John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 844.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes. I will explain very quickly what this amendment does. We just voted a few moments ago a sense of the Senate that we should take mandatory action with respect to global warming in the United States. We did not specify what the action was. Obviously, the McCain-Lieberman mandatory action failed earlier, but we at least went on record accepting--I think it was about 54 votes on the tabling motion--that we should do something with respect to domestic. What my amendment seeks to do is express the sense of the Senate specifically, and let me quote from it: . . . that the United States should act to reduce the health, environmental and economic risks posed by global climate change and foster sustained economic growth through a new generation of technologies by (1) participating in international negotiations under the Convention with the objective of securing United States participation in fair and binding agreements that (A) advance and protect the economic interests of the United States; (B) establish mitigation commitments by all countries that are major emitters of greenhouse gases . . . ) establish flexible international mechanisms to minimize the cost of efforts by participating countries; and (D) achieve a significant long-term reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The whole purpose of this is to get the United States of America engaged in an international process that will get all nations simultaneously working toward the same goal. Let me remind my colleagues we have heard some questions about the science raised over the course of the last hours. Just yesterday the scientific evidence on climate change was addressed by the G8 scientific panels, all the panels of the G8, including our own National Academy of Sciences. All of these science academies of the G8 nations said that the evidence on climate change is now clear enough for the leaders of G8 to commit to take prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. I ask unanimous consent that this statement from the G8 science academics be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. KERRY. I emphasize to my colleagues, this sense of the Senate is not about Kyoto. It is not asking us to get involved in Kyoto. In fact, the diplomatic issue is no longer Kyoto yes or no. The world understands that we need to move beyond Kyoto. Kyoto is limited in time and in participation. Many of us, myself included, objected to that flaw in Kyoto because it left out many nations. We need to see that Kyoto, however, as a foundation for global cooperation with the principles of binding targets and emissions trading can serve as a blueprint for how to reduce those emissions. Other nations are ready to start a dialogue about the future. Prime Minister Blair is capitalizing on his chairmanship of the G8 to press for broad cooperative action, but the United States alone stands silent and apart from this process. That has to stop. We cannot wait for Kyoto to expire in order to consider the next steps. We need to evaluate options now. We need to signal to the world that we are prepared to shoulder our fair share of the burden of dealing with this problem, and we need to put action behind our words, accepting the principle of binding pollution reduction as a critical way of engaging the developing world. A number of proposals have been put on the table, from a G8 program to promote renewable energy, to technology funding, to development, to the framework convention. We do not suffer from a lack of ideas as to what to do. What we need is leadership, and the Senate has an opportunity to make a statement about that. No climate change program is going to work without all of the nations of the world being involved, and no climate plan can pass Congress, obviously, that does not have their participation. Their emissions may be a fraction of what the developed world does now, but without action they are going to skyrocket and they would soon exceed the largest nation's emissions, and we cannot suffer that. I had the privilege of going to Rio 13 years ago--I guess it was to the Earth Summit in 1992--which was the world's first effort to try to craft a global response to the threat of climate change. It was at those talks that the American delegation ultimately embraced the U.N. Framework Convention on climate change. As we know, in that agreement more than 100 nations, 13 years ago, accepted the scientific evidence that pollution is altering the composition of the atmosphere, and they set a voluntary goal to prevent dangerous anthropogenetic interference with the climate system. In other words, 13 years ago we as a country recognized, under President George Herbert Walker Bush, that climate change is a global problem in need of a global solution. We defined a global goal. We set a path for future negotiations. It was a small step, but it was a first step and it was progress. Regrettably, after that, going to the year 2000 when President Bush took office, he had any number of options in front of him. He could have used the bully pulpit to push for greater participation from the largest emitters in the world. He could have focused on targets beyond 2012. He could have reached out to less developed countries and offered technical assistance and technology. He might have pushed for a more robust trading program or greater technology transfer, but he took a decidedly different tack contrary to the science. He flatly rejected the active approach of the prior administration and in many ways he even rejected the incremental approach, voluntary approach, of his own father. Instead, in the months after taking office, the President questioned the underlying science. He broke a campaign promise to cap carbon emissions from powerplants. He rebuked his EPA chief for positive comments about Kyoto. He proposed an energy plan that would increase pollution, and he withdrew from the protocol and the international process altogether. If the Senate is prepared, as we just were, to embrace domestic efforts, at least in principle, we need to embrace the larger effort to reach out to the world and create a global approach so that all of us can avoid the potential downside of what scientists tell us is coming our way. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. I yield myself 2 minutes. Let me answer quickly that there is nothing at all in what the Senator just said that rebukes the process set forward in the sense-of- the-Senate effort. I cannot imagine the Senator is against us trying to find a fair and binding agreement. We are not talking about something unfair and unnecessary. I cannot imagine he would not want to advance and protect the economic interests of the United States, establish mediation agreements for those countries that are major emitters. With principles of common but differentiated responsibilities, this makes sense. With respect to what he said about the National Academy of Sciences, I respectfully just plain flat disagree. They took a comment made by one group and sent it to the chairman whom he cited, who wrote back about that outside comment. That is not the comment made by the G8 themselves. Go to the Web site of the National Academy of Sciences tonight, and you will see the following statement on the Web site: The United States National Academy of Sciences join ten other national science academies today in calling on world leaders, particularly those at the G8 countries meeting next month in Scotland, to acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing, to address its causes, and to prepare for its consequences. That is the unequivocal clear finding of the National Academy of Sciences. The fact is, the consensus hasn't failed on environment. The countries that signed on to Kyoto have ratified it and are implementing it. Are they going to meet the goals? I admit they are not going to meet the goals--we all understand that--which is a good reason to go back to the table and begin to negotiate to arrive at an exchange of technologies, at an exchange of science, at a multinational global cooperative effort to try to avoid catastrophe if it presents itself. Why the opponents want to keep turning their backs on the effort to find the best science and the best solutions is beyond comprehension. When you have scientists from all over the world, I think they would be insulted by the Senator's insult to their independent scientific inquiry. They are doing what they are doing based on their life career efforts. I think we ought to respect the consensus of all those scientists on a global basis. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional minute. Finance ministers, environmental ministers, prime ministers, foreign ministers--all of them together in all these other countries have not put their political careers on the line and asked their countries to engage in something because it is a fool's errand. They have not suggested, as their scientists in all of those 100 nations plus, that this is scientifically a consensus for the sake of politics. It has risks, especially if it is found to be false. I think we ought to listen carefully to what they have engaged in. I think most of our colleagues, indeed, are doing that. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is not about Kyoto. I voted against the Senate proceeding on the Kyoto agreement, as did other Members here, in a near unanimous agreement, as a matter of fact, because we thought it was flawed because it did not have other countries involved. This is an effort to put the Senate on record that we believe the science--yes, we have to believe it and move forward internationally. We even create a Senate bipartisan observer group appointed by the leaders of both sides so that they can report to the Senate on the effectiveness and propriety of what is happening. This is a bona fide effort to try to deal realistically with the problem. The Senate has used the language before. I hope my colleagues will embrace it. I yield back whatever time I have.

Mr. KERRY. I would like to take the 53 seconds.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 55 seconds.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say, quickly, this resolution, I say to the Senator from New Mexico, is similar to language unanimously accepted--unanimously accepted--by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 107th and 108th Congresses and language accepted by the full Senate, which the Senate included on April 23, 2002. It was first offered by Senator Biden and myself as an amendment during the Foreign Relations Committee markup of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The fact is, it then was modified and included in the Senate-passed Energy bill with a bipartisan initiative with Senators Hollings, Hagel, Stevens, Byrd, Lieberman, Murkowski, Bingaman, Snowe, and Thompson on April 23. Now, I can say to the Senator, there is no way possible to deal realistically with the issue of global warming on an international basis unless we deal with other countries. You can go find a different forum, but if you did not have this forum, you would have to invent it. I think it is the best way to proceed. I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thought the Senator was asking a question. I apologize.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. KERRY. Is the vote up or down?

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, I asked a question. Is the vote up or down?

