Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Congressman Peter Rodino, Jr., a great American and distinguished member of this body. Congressman Rodino passed away recently, and the life he led is without question worthy of our praise.

In Congress, Peter represented the Newark area of New Jersey for over 40 years. In such time he would be associated with some of the most important events in American History. As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee he presided over the Watergate Hearings that ultimately resulted in the resignation of a sitting President.

However, his stewardship during that trying process was executed with a humbleness and reverence that earned him the respect of a grateful Nation. In so doing, he demonstrated to his fellow Congressional colleagues the requirements of true leadership.

Peter Rodino, Jr. was born in Newark, New Jersey in 1909, to a hardworking immigrant family. He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Newark and a law degree from Rutgers University before starting a law practice in the late 1930's.

He would later serve his country during World War II, where he earned the Bronze Star and would have the distinction of being one of the first enlisted men to receive a battlefield commission as an officer.

In 1949 he was elected to the U.S. Congress where he built his reputation through his work on veterans affairs and civil rights issues. In the 1980s, he fought against what he viewed as efforts by the Reagan administration to limit the reach of civil rights laws, as well as efforts to end school busing.

He supported landmark civil rights legislation in 1957 and was one of the primary sponsors of the Civil Rights Act of 1966. In the mid-1960s, he helped lead an effort to end immigration quotas and enact fair- housing standards. He also wrote the 1982 extension to the Voting Rights Act, and was House leader in making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday.

Despite all this he was best known for his leadership on the Judiciary Committee during the Congressional hearings on Watergate. In a period that was so politically charged, Peter was seen as fair, objective, and dedicated to upholding the integrity of the Congress.

At the outset of the hearings he set the tone by stating ``Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of American people, and their children after them, will say: That was the right course. There was no other way.''

He never wavered from the spirit of those words, as the hearings played out over the coming months. In the end, though the country would see their President resign, they had confidence that the system had done its job, and that our government would endure.

This was due in large part to Peter's leadership. At that time, I was a young man just beginning my tenure in Congress, but having had the opportunity to observe Peter taught me lessons of leadership that I have never forgotten.

William Penn once said, ``Sense shines with a double luster when it is set in humility. An able and yet humble man is a jewel worth a kingdom.'' If this is the measure of a man, than Congressmen Peter Rodino is a jewel our nation will never replace. His spirit and the lessons his life provide will continue to guide us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Earth Day events in Harlem, New York, and to recognize the dedication of advocates of environmental justice. This year, Harlem will celebrate the 35th anniversary of Earth Day--a day designed to raise our collective awareness of the challenges facing our environmental and global communities.

In the first Earth Day celebration, the Nation directed its attention to the issues of the environment and ways to ensuring its protection for years to come. Congress adjourned--on a Wednesday--for the day to allow Members to hear from their constituents. Roughly 20 million Americans united to express their collective demand for a safer, cleaner, and healthier global community. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency followed shortly after that momentous day. These were true efforts, not in name alone, to provide important and needed protections to our environment and to make our communities safe, clean, and healthy.

This year, Harlem will focus on the environmental problems of communities of color. West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc (WE ACT) is a non-profit grassroots environmental group that has worked to improve environmental quality and to address equity and justice in environmental issues for predominately African-American and Latino communities. For the last 7 years, they have worked to raise community awareness of environmental hazards, to identify and research ecological threats to minority communities, and to attain governmental policies to protect local communities.

As part of their Earth Day celebrations, WE ACT will honor six luminaries in the field of environmental justice: Alphonse Fletcher, the chairman of Fletcher Asset Management; Dr. Kenneth Olden, the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS); Dr. Joseph Graziano from the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia University; Lucille McEwen, Esq., president and CEO of Harlem Congregations for Community Improvement; Dr. Rafael Lantigua, associate director of General Medicine at New York Presbyterian Hospital; and Full Spectrum Building and Development, Inc., a Harlem-based development firm that built the first green building in Harlem. These individuals will be awarded WE ACT for Environmental Justice Awards for making ``substantial inroads to preserve natural and built environment, and improve environmental health in communities of color.'' They will be honored for their hard work in ensuring that minority communities are safe, clean, and healthy communities.

Fellow Members of Congress, please join me in thanking WE ACT for its hard work in organizing Earth Day activities in Harlem, New York. This is a significant day in American history and to our future. We must do more to truly protect our environment from the threats of pollution, industrial contamination, and abuse. We must find a balance that will protect our nature, the environment, and our communities.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to discuss the ongoing crisis in Darfur. As many as 400,000 have died throughout the course of this crisis, and more than 10,000 continue to die each month. While the death and suffering continues, action on the part of the Administration has, in recent months, been subdued at best. A May 3, Op-Ed in the New York Times, entitled ``Day 113 of the President's Silence'', points out that the Administration's silence on the issue has been noticeable. This new stance is extremely perplexing considering the Administration's heavy engagement on the issue previously.

Part of that engagement involved early pressure on the Sudanese leadership to agree to a Darfur cease fire. The United States also had the distinction of being the first and only major world power to label the offenses of the Sudanese government in Darfur as genocide. The Administration was also generally supportive of the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act passed in late 2004, which admonished the Sudanese government for its actions in Darfur, provided humanitarian assistance for the region, and reiterated United States sanctions on Sudan.

The United States has also provided large amounts of assistance to the Darfur region, totaling some $615 million since 2003 ($357.6 million in FY 2005 alone). The 2005 Emergency Supplemental agreed to on Tuesday included $50 million to strengthen the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur, as well as $40 million in general humanitarian aid.

Despite the financial assistance, the Administration has been quiet on the political front recently. In fact they have seemingly backed away from referring to the crisis in Darfur as genocide, and have down played the casualty count in the region. As the New York Times Op-Ed asserts, Sudan's recent cooperation with the United States on intelligence matters, may be placating the Administration's stance towards the regime regarding Darfur.

In the most recent indication of its new stance on Darfur, the Administration came out in opposition to the Darfur Accountability Act introduced by Senator Corzine. Among other things the act called for wide-ranging sanctions against the Sudanese government, the establishment of a special presidential envoy for Darfur, and a military no-fly zone for the region. The bill also sought to provide for the protection of Darfurian civilians by strengthening the African Union force in Darfur through a broadened Chapter 7 UN mandate and deployment of a supplemental UN force.

The bill was attached to the Emergency Supplemental which passed the Senate in late April, and was awaiting approval in conference committee. If accepted the bill would have represented a major step forward in bringing peace and security to the people of Darfur. However, the Administration made clear its opposition to the bill, and it was subsequently deleted from the final Emergency Supplemental Conference Report agreed to this week. With the Darfur Accountability Act off the table, what will the Administration do now regarding Darfur?

Financial assistance is not enough--there needs to be real political action. Though the Darfur Accountability Act was not passed, most of its provisions called for action at the Executive level. Thus, the Administration still has an opportunity to become effectively engaged on the Darfur issue. Most of the solutions to the Darfur crisis will entail a multi-lateral effort, so the President must become more involved in eliciting a response from the international community.

Though several UN Security Council resolutions have been passed to date, the UN has yet to agree on a comprehensive Security Council resolution which would cease the transgressions of the Sudanese government and its Janjaweed militia, and provide adequate protection for Darfurian civilians. The African Union will not be able to handle the situation in Darfur on their own. They need the troops, mandate, and logistical resources to effectively protect civilians dispersed across an area the size of Texas.

The Administration can bring this about; they need only increase their engagement. To that end the US must provide more leadership in the United Nations, especially the Security Council, to get a comprehensive resolution passed. It also needs to be especially forceful with China and Russia, who have been a major hindrance to achieving progress on the Darfur issue. The Administration must also sustain pressure on the Sudanese regime. We can not turn a blind eye to their transgressions in Darfur, simply because they are now cooperative with us on intelligence matters. Not only is that short-sighted, it is morally wrong.

In the cases of the Holocaust and Rwanda, inaction on the part of the international community allowed the mass murder of millions of innocent people. Now we find ourselves on the brink of a similarly momentous error. Once again, politics and national interests are delaying the type of action needed to make a significant impact on the Darfur Crisis.

During the observation of the Auschwitz anniversary in February 2005, Dr Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, wisely commented that ``We can't bring the dead back to life, but we can fight for the sanctity of life.'' It is my hope that we take up the fight to which Rabbi Sacks refers: Unlike the Holocaust and Rwanda, the final story of Darfur has yet to be written. We still have the chance, however faint, to prevent the triumph of evil. Mr. President, we must do more for Darfur. If we choose not to act, history will forever echo our failure, and our consciences will forever hold our shame.

