[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.

                          ____________________