Aldon D. Morris: "The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement"
I am going to give you a birds eye account of Aldon D. Morris’ book, The
Origins of the Civil Rights Movementso you can make your own mind up as to whether or not the Modern Civil Rights
movement a success or a failure. I say that in the long-run due to the right-wing backlash that America is living in a pre-Civil
Rights era, rather than a post-Civil Rights era. The post Civil Rights era was the time shortly after the reforms were made
such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Both of these “legal” accomplishments are now
in jeopardy of being harmed and repealed. The Voting Rights Act is set to expire in 2007. Many of the gains found in the 1964
Civil Rights Act are not being enforced by the Federal government nor right wing judicial activists and those who want more
and more corporate power to re-oppress the classes of people which those in the power structure always wanted to do anyway.
Dr. Martin King, Jr., was assassinated fighting for equal economic justice in America. White people saw him as a rabble rouser.
In the 21st Century, right-wingers take what he said and stood for out of context for their own narrow reasons and justifications
to remain bigots. The right wing have stacked the federal courts with right wing judges as part of the “Reagan plan”
to not have to enforce those civil rights laws on the books. It was the administration of President Reagan which set out to
destroy the gains made in the Civil Rights movement. I wonder when Reagan who often said the “I did not leave the Democratic
party, but they left me,” was referring to their embrace of the “Modern” Civil Rights movement and Dr. King?
The “Reagan plan” included appointing right wing justices to the bench for the purposes of right wing judicial
activism so they could begin to dismantle every reform ever put into place by those who mobilized forces to fight against
the political, economic, and social oppression foisted on the masses by the power structure and master elites.
One will need to get a background look at the “Modern” Civil Rights
movement before one proceeds to the major question of whether the fight was successful or not. Thus, I provide a synopsis
of the movement based on sociologist, Aldon Morris’ account of that time period. According to Aldon D. Morris the Civil
Rights movement fit solidly into the tradition of social protest. The significant use of the black community to accomplish
political goals relied heavily upon the church. The Black Church functioned as the institutional center of the Civil Rights
movement. Churches provided the movement with an organized mass base; a leadership of clergymen largely economically independent
of the larger white society and skilled in the act of managing people and resources; an institutionalized financial base through
which protest was finances and meeting places where the masses planned tacrtics and strategies collectively, in committing
themselves to the struggle. This movement was highly organized, and its significant use of the black religious community to
accomplish political goals was hinged on the role of the Black church.
An Indigenous Perspective of the Modern Civil Rights Movement
Morris uses the indigenous perspective to show how the modern
Civil Rights movement transpired. He argued that it was within the indigenous model that the basic funding patterns, social
resources, and organized masses were activated for protest. He also argued that pre-existing institutions, primarily the Black
Church, rather than the previous held notion by many that it was a spontaneous explosion, or that it was a movement sponsored
by the Federal government or the office of the President, or a sole effort led by Dr. Martin Luther King, but that it was
a movement that was a by-product of skillfully organized efforts and pre-exiting institutions.
The Civil Rights movement was truly a grass-roots campaign as it
for the first time mobilized large masses of black directly and confronted and effectively disrupted the normal functions
of the white power stuctures and institutions thought to be responsible for their oppression. In this blacks accepted and
adopted non-violent tactics as a mass technique to bring about social change. To fight back against racial oppression the
elements of movement centers, strategic planning, organizing, charismatic leaders. and preexisting institutions were all key
in the political scope of their social protests. It was the charisma and leadership qualities of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr., and others that were able to effect change in bringing the mobilization aspect of the movemet to the forefront.
And it would be the black women of the Montgomery bus boycott who would serve as the catalysts within the "modern" Civil Rights
Movement.
The Role of the Black Church In The "Modern" Civil Rights Movement
The Church was a place where blacks could participate and
experience an ability to own an institution free of white control. It also filled a void and gave support to their oppression
from white society, and through group acticity were able to defend and articulate their interests in a collective manner.
The principal resource of the black Church was its mass base. It was within this mass base that its social power for social
protest derived from. Although the collective activity of the activists in the church were organized, it still did not have
the formalized power that white structures had.
The role of the church minister was very important to the direction of the mass
movement in the social protest of the "modern" Civil Rights movement. The minister had a defining role in the structure of
economic boycotts, street marches, the mass meetings, and going to jail. These tactics used were known as non-violent direct
action. The ministers who came into the movement brought with them a great deal of experience, as most had grown up in the
church and understood its inner-workings. These ministers knew that a successful minister needed to develop a strong personality
that was capable of attracting and to be able to establish a loyal following. Charismatic leaders had already existed within
the institution of the black church before the movement, and the movement allowed for this development of this pre-existing
factor to take full form. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a charismatic leader who became very important to
the Civil Rights movement. Growing up in a political church environment, he was the son of a
minister and knew the inner-workings of the black community and the black church, that would serve well in dealing with political
issues. As a trained orator and that he had been in oratorical competitions, he became skilled in agitating, fund raising,
and organizing. He was skilful in the art of negotiation and able to form blocs searching for consensus. King masterful at
call-and-response, was handsome and projected well in front of a camera, to get out his public message to the masses. He was
highly educated and had a doctorate in theology. His roots also gave him the knowledge and ability to collect and manage resources
through resource management.
The Resource mobilization model fits Morris' analysis that participants acted
rationally to their circumstances and tended to be well integrated into black society through the churches. And that pre-existing
social organizations and communication networks were also crucial, while the conditions of oppression contributed to the sustenance
of the movement's development. In short, the approach of the mass mobilization efforts with this indigenous perspective focused
on the emphasis of resources, development, and rational thinking. The indigenous perspective deals with the Movements waged
against its dominant oppressors. It is with this perspective that shows how oppressed groups-blacks create the social conditions
that allow them to engage in overt power struggles with its oppressors-the white establishment. This movement would need to
have present basic resources, social activists with ties to strong-bases indigenous institutions, and tactics and strategies
that can effectively be used against the white power structure in this case. Essentially, movements are developed by activists
who seize the opportunities for protest. And historically the Black Church has provided the finances necessary to sustain
the activities. It was in the church setting that oppression could be discussed freely and resources developed to organize
collective resistance. Effective strategies are those used to effectively cause disruption of the existing status quo social
order. It is here that the collective power of the masses is necessary to redistribute the power. When the oppressed group
has pulled its resources, activists, tactics, strategies, for protest reason together, it has
developed a local movement center.
The movement centers, were the dynamic forms of the social organization. of th
were essential to the Civil Rights movement. By pulling all the necessary grass-roots elements together, it allows for further
training and advancement of the movement to take place, It furthers the protest marches in local communities and sets the
stage for easier insurgency to occur. One of the most important Two of the key organizations of the Civil Rights Movement
were the Montgomery Improvement Association and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. One of the first important spin-of
groups was the United Defense League, established at the time of the Baton Rouge Buss Boycott. From the indigenous perspective
these groups were non-bureaucratic, but were formal organizations. These groups were able to foster mass participation, tactical
innovations, and rapid decision-making. Leadership in these organizations was important. In bridging tensions where divisions
may have occurred, pre-existed leaders were often chosen who were already soundly integrated in the black community but who
were also relatively viewed as newcomers.
By the 1950's in post World War II America embarking upon the Cold War where the
United States attempted to promote Democracy around the world in combating the spread of Soviet Communism, that the segregation
laws and the era of Jim Crow would be challenged and that the cities in the south would be the testing grounds of democracy
here in the United States. With the use of grass-roots manuevers and stratgies, the mobilization efforts through the Black
Church would see its Movement spearheaded by the Baton Rouge Bus Boycott of 1953.
The Baton Rouge Bus Boycott in June of 1953 was to serve as the initial model
of the "modern" Civil Rights Movement. Blacks provided for two-thirds of the bus revenues. when the mass mobilization of the
bus boycott took place. The boycott galvanized the black community and nightly mass meetings were held led by Rev. Jemison.
It was here that the "free car lift" strategy was launched to circumvent transportation issues that people would have in getting
to work or the store. A highly dispatched communication center was established to aid in this endeavor. This movement clearly
indicates that pre-existing structures do help in the organizing effort. Through the local black church the mobilization effort
was launched. Rev. Jemison appealed to the wider black church where he did get support for the bus boycott and the request
for the mass participation effort, to help in the cause. Out of the boycott evolved the United Defense League which served
as a direct link to the mass boycott. The work of this newly formed independent group was able to work on issues related to
social protest and appeal to the black community as a whole and prevented any infiltration into the bureaucratic institution
of the church. Social protest has to be financed and the black church under the guise of Jemison did just that. Passing the
hat was common place at the mass meetings and became the pulse of the movement.
This procedure of collecting funds to support the indigenous black protest sustained
itself throughout the Civil Rights Movement. In his leadership role, Jemison's "newcomer" status helped in a great way. He
was active in the black community and these networks proved valuable in being relatively new to this church. However new,
he was able to unite those in his congregation while, not being influenced by the white power structure. These elements mentioned
are in-line with the importance of the role the black church had in mobilizing mass-action.
Through the idea of non-violent direct action, and conducive with mass protests
the physical nature of blacks made them potential power instruments. In creating a non-violent social disruption they could
organize together, boycott, crowd jails, and march. It was not until Montgomery that blacks became aware of this method. Workshops
at the grass-roots level were run by Rev. Smiley and Bayard Rustin on non-violent direct action. The doctrine of the black
church provided for this framework used. Preachers were now spreading this doctrine across the south and this was proof on
the influence of the black church's on the civil rights movement. The Montgomery Bus Boycott is a good example of how the
Civil Rights movement was not a spontaneous explosion put forward by many. Rosa Parks was deeply rooted in the black protest
tradition of the south and had before her arrest on December 1, 1955, at other times refused to give up her seat. It was because
she was an integral member of these organizations that were instrumental in mobilizing collective action that she refused
to give up her seat. It was through the efforts of E. D. Nixon, who was not
a minister, and Jo Anne Robinson of the Women's Political Council that were responsible for the boycott's success. The success
of the UDL in Baton Rouge had served as a model to the transportation set-up devised by the MIA in Montgomery. It was through
the black churches that the transportation system was set up. The importance of the MIA was that its organizational structure
which grew from the UDL would be put into further use across the south. The visibility of Montgomery was wide. It had gained
widespread support from the NAACP, northern blacks, and northern whites. Most of the money raised went into the transportation
system to further the boycott. Robinson called for community action and distributed literature of Parks' arrest. The organizational
forces of the black community began to mobilize in support of Parks and confidence in the mass movements in the black community
started to gain ground, with the advent of Movement Centers in Montgomery, Tallahassee, and Birmingham. The arrest of Parks
in Montgomery and two college students in Tallahassee and the outlawing of the NAACP in Birmingham created the needed elements
for collective action and social protest against white domination.
The organizations founded had young ministers as its charismatic leaders and were
offshoots of the United Defense League earlier established during the Baton Rouge bus boycott. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., was President of the MIA, in Montgomery, Rev. Steele heading the ICC in Tallahassee, and Rev. Shuttlesworth of
the ACMHR in Birmingham. These groups were able to deal with crisis situations, direct mass insurgency and to unify the black
community. The young status of the three ministers heading these organizations allowed them to be effective leaders and free
of white control. These organizations benefited from the Church culture in that they could draw on the congregation for mass
support. The presentation of meeting in these organization was rooted in the tradition of the call-and-response sermons. The
church structure was built into the program to assure familiarity and not to lose the interest of the masses. Disruptive tactics
were used as methods in the economic boycotts, in its direct action approach. Without saying, the "modern" Civil Rights movement
and direct action grew out of the bus boycotts. These massive bus boycotts disrupted the social strata in white society along
with the economic structure, and the issue of discrimination now became a political issue also. As a result of mass action
through collective cooperation, the boycotts in Tallahassee and Montgomery almost bankrupted the bus companies, who relied
virtually on black women for its revenue. The significance of the success in Tallahassee and its pre-existing structure of
the ICC clearly stated that a mobilized effort could succeed, even a small southern city. In response to the outlawing of
the NAACP, Reverened Shuttlesworth had triggered direct action in Birmingham.
Shuttlesworth wanted to show that direct action could be organized to confront issues other than just bus segregation.
In defying the white power structure Shuttlesworth was seen as a strong leader, who had no fear. The ACHMR criticized the
tripartite system on allowing black police patrol the black communities, discrimination in hiring, segregation in schools,
buses, and retail stores along with disenfranchisement at the polls. With these issues on board Rev. Shuttlesworth was able
to mobilize the church population, and through indigenous resources served as the impetus of the movement. It was the efforts
of Shuttleswoth that kept this bottom-up campaign moving along.
In order for the growth of the Civil Rights movement to continue, the local centers that developed with its collective
action method had to be extended, but to remain autonomous of a bureaucratic-like structure. From its inception the SCLC was
led by indigenous black leaders. The role of the bus grievances helped to establish the central organization of the SCLC.
