[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 1, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3107-S3123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.'S LETTER FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, you joined us last year to do the reading 
we are doing today, so I am glad the Presiding Officer is here 
presiding today.
  It is an honor to join my colleagues of both parties on the floor 
today to read Dr. King's letter from the Birmingham jail. I thank 
Senator Cassidy, who will go first, and Senators Casey, Lankford, King, 
Britt, and Butler, who will wrap it up, for joining me today for this 
annual bipartisan tradition.
  Every year, we bring together three Republicans and three Democrats 
to read one of the greatest pieces of writing of the 20th century and 
reflect on the mission and the powerful words of Dr. King.
  This year, our reading falls right after Workers' Memorial Day, which 
we marked on Sunday, a day when we honor all the workers killed on the 
job over the past year, workers who were injured, and workers who were 
injured and killed throughout our history.
  Every year on that date, I am reminded of Dr. King's final trip--his 
second trip of the year, his final trip--to Memphis. He went to stand 
with Black sanitation workers striking for better pay and safer working 
conditions. They were some of the most exploited workers in the 
country, with unfair wages and unsafe conditions.
  Months earlier, two Black workers had been killed in a tragic 
accident that surely could have been prevented. Mr. Echol Cole and Mr. 
Robert Walker had showed up to work in segregated Memphis, working in a 
segregated neighborhood. During their shift, a storm hit. Mr. Cole and 
Mr. Walker had to huddle in the back of the truck, surrounded by 
garbage, to shield themselves from the rain.
  Segregated Memphis. Segregated neighborhood. Segregated sanitation 
truck, I might add.
  The truck malfunctioned. These two young men--36 and 30 years old, 
with wives and families and their whole lives ahead of them--were 
crushed. The White workers in the front of the cab were not, obviously.
  Dr. King knew discrimination killed those men as much as their work 
conditions had. He understood the deep connections between civil rights 
and worker rights. He understood that all labor has dignity.
  Until we have equal rights for all and dignity for all workers, our 
work remains unfinished. We have a long road left to travel. It is up 
to each of us to push our country further along that road. That is the 
message of Dr. King's words. That is why I ask my colleagues to join us 
on the floor every year.
  He wrote on scraps of paper while in solitary confinement in April 
1963 in the Birmingham jail, with only his memory to pull from. He 
referenced two texts again and again: the Bible and Howard Thurman--who 
was one of his important spiritual counselors--Howard Thurman's book 
``Jesus and the Disinherited.''
  My friend Dr. Otis Moss, who lives in Cleveland, told me Dr. King 
always carried these two books with him. Before every trip or speech or 
march, he packed them into his briefcase.
  In his letter, Dr. King was responding to White moderate ministers 
who told him: Slow down. Don't move too fast. Don't demand too much all 
at once.
  They told him wait and things would change, but Dr. King, at that 
point, knew better. He knew ``wait'' meant never. He knew progress only 
happens when you push and when you don't give up.
  In the letter, Dr. King made that point more eloquently and 
persuasively than any of us ever could.
  Senator Cassidy--Dr. Cassidy--was just standing here with Senator 
Butler and me marveling at the wisdom and the skill of his words, all 
inspiring us to write better on our account too.
  The reading begins with Senator Cassidy of Louisiana. Thank you for 
joining us again this year.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I thank Senator Brown, and I thank my 
colleagues.

                                                   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 work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the 
     criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have 
     little time for anything other than such correspondence in 
     the course of the day, and I would have no time for 
     constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of 
     genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set 
     forth, I want to 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 own 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.
       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 Negro 
     community with no alternative.
       In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: 
     Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices 
     exist; negotiation;

[[Page S3108]]

     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. Negroes 
     have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. 
     There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro 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, Negro 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 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 postponement after postponement. 
     Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct 
     action program could be delayed no longer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I will continue with the reading of the 
letter from the 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. Just 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 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 
     maintenance of the status quo. I have hope 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 justice 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 
     policemen 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 
     suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering 
     as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she 
     can't go to the public amusement park that has just been 
     advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her 
     eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored 
     children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to 
     form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to 
     distort her personality by developing an unconscious 
     bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an 
     answer for a five year old son who is asking: ``Daddy, why do 
     white people treat colored people so mean?''; 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 ``nigger,'' your 
     middle name 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. 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I would like to continue the reading 
of the ``Letter from Birmingham Jail.''
  Dr. King continued:

       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 thou'' 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

[[Page S3109]]

     that a numerical or 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 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 are suppressed, I would openly advocate 
     disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

  Mr. BROWN. Continuing:

       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 good will 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 to 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.
       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 co workers 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 and 
     a 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, continuing with the words of Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr., and his letter from the Birmingham jail:

       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

[[Page S3110]]

     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 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 had hoped that 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 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. . . . 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mrs. BRITT. Madam President, I will continue reading Dr. Martin 
Luther King Jr.'s letter from the Birmingham jail:

       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 archdefender 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. 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 are at 
     present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in 
     Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of 
     America is freedom.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of 
California.
  Ms. BUTLER. Madam President, in conclusion of the letter from a 
Birmingham jail:

       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

[[Page S3111]]

     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 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 have 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. Eliot 
     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, 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 Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation 
     back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by 
     the founding fathers 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 unreasonable 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 clergyman 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. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank my colleagues from California and 
Alabama, Louisiana and Maine, from Pennsylvania and Oklahoma.
  I urge my colleagues who weren't listening today to read the letter, 
Dr. King's letter from Birmingham jail. It inspires us today as it 
helped to move a nation almost 61 years ago.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair 
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 211, H.R. 3935, a bill to amend title 
     49, United States Code, to reauthorize and improve the 
     Federal Aviation Administration and other civil aviation 
     programs, and for other purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Maria Cantwell, Peter Welch, Brian 
           Schatz, Edward J. Markey, Thomas R. Carper, Patty 
           Murray, Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Mark Kelly, Richard J. Durbin, Tina Smith, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Margaret Wood Hassan, Catherine Cortez 
           Masto, Michael F. Bennet.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 3935, a bill to amend title 49, United States 
Code, to reauthorize and improve the Federal Aviation Administration 
and other civil aviation programs, and for other purposes, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 89, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Warnock
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--10

     Cardin
     Hawley
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Sanders
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kelly
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). On this vote, the yeas are 89, 
the nays are 10.
  Three-fifths of the Senators, duly chosen and sworn, having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                               H.R. 3935

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to talk about the FAA 
reauthorization bill that is pending before the Senate now. And I want 
to begin by thanking the chair of Commerce, Senator Cantwell, and her 
ranking member, Senator Cruz, for doing something very important. It is 
critical that this FAA reauthorization bill happen. And as I look at 
the bill, I see many provisions that I strongly support, and I applaud 
the committee for their work. In particular, the committee has 
addressed the critical shortage in air traffic control, which is 
incredibly important to the safety of our skies; and, second, the 
committee dealt with a challenging issue surrounding pilot training 
hours, and, I think, came up with a solution that is going to be the 
right solution. So I begin with: This is a big bill with a lot of 
provisions, and I find much to like in almost all of it.

  But I rise to address the one piece of it where I am not supportive, 
and that is the mandate that the Senate committee version contains to 
add five

[[Page S3112]]

slots--or ten flights--to one of the most delay-prone and congested 
airports in the United States, Reagan National Airport, otherwise known 
as DCA. And I want to spend a little bit of time going into this issue, 
as the Senator representing Virginia. But I stand together with the 
support of colleagues--the Senators from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen 
and Senator Cardin; the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner. We are 
filing an amendment to remove the additional slots at DCA in this 
provision, and I want to just explain why to my colleagues.
  First, just a word about DCA. Most of us know it, but maybe not all 
know it and can put it in the context with other airports in this 
country.
  DCA is a postage stamp of an airport. It is 860 acres. By comparison, 
Dulles is built on 12,000 acres. The Denver airport is nearly 30,000 
acres. The Dallas airport is, I think, 18,000 acres.
  The DCA airport was built at a time when air traffic was not so 
intense, wasn't so normal, wasn't so critical to the Nation's economy; 
and it was built on this small footprint. And everyone who has flown 
into DCA knows there is no way to expand it. You are essentially kind 
of wrapped around on nearly three sides by water, and then, on the 
fourth side, it is U.S. 1 and a rail line. There is no way to make it 
bigger.
  DCA has three runways. There is a primary runway--the long runway--
and then there are two commuter runways on these 860 acres. When DCA 
was built and, more recently, as studies have been done, the estimate 
has been that DCA should, on that footprint with those 3 runways, 
accommodate 15 million passengers a year in and out of that airport.
  Where is DCA today? Today, DCA is pressed to the gills and 25\1/2\ 
million passengers a year are coming into or out of DCA.
  And it is pressed in another way. The airport was built so that the 
15 million passengers would be spread across the 3 runways: larger 
planes from farther away on the main runway and then commuter planes 
from near distances on the 2 commuter runways. But there have been 
significant advances in the configuration of airlines, and commuter 
airplanes that used to be turboprops are now jets. And so what has 
happened at DCA is that 90 percent of the flights that come into DCA 
have to use the primary runway, and that number is increasing as the 
commuter planes change in their configurations.
  So to just kind of summarize that, a very small airport that was 
designed for 15\1/2\ million passengers spread across 3 runways is now 
dealing with a passenger load of 25\1/2\ million passengers, with 90 
percent of those having to land on the main runway.
  How does that make DCA rank with other airports in the United States? 
Well, again, because of its small size, there are a number of airports 
that have more passengers in and out. DCA is the 19th busiest airport 
in the United States, if you look at the entire airport. But if you 
look at the main runway at DCA, that main runway is the single busiest 
runway in the whole United States. LaGuardia doesn't beat it. Kennedy 
doesn't beat it. Newark doesn't beat it. LAX doesn't beat it. Atlanta 
Hartsfield doesn't beat it. This runway that we use in this region is 
the busiest runway in the United States.
  What does that mean? What does it mean to have these 25\1/2\ million 
passengers mostly on 1 runway at DCA? Well, the first thing it means is 
very significant delay. Remember, I mentioned that DCA is the 19th 
busiest airport in the United States. But if you look at the average 
delay per day, it is No. 8. In other words, it punches really far above 
its weight when it comes to delay.
  And what kind of delay? You know, a delay of 2 or 3 minutes, I mean, 
hey, that wouldn't be a problem. But the average delay at DCA--and more 
than 20 percent of flights in and out of DCA experience delay--the 
average delay of those that do is not 10 minutes. It is not 30 minutes. 
It is not 45 minutes. It is 67 minutes. That is the average delay on 
these more than 20 percent of the flights that come into and out of 
DCA.
  How about beyond delay? What other measures? Well, again, I told you 
that DCA was the 19th busiest airport in the United States. But it is 
No. 3 in canceled flights.
  Now, some jurisdictions have canceled flights because the weather is 
horrible. You know, you might expect a lot of cancellations in an 
Alaska or maybe in a Minneapolis or maybe in a Chicago, the Windy City. 
With so many flights coming in, you might expect that they would have a 
lot of cancellations.

