End Government Shutdowns Act

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about a resolution I have submitted which calls on the President of the United States to posthumously pardon the world's first African-American heavyweight champion, John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friend, the majority leader, Harry Reid and the Senator from Massachusetts Mr. Cowan.

I would point out that the majority leader of the Senate was once an excellent fighter himself, of great skill and agility, which he continues to display here as majority leader of the Senate. I would also like to thank him for his commitment to the sport of boxing and for joining me again in attempting to do justice for a man who was done a great injustice.

For my colleagues who may not be familiar with the story of the late Jack Johnson, he is considered by many to be the most dominant athlete in boxing history. Arthur John Johnson was born in Galveston, TX, in 1878 to parents who were former slaves. At an early age, he realized his talent for the sweet science. 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, in Sydney, Australia. Even though the fight lasted 14 rounds, Johnson handily defeated Burns to become the first African-American heavyweight champion of the world.

Jack Johnson's success in the ring, and sometimes indulgent lifestyle outside of it, fostered resentment among many and raised concerns that his continued dominance in the ring would somehow disrupt what was then perceived by many as a racial order. So as history tells us, a search for a Caucasian boxer who could defeat Johnson began. This recruitment effort became known as the search for the ``Great White Hope.'' The so- called hope arrived in the person of former champion Jim Jeffries, who returned from retirement to fight Johnson in 1910. Johnson went on to defeat Jeffries, and as a shameful consequence race riots broke out in several cities as many sought to avenge Jeffries' defeat.

Following the loss of the ``Great White Hope,'' the Federal Government launched an investigation into the legality of Johnson's relationships with Caucasian women. At that time the Mann Act, which was enacted in 1910, outlawed the transport of Caucasian 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 Jack Johnson.

On October 18, 1912, the Federal Government got their man. On that day, Johnson was arrested for transporting his Caucasian girlfriend across State lines in violation of the Mann Act. However, the charges were subsequently dropped when the Caucasian female, whose mother had originally tipped off Federal officials, refused to cooperate with authorities. She later married Jack Johnson.

Not to be outdone, the Federal authorities remained persistent in their determination to persecute Johnson, persuading a former scorned Caucasian

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:

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.

After the trial, Johnson fled the country to Canada and then traveled to various European and South American countries before losing his heavyweight champion title in Cuba in 1915. Ultimately overcome by homesickness, Jack Johnson returned to the United States in 1920, surrendering to Federal authorities, and served nearly 1 year in Federal prison. Despite this obvious and clear injustice, Johnson refused to turn his back on the country that betrayed him. Mr. Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946 at the age of 68 years.

Today, as we look back on our Nation's history, the Jack Johnson case is a shameful stain apparent to all. Rectifying this injustice is long overdue. The resolution we submit today calls on the President to pardon Mr. Johnson posthumously. It recognizes the unjustness of what transpired and sheds light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Jack Johnson may have been a flawed individual, and he was certainly controversial during his day, but he was also a historic American figure whose life and accomplishments played an instrumental role in our Nation's development and progress toward true equality under the law.

There is no doubt Jack Johnson deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction which denied him his liberty and served to diminish his athletic, cultural, and historic significance. As a body we should adopt this resolution and continue to fight for a posthumous pardon for Jack Johnson to afford future generations the opportunity to grasp fully what Jack Johnson accomplished--against great odds--and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the taint of an unjust, racially motivated criminal conviction.

Sadly, there is no way for us to possibly right the wrong that was done to Jack Johnson during his lifetime, but what we can do is take this small step toward acknowledging his mistreatment and remove the cloud that casts a shadow on his legacy. After all, that cloud over Jack Johnson's legacy says more about our past wrongs than it could honestly ever say about Johnson's own. As such, I urge my colleagues to support and swiftly adopt the resolution which requests the President of the United States grant Jack Johnson a posthumous pardon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks tomorrow, Thursday, January 31, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 7, H.R. 325; that the following amendments, the text of which is at the desk, be the only first-degree agreements in order to the bill--Portman, dollar for dollar cuts, S. 43 text; Portman, government shutdown prevention, S. 29 text; Toomey, full faith and credit; and Paul, prohibition of F-16s to Egypt; that the only motion to commit in order to the bill be a Vitter motion to commit regarding spending cuts; that the time until 12:15 p.m. be for debate on the amendments, motion, and the bill, to run concurrently and be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, prior to votes in relation to the amendments and the Vitter motion in the order listed; that upon disposition of the amendments and the Vitter motion, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 325, as amended, if amended; that the amendments and the Vitter motion be subject to a 60- affirmative-vote threshold; that there be no amendments in order to any of the amendments or the Vitter motion prior to the votes; finally, that there will be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote and that all after the first vote be 10 minutes or less.