The Southern Christian Leadership Conference was a church-related protest organization that was formed by the need of local
movements. Rooted in the church tradition, its leaders became symbols in the mass bus boycotts of the 1950's. The formation
of the SCLC coincided with the non-violent disobedient strategy established by the black community when it came to the direct
action organization, the church gave workshops on direct-action methods, to effect change. The SCLC was able to help other
local movements already operating. The clergy and the black Church were the main instruments in the SCLC. The affiliation
it had with the church enabled the SCLC to have a political end away from the control of the church.
The sit-ins of the 1950's and the 1960's put new life into the Civil Rights movement. This non-violent direct action at
lunch counters where blacks were not served got substantial organizational support from the black church. It was a standard
bearer in that disruptive politics often worked faster than legal decisions. As a result of the sit-ins sympathetic whites
became interested. By the the summer of 1960 many lunch counters across the country were desegregated. The sit-in strategy
was a tactical innovation in the movement.
The United States Supreme Court's favorable court ruling on November 13, 1956, that ruled Alabama's state and local laws
on that required segregation were illegal, had proven to the mass movement of the black community that its discipline, organized
movement had proven that this was successful because of the organized collective action. It gave rise to the power in numbers
idea. The SCLC's goals in Birmingham put in motion the destruction of segregation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
With the combination of mass demonstrations, boycotts, sit-ins, through non-violent direct action, the Civil Rights Movement
was able to effect change through grass-roots strategies, put in place by the local Black Church, in the South. The Civil
Rights Movement of was a success in the South as it is no longer legally segregated. The many of symbols, the Confederate
flag in Mississippi aside, no longer overtly exist. And by virtue of the efforts of the women in Montgomery, blacks no longer
have to ride on the back of the bus. This is the apex of the changes. The Civil Rights Movement if it did nothing else for
effective change, it was able to raise the consciousness. of true freedom and equality for all and put on a social trial,
the values and the doctrine of Democracy, in America. It not only empowered black America but it also put white Americans
on notice, and in many cases were supported by whites. The Civil Rights Movement helped to bring about the 1964 Civil Rights
Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Blacks are now able to vote. Although the Civil Rights Movement altered the tripartite
system of economic, political, and personal oppression through white domination, it blacks in many respects are still victims
in the white power structure, even in the 21st century. It was successful in that its own grass-roots strategies through its
own organizational structure
allowed them entry into the political arena as potent as a fastball thrown by Bob Gibson. The movement gave rise to other
social movements like the women's movement of the 1970's and other movements since. It showed that non-traditional politics
can serve as way to bring about change, aside from court rulings. There have been elected black politicians since the movement
and have served more than capable in that capacity. But, however, the Civil Rights Movement did not totally change for the
better the economic exploitation of blacks that still exists today. The oppressed blacks who helped build this nation as slaves
have since their release as bonded men, never been adequately trained or educated by the same white power structure that denied
its civil rights for so long, and in some cases, still exists today. Institutional racism and the fight against Affirmative
Action is still alive today. The debate over states rights versus the federal government's power is still a hotly debated
topic in the South. In sum, the economic conditions of blacks did not see significant changes because of the Civil Rights
Movement. Although legally integrated into American society, I argue that blacks are still disproportionately segregated both
in communities and economically. Thus, the modern Civil Rights Movement was, on paper, a legal and political success. But,
in the short-term modern Civil Rights Movement was successful.
For argument’s sake, if one wants to take it one step further, the overall analysis of the modern Civil Rights movement
was not necessarily a failure, but did not foment the efforts of the movement’s early leaders like Jo Ann Robinson,
Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and countless others, who wanted freedom, liberty, and justice for all black
Americans. Therefore, it could be said that the Civil Rights Movement was not a total success, nor a total failure, but rather
a compromise within the present capitalist democratic system, in the United States. The Civil Rights movement exposed the
inefficiencies and inequities of American society, and openly questioned equality and freedom. For many black Americans, in
the fight for equal rights, it has been the “have-nots”, who have been exploited and are still under represented
in the system. Despite the end of the Jim Crow laws, oppression still exists as it did before Montgomery. In the wake of the
President Ronald Reagan administration in the 1980’s, and the redefining of the Federalism debate, America has seen
a deeper divide between Black and White America. Now more than ever, Black Americans are faced with a system that endears
them to economic segregation. I argue that the success of the Civil Rights Movement proved that Blacks could effectively organize
as a collective unit, and were able to overcome major obstacles against some of the most unfavorable odds, and against some
of the most brutal people and oppressed situations that a people, in the history of mankind, has had to fight. As will be
shown, the failure of the Civil Rights Movement towards economic advancement, was due to a lack of continued vision after
Martin Luther King’s death, and by a white power structure that is resistant to improved economic conditions for
blacks. Furthermore, the white power structure, in many cases has denied equal access under the law, even after the language
was written down, on paper. In a nation where African-Americans fought and died in World War II, in the name of freedom and
justice for all, but came back to a Democracy after the war, to be denied its guaranteed rights under the Constitution, in
a land of segregated schools and buses, was a domestic civil war waiting to happen. The storm that came put the calm of American
democracy on a legal, social, moral, political, and economic trial, in America and internationally.
May 17, 1954: Brown vs. Board of Education,
of Topeka, Kansas
On May 17, 1954, the landmark Brown vs.
Board of Education, of Topeka, Kansas, was
decided that in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” had no place, and the distinction
of race alone did violate the “separate but equal”, clause in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case, thereby reversing, the 1896 ruling. The Supreme
Court ruled that separate educational facilities were unequal. This ruling reversed the 1896, Plessy vs. Ferguson, ruling that established the “separate but equal”
doctrine, ruling that said state laws that mandated separate facilities for African-Americans did not violate the equal protection
provision in the of the fourteenth amendment, to the United States Constitution. In 1883, in response to the first Reconstruction
Acts that called into question whether blacks had adequate access to
to public facilities, that was supposedly a guarantee for all citizens, led to the Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling,
in 1896. The ruling stipulated that as long as the accommodations were “substantially equal” under state laws
that provided separate facilities, then the fourteenth amendment was not being violated. The Brown vs. Board of Education,
decision was supposed to bring equality to Black Americans, but they were met with resistance from the start. This
decision ended the legal war between the NAACP and the defenders of racial inequality.
After some favorable court rulings with higher education the NAACP set out to test the separate but equal doctrine in primary
and secondary schools, in public education. Despite the plausible ruling, the Supreme Court asked the attorney generals’
of the representing states to prepare arguments to implement the means in order to institute the laws of desegregation. On
May 31, 1955, the Supreme Court handed down its decision to the lower courts, with a plan that was to be followed to administer
desegregation. What was known to be the Brown II decision, the Supreme Court ruled that southern states did
not have to act immediately to implement the desegregation laws. In effect, this ruling allowed southern states to continue
on the course of segregation.
Both the Brown I and the Brown II decisions, led to the fierce debate over states rights versus
the federal government rights and the ensuing conflict of Federalism was born in the South. The white political leadership
used the doctrine of interposition to fight back against the federal government’s mandate. Interposition declares that
a state may reject any federal mandate if that state thinks the ruling is encroaching on the rights of that state. The actions
of Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, Alabama Governor George Wallace, and Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett proved themselves
to be defiant of the United States Supreme Court-ordered ruling that declared segregation illegal, which ordered the desegregation
of high schools and state universities. In 1956, less than a week before school was to begin, an Arkansas state court ordered
Little Rock not to initiate the desegregation plan. Despite the Federal court ruling that ordered the Little Rock nine, (9
black children), to enter the school, Governor Faubus ordered the state’s national guard to deny entry to the high school.
Before the national media the defiance of the federal government by the state of Arkansas pushed the administration of President
Dwight B. Eisenhower to assist in the defense of the civil rights of Black Americans. Eisenhower called in the United States
Army to enforce the peace over Little Rock and to ease the tension of hostile whites. It would not be until August of 1959,
before Black Americans actually attended the high school in Little Rock. The Little Rock, Arkansas situation was a display
of the state government in Arkansas rejecting the authority of the federal government. The segregation of schools was not
the only fight African-Americans would wage.
On May 21, 1954, four days after the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, Jo Ann Robinson of the Women’s
Political Council that spearheaded the Montgomery Bus Boycott started to mobilize the effort, by sending a letter to Montgomery
Mayor W. A. Gayle about the bus abuses that blacks were experiencing on the segregated buses, in Montgomery. Robinson reminded
him that a boycott would be imminent if the conditions did not improve on the buses, as blacks made up three-fourths of the
bus revenues. The mayor responded to Robinson that the city was only upholding the law, of segregation.
Rosa Parks was arrested on December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama. Her arrest spurned the modern Civil Rights movement
into action. She refused to give up her seat on the bus and the Women’s Political Council led by Joanne Robinson started
to mobilize a mass collective effort to boycott the buses on the following Monday, December 5, 1955. With the success of the
one-day boycott and the leadership of E. D. Nixon, of the Montgomery Improvement Association and the collective effort by
the congregation at the Holt Street Church led by Martin Luther King, Jr., the agreement was to continue the boycott until
significant change was made. The boycott in Montgomery was a success, and hurt the city economically shut down the buses incurring
financial loss on the bus company along with area merchants whom relied on blacks for business. The buses were shut down on
December 22, 1955. and the financial burden grew on the white power structure resulting in layoffs.
On Tuesday February 21, 1956 a grand jury ruled that the boycott was illegal. This led to the arrests of King, Jo Ann Robinson,
and many others in the movement. It was at this time that blacks ceased being scared and were ready to fight for their liberty.
On January 31, 1956, prominent attorney Fred Gray filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court contesting the city’s
segregation laws. In June of 1956, a three-judge Federal District Court voted that the bus segregation laws were unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision on December 20, 1956, to the chagrin of the city commissioners, in Montgomery, Alabama.
It was at this time that the white man had to recognize the legitimacy of blacks citizenship through the legal system.
The fight for equal justice and the defeat of segregation was a collective victory from the efforts put forth by those
courageous freedom fighters in Montgomery. In waging a passive, non-violent, resistance movement, the black activists left
their white oppressors in a state of puzzlement. This effort proved that blacks could indeed organize in masses, while disproving
the stereotypical notion that blacks were lazy, complacent, or could not act as a cohesive group. When Rosa Parks accepted
her duty to be arrested on behalf of a greater cause, the battle for Civil Rights was born.
The sit-ins of the 1950’s and the 1960’s put new life into the Civil Rights Movement and received additional
support from the black church. This disruptive and non -violent action seemed to work faster than the often awaited legal
decisions desired by black activists. As a result of these sit-ins, the attention of sympathetic whites grew stronger. By
the summer of 1960, many lunch counters were desegregated across the country. This strategy was innovative and seemed to be
a success. The success in Montgomery, gave rise to other local movements as well, like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
that resulted was led by indigenous black leaders. The bus grievances gave a direct reason for the need of this new structure.
The SCLC was a church-related protest organization that advocated non-violent resistance. The SCLC’s action in Birmingham
and Selma put in motion the destruction of segregation and the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. . The movement was
successful in that its grass-roots strategies expedited many legal decisions, into the political arena in rapid speed, that
might otherwise not have happened. What this showed was that non-traditional politics can serve as a way to bring about change,
with or without court rulings. And that economics does in fact have a strong bearing on court decisions.
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
&
The "Modern" Civil Rights Movement
It was Martin Luther
King, Jr., who regarded education, religion, legislation, court action, and interracial alliances as the necessary means to
non-violent direct action. In 1966, the realization came that black people did not have the economic power to take full advantage
of the gains that were made through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. By 1966, as a result of
the criticisms King was getting he began to advocate economic justice for blacks, in the years from 1966-68, focusing on economic
issues. King realized that crime, poverty, family disorganization, illegitimacy, and other social problems were due to segregation
and racism and thought the federal government was needed to assist with these problems He wanted to use the south as the ground
to launch this movement, into a practical reality, for black people equating it to the promised land, in biblical times. King
and the people in the mass movements fought for social change through social protest in Montgomery, Selma, Memphis, and Birmingham
to fight against legal segregation and the overwhelming deprivation that blacks suffered in the system. With the new legal
decisions, King saw that previous stereotypes against Negroes were no longer valid, and force whites to say yes when they
wanted to say no.
King became one of the fiercest civil rights leaders for this change, in
regard to federal support for housing, improved educational opportunities, affordable housing, healthcare. His involvement
for economic justice endeared him to bring about a radical restructuring of the American economy. As King became more aware
of the relationship between racial oppression, class exploitation, and militarism, he started to advocate for basic structural
changes within the system. By the time King was assassinated he moved beyond the dream of integrated buses, schools and lunch
counters, in the south, and envisioned a true democratic society for all people without racism, economic exploitation, or
wars of aggression.
After the death of King, and the shifts among the black political elite, hope that institutional racism would dismantle
under capitalism seemed unlikely. Liberal whites and blacks no longer seemed to oppose the right by the time Reagan was President.