  The problem at DCA isn't weather. The problem is congestion, and it 
is No. 3 in the country in terms of cancellations.
  There is another measure that is a combination of both, a kind of a 
delay and safety measure: the number of times--and I think we have all 
experienced this--if you are flying into DCA, that you are put into a 
routing circle or loop before you can land. Now, that is part of what 
contributes to the 67 minutes of delay that is experienced by these 
more than 21 percent of the planes that have delay, but it also poses 
some additional challenges.
  When you are looping a plane over a very restricted DC airspace as 
other planes are taking off--one per minute from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m., 
taking off or landing; one per minute--you raise the risk of accident, 
and you also subject neighborhoods with loop patterns to noise. And 
that was one of the original controversies that led Congress to decide 
to take these airports out of the Federal control and put them into the 
control of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority--the idea 
that we can manage this better for safety, for convenience, but also to 
reduce noise in the neighborhoods in the DMV.
  So delay, cancellation, and looping patterns that are both a delay 
factor and a convenience factor and a neighborhood amenity factor, and 
that is DCA today.
  There is another challenge with DCA, and that is, with congestion, 
you run into risks of safety. As we were considering this matter just 
in the last few weeks, before the FAA bill was pending before 
Congress--but work had been done in the committees and work had been 
done in the House--there was a near miss on the runways at DCA. A plane 
was getting ready to take off on the main runway, a flight to Boston--a 
JetBlue flight to Boston--and another plane was trying to cross over to 
one of those shorter commuter runways, and they came within 300 feet of 
a collision.
  If you listen to the audiotape--and I can't play the tape in the 
Chambers; I wish I could, but I played it for colleagues outside the 
Chamber--you hear this conversation of the air traffic controllers. 
And, I will tell you, they are the most even-keeled, monotone people on 
the planet Earth. It is ``just the facts, ma'am,'' and you never hear 
emotions in their voice. But in this particular instance, you hear the 
tension ratcheting up, as these two planes are getting closer and 
closer, until you hear, in a frantic and worried way, one of the air 
traffic controllers just yelling, ``Stop! Stop!'' to these two planes 
because they are about to collide with one another. Three hundred feet 
isn't very much. It is not very much, and yet you raise the risk of 
accident with congestion.
  I mean, it stands to reason. Auto accidents don't happen as often on 
roads that aren't congested. But when roads are congested, you run the 
risk of greater accidents. And that is what is happening at DCA right 
now, before we talk about adding slots.
  Now, I do appreciate the fact that, in this bill, as I said, one of 
the things I like is the focus on air traffic controllers, because that 
is a key part of this. But it just stands to reason that, if it is 
already the busiest runway in the United States, and it is already one 
of the most delayed airports in the United States, and it is already 
near the lead in cancellations and needs for flights to loop around, it 
is a problem waiting to happen. And I have described this accident in 
the last few weeks as a flashing red warning signal to Congress: 
Please, do not add more flights. Don't jam more flights into this 
busiest runway in the United States.
  The proposal before the body is to add 10 more flights, what we call 
5 slots. It doesn't sound like a lot. I will admit that ``five slots'' 
doesn't sound like a lot. And maybe in an airport where there 
wasn't already a severe congestion problem, it wouldn't be a lot. And 
maybe in an airport that wasn't so small and whose size is already 
creating safety challenges, it

[[Page S3113]]

wouldn't be a lot. But at DCA, it is a lot.

  And so we have asked the FAA, charged with air traffic safety and 
experts in this--and I am definitely not an expert: What would 10 more 
flights mean?
  And, again, in the five slots, each slot is a flight in and a flight 
out. So 5 slots are 10 flights.
  What would 10 flights a day mean to DCA?
  And what the FAA said was, OK, even one flight would increase delay 
in operations at DCA. Even one would increase delay in this top-10 most 
delayed airport in the United States. But 10 flights would add an extra 
751 minutes, more than 12 hours, of delay at DCA every day--751 minutes 
of delay at DCA every day--and it would likely affect 183 flights.
  Now, this airport, as I have said, is already one of the most delayed 
in the United States, and if you add that 751 minutes to the average 
daily delay at DCA, you are now over 12,000 minutes of delay every day 
at DCA. So DCA would be climbing a ladder. They wouldn't be the eighth 
most delayed airport. They would be climbing the ladder and really 
cement their place in the top 10 or bottom 10, depending on how you 
would want to look at it.
  You all know that delay is bad. You don't want to arrive at a 
location late. Already, 67 minutes is the average that it would 
increase. It doesn't increase by average. Some would increase by a lot, 
some by a little. But remember that delay also has a compounding 
effect. If you are late leaving, delayed by 67 minutes and then some, 
then you might miss a connection or two. Or you might cause planes to 
wait for you, which then delays a whole lot of other people. So in our 
air traffic system, delay builds on delay, and it is kind of a 
geometric progression that creates massive inconvenience.
  The argument that we are making, those of us who are in this region--
we are not on the Commerce Committee. We weren't involved in the 
negotiation. We made our intentions known. We made them known for a 
very long time. And the intentions we have made known are that this is 
already an overburdened airport with the busiest runway in the United 
States, and there are both passenger convenience and safety reasons to 
not do this.
  But it is not just us. It is not just us. The FAA has not said: Do 
this or don't do it. But the FAA has said: If you add even one plane, 
you are going to increase delay at this very delay-prone airport.
  But there is also another body that is offering us advice. Congress 
created an authority called the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
Authority during the Reagan administration.
  I have a personal connection to this story. My father-in-law had been 
the Governor of Virginia and was somewhat of an expert in 
transportation, and President Reagan's Secretary of Transportation, 
Liddy Dole, asked him to come and lobby Congress to let go of control 
of these airports and instead create an authority. My father-in-law, 
Linwood, died about 2 years ago, at age 98, but it was one of his proud 
moments. And it was hard to convince Congress to give up control of 
these airports. It was very hard. It was a tough battle, but he 
eventually did it. And Congress agreed that DCA and Dulles would be 
operated by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.
  And Congress appoints that board. Certain members have to be from DC, 
certain from Virginia, certain from Maryland, and certain are Federal 
appointees who can be from anywhere. But we appoint that board, and we 
exercise oversight over that board, and they have responsibility for 
the safety of these two airports.
  What are they saying about this proposal? Well, those who are charged 
with operating these airports every day are saying: Don't do this.
  They are essentially saying the same thing that this air traffic 
controller is saying: Stop! Stop!
  The way to manage this extra congestion and delay and safety danger 
at DCA is not putting more flights in here; it is taking advantage of 
more capacity at Dulles and more capacity at BWI.
  So my colleagues and I are offering this amendment, recognizing the 
good work that the committee has done to promote safety throughout this 
reauthorization bill but pointing out that in this one instance, the 
proposal in the bill is directly contrary to the safety of 25 million 
people who use this airport, is directly contrary to the safety of 
neighborhoods surrounding this airport, and will take an already 
overburdened, delay- and cancellation-prone airport and make matters 
much worse.
  We will do all we can to press for a vote on this amendment, to 
hopefully convince our colleagues to vote with us.
  The last thing I will say before I sit down is this: The near miss 2 
weeks ago is a warning light. We have all been warned. It is rare--it 
is rare--to have legislation where there is no downside to it. There is 
always going to be potential downside, and sometimes we can assess what 
the downside is, and sometimes the downside--we may not be able to 
assess what it is. There is nothing we do here that doesn't have a 
downside. But I have been here for about 12 years now, and I will say 
that this is a piece of legislation--unlike any other that I have 
considered--where the downside has been placed on the table right 
before us in such a stark way as we are coming up to consider this 
bill.
  I just hope my colleagues will see the warning for what it is, will 
heed the advice of the FAA, and will listen to those we have empowered 
to operate this airport. If they are telling us that this should not be 
done and that if it is done, you can increase the risk of something bad 
happening, we should listen to them. We should listen to them.
  The one last thing I will mention because it is often relevant in 
bills like this is, if we were to make this change and accept the 
amendment and strip away these 10 additional flights, are we going to 
cause problems over on the House side? You know, we had this debate 
about the FISA reauthorization. We have this debate on appropriations 
bills all the time.
  We know the FAA bill reauthorization needs to be done by the end of 
next week. If we were to strip out the 10 flights, are we going to have 
problems over on the House side? The answer to that is no because the 
additional slots were only included in the Senate bill. The House 
considered the same proposal and rejected it in committee--no extra 
slots jammed into the busiest runway in the United States. None.
  Now, some didn't like that, so on the floor of the House, they 
offered an amendment to add these 5 slots, 10 flights, and the 
amendment failed. So we know what the will of the body is on the House 
side already, and that was a vote that took place before this near 
miss. My surmise is, if they were against it before the near miss, they 
are going to be even more against it after the near miss. So we needn't 
worry that if we adjust the bill before us to take this out, there is 
going to be a danger on the House side of compromising the bill and 
causing us to miss the deadline on the reauthorization.
  With that, I appreciate the attention of the body and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                                 FAFSA

