[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8] [Senate] [Pages 10339-10345] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Dayton): S. 2617. A bill to protect the rights of American consumers to diagnose, service, and repair motor vehicles purchased in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of 2002. This legislation would protect the viability of independent service station and repair shops and ensure that consumers will continue to have a choice of automotive service providers. The 1990 Clean Air Act mandated that vehicle manufacturers install computer systems to monitor emissions in 1994 model year cars and beyond. Today, many vehicle systems are integrated into the car's computer system, making auto repair an increasingly ``high tech'' business and making access to the computer and the information it contains vital to the ability to perform repairs. Increasingly, however, independent repair shops are being barred access to the codes and diagnostic tools necessary to repair newer model cars. The effect is to reduce consumer choice for auto repair services, and to endanger the livelihood thousands of small, family owned repair shops across the country. On April 10, I met with a group of repair shop owners from Minnesota. The explained that new practices by some auto manufactures were preventing them from competing on an even playing field. One thing we don't need is another industry where all the little guys, the small, independent businesses, are driven out. This is terrible for our communities. And reduced competition means higher prices for consumers Specifically, the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act would simply require a manufacturer of a motor vehicle sold in the United States to disclose to the vehicle owner, a repair facility, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, the information necessary to diagnose, service, or repair the vehicle. The bill bars the FTC from requiring disclosure of any information entitled to protection as a manufacturer's trade secret. This legislation is an example of what is good for small business is good for the consumer. The bill is endorsed by the 44 million member American Automobile Association, AAA, as well as the Automotive Service Association, the trade association of automotive service professionals. To reiterate, I want to introduce a bill and tell colleagues about it. I have sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. This is very much a pro-consumer bill as well. It is called the Motor Vehicle and Owners Right to Repair Act. There has to be a better title. Basically, this is the issue. The automotive industry, for 100 years, has always shared information with mechanics. But post-1994, you have cars with very computerized systems. All of a sudden, the automotive industry is now saying to independent mechanics, we will not share with you the information about the computer system so you can get into the computer system, do the diagnosis and the repair, in which case I think it is a blatant anticompetitive practice. It puts the independent mechanics, the small guys, out of business. In addition, it says to the consumers: Listen, you might want to take your car back to the dealership for repair, but now that is your only choice because you may want to go to the neighborhood mechanic you have worked with for years and he might want your business, but we are going to make it impossible for him to get your business. We are going to make it impossible for you to go there. I like this piece of legislation because it is little guy versus big guy. It feels right to me. At 5 feet, 5 inches, I like the little guys. In April, some mechanics came by our office and talked with Perry Lang, who works with me, and they said this is happening to us and asked for some help. I say on the floor of the Senate two things: No. 1, I am circulating a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. I hope to get a lot of support. I think there will be a lot of support. This is going on in the House with a lot of Republicans as well as Democrats. The second thing that I am saying to the industry today on the floor of the Senate--and I think they are watching this carefully--is we are going to get a good head of steam on this. If you want to sit down and negotiate an agreement with the mechanics that is fair to these independent mechanics, go ahead. Then we won't have to pass the legislation. But I could not believe when I heard the report of what they are dealing with. Again, you have a blatant anticompetitive practice of the industry basically saying we will not share with you any information about our computerized systems. If the industry wants to say there is some kind of a trade patent secret which they can't share, they can go to the FTC and get approval for that. Otherwise, for 100 years, this has not happened. Now we get into a blatant collusion, anticompetitive practice that is unfair to the independent mechanics who a lot of Senators know as friends and as small businesspeople. I am aiming to stop it. ______ By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Sessions): S. 2619. A bill to provide for the analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and local institutions and to provide information, resources, recommendations, and funding to protect individuals from prison rape; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as the Supreme Court has made clear, ``being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.'' Government officials have a duty under the Constitution to prevent prison violence. Too often, however, officials fail to take obvious steps to protect vulnerable inmates. Prison rape is a serious problem in our Nation's prisons, jails, and detention facilities. Of the two million prisoners in the United States, it is conservatively estimated that one in ten has been raped. According to a 1996 study, 22 percent of prisoners in Nebraska had been pressured or forced to have sex against their will while incarcerated. Human Rights Watch recently reported, ``shockingly high rates of sexual abuse'' in U.S. prisons. Prison rape causes severe physical and psychological pain to its victims. It also leads to the increased transmission of HIV, hepatitis, and other diseases. The brutalization in prison also makes it more likely that prisoners will commit crimes after they [[Page 10340]] are released, as 600,000 prisoners are each year. To deal with this serious problem, Senator Sessions and I are today introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. This bipartisan legislation is intended to address the prison-rape epidemic in an effective and comprehensive manner, while still respecting the primary role of States and local governments in administering prisons and jails. Our bill directs the Department of Justice to conduct an annual statistical review and analysis of the frequency and effects of prison rape. It establishes a special panel to conduct hearings on prison systems, prisons, and jails where the incidence of rape is high. It directs the Attorney General to collect complaints of rape from inmates, transmit them