The divide within the black community with the black elite and the black majority had been the fait accompli, within
the black community and had been the causation for the ideological and political differences. The consciousness that the Civil
Rights leaders wanted to bestow on the masses at the Holt Street Church, in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955, seemed to be lost
with the consciousness of the black elite. The reminder that the “have-nots” still existed in the social and economic
orders of Black America or that family or friends might be on welfare is not something the black elite wants to deal with.
Many in the black elite perceive pimps or prostitutes, as the result of the problems in black economic America, rather than
seeing it as the and cause of the problem.
In the second Reconstruction period during the Montgomery Bus Boycott the theme was equality. But equality meant parity
in the positions of political, social, economic, and privilege in America. The biggest challenge in the equation was to overcome
institutional racism, that would level off racial parity. Did the court decisions destroy the class divisions based on real
equality and racial equality? Despite the court rulings, did not violence and oppression, still occur? Despite the reality
of oppression blacks still had a vision of a democratic social order that would afford them access to political, economic,
and social rights regardless of race gender, or class, that was “the eyes of the prize” called freedom. The Civil
Rights Movement and the Black Power Movement’s were fundamentally working class and people movements. The acceleration
of unemployment and underemployment, and the many civil rights leaders ascendancy toward the right, along with the demise
of the militant working class, and the growing number of the black population on public assistance programs, was the end result
of black oppression.
The credibility of the United States of America was very much in question with racial segregation in the South, forcing
the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to deal with racism. In 1960, Martin Luther King Jr.,
was arrested in Atlanta during a non-resistance sit-in and protest, and was given a four-month sentence. Kennedy strategically
worked with his brother Robert Kennedy to secure King’s release. This action paid dividends in the 1960 election as
he gained the Black vote, with overwhelming numbers defeating Nixon with two-thirds of less than one per cent of the vote.
James Meredith & the University of Mississippi
The federal government would again intervene in a slow manner,
in the case of James Meredith and the desegregation issue at the University of Mississippi. Meredith’s denial of admission
to the University of Mississippi, is one of personal struggle, personal triumph, and a nation’s disgrace. In January
of 1961, Meredith was denied admission to the University, in a school that was still segregated. Meredith with the help of
the NAACP filed suit in the U.S. court of federal appeals, and won his case, and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ordered
the state of Mississippi to allow for his admission. On September 25, 1962, Barnett himself blocked Meredith’s entry,
using the doctrine of interposition. On October 1, 1962, Kennedy had federal marshals escort Meredith to the University and
had him enrolled. The marshals were violently attacked, with among other things, but guns. On the night of October 1, 1962, Kennedy had to order in the over one thousand army troops
to restore order and by the nest morning over two thousand troops were deployed there. Meredith was finally allowed to attend
the school. In the aftermath of the situation, two people were killed, 166 marshals were injured and 210 student dissenters
were hurt. To the racist whites of Mississippi, this was another case where the federal government interfered and the debate
over Federalism continued. On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy went on national television after two weeks of protest in Birmingham,
Alabama, to discuss his decision to intervene at the University of Alabama. Governor George Wallace had tried to block two
black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama, despite a federal court order to allow entry. Kennedy then deployed
the National Guard so the two students could be admitted, in the attempt to desegregate, the school. The culmination of the
civil rights protests, in Birmingham, were very influential in Kennedy’s support and praised those in the movement’s
struggle.
It was in the world view of defending democracy that Kennedy
had to support civil rights in American when pictures of black children who were beaten up could only tarnish the image of
the United States in its ideological and Cold War, with the Soviet Union. It seemed hypocritical that the United States was
promoting democracy geopolitically around the world while the Constitution of the United States allowed racial apartheid to
exist in America.
Equal Opportunity, Democratic ideals,
the "Modern" Civil Rights Movement
&
America’s Double-Standards
The Civil Rights Movement challenged the idea
of equal opportunity and forced Presidents like Kennedy to act At this time the American government was asking other country’s
to embrace democratic ideals, while at the same time it was denying its own people its of human, and civil, rights. The failure
of the movement was evident in the immediacy of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Civil Rights
Bill of 1964 outlawed the Jim Crow segregation laws in public accommodations of every kind in every city and state. Before
this bill blacks were restricted from public parks, swimming pools, theaters, lunch counters, and white public high schools.
The immediate ramifications of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill saw an increase in institutional, political and vigilante violence
against Blacks across the South. Politically speaking, white southern Democrats abandoned the party after this decision. Despite
the initiative that was passed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, it served to quell racial suppression but it did not change
the racist political economy in America.
Until 1965, the Civil Rights Movement focused mainly on undoing discriminatory practices and attaining integration for
employment, law, political representation, and social life. With some favorable court rulings by the United States Supreme
Court that favored integration, freedom through integration was heightened. The work of King with white politicians to get
his agenda through seemed to be working as well as the hard fought marches from Selma to Montgomery, and the many deaths that
were incurred. Ultimately the federal government intervened with favorable legislation.
On August 6, 1965, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed and in no small part, due to the events, that transpired in
Selma, Alabama. This bill had a greater purpose. The Federal examiners were sent into the South to ensure that registration
and voting by blacks was to be applied. With the passage of this bill, it satisfied the white liberals who fulfilled their
campaign promises. It also placated blacks who were now perceived as less of a threat as far as demonstrating and the concern
of disruption or resistance seemed to be of less concern to those in the white community. To many white liberals the Voting
Rights Act seemed to indicate that the fight for black civil rights was over and no more problems existed.
In the overall analysis, Jim Crow was dead. The Congress had fulfilled its role in passing the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 Bill, and the Courts were also now absolved. And the Executive branch now could say it was the one who directed this
initiative and leadership. Did blacks at this time acquire the necessary elements of human rights with adequate economic security,
housing, medical care, child care, and living free from fear?
Malcolm X
&
The "Modern" Civil Rights Movement
In Selma, Alabama, in 1965, three weeks before
he was assassinated Malcolm X, who was committed to a strong black consciousness realized a true collective effort was needed
among the black masses and that divisions in the black community were not good for the success of a productive movement. He
compared the house Negro in slavery times to the black elite of the 1960’s. He also equated the field Negro to the black
majority of blacks living in America, with not a lot of resources. Malcolm X pointed out the discrepancies in Black America.
He thought the black elite caved in to the white power structure in favor of a better economic life, although they were still
being institutionally discriminated against. Malcolm X rejected the notion of black integration, while attributing the plight
of American Blacks, in the context that Capitalism was exploiting blacks, and that was the central reason for the “inferior”
status of blacks. The only time that Blacks would be free or liberated from white oppression and economic exploitation to
Malcolm X, was when the destruction of Capitalism came about, in America. He argued that blacks did not need to prove themselves
to its white oppressors and should therefore not attempt to integrate into a society that through its racist/capitalist structure
was inherently exploiting blacks. He believed that Islam was the appropriate religion for blacks and that Christianity was
a religion that was given to the Negro by the white man. Malcolm X believed that Black Nationalism should be used to fight
class oppression and exploitation and that only a revolutionary nationalist movement could ever bring this change about. Malcolm
X advocated radical change in uprooting the economy and society in order to liberate the blacks and the poor, in the United
States.
The Watts’ riots in Los Angeles, and other riots in Philadelphia and Chicago, was the setting in America after the
assassination of Malcolm X. After 1965, attention to the freedom movement had developed in northern cities also. By the middle
of 1966, the culmination against the product of what was fear in the state of Mississippi had come. James Meredith an unsung
Civil Rights hero in the fight for integration decided to take a solidarity march through the state of Mississippi. The objective
of Meredith’s march was to prove that Blacks no longer had to be afraid of white violence. Meredith was shot from fifty
feet away but survived and agreed the march should continue without him. Despite the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill
and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the deep-rooted structure of racism and racial inferiority were still large issues in black
society. After the shooting of Meredith, many leaders in the struggle did not continue onward. Its concern was with the future
and immediate cause of the struggle and not wanting to place any possible advances in jeopardy, the role or response of their
white allies, or issues that directly dealt with the federal government.
With the combined forces of SNCC, CORE, SCLC, the march still developed. Stokely Carmichael, who was elected as President
of SNCC in May of 1966 carried the march forward. He thought the movement up to 1966 had been one solely geared to white liberals
and that none of the leaders could go into any rioting community and be listened to. He blamed the media for the riots in
Watts, Harlem, Chicago, Cleveland and Ohio. To Carmichael, when the people in these cities saw that nothing was being done
by the government to offset the violence done to four girls bombed to death and Martin Luther King’s being slapped,
rage set in. To Carmichael the issues that needed to be addressed were the problems of being black, being black and poor,
and being black and lacking education. He thought it was essential that if racism was to end, these issues had to be dealt
with. Carmichael called for radical change. At this time many did not think interracial alliances with whites would continue
to work.
At this point, in 1966, Rev. King had taken his message that was effective in the South, to the North. Taking his message
to the black communities in Chicago, King confronted a problem wherein blacks did not have a sense of black consciousness
or a sense of a need to change or commit to any freedom struggle. King was faced with a strong political machine and Chicago
Boss Richard Daley, in a system that was embedded in paternalism and the good ole (white) boys network. In short, as King
found out, the methods he used in bringing some change to Montgomery, was met with resistance in white communities in the
North and by apathy in many black communities.
Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated on April 4, 1968. He was killed in Chicago, Illinois, where he was assisting
Black sanitation workers of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, in his goal for peace, economic
democracy, and the Black working class. Louis Stokes, speaking before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, believed
that King was murdered because he was alerting poor whites and poor blacks to the economic exploitation in America. Here,
King was seeking the fundamental change that would be necessary to bring an equal and egalitarian society to America.
President Reagan’s Assault on the
Civil Rights Movement in the 1980s
By the time the 1980’s came many of the
reforms of the Civil Rights movement started to unravel. President Ronald Wilson Reagan was opposed to political reforms like
affirmative action and was successful in eliminating specific federal agencies that were created to carry out the implementation
of Civil Rights laws and equal opportunity standards. In 1983, Reagan dismissed three members of the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights. The agency was pronouncing Reagan’s opposition to school desegregation and discounting the use of goals or timetables
for hiring women or minorities. Reagan also opposed minority economic set asides, the enforcement of equal opportunity, and
employment regulations.
As Manning Marable points out, Reagan used negative racial stereotypes and images like “welfare mothers” who
he accused of abusing food stamps and other public assistance programs. With the recession of the 1970’s, the energy
crisis, and major corporation’s falling profits, all led to the coming of Reagan as President. With Reagan’s Presidency,
the liberal welfare state became non-existent and heavily de-emphasized. In the summer of 1981, the Reagan administration
had started to draft language that would take the pressure off white-dominated college institutions to hire black faculty.
Included were measures that called for improvements in the facilities with an eighty million dollar package to improve academic
programs at black universities. This amounted to was a easing-up on the conditions called for by the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
in Title VI. The Reagan administration failed to enforce the 1964 Civil Right Act and resulted in
compromising the law that barred racial discrimination. The North Carolina agreement on July 10, 1981, was a return to
the days of the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, in the quest for desegregation. The North Carolina plan kept the
dual educational system intact and did not include any provisions that would upgrade master’s or doctoral programs at
black universities. It also did not honor quotas and the hiring of minorities at white-dominated schools.
Reagan made massive cuts in social programs for the poor, black and white, and on October 1, 1981, more than 400,000 families
were removed from federal and state welfare rolls. Federal housing allocations came to a halt under Reagan, and fell from
30 billion in aid down to 8 billion in aid within five years from the time of Carter’s departure as President to 1986,
under Reagan. The enormous cuts in human needs spending went into defense spending for nuclear weapons. The failure of the
Civil Rights struggle was seen with the candidacy of President Reagan. as some of King’s former lieutenants in the black
clergy like Reverend Ralph Abernathy, Hosea Williams, Charles Evers, all endorsed Reagan. These men placed their own individual
economic interests first, and abandoned the fight of the black working class.
The racist nature of the Reagan administration was in the area of public policy with massive spending cuts, having a more
disproportionate effect upon blacks than whites. With the passage of the 1977 Food Stamp Act, the Bureau of Census reported
in 1979 that 5.9 households received food stamps. The ratio between whites and blacks was not equally distributed. White families
on food stamps was at sixty-three per cent, and blacks made up thirty-five per cent of people on food stamps. The public housing
act passed in 1937 by Congress to remedy unsafe and unsanitary conditions for families of low income, saw in 1979 that almost
half of the families living in federally subsidized housing was at about three per cent. Living under the poverty lines at
about, $5,000.00
dollars, fifty-nine per cent of whites at 1.5 per cent of the total rate, while the per cent of blacks was at thirty-nine
per cent at 1.0 million households. The federal government in 1965 instituted Medicaid to assist needy families with dependent
children, and people of age, the blind or the permanently disabled, who did not have adequate financial resources to attain
medical services. In the 1979 United States Census data, whites benefited more at 68 per cent, blacks were at 30 per cent.
