Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there has been some confusion about Congress's intent regarding the new section 1937 of the Social Security Act, as added by the Deficit Reduction Act. This provision will give states the flexibility they need to provide benchmark benefit packages for Medicaid beneficiaries. Congressional intent is clear, however, that a State may not fail to provide Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) services for children.

To address this confusion, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a statement that clarifies section 1937 to specify that States requesting benchmark benefits will be required to provide EPSDT services for children. I submit for the Record the CMS statement to help clarify Congressional intent regarding this provision.

Statement by Mark B. McClellan, M.D., PH.D., Administrator, Centers for

Medicare & Medicaid Services

Questions have been raised about the new section 1937 of

the Social Security Act (SSA) (as added by the Deficit

Reduction Act of 2005) that permits states to provide

Medicaid benefits to children through benchmark coverage or

benchmark equivalent coverage. If a state chooses to exercise

this option, the specific issue has been raised as to whether

children under 19 will still be entitled to receive EPSDT

benefits in addition to the benefits provided by the

benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage. The

short answer is: children under 19 will receive EPSDT

benefits.

After a careful review, including consultation with the

Office of General Counsel, CMS has determined that children

under 19 will still be entitled to receive EPSDT benefits if

enrolled in benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent

coverage under the new section 1937. CMS will review each

State plan amendment (SPA) submitted under the new section

1937 and will not approve any SPA that does not include the

provision of EPSDT services for children under 19 as defined

in section! 905(r) of the SSA.

In the case of children under the age of 19, new section]

937(a)(1) is clear that a state may exercise the option to

provide Medicaid benefits through enrollment in coverage that

at a minimum has two parts. The first part of the coverage

will be benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage,

as required by subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), and the second part

of the coverage will be wrap-around coverage of EPDST

services as defined in section I905(r) of the SSA, as

required by subsection (a)(J)(A)(ii). A State cannot exercise

the option under section 1937 with respect to children under

19 if EPSDT services are not included in the total coverage

provided to such children.

Subparagraph (C) of section 1937(a)(1) permits states to

also add wrap-around or additional benefits. In the case of

children under 19, wrap-around or additional benefits that a

state could choose to provide under subparagraph (C) must be

a benefit in addition to the benchmark coverage or benchmark

equivalent coverage and the EPSDT services that the state is

already required to provide under subparagraph (A) of that

section. Subparagraph (C) does not in any way give a state

the flexibility to fail to provide the EPSDT services

required by subparagraph (A)(ii) of section 1937(a)(1).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

At a time like this, I tend to think of who are the people I respect the most and who are the people that have had impact over the world and my country as I have grown up and become an adult. I think of someone like Winston Churchill. I think of someone like Martin Luther King. I think of someone like Coretta Scott King. I think of someone like Nelson Mandela. And I think about my colleague John Lewis. These are my heroes. And it is interesting to me that most of them are men and women of color.

I think of, when I was first elected in 1987, whom did I want to meet? I wanted to meet our President, Ronald Reagan; and I wanted to meet a man called John Lewis, who, when I was in college, led a civil rights movement with Martin Luther King and crossed the Selma Bridge. There were only two people I wanted to meet: one was Ronald Reagan and the other was John Lewis.

I think of Martin Luther King, Sr., whom some people refer to as Daddy King, who lost his younger son A.D., in a drowning; and then he lost his older son, Martin Luther King, Jr., in an assassination; and then he lost his wife in a bombing in our country. This precious woman's life was snuffed out. And I think of Martin Luther King, Sr., eulogizing his wife and saying, I have lost two sons; I have lost my wife. And then he looked out in the audience, and he said, in so many words, but I am a grateful man because I have my daughter, Christine, and her family and I have Coretta and her family. And the focus of his presentation was how grateful he was to have her. Well, he had her; we all had Coretta Scott King. We all had her, and we have all been blessed by her leadership.