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, today is May 1, which traditionally 
serves as college decision day--the deadline for prospective college 
students to confirm their enrollment and secure their spot for the 
upcoming semester.
  Each of us knows that college decisions are not made lightly. 
Students consider various majors. They look at long-term job prospects 
and earning potential for their careers. At least we hope they are 
looking at that before they decide to pursue their studies.
  As they look at schools, they also evaluate admission requirements, 
student resources, and the campus culture. But far and away, the most 
important factor for the majority of students is, how much will it 
cost? How much will it cost to receive a degree? As any student or 
parent who has been through this process will attest, it is not a cut-
and-dry answer. I have been through it with both of my daughters and 
still have flashbacks occasionally from the experience.
  Between scholarships and grants, the advertised sticker price versus 
the out-of-pocket cost can vary significantly. To cover the remaining 
balance, students have the option to take out

[[Page S3114]]

loans, participate in work-study programs, or take on a part-time job. 
Those decisions require even more consideration and planning.
  For most students to understand or even begin to evaluate the true 
cost of college, they rely on something called the Free Application for 
Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, as you have heard it called. Now, the 
Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, determines how much 
financial aid students can receive through loans, grants, scholarships, 
and work-study programs. For millions of students, this information 
unlocked by the FAFSA is a deciding factor, so it is a critical factor 
in determining students' ability to be able to go to school. It is not 
just deciding which school is right for them; it is understanding 
whether college education is even feasible from a financial point of 
view.
  But despite today being college decision day, many Texas students and 
other students all across the country are still waiting for their 
financial aid packages. They should have had this information weeks 
ago, even months ago, giving them the time to look at the range of 
their options and make an informed decision by May 1. Instead, enough 
students are still in limbo that many colleges and universities have 
been forced to postpone their admission decisions. But the fault 
doesn't lie with the students or the colleges but with, rather, the 
administration, which completely bungled the FAFSA process this year.
  The Biden administration rolled out a new FAFSA application that 
promised to simplify the notoriously complicated form. They claimed 
that the new-and-improved FAFSA would make it as easy as possible for 
families to get the help they need in order to plan for their 
education. As countless families in Texas and across the country can 
attest, that hasn't happened--not in the slightest.
  The FAFSA is typically available on October 1. This cycle, it wasn't 
available until the end of December--nearly 3 months behind schedule. 
Once it went live, the problems had just begun. Applicants reported 
website crashes, system errors, and lengthy processing times. Many of 
Texas's mixed-status families have had trouble completing the FAFSA at 
all due to a technical glitch. Across the board, applicants have 
struggled to get anyone on the phone to help troubleshoot the issues 
they were facing--even more so if they needed somebody who spoke 
Spanish. Instead of a simplified and streamlined process, families have 
been introduced to a convoluted maze of confusing questions, unclear 
instructions, and lengthy delays. The FAFSA problems have been so 
severe that many students have decided not to even complete the FAFSA 
at all this year. This is having dramatic and negative consequences.

  The Biden Education Department says that FAFSA submissions by Texas 
students alone are down by more than 40 percent--40 percent--over last 
year. This is a scandal. This is a precipitous drop, and it is sure to 
have a negative impact on those students, the colleges and 
universities, and eventually on employers.
  Starting with students, it is impossible to make an informed 
financial decision about college without a financial aid package. As we 
know, costs can vary significantly from one school to another, so 
without a financial aid offer, it is impossible to understand how to 
put the puzzle together to figure out whether it is even feasible for 
you to attend a particular university. A student who thinks they are 
making the more economical choice may need to take out a larger than 
expected loan because they don't have a clear understanding of their 
financial obligations.
  And for students who are weighing whether or not to attend college at 
all or whether to go to a 4-year college or perhaps a community college 
or a technical school, this could be the deciding factor that forces 
them to forego higher education and simply enter the workforce--or to 
accept something short of what they have aspired to in terms of their 
educational opportunities.
  This is especially true for students from low-income families who 
rely more on financial aid to make their dream of higher education come 
true. Without timely access to this critical information, students risk 
being locked out of a lifetime of opportunities for success.
  High school students, though, aren't the only ones impacted by the 
Biden administration's FAFSA fiasco. Current college students who are 
receiving aid have to complete this same document every year. For 
example, a student by the name of Alexis is a junior at the University 
of Texas at Austin, and she says she is very concerned about what she 
described as a ``waiting game.''
  As I noted, the Biden administration made the new FAFSA application 
available at the end of December, 3 months late. Alexis, though, 
completed the form and submitted it in January. But she still hasn't 
received an update since that time--May 1. She is worried--and I can 
understand why--that her FAFSA won't be processed before next semester, 
forcing her to get a third job or to take out additional loans.
  Now, this is a scandal, as I said, and it should be a huge 
embarrassment to the Biden administration, which said this new and 
improved FAFSA process was going to streamline it and make it easier to 
comply with. But what they didn't figure out is the bureaucratic 
bungling of administering this new process.
  The ripple effects of the FAFSA fiasco are felt not only by 
individual students but by colleges and universities across the Nation. 
Last month, I met with a number of leaders from Texas colleges and 
universities, and I am sure they are not unique in this regard, but 
they are absolutely outraged by the Biden administration's mishandling 
of the FAFSA. Without complete FAFSA data, they aren't able to send 
financial aid packages to prospective students. Without that 
information, students are unlikely to confirm enrollment. And without 
enrollment data, universities aren't able to set even a budget for 
their operations for the upcoming year.
  Institutions rely on timely access to students' financial aid 
information to manage their admissions process and allocate resources. 
The delays caused by the botched rollout of the new FAFSA have 
disrupted these operations, created unnecessary headaches and anxiety 
and logistical challenges that make it impossible to plan for the 
future. Eventually, reduced enrollment will have a negative impact on 
the workforce.
  Most of the meetings I have been having this week are with chambers 
of commerce from all across the State of Texas, and one of the first 
things they mention to me is workforce development. Fortunately, in our 
State, we are attracting a lot of new, well-paying jobs, particularly 
in things like advanced semiconductors and the like, and we are 
depending on these colleges and universities to train the workforce to 
be able to fill these well-paying jobs.
  It is no question that our country is already dealing with a skills 
gap. Again, I have spoken with countless employers and job creators 
that have told me they are still struggling to find qualified 
candidates to fill available jobs. This includes high-tech 
manufacturing jobs like those in the semiconductor area that I 
mentioned but also nurses, electricians, mental health providers, 
school counselors, cyber security experts--and the list goes on and on. 
We need people trained in these various disciplines and skills in order 
to fill these jobs and to keep our economy growing.

  The primary goal of the new FAFSA was to simplify the application 
process, making it easier for students and their families to navigate. 
Instead, the Biden administration's lack of preparation has created a 
bureaucratic nightmare for families, for students, and for schools. It 
undoubtedly will lead to countless numbers of students who will abandon 
their dreams of furthering their education because they simply can't 
plan for the future. They don't know which schools they are going to be 
able to apply to because they simply don't know how they fit their own 
financial picture together.
  Obviously, this is going to create a lot of anxiety and headaches and 
uncertainty for colleges and universities, as I mentioned. And in a few 
years, I am afraid we will still be dealing with the ripple effect, the 
trickle-down consequences of reduced enrollment and workforce training.
  There is simply no excuse for this sort of bureaucratic bungling. The 
Education Department has had plenty of

[[Page S3115]]

time and more than ample resources to roll out a simplified FAFSA by 
October 2 of last year. But, unfortunately, it appears the Biden 
administration has been so busy looking for ways to forgive or erase 
existing student debt that they failed to help future and current 
college students make informed decisions about their future.
  Again, this should be a national scandal. My friend, Ranking Member 
Senator Cassidy, has pushed the Government Accountability Office to 
examine the Biden administration's Education Department about their 
mishandling of the situation, and I am glad the Government 
Accountability Office has formally launched that investigation.
  Texas students and students across the country and the American 
people at large deserve a full explanation about how we ended up with 
this mess, and we will keep fighting for answers and accountability 
until we get those answers.
  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.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Net Neutrality

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, last week, the Democrat majority on 
the Federal Communications Commission voted to classify broadband 
internet service as a ``telecommunications service'' under title II of 
the Communications Act. This is an effort that is known as net 
neutrality.
  Now, the internet has been under title I, an information service, but 
our Democratic colleagues at the FCC and the Democrat administrations 
have sought to put this under title II and regulate it like they do the 
telephone line.
  This action is nothing less than a Big Government takeover of the 
internet, which will decrease investment in broadband and hurt the 
American people's access to high-speed internet.
  Now, how do we know this? Here is how: Under President Obama, the FCC 
enforced the failed regulation on the American people between 2015 and 
2017, with harmful consequences. So we have done this before.
  Now, back then, Democrats claimed that net neutrality was desperately 
needed to prevent internet service providers from blocking content, 
throttling speeds, and creating fast lanes that favored users who can 
pay for access. One Democrat Senator argued during this debate back in 
2015 that without the heavy-handed regulation, the internet would 
``cease to exist.'' And another from their official Senate Democrat 
Twitter account claimed that without net neutrality, internet users 
would only ``get the internet one word at a time.''
  Now, of course, we all know this never happened. Internet service 
providers never lived up to the Democrats' doomsday predictions, even 
after the FCC, under President Trump, repealed the net neutrality 
regulation.
  In fact, the internet has seen more development, faster speeds, and 
lower prices since President Trump's administration repealed that 
Obama-era net neutrality order. While the order was in effect, from 
2015 to 2017, investment in broadband fell. It actually fell. It 
decreased for the first time in a nonrecession period. For the first 
time ever, it decreased. Why was that? Government regulation. By 
comparison, the industry spent $102 billion on capital expenditures in 
2022, up from $76 billion in 2016.
  At the same time, without so-called net neutrality, Americans have 
enjoyed faster broadband speeds with a freer internet--free of net 
neutrality regulations. By the end of 2019, 94 percent of Americans had 
access to high-speed broadband. In 2015, just three-fourths of 
Americans had that access. Between 2016 and 2019, the share of rural 
Americans without high-speed internet was actually cut in half. With 
greater investment and competition, the repeal of net neutrality also 
made internet access more affordable.