The “logic pursued” by King, is lost in favor of a man like Reagan who turned the accomplishments of the Civil
Rights movement in the opposite direction. As scholar Manning Marable points out, the goals of the Civil Rights movement that
promoted social reforms have been abandoned by the black elite. The individualistic nature of the black elite completely abandoned
asking any questions that could help change the economic status of the Black working class or poor. In dealing with the white
power structure and wanting integration many blacks have opted to become accommodationists and conservatives. Conservative
Blacks usually cooperate to suppress blacks by cooperating with whites. Accomodationists are usually insecure about their
status and usually only attain short-term gains.
Scholars Analyze the Civil Rights Movement: Aldon D. Morris & Manning Marable
I will analyze the main thesis of both Morris
and the Marable but not without showing who has the more realistic way for change under the present political system in the
United States, not that one or the other would not work if tried. In many ways, Marable’s analysis suits the underclass
in a much better way than Morris’ but, however, a disproportionate power elite at the top will always use clever methods
to start a backlash movement against any reforms or improvements to an unbalanced system. The power elite actually view things
as all being equal but, which are not. I do think overall that Marable argues in his book a more convincing and analytical
argument than Morris as to who has the better method to uplift African-Americans the second class status which they have had
to the present day. One only needs to look at America’s crack versus powder cocaine sentencing laws or the unequal educational
system still prevalent in predominant black areas to know that blacks are still being used as targets by the white power elites.
The No Child Left Behind is not only a right wing strategy designated at showing the “failures” of the public
education seen as too liberal by many in the conservative GOP, but also a code racist set-up to deny an equal education under
the law. Martin Luther King, Jr. must be rolling in his grave as well as the late Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall.
According to the thesis of Aldon D. Morris’, in his book, “The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement“,
the movement could be seen in the tradition of social protest, and the significant use of the black community to accomplish
these goals, relied heavily upon the black church. The Black Church functioned at the institutional center of the Civil Rights
movement. Churches provided the movement with an organized mass base, and a structure they independently owned exclusively
free of white control, in committing themselves to the struggle. The movement was highly organized and its significant use
of both the black religious community and the black church to accomplish its political goals.
Morris demonstrated support for his argument by clearly showing the inner-workings of the black church and the black community
and how in tandem they worked with each other, including the creation of the United Defense League in Tennessee, the Montgomery
Improvement Association, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. To accomplish these political goals in regard to
the mass movements, the black church adopted a strategy that mobilized the community in a grass-roots, bottom-up strategy.
Morris used the indigenous perspective to show how the modern Civil Rights movement transpired, and through this model
the basic funding patterns, social resources, and organized masses were activated for protest. He dispelled the notion that
it was a spontaneous movement or that it was a movement that was sanctioned by the federal government, or that it was the
sole effort of Martin Luther King, Jr. He maintained that through the pre-existing institutions of the Black Church, that
gave momentum to its success. Morris argued that the movement was a grass-roots effort as for the first time was able to mobilize
large masses of black people to directly confront and disrupt the normal functioning of white establishments.
Furthermore, according to Morris, blacks were able to adopt and implement non-violent tactics to bring about social change.
As Morris also stated, it was the church leaders, most notably the church minister who led the masses in the direction for
social protest. The strategy was key and that was never more evident when the bus boycotts not only in Montgomery, but also
in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that caused the depletion in bus revenues. In short, the economic strategy in shutting down the
buses did work and was effective as it was in Montgomery in which an influence in a court decisions was apparent, in November
of 1956.
Manning Marable’s Analysis:
“How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America”
As Manning Marable so eloquently points out in his social analysis “How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America”,
using the Reagan Presidency to reflect the images, of the racial and economic dilemma of blacks and the poor, and how various
racist undertones of conservatism structurally exists in the United States, since slavery. He goes on to point out the differences
and similarities, of conservatives and liberals, alike. Through the black economy he reconstructs the political, economic,
and social factors, emphasizing, class above race, as the real or imagined problems. The central objective of Marable’s
book was to present a critique of the strengths and contradictions, that comprise black American labor and life, with the
purpose of destroying the process of underdevelopment, which to Marable imprisoned blacks for four centuries. He remains convinced
that black people as a group will never achieve the historical objective of their long struggle for freedom in the political
economy of capitalism. To Marable, the force of capitalism has been an oppressive agent in the exploitation of white labor
power against blacks. As far as he is concerned, it will take fundamental change that would require a massive democratic resistance
movement largely from below, to transcend the working classes and the oppressed minority groups, for true reform. Furthermore
Marable asserts, wherever there is oppression, resistance will occur, and the lessons of the struggle will bring hope for
a better life. And if a resistance does occur, the construction that would be needed for a new world free from hunger, poverty,
and racial hatred would then begin to be realized. It would be how the struggle of the oppressed in making a new society,
into a new history, that would be left to bring in a new structure.
Marable’s argues in his thesis, on page 256, in comparison to Walter Rodney‘s, “How Europe Underdeveloped
Africa“, in“How Capitalism Underdevloped Black America”, that development change
is possible when a radical break with the exploitive capitalist system that has been responsible for black underdevelopment.
The development of strategy and tactics, are essential in uprooting the hegemony of capitalism to build a construct for a
new structure. In Marable’s view, political leadership is linked to ideology. According to Marable, the African-American
elite has no long-term solutions to the growth of the urban poor, and he also says that the black middle class has failed
with its ideology, and has fallen into an individualistic style that is accommodationist, in white society. According to Marable
the real problem lies in the exploitive practices of the capitalist ruling classes as the wealthiest top one per cent of the
entire power elite in America who earn a greater net wealth than, the bottom of ninety-five per cent, of all U.S. households.
According to Marable the biggest social division within the black community was the black worker majority and the black
elite. The ending of the underdevelopment of Black Amercia, can only occur when every aspect of the capitalist civil society
is undermined like the educational institutions, the church, the media, social organizations, and cultural organizations.
Ideally speaking to Marable, it would take the comprising of Blacks, Hispanics, trade unions, social groups, cultural groups,
and others to formulate the necessary elements in beginning a revolutionary bloc that could transform the system. Within this
bloc it would have a majoritarian mandate to wage a war with the objective of overturning the state. The result would be a
new structure in the form of a new development in a socialist society. The working class would become the dominant class.
The immediate reforms that would transcend this new society would be the equal rights amendment, anti-discriminatory legislation,
job training programs, universal health care provisos, and a mass mobilization effort that would combine these legislative
decisions as an alternative to the presently exist as a coercive state apparatus. According to Marable, racism and patriarchy
are both pre-capitalist.
Marable contends that the racist/capitalist ruling elite in America does “whatever is necessary to stay in power”.
It doesn’t matter if it divides or polarizes people, blacks or whites. The capitalist system suppresses others to promote
a patriarchal society as its modus operandi for the capitalistic state’s survival, and destroys unions,
while relocating factories elsewhere for cheaper labor costs, as in the 1980‘s. It de-emphasizes unions and lower classes,
and in turn, coercion continues. In practice and in theory, he thinks. as with the U.S. Constitution, Americans must overturn
racism. Through the doctrine of Marxism, he believes in freedom, equality and democracy. Marable thinks that capitalism has
kept blacks oppressed and it now is the divides the black classes with the black elite and the black majority. As a result,
throughout history blacks have become the victims of slavery, sharecropping, rape, lynchings, capital punishment, and imprisonment.
To Marable, the only way to overturn oppression is to fight for racial equality the same way that the abolitionist John Brown
fought, for freedom.
In direct response to the Civil Rights Movement, Manning Marable offers great insight into the Civil Rights
Movement, on page 257, of the 1950’s and 1960’s in America as he discusses rebellions. He admits that battles
against coercive agencies like the state are going to be unavoidable. But he admits that in the United States as it is presently
structured only temporary wins are attainable. Perhaps, the strategy to defeat the oppressive nature of the racist/capitalist
state can win a few just to show that the United States is democratic and that capitalism is fair, equal, and just, however,
the working and poor classes would never be able to defeat a coercive capitalist state, as it is in the United States. In
sum, successful reforms and rebellions are more compromises than changes in the systematic structure of a political, social,
and economic capitalistic democracy.
A One-Two-Step Comparative Conclusion
In comparing Manning Marable, to Aldon D. Morris, regarding
which author provides the most convincing argument to uplift African-Americans from their second-class status, I would have
to say that Marable presents a more incisive analytical argument, while I think Morris provides a more practical solution,
to a very complicated and ingrained problem, as Marable would agree with. In sum, the strategy of Aldon D. Morris is the road
I would take to uplift African-Americans from their second-class status.
In an ideal society Marable’s argument to uproot the
system in its structure would be a plausible solution. Perhaps, he is correct that capitalism is an oppressive system that
exploits those not in the top one per cent. But Marxism has elites also. Karl Marx was in the intellectual elite intelligentsia
and so too, was I.V. Lenin in the Soviet Union, adopting Marxist ideology. Elites are in every socioeconomic system. Marable
is taking a typical Marxist view and applying it to the underclass of Black America, with old-age remedies to fix the inequities
of capitalism. He is right that the system would need to be totally changed if blacks were to be equals as it stands now.
He is also correct that if a successful revolution did take place it might create a new oppressed class of people. I do agree
with Marable that many reforms in the movement just may have been to restore calm rather than to change the system for more
viable long-term improvements. I also agree with Marable that the black elite have forgotten about the black majority and
that a divide in the Black community does exist. I do believe that elements of Socialism are necessary to advance the plight
of any underclass, in any society. Therefore, when King urged the federal government to intercede in helping blacks with employment,
housing, and with the sanitation workers in Memphis, before he was assassinated, these were elements of a social democracy,
at work. I could not disagree with Marable, that oppression and freedom are not present in Black America, and that the only
possible way for a change to occur would be a total overhaul of the capitalistic system. Under the present situation however,
integration into the system is the more practical solution. Although in political theory and in the ideal sense that I agree
with Marable’s interpretations, it is here that I depart from his remedy.
In short, Morris’ argument is more practical and more realistic. In some instances Morris’ thesis has already
had some success. It did and still would no matter how one looks for a successful movement in the Black community, for a collective
mass mobilization effort if change is going to be made. As with the election of President Kennedy in 1960, African-Americans
have impacted the system in great ways already by turning out in large numbers. The mass marches, the boycotts and other forms
of social protest were effective ways in bringing about change. The Black Church was at the center of the movement. Through
this mobilization effort in the 1950’s and the 1960’s African-Americans proved its detractor wrong about a so-called
inability to organize as a group of people. One of the major reasons for the success of the Civil Rights movement was the
fact that the Black Church was free of white control and that it was able to establish decentralized organs of the church
like the Montgomery Improvement Association and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The movement effected change
through a collective effort and forced the federal government to act, even when it did not want to. This factor can not simply
be overlooked. The other factor that must be mentioned as to why the movement was successful, and Morris brings this out is
that the ministers of the Black Church were able to work with the Black community , organizing the struggle at the grass-roots
level.
This is where I so strongly agree with Morris. A grass-roots organization from the bottom-up can be successful and it was
in the mass boycotts, freedom rides, and the boycotts. It did effect change with the legal decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court
and the Civil Rights bills. These decisions did allow for legal integration of African-Americans into the system, resulting
form the collective efforts of the Black community. It is so clear that a movement with any measure of success has to be organized
and that spontaneous explosions don’t often happen in anything but anarchy type situations.
The movement lost its biggest human resource with the assassination of Dr. King. The Black elite swayed from the Civil
Rights struggle. For the black community to fight against racial and economic oppression and uplift itself from their second
class status, it will require the black elite and the black majority, to come together as a united front and to collectively
organize in the same manner that Jo Ann Robinson, an educator from Alabama State College, was able to help organize the beginning
of a movement that included the masses of African-Americans, in fighting against the segregation laws. And it will also need
another independent Black institution, free of any white influence if any movement in the interests of African-Americans is
to be successful. Here again, I would concur with the method of Morris. In short, Morris’ method has already had some
success, while on a smaller scale with social reforms, Marable’s philosophy has also been inclusive. Marable’s
philosophy has been a mix of success and failure seeing at times partial inclusion of people and groups as it relates to things
like abortion rights, gay marriage in Vermont (success), and the fight to abolish the death penalty (success recently in Illinois),
wherein in some states, it already has been abolished.
Conclusion
In conclusion, African-Americans did achieve legislative victories. But that legislation was unable to legislate the morality
of those decisions, by individuals who exercised power in the white power structure. Whether it was Governor Barnett of Mississippi
exercising the law of interposition in denying Meredith’s entry to the University, or President Kennedy’s decision
to intervene in Atlanta in obtaining King’s release from jail, with domestic political concerns at hand, or getting
the two students admitted to the University of Alabama in 1963, more because of Cold War ideology, rather than true idealism,
are evidentiary structural problems that African-Americans have had to confront during the height of the Civil Rights movement
in the 1960s’s, and to a large degree still have to contend with, in the 21st century. In closing, whether they are
heroes like King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, or unsung heroes like James Meredith or Stokely Carmichael, it will take a continued
effort among the masses of African-Americans to make sure the laws that are guaranteed under the United States Constitution,
are not compromised. Unfortunately with the assassination of Dr. King and his unfinished business, regarding the impoverished
economic problems of poor blacks and poor whites, and subsequently since his passing, the economic situation in black communities
across the nation has not improved, substantially. With the election of Ronald Reagan and his de-emphasis on civil rights,
along with the welfare bill signed by President William J. Clinton, in 1996, all but assured that King’s vision, was
a dead letter.
