prevails, then the state
imposed policy of separation by race would be removed. The
little children can go to the school of their choice. They
play together before they go to school. They come back and
play together after school. Now they can be together at
school. The State imposed policy of separation by race in
South Carolina would be gone.
Another lawyer arguing the case was George E. C. Hayes, and
when I heard him that was my epiphany. Mr. Hayes got everyone
because he used a jury argument before
[[Page S5540]]
the Supreme Court. He said: as black soldiers we went to the
war to fight on the front lines in Europe, and when we come
home we have to sit on the back of the bus.
I had been with the 9th Anti-Artillery Aircraft unit in
Tunisia in Africa for a month. And then I was in Italy and
Germany and crossed over to what is now Kosovo. So I served.
I knew exactly what he was talking about. And I said this is
wrong.
The next year Chief Justice Vinson died. It was reported at
that time that Justice Frankfurter said for the first time
that he believed there was a God in Heaven when Vison passed
away. They appointed Mr. Earl Warren as Chief Justice, who
dragged everybody back to the Court to re-argue the case in
December of 1953. He didn't want to hear about separate but
equal. He wanted the case re-argued on the constitutionality
of segregation itself.
Then on May 17, 1953 the decision came down, it was
unanimous, segregation was over in this country. So the
lawyers immediately got together to discuss how to implement
the decision. Since the decision said to integrate schools
with all deliberate speed, there was arguments back and forth
on how we could comply with this order with all deliberate
speed and not start chaos all over the land.
Some school authority down in Charleston came up with the
idea that with all deliberate speed meant we would integrate
the first grade the first year; we would integrate the first
and second grades the second year; the third year would be
the first, second, and third grades. Over a 12-year period,
we would then have the 12 grades integrated. When the head of
the NAACP in New York heard that he said: ``Noooo Way. We are
not going to be given our constitutional rights on the
installment plan.'' And that ended that. But nothing was done
for about 10 years, until Martin Luther King came along.
When I became Governor, I started working on other areas
that needed to be integrated, beginning with law enforcement.
I'll never forget all the white sheriffs who were against all
the blacks. We only had 34 black sheriffs. We have about 500
today.
And we literally broke up and locked up the Ku Klux Klan. I
remember on the day I was sworn in as Governor, waiting for
me was a green and gold embossed envelope, with a lifetime
membership into the Ku Klux Klan. I never heard of such a
thing. I asked the head of law enforcement, do we have the Ku
Klux Klan in South Carolina? He said, ``Ohhh yes. We have
1,727 members.'' I asked, you have an actual count? And he
said: ``Ohhh yes, we keep a count of them.'' He said he could
get rid of them, but no Governor had helped him in the past.
I said, I'll help you. What do we do? He said: ``I need a
little money.''
So we infiltrated the Klan, and the members began to know,
or their bosses at businesses knew because they would say to
these people: ``You know on Friday night, your man, so and
so, has been going to these rallies.'' The next thing you
know, they quit going to the rallies. So by the time we
integrated Clemson with Harvey Gantt, it went very, very
peacefully. And there were less than 300 Klansmen.
Then, of course, as Senator I took my hunger trips. This is
the effect those arguments before the court had on me. I took
those trips with the NAACP to 16 different counties. As a
result, we embellished the food stamp program, we instituted
the women infants and children's feeding program, and the
school lunch program. The attendance in schools went way up
when we started that.
As your Senator I had the privilege of employing Ralph
Everett. He was the first black staff director of any
committee in the United States Senate.
We have both Andy Chishom and Israel Brooks as the first
black Marshalls of South Carolina. Matthew Perry, the first
black district judge of a Federal court ever appointed, I
appointed. The first black woman judge to the Federal
district court, Margaret Seymour, I appointed her. So we have
made a lot of progress along that line.
But to give you a feel for how things have changed, I
remember speaking at the C.A. Johnson High School in
Columbia, the largest black high school in the entire state,
the day after Martin Luther King was assassinated.
At the event, there was a mid-shipman, a senior at the
Naval Academy, who stood up and made one of the finest talks
I ever heard. I turned to the principal, because it was his
son, and I asked: who appointed your son to the Naval
Academy? He didn't answer. We walked down the row, and I can
see me now, asking him again. He still didn't answer. When I
got to my car, I said evidently you don't understand my
accent from Charleston. Who appointed your son to the U.S.