  Between 2016 and 2021--this is a period of time without net 
neutrality rules--during that period of time, broadband prices 
decreased in the range of 14 to 42 percent. Think about that. The price 
of access went down. It shows you that free markets work.
  Tennesseans and Americans are probably wondering why is the FCC 
trying to go back and put a policy in place that limited access, that 
gave you government control, that increased prices, that slowed 
investment? Why would the Democrats want to do that?
  Today, Democrats have abandoned all the arguments they had during the 
Obama years about internet service providers blocking content and 
throttling speeds. Instead, the Biden-appointed FCC chairwoman claims 
that net neutrality is needed to address loopholes in the Agency's 
oversight of national security threats. I thought: How novel. So now it 
is all about loopholes and about national security.
  Well, when you look at the 1996 Telecommunications Act, it does not 
grant broad national security authority to the FCC. It does not give 
them the responsibility to do that, and it doesn't say that they have 
to have net neutrality in order to grab that. The Biden administration 
even admitted that U.S. security and law enforcement Agencies already--
and I am quoting the Biden administration here--``exercise substantial 
authorities with respect to the information and communication 
sectors.''
  They made up a story now that they need to do this because of 
national security. They do not have the authority; it does not fit 
their mission; and the authority actually belongs to other Agencies. So 
what you have is today's justification is different from the Obama era.
  The real motivation for net neutrality remains the same. It is simply 
this: Democrats want the Federal Government to completely control the 
internet. It should come as no surprise that Big Tech companies who 
block and censor conservative speech every day are the biggest 
supporters of net neutrality. They would enjoy the opportunity to work 
right alongside the Federal Government and control your access, your 
speed, your content that you are choosing on the internet.
  So Senate Republicans are going to fight against this Big Government 
takeover, and we are going to ensure that the internet does remain free 
and accessible and open to all Americans.


                                  Iran

  Madam President, America can only achieve peace through strength. We 
know that. Yet since his first day in office, President Biden has 
ignored this time-tested truth and our servicemembers and allies are 
suffering the consequences.
  Last week, militants in Iraq fired five rockets toward U.S. forces 
stationed in northeastern Syria. Less than 24 hours later, U.S. forces 
in western Iraq were targeted by explosive drones. Thankfully, no 
servicemembers were injured in these attacks. But it marked the first 
time American troops were targeted in the region since February. In 
their attacks earlier this year, Iranian militias injured dozens of 
U.S. troops and killed three brave servicemembers in Jordan. By all 
appearances, Iran-backed terror groups, including Hezbollah, were 
behind the latest attacks. Shortly after the attack on U.S. forces in 
Syria, the group issued a statement claiming that it will resume 
attacks on American troops, adding that ``What happened a short while 
ago is the beginning.''
  This aggression isn't happening by accident. It is a direct result of 
President Biden's pro-Iran policy of appeasement. For more than 3 
years, the Biden administration has rolled back the Trump 
administration's successful maximum-pressure campaign against the 
ayatollahs. Instead, President Biden has emboldened the Iranian regime, 
the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which killed more than 
600 American troops during the Iraq war.
  Within weeks of taking office, President Biden announced a return to 
diplomacy with Iran with the goal of restoring President Obama's failed 
nuclear deal. Then the administration revoked the Foreign Terrorist 
Organization designation for the Iran-backed Houthis. Those are the 
rebels in Yemen.
  Right before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the White House approved 
a $10 billion nuclear deal between Tehran and Moscow. At the same time, 
the White House allowed Iran to secretly export oil to communist China, 
filling

[[Page S3116]]

the regime's coffers with billions to fund their terror proxies, 
including Hamas and the Houthis and Hezbollah. And in September 2023, 
the Biden administration engaged in a $6 billion deal with Iran, the 
largest hostage payment in history.
  It is quite a record. It is quite a record of appeasing Iran. It is 
quite a record of pushing forward, making certain there is money into a 
regime which is the globe's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Now, 
you would think that after the October 7 attacks when Iran-funded Hamas 
terrorists murdered 1,200 Israelis in the deadliest attack on the 
Jewish people since the holocaust, the Biden administration would 
abandon its policy of appeasement. But, no, that is not what this 
administration has done. What they did do is to double down on their 
policy of appeasement.

  So are we to assume that they are OK with all of this? Just 11 days 
after the attacks, the President let the international embargo on 
Iran's missile and drone program lapse--11 days; and 11 days after Iran 
had moved forward--they trained Hamas, they prepped them, they funded 
them--Hamas carries out the October 7 attack, and 11 days later the 
Biden administration let the international embargo on Iran's missile 
and drone program lapse.
  In November, the administration reapproved the sanctions waiver that 
gives Iran access to around $10 billion in frozen assets. Last month, 
after Iran directly attacked Israel from its territory for the first 
time ever, launching more than 300 drones and missiles toward the 
Jewish State, President Biden told Israel that the United States 
opposed any counteroffensive to restore deterrence, telling Israel to 
look at Iran's failed attack as a win.
  Madam President, can you even imagine what the American people would 
have thought following 9/11 if countries were telling us: Cool it; back 
off. They didn't take you totally down. Imagine that.
  Just weeks ago, the Biden administration refused to commit to 
enforcing sanctions on the $10 billion Iran-Russia nuclear deal. And to 
top it off, President Biden is now reportedly looking to revive the 
failed Iran nuclear deal in this latest attempt to appease the 
ayatollahs. You cannot make this stuff up. You absolutely cannot.
  When I do visits in each of Tennessee's 95 counties, when I do a 
telephone townhall like I did last night with thousands of Tennesseans, 
people say: What are they thinking? And, you know, the sad thing about 
this is, it makes you wonder what they are thinking. It makes you 
wonder what they are doing to secure this country, to secure our 
people, to secure the homeland. It makes you wonder what are they doing 
intentionally, especially when it comes to that southern border. 
Thousands of people from countries of interest--about 25,000 Chinese 
nationals so far this fiscal year--are coming into our country. By the 
way, they are mainly young single men. What are they doing?
  Why does this administration not put our Nation's safety and security 
first? Why do they not put the safety and security of our troops who 
are deployed first? Why do they not have the backbone to stand up to 
thugs and put an end to this appeasement?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from West 
Virginia.


                                 FAFSA

  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, well, today is May 1, which is National 
College Decision Day. This is normally such an exciting occasion for 
students in my home State of West Virginia--and your home States--would 
be finalizing those really fun and hard decisions about which college 
or university to attend in the fall. There is much to look forward to.
  This year, the customary hopefulness has been replaced by anxiety, 
fear, and apprehension as confusions and questions take hold regarding 
the availability of support that has long accompanied one of the most 
important decisions of our young students' lives.
  When it comes to the 2024 FAFSA applications, the data from the West 
Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission paints a very bleak 
picture.
  Compared to the same time last year, freshmen--these are national 
statistics--freshmen FAFSA completion rates are down 35.3 percent. For 
Pell-eligible students, FAFSA completion rates are down 32 percent. For 
nontraditional students 25 and older, FAFSA completion rates are down 
35 percent. These are national figures. The total number of high school 
students who completed FAFSA is down 39.6 percent, and the total number 
of high school students who submitted a FAFSA is down 31.6 percent.
  These percentages ring true in my home State of West Virginia. Back 
home, because of President Biden's FAFSA fiasco, 3,643 West Virginia 
students are left hanging in the balance, severely jeopardizing college 
access and affordability for students in West Virginia, many of whom 
are that first-time college goer in their family.
  This is just another way that President Biden and his administration 
are threatening a form of the American dream and destroying the vision 
to implement a simplified FAFSA process that was intended by Congress.
  So how did we get here? Well, this is an interesting statistic here, 
too. FAFSA completion rates among West Virginia students age 25 or up--
so those are students maybe who took a couple years in the military, in 
the workforce, and they want to go back to school--are down 35 percent.
  So how did we get here? In December of 2020, when I was here, 
Congress passed the FAFSA Simplification Act to simplify and improve 
the process of applying for Federal student aid.
  Federal student aid and the FAFSA were first authorized in 1992 as a 
way to provide a critical lifeline for our students.
  In 2020, Congress made this simplification effort a bipartisan 
priority championed by my friend, whom we miss dearly, Senator Lamar 
Alexander, a former Cabinet Secretary of the Department of Education. 
But unfortunately the administration's implementation of this law has 
not made things better for students. Instead, it has created an 
unmitigated disaster caused by an inexcusable failure of leadership 
from the White House and the Department of Education.
  The deadline to update the FAFSA should have come as no surprise. 
Congress gave the administration an extra year. They had 3 years, and 
we gave them an extra year to complete it--4 years. Implementation of 
this law should have been a top priority for the Biden administration. 
Instead, what happened? The political leadership of the Department of 
Ed chose to take time, resources, and personnel to advance the 
administration's priorities around canceling student debt. This is 
proof of the administration blatantly putting politics before our 
students, and that is simply indefensible.
  I have spoken with so many West Virginians in every part of this 
process in the past several months who are very angry about the 
Department of Education's misplaced priorities. They feel discouraged 
about their futures because of the bungled implementation.
  This is obviously a huge issue for students and their families, but 
it is a tremendous challenge for our colleges and universities at the 
same time.
  The Department of Education claims that there is nothing more 
important right now--well, it is college decision day; I guess maybe 
that is correct--than fixing the issues around the FAFSA process, but 
those words have yet to be backed up by much action.
  While there is no guarantee that the administration will get their 
act together, there are two things that are certain: No. 1, students 
deserve better, and their families; No. 2, Senate Republicans will 
remain committed to holding the administration accountable and pushing 
for a fix to this issue.
  Back in January, I joined a bicameral group of congressional 
Republicans requesting that the Government Accountability Office 
investigate the administration's botched FAFSA. That was in January. 
This investigation is now underway, and it is my hope it will yield 
answers as to what the failure could be and how similar mistakes would 
be avoided in the future.
  Additionally, I helped author a formula fix to the FAFSA 
Simplification Act that passed the Senate and became law earlier this 
year. This fix intends to make financial aid more accessible for 
students by streamlining the process, and it corrected actions taken by 
the Department of Education in February that would have jeopardized 
future Pell grant awards for students.
  Then, just yesterday, I questioned Secretary Cardona of the 
Department

[[Page S3117]]

of Ed during our Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee hearing. 
I demanded answers, as did many, and accountability regarding the 
fiasco with the FAFSA that his Department has overseen. To say I was 
underwhelmed by his responses would be an understatement. Literally, he 
said: Well, we kind of are changing--we are kind of redoing--we think 
we are there.
  Why did you make mistakes?
  Well, we had missed deadlines.
  Did you not see that coming for 4 years?
  I mean just very, very nonspecific answers.
  With the lack of action from the Biden administration, West 
Virginia's Governor, Jim Justice, declared a state of emergency on the 
matter just yesterday. This order will temporarily suspend the 
requirement for students to complete their FAFSA in order to qualify 
for our State's largest financial aid programs, providing needed relief 
and certainty for our students that they are not now receiving from the 
Department of Ed. At least they will get some certainty from the West 
Virginia Department of Ed.
  I hope that in the future the Biden administration and their 
Department of Ed will be singularly focused on addressing outstanding 
issues and ensure that these problems are not present in the 2025 to 
2026 FAFSA cycle. I can assure you that my Senate Republican colleagues 
and I will not stop putting pressure on the Biden administration to do 
the job they are supposed to do, as they have received ample resources 
from this Congress to do so.