Coretta Scott King was a hero of the civil rights movement as a partner to Martin Luther King, clearly; but in her own right she played an absolutely instrumental role in her husband's work and carried on his legacy of fighting for human rights and equality. Their legacy is one of lasting change, making for a Nation that is freer, more compassionate, and more accepting. And while I was not by their side, I got to see what they did in my lifetime.

I have had a number of opportunities to meet her and be in her presence, including my trip in 2005 with John Lewis and others to Birmingham, Montgomery, and Selma, where I heard her speak for the last time. She led by quiet example, and her personal strength was truly an inspiration. Yes, she was a woman of extraordinary grace. She was dignified. But she had a presence that said, I have experienced so much in my life and I want a different country.

And we are a different country. We are not where she may want us to be, but we are a different and better country because of Coretta Scott King and the other heroes that I love deeply.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of this resolution and urge its swift passage.

Some will argue violence perpetrated by Hamas is only undertaken by the militant wing of the organization and that its political arm can otherwise be a legitimate player in Palestinian politics. I reject that argument. We have seen nations throughout recent history require

organizations that formerly endorsed violence to formally renounce such tactics before participating in electoral politics. President Abbas should insist upon such action before allowing Hamas to participate in the upcoming legislative elections.

Secretary Rice stated recently that participants in a democratic political process cannot simultaneously keep an option on politics and an option on violence. Unfortunately, that is the case we now see unfolding in the Palestinian territories.

I support the establishment of a Palestinian state that can live side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors in the Middle East. How, though, will the United States be able to deal honestly and in good faith with a government composed of unrepentant members of an organization that advocates terror and the dissolution of our greatest ally in the Middle East--Israel? And perhaps more importantly, how will the Palestinian Government ever be able to negotiate with Israel?

This is of profound concern to me because the United States should help the Palestinian Government get on its feet and should help it develop an infrastructure that well serves its people. Certainly the Israelis need a legitimate body with which they can negotiate. The bottom line is a Palestinian legislature with members representing Hamas is a weakened body that will be stymied by serious questions about its legitimacy.

The peace process requires a sustained Palestinian effort to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. President Abbas can take a bold stand by insisting Hamas cease incitement, condemn terrorism, and permanently disarm and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure before participating in the January elections.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 280, which would allow the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make grants to assist in the environmental cleanup and economic development of Brownfields sites.

I believe the Brownfields program is one of the most successful programs the Federal Government has to help revitalize urban areas.

These sites, typically in the heart of urban areas, lie idle because no one wants to incur the large costs associated with Superfund cleanups.

As a result, cities are marked by abandoned buildings and vacant lots while developers construct new buildings on what was previously open space in the suburbs.

Specifically, this legislation ensures that communities that have traditionally had trouble obtaining financing for Brownfields Redevelopment activities have access to needed capital.

Though small, these grants have served as seed money, enabling dozens of communities to leverage millions of state and private dollars to move into actual cleanup phase.

By reusing Brownfields sites we not only rebuild blighted communities, but also target development in city centers and avoid unnecessary urbanization on the fringes of metropolitan areas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3963, which would reauthorize appropriations through fiscal year 2010 for the Office of Management Conference of the Long Island Sound Study and for grants to implement the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.

Protecting and preserving the environment is one of the most important jobs I have as a Member of Congress. We simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

Long Island Sound, which contributes more than $5 billion annually to the regional economy, is one of the most populated and visited areas of our country. In fact, approximately 10 percent of the American population lives within the Long Island Sound watershed.

It is a source of livelihood, nourishment and recreation for many in Connecticut and elsewhere, and it is critical that we treat it well.

In the interest of preserving open space, increasing access to the Sound, and protecting and managing important habitats, the reauthorization of this funding is needed to identify and protect coastal areas along this precious estuary with significant biological, scientific or recreational value.

I am pleased this legislation is being considered so we ensure funding for this critical habitat will continue to be preserved and urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the hard work that took place to bring the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision Act to the floor and urge my colleagues to support its passage today.