[From the New York Times, May 3, 2005]

Day 113 of the President's Silence

(By Nicholas D. Kristof)

Finally, finally, finally, President Bush is showing a

little muscle on the issue of genocide in Darfur. Is the

muscle being used to stop the genocide of hundreds of

thousands of villagers? No, tragically, it's to stop Congress

from taking action.

Incredibly, the Bush administration is fighting to kill the

Darfur Accountability Act, which would be the most forceful

step the U.S. has taken so far against the genocide. The

bill, passed by the Senate, calls for such steps as freezing

assets of the genocide's leaders and imposing an

internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan's Army from

strafing villages.

The White House was roused from its stupor of indifference

on Darfur to send a letter, a copy of which I have in my

hand, to Congressional leaders, instructing them to delete

provisions about Darfur from the legislation.

Mr. Bush might reflect on a saying of President Kennedy:

``The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a

period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.''

Aside from the effort to block Congressional action, there

are other signs that the administration is trying to

backtrack on Darfur. The first sign came when Condoleezza

Rice gave an interview to The Washington Post in which she

deflected questions about Darfur and low-balled the number of

African Union troops needed there.

Then, in Sudan, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick

pointedly refused to repeat the administration's past

judgment that the killings amount to genocide. Mr. Zoellick

also cited an absurdly low estimate of Darfur's total death

toll: 60,000 to 160,000. Every other serious estimate is many

times as high. The latest, from the Coalition for

International Justice, is nearly 400,000, and rising by 500 a

day.

This is not a partisan issue, for Republicans and the

Christian right led the way in blowing the whistle on the

slaughter in Darfur. As a result, long before Democrats had

staggered to their feet on the issue, Mr. Bush was

telephoning Sudan's leader and pressing for a ceasefire

there.

Later, Mr. Bush forthrightly called the slaughter genocide,

and he has continued to back the crucial step of a larger

African Union force to provide security. Just the baby steps

Mr. Bush has taken have probably saved hundreds of thousands

of lives.

So why is Mr. Bush so reluctant to do a bit more and save

perhaps several hundred thousand more lives? I sense that

there are three reasons.

First, Mr. Bush doesn't see any neat solution, and he's

mindful that his father went into Somalia for humanitarian

reasons and ended up with a mess.

Second, Mr. Bush is very proud--justly--that he helped

secure peace in a separate war between northern and southern

Sudan. That peace is very fragile, and he is concerned that

pressuring Sudan on Darfur might disrupt that peace while

doing little more than emboldening the Darfur rebels (some of

them cutthroats who aren't negotiating seriously).

Third, Sudan's leaders have increased their cooperation

with the C.I.A. As The Los Angeles Times reported, the C.I.A.

recently flew Sudan's intelligence chief to Washington for

consultations about the war on terror, and the White House

doesn't want to jeopardize that channel.

All three concerns are legitimate. But when historians look

back on his presidency, they are going to focus on Mr. Bush's

fiddling as hundreds of thousands of people were killed,

raped or mutilated in Darfur--and if the situation worsens,

the final toll could reach a million dead.

This Thursday marks Holocaust Remembrance Day. The best

memorial would be for more Americans to protest about this

administration's showing the same lack of interest in Darfur

that F.D.R. showed toward the genocide of Jews. Ultimately,

public pressure may force Mr. Bush to respond to

Darfur, but it looks as if he will have to be dragged kicking

and screaming by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Granted, Darfur defies easy solutions. But Mr. Bush was

outspoken and active this spring in another complex case,

that of Terry Schiavo. If only Mr. Bush would exert himself

as much to try to save the lives of the two million people

driven from their homes in Darfur. So I'm going to start

tracking Mr. Bush's lassitude. The last time Mr. Bush let the

word Darfur slip past his lips publicly (to offer a passing

compliment to U.S. aid workers, rather than to denounce the

killings) was Jan. 10. So today marks Day 113 of Mr. Bush's

silence about the genocide unfolding on his watch.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the research and contributions of the late Dr. Kenneth B. Clark who passed away on Monday. In his 90 years, Dr. Clark through his research helped to end segregation, fought to improve educational opportunities and services in minority communities, and drew attention to the psychological challenges of minorities.

Dr. Clark's research as an educational psychologist focused on the effects of racial prejudices in shaping identity and influencing educational achievement. His research demonstrated that segregation cultivated feelings of inferiority in minority students. Thurgood Marshall convincingly used Dr. Clark's research on inferiority in segregated school systems to argue that ``separate but equal'' was unconstitutional.

Like most of us, Dr. Clark's mother played an important role in his educational commitment. She insisted in 1920's America that he not go to vocational school as advocated by guidance counselors. Instead, she was determined that her son could do and was worthy of much more. She stressed to him the value of a quality education and he worked to ensure that same standard for all Americans.

Dr. Clark worked to restructure the public school systems in New York and Washington. Committed to the importance of integration and the value of a quality education, Dr. Clark proposed major reforms in the school systems that would bring students from different backgrounds together and would challenge them academically.

Needless to say, Dr. Clark has long been a vocal and critical advocate for sound education policy and social justice. His research has already had a great impact on this country. I would further honor my dear friend, Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, by inserting the following two tributes to his memory. The first is a statement issued by Dennis Courtland Hayes, Interim President and CEO of the NAACP, and Julian Bond, Chairman of the NAACP Board of Directors. The second is a piece from the Washington Post about the research and life of Dr. Clark.

NAACP Mourns Death of Kenneth B. Clark, Psychologist and Educator Who

Helped End School Segregation

Dr. Clark was a national authority on the negative effects

of entrenched segregation.

May 2, 2005.--The NAACP mourns the passing of Dr. Kenneth

B. Clark, whose groundbreaking studies of African American

children in the south influenced the U.S. Supreme Court to

rule that school segregation was unconstitutional. Clark died

yesterday at his home in Hastings-on-the-Hudson, N.Y.

NAACP Interim President and CEO Dennis Courtland Hayes

said: ``Dr. Clark made a monumental contribution to the 1954

Brown v. Board of Education decision that has proven so

important in this country. His research has been key to the

understanding by African Americans that we are all created

equal in the eyes of God and to value our heritage.''

Clark's research verified the damaging effect of racial

segregation to black school children in the early 1950's.

This testimony was used by attorney Thurgood Marshall and the

NAACP to challenge the constitutionality of the separate-but-

equal doctrine that violated the equal protection clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment.

Clark's testing of children in South Carolina showed that

African American children educated in a segregated school

system saw themselves as inferior and, as he wrote,

``accepted the inferiority as part of reality.''

In 1961, Clark was awarded the Spingarn Medal, the NAACP's

highest award. Clark, a longtime professor at City College of

New York, wrote several influential books and articles

advancing the cause of integration.

Founded in 1909, the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People is the nation's oldest and

largest civil rights organization. Its half-million adult and

youth members throughout the United States and the world are

the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities

and monitor equal opportunity in the public and private

sectors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding American whose tireless work helped end segregation, raised the educational expectations of generations of New Yorkers, and advanced the idea of a truly integrated society. My dear friend, Dr. Kenneth B. Clark died on May 1, 2005 and he will be missed by all who knew him. I extend my condolences to his family and I know I am joined by thousands of New Yorkers, as well as those throughout the Nation, who benefited from his work to end the injustice of legally imposed racial segregation and to create a society where all could have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Kenneth B. Clark was a brilliant scholar and teacher who influenced a generation of social scientists by his work and his example as a teacher at the City College of New York. He was also, and at heart perhaps he was even moreso, an activist who sought to bring about the social change required to attain equality of opportunity for African- Americans in our society. He inspired the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and those who led the great Civil Rights Movement toward a society in which people would be judged, as Dr. King put it ``by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.''

Dr. Clark was committed to the achievement of an integrated society in America that would remove the barriers to full participation by blacks, but would also make whites more aware of the benefits to be derived from participation by all based upon talent.

Dr. Clark had an impressive career of working for civil rights and education. His research in the 1950s established the inherent problems of segregated system and alerted the Supreme Court and the Nation to the negative effects of segregation on African-American youth. As a member of the New York State Board of Regents for twenty years, he continually advised elected officials on ways to transform and improve their school systems. He was a passionate advocate for children and did not spare those who failed them.