to the appropriate authorities, and review how the authorities respond. It also directs the Attorney General to provide information, assistance, and training to Federal, State, and local authorities on the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. Our bill also authorizes $40 million in grants to enhance the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. These grants will strengthen the ability of state and local officials to prevent these abuses. Finally, our bill establishes a commission that will conduct hearings over two years and recommend national correctional standards on a wide range of issues, including inmate classification, investigation of rape complaints, trauma case for rape victims, disease prevention, and staff training. These standards should apply as soon as possible to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prison accreditation organizations that receive Federal funding should also adopt the standards. States should adopt the standards too. If they ``opt out'' by passing a statute, they will suffer no penalty, but States that fail to act at all will lose 20 percent of their prison-related federal funding. Our bill is supported by a broad coalition of religious, civil rights, and human rights organizations, including the Salvation Army, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, Prison Fellowship, Focus on the Family, the Presbyterian Church, the Justice Policy Institute, the Sentencing Project, Youth Law Center, Human Rights Watch, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the National Council of La Raza. Together, these diverse groups have demonstrated impressive moral leadership on this issue. It is a privilege to work on this legislation with Congressmen Frank Wolf and Bobby Scott in the House and Senator Sessions in the Senate. While we may disagree on other issues relating to criminal justice, we all recognize that rape is unacceptable, and it is long past time to end it. Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership on the important issue of reducing prison rape. I have enjoyed working with him to craft and refine the legislation that we are introducing today, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. Though Senator Kennedy and I come from different backgrounds and have different political philosophies, we both agree that Congress should act to reduce prison rape. I would also like to thank Congressman Frank Wolf and Bobby Scott for their important leadership on this bill in the House of Representatives. Congressman Wolf is a recognized champion for human dignity across the globe and this legislation to reduce prison rape is consistent with his philosophy. Congressman Scott is very knowledgeable on criminal law issues. While he and I have agreed and disagreed on many issues over the years, we agree on the need to reduce prison rape. As a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and as Attorney General of Alabama, I sent many guilty criminals to prison where they belong. I believed that they should be treated fairly in court, and I treated them fairly. I also believe that they should be treated fairly in prison. Most prison wardens and sheriffs are outstanding public servants that do an excellent job of supervising inmates, and I commend my friends in the law enforcement community for their hard work in this area. However, knowingly subjecting a prisoner to rape is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Some studies have estimated that over 10 percent of the inmates in certain prisons are subject to rape. I hope that this statistic is an exaggeration. Nonetheless, it is the duty of Government officials to ensure that criminals who are convicted and sentenced to prison serve the sentence imposed by the judge and rape is not a part of any lawful sentence. This bill responds to the problem of rape of prison inmates in three principal ways. First, the bill establishes a bipartisan National Commission that will study prison rape at the federal, state, and local levels. Within 2 years, the commission will publish the results of its study and make recommendations on how to reduce prison rape. Second, the bill directs the Attorney General to issue a rule for the reduction of prison rape in Federal prisons. To avoid a 20 percent reduction in certain Federal funds, each State will have to pass a statute that either adopts or rejects the standards for State prisons. This bill contains no unfunded mandate to order States how to deal with prison rape. It does, however, require that they address the issue. Third, the bill will require the Department of Justice to conduct statistical surveys on prison rape for Federal, State, and local prisons and jails. Further, the Department of Justice will select officials in charge of certain prisons with an incidence of prison rape exceeding the national average by 30 percent to come to Washington and testify to the Department about the prison rape problem in their institution. If they refuse to testify, the prison will lose 20 percent of certain Federal funds. In addition, the bill provides for $40 million in grants to States for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of prison rape. This will help the States to reduce repeat offenses by inmates. A broad and bipartisan array of organizations and individuals have added their support to this bill. The list includes: American Psychological Association; American Values; Biblical Witness Fellowship, UCC; Camp Fire USA; Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House; Christian Rescue Committee; Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants--Virginia, Inc. (Virginia CURE); Disciple Renewal; Focus on the Family; Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Good News, UMC; Human Rights Watch; Human Rights and the Drug War; Institute on Religion and Democracy; Justice Policy Institute; Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; National Association of Evangelicals; National Association of School Psychologists; National Center on Institutions and Alternatives; National Council for La Raza; National Network for Youth; National Mental Health Association; Marvin Olasky, Editor--World Magazine; Partnership for Responsible Drug Information; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Prison Fellowship; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Renew Network; Research and Policy Reform, Inc.; Salvation Army; The Sentencing Project; Southern Baptist Convention; Stop Prison Rape; Unitarian Universalists for Juvenile Justice; Volunteers of America; and Youth Law Center. I am especially proud of the evangelical Christian groups for their work in gathering support for the bill. They have worked tirelessly for ethics and compassion in government, and this legislation reflects those values. I would also like to thank Linda Chavez and Mike Horowitz for the ideas that started this legislative initiative. Well-conceived, carefully crafted ideas drive many legislative and political initiatives that become law after people work together to form a bipartisan, moral position. I also want to commend the hard work of Bill Pryor, the