Listen to the War & Peace Report at Democracy Now! which
is hosted by great media journalists, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales. Neither one pulls any punches and delves into
complex and difficult issues. Go to: http://www.democracynow.org/
The Truth of Al Gore & the Internet:
The High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 & Mr. Gore's Achievement
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991
The Internet certainly had come full circle by July of 1991 when innovators like Bob Kahn was named President
and Vint Cerf as Vice-President of the Center for National Research Initiatives as well as the start of the Internet Society
which brought together EDUCOM and the IAB. In October of 1985, Kahn had helped establish CNRI which was at the beginning stages
of “planning the information highway.” According to Salus, Cerf spoke of the design on the infrastructure in the
light that “we have a communications infrastructure (the telephone system) but not an information infrastructure.”
(1) These men whose efforts were no small task would soon be receiving political support from the Clinton-Gore administration
in preserving what had been started in 1969 at UCLA when the first nodes were transferred creating Telnet in Kleinrock’s
laboratory. However, it was in the administration of President George H. W. Bush that started further development of the National
Research and Education Network.
1. Peter H. Salus, Casting the Net: From ARPANET to Internet and Beyond. (Addison-Wesley,
1995), p. 211.
High-Performance Computing Act
In 1991, Albert Gore, Jr., Democrat Senator from Tennessee proposed
the High Performance Computing Act which would provide initial funding for a Network and Education Network. This proposal
by Gore was passed by the Congress as PL 102-194. President Bush (41) supported this bill that Gore proposed and signed into
law. (3) In fact, for all the detractors of former Vice-President Gore did promote a the greater use of
the public Internet in American life. It was his initiative started as a Bill in the Senate, S. 272, which enhanced the role
of the Internet in American public life and raised even more awareness with this medium that had been reserved for select
people before this time. On January 24, 1991, then-Senator Gore introduced this bill to the Senate which had as its goal to “provide for a coordinated Federal program to ensure continued United States
leadership in high-performance computing, and for other purposes.” (3)
2. Salus, Casting the Net: From ARPANET to
Internet and Beyond, p. 226
3. S.272 (1/24/1991) http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d101query.html The co-sponsors of S 272,
in addition to Gore, were the following: Sen Adams, Brock - 3/19/1991 [WA] Sen Bingaman, Jeff - 1/24/1991 [NM] Sen Breaux,
John B. - 1/24/1991 [LA] Sen Conrad, Kent - 1/24/1991 [ND] Sen Cranston, Alan - 6/26/1991 [CA] Sen Durenberger, Dave - 1/24/1991
[MN] Sen Ford, Wendell H. - 1/24/1991 [KY] Sen Glenn, John H., Jr. - 1/24/1991 [OH] Sen Gorton, Slade - 2/20/1991 [WA] Sen
Hatfield, Mark O. - 1/24/1991 [OR] Sen Heinz, John - 3/19/1991 [PA] Sen Hollings, Ernest F. - 1/24/1991 [SC] Sen Jeffords,
James M. - 1/24/1991 [VT] Sen Kasten, Robert W., Jr. - 1/24/1991 [WI] Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 1/24/1991 [MA] Sen Kerrey,
J. Robert - 1/24/1991 [NE] Sen Kerry, John F. - 1/24/1991 [MA] Sen Kohl, Herb - 1/24/1991 [WI] Sen Lott, Trent - 4/23/1991
[MS] Sen Pressler, Larry - 1/24/1991 [SD] Sen Reid, Harry M. - 1/24/1991 [NV] Sen Riegle, Donald W., Jr. - 1/24/1991 [MI]
Sen Robb, Charles S. - 1/24/1991 [VA] Sen Sasser, Jim - 4/23/1991 [TN]
On January 28, 1991 in a bipartisan effort the House of Representatives
proposed H.R. 656 in order to “provide for a coordinated Federal
program to ensure continued United States leadership in high-performance computing, and for other purposes,” which one
may see used the exact language of Gore’s Senate Bill just one week after. There were co-sponsors of both the bill in
the Senate and the House which are indicated in the footnotes below. (4) On
November 20, 1991 the House passed amendments to the Gore introduced Bill, and on November 22, 1991, the Senate in a voice
vote agreed with those measures. On November 27, 1991 the Senate cleared the way for President Bush to sign S.272. On December
9, 1991, Gore’s original proposal became Public-Law 102-194 after President Bush signed it into law. (5)
4. H. R. 656 (1/28/1991) http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d101query.html
The co-sponsors of H.R. 656 were the following members: Rep Bacchus, Jim - 4/24/1991 [FL-11] Rep Boehlert, Sherwood L. - 1/28/1991
[NY-25] Rep Boucher, Rick - 4/24/1991 [VA-9] Rep Browder, Glen - 1/28/1991 [AL-3] Rep Bruce, Terry L. - 4/24/1991 [IL-19]
Rep Collins, Barbara-Rose - 4/24/1991 [MI-13] Rep Costello, Jerry F. - 4/24/1991 [IL-21] Rep Gilchrest, Wayne T. - 4/24/1991
[MD-1] Rep Kopetski, Mike - 4/24/1991 [OR-5] Rep Lantos, Tom - 4/24/1991 [CA-11] Rep Mineta, Norman Y. - 1/28/1991 [CA-13]
Rep Nagle, Dave R, - 4/24/1991 [IA-3] Rep Perkins, Carl C. - 4/24/1991 [KY-7] Rep Roemer, Tim - 4/24/1991 [IN-3] Rep Schiff,
Steven - 4/24/1991 [NM-1] Rep Swift, Al - 4/24/1991 [WA-2] Rep Thornton, Ray - 4/24/1991 [AR-2] Rep Unsoeld, Jolene - 4/24/1991
[WA-3] Rep Valentine, Tim - 1/28/1991 [NC-2]
The next time a rabid right-wing ideologue of the Republican
Party says their typical anti-government mantra speech, just remind them where the latest technology has its roots. As the
result of research and development the landscape of technology has changed dramatically, as “fifteen years ago, there
were few cell phones or computers and Internet access was limited. The World Wide Web did not exist, nor did today’s
widely used e-mail systems.” And this was just in 1982, that America was still void of this technology that everyone
now takes for granted. In 1997, there were one hundred and eighty computers in households in America while in the global system
there were 1.3 million “local area networks” in full operation at this time. (6) In 1982 there was no Internet device that one would
be able to access the worldwide web but by 1996, the population using this new innovation was at thirty-two million with its
projection to be at three hundred million by 2001. In 1982 the
population in the thousands had access to personal computers or local area networks. By 1996 four hundred million people owned
personal computers with this number to have risen to five hundred million by the tea 2001. Local area networks would have
by 1996, 1.3 million on the system with it projected to be at 2.5 million by 2001. There were few Telecommunications Systems
software specialists in 1982 but had grew to 1.1 million experts in 1996. (7)
6. The Report of the President’s
Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Robert T. Marsh, Chairman, Critical Foundations: Protecting America’s
Infrastructures, October 1997, p. 9.
7. Critical Foundations:
Protecting America’s Infrastructures, p. 9.
Gore had much insight to how valuable the use of the public Internet would
be throughout the United States from grade schools to public libraries and all the way to the highest levels of high technology
in the United States. But, no, Al Gore did not invent the Internet. He did, however advance its progress into the public square
at a faster rate by proposing S. Bill 272 which became Public Law 102-194. It was important for Gore that America continue
its lead role in the world with computer technology from national security purposes to continued growth in the fields of science,
industry and educational research. (8) After all, the first advances were
made in academic research in a joint collaboration with the Defense Department as the first four connecting nodes starting
at UCLA and connected to Stanford’s Research Institute showed in 1969. There were significant reasons why this bill
was found to have bipartisan support. It served the interests of all American citizens in all walks of life from the public
to the private sector. Gore saw the need to advance research and technology
and again re-establish the nation’s commitment to the growth of the Internet and technology. This emphasis by Gore showed
that the government can lead the way with innovative measures and that the private sector often benefits from taxpayer money
into R & D at a later time despite the right-wing rhetoric that the Federal
Government seldom is a useful entity. In fact this bill had specific objectives, and this passage is worth citing as far as
its goals for the future:
The purpose of this Act is to help ensure the continued leadership
of the United States in high-performance computing and its applications by-- (1) expanding Federal support for research, development,
and application of high-performance computing in order to-- (A) establish
a high-capacity and high-speed National Research and Education Network; (B) expand the number of researchers, educators, and
students with training in high-performance computing and access to high-performance computing resources; (C) promote the further
development of an information infrastructure of data bases, services, access mechanisms, and research facilities available
for use through the Network; (D) stimulate research on software technology; (E) promote the more rapid development and wider
distribution of computer software tools and applications software; (F) accelerate the development of computing systems and
subsystems; (G) provide for the application of high-performance computing to Grand Challenges; (H) invest in basic research
and education, and promote the inclusion of high-performance computing into educational institutions at all levels; and (I)
promote greater collaboration among government, Federal laboratories, industry, high-performance computing centers, and universities...
(9)
Thus, the computer technology Bill now known as Public Law 102-194
had very direct objectives which America as a whole rather than just the government and educational research facilities would
now be even more exposed to since this measure was enacted. Already the Internet had seen movement towards the private sector
more so than the public sector as the development of this medium grew in just a little over thirty years when this bill was
enacted. It was the goal of Congress that advancement and development be continued, and in a sense with this public act being
drawn, the American people at-large would have more awareness and insight into the goals and purposes of this great innovation.
The High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 brought much
needed awareness that the United States had now serious challenges to potential
national security and infrastructure problems because of the rapid advancement and development in computer technology throughout
the world. The Internet was making the world smaller and Gore thought there needed to be some movement on the part of policy
makers in Washington, D.C. If the Arpanet was designed for the purposes of defending the United States in the Cold War with
the Soviet threat, then it still remained a significant issue even after the Berlin Wall no longer existed. According to this
bill there were several points of passage worth noting in the text. The goal of Congress was to bring attention to these potential
national security concerns as well as indicating that:
1) Advances in computer science and technology are
vital to the Nation's prosperity, national and economic security, industrial production, engineering, and scientific advancement
(2) The United States currently leads the world in the development and use of high-performance computing for national security,
industrial productivity, science and engineering, but that lead is being challenged by foreign competitors. (3) Further research
and development, expanded educational programs, improved computer research networks, and more effective technology transfer
from government to industry are necessary for the United States to reap fully the benefits of high-performance computing.
(4) A high-capacity and high speed national research and education computer network would provide researchers and educators
with access to computer and information resources and act as a test bed for further research and development of high-capacity
and high-speed computer networks. (5)Several Federal agencies have ongoing high performance computing programs, but improved
long-term interagency coordination, cooperation, and planning would enhance the effectiveness of these programs. (10)
10. High Performance Computing Act of 1991 Public Law 102-194.
In 1991, a report came out entitled "Grand Challenges: High- Performance Computing and Communications" which was
put together by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which wanted a multi-level approach in developing strategies
for a “high-performance computing program,” which would bring more awareness with this new policy that could “provide
American researchers and educators with the computer and information resources they need, and demonstrate how advanced computers,
high-capacity and high-speed networks, and electronic data bases can improve the national information infrastructure for use
by all Americans.” It would be in this sense that the information superhighway or matrix involved in the inner-workings
of the nation’s infrastructure would be exposed and made available to more people. It was in Section 102, of the High-Performance
Computing Act of 1991 which made this point clear about more participation from the public and private sectors. It speaks
to a collaboration of the National Research and Education Network which would be joined by the National Science Foundation,
the Department of the Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
in an effort to work alongside private “network service providers, State and local agencies, libraries, {and}educational
institutions,” so that “researchers, educators, and students have access, as appropriate,
to the Network.” (11)
11. High Performance Computing Act of 1991 Public Law 102-194.
Since the nation’s infrastructure was a major concern coupled with the fact that most of the structures and
systems depended on the use of computer technology these networks would have to fulfill the purpose at some points to be “a
test bed for further research and development of high-capacity and high-speed computing networks.” This was necessary
to maintain the advancements on the national information infrastructure but this test would have to “demonstrate how
advanced computers, high- capacity and high-speed computing networks, and data bases” are able to ensure this safety
within the systems. (12) This network would also have to “provide access, to the extent practicable, to electronic
information resources maintained by libraries, research facilities, publishers, and affiliated organizations,” but would
need cooperation to allow for public use. There was also other considerations for this new system. Regarding the functioning
of this system, it was stated that:
The Network shall-- (1) be developed and deployed with the
computer, telecommunications, and information industries; (2) be designed, developed, and operated in collaboration with potential
users in government, industry, and research institutions and educational institutions; (3) be designed, developed, and operated
in a manner which fosters and maintains competition and private sector investment in high-speed data networking within the
telecommunications industry; (4) be designed, developed, and operated in a manner which promotes research and development
leading to development of commercial data communications and telecommunications standards, whose development will encourage
the establishment of privately operated high-speed commercial networks; (5) be designed and operated so as to ensure the continued
application of laws that provide network and information resources security measures, including those that protect copyright
and other intellectual property rights, and those that control access to data bases and protect national security.