  I remain in constant contact with the West Virginia Higher Education 
Policy Commission to further understand what they are seeing and ways 
that we can help as they work to mitigate the fallout from the crisis 
the Biden administration has manufactured.
  I commend the efforts from my Republican colleagues in the Senate on 
these issues as well--in particular, Senator Joni Ernst, who is going 
to speak next, and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana--who have been outspoken 
on this issue with me, as well as many of our other colleagues, like 
the ones who are joining me on the floor to speak.
  We have to remain focused on these issues surrounding the FAFSA 
application process and make sure that vital resources remain available 
for our students during the moments when they need them the most, 
delivering on what our students deserve, which should not be a partisan 
issue.
  I am going to go off my formal remarks and say quickly, when they 
calculated in January and February what the parameters would be for the 
aid for the students, they determined that some students would be 
getting more than they should and that some students would be getting 
less than they should--totally unfair. But the Department's first 
response was, well, we will let the people who are getting more than 
they should--they can just keep this, and we will fix it next year. 
What does that say to the taxpayer who is paying for this? I mean, 
finally, public pressure came to bear, and they rescinded and 
recalculated everything.
  So, with that, I encourage everybody to recognize this as a real 
problem across our country, particularly for our lower income, first-
time college-going students--first time ever filling these forms out. 
It is not an easy thing anyway, and it is a daunting challenge to think 
about how to afford a higher education.
  So, with that, I welcome my friend from Iowa and her good hard work 
on this, and I am glad to see she is on the floor to speak about this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from West 
Virginia for arranging today's floor speeches focused on FAFSA.
  Today is May 1, and it is national college decision day. Typically, 
this day is cause for celebration for students and families all across 
the United States.
  Finalizing the next step after high school represents a huge 
milestone for young men and women and one that is earned by that late-
night studying, participating in different extracurricular activities, 
and meticulously filling out applications, and oftentimes determined by 
a good old college road trip. Together, families will hop on the 
highway to find their future college or university, hopefully of that 
student's choosing.
  This year, as folks embarked on this journey, little did they know 
that the Biden administration would be putting up roadblocks. So, 
today, instead of celebrating college decision day, there are millions 
of young people waiting anxiously to hear from the Department of 
Education on whether they will be able to afford college.
  The best way for college hopefuls to know what support they may 
receive comes from the free application for Federal student aid, which 
we call the FAFSA.
  Due to incomplete planning measures and likely yielding to 
progressives' priorities, Biden's Department of Education released this 
year's FAFSA form 3 months late, drastically condensing the timeline 
for families to submit it. To this day, they still haven't fixed their 
fiasco, and the negative implications are like a five-car pileup.
  Since the delayed January release of the new FAFSA form, I have been 
driving river to river across Iowa, hearing from students, from their 
parents, and from aid administrators and counselors on the impact of 
this disastrous rollout.
  I recently met with Jennifer Holliday. Jennifer is a fellow farm kid 
and the current student body president of Iowa State University.
  So go, Jennifer, and ``Go Clones!''
  She and her younger sister eagerly submitted their FAFSA forms as 
early as possible, but as of last week, Jennifer had still not received 
her estimated aid even though her sister received it months ago. Folks, 
we are talking about two kids from the same family. It doesn't make any 
sense.
  During our conversation, Jennifer told me that she is scared to see 
how much her aid offer will decrease due to the Department penalizing 
farm families. Even though the new FAFSA formula was supposed to 
improve eligibility for aid, it has instead caused some farm families' 
expected contributions to skyrocket more than five times.
  Sadly, these FAFSA fumbles are far too common under the Biden 
administration. An exceptionally bright high schooler from Des Moines 
shared with me that while he hoped to have a traditional college 
experience living in a dorm at a 4-year university in Iowa, he still 
wasn't sure what his aid package would look like. Since he wasn't 
willing to sign up for debt without knowing exactly what he would have 
to pay--that is a smart kid--he plans to live at home and attend 
community college for now, hoping the FAFSA fiasco is fixed in time to 
try again next year.
  But this wreck isn't just punishing high school seniors. I recently 
spoke to a mom of four from Sioux City, and she told me that she went 
back to school after more than a decade. Again, she was a young mother, 
a mother of four, and she really wanted to finish her degree, so she 
went to school after more than a decade to complete her teaching 
degree. Her goal is to teach high school history and equip our next 
generation. And like so many other hopefuls, she still has not received 
a clear estimate of her aid, and it remains to be seen if she will be 
able to pay for her fall semester classes.

  As the Biden administration refuses to provide a clear path for 
students or school administrators, we continue to see the Department 
detour its attention to Democrat priorities. After more than 3 months 
of requests from my office, this administration has failed to provide 
Congress with a transparent response on how they are adequately making 
corrections to the FAFSA, even as we are rapidly approaching next 
year's rollout.
  Meanwhile, just 2 weeks ago, right before college decision day, the 
Biden administration announced an additional $7.4 billion in loan 
cancellation and $6 billion more today, bringing the grand total to 
$160 billion.
  Biden's Ed Department has also prioritized radical gender ideology 
over the most fundamental statutory protections of women in schools. It 
is clear, folks, the left lane to higher learning has been paved with 
the President's political pet projects, and Iowans are in for a bumpy 
ride.
  When Congress passed the FAFSA Simplification Act, it was done so 
with

[[Page S3118]]

the understanding that the Department of Education would prioritize a 
thorough and well-tested model for the student aid form. Well, that 
clearly has not happened.
  While the administration has had FAFSA under construction for 3 
years--yes, 3 years to get this rollout right--traffic is still at a 
screeching halt. But rest assured, folks, I am fighting back--first, to 
ensure not a cent allocated for the FAFSA simplification was spent on 
Biden's student loan bailout; second, to allow students like whose 
stories I have shared, those farm kids from rural Iowa, our non-
traditional students, mothers who are looking for a second opportunity, 
and everyone who is forced to miss out on pursuing the college of their 
choice this year because of the administration's incompetence to get 
access to the potentially life-changing aid they deserve.
  There is significant roadwork ahead, but I am not pumping the brakes 
until the Biden administration removes these roadblocks and fixes its 
FAFSA fiasco.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, we have been hearing from my 
colleagues about the FAFSA fiasco, and I join them in expressing 
concern about it; telling you about some of the complaints that we have 
heard from Nebraskans; and, hopefully, draw more attention to this so 
that we can see it fixed.
  This failed FAFSA launch: It was late. It was chock-full of glitches 
and complications. It threw a wrench in the plans of both students and 
universities. I know this not just because I have read the news but 
because my office has heard from these students and these schools. Both 
public and private universities in Nebraska, as well as local education 
nonprofits--they have reached out with their frustrations over this 
rollout and the chaos that it has caused.
  High school seniors have a hard enough time making weighty decisions 
about their futures, but the FAFSA fiasco is multiplying the stress and 
the complications of that decision process.
  One high school guidance counselor in Lexington, NE, said the FAFSA 
delay is creating barriers and curveballs for students who need those 
scholarships.
  A counselor in North Platte said it is causing serious problems for 
her students as well.

       Students don't get the different scholarships they would 
     like to have, and they're not getting enough money to pay for 
     college.

  Almost 18 million students across the country usually complete FAFSA 
in a typical year. This year, the number is only closer to 5 million. 
Millions less will get the financial aid they need to attend school 
because of the Department of Education's failed rollout.
  So this is a national crisis, and it is not just affecting college 
applicants. It is affecting colleges themselves. The director of 
financial aid at Nebraska Wesleyan said the FAFSA problem is 
forcing them to condense what would normally be a 7-month financial aid 
process down to only 3 months.