attorney general of Alabama, who will end up dealing with the effects of this legislation [[Page 10341]] at the state level. Bill has worked with Prison Fellowship, has talked with Alabama prison officials, and has worked with me on this legislation. In addition to being an outstanding legal scholar and leader among all the States' attorneys general, Bill cares about people and demands fairness in how the State treats both victims and prisoners. I was very pleased that Attorney General Pryor joined us at the press conference to express his support of the bill. This bill will address prison rape, not through unfunded mandates and lawsuits, but through examining the problem and allowing sunshine to expose deficiencies that need to be addressed. This bill is a necessary step to reform and a bipartisan step toward justice. ______ By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Biden); S. 2621. A bill to provide a definition of vehicle for purposes of criminal penalties relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation today with Senator Biden to clarify that an airplane is a vehicle for purposes of terrorist and other violent acts against mass transportation systems. A significant question about this point has been raised in an important criminal case and deserves our prompt attention. Earlier this week, on June 11, 2002, a U.S. District Judge in Boston dismissed one of the nine charges against Richard Reid stemming from his alleged attempt to detonate an explosive device in his shoe while onboard an international flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001. The dismissed count charged defendant Reid with violating section 1993 of title 18, United States Code, by attempting to ``wreck, set fire to, and disable a mass transportation vehicle.'' Section 1993 is a new criminal law that was added, as section 801, to the USA PATRIOT Act to punish terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against, inter alia, a ``mass transportation'' vehicle or ferry, or against a passenger or employee of a mass transportation provider. I had urged that this provision be included in the final anti-terrorism law considered by the Congress. A similar provision was originally part of S. 2783, the ``21st Century Law Enforcement and Public Safety Act,'' that I introduced in the last Congress in June, 2000 on the request of the Clinton Administration. The district court rejected defendant Reid's arguments to dismiss the section 1993 charge on grounds that 1. the penalty provision does not apply to an ``attempt'' and 2. an airplane is not engaged in ``mass transportation.'' ``Mass transportation'' is defined in section 1993 by reference to the ``the meaning given to that term in section 5302(a)(7) of title 49, U.S.C., except that the term shall include schoolbus, charter and sightseeing transportation.'' Section 5302(a)(7), in turn, provides the following definition: ``mass transportation'' means transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter or sightseeing transportation.'' The court explained that ``commercial aircraft transport large numbers of people every day'' and that the definition of ``mass transportation'' ``when read in an ordinary or natural way, encompasses aircraft of the kind at issue here.'' U.S. v. Reid, CR No. 02-10013, at p. 10, 12 (D. MA, June 11, 2002). Defendant Reid also argued that the section 1993 charge should be dismissed because an airplane is not a ``vehicle.'' The court agreed, citing the fact that the term ``vehicle'' is not defined in section 1993 and that the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. Sec. 4, narrowly defines ``vehicle'' to include ``every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land.'' Emphasis in original opinion. Notwithstanding common parlance and other court decisions that have interpreted this Dictionary Act definition to encompass aircraft, the district court relied on the narrow definition to conclude that an aircraft is not a ``vehicle'' within the meaning of section 1993. The new section 1993 was intended to provide broad federal criminal jurisdiction over terrorist and violent acts against all mass transportation systems, not only bus services but also commercial airplanes, cruise ships, railroads and other forms of transportation available for public carriage. The bill I introduce today would add a definition of ``vehicle'' to section 1993 and clarify that an airplane is a ``vehicle'' both in common parlance and under this new criminal law to protect mass transportation systems. Specifically, the bill would define this term to mean ``any carriage or other contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land, water or through the air.'' I urge the Senate to act promptly and pass this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2621 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. DEFINITION. Section 1993(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end; (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(9) the term `vehicle' means any carriage or other contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land, water, or through the air.''. ______ By Mr. HOLLINGS: S. 2622. A bill to authorize the President to posthumously award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Joseph A. De Laine in recognition of his contributions to the Nation; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to present Reverend Joseph A. De Laine the Congressional Gold Medal in honor of his heroic sacrifices to desegregate our public schools. His crusade to break down barriers in education forever scarred his own life, but led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. Eight years before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, Rev. De Laine, a minister and principal, organized African-American parents to petition the Summerton, SC, school board for a bus and gasoline so their children would not have to walk 10 miles to attend a segregated school. A year later, in Briggs v. Elliott, the parents sued to end segregation. It was a case that as a young lawyer I watched Thurgood Marshall argue before the Supreme Court as one of the five cases collectively known as Brown v. Board of Education. For this Senator, their arguments helped to shape my view on racial matters. For his efforts, Rev. De Laine was subjected to a reign of domestic terrorism. He lost his job. He watched his church and home burn. He was charged with assault and battery with intent to kill after shots were fired at his home and he fired back to mark the car. He had to leave South Carolina forever; relocate to New York, where he started an AME Church, and he eventually retired in North Carolina. Not until the year 2000, 26 years after his death and 45 years after the incident in his home was Rev. De Laine cleared of all charges. Last month, I spoke to the 100 descendants of Briggs v. Elliott, and I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record, which show the bravery of Rev. De Laine during a troubled time in our Nation's past, and which point to the immeasurable benefits he has given our