Mr. KERRY. No, sir. The U.N. framework.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like the record to show that on June 21, 2005, I missed a series of votes as I was out of the office for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted yes for the Nelson amendment No. 783 to strike the section providing for a comprehensive inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and natural gas resources. I would have voted no for the Hagel amendment No. 817 to provide for the conduct of activities that promote the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the United States and in developing countries. I would have voted yes for the Voinovich amendment No. 799 to reduce emissions from diesel engines.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I want to take this time to commend one of the many American heroes defending freedom around the world for her service and courage. Her act of bravery is worthy of the remembrance and recognition of a grateful nation. On March 20 of this year, SGT Leigh Ann Hester was escorting a convoy near Salman Pak in Iraq, when over 50 insurgents ambushed her troops, raining fire from AK-47's and RPGs. On this fateful day, Sergeant Hester faced that fire with no fear of her own fate, risking her life to save others--and save lives she did. She led a successful counterattack, brought the convoy to safety, and earned the everlasting gratitude of her fellow soldiers and the undying respect of the American people. And so a grateful nation has bestowed Sergeant Hester of the 617th Military Police Company with the Silver Star. She is the first woman to earn this rare honor since Mary Roberts Wilson received the medal for gallantry during the Battle of Anzio in World War II. Sergeant Hester's heroism is more than worthy of this recognition. Her unwavering commitment to her fellow soldiers is a shining example of the exceptional courage that defines our brave soldiers across the world. In winning the Silver Star, Sergeant Hester contributes to many legacies. She honors the legacy of generations of women who have served our Nation and the over 15,000 selfless women who have served so valiantly in Iraq and her bravery in the face of overwhelming adversity underscores the growing role of women in our Armed Services. She also continues the legacy of military service in her family. Her Uncle, Carl Sollinger, served honorably in Vietnam, and her grandfather, Oran Sollinger, was awarded a Bronze Star for his valor in World War II. Now, Sergeant Hester, a 23-year-old retail manager from Bowling Green, KY, seeks to expand on her own legacy of service with a career in law enforcement. SGT Leigh Ann Hester has shown bravery in keeping with the finest traditions of service, courage, and heroism in our military. She is a special citizen, a role model, and a patriot. I call on my colleagues to join me in honoring her and in so doing honor every brave American, at home and abroad, who toils for freedom.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the upcoming Juneteenth celebration that will occur this Sunday, June 19, 2005. This celebration commemorates the end of slavery throughout the United States. Although the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on January 1, 1863, the information had not been passed to the most rural parts of the South until some two and a half years later when General Gordon Granger entered Galveston, TX on June 19, 1865, and issued the proclamation, officially freeing the town. There are a number of theories to explain why it took so long for the message of freedom to reach many slaves throughout the South. While there is yet to be a definitive explanation for the delay, as we continue to recognize the importance of this date, we can be assured that scholars will continue to research this part of our Nation's history. Annual Juneteenth celebrations have long been a part of our Nation's history. Although they were held in the years immediately following 1865, they were not popular in the Jim Crow-era South. In fact, they were banned from public property, and, in order to continue the celebrations, churches throughout the South held fundraisers to sponsor Juneteenth events. This was common until the Great Depression, when people could no longer afford the necessities of everyday life, let alone celebrations of our past. At the same time, in many public schools, teachers often focused discussion on the day of the Emancipation Proclamation, even though it had no immediate impact for slaves in many parts of the South. Thus, there was limited recognition of the importance of Juneteenth until the Texas legislature recognized it as an official holiday on January 1, 1980. This weekend we recognize this important celebration. In so doing, we take time to reflect on the evil of slavery. This is a time to learn from the past and to redouble our efforts to ensure that the values of freedom and liberty in this country are afforded to all its citizens. Juneteenth is a day for reflection, for prayer and for hope that our country will continue to grow together in the spirit of liberty, equality and justice. I am proud to honor the 140th commemoration of the African American emancipation day, Juneteenth, June 19, 1865.