(13)
12. High Performance Computing Act of 1991 Public Law 102-194.
13. High Performance Computing Act of 1991 Public Law 102-194.
Although the NREN program had originated in the Bush (41) Presidency, it
was during the Presidency of William J. Clinton that the federal budget allot funds to expand the HPCA by including an Information
Technology and Application, which would provide access on the Internet
in schools, hospitals, and public libraries. After the attention paid by both Clinton and Gore to the need for more information
access in the United States agencies from ARPA to the Department of Energy and NASA increased their information networks as
to interconnect them to become part of the Internet. (14)
It was the provision found in the High-Performance Computing
Act of 1991 that a committee be established to keep reviewing
the program that President Clinton acted upon. He would realize that there was indeed a need to formalize and establish a
more coherent strategy in the age of the Internet and heightened competition around the world as it related to computer technology
and security. The provision in this act of 1991 said that it was for the President to act upon the conjoining of a High Performance
Computing Advisory Committee in order to track the progress of the nation’s networks. In fact, it was important that the: The President shall
establish an advisory Committee on high-performance computing consisting of non-Federal members, including representatives
of the research, education and library communities, network providers, and industry, who are specially qualified to provide
the Director with advice and information on high-performance computing. The recommendations of the advisory committee shall
be considered in reviewing and revising the Program. The advisory committee shall provide the Director with an independent
assessment of-- (1) progress made in implementing the Program; (2) the need to revise the Program; (3) the balance between
the components of the Program; (4) whether the research and development undertaken pursuant to the Program is helping to maintain
United States leadership in computing technology....(15)
14. Salus, Casting the Net: From ARPANET to Internet and Beyond, p. 245.
15. High Performance Computing Act of 1991 Public Law 102-194.
Executive Order 13035
On February 11, 1997, President Clinton released Executive
Order 13035 showing more than a middle ground with Vice President Al Gore and originator of this bill by stated his pledge
to this bill, saying that with “the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States of America,” that he would now act “to establish an advisory committee on high-performance computing and
communications, Information Technology, and
the Next Generation Internet.” (16)The Department of Defense would have a lead role in the administrative
apparatus of the program by lending its support to all future committees stipulated by President Clinton. This was consistent
with the role that the DoD had with the development of the Internet dating back to the Cold War years and the advent of the
ARPANET system. Clinton said that the “Department of Defense shall provide the financial and administrative support
for the Committee. Further, the Director of the National Coordination Office for Computing Information, and Communications
("Director of the NCO") shall provide such coordination and technical assistance to the Committee as the co-chairs of the
Committee may request.” (17) To have the most beneficial results a multi-layered approach of involving many different
parts of the private and public sector was recommended in this act. It wanted to havepresent an:
“established the "Advisory Committee on High-Performance Computing and Communications, Information Technology,
and the Next Generation Internet" ("Committee"). The Committee shall consist of not more than 25 nonfederal members appointed
by the President, including representatives of the research, education, and library communities, network providers, and representatives
from critical industries. The President shall designate co-chairs from among the members of the Committee.” (18)
This Committee could be very valuable in their role of advancing the Internet in the public and private domains
by receiving the most input possible for what direction the Internet and information systems should go in the future. This
committee would have to ensure that the United States was maintaining its hold on “advanced computing and communications
technologies and their applications.” (19) Clinton said there were also other reasons for this committee which were
important, such as to:
provide the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), through the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy ("Director"), with advice and information on high-performance computing and communications, information technology,
and the Next Generation Internet. The Committee shall provide an independent assessment of: (1) progress
made in implementing the High-Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program; (2) progress in designing and implementing
the Next Generation Internet initiative; (3) the need to
revise the HPCC Program; (4)
balance among components of the HPCC Program; and 5) whether the research and development undertaken pursuant
to the HPCC Program is helping to maintain United States leadership in advanced computing
and communications technologies and their applications.” (20) Clinton said there were also other reasons for this
committee which were important, such as to:
provide the National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC), through the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy ("Director"), with
advice and information on high-performance computing and communications, information technology, and the Next Generation Internet.
The Committee shall provide an independent assessment of: (1) progress made in implementing the High-Performance Computing
and Communications (HPCC) Program; (2) progress in designing and implementing the Next Generation Internet initiative; (3)
the need to revise the HPCC Program; (4) balance among components of the HPCC
Program; and 5) whether the research and development undertaken pursuant to the HPCC Program is helping to maintain United
States leadership in advanced computing and communications technologies
and their applications.”(21)
16. William J. Clinton: Executive Order 13035; Advisory
Committee On High Performance Computing And Communications, Information Technology, And The Next Generation Internet. February
11, 1997. http://resource.lawlinks.com/Content/Legal_Research/Executive_Orders/1997/executive_order_13035.htm
17. Ibid.
18. Clinton: Executive Order 13035; Advisory Committee
On High Performance Computing And Communications, Information Technology, And The Next Generation Internet.
19. Clinton: Executive Order 13035;Advisory
Committee On High Performance Computing And Communications, Information Technology, And The Next Generation Internet.
20. Clinton: Executive Order 13035;Advisory
Committee On High Performance Computing And Communications, Information Technology, And The Next Generation Internet.
21. Clinton: Executive Order 13035; Advisory Committee On High Performance Computing And Communications, Information Technology, And The Next Generation
Internet.
In the age of heightened ideological debates on almost every issue
one may ponder, the Internet does not escape this reality, either. Salus brings ups a very provocative argument in liberal
versus conservative terms at the end of the book discussing who is an actual user of the Internet against merely accessing
the matrix system. From the liberal perspective, those using the net are more likely to be considered “on the system”
while from the conservative viewpoint, one who uses the Internet is more likely to be accessing the matrix. According to some
interpretations, mere access does not equate to being “on the Internet.” This is an important factor to ponder
since many people are ill-informed about software, hardware, and things like Internet Protocol yet can dial up at any time
to be on the system. According to Salus, John Quarterman who takes the conservative view says that “the millions of
users who are connected via store-and-forward networks like BITNET are not part of the Internet, nor are those who subscribe
to American Online...” Instead, those on AOL or other uses of the Internet are simply part of the matrix system in his
view otherwise to be part of the Internet one would be able to use the basic tools such as ftp. (22)
22. Salus, Casting the Net: From ARPANET to Internet and Beyond, p. 217.
Lyman Chapin who takes the liberal view on whether one is actually on the Internet in an authentic manner claims that it
only takes the person’s ability to “send and receive mail,” or “access to news and bulletin boards,”
that one is accessing at least net service, but, perhaps, not the Internet itself. (23) But, Quaterman maintains that
accessing electronic mail does not equate to total Internet access, but it certainly would qualify an individual as being
part of the matrix. (24)
23. Salus, Casting the Net: From ARPANET to Internet and Beyond, p. 217.
24. Salus, Casting the Net: From ARPANET to Internet and Beyond, p. 221.
In sum, although it was President Bush (41) who signed PL 102-194 into law. it was President Clinton who solidified that
position with his undaunting commitment to the development of computer technology and security against would be cyber criminals
or cyber terrorists posing as threats on the Internet or matrix system as Quarterman would define users. How would Quarterman
depict a group like Al-Qaeda who has effectively used encryption methods to get their message across to fellow members of
their terrorist organization? Perhaps, not just matrix users to perform a sophisticated method like that. Clinton pledged
his support during his Presidency to promote the national interest on the information superhighway. He demonstrated this effort
with regular reports and updates as research and development ventured out into areas that dealt with cybercrime and cyberwarfare
as it pertained to the national security
interests of the United States. Telnet and the four nodes first found in 1969 had evolved into a national policy of now
having to combat threats on the Internet systems. www.whatever and computer language was now a dangerous commodity to America’s
enemies. This problem could not be ignored. But, it was the United States own success in the development of technology on
the Internet which made it, ironically speaking, most vulnerable to international hacker and terror threats. This was most
often in response to as political event. The Clinton administration adeptly realized that these threats were real and set
out to enhance the security systems of the Internet. Enemies of American foreign policy would be a force that the United States
would have to reckon with by the middle of Clinton’s first term. Many of these issues surrounding security matters on
the Internet would also lead to constitutional questions that would be contested by the likes of the ACLU and other experts
dealing with cybercrime. Since the Internet is now a global phenomenon those who seek to harm against the U.S. may look to
the cheapest and easiest alternatives, literally at their fingertips to wreak havoc on America’s critical infrastructures.
The United States alone possess fifty percent of all the world’s computer capacity as well as where sixty percent
of all the world’s Internet assets remain. Although the United States leads the world in information technology advancement,
it also is the most dependent upon this medium for its infrastructure output. The United States now has a major “collective
dependence on domestic and global networks,” which not only “provides great opportunity,” in the information
age, but, “presents new vulnerabilities that can be exploited.” (25) These vulnerabilities are now in cyberspace
with the threat of cyber attacks, in the attempt to “attack against other infrastructures by exploiting their dependence
on computers and telecommunications.”
25. The Report of the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Robert T. Marsh,
Chairman, Critical Foundations: Protecting America’s Infrastructures, October 1997, pp.
4-5.
The YZK problem in 1999 exposed the vulnerabilities of computer systems and networks. It was the triad of electronic power,
banking, telecommunications, which saw itself as being the most susceptible to cyberattacks as a result of the heavy use of
traffic these computer systems within these industries along with the mandated use of telecommunications to ensure the lock
in the system. It is because of the interdependence within these systems which makes the protection against electronic intrusion
vital to the cultivation of an advanced society. Thus, without one relying on the other, there can be a system failure. Without
electrical power, telecommunications fails, and without telecommunication banking fails. And without banking, the economic
infrastructure fails. Now, in the information age, traffic lights, 911 systems, communication networks, and power grids are
all contingent on technology in the information age, which controls these practices. (26) Clinton thought “frequent
assessments” of the infrastructure would be vital because of the ongoing “vulnerability.” Although threats
to the critical infrastructures are always in a constant “change” of flux “protective measures” but
had to remain“ robustly adaptive,” to new ways of attack. (27) Clinton said it cooperation was needed by
all in the federal government to best utilize the resources of law enforcement, regulation policies, foreign intelligence,
and defense. But, on the issue of protecting the first amendment rights and the rights to privacy, Clinton said the government
must:
“care must be taken to respect privacy rights. Consumers and operators must have confidence that information will
be handled accurately, confidentially and reliably. The Federal Government shall, through its research, development and procurement,
encourage the introduction of increasingly capable methods of infrastructure protection.” (28)
The integration of computer systems which has interconnected the telecommunications industry has created an interdependence
of networks but not before this interlinkage is able to create the possibility of exploits on these systems. It is imperative
that foundations to combat potential cyber attacks be established to protect the critical infrastructures by the formation
of a joint “cooperation between government and the private sector.” Although there has been a healthy rise with
the use of computer technology, there also is the very real threats to cyberspace. One of the possible vulnerabilities of
attack is the fact that the public telecommunications industry relies upon computer software more so than ever as its “managed
and maintained
through computer networks” It is the population of growth in the population of computer specialists who know are
able to disrupt or infect Internet systems or any one of the public telecommunications networks. In 1982 there was only a
population in the thousands who would have the skills be able to carry out a cyber attack. By 1996 there were seventeen million
people worldwide who had the capacity to carry out cyber attacks, while this number would be projected to increase to nineteen
million by 2001. In 1982 there were only some computer specialists who conceivably were able to carry out attacks. In 1996
thousands of specialists had this capability, but by 1999, there would be tens of thousands able to carry out virus attacks.
(29)
26. Robert T. Thetford: The Challenge of Cyberterroism, p. 4. Community Response to the
Threat of Terrorism, a Public Entity Risk Institute Symposium September 2001. Institute for Criminal Justice, Inc. www.ICJE.org
27. Anthony H. Cordesman, Cyber-Threats, Information Warfare, and Critical Infrastructure
Protection: Defending the U.S. Homeland. (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2002), p. 60. #Cordesman, Cyber-Threats,
Information Warfare, and Critical Infrastructure Protection: Defending the U.S. Homeland, p. 61.
28. Cordesman, Cyber-Threats, Information Warfare, and Critical
Infrastructure Protection: Defending the U.S. Homeland,
p. 61.