Naval Academy? He said, ``Senator, I didn't want to have to
answer that question. We couldn't get a member of the South
Carolina delegation to appoint him. Hubert Humphrey appointed
him.''
What goes around, comes around. Today, I have more minority
appointments to West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force
Academies than anybody. Recently I had Chuck Bolden, who is a
major general in the marine corps and a former astronaut,
ready to return to NASA as the number two person there. But
the Pentagon raised the question about taking such a talent
during a time of war and moving him to the civilian space
program. So we said the heck with it, he's too needed in the
military.
That is the effect Briggs v. Elliott had on this public
servant. There isn't any question that without the courage of
your parents, our society would be a lot worse off today.
I was there a few years back when the Congress of the
United gave the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. She
deserved it, and we wouldn't take anything from her for not
moving her seat. But in the 1950s the worst they could have
done to her was to pull her off the bus. These descendants
lost their homes. They lost their livelihoods. They almost
lost their lives. As far as continuing their life in the
State of South Carolina, they could not do it.
Without their courage, without their stamina, without their
example in starting the Briggs v. Elliott case, we never
would have had a civil rights act. We never would have had a
voting rights act. We never would have had all the progress
we've made over the many, many years.
So I wanted particularly to come back and to publicly thank
each of you descendants. And I want to announce that I am
putting forward a bill that would honor posthumously Rev. De
Laine with a Congressional Gold Medal.
I need 66 co-sponsors in the Senate. We have to have
similar support on the House side. But Cong. Clyburn, he can
get way more votes than I can. I don't think he'll have any
trouble. We'll try to work it out so that in '04, the 50th
anniversary of when the decision came down, we'll be able to
make that presentation.
I just want to end by saying because of the courage of your
parents, we made far more progress in the United States of
America. Our country is a far stronger country. We are more
than ever the land of the free and the home of the brave
because of Briggs v. Elliott. And I thank you all very, very
much.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen):
S. 2623. A bill to designate the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle
Grove Plantation National Historical Park as a unit of the National
Park System, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President I am pleased to introduce legislation,
along with my colleague, Senator Allen, to create the Cedar Creek
Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park.
This legislation builds on an effort that I have been involved with
for over a decade. In 1991, the Congress authorized the National Park
Service to conduct an assessment of the historical integrity of
significant Civil War battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley of
Virginia. That examination identified 10 Civil War battlefields in
eight counties in the Valley that remained significantly as they were
during the war.
The Valley itself was a location of constant engagements throughout
the War with more than 325 armed conflicts. The 10 battlefields that
are today preserved under the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields
Management Plan include the places of Stonewall Jackson's 1862
campaign, and later Union General Philip Sheridan's 1864 campaign which
left the Valley in ruins.
This legislation is the product of many months of discussions with
affected individual property owners with the battlefield boundary, our
partner non-profit organizations who today preserve Belle Grove
Plantation and surrounding lands within the battlefield, local
governments and many interested citizens. I am pleased to present to
the Senate their strong support for this legislation. I know that with
retaining the private sector ownership of buildings and their direct
participation in preserving and interpreting the story of Cedar Creek,
we will have a truly unique partnership.
The compelling story of the events that unfolded at Cedar Creek
surely earns recognition within our National Park system. In October of
1864, the Federal Army of the Shenandoah, having soundly defeated the
Confederate Army of the Valley at Winchester on September 19 and then
again at Fisher's Hill on September 22, ran the Confederate forces out
of the Shenandoah Valley. In the process of this Union advance, Federal
forces either burned or took all of the Confederate food reserves and
livestock between Staunton and Strasburg. Thinking he had finally
deprived the Valley as the Confederate's food source and as an invasion
route North, Major General Philip Sheridan left his army camped along
Cedar Creek at Middletown and went to Washington to have meetings with
his supporters.
Refusing to give up the Valley to the Federals, General Jubal Early
moved his very hungry, tired, and ill-equipped army of about 17,000 to
Fisher's Hill on October 13. Facing down Sheridan's
[[Page S5541]]
well dug-in army of over 30,000 men, Early had to make a decision to
attack or retreat. He chose to attack. On the night of October 18, he
sent three of his divisions under the command of Major General John
Gordon across the Shenandoah River and along the flank of Massanutten
Mountain to hit the Federal position from the east, behind its
entrenchments along Cedar Creek.