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I recognize and celebrate the life of a great American and a gracious host to all who crossed his threshold, Mr. Anthony Athanas. Everyone in Massachusetts, along with restaurateurs and past patrons across the country, was saddened to learn of his passing earlier this month. Today, however, I am honored to join with the countless people who were touched by his graciousness and charm in celebrating Anthony's unique American journey. Anthony Athanas came to the United States in 1915 to pursue a dream and through hard work and perseverance, along with his instinctual hospitality and keen business sense; Anthony came to embody that dream. His entry into the world of restaurants was by way of working on lighting and the maintenance of stoves. With a rapidly growing love of the pace and hustle of the hospitality business, Anthony opened his first restaurant, ``Anthony of Hawthorn,'' in Lynn, MA, in 1937. This endeavor was quickly followed by four more restaurants; Hawthorne by the Sea, General Glover House, Anthony's Cummaquid Inn and Pier 4. Of the 5, Anthony's Pier 4, opened in 1963, would be his most famous and enduring. Anthony's Pier 4 became famous for serving quality New England seafood to visitors from all over the world and by the late-1960's Anthony's Pier 4 was the port of call for movie stars, signers, performers of all sorts and athletes. Irrespective of name recognition or social standing, every guest received the same gracious reception from Anthony. To walk in his door was to be regarded and treated as someone special. This hospitable approach had practical applications as well, proven by the restaurant's ranking as the fifth most successful restaurant in the country in 1984. The embrace he received from his peers in the restaurant community was complete and sustained. He received the Silver Plate Award from the International Foodservice Manufacturers Association, the Ivy Award of Distinction from Institutions/VFM Magazine, the Golden Door Award from the International Institute of Boston, the Restaurant of the Year Award in 1976 from the National Restaurant Association amongst many others. The best business leaders in our country are people who not only excel in commerce but also embrace the larger needs of their community. Anthony embraced this notion with the same passion and determination that defined his professional life. He contributed time, energy and resources to preserving our national history at the USS Constitution Museum Foundation, reached out to other entrepreneurs through the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, brought comfort to suffering families through his work with the American Cancer Society, and helped create the next generation of restaurateurs through his support of the American Institute of Food and Wine. Anthony breathed real life and meaning into the American Dream by not only maximizing its possibilities for him and his family but by expanding those very same opportunities for others. The last time I walked into Anthony's Pier 4 I was greeted in the same way I have been for years; with a smile and handshake from a true gentleman. Anthony Athanas was a great man, one who sought the American Dream and through hard work and his love of people ended up defining it. We mourn his passing, but we are deeply grateful for his time on earth.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the past several weeks, the Senate has been consumed with President Bush's judicial nominations. We have debated the constitutionality of the nuclear option, and we have debated the merits of the judicial nominees themselves. In the past 2 weeks, the Senate has confirmed 6 nominees bringing the total of confirmed judges to 214 out of 218. I voted for two of these nominees: Richard A. Griffin and David W. McKeague, both of whom were nominated to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. These two individuals were highly rated by the American Bar Association, and, although I disagree with their politics, I believe they will be fair and impartial jurists. I voted against the other four nominees, none of whom I believe deserved lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. Each one has demonstrated an unwillingness to follow the law when it conflicts with his or her extreme conservative political ideology, and each one embraces a judicial philosophy which would severely curtail constitutionally protected civil rights and civil liberties. Confirming these nominees was a mistake, and their appointments diminish the strength and integrity of the Federal judiciary. Take, for example, Priscilla Owen. While on the Texas Supreme Court, Priscilla Owen repeatedly attempted to rewrite the law from the bench as her dissent in an abortion case concerning parental consent and judicial bypass clearly demonstrates. Justice Owen did not like the fact that the Texas law permitted abortions without parental consent in certain circumstances. As it turns out, she was not the only one. The majority did not like the law either, but, unlike Justice Owen, they honored their sworn duty to uphold it. In their words, they: recognize that judges' personal views may inspire inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric. Nevertheless, the [abortion] issue's highly-charged nature does not excuse judges who impose their own personal convictions into what must be a strictly legal inquiry. We might personally prefer, as citizens and parents, that a minor honor her parents' right to be involved in such a profound decision. But the Legislature has said that Doe may consent to an abortion without notifying her parents if she demonstrates that she is mature and sufficiently well informed. As judges, we cannot ignore the statute or the record before us. Whatever our personal feelings may be, we must respect the rule of law. Then Justice--and now Attorney General--Alberto Gonzales was much more direct in his criticism of Justice Owen's decision in this matter. He chastised Owen for rewriting the Parental Notification Act in a way that created nonstatutory hurdles to obtaining a judicial by-pass. He called it ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism'' and noted that: [a]s a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect and guide the education, safety, health, and