29. Ibid.
Enter content here
S.272
Title: An Act to provide for a coordinated Federal program to
ensure continued United States leadership in high-performance computing, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Gore,
Albert, Jr. [TN] (introduced 1/24/1991) Cosponsors: 24 Related Bills: HR 656:S 343
Latest Major Action: 12/9/1991
Became Public Law No: 102-194
COSPONSORS(24), ALPHABETICAL
[followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
Sen Adams, Brock - 3/19/1991 [WA] Sen Bingaman, Jeff - 1/24/1991 [NM] Sen Breaux,
John B. - 1/24/1991 [LA] Sen Conrad, Kent - 1/24/1991 [ND] Sen Cranston, Alan - 6/26/1991 [CA] Sen Durenberger, Dave - 1/24/1991
[MN] Sen Ford, Wendell H. - 1/24/1991 [KY] Sen Glenn, John H., Jr. - 1/24/1991 [OH] Sen Gorton, Slade - 2/20/1991 [WA] Sen
Hatfield, Mark O. - 1/24/1991 [OR] Sen Heinz, John - 3/19/1991 [PA] Sen Hollings, Ernest F. - 1/24/1991 [SC] Sen Jeffords,
James M. - 1/24/1991 [VT] Sen Kasten, Robert W., Jr. - 1/24/1991 [WI] Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 1/24/1991 [MA] Sen Kerrey,
J. Robert - 1/24/1991 [NE] Sen Kerry, John F. - 1/24/1991 [MA] Sen Kohl, Herb - 1/24/1991 [WI] Sen Lott, Trent - 4/23/1991
[MS] Sen Pressler, Larry - 1/24/1991 [SD] Sen Reid, Harry M. - 1/24/1991 [NV] Sen Riegle, Donald W., Jr. - 1/24/1991 [MI]
Sen Robb, Charles S. - 1/24/1991 [VA] Sen Sasser, Jim - 4/23/1991 [TN] (1)
Title: An Act to provide for a coordinated Federal program to
ensure continued United States leadership in high-performance computing, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Brown,
George E., Jr. [CA-36] (introduced 1/28/1991) Cosponsors: 19
Related Bills: :H
RES191:S 272
Latest Major Action: 9/11/1991
Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote.
COSPONSORS(19), ALPHABETICAL
[followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
Rep Bacchus, Jim - 4/24/1991 [FL-11] Rep Boehlert, Sherwood L. - 1/28/1991 [NY-25]
Rep Boucher, Rick - 4/24/1991 [VA-9] Rep Browder, Glen - 1/28/1991 [AL-3] Rep Bruce, Terry L. - 4/24/1991 [IL-19] Rep Collins,
Barbara-Rose - 4/24/1991 [MI-13] Rep Costello, Jerry F. - 4/24/1991 [IL-21] Rep Gilchrest, Wayne T. - 4/24/1991 [MD-1] Rep
Kopetski, Mike - 4/24/1991 [OR-5] Rep Lantos, Tom - 4/24/1991 [CA-11] Rep Mineta, Norman Y. - 1/28/1991 [CA-13] Rep Nagle,
Dave R, - 4/24/1991 [IA-3] Rep Perkins, Carl C. - 4/24/1991 [KY-7] Rep Roemer, Tim - 4/24/1991 [IN-3] Rep Schiff, Steven -
4/24/1991 [NM-1] Rep Swift, Al - 4/24/1991 [WA-2] Rep Thornton, Ray - 4/24/1991 [AR-2] Rep Unsoeld, Jolene - 4/24/1991 [WA-3]
Rep Valentine, Tim - 1/28/1991 [NC-2]
1/24/1991: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
3/5/1991: Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 102-23.
3/19/1991: Committee on Commerce.
Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
5/16/1991: Committee on Commerce. Reported to Senate by Senator Hollings with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 102-57.
5/16/1991: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 87.
9/11/1991: Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent.
9/11/1991: The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Voice Vote.
9/11/1991: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote.
9/12/1991 12:29pm: Received in the House.
9/12/1991: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
9/12/1991 5:18pm: Held at the desk.
11/20/1991 5:38pm: Mr. Brown asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
11/20/1991 5:44pm: Considered by unanimous consent.
11/20/1991 5:50pm: On passage Passed without objection.
11/20/1991 5:50pm: The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
11/20/1991 5:50pm: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
11/20/1991: Message on House action received in Senate and held at desk: House amendments to Senate bill.
11/22/1991: Senate agreed to the House amendments by Voice Vote.
11/22/1991: Cleared for White House.
11/23/1991: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
11/27/1991: Measure Signed in Senate.
11/27/1991: Presented to President.
12/9/1991: Signed by President.
12/9/1991: Became Public
Law No: 102-194.
SUMMARY AS OF: 11/20/1991--Passed
House, amended. (4)
High Performance Computing
Act of 1991 Public Law 102-194
A bill to provide for a coordinated Federal
program to ensure continued United States leadership in high-performance computing SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be
cited as the "High-Performance Computing Act of 1991". SEC. 2. FINDINGS The Congress finds the following: (1) Advances in
computer science and technology are vital to the Nation's prosperity, national and economic security, industrial production,
engineering, and scientific advancement (2) The United States currently leads the world in the development and use of high-performance
computing for national security, industrial productivity, science and engineering, but that lead is being challenged by foreign
competitors. (3) Further research and development, expanded educational programs, improved computer research networks, and
more effective technology transfer from government to industry are necessary for the United States to reap fully the benefits
of high-performance computing. (4) A high-capacity and high speed national research and education computer network would provide
researchers and educators with access to computer and information resources and act as a test bed for further research and
development of high-capacity and high-speed computer networks. (5)Several Federal agencies have ongoing high performance computing
programs, but improved long-term interagency coordination, cooperation, and planning would enhance the effectiveness of these
programs. (6) A 1991 report entitled "Grand Challenges: High- Performance Computing and Communications" by the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, outlining a research and development strategy for high-performance computing, provides a framework
for a multiagency high-performance computing program. Such a program would provide American researchers and educators with
the computer and information resources they need, and demonstrate how advanced computers, high-capacity and high-speed networks,
and electronic data bases can improve the national information infrastructure for use by all Americans. SEC 3. PURPOSE. The
purpose of this Act is to help ensure the continued leadership of the United States in high-performance computing and its
applications by-- (1) expanding Federal support for research, development, and application of high-performance computing in
order to-- (A) establish a high-capacity and high-speed National Research and Education Network; (B) expand the number of
researchers, educators, and students with training in high-performance computing and access to high-performance computing
resources; (C) promote the further development of an information infrastructure of data bases, services, access mechanisms,
and research facilities available for use through the Network; (D) stimulate research on software technology; (E) promote
the more rapid development and wider distribution of computer software tools and applications software; (F) accelerate the
development of computing systems and subsystems; (G) provide for the application of high-performance computing to Grand Challenges;
(H) invest in basic research and education, and promote the inclusion of high-performance computing into educational institutions
at all levels; and (I) promote greater collaboration among government, Federal laboratories, industry, high-performance computing
centers, and universities; and (2) improving the interagency planning and coordination of Federal research and development
on high- performance computing and maximizing the effectiveness of the Federal Government's high-performance computing efforts.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Act, the term-- (1) "Director" means the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy; (2) "Grand Challenge" means a fundamental problem in science or engineering, with broad economic and scientific impact,
whose solution will require the application of high-performance computing resources; (3) "high-performance computing" means
advanced computing, communications, and information technologies, including scientific workstations, supercomputer systems
(including vector supercomputers and large scale parallel systems), high-capacity and high-speed networks, special purpose
and experimental systems, and applications and systems software; (4) "Network" means a computer network referred to as the
National Research and Education Network established under section 102; and (5) "Program" means the National High-Performance
Computing Program described in section 101 TITLE I--HIGH_PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AND THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK
SEC. 101. NATIONAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING PROGRAM. (a) NATIONAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING PROGRAM.--(1) The President
shall implement a National High-Performance Computing Program, which shall. (A) establish the goals and priorities for Federal
high-performance computing research,
development, networking, and other activities; and (B) provide for interagency coordination of Federal high-performance computing
research, development, networking, and other activities undertaken pursuant to the Program (2) The Program shall-- (A) provide
for the establishment of policies for management and access to the Network; (B) provide for oversight of the operation and
evolution of the Network; (C) promote connectivity among computer networks of Federal agencies and departments; (D) provide
for efforts to increase software availability, productivity, capability, portability, and reliability; (E) Provide for improved
dissemination of Federal agency data and electronic information; (F) provide for acceleration of the development of high-
performance computing systems, subsystems, and associated software; (G) provide for the technical support and research and
development for high-performance computing software and hardware needed to address Grand Challenges; (H) provide for educating
and training additional undergraduate and graduate students in software engineering, computer science, library and information
science, and computational science; and (I) provide (i) for the security requirements, policies, and standards necessary to
protect Federal research computer networks and information resources accessible through Federal research computer networks,
including research required to establish security standards for high-performance computing systems and networks; and (ii)
that agencies and departments identified in the annual report submitted under paragraph (3)(A) shall define and implement
a security plan consistent with the Program and with applicable law. (3) The Director shall-- (A) submit to the Congress an
annual report, along with the President's annual budget request, describing the implementation of the Program; (B) provide
for interagency coordination of the Program; and (C) consult with academic, State, industry, and other appropriate groups
conducting research on and using high-performance computing. (4) The annual report submitted under paragraph (3)(A) shall--
(A) include a detailed description of the goals and priorities established by the President for the Program; (B) set forth
the relevant programs and activities, for the fiscal year with respect to which the budget submission applies, of each Federal
agency and department, including-- (i) the Department of Agriculture (ii) the Department of Commerce; (iii) the Department
of Defense; (iv) the Department of Education;
(v) the Department of Energy; (vi) the Department of Health and Human Services; (vii) the Department of the Interior; (viii)
the Environmental Protection Agency; (ix) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (x) the National Science Foundation;
(xi) such other agencies and departments as the President or the Director considers appropriate; (C) describe the levels of
Federal funding for the fiscal year during which such report is submitted, and the levels proposed for the fiscal year with
respect to which the budget submission applies, for specific activities, including education, research, hardware and software
development, and support for the establishment of the Network; (D) describe the levels of Federal funding for each agency
and department participating in the Program for the fiscal year during which such report is submitted, and the levels proposed
for the fiscal year with respect to which the budget submission applies; and (E) include an analysis of the progress made
toward achieving the goals and priorities established for the Program. (b) HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.--The
President shall establish an advisory Committee on high-performance computing consisting of non-Federal members, including
representatives of the research, education and library communities, network providers, and industry, who are specially qualified
to provide the Director with advice and information on high-performance computing. The recommendations of the advisory committee
shall be considered in reviewing and revising the Program. The advisory committee shall provide the Director with an independent
assessment of-- (1) progress made in implementing the Program; (2) the need to revise the Program; (3) the balance between
the components of the Program; (4) whether the research and development undertaken pursuant to the Program is helping to maintain
United States leadership in computing technology; and (5) other issues identified by the Director. (c) OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET.-- (1) Each Federal agency and department participating in the Program shall, as part of its annual request for
appropriations to the Office of Management and Budget, submit a report to the Office of Management and Budget, identifying
which-- (A) identifies each element of its high-performance computing activities which contributes directly to the Program
or benefits from the Program; and (B) states the portion of its request for appropriations that is allocated to each such
element. (2) The Office of Management and Budget shall review each such report in light of the goals, priorities, and agency and departmental responsibilities
set forth in the annual report submitted under subsection (a) (3) (A), and shall include, in the President's annual budget
estimate, a statement of the portion of each appropriate agency's or department's annual budget estimate relating to its activities
undertaken pursuant to the Program. SEC. 102. NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.--As part of the
Program, the National Science Foundation, the Department of the Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
and other agencies participating in the Program shall support the establishment of the National Research and Education Network,
portions of (b) ACCESS.--Federal agencies shall work with private network service providers, State and local agencies, libraries,
educational institutions and organizations, and others, as appropriate in order to ensure that the researchers, educators,
and students have access, as appropriate, to the Network. The Network is provide users with appropriate access to high-performance
computing systems, electronic information resources, other research facilities, and libraries. The Network shall provide access,
to the extent practicable, to electronic information resources maintained by libraries, research facilities, publishers, and
affiliated organizations. (c) NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS.--The Network shall-- (1) be developed and deployed with the computer,
telecommunications, and information industries; (2) be designed, developed, and operated in collaboration with potential users
in government, industry, and research institutions and educational institutions; (3) be designed, developed, and operated
in a manner which fosters and maintains competition and private sector investment in high-speed data networking within the
telecommunications industry; (4) be designed, developed, and operated in a manner which promotes research and development
leading to development of commercial data communications and telecommunications standards, whose development will encourage
the establishment of privately operated high-speed commercial networks; (5) be designed and operated so as to ensure the continued
application of laws that provide network and information resources security measures, including those that protect copyright
and other intellectual property rights, and those that control access to data bases and protect national security; (6) have
accounting mechanisms which allow users or groups of users to be charged for their usage of copyrighted materials available
over the Network and, where appropriate and technically feasible, for their usage of the Network; (7) ensure the interoperability
of Federal and non-Federal computer networks, to the extent appropriate, in a way that allows autonomy for each component
network; (8) be developed by purchasing standard commercial transmission and network services from vendors whenever feasible,
and by contracting for customized services when not feasible, in order to minimize Federal investment in network hardware;
(9) support research and development of
networking software and hardware; and (10) serve as a test bed for further research and development of high-capacity and high-speed
computing networks and demonstrate how advanced computers, high- capacity and high-speed computing networks, and data bases
can improve the national information infrastructure. (d) DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY.--As part
of the Program, the Department of Defense, through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, shall support research and
development of advanced fiber optics technology, switches, and protocols needed to develop the Network. (e) INFORMATION SERVICES.--The
Director shall assist the President in coordinating the activities of appropriate agencies and departments to promote the
development of information services that could be provided over the Network. These services may include the provision of directories
of users and services on computer networks, data bases of unclassified Federal scientific data, training of users of data
bases and computer networks, access to commercial information services for users of the Network, and technology to support
computer-based collaboration that allows researchers and educators around the Nation to share information and instrumentation.