After marching and maneuvering all night, Gordon's divisions struck
at dawn in a thick fog. The Federals were clearly surprised. Early
pushed the Federals all the way out of their camps, past Belle Grove
plantation and all the way through Middleton. At mid-day, Gordon
ordered a halt to the advance so that he could regroup his forces.
Being informed that there was a battle going on, Sheridan rushed to
Middletown from Winchester. Once he arrived there in the afternoon, he
found his army posted along a ridge north of Middletown. There he was
able to rally his men, and from the position he ordered a massive
counterattack. The counterattack completely swept the Confederates from
the field.
The battle of Cedar Creek was significant for many reasons. The
battle dealt the crushing blow to the Confederacy in the Shenandoah
Valley, thus ending the career of Jubal Early in the process. Most
importantly, however, coupled with the successes of General William T.
Sherman in the Atlanta campaign, the battle boosted the morale of the
war-weary North and guaranteed the re-election of President Abraham
Lincoln.
The untouched landscape of this battlefield and the historic
structure of Belle Grove plantation still today evoke the stories of
the war. This site will serve to tell the whole story of the campaigns
of the Valley and visitors will experience the full impact of the War
of these surrounding rural communities.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2623
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Cedar Creek Battlefield and
Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to establish the Cedar Creek
Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical
Park in order to--
(1) help preserve, protect, and interpret a nationally
significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation for
the education, inspiration, and benefit of present and future
generations;
(2) serve as a focal point to recognize and interpret
important events and geographic locations representing key
Civil War battles in the Shenandoah Valley, including those
battlefields associated with the Thomas J. (stonewall)
Jackson campaign of 862 and the decisive campaigns of 1864;
(3) tell the rich story of the Battle of Cedar Creek and
its significance in the conduct of the war in the Shenandoah
Valley; and
(4) preserve the significant historic, natural, cultural,
military, and scenic resources found in the Cedar Creek
Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation areas through
partnerships with local landowners and the community.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Battle of Cedar Creek, also known as the battle of
Belle Grove, was a major event of the Civil War and the
history of this country. It represented the end of the Civil
War's Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864 and contributed to
the reelection of President Abraham Lincoln and the eventual
outcome of the war.
(2) 2,500 acres of the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle
Grove Plantation were designated a national historic landmark
in 1969 because of their ability to illustrate and interpret
important eras and events in the history of the United
States. The Cedar Creek Battlefield, Belle Grove Manor House,
the Heater House, and Harmony Hall (a National Historic
Landmark) are also listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register.
(3) The Secretary of the Interior has approved the
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District
Management Plan, September 2000, which preserves the
District's historic character, and protects and interprets 10
significant Civil War battlefields within the District,
including the Cedar Creek battlefield.
(4) The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic
District Management Plan and the National Park Service
Special Resource Study recognize the Cedar Creek battlefield
as the most significant Civil War resource within the
Historic District.
(5) The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic
District Management Plan, which was developed with extensive
public participation over a 3-year period and is administered
by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, recommends
that Cedar Creek Battlefield be established as a new unit of
the National Park System to provide permanent protection for
the battlefield and to serve as the central site to increase
the public's education and awareness of the War's legacy
throughout the Historic District.
(6) The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, organized in
1988 to preserve and interpret the Cedar Creek Battlefield
and the 1864 Valley Campaign, has acquired 308 acres of land
within the boundaries of the National Historic Landmark. The
foundation annually hosts a major reenactment and living
history event on the Cedar Creek Battlefield.
(7) Belle Grove Plantation is a Historic Site of the
National Trust for Historic Preservation that occupies 383
acres within the National Historic Landmark. The Belle Grove
Manor House was built by Isaac Hite, a Revolutionary War
patriot married to the sister of President James Madison, who
was a frequent visitor at Belle Grove. President Thomas
Jefferson assisted with the design of the house. During the
Civil War Belle Grove was at the center of the decisive
battle of Cedar Creek. Belle Grove is managed locally by
Belle Grove, Incorporated, and has been open to the public
since 1967. The house has remained virtually unchanged since
it was built in 1797, offering visitors an experience of the
life and times of the people who lived there in the 18th and
19th centuries.
(8) The panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas,
and waterways provide visitors with an inspiring setting of
great natural beauty. The historic, natural, cultural,
military, and scenic resources found in the Cedar Creek
Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation areas are nationally
and regionally significant.
(9) The existing, independent, not-for-profit organizations
dedicated to the protection and interpretation of the
resources described above provide the foundation for public-
private partnerships to further the success of protecting,
preserving, and interpreting these resources.
