Reservist Opportunities and Protection of Education Act

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will help our Nation's reservists and members of the National Guard who have been called to active duty.

Since 1991, the U.S. military has significantly scaled down its troop levels to reflect the end of the Cold War. With the reduction of active duty troops, the military has become increasingly dependent on the Reserves and National Guard to supplement troops who have been sent to deal with crises all over the world.

In addition to this, we have had to rely on an increasingly diverse group of people to fight our wars. The conflict in Afghanistan was heavily reliant on new technologies in the air and personnel intensive techniques on the ground. In order to properly execute the war on terror, we have relied on highly skilled individuals such as linguists and Civil Affairs personnel who have worked closely with the population of Afghanistan. We will have to rely on them again in Iraq. Many of these men and women have been reservists.

These two trends reflect a dramatic shift in the structure of our armed forces. Gone are the Cold War days when we had a massive military positioned all over the globe. We are now reliant on a much leaner force, which views the Reserves and National Guard as necessary components to any conflict, and not forces of last resort.

Between 1945 and 1989, a period which encompassed most of the Cold War, reservists and Guardsmen were called up four times: during the Korean War, the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Vietnam War. A majority of those mobilized during this period were called up during the Korean War, when over 800,000 troops were activated to supplement the 900,000 active duty forces fighting in Korea.

Between 1990 and today, reservists and Guardsmen have been called up six separate times. Over 230,000 reservists and Guardsmen were mobilized for the Gulf War, forming nearly half of the force that drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Since then, reservists and Guardsmen have been activated for the Haiti Intervention, the ongoing Bosnian Peacekeeping mission, the ongoing patrol of the No Fly Zones in Iraq, the Kosovo conflict, and the War on Terrorism which has seen 151,348 reservists and Guardsmen activated in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle. Many of them are in the Persian Gulf Region today.

Over the past ten years, the OPTEMPO of the Reserves has increased by fifty percent.

This OPTEMPO has had a significant strain on reservists and their families. In almost every instance, when a reservist or Guardsman is activated, their military salary is significantly smaller then their civilian salary. In many cases, service member's income is cut in half. This places a particular strain to reservists and Guardsmen as their household budget is structured by their civilian salary. The decrease in income that activation brings makes it increasingly difficult to pay the bills. Whether or not the Nation is at war, mortgages, rent, credit card debt, student loans, and other household expenses must be paid.

When we send our fighting men and women into harm's way, it is important that they concentrate on one

thing: their mission. When Guardsmen and reservists are worried about having enough money for rent of the mortgage or whether their children have enough to see a doctor, they cannot concentrate on the mission, and this becomes a readiness issue.

Many corporations volunteer to make up the difference between the military and civilian salaries of their Guardsmen and reservists. Not only do these employers sacrifice important members of their companies for national defense, they hold their jobs for them and they voluntarily choose to continue paying them. In some instances, employers have continued to provide health insurance and other benefits. This represents a significant burden that the employer has undertaken, in order to ensure that their employees and their families are taken care of during times of national emergency.

In order to alleviate the burden that these employers face and to encourage more employers to pay the difference to Reserve and Guard employees, I have drafted legislation that would provide an incentive for employers to make up the difference between the military and civilian pay of activated reservists. The Reservists and Guardsmen Pay Protection Act of 2003 provides a tax credit to employers who continue paying their service members after they are activated. It also requires the Federal Government to make up the difference between civilian and military pay for Federal employees who are activated.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, many bills were introduced in the last Congress that would lower the age at

which Reservists can receive retirement benefits. Most of these bills were met with resistance from the Department of Defense, due to cost estimates over a 10-year period. It is my hope that his Bill, the Reserve Retirement and Retention Act of 2003, will serve as a compromise measure and deliver retirement benefits to Reservists and Guardsmen at an earlier age. This legislation would lower the retirement age of a Reservist by one year for every 2-year period that he or she serves past the requisite 20 years for retirement. For example, if a Reservist should serve for 22 years, he or she could receive retirement benefits at age 59. This legislation will serve as a critical tool in encouraging the most experienced Reservists and Guardsmen to stay past the 20-year mark. It is my hope that this measure will encourage our Reservists and Guardsmen to stay in their units longer, while making their retirement benefits more generous for them and their families.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, When the President give the order to activate reservists and National Guardsmen, the lives of those men and women are put on hold. Businesses, careers, and families are left behind so that America's interests may be served. Students make up a substantial part of our National Guard and Reserve forces. When these students are activated, it jeopardizes their academic standing, as well as their scholarships and grants. This bill would preserve their academic standing for the duration of their service as well as a one year period that follows that service. It would also preserve their scholarships and grants, as well as entitle them to a refund of unused tuition and fees. Federal law already safeguards the employment status of activated reservists and Guardsmen. It is time that we extend the same guarantee to students.