Nation. There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Briggs v. Elliott Descendants Re-union Banquet, Summerton, South Carolina, May 11, 2002 I want to give you an insight into exactly what happened to your parents 50 years ago in Summerton, SC, that led to the desegregation of our Nation's schools by the Supreme Court of the United States. [[Page 10342]] I speak with some trepidation, because right now I can see Harry Briggs' son walking down that dirt road all the way here to Scotts Branch School, and that school bus passing, all for the white children. Yet all your families were asking for was a bus. But they were told: ``you don't pay any taxes, so how can you ask for a bus?'' What they didn't say is you didn't have a job, whereby you could make a living and be able to pay the taxes. They didn't say that. I think of the threats, the burnings, the shooting up of Reverend John De Laine's home. I think about how they turned him into a fugitive. He had to leave his home in South Carolina, never to return. Harry Briggs had to leave his home and go to Florida to earn a living. It's not for me to tell the descendants of the Briggs v. Elliott case how they have suffered. I didn't try this case, don't misunderstand me. My beginnings with Briggs v. Elliott started in 1948 when I was elected to the House of Representatives in Columbia. The previous year James Hinton, the head of the NAACP in the State gave a speech in Columbia. He talked about the need to get separate but equal facilities. He got Rev. De Laine from Summerton in the audience all fired up. Rev. De Laine, who was the principal here, put together a petition signed by 20 parents, of 46 children, the Summerton 66. I'll never forget the day after I was sworn into the Legislature the superintendent of schools in Charleston County took me across the Cooper River Bridge, down the Mathis Ferry Road, to the Freedom School, the black school. He said I want to show you what we really do, he used the word at that time, ``for a Negro education.'' This was a cold November Day, and we went into a big one- room building. That's all they had, one room, with a pot belly stove in the middle. They had a class in this corner, a class in that back corner, a class up front in this corner, and a class here. Of course, they didn't have any desks, and very few books, and one teacher teaching the four classes. When I went to Columbia I was with a bunch of rebels. I introduced an anti-lynching bill. I had never heard of lynchings down in Charleston, but then they had one. As we debated the bill, a fellow who was the grand dragon of the Klan got up with all these Klansmen in the Gallery, and he mumbled and raised cane. Speaker Blott got some order. But several House members walked out. They said they wouldn't be seated in the Legislature with a fellow like that. We passed the anti-lynching bill. I'm trying to give you this background, so you'll understand the significance of what your parents did. We had just had the case, whereby blacks could participate in the Democratic primary. And we had just given women the right to vote. And in 1949 and 1950, I struggled because there was no money in the state for separate but equal schools, or anything else. I said we ought to put in a 3 percent sales tax to pay for things. Governor Thurmond opposed it, and the senators particularly opposed it. But I made the motion for a one-cent tax on cigarettes; a one-cent tax on gasoline; and a one-cent tax on beer. Beer, cigarettes, and gasoline. We formed a House Committee with six of us to work on it. We worked all summer. It's a long story, but let me cut it and say by December we had it all written. I knew the incoming governor, Governor Byrnes. I felt it would be good to ask him to see if he could help me with this measure. The second week in January, before he was sworn in, he called me and said: ``You've got to come to Columbia, I'm going to include this in my Inaugural address.'' Over time, I made 79 talks on the proposal, until we finally passed the sales tax, which provided some money for separate but equal schools. When the Briggs v. Elliott case came up, before Judge Waring in Charleston, he questioned separate but equal. Then in December 1952, the case went to the Supreme Court. Governor Byrnes had served on the State Supreme Court, and he wanted to make sure we won the case. In my mind, he was absolutely sure that under Chief Justice Vinson the State would win it. But to make sure, he set aside Mr. Bob McC. Figg, who had done all the work, and selected John W. Davis, as the attorney for South Carolina against Thurgood Marshall, who was representing Briggs and the NAACP. Mr. Davis had been the Solicitor General of the United States. He had been the Democratic nominee for president in 1924. He was considered the greatest constitutional mind in the country. The second thing the Governor did was to call me up and say: ``I'm appointing you to go to Washington, because you know intimately this law here that built the schools. You have to go to Washington in case any questions of fact come up.'' So we took a train to Washington. We came in at 6 o'clock that morning at Union Station, and we sat down for breakfast. I'll never forget it, because Thurgood Marshall walked in. He and Bob McC. Figg had become real close friends. So he sat down and was eating breakfast with us, and we began swapping stories. Mr. Marshall said ``Bob, you know that black family that moved into that white neighborhood in Cicero, IL. They have so much trouble. There are riots, and everything else going on.'' And he said: ``Don't tell anybody, but I got hold of Governor Adlai Stevenson.'' Stevenson was the governor of Illinois at the time. And he said: ``I sent that family back to Mississippi for safe keeping.'' And Thurgood added, ``for God's sake, don't tell anybody that or it will ruin me.'' I said: ``for God's sake, don't tell anybody I'm eating breakfast with you, or I will never get elected again.'' I tell you that story so you can get a feel for 1952, for what it was like 50 years ago. We had wanted Briggs to be the lead case before the Supreme Court. It was one of five cases that they would hear collectively. But soon after our breakfast, we found out that Roy Wilkens from the NAACP had gotten together with the Solicitor General and moved the Kansas case in front of the South Carolina case. Some reports said the reason was because they wanted a northern case. That was not it. There was another case from the State of Delaware, which was just as north as the State of Kansas. Kansas was selected because up until the sixth grade, yes, it was segregated. But thereafter it was a local option, and the schools were mostly integrated. Before the court John W. Davis obviously made a very impassioned, constitutional argument. But Thurgood Marshall made the real argument, there wasn't any question about it. He had been with this case. He had the feel, and everything else of that kind. I can still hear and see Justice Frankfurter on the Court leaning over and saying, ``Mr. Marshall, Mr. Marshall, you've won your case, you've won your case. What happens next''? And Thurgood Marshall said, well, if he