development of their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the Legislature has elected not to do so. Entrusting Priscilla Owen with a lifetime appointment to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did not strengthen the Federal judiciary, Mr. President, it weakened it. Janice Rogers Brown has not only shown her willingness to re-write our Federal laws but has also indicated a desire to re-interpret the U.S. Constitution, even if doing so would reverse 70-year-old precedent. Justice Brown has publicly supported a return to the era of Lochner v. New York, one of the most discredited Supreme Court cases in history. Without going into the details, it is fair to say that even staunch conservatives view Lochner as a clear case of the worst kind of judicial activism. Justice Scalia has criticized it, stating that Lochner was discredited because it sought to impose a particular economic philosophy on the Constitution. Justice Brown thinks Justice Scalia is wrong. She explained, I quote, that it dawned on me that the problem may not be judicial activism. The problem may be the world view--amounting to altered political and social consciousness--out of which judges now fashion their judicial decisions. Justice Brown brought that same kind of activism to bear on her lone dissent in the 2001 case of San Remo Hotel v. California, when she interpreted the Constitution--in this case the Takings Clause--to advance her personal economic theories. Placing Janice Rogers Brown on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did not strengthen our Federal judiciary, Mr. President, it irreversibly damaged it. William H. Pryor Jr. has been a constant and outspoken advocate for scaling back constitutionally guaranteed rights. Pryor opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and has called Roe v. Wade a creation out of thin air of a constitutional right to murder an unborn child. As the attorney general of Alabama, Pryor filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court equating private consensual sex between same-sex couples with activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia. The Supreme Court rejected Pryor's arguments when it found the Texas law criminalizing private, consensual sexual intimacy between same-sex adults to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also rejected Pryor's argument, filed in another amicus brief, that the eight amendment permits the execution of mentally retarded offenders. William Pryor's consistent pursuit of extreme and incorrect legal views should have been a red flag for my colleagues. It should have demonstrated how dangerous placing him on the Federal bench with lifetime tenure would be. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it did not. As a result, our Federal judiciary will have less ability to protect the constitutional rights we hold so dear. Thomas B. Griffith presents a similar threat to our constitutional rights, particularly to the rights of women. As a member of the President's Commission on Opportunity and Athletics, Mr. Griffith made a radical proposal to eliminate the ``proportionality test'' in title IX cases. The proportionality test has long been used for determining compliance with title IX and requires that the school in question demonstrate that the athletic opportunities for males and females are in substantial proportion to each gender's representation in the student body of the school. As support for his proposal, Mr. Griffith stated that he was unilaterally opposed to the use of numeric formulas to evaluate title IX compliance. He added that, in his view, the proportionality test--and the use of numeric formulas--violates the equal protection clause, despite the fact that eight Circuit Courts of Appeals have rejected that very position. Mr. Griffith's statement demonstrates a lack of respect for previous court rulings and raises questions about whether, as a judge, he would follow established precedent. In fact, the ABA has rated him partially not qualified. With legal views so clearly out of the mainstream, Mr. Griffith's confirmation seriously undermines the strength of the Federal judiciary. His confirmation is particularly problematic given the fact that his voice will be added to that of Janice Rogers Brown, both of whom have been confirmed to the D.C. Circuit. Thus, after months of debate, we are left with a Federal judiciary less likely to protect individual rights and more likely to undermine the legal principles which Americans hold so dear. And, because we have spent so much time debating these unqualified judges, we, as U.S. Senators, have not been able to address the very real problems facing the American people. Problems like ensuring people have adequate health care and top-notch educations. Problems like securing our energy independence and providing for our Nation's military families. Currently, 44 million Americans do not have health care, and as a result, many middle-class Americans are one doctor's bill away from bankruptcy. This is particularly troublesome given that eleven million of those uninsured are children--sons and daughters of working parents. Our education system is terribly underfunded. Teachers are being asked to provide more with less, and, as a result, students of every age from head start to higher education--are getting sub-par educations. Our Nation is now more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. We rely heavily on Middle East countries that do not share our values--a reliance that makes us more vulnerable every day--yet still, Americans are suffering at the pump, paying $2.12 a gallon. Our military families, the people who are the front line in the war on terror and allow us to live life as we know, struggle unnecessarily to