Dr. Clark was an exemplary American who worked to improve the life of all persons in America. I knew him as an exceptional individual and a trusted friend. The attached obituary from the New York Times (May 2, 2005) highlights the life story and accomplishments of Dr. Clark.

Kenneth Clark, Who Helped End Segregation, Dies

New York, NY--Kenneth B. Clark, the psychologist and

educator whose 1950 report showing the destructive effect of

school segregation influenced the United States Supreme Court

to hold school segregation to be unconstitutional, died

yesterday at his hpme in Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y. He was 90.

His death was reported by daughter, Kate C. Harris.

Dr. Clark was a leader in the civil rights movement that

developed after World War II. He was the first black to earn

a doctorate from Columbia University, the first to become a

tenured instructor in the City College system of New York,

and, in 1966, the first black elected to the New York State

Board of Regents.

He wrote several influential books and articles and used

his considerable prestige in academic and professional

circles and as a participant on many government bodies and

Congressional committees to advance the cause of integration.

He battled white supremacists and black separatists alike

because he believed that a ``racist system inevitably

destroys and damages human beings; it brutalizes and

dehumanizes them, black and white alike.''

It was his research with black schoolchildren that became a

pillar of Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court

decision that toppled the ``separate but equal'' doctrine of

racial segregation that prevailed in 21 states.''

While for decades Dr. Clark was one of the great national

authorities on integration, his effect was particularly

profound in New York City and New York State. Mayors and

governors consulted him, and he expressed firm views about

virtually every delicate racial matter from school busing to

housing discrimination.

He was often fearless and blunt about his views, and

willing to change them when the empirical evidence led him to

believe that his original sentiments were wrong. An early

champion of a sweeping reorganization of New York City

schools that gave greater control to community school boards,

Dr. Clark later commented that ``the schools are no better

and no worse than they were a decade ago.''

``In terms of the basic objective,'' he said,

``decentralization did not make a damn bit of difference.''

Dr. Clark, who grew up in New York, gained firsthand

knowledge of the effects of legally entrenched segregation in

an extended visit, in the 1950's, to Clarendon County in

central South Carolina. Its school system had three times as

many blacks as whites, but white students received more than

60 percent of the funds earmarked for education.

Dr. Clark administered a test, which he had devised years

earlier, to 16 of those black children, who were ages 6 to 9.

He showed them a black doll and a white doll and asked them

what they thought of each. Eleven of them said that the black

doll looked ``bad,'' and nine of them thought that the white

doll looked ``nice.'' Seven of the 16 told Dr. Clark that

they actually saw themselves as being closest to the white

doll in appearance when asked, ``Now show me the doll that's

most like you.''

``These children saw themselves as inferior, and they

accepted the inferiority as part of reality,'' Dr. Clark

said.

Dr. Clark's testing in Clarendon County was used by

Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational

Fund in its challenge to the constitutionality of the

separate-but-equal doctrine because it showed actual damage

to children who were segregated and a violation of equal

protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl

Warren announced its decision in Brown v. Board of Education,

and Marshall, who had argued the case before the court,

called Dr. Clark with the news. Dr. Clark recalled that

Marshall told him that ``Justice Warren had specifically

mentioned the psychological testimony as key.''

Dr. Clark added: ``I confidently expected the segregation

problem would be solved by 1960. That shows how naive I

was.''

An Unwavering Insistence

To the end, Dr. Clark remained committed to integration,

although he grew more pessimistic. For this, in part, he

blamed neoconservative whites who, he thought, had betrayed

the civil rights struggle; those blacks who thought they

could succeed in isolation from whites; politicians of both

races who made empty promises; and defeatists who came to

think that integration and real racial harmony were ``too

difficult to achieve.''

Renowned for the power of his oratory and writing over a

career that spanned more than 50 years, Dr. Clark was

uncompromising in his insistence that blacks be given equal

rights and that even in the face of violence at the hands of

racists, they must ``adopt a courageous, calm and confident

position.''

Besides Ms. Harris, of Lausanne, Switzerland, and Osprey,

Fla., he is survived by his son, Hilton B. Clark of

Manhattan, three grandchildren and five greatgrandchildren.

Dr. Clark's wife died in 1983.

Kenneth Bancroft Clark was born in the Panama Canal Zone on

July 14, 1914, the son of Arthur Bancroft Clark and Miriam

Hanson Clark. His parents did not get along. Mrs. Clark

yearned to return to the United States. Mr. Clark, a

passenger agent with the United Fruit Company in Latin

America, felt he wanted to stay where he was in order to earn

a living. When Kenneth was only 5, his mother decided to

leave her husband. She took Kenneth and his younger sister,

Beulah, to New York City, where Mrs. Clark took a job as a

seamstress in a sweatshop, struggling to pay the rent on a

tenement apartment in Harlem. Later, she helped organize a

union where she worked and became a shop steward for the

International Ladies Garment Workers Union. Mrs. Clark and

Kenneth had a strong bond and years later, he would recall

that she ``somehow communicated to me the excitement of

people doing things together to help themselves.''

In 1920, Kenneth entered Public School 5 in Harlem and soon

thereafter switched to P.S. 139, which later also educated

James Baldwin. At first, the student body reflected the fact

that Harlem contained substantial populations of Irish and

Italians. By the time Kenneth Clark reached the ninth grade,

however, Harlem was changing and most of the students around

him were black. At school, he was told to learn a trade and

prepare for vocational training. Miriam Clark would have none

of that. She walked into school one day, told the counselor

what she thought of vocational schools and made it clear that

as far as she was concerned, her son was better than that.

Kenneth thus went to George Washington High School in Upper

Manhattan.

He was admitted to Howard University, where he studied

political science with Dr. Ralph Bunche and where he came to

admire Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein. He earned his

bachelor's degree in 1935 and returned to Howard the next

year for his master's degree in psychology. He also taught at

Howard for a time, but soon departed for New York, where he

pursued doctoral studies at Columbia University, receiving

his Ph.D. in experimental psychology in 1940.

From 1939 to 1941 he took part in the classic study of the

American Negro that was organized by Gunnar Myrdal, the

Swedish economist. The study, which documented the

inequalities that obtained among American whites and blacks,

would be required reading in colleges and universities for

years.

In 1942, Dr. Clark served for a time in the Office of War

Information, for which he traveled about the United States in

order to assess morale among blacks. He returned to New York

late in the year and joined the faculty of City College.

Mamie Phipps Clark, whom he had married in 1938, also

earned a doctorate in psychology from Columbia and in 1946

joined him in founding the Northside Center for Child

Development, which treated children with personality

disorders. At first, its services were offered only to blacks

but in 1949, it became available to whites, too. That year,

Dr. Clark was promoted to assistant professor of psychology

at City College.

His interest in black children's perceptions of themselves

went back to 1939 and 1940, when he and his wife conducted

tests with dolls in New York and Washington. In those days,

Washington had a segregated school system, and the tests

showed that black children in Washington had lower self-

esteem than their peers in New York City.

On another occasion, Dr. Clark was in rural Arkansas and

when he asked one black child which doll was most like him,

the little boy smiled and pointed to the brown doll and

replied: ``That's a nigger. I'm a nigger.'' Dr. Clark said he

found that ``as disturbing, or more disturbing, than the

children in Massachusetts who would refuse to answer the

question or who would cry and run out of the room.''

Taken as a whole, Dr. Clark said, the results repeatedly

confirmed that American society in the segregated South was

telling blacks that they were ``inferior to other groups of

human beings in the society.''

Throughout the 1950's and 1960's, Dr. Clark was most active

in New York City. In 1954 he had assailed the city school

system with permitting de facto segregation, pointing out

that because of this, especially in places like Harlem,

``children not only feel inferior but are inferior in

academic achievement.'' After an investigation supported his

charges, he was named to lead a Board of Education commission

to see to the integration of city schools and to push for

smaller classes, an enriched curriculum and better facilities

in the city's slum schools.

During this period he also served as a visiting professor

both at Columbia and at the University of California,

Berkeley. He became a full tenured professor in the city

university system in 1960 and in 1961 won the Spingarn Medal

of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People for his contributions to promoting better race

relations.

A Fight for Harlem

In 1962, Dr. Clark organized Harlem Youth Opportunities

Unlimited, or Haryou, in an effort to recruit educational

experts to reorganize Harlem schools, provide for preschool

programs and after-school remedial education and reduce

unemployment among blacks who had dropped out of school. Two

years later, a committee headed by Attorney General Robert F.