This legislation would require colleges, universities, and community colleges to grant National Guardsmen and reservists a leave of military absence when they are called to active duty. This leave of absence would last while the student is serving on active duty and a one year period at the conclusion of active service. This bill would preserve the academic credits that the student had earned before being activated. It would also preserve the scholarships and grants awarded to the student before being activated. Under this legislation, students would be entitled to receive a refund of tuition and fees or credit the tuition and fees to the next period of enrollment after the student returns from military leave. If a student elects to receive a refund, it would allow them to receive a full refund, minus the percentage of time the student spent enrolled in classes.

The protections that are already afforded our reservists and Guardsmen are appropriate considering the hardships they endure on the nation's behalf. We need to acknowledge the many college students who are in the ranks of the Guard and Reserve and extend to them the protections they deserve. In this day of uncertainty on the world stage, our reservists must be prepared to be called up at a moments notice. Thousands have already been activated for Operations Enduring Freedom, and many thousands more are either in Kuwait or on their way there. Once they get to their duty station, they need to focus all of their attention on the mission. This legislation provides our student reservists with the proper safeguards on their academic career which will allow them to accomplish their mission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my good friends, Senators Grassley and Specter, to introduce the Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003. This bill does not change or diminish any power available to the government in the pursuit of homeland security, but it does create important mechanisms to allow the Congress and the public to assess how effectively and appropriately the government is using its domestic surveillance powers.

I also rise to speak about an important bipartisan report being released today by myself, Senator Specter, and Senator Grassley entitled ``FBI Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary Committee: FISA Implementation Failures,'' ``FIF Report''. The report summarizes our joint conclusions based upon our bipartisan oversight of the FBI and DOJ's performance in using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, ``FISA'', an important tool in conducting domestic surveillance. The report distills our mutual findings and conclusions from numerous bipartisan hearings, classified briefings and other oversight activities. It concludes that the FBI continues to be in need of serious reform. The report also sets forth our bipartisan disappointment with the DOJ and FBI's non-responsiveness to our oversight efforts and the resulting necessity for better oversight tools, such as the bill we introduce today.

Our committee worked with the FBI and the Justice Department to achieve initial reforms both through administrative steps and also through legislation. Most notably, last fall we enacted a new Department of Justice charter that included some provisions of the FBI Reform Act. We need to enact the rest of that bipartisan bill.

Taken together, this bill and report represent a bipartisan statement about the importance of oversight and, where possible, sunshine on the government's domestic surveillance efforts. Only by fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to conduct such oversight, can we in Congress help to protect both the security and the liberty of the American people.

In times of national stress there is an understandable impulse for the government to ask for more power. Sometimes more power is needed, but many times it is not. After the September 11 attacks, we worked together in a bipartisan fashion and with unprecedented speed to craft and enact the USA PATRIOT Act which enhanced the government's powers.

Now, as word continues to circulate about a possible sequel to the USA PATRIOT Act that the Department of Justice is considering in secret and that supposedly would give government even more power, it is constructive for us to first examine and understand how Federal agencies are using the power they already have. We must answer two questions.

First, is that power being used effectively, so that our citizens not only feel safer, but are in fact safer?

Second, is that power being used appropriately, so that our liberties are not sacrificed?

In short, before we can craft and enact new laws, we must first make sure that the Department of Justice and FBI are properly using the laws that are already on the books. That is the purpose of enhanced Congressional oversight.

Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act:

Today, with the Senior Senator from Iowa and the Senior Senator from

Pennsylvania, I am introducing the bipartisan Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003. This bill provides basic information to Congress and the American people about the FBI's use of FISA to conduct surveillance on Americans. Such domestic surveillance is certainly appropriate in some cases, and the bill does not intrude in any way upon law enforcement or diminish its ability to conduct FISA surveillance when necessary and appropriate. Nor does it require the Department of Justice to publicly release any sensitive or classified information. Rather, it seeks reporting only on the aggregate number of FISA wiretaps and other surveillance measures directed specifically against Americans each year. In this way, the public and Congress can assess over time whether the government has turned more of its powerful surveillance techniques on its own citizens, as opposed to non-U.S. persons. If necessary, we can ask it to explain its actions.

The amendment also clarifies that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, and FISA Court of Review have the authority to adopt rules and procedures, and it requires that those rules be shared with the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives as well as the Supreme Court. In the last year, and only after requests from Senators Grassley, Specter and myself, the FISC shared its rules with Congress for the first time. One of those rules and one which was eventually rejected by the FISA Review Court embodied a controversial legal interpretation of a provision we crafted in the USA PATRIOT Act. The Congress ought to have been immediately informed of that court rule either by the FISC or the DOJ, but it was not. It is entirely appropriate that a court be enabled to promulgate its own rules. It is entirely inappropriate that those rules be kept secret from Congress.

Consistent with national security, the bill directs the Attorney General to include in an annual public report the portions of applications to and opinions of the FISC and FISA Court of Review that contain significant legal interpretations of FISA or the Constitution. These disclosures will not include the facts of any particular case, which this provision requires to be redacted in order to preserve national security. This type of disclosure, however, will prevent secret case law from developing which interprets both FISA and the Constitution in ways unknown to the Congress and the public.

The first annual report required under this provision is also to include the same type of legal information for the four years before the year of the first report.

Finally, the bill would require a report to appropriate committees of Congress on the use of National Security Letters to request information from public libraries or libraries affiliated with high schools or universities. Such letters are functionally equivalent to an administrative subpoena and require no court approval. We have heard from members of the library community that the FBI may be returning to a discredited practice from the Hoover days of monitoring public and college libraries to ascertain what books people are reading. In fact, a media report from Vermont, which I ask consent to place in the Record, indicates that bookstore owners there are scared to keep records for just this reason. Again, this provision would not in any way limit the use of National Security Letters, but would merely require an annual report of such activities to Congress, so that we can ascertain whether or not these administrative subpoenas are being used for improper purposes. This section would also ensure that reports on the use of such letters are provided to all appropriate oversight committees.

This enhanced reporting is exactly what was called for by the American Bar Association in a resolution adopted on February 10, and echoed in a Washington Post editorial on February 12, 2003. As the Post editorialized, the Department of Justice ``needs to disclose how it is using the [powers] it already has. Yet the Justice Department has balked at reasonable oversight and public information requests . . . Congress should insist on a full understanding of what the [D]epartment is doing.'' I ask unanimous consent to print a copy both of the ABA resolution as well as the Washington Post editorial in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 447, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will approve a Senate resolution, which I introduced with my colleagues Senators Hatch and Kennedy, calling on the President to exercise his constitutional authority to pardon posthumously the world's first African-American heavyweight champion, John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson, for his racially motivated 1913 conviction.

For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with the plight of Jack Johnson, he is considered by many to be the most dominant athlete in boxing history. Born in the Jim Crow-era South in 1878 to parents who were former slaves, he realized his talent for the sweet science early in life. In order to make a living, Johnson traveled across the country fighting anyone willing to face him. But he was denied repeatedly on purely racial grounds a chance to fight for the world/ heavyweight title. For too long, African American fighters were not seen as legitimate contenders for the championship. Fortunately, after years of perseverance, Johnson was finally granted an opportunity in 1908 to fight the then-reigning title holder, Tommy Burns. Johnson handily defeated Burns to become the first African-American heavyweight champion.

Jack Johnson's success in the ring, and sometimes indulgent lifestyle outside of it, fostered resentment among many and raised concerns that Johnson's continued dominance in the ring would somehow disrupt what was then perceived by many as a ``racial order.'' So, a search for a white boxer who could defeat Johnson began--a recruitment effort that was dubbed the search for the ``great white hope.'' That hope arrived in the person of former champion Jim Jeffries who returned from retirement to fight Johnson in 1910. But when Johnson defeated Jeffries, race riots broke out as many sought to avenge the loss.