  The chancellor who oversees financial assistance at the University of 
Nebraska in Omaha said they are ``way behind.''
  Each additional blunder by the Department of Education puts them even 
further behind. He said they are going to have to adjust their 
decision, orientation, and onboarding processes all because of FAFSA.
  So how did we get to this point? I would say, in short, it is due to 
political pandering. The Department of Education put FAFSA on the back 
burner because they wanted to prop up President Biden's splashy student 
loan cancellation scheme.
  And we know all about that scheme in my State of Nebraska. Nebraska 
Attorney General Mike Hilgers spearheaded the Biden v. Nebraska Supreme 
Court challenge to the President's $400 billion student loan giveaway. 
The proposal was nonsensical, and it was deeply, deeply unfair. It 
forced American taxpayers to bear the burden of loans that they never 
took out.
  Sources told the publication Inside Higher Ed that the Education 
Department neglected FAFSA overhaul in favor of plans that were more 
politically high profile--primarily, that student loan scheme.
  The administration bulldozed millions of students. Why? To pander for 
votes. My colleagues and I are here today to call out this catastrophe, 
but we are also urging the administration to fix it.
  In January, I joined Senator Cassidy in sending a letter to the 
Government Accountability Office asking them to investigate the 
negative impact the FAFSA rollout is having on students. We pushed the 
administration on what they plan to change for the next cycle.
  President Biden's Department of Education is accountable to the 
American people for this failure, and they are responsible for fixing 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, today should be a day of celebration. 
National college decision day marks a pivotal moment in the lives of 
millions of students across the country, a day that many of us still 
remember ourselves. It is meant to be a day of excitement and 
anticipation of young men's and women's bright futures ahead.
  But, instead, I rise today frustrated and disappointed. As we stand 
here today, 17 million hopeful students are victims of the Biden 
administration's bureaucratic nightmare. Students' futures are in 
limbo, and their decisions for higher education are stalled as they 
continue their monthslong wait for answers on the Federal financial 
assistance that will be available to them.
  Millions of families nationwide rely on the FAFSA process to unlock 
the doors to higher education. Still, the Department of Education has 
left 82 percent of them unable to even submit their FAFSA applications 
for consideration--82 percent of them can't complete the form.
  In Kansas, over 11,000 students have been affected by this botched 
FAFSA rollout, and this number represents the nearly 30-percent decline 
in completed FAFSA applications. I wholeheartedly believe this drop 
stems from the application process being so dysfunctional and filled 
with glitches, that many Kansas students and families have simply given 
up.
  This is certainly unacceptable. These repeated months of delays by 
the Department of Education in rolling out the new FAFSA application 
have left millions of students and schools in limbo with no clear path 
forward for the upcoming school year.
  Think about the uncertainty these delays breed. The dysfunction 
within this Education Department has sent shock waves across the 
country. For 3 years, we have watched the Biden administration spend 
all the Department of Education's energy on finding a way to fulfill 
the President's unconstitutional campaign promise to forgive millions 
in student loan debts, meanwhile leaving new students out of luck.
  Now, due to their tunnel vision, colleges lack the vital data needed 
to formulate financial aid offers, scholarships, and grants, leaving 
students and their families in the dark about how they will afford 
tuition, books, and other college essentials.
  And who suffers the most? Well, it is first-generation and low-income 
college students--middle income students as well. Very few students are 
able to afford college on their own. They need this FAFSA application. 
Whether you are waiting for a State scholarship or for a military 
scholarship, we rely on this assistance to help fulfill and pursue our 
own American dreams.
  I stand here today as a very lucky person, a first-generation college 
student myself who went to a community college, and I certainly 
understand the struggles of those who are waiting to get into college, 
wondering if they can afford and where they can afford to go to.
  The help that students and colleges are waiting for from the 
Department of Education isn't just on loans; it is also on scholarships 
and grants. Take, for example, the Promise Scholarship in Kansas. This 
award is a lifeline for many students bridging the gap between 
financial aid and the cost of education in critical fields; however, 
this highly sought-after scholarship relies on--guess what. It relies 
on a fully processed FAFSA to accurately award students that funding.
  For months, my colleagues and I have called on this administration to 
allocate the resources they are using to concoct their student loan 
forgiveness

[[Page S3119]]

scheme to help our FAFSA applicants and address the FAFSA delays to 
help deliver certainty to our students and families.
  We have written letters; we have hosted hearings; we have sponsored 
legislation. Still, here we are, as college campuses are now being 
terrorized by far-left, pro-Hamas protestors threatening the safety and 
security of Jewish students, and we are no closer to an answer on FAFSA 
today than we were when we started.
  This is why we need changes this November, not only in the White 
House but in the Department of Education. They need to reassess their 
priorities and their propaganda and their politics. Our students 
deserve better, and it is time to reset and focus on the real 
priorities at the Department of Education. The futures of our young men 
and women are at stake. Time is of the essence. The clock is ticking on 
millions of students' futures with graduating day fastly approaching.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, if there was a theme of this colloquy, 
it is that students and families are bearing the brunt, the 
consequences of this administration's botched FAFSA rollout. So let me 
just speak to that more broadly.
  First, state of play: May 1 is national college decision day, which 
should be just like an exciting day for the kids and the families.
  In my day, they used to go to the mailbox and pop open the mailbox. 
There is an envelope. Show it to Mom. Show it to Dad. Whoa, isn't that 
exciting? But that is not going to happen this time by email or by 
snail mail.
  The issue here is clearly because of the administration's botched 
rollout. Now, what do I mean by that? First, let's explain what FAFSA 
is. FAFSA is the information that a prospective student receives as to 
the amount of financial aid they will receive if they go to this 
college or that college.
  So they open it up, and they say ``Oh, this is how much I get to 
offset tuition if I go to my local State school'' or ``No, I want to go 
out of State. How much do I get to go there?'' They can compare those 
financial offer sheets and make a decision as to what is the best place 
for them to go financially. But that is not going to happen or if it 
happens, it is going to happen in a poor way.
  So the timeline is, last October is when FAFSA should have been 
ready, but the system wasn't ready, and we were told it would be ready 
in January. It was for about 3 or 4 days, and then it was delayed until 
March. Now we learn that about 30 percent of those FAFSA forms have 
processing data errors and have to be reprocessed, and they won't be 
reprocessed until after the May 1 deadline. So instead of opening up 
that email and learning what your financial package could be, it will 
be ``You will hear at a later date.''
  So what are the consequences? Colleges cannot offer these students 
their financial package because of the processing errors. Some students 
will decide not to go to school because they don't know if they can 
afford it. Some universities will have a cash-flow problem because the 
students who might have gone there for enrollment will not, and so the 
cash-flow problem will be very real.
  Now, what is doubly frustrating is that the administration has been 
doing things they shouldn't have been doing instead of doing that which 
they should have done. Remember, they were supposed to have this ready 
in October, then in January, and then it goes down again. When it 
finally comes up in May, we are told that 30 percent of them will be in 
error, when it was supposed to be ready in October.
  What have they been doing in the meantime? They have been working on 
student loan ``forgiveness,'' which really means student loan transfer 
of debt from those who willingly took that student debt on--
transferring it to someone who either paid back their loan or never 
went to college. That is what they have been doing.
  By the way, we have this hotline here: Trouble with FAFSA? Go to 
help.senate.gov/FAFSA. We have had this up, and we have gotten some 
responses. Let's see. Not receiving clear instructions when able to 
reach a person, and the total thing was about anger about the long wait 
times on the phone. This is when they call the Department of Education 
or FAFSA, trying to get an understanding. Another person: frustration 
about the continued delays and the lack of communication, and then 
there are additional delays, which seem to be frequent. Uncertainty due 
to the lack of communication from the Department, and when there is 
information, it is not helpful. Parents are expressing concerns and 
anxiety about choosing the best school for their child due to the 
compressed decision timeline. For those who have been through the 
process in the past, they describe this year as ``being significantly 
worse.''
  It is up to Congress--and this colloquy is Republicans, but I invite 
my Democratic colleagues to come on board and hold the administration 
accountable. This should not be partisan. It is about the students. It 
is about the parents. It is about the integrity of a process that the 
Department of Education is totally failing.
  For those watching, if you have an experience with FAFSA that you 
wish to report, please go there--help.senate.gov/FAFSA.
  I invite all my Senate colleagues to join me and the HELP Committee 
in terms of holding this administration accountable.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, like my colleagues before me, I rise to 
bring attention to an issue that is affecting high school students and 
their families all across the country, including in my home State of 
Missouri.
  It is national college decision day, and millions of students who 
have worked hard are deciding where they will continue their education. 
Unfortunately, a lot of those students' experiences today will be 
marred by the Department of Education's complete inability to do the 
basics of their jobs.
  There are major issues in the new Free Application for Federal 
Student Aid--the FAFSA application. Colleges, including Missouri State 
University, pushed back deadlines for financial aid, and students are 
left with more questions now than answers. Additionally, on March 22, 
the Department of Education announced that roughly 200,000 student 
financial aid records sent to schools included errors in the data.
  The bipartisan FAFSA Simplification Act eased the bureaucratic burden 
of students by streamlining the questionnaire from 108 questions down 
to just 38. For nearly every student in the country, especially first-
generation college students, a simplified FAFSA experience would ease 
the college application experience.
  Despite plenty of time and adequate funding, the Department of 
Education failed to properly implement the new FAFSA. Although the 
FAFSA Simplification Act passed in 2020, the form was not available for 
prospective students until December of 2023, delaying the financial aid 
process. Colleges and universities did not begin to receive student 
data from completed applications until the end of March of 2024, 
delaying the process even further.
  My office sent a letter to Secretary Cardona demanding answers on 
behalf of Missourians impacted by this bureaucratic nightmare, and we 
still have not received any answers. In the meantime, my office has 
been working with counselors across the State to assist students and 
families as they navigate this fiasco.
  The Department of Education has pushed unnecessary and legally 
dubious loan-bailout initiatives, while also failing to prioritize 
existing obligations with established student aid programs. Even more 
concerning, the Department has prioritized the applications of families 
with illegal aliens, devising workarounds and loopholes to allow these 
applications to be submitted.
  Based on all accounts, working families depending on FAFSA 
determinations are in the back of the queue for the Department of 
Education. The Department of Education and Secretary Cardona should 
prioritize working families and fix this mess now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                                Nebraska

  Mr. RICKETTS. Madam President, I live in the best place in the 
world--Nebraska. One of the reasons it is the best

[[Page S3120]]

place in the world is because of the people and the community that pull 
together in times of disaster.
  We just experienced one of those disasters on Friday. According to 
the National Weather Service, we had 14 tornadoes. Five of them 
measured as an EF3. They impacted much of the eastern part of our 
State. We had 450 homes that were destroyed and many more damaged, 
millions of dollars in damaged public infrastructure, but thanks to a 
number of people, Nebraska was able to avoid any fatalities--in fact, 
had no serious injuries.
  I want to thank the people at the National Weather Service and our 
broadcasters, who helped make sure we got the message out. These 
occurred on a Friday afternoon. Educators kept kids in schools and kept 
them sheltered. People got the advanced warning, thanks to our 
broadcasters, and sought shelter. That is one of the reasons we were 
able to avoid any serious injuries--Nebraskans knew what to do.
  I want all Nebraskans who have been impacted by this to know that my 
wife Susanne and I continue to keep you in our thoughts and prayers.
  Then came the reaction, all of the groups who worked to protect 
Nebraskans. I want to thank our first responders, especially those in 
Douglas and Washington Counties, for the work they did. I want to thank 
the Nebraska State Patrol, the Nebraska National Guard, and the 
Nebraska Emergency Management Agency. All of those organizations did a 
fantastic job of responding, as they always do in these disasters.
  As Nebraskans always do, when their neighbor needs help, they step 
up, and we saw it time and time again--neighbors helping neighbors, the 
lines of people showing up at churches and other points of collection 
to drop off packages of bottled water, Gatorade, food.
  I had a chance to tour some of the neighborhoods that were impacted 
on Saturday morning and saw all the volunteers who had shown up--the 
wood chippers out there chipping up the wood, people cleaning up, 
volunteering, showing up with saws and hammers to be able to help out 
their neighbors.
  There was one house that I went by in particular that the roof had 
been torn off, and already people were on that roof fixing that damage, 
and an American flag was flying high at that house. It is the Nebraska 
way.
  We live in such a great place because of the people who respond, and 
this disaster, like the other disasters we have, is just another 
shining example of Nebraska's spirit and how we come together to help 
our neighbors.
  My office has been in touch with Governor Pillen's office, and he has 
declared an emergency, a disaster area. As the Federal delegation pulls 
together here, we will support Governor Pillen's request and stand by 
to make sure that any Federal resource that is available goes to help 
us recover in Nebraska. We will make sure those resources get to the 
people who need them, and we will recover. That is an example of how 
communities work, of how government works.