Kennedy endorsed. Haryou's work, and as a result, President

Lyndon B. Johnson's administration earmarked $110 million to

finance the program.

But the program was placed under the administration of a

joint organization formed by the merger of Haryou and

Associated Community Teams, a pet project of Adam Clayton

Powell Jr., the Harlem Congressman and minister. Mr. Powell

and Dr. Clark, who served as acting chairman of Haryou-Act,

clashed over the selection of an executive director. Mr.

Powell charged that Dr. Clark stood to profit personally from

control of the program. Dr. Clark denied this and said that

Mr. Powell saw the Haryou-Act program mostly in terms of the

political power it gave him.

The struggle between the two was long and heated, and

journalists reported that the two grew to despise each other,

something that Dr. Clark denied.

``I liked him,'' Dr. Clark said of Mr. Powell. ``Adam was

one of the most honest, corrupt human beings I have ever met.

One of the reasons I liked Adam is that he had so few

illusions.''

Dr. Clark quoted Mr. Powell as telling him, in the middle

of the controversy, ``Ah, Kenneth, stop being a child. If you

come along with me, we can split a million bucks.'' Dr. Clark

explained that what Mr. Powell didn't understand was: ``I

didn't want any million dollars. What the hell was I going to

do with a million dollars?''

In 1950, Dr. Clark became convinced he should move his

family from New York City to Westchester County. He wanted to

leave Harlem because he and his wife could not bear to send

their children to the public schools that he was trying so

hard to improve but were failing anyhow. ``My children have

only one life,'' he said.

At the same time, he decided that perhaps the way to hasten

the improvement of city schools was to decentralize them. But

after the schools were decentralized, they continued their

decline. Dr. Clark came to think of the decentralization

experiment as a ``disaster,'' failing to achieve any of the

educational objectives he had sought.

By the 1970's, after the assassinations of the Rev. Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr. and John and Robert Kennedy, and the

difficulty in achieving integration in the North, many blacks

were growing more wary of whites, more doubtful about

overcoming prejudice and achieving racial equality. Dr. Clark

was discouraged too, but he remained a firm advocate of the

integration of American society. His colleagues described him

as ``an incorrigible integrationist,'' convinced of the

rightness of the civil rights struggle and certain that the

nation could not and should not go back.

In 1973, with a backlash to integration mounting, Dr. Clark

said in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that

``one of the things that disturbs me most is the

sophisticated form of intellectual white backlash,'' citing

the writings of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others. ``In

their ivory towers, they have lost all empathy with low-

income people and black people. They are seeking to repudiate

their own past liberal positions, fighting against their own

heritage at the expense of the poor.''

Dr. Clark said he neither admired nor respected such

intellectuals and said he was ``breaking all ties with

them.'' A registered Democrat, Dr. Clark went out of his way

in 1976 to support the incumbent United States senator, James

L. Buckley, a conservative Republican, in his unsuccessful

race against Mr. Moynihan, the Democratic candidate.

Dr. Clark's candor was evenhanded. Late in life, he said he

had not been heartened by the ascendancy of blacks in public

life because it had not translated into a fundamental change

in the condition of ordinary black people. He said he thought

white Americans admired accomplished blacks like Colin Powell

as long as there were not ``too many of them'' and they did

not threaten white hegemony in American society.

He remained active and vocal. In the 1980's, he expressed

anger over assertions that blacks were the cause of their own

problems. In 1986, he called on the New York State Board of

Regents to supersede the authority of local school boards if

they chronically reported low test scores. He also spoke out

on deteriorating relations between blacks and Jews, asserting

that the dialogue had been too much about anti-Semitism among

blacks and not enough about anti-black sentiment among the

Jews.

He irritated separatists when he quit the board of Antioch

College after it agreed to black demands for the

establishment of a dormitory and study program that excluded

whites. And some blacks in Washington became upset with Dr.

Clark, whom they had hired to evaluate their black-run school

system, when he concluded that it wasn't very good and that

what students needed was better teachers and tougher basic

courses. He also suggested that whatever argot black children

spoke in the streets, they ought to be required to use

standard American English in school.

Dr. Clark was something of a legend in the City University

system. And he was quick to say what all really great

teachers say: that in the process of teaching, a good

professor learned more than his students.

He retired from City University in 1975 and, looking back

on more than a third of a century of work there, said he

thought that the students of the 1940's and '50's had been

better at asking probing questions. Dr. Clark was not so

impressed with the students of the 1960's and said he thought

their revolution ``was pure fluff.'' He also retired from the

Metropolitan Applied Research Center, which he had founded

eight years earlier, and embarked on a consulting business on

race relations and affirmative action.

Dr. Clark's books included ``Dark Ghetto'' (1965); ``A

Relevant War Against Poverty'' (1969); ``A Possible

Reality,'' (1972); and ``Pathos of Power'' (1974).

Despite the many honors he won and the respect he

commanded, Dr. Clark said he thought his life had been a

series of ``magnificent failures.'' In 1992, at the age of

78, he confessed: ``I am pessimistic and I don't like that. I

don't like the fact that I am more pessimistic now than I was

two decades ago.''

Yet as a conscience of New York politics and of the civil

rights movement, he remained an unreconstructed, if

anguished, integrationist. A decade ago, during one of his

last lengthy interviews, he chain-smoked Marlboros in his

home, flanked by vivid African carvings and walls of books

wrapped in sun-faded dust jackets, as he professed optimism

but repeatedly expressed disappointment over dashed

expectations about experiments in school decentralization,

open admissions at City University and affirmative action.

``There's no question that there have been changes,'' he

said then. ``They are not as deep as they appear to be.''

Among the cosmetic changes was an rhetorical evolution from

Negro to black to African-American. What, he was asked, was

the best thing for blacks to call themselves?

``White,'' he replied.

He said a lack of meaningful progress could be blamed on

blacks who saw themselves only as victims and on whites too

narrow-minded to recognize their own self-interest in black

success. As whites become a minority in a polyglot country,

he was asked, won't they see that it is in their interest

that blacks succeed?

``They're not that bright,'' he replied. ``I don't think

you can expect whites to understand the effects of prejudice

and discrimination against blacks affecting them. If whites

really understood, they would do something about it.''

Mr. Speaker, it greatly pleases me that Congress has decided to name the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, California after Ray Charles. He fully deserves this honor, and I congratulate Congresswoman Diane Watson for sponsoring this successful and appropriate legislation.

In a career that spanned more than 50 years, Ray Charles enjoyed immense fame in the U.S. and abroad. His music unified people, crossing all lines of nationality, race, age and class. His music was universal in appeal and style, from gospel to country and everything in between. Sightless, he uniquely opened the eyes of all people to appreciate the beauty and talent of others.

He saw no differences in the aspirations of all people for freedom and justice. He advocated with equal vigor on behalf of African Americans for civil rights, freedom for South Africans and security for the people of Israel.

In his own life, he overcame blindness, poverty, racial discrimination, and personal failures, including drug abuse, to become a beacon of hope for anyone faced with challenges of any kind.

Ray Charles deserves to have a post office named after him, and more. I have introduced legislation that would award him the Congressional Gold Medal for his lifetime of achievement and service to the world community. I hope Congress supports this legislation and continues to honor this great man.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would provide $25.2 billion in interest-free funds over the next two years for public school construction and modernization projects.

Currently, our public school system has extraordinary unmet needs for funds to construct and modernize schools. Consider the following facts:

(1) The average age of a public school in the United States is 42 years.

(2) One-third of all public schools in the United States are in need of extensive repair or replacement.

(3) Three and a half million students attend schools that need major repair or replacement.

(4) According to a recent report from the National Education Association, it will cost $332 billion to bring the existing public schools into overall good condition. Billions more will be required to construct new schools to meet expanding student enrollments.

President Bush's education program places strong emphasis on raising standards in America's classrooms, but does not provide promised Federal help for the cost of additional testing and services required to reach that goal. His program also ignores the fact that school facilities are an important part of raising student performance. Inferior facilities make teaching more difficult. They also send a clear message to the students that this nation does not value their education. The President's program seems to be designed to fail.

My legislation will provide funds for school modernization projects through a federal tax credit. The tax credit will, in effect, pay the interest on $25.2 billion of school modernization bonds. All decisions relating to how those funds would be used would continue to be made at the local level.