Extending TRIA is important for so many facets of our economy; and revising the Act by requiring insurers to take on greater responsibility in the event of a catastrophic attack is a prudent measure for the taxpayers.

As a strong believer in free markets, I am fully aware and sympathetic to concerns that TRIA exposes the government and taxpayers to a risk that should be fully assumed by the marketplace. TRIA was never intended to be a permanent program, and we are wise to include in this legislation provisions directing the Treasury Department to work on the creation of risk sharing mechanisms and requiring a full payback to the Treasury in the event that TRIA is triggered.

I also strongly support the creation of a commission to study how best to reduce the Federal Government's role and increase the private sector's capacity to underwrite terrorism risk. It is crucial we maintain this provision in the final version of this legislation.

While this legislation takes several important steps to place greater responsibilities on insurance companies, in my judgment it is appropriate and wise for us to expand the program to include group life insurance. Quite simply, those who provide group life insurance face the same challenges as property and casualty and other insurers that were covered under the original TRIA Act. Failure to include group life has placed these insurers in a precarious position of choosing to remain in the marketplace without reinsurance or exiting from the market.

Although TRIA has not yet been triggered, it is important we both extend and improve it for the future. Again, I appreciate the Chairman's hard work and urge my colleagues to support passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4440, the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act, which provides tax incentives for businesses to invest in and rebuild the Gulf Coast communities ravaged by hurricanes.

I am pleased these federal resources will not be used to support the gambling facilities, liquor stores and massage parlors. I don't believe the federal government should help interests that have dubious value to these communities.

I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form. During my 14 years in the state legislature I voted against every gambling bill. Gambling financially cripples those who can least afford it--the poor--through the cruel and misleading lure of ``winning it big.''

With the budget deficits growing to historic levels, we need to make sure tax dollars are being used in the wisest possible manner to rebuild the region's businesses and housing.

Fair-minded Americans support tax incentives to spur business reinvestment along the hurricane-ravaged Gulf coast to help victims there rebuild their lives.

Tax breaks for the gaming industry simply do not make sense.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 273, which recognizes and honors the 50th anniversary of the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott and the historical significance of the boycott to the United States.

On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, a seamstress and wife, boarded a Montgomery bus to begin her usual journey home. Nothing was particularly different about this day, except that she wanted to sit after a long day's work. When ordered by the white bus driver to give up her seat to a white passenger, she simply refused, and her action led to a boycott of the city's bus system. This event was the straw that broke the back of segregation in the South.

This was a stunning moment in time, not just a step along the way. It ultimately resulted in two of our nation's landmark pieces of legislation, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

The bus boycott was a memorable example of how Dr. Martin Luther King's tradition of nonviolent protests have brought about important policy changes in our world.

In our nation's ongoing struggle for civil rights, this boycott was a watershed event, and it is appropriate to be honoring it here today on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 535, and appreciate this opportunity to honor the life, legacy, and example of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the tenth anniversary of his death.

My first trip to Israel was to attend Mr. Rabin's funeral. During my most recent trip to Israel I joined with thousands of Israelis and other international guests in a moving tribute to his distinguished life.

Yitzhak Rabin said that, ``politicians are elected by adults to represent the children.'' In my eyes, Rabin was a man that politicians could look up to for his tremendous valor and courage. During the peace rally in Tel Aviv where he was brutally assassinated his last words were: ``I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace, are prepared to take risks for peace. Peace is what the Jewish People aspire to.''

Mr. Rabin served in war and was a man of peace. His death was a tremendous loss for Israel and the whole world. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution honoring his life and legacy.

Mr. Speaker, there is concern on the floor tonight about the way in which this resolution was brought up. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, is one of the finest members of this body and has given his heart to our nation and his wisdom to this Congress. But underlying concerns about the process tonight, is the critically important issue regarding the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq. The United States' commitment to a stable and democratic Iraq is essential for the future of the region, for the larger war on terrorism and for the Iraqi people.