                                 FAFSA

  Madam President, I now want to talk about an example where government 
is not working, and it is the FAFSA fiasco. FAFSA stands for the Free 
Application for Federal Student Aid.
  Now, this is what students go through to be able to get student aid 
to be able to apply to college and then know what that college is going 
to cost them so they can budget and afford it out. It is an incredibly 
important program for millions of students across this country every 
single year.
  What I want to do is just talk about how that has become such a 
disaster because today is national college decision day, and because of 
the Biden administration's incompetence, it has become national college 
indecision day, as so many students are left in limbo by the 
incompetence of the Biden administration, which could not roll out a 
new FAFSA form for students to use and get the information to colleges 
so colleges can make decisions, get the information back to students, 
and then students could decide where they want to go to school.
  Let's just walk through the timeline a little bit. Back in March of 
last year, the Department of Education said that they were going to 
have the new form out in December of 2023. Now, normally, this form 
comes out in October--October 1--so that students can get working on it 
right away, get the information in, get the information back, apply for 
school, all that sort of thing. But we knew it was going to be delayed.
  Well, then, on November 15, they said: Well, it will be December 31 
before we have this form available. So it pushed back to the very end 
of December. Now, they did get that new form launched--it was a soft 
launch--on December 30, but immediately students started experiencing 
problems.
  Then what they said is: Well, we are not going to get the information 
back to universities until we get some information, and it won't be 
until January. And they did launch the form--full on--January 8. But, 
of course, they had already experienced glitches on December 30, so 
they were still experiencing glitches and problems in January.
  Well, then, in January, the Department of Education, realizing they 
had a problem, said: Well, we are not actually going to get the 
information out and back to be able to process this until the first 
half of March. And then, in March, they said: Well, students won't 
really be able to start making corrections to these forms until the 
second half of April--or the first half of April.
  And so, time and time again, the Biden Department of Education kept 
pushing back their changes because they had an incompetent process to 
be able to manage this and get this done for students in a timely 
manner. And that problem is still going on right now. Millions of aid 
forms had errors and had to be reprocessed.
  I have had parents talk to me, and we have had a number of people 
call in to my office talking about all the problems we have heard from 
Nebraskans struggling with this. One of my constituents from Ord called 
us, frustrated, after they tried to apply online several days in a row, 
only to find the FAFSA website was down.
  Another Nebraskan called because there was a deadline for corrections 
in their FAFSA form, but when they went to make those corrections and 
went to the form, they saw there was no place on the online form to 
make those corrections.
  And parents told me that there was no one they could contact to be 
able to ask questions. One parent told me they have two students who 
are already in college. They had applied, put the forms in again, got 
rejected twice, but nobody could tell them why. They couldn't get 
through to anybody to tell them what was going on.
  We had another example in Nebraska. This constituent from Geneva 
contacted us in February because they had questions about the process 
of a particular State and local branch. They had called FAFSA 
repeatedly. They rarely got someone in the FAFSA office to answer, and 
even when they did, the FAFSA staff never had the answer to their 
questions. This is terrible customer service. It is exactly what is 
wrong with a massive, unaccountable Federal bureaucracy.
  The Federal Government always needs to put the taxpayers first. These 
are our customers. As a result of these delays, colleges and 
universities have been forced to consider pushing back their admission 
deadlines for accepting students to commit. For example, the University 
of Nebraska-Lincoln has extended their enrollment deposit deadline for 
incoming undergraduates until May 15.
  However, not every college and university was able to make that 
choice. The Biden administration's incompetence has forced some 
students to make their college decisions and pay a deposit without 
knowing exactly how much college will cost them. Think about how crazy 
that is. Would we ever say to somebody: Yeah, why don't you go out and 
buy that mutual fund, without knowing how much it is going to cost, or: 
Go out and buy that car, without knowing how much it was going to cost, 
or: Go out and buy a house, without knowing how much it was going to 
cost? We wouldn't do that anywhere else. Why are we asking our college 
students to make that decision about where they are going to go to 
college without knowing how much financial aid they are going to be 
able to get to know whether or not it is affordable?
  It is absolutely crazy, and it is terrible customer service and 
another example of the incompetence of the Biden

[[Page S3121]]

administration to be able to actually do the basic functions of 
government that we all rely on.
  We should do everything we can to make it easier for taxpayers to 
access and navigate government services. Instead of doing their job on 
FAFSA, the Biden administration's Education Department has wasted time 
on unconstitutional student loan bailouts. So their priorities are 
completely misplaced. Instead of focusing on things that they have to 
do for millions of students--to deliver good service, to help them get 
into college--we are talking about forgiving the very loans that they 
can't deliver in the first place. That is how they are spending their 
time. This is just unbelievably incompetent.
  I support my colleagues' efforts to get to the answers about this 
FAFSA fiasco and stand by ready to, yet again, force the Biden 
administration to do its job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from North 
Carolina.


Honoring Joshua Eyer, Samuel Poloche, Alden Elliott, and Thomas Weeks, 
                                  Jr.

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the lives of four 
brave law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty 
on Monday, this week, in North Carolina--actually, in a community that 
is only about 20, 30 minutes from my home. It is the community of 
Charlotte, and the entire State of North Carolina is shocked and 
devastated by the deadly assault on law enforcement.
  They were just showing up to do their job. It was the deadliest 
attack on law enforcement our Nation has seen in nearly a decade, and 
it is profoundly tragic that it happened in a city and a State that I 
love.
  Young families are grieving; their lives are forever changed; and 
their fellow law enforcement officers are grieving. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Police lost a beloved officer, the U.S. Marshals Service 
lost a dedicated colleague, and the North Carolina Department of Adult 
Correction lost two of their longtime colleagues.
  This tragedy was the result of one of the most important, yet very 
dangerous, responsibilities of our law enforcement officers: executing 
an arrest warrant. Early Monday afternoon, a task force of Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement, led by the U.S. Marshals Service, 
attempted to serve an arrest warrant for a fugitive at a residence in 
Charlotte. The fugitive had a long criminal record and was wanted for 
possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of felony fleeing to 
elude law enforcement.
  Instead of surrendering to law enforcement, the fugitive opened fire, 
and he shot eight law enforcement officers at the scene. Four officers 
were tragically killed, and four more were injured and had to be 
transported to the hospital, one in critical condition.
  Police Officer Joshua Eyer served 6 years with CMPD. Before that, he 
served more than a decade in the Army National Guard. As a CMPD 
officer, he was already making his mark. The chief down in the 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Johnny Jennings, remembered 
that it was just recently that he was in the very room he did the press 
conference to announce the tragic events Monday that he was 
congratulating Officer Eyer for becoming Officer of the Month in April.
  He certainly dedicated his life, and he gave his life on Monday, 
serving the people of Charlotte. Officer Eyer is survived by his wife 
and his 3-year-old son.
  Another officer--two, actually--Sam Poloche and Alden Elliott were 
14-year veterans of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction. 
Poloche joined the department's Special Operations and Intelligence 
Unit in 2013. He was a husband and father to two boys: one who is about 
to graduate high school, another one about to graduate from college. 
Officer Poloche's father said ``his main purpose in life was his 
family.'' He was a man who showed extraordinary kindness, even to 
perfect strangers.
  Alden Elliott joined the Special Operations and Intelligence Unit in 
2016. His colleagues remember him as a serious and dedicated law 
enforcement officer who had a great sense of humor. One of his friends 
in Charlotte honored his sacrifice by writing:

       My best friend was killed in the line of duty while serving 
     a warrant to a felon with multiple convictions. He was a 
     marine, father, and hero to me. He was protecting Charlotte.

  Elliott is survived by his wife and child.
  U.S. Marshals Service Deputy Thomas Weeks, Jr., age 48, was a husband 
and father of four children. He was a 13-year veteran of the Marshals 
Service and an 8-year veteran of Customs and Border Patrol.
  Deputy Weeks led the team that executed the warrant of the suspect. A 
district judge who Weeks protected said:

       The thing that comes to mind with him is not only his 
     competence at what he did, but his demeanor. Everybody 
     remembers [Weeks] and his smile. He enjoyed his job, and he 
     was good at it.

  Mr. President, these four officers were all heroes who protected and 
served the public. They were loving family men who tragically left 
behind wives and children.
  Susan and I are praying for these four families, and I cannot imagine 
what they are going through. I want them to know that all of Charlotte, 
the whole of North Carolina, and our Nation is proud of them for their 
service, and we regret their loss. We will be forever grateful for 
their courage, their service, and their ultimate sacrifice.
  May God bless the families, friends, and colleagues of these fallen 
officers and give them the strength they need during this difficult 
time.
  Mr. President, may God bless and protect the brave men and women who 
serve in law enforcement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Vermont.


                            First Amendment

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, some of us have been out of school for a 
while, and we may have forgotten our American history. But I did want 
to take a moment to remind some of my colleagues about a document 
called the U.S. Constitution and, specifically, the First Amendment of 
that Constitution.
  So for those who may have forgotten, here is what the First Amendment 
says:

       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
     abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the 
     right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
     the Government for a redress of grievances.