My legislation is based on a successful model, the Qualified Academy Bond (QZAB) program enacted in 1997. A California local school official described that program as a ``local school district's dream'' after having successfully participated in a bond offering subsidized under that program. U.S. Education Secretary Rodney Page endorsed a similar proposal in 1999 when he was Superintendent of the Houston schools. In a statement submitted to the Committee on Ways and Means, he said that school modernization bonds ``represent the approach to Federal aid that will have a truly consequential impact on meeting the infrastructure needs of Houston and other large urban high poverty districts.''

Mr. Speaker, America's future can only prosper with the proper education of our children, and our children cannot receive such education with our public schools in a dilapidated state. Modernizing our schools is an investment in our future, and should be a main, bipartisan priority in the 109th Congress.

Attached is a brief description of the bill and a table showing how the funds will be allocated among the States.

Summary

The bill would subsidize $25.2 billion in zero-interest

school modernization bonds. The federal government would

provide tax credits for the interest normally paid on a bond.

Funds that would have gone to pay bond interest would be

freed for other education needs. For each $1000 of school

bonds, the net benefit of the program to State or local

school districts would be approximately $500.

Funding: The bill divides the interest-free funds for public school construction and modernization as follows:

(1) $22 billion over two years for zero-interest school

modernization bonds ($11 billion in both 2006 and 2007). The

bill would allocate 60 percent of the $22 billion in bonds to

states based on school-age population. The State education

agency has the authority to allocate the State's share among

the school districts in the State with no restrictions as to

what schools can qualify. The remaining 40 percent of these

bonds would be directly allocated to the 125 school districts

with the largest number of low-income students based on ESEA

Title I funding (poverty-based distribution).

(2) $400 million in school modernization bonds for Bureau

of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools.

(3) $2.8 billion for expansion of the existing Qualified

Zone Academy Bond program (QZAB). This amount is allocated

among the States based upon the number of poor students. The

State education agency has the authority to allocate the

State's share among the school districts in the State; except

that amount may be allocated only to schools with at least

35% poor students--those schools located in Empowerment

Zones, Enterprise Communities or which have at least 35

percent of their students eligible for free or reduced price

school lunch.

Federal Role: The federal government would provide a tax

credit to the bond purchaser equal to the interest that would

otherwise be paid on a school construction bond. No new

federal bureaucracy would be created.

Cost: The five-year cost to the Federal government is

approximately $1.7 billion and the ten-year cost is

approximately $6.8 billion.

The following table shows the estimated allocations under the bill.

Estimated State Bond Allocations

Alabama........................................................$354,922 Alaska...........................................................53,398 Arizona.........................................................337,448 Arkansas........................................................183,516 California....................................................3,109,598 Colorado........................................................296,358 Connecticut.....................................................292,085 Delaware.........................................................49,070 District of Columbia.............................................88,904 Florida.......................................................1,188,467 Georgia.........................................................654,051 Hawaii...........................................................77,438 Idaho............................................................93,409 Illinois......................................................1,221,868 Indiana.........................................................459,436 Iowa............................................................196,453 Kansas..........................................................196,866 Kentucky........................................................295,249 Louisiana.......................................................473,051 Maine............................................................84,355 Maryland........................................................395,270 Massachusetts...................................................467,254 Michigan......................................................1,006,867 Minnesota.......................................................378,952 Mississippi.....................................................237,537 Missouri........................................................452,673 Montana..........................................................65,077 Nebraska........................................................131,275 Nevada...........................................................92,951 New Hampshire...................................................80,802. New Jersey......................................................660,175 New Mexico......................................................157,627 New York......................................................2,476,435 North Carolina..................................................488,119 North Dakota.....................................................46,596 Ohio..........................................................1,019,626 Oklahoma........................................................277,839 Oregon..........................................................235,626 Pennsylvania..................................................1,044,126 Puerto Rico.....................................................378,751 Rhode Island.....................................................90,648 South Carolina..................................................284,932 South Dakota.....................................................56,180 Tennessee.......................................................421,577 Texas.........................................................1,998,390 Utah............................................................175,947 Vermont..........................................................42,022 Virginia........................................................422,902 Washington......................................................402,308 West Virginia...................................................123,951 Wisconsin.......................................................491,648 Wyoming..........................................................38,712 Outlying Areas...................................................51,263 BIA Schools.....................................................400,000

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great man, Congressman William Lehman of Florida. In his passing, I have lost a dear friend, Congress has lost a role model, and the Nation has lost a brave leader and national hero.

Congressman Lehman was, above all, a true liberal, dedicated to equality among races and classes. He opened his used car dealership in a black neighborhood, and was one of the few dealers in the 1940's and 1950's--white or otherwise--who would finance cars for black customers. He supported issues that were important to poor communities, fighting against highways that divided and ruined communities, and bringing home more than $800 million for a Metrorail system in Miami, providing multiple ways for the poor to get to and from work.

He was also a gifted politician, inspiring loyalty in his committee members and his party. He neither dictated policy, nor ran his subcommittee overseeing highways, seaports and mass-transit systems with an iron fist, but by striking a perfect balance between offering incentives to cooperate and promising consequences to those who didn't. He knew all the legislative routes, and successfully steered bills he believed would benefit his constituents and the country around the road blocks and land mines in the House. If he was defeated on the House floor, he would work tirelessly in the conference committee to ensure the soundest legislative policies were written into law.

Bill was respected on both sides of the aisle, and had friends in both parties and all over Capitol Hill. He conducted himself with dignity, and he showed others that he believed in the issues he fought for, and wasn't merely supporting them for political purposes. When you hear people describe him, they almost always include the words ``honest'' and ``moral'', attributes that are rarely connected with politicians in this day and age, but which truly fit Bill.

Even after becoming one of the more influential members of Congress, he never lost touch, with his roots. He maintained his southern accent and his unpolished yet powerful manner of speaking throughout his career, and continued to dine and spend time in his old neighborhood.

One would be hard pressed to find a Congressman who took more risks, and for more noble reasons, while in office. In 1988 he chartered a plane to Cuba and successfully

negotiated the release of three political prisoners, endearing him to the conservative Cuban community in his district. Seven years earlier he had negotiated the release of a political prisoner in Argentina, and he smuggled an artificial heart valve into the Soviet Union for an ailing 22 year old woman.

In my mind, Bill was more than a gifted colleague and a good person; he was a very close friend. I can attest that this is one of the rare cases where the statements being made about a person after his death are absolutely true. He was as good of a person in life as he is being described in death--a smart, moral, genuinely decent human being, one whose company it was a pleasure to keep.

Over the years I had the pleasure of working with Congressman Lehman a number of times. We served on the House Judiciary committee together, and in 1982 we traveled to several Latin American countries, including Nicaragua to investigate illegal arms sales. He was as much of a gentleman in the professional world as he was in the personal one.

Our country has experienced a great loss. Congressman Lehman was the kind of man who does not come around often, and we were blessed to have him in Congress. He was a role model to politicians everywhere and an inspiration to citizens all across the Nation. He will be sorely missed wherever he was known.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and those others who thought about doing this for our friend Bob Matsui.

So often we read about outstanding Americans who make great contributions to the country, and yet some of us have never heard of them. So I feel indeed so privileged and so honored of having served with one of those people. Notwithstanding how his country treated him, he decided to make his country treat other people so much better.

Here is a person that served on the Committee on Ways and Means, which is a privilege to serve, but he enjoyed each and every minute of it. He was involved in every debate, whether it was fairness in taxes, Medicare, Social Security, providing assistance to those people who have less than most people in this country. His compassion was always mixed with a lot of humor, to make certain that people would take time out to listen to him when he was serious and at the same time to know that he was not a politician but was someone who was a patriot who loved this country.

I really think that he has set an example for so many people who have reasons to be bitter but certainly can make a better contribution to life as Bob Matsui has made to his country, to his Congress and to his family.

I thank God that I had the privilege to know and to be his friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this chamber a resolution adopted March 9, 2005 by the City Council of Mount Vernon, New York, supporting relief for the family of Amadou Diallo. The resolution calls on Congress to grant permanent resident status to the family of the young African immigrant who was shot 41 times by four plainclothes New York policemen.