prevails, then the state imposed policy of separation by race would be removed. The little children can go to the school of their choice. They play together before they go to school. They come back and play together after school. Now they can be together at school. The State imposed policy of separation by race in South Carolina would be gone. Another lawyer arguing the case was George E. C. Hayes, and when I heard him that was my epiphany. Mr. Hayes got everyone because he used a jury argument before the Supreme Court. He said: as black soldiers we went to the war to fight on the front lines in Europe, and when we come home we have to sit on the back of the bus. I had been with the 9th Anti-Artillery Aircraft unit in Tunisia in Africa for a month. And then I was in Italy and Germany and crossed over to what is now Kosovo. So I served. I knew exactly what he was talking about. And I said this is wrong. The next year Chief Justice Vinson died. It was reported at that time that Justice Frankfurter said for the first time that he believed there was a God in Heaven when Vison passed away. They appointed Mr. Earl Warren as Chief Justice, who dragged everybody back to the Court to re-argue the case in December of 1953. He didn't want to hear about separate but equal. He wanted the case re-argued on the constitutionality of segregation itself. Then on May 17, 1953 the decision came down, it was unanimous, segregation was over in this country. So the lawyers immediately got together to discuss how to implement the decision. Since the decision said to integrate schools with all deliberate speed, there was arguments back and forth on how we could comply with this order with all deliberate speed and not start chaos all over the land. Some school authority down in Charleston came up with the idea that with all deliberate speed meant we would integrate the first grade the first year; we would integrate the first and second grades the second year; the third year would be the first, second, and third grades. Over a 12-year period, we would then have the 12 grades integrated. When the head of the NAACP in New York heard that he said: ``Noooo Way. We are not going to be given our constitutional rights on the installment plan.'' And that ended that. But nothing was done for about 10 years, until Martin Luther King came along. When I became Governor, I started working on other areas that needed to be integrated, beginning with law enforcement. I'll never forget all the white sheriffs who were against all the blacks. We only had 34 black sheriffs. We have about 500 today. And we literally broke up and locked up the Ku Klux Klan. I remember on the day I was sworn in as Governor, waiting for me was a green and gold embossed envelope, with a lifetime membership into the Ku Klux Klan. I never heard of such a thing. I asked the head of law enforcement, do we have the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina? He said, ``Ohhh yes. We have 1,727 members.'' I asked, you have an actual count? And he said: ``Ohhh yes, we keep a count of them.'' He said he could get rid of them, but no Governor had helped him in the past. I said, I'll help you. What do we do? He said: ``I need a little money.'' So we infiltrated the Klan, and the members began to know, or their bosses at businesses knew because they would say to these people: ``You know on Friday night, your man, so and so, has been going to these rallies.'' The next thing you know, they quit [[Page 10343]] going to the rallies. So by the time we integrated Clemson with Harvey Gantt, it went very, very peacefully. And there were less than 300 Klansmen. Then, of course, as Senator I took my hunger trips. This is the effect those arguments before the court had on me. I took those trips with the NAACP to 16 different counties. As a result, we embellished the food stamp program, we instituted the women infants and children's feeding program, and the school lunch program. The attendance in schools went way up when we started that. As your Senator I had the privilege of employing Ralph Everett. He was the first black staff director of any committee in the United States Senate. We have both Andy Chishom and Israel Brooks as the first black Marshalls of South Carolina. Matthew Perry, the first black district judge of a Federal court ever appointed, I appointed. The first black woman judge to the Federal district court, Margaret Seymour, I appointed her. So we have made a lot of progress along that line. But to give you a feel for how things have changed, I remember speaking at the C.A. Johnson High School in Columbia, the largest black high school in the entire state, the day after Martin Luther King was assassinated. At the event, there was a mid-shipman, a senior at the Naval Academy, who stood up and made one of the finest talks I ever heard. I turned to the principal, because it was his son, and I asked: who appointed your son to the Naval Academy? He didn't answer. We walked down the row, and I can see me now, asking him again. He still didn't answer. When I got to my car, I said evidently you don't understand my accent from Charleston. Who appointed your son to the U.S. Naval Academy? He said, ``Senator, I didn't want to have to answer that question. We couldn't get a member of the South Carolina delegation to appoint him. Hubert Humphrey appointed him.'' What goes around, comes around. Today, I have more minority appointments to West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academies than anybody. Recently I had Chuck Bolden, who is a major general in the marine corps and a former astronaut, ready to return to NASA as the number two person there. But the Pentagon raised the question about taking such a talent during a time of war and moving him to the civilian space program. So we said the heck with it, he's too needed in the military. That is the effect Briggs v. Elliott had on this public servant. There isn't any question that without the courage of your parents, our society would be a lot worse off today. I was there a few years back when the Congress of the United gave the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. She deserved it, and we wouldn't take anything from her for not moving her seat. But in the 1950s the worst they could have done to her was to pull her off the bus. These descendants lost their homes. They lost their livelihoods. They almost lost their lives. As far as continuing their life in the State of South Carolina, they could not do it. Without their courage, without their stamina, without their example in starting the Briggs v. Elliott case, we never would have had a civil rights act. We never would have had a voting rights act. We never would have had all the progress we've made over the many, many years. So I wanted particularly to come back and to publicly thank each of you descendants. And I want to announce that I am putting forward a bill that would honor posthumously Rev. De Laine with a Congressional Gold Medal. I need 66 co-sponsors in the Senate. We have to have similar support on the House side. But Cong. Clyburn, he can get way more votes than I can. I don't think he'll have any