(f) USE OF GRANT FUNDS--All Federal agencies and departments are authorized to allow recipients of Federal research grants
to use grant moneys to pay for computer networking expenses. (g) REPORT TO CONGRESS.--Within one year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Director shall report to the Congress on-- (1) effective mechanisms for providing operating funds for the
maintenance and use of the Network, including user fees, industry support, and continued Federal investment; (2) the future
operation and evolution of the Network; (3) how commercial information services providers could be charged for access to the
Network, and how Network users could be charged for such commercial information services; (4) the technological feasibility
of allowing commercial information service providers to use the Network and other federally funded research networks; (5)
how to protect the copyrights of material distributed over the Network; and (6) appropriate policies to ensure the security
of resources available on the Network and to protect the privacy of users of networks. TITLE II--AGENCY ACTIVITIES SEC. 201.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACTIVITIES (a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.--As part of the Program described in TITLE I-- (1) the
National Science Foundation shall provide computing and networking infrastructure support for all science and engineering disciplines, and support basic research and human
resource development in all aspects of high-performance computing and advanced high-speed computer networking. (2) to the
extent that colleges, universities, and libraries cannot connect to the Network with the assistance of the private sector,
the National Science Foundation shall have primary responsibility for assisting colleges, universities, and libraries to connect
to the Network; (3) the National Science Foundation shall serve as the primary source of information on access to and use
of the Network; and (4) the National Science Foundation
shall upgrade the National Science Foundation funded network, assist regional networks to upgrade their capabilities, and
provide other Federal departments and agencies the opportunity to connect to the National Science Foundation funded network.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-- From sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated
to the National Science Foundation for the purposes of the Program $213,000,000 for fiscal year 1992; $262,000,000 for fiscal
year 1993; $305,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; $354,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; and $413,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 SEC.
202. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.ACTIVITIES. (a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.--As part of the Program described
in title I the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall conduct basic and applied research in high-performance
computing, particularly in the field of computational science, with emphasis on aero- space sciences, earth and space sciences,
and remote exploration and experimentation. (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--From sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated,
there are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the purposes of the Program
$72,000,000 for fiscal year 1992; $107,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; $134,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; $151,000,000 for fiscal
year 1995; and $145,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. SEC. 203. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.ACTIVITIES (a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.--As
part of the Program described in Title I, the Secretary of Energy shall-- (1) perform research and development on, and systems
evaluations of, high-performance computing and communications systems; (2) conduct computational research with emphasis on
energy applications; (3) support basic research, education, and human resources in computational science; and (4) provide
for networking infrastructure support for energy-related mission activities. (b) COLLABORATIVE CONSORTIA.--In accordance with
the Program, the Secretary of Energy shall establish High- Performance Computing Research and Development Collaborative Consortia
by soliciting and selecting proposals. Each Collaborative Consortium shall-- (1) conduct research directed at scientific and
technical problems whose solutions require the application of high-performance computing and communications resources; (2)
promote the testing and uses of new types of high-performance
computing and related software and equipment; (3) serve as a vehicle for participating vendors of high- performance computing
systems to test new ideas and technology in a sophisticated computing environment; and (4) be led by a Department of Energy
national laboratory, and include participants from Federal agencies and departments, researchers, private industry, educational
institutions, and others as the Secretary of Energy may deem appropriate. (c) TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.--The results of research
and development carried out under this section shall be transferred to the private sector and others in accordance with applicable
law. (d) ANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS.--Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act and every year thereafter, the
Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Congress a report on activities taken to carry out this Act. (e) AUTHORIZATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS.--(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for for the purposes of this the Program
$93,000,000 for fiscal year 1992; $110,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; $138,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; $157,000,000 for fiscal
year 1995; and $168,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. (2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for
fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996, such funds as may be necessary to carry out the activities that are not part
of the Program but are authorized by this section. SEC. 204. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ACTIVITIES. (a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.--As
part of the Program described in Title I-- (1) the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall (A) conduct basic
and applied measurement research needed to support various high-performance computing systems and networks; (B) develop and
propose standards and guidelines, and develop measurement techniques and test methods, for the interoperability of high-performance
computing systems in networks and for common user interfaces to systems; and (C) be responsible for developing benchmark tests
and standards for high performance computing systems and software; and (2) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
shall conduct basic and applied research in weather prediction and ocean sciences, particularly in development of new forecast models, in computational fluid dynamics,
and in the incorporation of evolving computer architectures and networks into the systems that carry out agency missions.
(b) HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AND NETWORK SECURITY.--Pursuant to the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-235; 101
Stat. 1724), The National Institute of Standards and Technology shall be responsible for developing and proposing standards
and guidelines needed to assure the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive information in Federal computer systems.
(c) STUDY OF IMPACT OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.--(l) The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct a study to-- (A) evaluate
the impact of Federal procurement regulations that require that contractors providing software to the Federal Government share
the rights to proprietary software development tools that the contractors use to develop the software; and (B) determine whether such regulations discourage development
of improved software development tools and techniques. (2) The Secretary of Commerce shall, within one year after the date
of enactment of this Act, report to the Congress regarding the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1). (d) AUTHORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATIONS.--From sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated-- (1) to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology for the purposes of the Program $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1992; $4,000,000
for fiscal year 1993; $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; and $7,000,000 for fiscal year1996.
(2) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the purposes of the Program $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1992;
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; $3,500,000 for fiscal year 1994; $4,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; and $4,500,000 for fiscal
year 1996. SEC. 205. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.ACTIVITIES (a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.--As part of the Program described
in title I, the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct basic and applied research directed toward the advancement and
dissemination of computational techniques and software tools which form the core of ecosystem, atmospheric chemistry, and
atmospheric dynamics models. (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--From sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there
are authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency for the purposes of the Program $5,000,000 for fiscal
year 1992; $5,500,000 for fiscal year 1993; $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; $6,500,000 for fiscal year 1995; and $7,000,000
for fiscal year 1996 SEC. 206. ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.--As part of the Program
described in title I, the Secretary of Education is authorized to conduct basic and applied research in computational research
with an emphasis on the coordination of activities with libraries, school facilities, and education research groups with respect
to the advancement and dissemination of computational science and the development, evaluation and application of software
capabilities. (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--From
sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Education for the
purposes of this section $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1992; $1,700,000 for fiscal year 1993; $1,900,000 for fiscal year 1994;
$2,100,000 for fiscal year 1995; and $2,300,000 for fiscal year 1996. SEC. 207. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. (A) NONAPPLICABILITY.--Except
to the extent the appropriate Federal Agency or department head determines, the provisions of this Act shall not apply to--
(1) programs or activities regarding computer systems that process classified information; or (2) computer systems the function,
operation, or use of which are those delineated in paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 2315(a) of title 10, United States
Code. (b) ACQUISITION OF PROTOTYPE AND EARLY PRODUCTION MODELS.--In accordance with Federal contracting law, Federal agencies
and departments participating in the Program may acquire prototype or early production models of new high-performance computing
systems and subsystems to stimulate hardware and software development. Items of computing equipment acquired under this subsection
shall be considered research computers for purposes of applicable acquisition regulations. SEC. 208. FOSTERING UNITED STATES
COMPETITIVENESS IN HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES. (a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds the following: (1)
High-performance computing and associated technologies are critical to the United States economy. (2) While the United States
has led the development of high- performance computing, United States industry is facing increasing global competition. (3)
Despite existing international agreements on fair competition and nondiscrimination in government procurements, there is increasing
concern that such agreements are
not being honored, that more aggressive enforcement of such agreements is needed, and that additional steps may be required
to ensure fair global competition, particularly in high-technology fields such as high-performance computing and associated
technologies. (4) It is appropriate for Federal agencies and departments to use the funds authorized for the Program in a
manner which most effectively fosters the maintenance and development of United States leadership in high-performance computers
and associated technologies in and for the benefit of the United States. (5) It is appropriate for Federal agencies and departments
to use the funds authorized for the Program in a manner, consistent with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501
et seq.), which most effectively fosters reciprocal competitive procurement treatment by foreign governments for United States
high-performance computing and associated technology products and suppliers. (b) ANNUAL REPORT.-- (1) REPORT.--The Director
shall submit an annual report to Congress that identifies-- (A) any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or cooperative
research and development agreement (as defined under section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of
1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1)) made or entered into by any Federal agency or department for research and development under the
Program with-- (i)any company other than a company that is either incorporated or located in the United States, and that has
majority ownership by individuals who are citizens of the United States; or (ii) any educational institution or nonprofit institution located outside the United States;
and (B) any procurement exceeding $1,000,000 by any Federal agency or department under the Program for-- (i) unmanufactured
articles, materials, or supplies mined outside the United States; or (ii) manufactured articles, materials, or supplies other
than those manufactured in the United States substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured
in the United States, under the meaning of title III of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10d; popularly known as the
Buy American Act) as amended by the Buy American Act of 1988. (2) CONSOLIDATION OF REPORTS.--The report required by this subsection
may be included with the report required by section 101(a)(3)(A). (c) REVIEW OF SUPERCOMPUTER AGREEMENT.-- (1) REPORT.--The
Under Secretary for Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce (in this subsection referred to as the "Under
Secretary") shall conduct a comprehensive study of the revised "Procedures to Introduce Supercomputers" and the accompanying
exchange of letters between the United States and Japan dated June 15, 1990 (commonly referred to as the "Supercomputer Agreement")
to determine whether the goals and objectives of such Agreement have been met and to analyze the effects of such Agreement
on United States and Japanese supercomputer manufacturers. Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Under
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress containing the results of such study. (2) CONSULTATION.--In conducting the comprehensive
study under this subsection, the Under Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal agencies and departments and with
United States manufacturers of supercomputers and other appropriate private sector entities. (d) APPLICATION OF BUY AMERICAN ACT.--This Act does not affect the applicability of title III of the Act of March
3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10d; popularly known as the Buy American Act), as amended by the Buy American Act of 1988, to procurements
by Federal agencies and departments undertaken as a part of the Program. (5)
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AND
COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, AND THE NEXT GENERATION INTERNET
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States of America, including the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-194) ("Act"),
and in order to establish an advisory committee on high-performance computing and communications, Information Technology,
and the Next Generation Internet, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. There is established the "Advisory Committee
on High-Performance Computing and Communications, Information Technology, and the Next Generation Internet" ("Committee").
The Committee shall consist of not more than 25 nonfederal members appointed by the President, including representatives of
the research, education, and library communities, network providers, and representatives from critical industries. The President
shall designate co-chairs from among the members of the Committee.
Sec. 2. Functions. The Committee shall provide the National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC), through the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy ("Director"), with advice
and information on high-performance computing and communications, information technology, and the Next Generation Internet.
The Committee shall provide an independent assessment of: (1) progress made in implementing the High-Performance Computing
and Communications (HPCC) Program; (2) progress in designing and implementing the Next Generation Internet initiative; (3)
the need to revise the HPCC Program; (4) balance
among components of the HPCC Program; (5) whether the research
and development undertaken pursuant to the HPCC Program is helping to maintain United States leadership in advanced computing
and communications technologies and their applications; and (6) other issues as specified by the Director. Sec. 3. Administration.
To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Department of Defense shall provide
the financial and administrative support for the Committee. Further, the Director of the National Coordination Office for
Computing Information, and Communications ("Director of the NCO") shall provide such coordination and technical assistance
to the Committee as the co-chairs of the Committee may request. (a) The heads of executive agencies shall, to the extent permitted
by law, provide to the Committee such information as it may require for the purpose of carrying out its functions. (b) The
co-chairs may, from time to time, invite experts to submit information to the Committee and may form subcommittees or working
groups within the Committee to review specific issues. (c) Members of the Committee shall serve without compensation but shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently
in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).
Sec. 4. General. (a) Notwithstanding any other Executive order,
the functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, except that of reporting to the Congress,
that are applicable to the Committee shall be performed by the Director of the NCO in accordance with guidelines that have
been issued by the Administrator of General Services. (b) The Committee shall terminate 2 years from the date of this order
unless extended by the President prior to such date. (6)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, February 11,
1997.