The full text of the resolution of the Mount Vernon City Council follows:

Whereas, Amadou Diallo, a 24 year old immigrant from

Guinea, was tragically gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets on

February 4, 1999, by officers of the New York City Police

Department as he attempted to enter his residence in the

Bronx; and

Whereas, Amadou Diallo, an innocent man, was found to be

unarmed at the time of his shooting; and

Whereas, the tragic story of Amadou Diallo garnered

international attention, and an unprecedented outcry and

weeks of demonstrations by New Yorkers who sympathized with

his family;

Whereas, the Diallo family currently resides in the United

States under ``deferred action status'' and are vulnerable to

deportation in the upcoming months; and

Whereas, the Diallo family wishes to remain in the United

States; and

Whereas, the Honorable United States Congressman Charles

Rangel has proposed legislation, namely H.R. 677, which would

grant permanent resident status to Amadou Diallo's family

members: Kadiatou Diallo, Laouratou Diallo, Ibrahima Diallo,

Abdoul Diallo, Mamadou Bobo Diallo, Mamadou Pathe Diallo,

Fatoumata Traore Diallo, Sankarela Diallo and Marliatou

Bah; and

Whereas, granting permanent resident status to the Diallo

family would be a proper and just recognition of the tragedy

they have suffered, and it will allow the Diallo family to

pursue the opportunities promised by the American Dream; and

Whereas, the City Council of the City of Mount Vernon fully

supports Congressman Rangel's proposed legislation and

commends his efforts to keep the Diallo family in the United

States; Now, Therefore, be it resolved that the City Council

of the City of Mount Vernon, New York:

Hereby, fully supports Congressman Rangel's proposed

legislation, H.R. 677, which would grant permanent resident

status to Amadou Diallo's family members: Kadiatou Diallo,

Laouratou Diallo, Ibrahima Diallo, Abdoul Diallo, Mamadou

Bobo Diallo, Mamadou Pathe Diallo, Fatoumata Traore Diallo,

Sankarela Diallo and Marliatou Bah.

Resolved, that the City Council of the City of Mount

Vernon, New York, calls upon the United States Congress to

support Congressman Charles Rangel's proposed legislation,

H.R. 677, which would grant permanent resident status to

Amadou Diallo's family members: Kadiatou Diallo, Laouratou

Diallo, Ibrahima Diallo, Abdoul Diallo, Mamadou Bobo Diallo,

Mamadou Pathe Diallo, Fatoumata Traore Diallo, Sankarela

Diallo and Marliatou Bah.

I extend my personal thanks to Mayor Ernest D. Davis, City Council President Karen Watts, City Councilman William R. Randolph, and the rest of the Mount Vernon City Council for this resolution.

Surely, this Congress can heed the advice of the City Council and truly embrace the Diallo family for the loss of their son and brother.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with much sadness, to mourn the passing of a great American, and one of my dear friends, Johnnie Cochran. At a time like this, I find myself very conflicted. On one hand I am deeply saddened by the loss of my dear friend and confidant, a man who I admired and respected before I came to know him well, and over the most recent years of our friendship as we worked together on the redevelopment of Harlem through the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, which Johnnie chaired, he is a man I would come to love.

On the other hand, I feel great pride and gratefulness in the fact that I had the opportunity to experience his friendship. Johnnie was of one of the greatest legal crusaders of our generation, and hands down, one of the best lawyers I have ever known. Johnnie had a personality that could light up a room. Even his opponents had to acknowledge his charm.

He argued a case with a style and flare that many had never seen in a courtroom. Indeed, most may never see a persona quite like his again. However, Johnnie always remained true to himself. In the legal profession, lawyers often wear a mask. They adopt a sort of legal alter ego. Johnnie won cases being himself, and that is why he was able to connect with jurors, and the public at large, time and time again.

As we all know, Johnnie became recognized the world over through his participation in the OJ Simpson case. But anyone who knows the work of Johnnie Cochran knows that the case was simply a feather in his cap, just one more achievement in a remarkable career.

Anyone who looks beyond the surface would see that Johnnie was not about celebrity clients, he was about seeking justice for those who had been denied it. In his portfolio of clients, one does find the OJ's and P. Diddys of the world, but much more than them you find the little guy: the accused person with no money, no voice, and no hope, and then you find Johnnie right there fighting for them. That was the Johnnie that I knew, and that is the Johnnie that everyone should know.

Johnnie Cochran was born in Shreveport, Louisiana in 1937, the grandson of a sharecropper. His family would move west to California in the late 1940's, where his determined father would work his way up from a shipyard pipe fitter, to an insurance broker for California's leading Black-owned insurance company. The family would eventually settle in Los Angeles where Johnnie would spend the rest of his adolescence.

Although his family's migration to California removed him from the Jim Crow South, the repressive form of segregation and discrimination that Johnnie witnessed as a young child in Louisiana never left him. Instead it instilled in him a deep seated commitment to seek justice for all people.

Johnnie grew up wanting to be a lawyer, and he would see his dream through to fulfillment. After graduating from UCLA, he earned a degree from Loyola Law School in 1962. In the fall of 1961, during his last year in law school, he became the first Black law clerk in the Office of the City Attorney. In early 1963, he became a Deputy City Attorney.

Though he enjoyed his work, he came to realize that most of the people he was prosecuting were Black men who had been severely beaten by police authorities during their arrests. He soon came to believe that something was gravely wrong with the way the justice system related to African American citizens, and he set out to do something about it.

He would leave the City Attorney's office in the late 60's to set up his own practice. He would there begin his crusade of defending those who had been the victims of police brutality and misconduct, who in most cases happened to be minorities.

Along the way he obtained justice for dozens of every day people, who had nowhere else to turn. He would also be the first attorney to get the city of Los Angeles to financially compensate victims of police misconduct. Without question, Johnnie's personal crusade against police violence brought about changes in the law enforcement systems of both Los Angeles and the entire United States.

Johnnie's preoccupation with justice was not confined to situations where the victimization was based on race; he wanted to see justice done in every case. In 1992 he represented Reginald O. Denny, the white truck driver who was brutally beaten by a mob during the Los Angeles Riots. Johnnie argued that the LAPD's reluctance to enter the riot zone cost many people their lives, and put citizens like Denny in harm's way. Indeed, many argued that the riots would never have escalated to the level they did if police had responded sooner.

Though everyone speaks of OJ, as far as Johnnie was concerned, it was the case of Geronomo Pratt that was most meaningful and important to him. He defended Pratt in 1972, but lost the case due to police and prosecutorial misconduct. However, he never gave up on Pratt.

Though he had been elevated to celebrity status, representing rich and famous clients, he never wavered in his quest to get Pratt's conviction overturned. He would ultimately prevail. Pratt's murder conviction was overturned in May 1997. Johnnie also got the state to compensate Pratt $4.5 million, for the 27 years he wrongly spent behind bars.

Many people were opposed to the legal arguments that Johnnie used in the OJ case, regarding police corruption and misconduct. However, Johnnie was ultimately proven right in the late 1990's when the LAPD was rocked by a department wide corruption scandal.

So systemic were the problems in the LA Police Department that the U.S. Department of Justice would have to take over the department for some time. This exemplifies why Johnnie was so important. In his quest for justice, he revealed to society serious problems that they were unable or unwilling to address on their own. This is why we will miss him so. We in the Harlem community will especially miss the leadership and contributor he gave to us in his final years.

In this time of loss however, I am heartened by two things. First is the fact that Johnnie's family is still here with us. His wife Dale has been Johnnie's loving and dedicated partner through all the highs and lows. Indeed, her love may have been the only thing that could render Johnnie defenseless, which was no easy task. He loved his children Jonathan, Tiffany, and Melodie dearly, and seeing them grow and become successful adults made him prouder than any victory he ever achieved in court.

The other thing that heartens me at this time is the knowledge that Johnnie's legacy grows every day. In Los Angeles and in cities around the country, Johnnie has become something of a mythic hero, a sort of legal Robin Hood, and a real role model. Kids across America now not only dream of being like Michael Jordan, or Puff Daddy, they dream of becoming successful lawyers, and being like Johnnie.

There are several young people working in my office right now. One is a lawyer already, and many others aspire to become one. There is no question in my mind that Johnnie in some way has something to do with that. In the end, the unseen influence Johnnie has had on the next generation of passionate advocates may be his greatest legacy.

Johnnie, we will never forget you, and I know we will all meet again. In the meantime, we will continue the fight, for as long as justice reigns, so too, will your spirit live.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great man of the Catholic faith and a hero to those of all faiths. I was deeply saddened to learn of the death of Pope John Paul II. I join the millions of people around the world that have been mourning the loss of this great man and great spiritual and moral leader who stood firmly for the oppressed, for the downtrodden, and for people of all faiths around the world.