In my ten trips to Iraq, four times outside the umbrella of the military, I've had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of Iraqis and can tell you with some certainty about their greatest fear . . . It is not the suicide bombs and other terrorist attacks brought against their countrymen. It is the concern that the United States, which has helped give them a taste of freedom and democracy, will leave them before they are ready to fend for themselves.

Tonight we have the opportunity to proclaim, ``We will not leave you.'' When I hear the critics on this floor or in the news media say our policy is a disaster, that we are in a mess in Iraq, I think of the transfer of power in June 2004, the election in January 2005, the referendum this past October and what I believe will be a huge success in December with the election of a permanent Iraqi government. I am in awe of what the Iraqis have accomplished in such a short period of time.

Regretfully, the administration has done a very poor job explaining to the American people why we are there and when and how we intend to leave, but this does not mean we don't have an exit strategy. We have a strategy but regretfully it has had to be amended more than once.

The United States' strategy is to assist the Iraqis in creating a secure environment so

they can develop their new democratic government with a competent police, border patrol and army to defend that government. American forces will be reduced when enough Iraqi security forces can take our place and their new government is fully functioning.

Haven't we learned from the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut that if we leave without finishing the job those that wish us harm will come at us again?

Didn't we learn any lessons from the attacks against our military personnel in Saudi Arabia and our diplomats in Africa and our sailors on the USS Cole? And didn't we learn that the Islamist extremists would come at us again when they attacked the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and attempted to attack our Capitol on September 11, 2001 ?

Yes they will be back again and again and again.

If we leave Iraq without completing our mission, what type of message will this send to the people who need our help? To them and the rest of the world the message will be clear . . . if you put up a strong enough resistance, the United States will eventually tire of its efforts and leave before its mission is accomplished.

John McCain was correct when he asked the same questions during debate of the Defense Authorization bill: ``Are these the messages we wish to send? Do we wish to respond to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who have put their faith and trust in American and the Iraqi Government, that our number one priority is now bringing our people home?''

Mr. Speaker, although some may feel otherwise, this is a serious debate about a serious issue. I strongly urge all members to vote against this resolution and against the premature withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 302 and appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from California and our distinguished war hero who just has given me this time.

Many employers have gone above and beyond what the law requires of them, either by making up the loss in income that may occur when their employee is called to active duty or through a variety of other initiatives that recognize this special burden our National Guard and Reservists take upon themselves. Quite simply, those employers who are already recognizing the sacrifices of the Reserve components deserve our sincere praise.

But this body can go further, as Representative Kind points out. We should enact incentives through tax credits for private employers to make up the pay gap; and the Federal Government, the largest single employer of the citizens who make up the Guard and Reserve, should match the examples set by employers throughout this country and pay the difference when a citizen soldier experiences a loss of salary when he or she is activated.

Congressmen Lantos, Graves, McGovern, and my legislation would do exactly just that, and I hope this body would consider it soon. Again, I support this resolution, I thank the gentleman from California, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1606, the so-called Online Freedom of Speech Act. The legislation will exempt the Internet from campaign finance laws, thus opening up a major loophole for unlimited union dues money, corporate treasury money and large individual donations to once again corrupt federal elections.

I understand that many web loggers are concerned that somehow campaign finance law will restrict their speech, and I believe allowing bloggers the assurance that they will not be so burdened is something that we can ensure. Unfortunately, H.R. 1606 goes far beyond exempting bloggers and allows federal candidates and political parties to again make use of soft money in federal campaigns.

That is why Marty Meehan and I introduced legislation that would preserve the soft money ban and protect bloggers from unnecessary regulation. Because H.R. 1606 was considered under suspension of the rules, though, we were not allowed to offer this alternative approach. That is why we must defeat this bill.

If this law were to pass, a member of Congress could simply go to a large donor, corporation or union and control their spending of $1 million in soft money to pay for political advertising all over the Internet.