Through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, as the leader for the Republicans on that committee, he understands the importance of the military and what sequestration would do. I have spoken to the distinguished Senator previously--and, in fact, as late as this morning we talked--and there are Democrats who also believe there should be some relief given in regard to sequestration. The issue we have to work through is how we have a balance between the cuts in defense and nondefense.

So there are many different ways we could approach this, but I am committed to approaching it. I have said, and I will continue to say, sequestration was a last resort. We thought we would do better with the supercommittee. We didn't. So this is what we are faced with. I hope we can all work together to lessen the burden on defense spending and, of course, nondefense spending. That is what sequestration is all about. I am committed to doing that.

I am happy to work with my friend from Oklahoma. If he can't find enough allies, either Republicans or Democrats, I will be happy to continue to work with him to figure out a way we can have this issue brought before the Senate.

Mr. President, I think it is my choice, and I am confident the choice of the senior Senator from Oklahoma, to avoid sequestration. We need to do this through some type of balanced plan, and I am committed to doing that.

Mr. President, I would finally say it is not as if the Senator from Oklahoma is asking that the actual amount of dollars be lessened. He is just saying they should be rearranged. So I appreciate his good will on this legislation.

We need to get this bill to the President. So it is my intention, after the use or yielding back of time, to move to table these amendments and the Vitter motion.

We expect to have one vote tomorrow prior to the Senate recessing for caucus lunch meetings, and the remaining votes will occur after the caucus meetings. Again, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Oklahoma. I know how strongly he feels about the military and that he wants to try to relieve the pain in some way.

Reserving the right to object.

First of all, let me make a comment, if I could, to the Chair. It is my hope that we don't have sequestration with the military, with the Defense Department. I have been very much concerned about that. I am going to do everything I can to preclude that from happening. In the event that did happen--we are looking at about a month from now--I have an amendment I wanted to put on this bill. I could do it another way too, but perhaps as a freestanding bill. I wish to explain what it is, and then I wish to ask the distinguished majority leader a couple of questions.

The amendment I had, or that could be in a freestanding bill, would give the Secretary of Defense the flexibility to implement the cuts under the sequestration in the least harmful way possible, that would authorize him to have the power to make adjustments within the confines of the sequestration so if there would not be any more money, it would not change that. It would allow the Chiefs to examine and determine whether they could make some changes to make something that could be catastrophic maybe less catastrophic. I have supplied a copy to the leader's office.

What I wish to do--I don't want to object to this, because I want to make sure this continues. I wish to ask if I could have some latitude to help me to get this before the Senate so we could accomplish this.

I would say this, through the Chair, to the leader, that I have already talked to not just the Chair of the Joint Chiefs but all of the Chiefs. They all say that in a period of 1 month, quite frankly, they are starting right now to see if there is something they could put together to make it less onerous should we have to have that.

So I would like to ask if there is something that could be done through the leadership to help me get this done if the worst should happen and we should be faced with sequestration a month from now.

Through the Chair, I would make a comment that many times the distinguished leader has been helpful, such as with the highway bill and the pilots bill of rights and others, and I have to say I would not have been able to get them through without that support. What I would ask for is the same support to help me overcome some of the problems that would come with sequestration.

To give an example, sequestration would cancel flying operations for four out of nine aircraft carriers, which would take about 9 to 12 months to restore at a cost of two to three times as much. What they could do with this bill, which I plan to introduce tomorrow, is have the latitude, while spending the same amount of money, to keep the flying hours where they are so they would not have to be restored in another vehicle. Little things such as that are significant.

It also would address the problems we hear of every day from the Secretaries in the military--the various departments and the Chiefs-- having to do with the other problems on the CR. So this would address both of them and give latitude and make it better.

I would just say I hope the leader could assist me in getting this bill through in a timely fashion that I will be introducing tomorrow.

I appreciate that very much, Mr. President. I do not object.