Pope John Paul II was a great man, and a strong advocate for equality. He spoke out time and time again against discrimination and injustice in all its forms. He believed in the ``right to have a family and to have an adequately paying job'' and that everyone should be able ``to exist, preserve and develop one's own culture.'' His compassion for his fellow man and woman was overtly obvious.

Pope John Paul II has spread the word of God and the gospel to the world. He was the most traveled Pope in history as he brought these ideas across the globe, especially to the world's poorest people on the continents of Asia, South America, and Africa. He was the only pope to have visited a Caribbean country and has held mass in a host of Central and South American countries. In the last two decades under the Pontiff, the number of Catholics in Africa has doubled and the Pope has visited over a dozen countries on the continent. He appointed nearly two dozen cardinals from Latin America and the Caribbean, including Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras and Claudio Hummes of Brazil, and thirteen from Africa, including Francis Arinze of Nigeria.

Citing the commitment to social justice in the Old Testament, the Pope was a long-time champion of debt relief. In 1994, he called on the United States and other nations to forgive the debts of 40 of the world's poorest countries; to fight vigilantly against hunger, poverty, and disease; and to establish programs to build sound economic policies in those countries.

Though he mourned September 11th with the rest of the world, the Pope steadfastly believed that peace, not war, is the path to creating a safer world for all. He was an outspoken critic of the Iraqi war and called on international leaders to find a peaceful mechanism to address their differences.

Pope John Paul II worked to ease the centuries' old tensions between the Catholic Church and Jews. He was the first Pope to visit a concentration camp and was also the first Pope to visit a synagogue, calling Jews ``our eldest brothers.'' He has repeatedly tried to keep the Catholic Church morally grounded in its advocacy but adaptive to changes in the world.

Not only was he a spiritual leader and warrior for civil rights of universal renown, but he was also an intellectual powerhouse. He was capable of speaking to his people in multiple languages. He wrote volumes on the philosophies of mankind and the virtues of faith.

Personally, I have always respected and admired the Pope for his humanitarianism and empathy for others. He led by example and marked a path of principle and conviction. During my second meeting in 1987 with the pontiff, I was humbled to hear his views and thoughts on drug eradication and other contemporary issues. For over a half century, he had implored the international community to think with grace, act with compassion, and behave with deep regard and respect for our fellow man.

In his many decades of service as the head of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II has done tremendous good for both the Catholic Church and the people of the world. He was a man who commanded my sincere respect, and his loss will be felt by me for many, many years to come. Pope John Paul II was a man who in death, as in life, was an inspiration and guide to us all.

Mr. Chairman, I want to personally thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) so much for the work that he has done in having the record make it clear that we in the House of Representatives did have an alternative to what was presented to us.

There is a lot of talk about moral values that we hear about politically; but I do not care what your religious background is, there are always these stories about the sick and the poor in need; and on the other side, the option is for the rich and the greedy and the insensitive.

You do not have to be a Republican or a Democrat when you look at the document that was placed before us by the majority and then to take a look at the compassion and the common sense that is involved in the alternative that the gentleman from South Carolina and his team have brought to us. But I am not here to talk about compassion. I am too old to believe that it is going to change.

I am here to talk about national security, national security at a time that we are going through these economic deficits. It would just seem to me that it would make a lot of sense if we invested in our young people that are going to school, to make them more productive and make them tax-paying. It seems to me it would make a lot of sense to invest in someone's health so that they would not have to go to community centers, which are being cut back, that they would not have to go into the hospitals.

It seems to me that we would have a sense of national security by thanking our veterans who fight the war, keep the spirits up and not tax them for getting sick or having ailments. It seems to me that in the final analysis, what we have done is borrow money and ask that we make these tremendous tax cuts permanent and whatever our kids get and our grandchildren get will be the debt that this body can possibly place on them.

I just hope that somewhere along the line someone would say that if you really care about this country, that you will care about all of its people, you will be concerned about its working people and be concerned in making Social Security something that will be guaranteed for them because we promised them that it would be.

But I do not think that anyone takes this budget seriously, not if you leave out of it the alternative minimum tax, which no one would want to be able to tell their constituents that this $600 billion tax increase that we are going to place on them, that we did not mean to do it; and no matter how many cities the President goes to, no one would believe that he was sincere about reforming the Social Security system when he knows, Republicans know, Democrats know, that it is going to take money to do this and that is not in the budget. And there are so many other things that are left out. Even the money that is paid into Social Security, that is not counted as a part of our debt.

But one day, just one day, historians or maybe our kids and grandkids are going to ask each and every one of us, when this country was going into this deficit hellhole and when the poor were becoming poorer and the sick, we were cutting their benefits, what were you doing and how were you voting, and I am glad that we will have an opportunity just not to be able to vote against what the majority has given us, but that we have an alternative that the gentleman from South Carolina and the minorities on the Budget Committee and so many others have worked together to say that we are proud to be Americans, we are proud to be Members of Congress, and we are proud that we voted the right way.

Mr. Speaker, today we come before this chamber to be heard on an issue of national consequence and one that is particularly relevant to Black Americans. While we are being told that the economy is showing signs of recovery, that point of view is not reflected in what I, and many of my colleagues in the House, see in our districts. In fact, conditions appear to be consistently bad as more people face extended periods of joblessness--and Blacks remain at a disadvantage to whites in the labor market.

Black Americans have continued to endure chronic unemployment relative to whites in the nation. The Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Situation Summary for February reveals that while the Nation's unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, Black unemployment is 10.9 percent.

The BLS data confirms what has become a long-term trend of Black Americans exclusion from the labor market. The disparity is all the more glaring given that white unemployment was only 4.6 percent last month. Unemployment for Black women hovered at 9.1 percent and for teenagers, age 16 to 19, unemployment was 31.5 percent; a numbing statistic considering economic conditions in our community.

Though the economy gained 262,000 jobs last month it was of little benefit to Blacks seeking work, considering much of the gains were in the construction trades--an area from which Blacks have historically been excluded, retail--where mergers and acquisitions between major retail companies signal another round of downsizing, and in areas such as temporary employment services and food services--where wages may not be sufficient for self sustenance.

What these numbers tell us is that we have arrived at a place somewhere beyond crisis for Black Americans and their relation to the world of work. It is a chilling reminder of the systemic failure of the economy to fairly apportion opportunity and shed any vestiges of racially discriminatory practices. It is why we convene today to discuss this national imperative and urge our President to take immediate action to make jobs and income security a national priority.

A good wage job is the foundation for the economic security of all Americans, and particularly so for people of color who have historically been denied opportunity in our country. Rhetoric about ``family values'' is disingenuous if large segments of our Nation are not given the chance to earn a good wage and provide for their children, spouses, and increasingly parents, whose retirement income is not sufficient to sustain independent living.

This is quite evident in my city--New York City--the Nation's largest metropolis and home to the panorama of racial and ethnic groups that represent the emerging face of America. In this great city, and in many others across the country, the economic devastation has hit close to home. Last year one of our city's leading nonpartisan, not-for-profit social policy and advocacy organizations--the Community Service Society or ``CSS''--issued a landmark report on the crisis of Black male unemployment.

For those of you not familiar with the Community Service Society, it is an organization that has a 160-year history of working to alleviate conditions of poverty affecting low-income New Yorkers. CSS' roots in working to raise living conditions for city residents can be traced back to the settlement house movement in New York City and its role in founding the Columbia University School of Social Work. It is an organization that has played an invaluable role historically in the life of our city and continues to be a voice of conscience today.

The study revealed some 50 percent of Black men in New York City were removed from the labor market. Fifty percent! By any standards it should be unacceptable for half of any group to be without work. Now to be fair, the latest CSS report indicates some improvement in jobholding for Black men but they have steadily lost ground relative to other groups in the city. It is a tragedy that should evoke shame and outrage in the 21st century.

CSS also issued a report that revealed the degree to which young people in our city, age 16 to 24, are not in school and out of work-- tagged ``disconnected'' for the manner in which they are excluded from civic life. In total, the report calculated that there are 170,000 disconnected young people in our communities--a population that surpasses our state capital of Albany and many mid-size American cities.