pay the bills and deal with lost benefits when loved ones are called to duty. Our country has amassed record deficits, mounting debts that cede a dangerous amount of control over America's economic future to central bankers in Asia and oil cartels in the Middle East. These are the issues that we should be debating. These are the problems that plague Americans daily. The judicial confirmation process should be quick and easy, allowing us the time we need to work on the real problems facing this great Nation. All we need is for the President to take seriously the Senate's role of providing advice and consent. We need the President to nominate more individuals like Richard A. Griffin and David W. McKeague, principled jurists who are committed to following the law and upholding our constitutional rights, and less individuals like Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Thomas Griffith, conservative ideologues who are not afraid to rewrite our laws to further their political agenda. I can only hope that he will do so in the future, sparing the Senate from endless hours of debate on unqualified, dangerous judges. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Cam Neely was recently inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. That is the highest honor for a professional athlete, but I believe it is appropriate for us to honor him in the Halls of Congress as well. Cam Neely is a special citizen, one worthy of recognition and emulation. As a hockey player, Cam Neely was unique. His rare combination of strength, size and skill made him difficult to stop and feared by all opponents. Whether fighting through pain or battles on the boards, Cam Neely's play taught us the meaning of hard work and perseverance. His career may have been cut short by injury, but there is no doubt that Cam Neely was one of the finest players to wear a Boston Bruins uniform, and indeed one of the greatest ``power forwards'' ever to play the game. Since hanging up his skates, Cam Neely has devoted his life to service. The Cam Neely Foundation has raised over $11 million in the last decade to help cancer patients and their families during treatment. Thousands of New England families have found hope during difficult times due to the generosity and hard work of Cam Neely. In his first career, Cam Neely brought us all the joy of victory. In his second career, Cam Neely brings joy to families who need it most, while providing a model of service to his countless fans. Cam Neely is an American in whom we can all be proud and who deserves our recognition today for a career that has been hall of fame in every respect.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I start by thanking Senator Landrieu and Senator Allen for their leadership on this effort and for all those descendants of families who have been absolutely extraordinary in the way in which they relived their pain, brought it to the public view, kind of laid their hearts out on the table in a very real and emotional way--that has been a wonderful part of this process--and the way in which the book Jimmy Allen put together has helped to unleash a pain that was never lost, never forgotten by anybody, but never quite had a place to play itself out--until this public effort that is being made by the Senate. There is no small irony, I suspect, in the fact that the Senate is here sort of making good on what the Senate failed to do. I personally am struck by even, at this significant moment, the undeniable and inescapable reality that there are not 100 Senators as cosponsors. Maybe by the end of the evening there will be, but as we stand here with this resolution passed by voice vote, there are not. Moreover, all the people in the Senate and the press understand how we work here. It is critical that we take the step we are taking and have taken, but at the same time wouldn't it have been just that much more extraordinary and significant if we were having a recorded vote with all 100 Senators recording their votes? We are not. So even today, as we take this gigantic step, we are also saying to America that there is a journey still to travel. I don't want to diminish one iota--and I don't mean to because I believe what is happening here today is so significant, but at the same time, it has to give all of us a kind of kick in the rear end to get us out there to do that which is necessary, which gives fuller meaning to the words that are going to be expressed here and have been expressed here--most important, to give fuller meaning to the emotions that have been laid bare for all of America to understand better by the families who have come here to share this with us. I also join not just in thanking Mr. Cameron and Ms. Johnson, and others, but Janet Langhart, who is here with our former colleague and the former Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen. We certainly appreciate her commitment to this effort and the meaning of this to her and to all of the families who have come here together. It is pretty incredible to think about it. Lynchings really replaced slavery. They came in the aftermath of slavery, around the 1880s. Between the 1880s and 1968--I have to pause when I think about that because I was already a young officer in the military. I had left college. I remember the early part of the 1960s devoted to the civil rights movement, the Mississippi voter registration drive. We were still recording lynchings during that period of time, but I did not know it, not in the sense that we know it today. I thought I knew history pretty well, but I will tell you, until I saw this array of photographs which then sparked my curiosity to read more about it, I had always thought, like most Americans, that a lynching was just slinging a rope over a branch of a tree and that