(10) None of these resources, sites, or stories of the
Shenandoah Valley are protected by or interpreted within the
National Park System.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Cedar
Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National
Historical Park Advisory Commission established by section 9.
(2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Cedar
Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National
Historic Park'', numbered CECR-80,000, and dated June 12,
2002.
(3) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Cedar Creek
Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical
Park established under section 5 and depicted on the Map.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE
GROVE PLANTATION NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the Cedar Creek
Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical
Park, consisting of approximately 3,000 acres, as generally
depicted on the Map.
(b) Availability of Map.--The Map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the offices of the
National Park Service of the Department of the Interior.
SEC. 6. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.
(a) Real Property.--The Secretary may acquire land or
interests in land within the boundaries of the park, from
willing sellers only, by donation, purchase with donated or
appropriated funds, or exchange.
(b) Boundary revision.--After acquiring land for the Park,
the Secretary shall--
(1) revise the boundary map of the Park to include newly
acquired land within the boundary; and
(2) administer newly acquired land subject to applicable
laws (including regulations).
(c) Personal Property.--The Secretary may acquire personal
property associated with, and appropriate for, interpretation
of the Park.
(d) Conservation Easements and Covenants.--The Secretary is
authorized to acquire conservation easements and enter into
covenants regarding lads in or adjacent to the Park for
willing sellers only. Such conservation easements and
covenants shall have the effect of protecting the scenic,
natural, and historic resources on adjacent lands and
preserving the natural or historic setting of the Park when
viewed from within or outside the Park.
(e) Support Facilities.--The National Park Service is
authorized to acquire from willing sellers up to 50 acres of
land outside the park boundary, but in close proximity to the
park, to develop facilities for one or more of the following:
(1) Visitors.
(2) Administrative functions.
(3) Museums.
(4) Curatorial functions.
(5) Maintenance.
[[Page S5542]]
SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION.
The Secretary shall administer the Park in accordance with
this Act and the provisions of law generally applicable to
units of the National Park System, including--
(1) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park
Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916
(16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and
(2) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects,
and antiquities of national significance, and for other
purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
SEC. 8. MANAGEMENT OF PARK.
(a) Management Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation with
the Commission, shall prepare a management plan for the Park.
In particular, the management plan shall contain provisions
to address the needs of owners of non-Federal land, including
independent nonprofit organizations within the boundaries of
the Park.
(b) Submission of Plan to Congress.--Not later than 3 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit the management plan for the Park to Congress.
SEC. 9. CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE GROVE PLANTATION
NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the Cedar Creek
Battlefield and Belle Grove Planation National Historical
Park Advisory Commission.
(b) Duties.--The Commission shall--
(1) advise the Secretary in the preparation and
implementation of a general management plan described in
section 8; and
(2) advise the Secretary with respect to the identification
of sites of significance outside the Park boundary deemed
necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Act.
(c) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 15
members appointed by the Secretary so as to include the
following:
(A) 1 representative from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(B) 1 representative each from the local governments of
Strasburg, Middletown, Frederick County, Shenandoah County,
and Warren County.
(C) 2 representatives of private landowners within the
Park.
(D) 1 representative from a citizen interest group.
(E) 1 representative from the Cedar Creek Battlefield
Foundation.
(F) 1 representative from Belle Grove, Incorporated.
(G) 1 representative from the National Trust for Historic
Preservation.
(H) 1 representative from the Shenandoah Valley
Battlefields Foundation.
(I) 1 ex officio representative from the National Park
Service.
(J) 1 ex officio representative from the United States
Forest Service.
(2) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Commission shall
be elected by the members to serve a term of one year
renewable for one additional year.
(3) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filed
in the same manner in which the original appointment was
made.
(4) Terms of service.--
(A) In General.--Each member shall be appointed for a term
of 3 years and may be reappointed for not more than 2
successive terms.
(B) Initial members.--Of the members first appointed under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall appoint--
(i) 4 members for a term of 1 year;
(ii) 5 members for a term of 2 years; and
(iii) 6 members for a term of 3 years.
(5) Extended service.--A member may serve after the
expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken
office.
(6) Majority rule.--The Commission shall act and advise by
affirmative vote of a majority of its members.
(7) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at least quarterly
at the call of the chairperson or a majority of the members
of the Commission.