Following the defeat of the ``great white hope,'' the Federal Government launched an investigation into the legality of Johnson's relationships with white women. The Mann Act, which was enacted in 1910, outlawed the transport of white women across State lines for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for ``any other immoral purpose.'' Using the ``any other immoral purpose'' clause as a pretext, Federal law enforcement officials set out to ``get'' Johnson.

On October 18, 1912, he was arrested for transporting his white girlfriend across State lines in violation of the Act. But the charges were dropped when the woman, whose mother had originally tipped off Federal officials, refused to cooperate with authorities. She later married Johnson.

Yet Federal authorities persisted in their persecution of Johnson, persuading a former white girlfriend of Johnson's to testify that he had transported her across State lines. Her testimony resulted in Johnson's conviction in 1913, when he was sentenced to 1 year and a day in Federal prison. During Johnson's appeal, one prosecutor admitted that ``Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but that it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks.''

Johnson fled the country to Canada, and then traveled to various European and South American countries, before losing his heavyweight championship title in Cuba in 1915. He returned to the United States in 1920, surrendered to authorities, and served nearly a year in Federal prison. Despite this obvious injustice, Johnson refused to turn his back on the country that betrayed him. During World War II, he traveled the country to promote war bonds. Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946.

A gross injustice was done to Jack Johnson when a Federal law was misused to send him to prison. The Senate's passage of this resolution and the President's pardon of Jack Johnson would not right this injustice, but it would recognize it, and shed light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Taking such actions would allow future generations to grasp fully what Jack Johnson accomplished against great odds and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the taint of his criminal conviction.

Jack Johnson was a flawed individual who was certainly controversial. But he was also a historic American figure, whose life and accomplishments played an instrumental role in our Nation's progress toward true equality under the law. And he deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction,

which denied him of his liberty, and served to diminish his athletic, cultural, and historic significance.

The pardon of Jack Johnson would not be an act that would benefit Mr. Johnson or his heirs. Rather, his pardon would be a nominal but useful corrective of a shameful injustice that would serve as a testament of America's resolve to live up to its noble ideals of justice and equality. Instead of erasing from our memories the injustice that deprived a great athlete of his livelihood and freedom, we have an opportunity to speak as one in condemning the public intolerance and misuse of Federal authority that was perpetrated against this man.

While we know that we cannot possibly right the wrong that was done to Jack Johnson, we can take this small step toward acknowledging his mistreatment and removing the cloud that casts a shadow on his legacy.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

I will mention there is a great American named Ken Burns who may be the foremost maker of documentaries in America. Ken Burns, Mohammad Ali, and many other respected figures throughout America have formed a committee for the pardon of Jack Johnson. I hope we can get it sooner or later.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse building now under construction at Tulare and ``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.''

It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and persistence which contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build a new courthouse in Fresno for more than a decade.

In the course of his work, Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called ``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program was so well received by national court administrators that is now a nationwide program run by Judge Coyle.

In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the community with whom he worked, produced a major milestone when the groundbreaking for the new courthouse took place.

Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge Coyle earned his law degree from University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained until his appointment by President Reagan.

Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many judicial leadership positions, including: Chair of the Space and Security Committee; Chair of the Conference of the Chief District Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth Circuit District Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; and President of the Fresno County Bar.

My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge Robert E. Coyle.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to transfer the B.F. Sisk Federal Courthouse in Fresno, CA to the County of Fresno, when the new Federal courthouse is completed.

Fresno County is rapidly growing county in the heart of California's Great Central Valley. The County of Fresno's Superior Court has a serious need for new court space that will grow in the years ahead. The Sisk Building contains courthouses and related space that will help the people of Fresno County meet those needs. The Sisk Building's existing security measures are a perfect fit for Fresno County's justice system.

This legislation is a common sense measure that will allow appropriate utilization of the Sisk Building, while contributing to the ongoing revitalization of downtown Fresno. I am proud that it is yet another opportunity for the Federal Government to improve the lives of Fresno County's people.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve flood protection for Sacramento, CA. The flood control project authorized by this bill has been evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will be conducted in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 5, 2002. This is a companion bill to one that Representative Matsui is introducing today in the House.