This is precisely the type of behavior prevented when Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. By all accounts, the law is working--despite concerns about the law being the death knell of the parties, the parties were strengthened as they raised more in hard money in 2004 than they raised in hard and soft money combined in 2002 and greatly expanded their donor base.

Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1606 and oppose the return of corrupting soft money to our political process.

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations celebrated its 60th Anniversary last week. It seems appropriate to me that in reaching this landmark, the world body can reflect upon both its significant accomplishments over the years, as well as how it must improve in order to be a more effective actor in global interests. While we must continue examining its operations and demanding operational improvements, the United Nations also deserves U.S. support as it continues to combat terrorism, promote economic growth and assist countries in moving towards democracy.

In recognition of the 60th Anniversary and celebration of United Nations Day, Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, gave an address at the Hall of the House of Representatives in the Connecticut State Capitol. I submit the text of Mr. Reed's address to be entered into the Record.

Remarks by Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, Under-Secretary-General of

the United Nations

Governor Rell, Speaker of the House Amann, Mr. Stolberg,

President, United Nations Association of the United States of

America Connecticut Chapter, Distinguished Members of the

Government of the State of Connecticut, ladies and gentlemen,

it is an honor and privilege as a life long citizen of the

State of Connecticut to be present at the Hall of the House

of Representatives to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the

founding of the United Nations.

The Secretary General, Kofi Annan has sent to the people of

Connecticut a message on the occasion of United Nations Day:

``I send my greetings to the people of Connecticut on the

60th anniversary of the entry into force of the United

Nations Charter. As you mark this historic occasion and

reflect on the Organization's many accomplishments, I

encourage you also to look to the future.

Today's world is very different from that of our founders.

The United Nations must reflect this new age, and respond to

its challenges--including, first and foremost, the knowledge

that hundreds of millions of people are left defenceless

against hunger, disease and environmental degradation, even

though the world has the means to rescue them.

Last month, world leaders met in New York to try and forge

a common response to these challenges. Leaders of both rich

and poor countries committed themselves to detailed policies

which, if fully implemented, could reduce hunger and poverty

by 50 per cent in the next ten years. They decided to create

new UN bodies for promoting human rights and building lasting

peace in war-torn countries. They promised to fight terrorism

in all its forms, and to take collective action, when needed,

to save populations from genocide and other heinous crimes.

They decided on important reforms of the UN Secretariat. But

on climate change and Security Council reform they could make

only weak statements. And on nuclear proliferation and

disarmament they could not agree at all.

They have left us a great deal of work to do. Today, as we

mark the 60th anniversary of our indispensable institution, I

promise you that I will do my part, and that I will be

working with Member States to help them do theirs. I am glad

the United Nations can count on the continued support and

commitment of you all as we pursue our shared mission.''

That concludes the message from the Secretary-General.

Ladies and gentlemen, ``the time to reform the United

Nations is now. And we must seize this opportunity

together.'' These are words from Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice in her first speech before the United

Nations General Assembly in September.

The 2005 World Summit lived up to being a once-in-a-

generation event for the United Nations. With breakthroughs

in adopting strategies to fight poverty and disease, creating

new machinery to win the peace in war-torn countries, and

pledging collective action to prevent genocide, progress was

made across a broader front than on any other single occasion

in the 60 year history of the organization. Major

advancements were made on terrorism, human rights, democracy,

management of the Secretariat, peacekeeping and humanitarian

response. And doors were opened to further action on global

public health, global warming and mediation.

Now, member states will turn to the tough task of

implementing what was agreed, and to continue work on the

critical differences that remain. Many items must be

completed during the 60th session of the General Assembly,

ending next September. With so much to do in such a short

period of time, civil society will be essential to keeping

tabs on progress and keeping all parties involved

accountable. While the Summit has come and gone, the hard

work is just beginning.

First, on management reform, world leaders committed to

reviewing extensive management reforms to make the

Secretariat more efficient, more effective and more

accountable. This will include a review by the Secretary-

General of all ongoing mandates in the first 55 years of the

organization, as well as a thorough assessment of the

organization's antiquated human resources and budget rules.