(8) Quorum.--8 members shall constitute a quorum.
(d) Compensation.--Members shall serve without pay. Members
who are full-time officers or employees of the United States,
the Commonwealth of Virginia, or any political subdivision
thereof shall receive no additional pay on account of their
service on the Commission.
(e) Hearings; Public Involvement.--The Commission may, for
purposes of carrying out this Act, hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, take such public testimony,
and receive such evidence, as the Commission considers
appropriate. The Commission may not issue subpoenas or
exercise any subpoena authority.
(f) FACA Nonapplicability.--The Federal Advisory Committee
Act shall not apply to the Commission.
SEC. 10. CONSERVATION OF CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE
GROVE PLANTATION NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.
(a) Encouragement of Conservation.--The Secretary and the
Commission shall encourage conservation of the historic and
natural resources within and in proximity of the Park by
landowners, local governments, organizations, and businesses.
(b) Provision of Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may
provide technical assistance to local governments, in
cooperative efforts which complement the values of the Park.
(c) Cooperation by Federal Agencies.--Any Federal entity
conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the
Park shall consult, cooperate, and, to the maximum extent
practicable, coordinate its activities with the Secretary in
a manner that--
(1) is consistent with the purposes of this Act and the
standards and criteria established pursuant to the general
management plan developed pursuant to section 8;
(2) is not likely to have an adverse effect on the
resources of the Park; and
(3) is likely to provide for full public participation in
order to consider the views of all interested parties.
SEC. 11. ENDOWMENT.
(a) In General.--In accordance with the provisions of
subsection (b), the Secretary is authorized to receive and
expend funds from an endowment to be established with the
National Park Foundation, or its successors and assigns.
(b) Conditions.--Funds from the endowment referred to in
subsection (a) shall be expended exclusively as the
Secretary, in consultation with the Commission, may designate
for the interpretation, preservation, and maintenance of the
Park resources and public access areas. No expenditure shall
be made pursuant to this section unless the Secretary
determines that such an expenditure is consistent with the
purposes of this Act.
SEC. 12. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
(a) In General.--In order to further the purposes of this
Act, the Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements with interested public and private entities and
individuals (including the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Belle Grove, Inc., the Cedar Creek Battlefield
Foundation, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation,
and the Counties of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren),
through technical and financial assistance, including
encouraging the conservation of historic and natural
resources within and near the Park.
(b) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may
provide to any person, organization, or governmental entity
technical and financial assistance for the purposes of
this Act, including the following:
(1) Preserving historic structures within the Park.
(2) Maintaining the natural or cultural landscape of the
Park.
(3) Local preservation planning, interpretation, and
management of public visitation for the Park.
(4) Furthering the goals of the Shenandoah Valley
Battlefields Foundation and National Historic District
Management Plan.
SEC. 13. ROLES OF KEY PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--In recognition that central portions of
the Park are presently owned and operated for the benefit of
the public by key partner organizations, the Secretary shall
acknowledge and support the continued participation of these
partner organizations in the management of the Park.
(b) Park Partners.--Roles of the current key partners
include the following:
(1) Cedar creek battlefield foundation.--The Cedar Creek
Battlefield Foundation may--
(A) continue to own, operate, and manage the lands acquired
by the Foundation within the Park;
(B) continue to conduct reenactments and other events
within the Park; and
(C) transfer ownership interest in portions of their land
to the National Park Service by donation, sale, or other
means that meet the legal requirements of National Park
Service land acquisitions.
(2) National trust for historic preservation and belle
grove incorporated.--The National Trust for Historic
Preservation and Belle Grove Incorporated may continue to
own, operate, and manage Belle Grove Plantation and its
structures and grounds within the Park boundary. Belle Grove
Incorporated may continue to own the house and grounds known
as Bowman's Fort or Harmony Hall for the purpose of permanent
preservation, with a long-term goal of opening the property
to the public.
(3) Shenandoah county.--Shenandoah County may continue to
own, operate, and manage the Keister park site within the
Park for the benefit of the public.
(4) Gateway communities.--The adjacent historic towns of
Strasburg and Middletown shall be acknowledged at Gateway
Communities to the Park.
(5) Shenandoah valley battlefields foundation.--The
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation may continue to
administer and manage the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields
National Historic District in partnership with the National
Park Service and in accordance with the Management Plan for
the District in which the Park is located.
SEC. 14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
[[Page S5543]]
____________________