trouble. We'll try to work it out so that in '04, the 50th anniversary of when the decision came down, we'll be able to make that presentation. I just want to end by saying because of the courage of your parents, we made far more progress in the United States of America. Our country is a far stronger country. We are more than ever the land of the free and the home of the brave because of Briggs v. Elliott. And I thank you all very, very much. ______ By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen): S. 2623. A bill to designate the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Mr. WARNER. Madam President I am pleased to introduce legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Allen, to create the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park. This legislation builds on an effort that I have been involved with for over a decade. In 1991, the Congress authorized the National Park Service to conduct an assessment of the historical integrity of significant Civil War battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. That examination identified 10 Civil War battlefields in eight counties in the Valley that remained significantly as they were during the war. The Valley itself was a location of constant engagements throughout the War with more than 325 armed conflicts. The 10 battlefields that are today preserved under the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Management Plan include the places of Stonewall Jackson's 1862 campaign, and later Union General Philip Sheridan's 1864 campaign which left the Valley in ruins. This legislation is the product of many months of discussions with affected individual property owners with the battlefield boundary, our partner non-profit organizations who today preserve Belle Grove Plantation and surrounding lands within the battlefield, local governments and many interested citizens. I am pleased to present to the Senate their strong support for this legislation. I know that with retaining the private sector ownership of buildings and their direct participation in preserving and interpreting the story of Cedar Creek, we will have a truly unique partnership. The compelling story of the events that unfolded at Cedar Creek surely earns recognition within our National Park system. In October of 1864, the Federal Army of the Shenandoah, having soundly defeated the Confederate Army of the Valley at Winchester on September 19 and then again at Fisher's Hill on September 22, ran the Confederate forces out of the Shenandoah Valley. In the process of this Union advance, Federal forces either burned or took all of the Confederate food reserves and livestock between Staunton and Strasburg. Thinking he had finally deprived the Valley as the Confederate's food source and as an invasion route North, Major General Philip Sheridan left his army camped along Cedar Creek at Middletown and went to Washington to have meetings with his supporters. Refusing to give up the Valley to the Federals, General Jubal Early moved his very hungry, tired, and ill-equipped army of about 17,000 to Fisher's Hill on October 13. Facing down Sheridan's well dug-in army of over 30,000 men, Early had to make a decision to attack or retreat. He chose to attack. On the night of October 18, he sent three of his divisions under the command of Major General John Gordon across the Shenandoah River and along the flank of Massanutten Mountain to hit the Federal position from the east, behind its entrenchments along Cedar Creek. After marching and maneuvering all night, Gordon's divisions struck at dawn in a thick fog. The Federals were clearly surprised. Early pushed the Federals all the way out of their camps, past Belle Grove plantation and all the way through Middleton. At mid-day, Gordon ordered a halt to the advance so that he could regroup his forces. Being informed that there was a battle going on, Sheridan rushed to Middletown from Winchester. Once he arrived there in the afternoon, he found his army posted along a ridge north of Middletown. There he was able to rally his men, and from the position he ordered a massive counterattack. The counterattack completely swept the Confederates from the field. The battle of Cedar Creek was significant for many reasons. The battle dealt the crushing blow to the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley, thus ending the career of Jubal Early in the process. Most importantly, however, coupled with the successes of General William T. Sherman in the Atlanta campaign, the battle boosted the morale of the war-weary North and guaranteed the re-election of President Abraham Lincoln. The untouched landscape of this battlefield and the historic structure of Belle Grove plantation still today evoke the stories of the war. This site will serve to tell the whole story of the campaigns of the Valley and visitors will experience the full impact of the War of these surrounding rural communities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. [[Page 10344]] There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2623 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Act''. SEC. 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is to establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park in order to-- (1) help preserve, protect, and interpret a nationally significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation for the education, inspiration, and benefit of present and future generations; (2) serve as a focal point to recognize and interpret important events and geographic locations representing key Civil War battles in the Shenandoah Valley, including those battlefields associated with the Thomas J. (stonewall) Jackson campaign of 1862 and the decisive campaigns of 1864; (3) tell the rich story of the Battle of Cedar Creek and its significance in the conduct of the war in the Shenandoah Valley; and (4) preserve the significant historic, natural, cultural, military, and scenic resources found in the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation areas through partnerships with local landowners and the community. SEC. 3. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) The Battle of Cedar Creek, also known as the battle of Belle Grove, was a major event of the Civil War and the history of this country. It represented the end of the Civil War's Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864 and contributed to the reelection of President Abraham Lincoln and the eventual outcome of the war. (2) 2,500 acres of the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation were designated a national historic landmark in 1969 because of their ability to illustrate and interpret important eras and events in the history of the United States. The Cedar Creek Battlefield, Belle Grove Manor House, the Heater House, and Harmony Hall (a National Historic Landmark) are also listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register. (3) The Secretary of the Interior has approved the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Management Plan, September 2000, which preserves the District's historic character, and protects and interprets 10 significant Civil War battlefields within the District, including the Cedar Creek battlefield. (4) The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Management Plan and the National Park Service Special Resource Study recognize the Cedar Creek battlefield as the most significant Civil War resource within the Historic District. (5) The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Management Plan, which was developed with extensive public participation over a 3-year period and is administered by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, recommends that Cedar Creek Battlefield be established as a new unit of the National Park System to provide permanent protection for the battlefield and to serve as the central site to increase the public's education and awareness of the War's legacy throughout the Historic District. (6) The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, organized in 1988 to preserve and interpret the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the 1864 Valley Campaign, has acquired 308 acres of land within the boundaries of the National Historic Landmark. The foundation annually hosts a major reenactment and living history event on the Cedar Creek Battlefield. (7) Belle Grove Plantation is a Historic Site of the National Trust for Historic Preservation that occupies 383 acres within the National Historic Landmark. The Belle Grove Manor House was built by Isaac Hite, a Revolutionary War patriot married to the sister of President James Madison, who was a frequent visitor at Belle Grove. President Thomas Jefferson assisted with the design of the house. During the Civil War Belle Grove was at the center of the decisive battle of Cedar Creek. Belle Grove is managed locally by Belle Grove, Incorporated, and has been open to the public since 1967. The house has remained virtually unchanged since it was built in 1797, offering visitors an experience of the life and times of the people who lived there in the 18th and 19th centuries. (8) The panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas, and waterways provide visitors with an inspiring setting of great natural beauty. The historic, natural, cultural, military, and scenic resources found in the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation areas are nationally and regionally significant. (9) The existing, independent, not-for-profit organizations dedicated to the protection and interpretation of the resources described above provide the foundation for public- private partnerships to further the success of protecting, preserving, and interpreting these resources. (10) None of these resources, sites, or stories of the Shenandoah Valley are protected by or interpreted within the National Park System. SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Advisory Commission established by section 9. (2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historic Park'', numbered CECR-80,000, and dated June 12, 2002. (3) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park established under section 5 and depicted on the Map. (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior. SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE GROVE PLANTATION NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. (a) Establishment.--There is established the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park, consisting of approximately 3,000 acres, as generally depicted on the Map. (b) Availability of Map.--The Map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior. SEC. 6. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. (a) Real Property.--The Secretary may acquire land or interests in land within the boundaries of the park, from willing sellers only, by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange. (b) Boundary revision.--After acquiring land for the Park, the Secretary shall-- (1) revise the boundary map of the Park to include newly acquired land within the boundary; and (2) administer newly acquired land subject to applicable laws (including regulations). (c) Personal Property.--The Secretary may acquire personal property associated with, and appropriate for, interpretation of the Park. (d) Conservation Easements and Covenants.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire conservation easements and enter into covenants regarding lands in or adjacent to the Park for willing sellers only. Such conservation easements and covenants shall have the effect of protecting the scenic, natural, and historic resources on adjacent lands and preserving the natural or historic setting of the Park when viewed from within or outside the Park. (e) Support Facilities.--The National Park Service is authorized to acquire from willing sellers up to 50 acres of land outside the park boundary, but in close proximity to the park, to develop facilities for one or more of the following: (1) Visitors. (2) Administrative functions. (3) Museums. (4) Curatorial functions. (5) Maintenance. SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION. The Secretary shall administer the Park in accordance with this Act and the provisions of law generally applicable to units of the National Park System, including-- (1) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and (2) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, and for other purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.). SEC. 8. MANAGEMENT OF PARK. (a) Management Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Commission, shall prepare a management plan for the Park. In particular, the management plan shall contain provisions to address the needs of owners of non-Federal land, including independent nonprofit organizations within the boundaries of the Park. (b) Submission of Plan to Congress.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the management plan for the Park to Congress. SEC. 9. CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE GROVE PLANTATION NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION. (a) Establishment.--There is established the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Planation National Historical Park Advisory Commission. (b) Duties.--The Commission shall-- (1) advise the Secretary in the preparation and implementation of a general management plan described in section 8; and (2) advise the Secretary with respect to the identification of sites of significance outside the Park boundary deemed necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Act. (c) Membership.-- (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 members appointed by the Secretary so as to include the following: (A) 1 representative from the Commonwealth of Virginia. (B) 1 representative each from the local governments of Strasburg, Middletown, [[Page 10345]] Frederick County, Shenandoah County, and Warren County. (C) 2 representatives of private landowners within the Park. (D) 1 representative from a citizen interest group. (E) 1 representative from the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation. (F) 1 representative from Belle Grove, Incorporated. (G) 1 representative from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. (H) 1 representative from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. (I) 1 ex officio representative from the National Park Service. (J) 1 ex officio representative from the United States Forest Service. (2) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Commission shall be elected by the members to serve a term of one year renewable for one additional year. (3) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filed in the same manner in which the original appointment was made. (4) Terms of service.