The Secretary-General is moving forward expeditiously on his

own authority to establish an independent ethics office,

which will protect whistleblowers and ensure more extensive

financial disclosure.

Second, world leaders agreed to strengthen the

organization's human rights machinery across the board. The

High Commissioner for Human Rights is moving ahead to

implement her plan of action, supported by the Summit's

commitment to double the office's regular budget. Building on

the groundbreaking agreement to create a new Human Rights

Council, the President of the General Assembly will soon

begin conducting negotiations to finalize agreement on

important details.

Third, progress must continue on terrorism. The Summit

outcome produced for the first time, an unqualified

condemnation of terrorism ``in all its forms and

manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for

whatever purposes.'' The work in the coming months will be to

build on that simple statement to complete a comprehensive

convention against terrorism by the end of September, and

forge a global counter-terrorism strategy that weakens

terrorists and strengthens the international community.

Fourth, the final details must be locked down on the Peace-

building Commission to get it up and running by the end of

the year. Almost all the key details have now been agreed,

but the next few months will be critical to operationalizing

the commission. The Secretariat is already moving forward to

set up a support office and a standing fund to support the

commission.

Fifth, with an ambitious commitment to add $50 billion a

year for development, the Summit removed any doubt about the

global support for the Millennium Development Goals. Every

developing country is now pledged to formulate and implement

a national strategy bold enough to achieve those development

objectives by 2015. For their part, developed countries must

now deliver on their pledges to boost financing for

development and relieve debt.

With each passing week it becomes dramatically clearer how

much the world's leaders agreed to at the Summit. This is

equally true about the sheer amount of work ahead. Every

effort must be made to see the promise outlined by world

leaders fulfilled. If we do that, we will help save millions

of lives, and give hope to billions of people--a fitting

achievement to mark the 60th anniversary of the United

Nations, and a platform from which to do even more in the

years ahead.

Let us celebrate United Nations Day.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad called for the United States' greatest

ally, Israel, to be wiped off the map. Unfortunately, these vile words are not new, nor were they his own. He was quoting Iran's self- proclaimed enemy of the United States and Israel, Ayatollah Khomeini. But perhaps even more disturbing is a place you can find those words written, on their Shahab-3 ballistic missile. These missiles have a range of 1,250 miles and could easily strike Israel.

Our Nation is blessed with a vibrant Jewish constituency, and I value my interaction with Jews in my district and during the many trips I have made to Israel. We can learn from the Jewish people that when your enemy says he is going to kill you, you better pay attention.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this body to issue a sharp rebuke of the Iranian President's words. Further, we should immediately consider proposals to strengthen sanctions under the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 and authorize the President to provide financial and political assistance to prodemocracy groups within Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in honoring and celebrating the life of Rosa Parks, whose simple act of taking a seat on a bus woke our Nation's conscience and galvanized our civil rights movement.

On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, a seamstress and wife, boarded a Montgomery, Alabama bus to begin her usual journey home. Nothing was particularly different about this day, except that she wanted to sit after a long day's work. When ordered by the white bus driver to give up her seat to a white passenger, she simply refused, and her action set in motion a series of events that led to the desegregation of the South.

This was a stunning moment in time, not just a step along the way. This was the moment for our civil rights movement and ultimately resulted in two of our Nation's landmark pieces of legislation, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

I am amazed too by this woman's fortitude, her inner strength and her calm demeanor in the face of these injustices. Her reaction stands in stark contrast to so many feelings we associate with that era--she was resolute, quiet and full of determination.

I've read that on the day of her court appearance, a girl there yelled, ``Oh, she's so sweet. They've messed with the wrong one now!'' I'm sure that this girl, looking back on that same moment, cannot now believe how right she was.

Today, we offer our condolences to Rosa Parks' family. It seems to me it is a fitting tribute to honor the mother of the civil rights movement by making her the first woman to lie in honor at the Capitol.