was it. The story is so much more gruesome than that, so much more dark and horrendous as a moment in American history that it is really hard to believe it happened at all in our country, which is another reason it is so important that we are taking this step to remember. We have seen revisionism in almost every part of history, including the Holocaust. So it is good we are taking this step today, and it is good we have these photographs now brought together as a compilation of history, and it is good that the Senate is taking this effort tonight. It is extraordinary to think that 99 percent of the perpetrators of lynchings escaped any reach of the law whatsoever. It is incredible to think that almost 5,000 people are recorded as incidents, and how many are not recorded? How many went without the local authorities in each of those communities--who were already complicitous in what happened, standing by, permissive, turning away from basic human rights--how many of those incidents were not recorded? A lot of us have read a lot about World War II and the Holocaust and other moments of history where there is a knock on the door and life changes. But you have to stop and really think what it was like in all but four States in our country, not just for African Americans but for new people, for folks who had come here from other places to live the American dream. In some cases, they were not knocks, they were just angry mobs screaming and yelling with torches and running rampant through a household, dragging out people screaming. In other cases, there was a pretext, more polite, but it was never polite in what it ended up as. Lynchings were not just lynchings; they were organized torture. They were incidents of kinds of torture that defied imagination, about which you do not even want to talk, the kinds of things that any decent society ought to stand up against. People were literally tortured for sport in front of people, and crowds would cheer--bedlam. Children were brought to be spectators. Some of these photographs show kids standing there with their eyes wide open and adults standing beside them, who were supposed to be more responsible, glued to the horror they were witnessing. In the first half of the last century alone, in the 20th century, over 200 antilynching bills were introduced in the Congress--200. Three times, the House of Representatives passed antilynching legislation. Seven Presidents asked for this legislation to be passed. The Senate said no. So it is important that we are here today to apologize. Some people wonder what the effect of an apology is. We can understand that question being asked. This is sort of a day of reckoning for us as a country, it is a moment for the conscience of our country to be listened to by everybody. It is an embarrassingly and unforgivably late moment in coming, but we are addressing a stain on our history, and we are working to heal wounds across generations. I believe that is important. Some people might try to diminish that, but the very lack of unity I mentioned earlier, in fact, goes to show why this apology is so important and why we all have to keep moving in this direction. No words, obviously, are going to undo the horror of those 5,000 Americans losing their lives. No apology is going to just wipe away the memories of Mr. Cameron and others, though they have shown a greater graciousness of understanding than others even at this moment. The fact is that this resolution can be one more step in the effort for all of us to try to get over the divide that still exists between races and as a result of Jim Crow in this country, but only if we face the truth. It is the Bible that reminds us that it is the truth that sets us free. And so it is that we have to embrace it, commit ourselves to putting our hearts and our actions where our words have now preceded us. This should be an important step forward, but, frankly, it will only do that if we do not stop here. The truth is that it is not enough to face the horror of lynchings if we then just walk out of here and consciously turn away from legally separate and unequal schools in America. It is not enough to decry decades of refusing to use the force of law against lynchings if today we refuse to use the force of law to tear down the barriers that prevent people from voting, barriers in the economy, divisions in the health care system that works for too few of those who are in the minority in America. It is only by reconciling the past that we have to understand where we have to go in the future and get there. I remind my colleagues to remember the words of Julian Bond when he dedicated that beautiful, simple memorial in Montgomery, AL, to those who gave their lives for civil rights. He said it was erected as much to remember the dead as it was for those young people who cannot remember the period when the sacrifices began, with its small cruelties and monstrous injustices, its petty indignities and its death dealing in inequities. There are many too young to remember that from that seeming hopelessness, there arose a mighty movement, simple in its tactics, overwhelming in its impact. That is why we have to remember the period of the lynchings. That is why this resolution is important--for the young people who do not know what it means to wake up in the middle of the night to hear that knock, for young people to need to commit to help our country complete the journey in order to guarantee we make it all that it promises to be and can be. We will never erase what Mr. Cameron or Mr. Wright and too many others went through, but we certainly can honor the legacy of these civil rights heroes and the martyrs who came before us by doing right by them and by the country. I hope this resolution will help us do that. I yield the floor.