Currently, Sacramento has woefully inadequate flood protection. This bill would raise the existing walls of Folsom Dam by seven feet, which would substantially increase flood protection for the Sacramento region. Without this improvement, $40 billion of property, including the California State Capitol, 6 major hospitals, 26 nursing home facilities, over 100 schools, three major freeway systems, and approximately 160,000 homes and apartments, are at risk if there is a devastating flood.

For a city of its size, Sacramento falls shockingly below the flood protection that it deserves. The Folsom Mini-Raise is the critical next step in providing Sacramento necessary flood protection, enabling the system to handle storms far larger than any recorded event in the American River Watershed.

Previous plans to raise the level of the Folsom Dam called for the building of a temporary bridge to handle the traffic that would be disrupted while the Folsom Dam Road was closed during the construction project. Security concerns now warrant an indefinite closure of the Folsom Dam Road.

So, in addition to authorizing the Mini-Raise, this bill authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation to work with the State of California to design and construct a permanent bridge west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam over the American River to replace the current two-lane road over the dam. It will alleviate security concerns by moving traffic away from the dam while still providing the thousands of area commuters with a reliable means of transportation across the river.

This bill would provide important safeguards to the people of one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation. By raising Folsom Dam and replacing the road across the dam, we can greatly increase public safety in the Sacramento area. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in calling for a presidential pardon for Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion in boxing, who was unjustly persecuted in 1913 for being famous, wealthy, powerful--and black.

Jack Johnson was the son of a former slave. He grew up in Galveston in the era of segregation, harsh racial bigotry, and vicious lynching. But Johnson was tough and talented, and he saw a way up. He fought for money in ``battle royals,'' in which groups of black men fought until the last one standing was declared the winner. He turned professional and, at the age of 25, won the Negro heavyweight championship. It was 1903, and boxing was widely and closely followed throughout the Nation.

White fighters didn't fight blacks professionally, but Johnson's popularity grew. He was an innovative boxer and was sometimes ridiculed for his smart and relaxed style, even though it was considered a brilliant style when it was later adopted by white boxers.

With no worlds left to conquer in segregated boxing, Johnson set his sights on challenging white boxers, and sportswriters began to support his challenge. Jim Jeffries, the white heavyweight champion, retired, rather than face Johnson. The title went to Tommy Burns, and a match was finally scheduled. Johnson defeated him easily, and whites immediately began to scour the country for a ``great white hope'' to win the title. Under intense pressure, Jeffries came out of retirement to face Johnson on the Fourth of July, 1910, in a fight called the ``Battle of the Century.'' Johnson defeated him easily.

Blacks in cities and towns across the country celebrated and some were attacked and even killed. Race riots erupted in some cities. In 1912, the Justice Department tried to do what no boxer could do at the time, and knock Johnson out. The Justice Department went to vindictive lengths to punish the heavyweight champion of the world because of the color of his skin. The law they chose was the Mann Act, which had been enacted by Congress in 1910, and which made it a crime to transport a woman across state lines ``for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery,'' or for ``any other immoral purpose.''

Johnson flaunted his boxing success and defined bigotry. He had money and power at a time when the vast majority of blacks were poor and powerless. He was, athletically, the king of the hill, when blacks were regarded as physically inferior to whites. Relationships between a black man and white woman were often deemed ``immoral'' in those days, but Johnson ignored such views. ``I act in my relations with people of other races as if prejudice did not exist,'' he said.

Johnson's relationships with white women enraged whites, and the Justice Department searched his past for a suitable case and convicted him. Most of the charges were thrown out on appeal, but enough remained to sentence Johnson to one year in prison. At the time, the prosecutor said Johnson may have been persecuted ``as an individual'' but ``it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks.'' Johnson was the embodiment of the hopes of countless blacks, and the prosecutor admitted the conviction was meant to ``send a message.'' Johnson served his one-year sentence, was shunned by the boxing community, and died in 1946.

A pardon now would also send a message--that Johnson deserves his rightful place in sports history and the Nation's history.

Civil rights is still the unfinished business in America. Sadly, generations of Americans whose names we will never know suffered through whole lifetimes of bigotry because of the racism that stained our Nation for so long. Correcting such a major symbol of injustice in the past reminds us of how much we still must do in the future.

I commend Senator McCain for introducing this resolution, and I urge Congress to approve it.