We know there are a number of factors fueling this crisis. Many of our public schools serving the population of young people the CSS report identified as disconnected are not equipped to prepare them for the realities of today's work world. And while we all advocate for higher standards, improved test scores absent any connection to a good wage job is a hollow victory. Many of us, including myself, understand the importance of retooling vocational and technical education so students who do not see college as an immediate option will have the opportunity to earn a living.

Likewise, we are aware of traditional barriers that have obstructed Black Americans from economic opportunity. In the spirit of bipartisanship I recently accepted an invitation by the mayor of our city, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, to serve on a city commission that will identify ways to eliminate barriers to employment in the construction trades for minorities, veterans and women. Joining me on that commission is the CEO of the Community Service Society, David Jones.

It is an important first step in taking an industry-by-industry, sector-by-sector audit of impediments that are driving these dramatic disparities in employment. And the onus for change is not wholly on the private sector. The public sector must do a better job in ensuring equity in employment. For instance, the Fire Department of New York, a great and storied agency by most measures, has failed to be forward thinking in its hiring practices. In its most recent probationary class, minorities are only 14 percent of the new recruits. White males comprise 92 percent of the department. It is for that reason that the Justice Department has launched an investigation into the FDNY's hiring and promotion practices. So we know that government must also take corrective action.

Now, against this backdrop we have a White House that is moving in the opposite direction of widening opportunity. In fact, President Bush's budget proposal has several elements that will only widen the gap I have described. The President proposes to cut the Workforce Investment Act by $61.5 million, end the program to reintegrate young offenders in communities, and reduces federal student loans by $10.7 billion over 10 years. Our president has also proposed eliminating the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, a cut that means an estimated loss of $65 million to New York State.

And New Yorkers most affected by these proposed cuts are clear on their priorities. In a survey of low-income New Yorkers commissioned by the Community Service Society, and tied to their labor market research, respondents expressed support for job training and education, and the upgrading of vocational and technical education.

It is a significant snapshot of the opinions of the city's working poor--the first of its kind in the nation that I know of that seeks to ferret out the views of the economically disadvantaged.

None of this is good news for New Yorkers or most residents of our nation's large urban centers. And most certainly for Black Americans in general, and Black men specifically. Combined with the risk that the President's misguided Social Security proposal poses for Black seniors, President Bush's budget has placed us on the cusp of an economic disaster of cataclysmic proportion in the Black community.

We are not alone in New York City facing this crisis. Many American cities, big and small, are experiencing the same problems to varying degrees. We cannot sit by idly and see families devastated and communities destroyed while economic opportunity passes us by. That is why I have asked several of my colleagues in the House to join me on this Special Order to educate the American public and sensitize the White House to the economic imperative facing our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a matter of justice. The Tulsa Race

Riots remain today a matter unresolved in our national conscience. More than 80 years after the occurrence of this horrible event, the time has come to bring closure. A March 13th article in the New York Daily News sheds light on the Tulsa Race Riots and the current effort underway to obtain justice for the victims.

Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1921 was something of an African American success story. The city's Black community, known as Greenwood, had developed into a prosperous area of shops, hotels, gaming halls and restaurants that was known throughout the Southwest. So significant was its reputation, that the famous Black leader Booker T. Washington would dub Greenwood ``the Black Wall Street.''

However, the Black community's prosperity was a source of resentment among many of city's white residents. Racial tension in the city was palpable. This and other factors would eventually manifest themselves, with deadly consequences.

The Tulsa Race Riots began May 31, 1921, when police arrested a black youth for allegedly assaulting a white woman, a charge later dismissed. A crowd of whites gathered outside the courthouse where the youth was being held, calling for his lynching.

According to a 2001 report commissioned by the State of Oklahoma, Black citizens from the Greenwood neighborhood armed themselves and went to the courthouse to defend the young man. After an initial period of confusion, a shot was fired and a gunfight ensued.

A white mob then marched to the Greenwood area of the city and began to destroy the 40-block neighborhood. Left unobstructed by police and Oklahoma National Guard troops, the white mob burned nearly all of Greenwood to the ground, leaving nearly 9,000 people homeless. A total of 1,256 homes were destroyed, along with ``virtually every other structure, including churches, business, schools, even a hospital and a library.

The mob also killed many Black citizens in the process. Officially, the death count for the Riots had been put at 38 people, but the 2001 Oklahoma State report put the figure closer to 300 individuals.

In the immediate aftermath of the destruction, more than 100 Greenwood residents unsuccessfully filed lawsuits attempting to recover damages. A grand jury convened to determine the cause of the riot and actually faulted the city's African-American residents. Subsequently, the issue would seemingly disappear for nearly eighty years.

However, after the publication of the 2001 Oklahoma state report, a group of 150 Riot survivors and their descendants, represented by Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, sued the state of Oklahoma, the city of Tulsa, the city's police department and its police chief.

Lower courts dismissed the case on the grounds that a two-year statute of limitations on the 1921 incident had long since passed. Prof. Ogletree has argued that the statute of limitations should not have started until 2001, when the state commission appointed to investigate the riots completed its report, and revealed the culpability of state and local government.

In March 2004, U.S. District Court Judge James O. Ellison ruled that the statute-of limitations should extend to a time when the defendants could receive a fair hearing in court, but he also argued that such an opportunity was present as early as the 1960s.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in September 2004, but argued that the case should have been brought during 1980s, when a book about the Riots was published--thus giving the plaintiffs the evidence they needed in bringing the case.

Prof. Ogletree has argued that not all the victims knew about the book, and that the government still had not acknowledged its culpability until the state commission report in 2001. Furthermore, until the state commission's report, the official stance of the State of Oklahoma was that the Black citizens of Tulsa were responsible for the Riots.

As a result of the recent decision against the plaintiffs by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Prof. Ogletree and his legal team are now seeking to have the case brought before the United States Supreme Court. The Court received a petition brief from Prof. Ogletree and his team on March 9th, and a decision is pending.

Millions of children around our nation recite a daily pledge, an oath of allegiance to a nation which promises ``justice for all.'' Unfortunately, our country has not always exhibited the national virtues descried in that pledge. The victims of the Tulsa Race Riots have undoubtedly been denied justice, and now a legal technicality threatens to ensure that they will never obtain it. Let us not allow this to happen--for the sake of the Tulsa Race Riot victims, and for the sake of our nation.

Time to Fix Riot's Wrongs

By E.R. Shipp

[From the Daily News, Mar. 13, 2005]

To white folks back in the day, it was Niggertown. To black

folks during that same time, it was The Black Wall Street. It

was the Greenwood section of Tulsa, Okla. And the gap in

perception is the frame of the issue that might be decided

ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court: reparations.

Reparations make sense when one can demonstrate that one

has suffered a loss. That is not the case for most black folk

who, when they hear politicians and college professors say

``reparations,'' are hoping that the government will become

their Lotto ticket to wealth.

If the high court agrees to take on the Tulsa case, laid

out in a petition led last week by lawyers--led by Harvard's

Charles Ogletree--the justices might see that Tulsa is a

whole different matter.

The 1921 Tulsa race riot began when police arrested a black

youth for allegedly assaulting a white woman, a charge later

dismissed. A crowd of whites gathered outside the courthouse

where the youth was jailed, and there was a rumor that he

would be lynched.

According to the state's 2001 report, men from Greenwood

armed themselves and went to the courthouse to defend the

youth. A gunfight erupted, and the outnumbered blacks

retreated to Greenwood. A white mob followed them and burned

the neighborhood.

A ``white mob ransacked Greenwood, shooting indiscrimately

at African-Americans and burning almost every building in the

community. Not only did the state and city fail to stop the

destruction, but state and local officials participated in

the violence and deputized and armed members of the white

mob,'' states the petition, filed on behalf of the riot's

survivors and their descendants.

From the get-go, Oklahomans set roadblocks to any kind of

recompense for the hundreds of homeowners and businesses

devastated during the riot. And then, after a state

commission finally concluded in 2001--four years ago!--that

more than attention must be paid to what transpired, the

courts said to these black folks: Sorry. Too late. You should

have filed your claims years ago. Too bad. So sad.

So, justices of the highest court in the land, rise to the

dignity of your titles and do justice in this case. Do

justice by 102-year-old Otis Clarke, a Greenwood victim. Do

more than pay lip service to the immorality of what

transpired. Reparations in the form of money, not just

penance, must be paid for this act of domestic terrorism.

The lower courts said it's too late. But the Supreme Court

has the chance to do what's right, and the time for that is

now.