-- (A) In General.--Each member shall be appointed for a term of 3 years and may be reappointed for not more than 2 successive terms. (B) Initial members.--Of the members first appointed under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall appoint-- (i) 4 members for a term of 1 year; (ii) 5 members for a term of 2 years; and (iii) 6 members for a term of 3 years. (5) Extended service.--A member may serve after the expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken office. (6) Majority rule.--The Commission shall act and advise by affirmative vote of a majority of its members. (7) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at least quarterly at the call of the chairperson or a majority of the members of the Commission. (8) Quorum.--8 members shall constitute a quorum. (d) Compensation.--Members shall serve without pay. Members who are full-time officers or employees of the United States, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or any political subdivision thereof shall receive no additional pay on account of their service on the Commission. (e) Hearings; Public Involvement.--The Commission may, for purposes of carrying out this Act, hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such public testimony, and receive such evidence, as the Commission considers appropriate. The Commission may not issue subpoenas or exercise any subpoena authority. (f) FACA Nonapplicability.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the Commission. SEC. 10. CONSERVATION OF CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE GROVE PLANTATION NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. (a) Encouragement of Conservation.--The Secretary and the Commission shall encourage conservation of the historic and natural resources within and in proximity of the Park by landowners, local governments, organizations, and businesses. (b) Provision of Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may provide technical assistance to local governments, in cooperative efforts which complement the values of the Park. (c) Cooperation by Federal Agencies.--Any Federal entity conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the Park shall consult, cooperate, and, to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate its activities with the Secretary in a manner that-- (1) is consistent with the purposes of this Act and the standards and criteria established pursuant to the general management plan developed pursuant to section 8; (2) is not likely to have an adverse effect on the resources of the Park; and (3) is likely to provide for full public participation in order to consider the views of all interested parties. SEC. 11. ENDOWMENT. (a) In General.--In accordance with the provisions of subsection (b), the Secretary is authorized to receive and expend funds from an endowment to be established with the National Park Foundation, or its successors and assigns. (b) Conditions.--Funds from the endowment referred to in subsection (a) shall be expended exclusively as the Secretary, in consultation with the Commission, may designate for the interpretation, preservation, and maintenance of the Park resources and public access areas. No expenditure shall be made pursuant to this section unless the Secretary determines that such an expenditure is consistent with the purposes of this Act. SEC. 12. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS (a) In General.--In order to further the purposes of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with interested public and private entities and individuals (including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Belle Grove, Inc., the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, and the Counties of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren), through technical and financial assistance, including encouraging the conservation of historic and natural resources within and near the Park. (b) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may provide to any person, organization, or governmental entity technical and financial assistance for the purposes of this Act, including the following: (1) Preserving historic structures within the Park. (2) Maintaining the natural or cultural landscape of the Park. (3) Local preservation planning, interpretation, and management of public visitation for the Park. (4) Furthering the goals of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation and National Historic District Management Plan. SEC. 13. ROLES OF KEY PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS. (a) In General.--In recognition that central portions of the Park are presently owned and operated for the benefit of the public by key partner organizations, the Secretary shall acknowledge and support the continued participation of these partner organizations in the management of the Park. (b) Park Partners.--Roles of the current key partners include the following: (1) Cedar creek battlefield foundation.--The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation may-- (A) continue to own, operate, and manage the lands acquired by the Foundation within the Park; (B) continue to conduct reenactments and other events within the Park; and (C) transfer ownership interest in portions of their land to the National Park Service by donation, sale, or other means that meet the legal requirements of National Park Service land acquisitions. (2) National trust for historic preservation and belle grove incorporated.--The National Trust for Historic Preservation and Belle Grove Incorporated may continue to own, operate, and manage Belle Grove Plantation and its structures and grounds within the Park boundary. Belle Grove Incorporated may continue to own the house and grounds known as Bowman's Fort or Harmony Hall for the purpose of permanent preservation, with a long-term goal of opening the property to the public. (3) Shenandoah county.--Shenandoah County may continue to own, operate, and manage the Keister park site within the Park for the benefit of the public. (4) Gateway communities.--The adjacent historic towns of Strasburg and Middletown shall be acknowledged at Gateway Communities to the Park. (5) Shenandoah valley battlefields foundation.--The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation may continue to administer and manage the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District in partnership with the National Park Service and in accordance with the Management Plan for the District in which the Park is located. SEC. 14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act. ____________________