  First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  Let me also take this opportunity to remember our late colleague, the 
former Congressman John Lewis, for his heroic role in the civil rights 
movement. Now, I know it is very easy to heap praise on Congressman 
Lewis and many others decades after they did what they did, but I would 
remind my colleagues that Mr. Lewis--later Congressman Lewis--was 
arrested 45 times for participating in sit-ins, occupations, and 
protests--45 times for protesting segregation and racism.
  I would also remind my colleagues that the lunch counter protest at 
Woolworth's and elsewhere which helped lead to the desegregation of the 
South and the ending of apartheid in the United States were, in fact, 
sit-ins and occupations where young Black and White Americans bravely 
took up space in private businesses, demanding an end to the racism and 
segregation that existed at that time.
  Further, as I hope everybody knows, we have also seen, in recent 
decades, protests--some of them massive protests--against sexism, 
against homophobia, and the need to transform our energy system away 
from fossil fuel in order to save this planet. In other words, 
protesting injustice and expressing our opinions is part of our 
American tradition. And when you talk about America being a free 
country, well, you know what? Whether you like it or not, the right to 
protest is what American freedom is all about. That is the U.S. 
Constitution.
  And let me also remind you that exactly 60 years ago--ironically, 
exactly 60 years ago--student demonstrators occupied the exact same 
building on Columbia University's campus as is taking place right now--
ironically, the same building 60 years ago.
  Across the country, students and others--including myself, I would 
say--joined peaceful demonstrations in opposition to the war in 
Vietnam. Those demonstrators were demanding an end to that war; and 
maybe, just maybe, tens of thousands of American lives and countless 
Vietnamese lives might have been saved if the government, at

[[Page S3122]]

that time, listened to the demonstrators. And I might also add that the 
President at that time--a very great President, Lyndon Johnson--chose 
not to run for reelection because of the opposition to him that 
occurred as a result of his support for that Vietnam war.
  And, further, let us not forget those who demonstrated, went to the 
streets, and protested against the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Maybe those protestors should have been listened to as well. Shock of 
all shocks, government policy is not always right.
  I noted recently that a number of my colleagues in both parties--not 
just the Republican Party but the Democratic Party as well--as well as 
many news reporters--TV, newspapers--they are very concerned--very, 
very concerned--about the protests and violence we are seeing on 
campuses across the country. So let me be very clear: I share those 
concerns about violence on campus or, for that matter, anyplace else. 
And I condemn those who threw a brick through a window at Columbia 
University. That kind of violence should not be taking place on college 
campuses.
  I also am concerned and condemn the group of individuals at UCLA in 
California who violently attacked the peaceful encampment of anti-war 
demonstrators on the campus of UCLA.
  So let me be clear: I condemn all forms of violence on campus, 
whether they are committed by people who support Israel's war policies 
or by people who oppose those policies.
  Further, I would hope that all of us can agree that, in the United 
States of America, all forms of bigotry must be condemned and 
eliminated. We are seeing a growth of anti-Semitism in this country, 
which we must all condemn and work to stop. We are also seeing a growth 
of Islamophobia in this country, which we must all condemn and stop.
  And in that regard, I would mention that in my very own city of 
Burlington, VT, three wonderful young Palestinian students were shot at 
close range on November 25 of last year. They were visiting a family 
member to celebrate Thanksgiving, walking down the street, and they 
were shot.
  And let me make an additional point. I have noted that there is an 
increasing tendency in the media and on the part of some of my 
colleagues here in the Senate to use the word, the phrase, ``pro-
Palestinian'' to suggest that that means that people who are pro-
Palestinian are pro-Hamas. And, to my mind, that is unacceptable, and 
it is factually inaccurate.
  The overwhelming majority of American people and protestors 
understand that Hamas is a terrorist organization that started this war 
by attacking Israel in an incredibly brutal and horrific way on October 
7. To stand up for Palestinian rights and the dignity of the 
Palestinian people does not make one a supporter of terrorism.
  And let me also mention something that I found rather extraordinary--
and I have been in politics for a while, but I did find this one 
particularly extraordinary and outrageous--and that is, just a few days 
ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the 
rightwing, extremist government in Israel--a government which contains 
out-and-out anti-Palestinian racists--Netanyahu issued a statement in 
which he equated criticism of his government's illegal and immoral war 
against the Palestinian people with anti-Semitism. In other words, if 
you are protesting or disagree with what Netanyahu and his extremist 
government are doing in Gaza, you are an anti-Semite. Well, that is an 
outrageous statement from a leader who is clearly trying to do 
something--and I have to tell you, I guess he is succeeding with the 
American media--and that is, to deflect attention away from the 
horrific policies that his government is pursuing in Gaza, which have 
created an unprecedented humanitarian disaster.

  So let me be as clear as I can be: It is not anti-Semitic or pro-
Hamas to point out that in almost 7 months, the last 7 months, 
Netanyahu's extremist government has killed 34,000 Palestinians and 
wounded more than 77,000--70 percent of whom are women and children; 5 
percent of the 2.2 million people in Gaza have been killed or injured, 
70 percent of whom are women and children. And to protest that or to 
point that out is not anti-Semitic. It is simply factual.
  It is not anti-Semitic to point out that Netanyahu's government's 
bombing campaign has completely destroyed more than 221,000 housing 
units in Gaza; that is, over 60 percent of the housing units in Gaza 
have been damaged or destroyed, leaving more than 1 million people 
homeless--about half the population. No, Mr. Netanyahu, it is not anti-
Semitic to point out what you have done in terms of the destruction of 
housing in Gaza.
  It is not anti-Semitic to understand that Netanyahu's government has 
annihilated Gaza's healthcare system, knocking 26 hospitals out of 
service and killing more than 400 healthcare workers. At a time when 
77,000 people have been wounded and desperately need medical care, 
Netanyahu's government has systematically destroyed the healthcare 
system in Gaza.
  It is not anti-Semitic to condemn Netanyahu's government for the 
destruction of all of Gaza's 12 universities. They had 12 universities; 
they are all destroyed. It is not anti-Semitic to make that point, nor 
is it anti-Semitic to make the point that 56 other schools have been 
destroyed; hundreds more have been damaged; and, today, 625,000 
children in Gaza have no opportunity for an education. Not anti-Semitic 
to make that point.
  It is not anti-Semitic to note that Netanyahu's government has 
obliterated Gaza's civilian infrastructure. There is virtually no 
electricity in Gaza right now, virtually no clean water in Gaza right 
now, and sewage is seeping out onto the streets. Not anti-Semitic to 
make that point.
  It is not anti-Semitic to agree with virtually every humanitarian 
organization that functions in the Gaza area in saying that Netanyahu's 
government, in violation of American law, has unreasonably blocked 
humanitarian aid coming into Gaza, and they have created the conditions 
under which hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza face malnutrition 
and famine.
  It is not anti-Semitic to look at photographs of skeletal children 
who are starving to death because they have not been able to get the 
food they need.
  It is not anti-Semitic to agree with American officials and U.N. 
officials that parts of Gaza could become famine districts in the not 
very distant future--famine.
  Anti-Semitism is a vile and disgusting form of bigotry that has done 
unspeakable harm to many millions of people for hundreds of years--
including my own family, I might add--but it is outrageous and it is 
disgraceful to use the charge of anti-Semitism to distract us from the 
immoral and illegal war policies that Netanyahu's extremist and racist 
government is pursuing. Furthermore, it is really cheap politics for 
Netanyahu to use the charge of anti-Semitism to deflect attention from 
the criminal indictment he is facing in Israeli courts.
  Bottom line: It is not anti-Semitic to hold Netanyahu and his 
government accountable for their actions. That is not anti-Semitic. 
That is precisely what we should be doing because, among other things, 
we are the government in the world that has supplied over a period of 
years and most recently billions and billions of dollars to Netanyahu 
in order for him to continue this horrific war against the Palestinian 
people.
  I would also point out that while there has been wall-to-wall TV 
coverage of student protests--I think that is about all CNN does right 
now--I should mention that it is not just young people on college 
campuses who are extremely upset about our government's support and 
funding for this illegal and immoral war. And I would point out that 
just last week--just last week--this Senate voted to give Netanyahu 
another $10 billion of unfettered military aid to continue his war. But 
it is not just the protesters on college campuses who disagree with 
that decision; it is the American people.
  Let me just quote from a few polls that have recently been taken.
  April 14, a poll from POLITICO/Morning Consult: 67 percent support 
the United States calling for a cease-fire.
  This is at a time when Netanyahu is threatening now to expand the war 
into Rafah.
  April 12, CBS poll: 60 percent of the American people think the 
United States should not send weapons and supplies to Israel, as 
opposed to 40 percent who think the United States should.

[[Page S3123]]

  For my Democratic colleagues, as you well know, those numbers are 
disproportionately higher among the Democratic community.
  April 10, the Economist/YouGov poll: 37 percent support decreasing 
military aid to Israel, and just 18 support an increase. Overall, 63 
percent support a cease-fire, and 15 percent oppose.
  It is not just protesters on college campuses who are upset about 
U.S. Government policy regarding Israel and Gaza. Increasingly, the 
American people want an end to U.S. complicity in the humanitarian 
disaster which is taking place in Gaza right now. The people of the 
United States--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--in large numbers, 
do not want to be complicit in the starvation of hundreds of thousands 
of children.
  Now, maybe this is a very radical idea. Here is a really, really, 
really radical idea: Maybe it is time for the U.S. Congress to listen 
to the American people. Maybe it is time to rethink the decision that 
the U.S. Senate recently made to provide Netanyahu with another $10 
billion in unfettered military aid. Maybe it is time to not simply 
worry about the violence we are seeing on American college campuses but 
to focus on the unprecedented violence we are seeing in Gaza, which has 
killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 77,000, 70 percent of 
whom are women and children.
  So I suggest to CNN and maybe some of my colleagues here: Maybe take 
your cameras, just for a moment, off of Columbia and off of UCLA. Maybe 
go to Gaza and take your camera and show us the emaciated children who 
are dying of malnutrition because of Netanyahu's policies. Show us the 
kids who have lost their arms and their legs. Show us the suffering 
that is going on over there.
  Let me conclude by saying this: I must admit that I find it 
incomprehensible that many Members of Congress are spending their time 
attacking the protesters rather than the Netanyahu government, which 
has caused and brought about these protests and has created this 
horrific situation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________