Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise as one who voted for this supplemental last week because of our troops. Our troops need this help. We made the decision to send them into harm's way. They need the bulletproof vests to save their lives. That is in this request. They need the hydration systems to purify their water, so many of them are having dysentery from the water over there not being purified. There is so much, so we cannot turn our backs on our troops.

But we have a dilemma. The American people have a dilemma. The American people are asking some questions of this administration and each and

every one of us up here, Democrat and Republican, and that is this question: Where is the accountability for this money, these funds, to build Iraq?

I wish we could have set aside, and I worked hard to see if we could, the money for our troops, the $67 billion, because that is another question. I do not think there is anybody in this House that would not vote to help our troops. But this House is in a convoluted state, just like this whole country is in a convoluted state, because there is a lack of accountability on this administration and this President for the monies that go to rebuild Iraq.

There are serious questions. If we do not raise those questions, if we do not answer those questions, it is not going to be so easy to come back and get money the next time, because the American people, I am here to tell you, have had it about up to here.

We are working with a country over there that is sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves, which arguably could be one of the richest countries in the world, and yet in this administration and in this supplemental there is not one timetable, there is not one direct amount of money that is going to get the oil wells producing, to get the oil production up and running at capacity. That should be the first business. Where is the money for that?

Why is there a cloud over the handling of this noncompetitive business? The American people are asking these questions. Halliburton and Bechtel, two companies, fine companies though they may be, but should they have nonbidding rights to get the taxpayers' money?

The American people are asking these questions. We owe it to them to ask these questions and get some answers. We have got to do it together, not as Democrats and Republicans, but together. We as a body must ask this administration to give the American people the accountability and the transparency on where this $20 billion is going and how it is going to be spent, or else we all will lose our credibility, and that is something we must not do. The American people are counting on us to ask the questions of this administration on this money and get the answers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the House floor today regarding legislation that I am introducing along with Representative Denise Majette to name a building in Atlanta, Georgia as the ``John Lewis Civil Rights Institute.''

The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site (MLKNHS) has purchased an apartment house located two doors west of Dr. King's Birth Home. The plan is to restore the building and convert it into an educational center--including four classrooms and an auditorium. The MLKNHS currently conducts educational programs in a house on Auburn Avenue, which accommodates 20 students. This new center would allow for expanded offerings of these educational programs. I am proud to introduce legislation that will name this educational center after U.S. Representative John Lewis who has spent his life promoting civil and human rights across the world.

John Lewis was born the son of sharecroppers on February 21, 1940 outside of Troy, Alabama. He grew up on his family's farm and attended segregated public schools in Pike County, Alabama. He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Religion and Philosophy from Fisk University; and he is a graduate of the American Baptist Theological Seminary in Nashville, Tennessee. He has also been awarded numerous honorary degrees from colleges and universities throughout the

United States, including Clark Atlanta University, Duke University, Howard University, Brandeis University, Columbia University, Fisk University, Morehouse College, Princeton University and Williams College. John Lewis is the recipient of numerous awards, including the prestigious Martin Luther King, Jr. Non-Violent Peace Prize and the NAACP Spingarn Medal. John Lewis is also the recipient of the John F. Kennedy ``Profile in Courage Award'' for lifetime achievement and the National Education Association Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Award.

As a student, John Lewis organized sit-in demonstrations at segregated lunch counters in Nashville, Tennessee. In 1961, John Lewis volunteered to participate in the Freedom Rides, which were organized to challenge segregation at interstate bus terminals across the South. Lewis risked his life and was beaten severely by mobs for participating in the Rides. During the height of the Civil Rights Movement, from 1963 to 1966, Lewis was the Chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which he helped form. SNCC was largely responsible for the sit-ins and other activities of students in the struggle for civil rights. Lewis, at the age of 23, was one of the planners and a keynote speaker at the historic ``March on Washington'' in August 1963. In 1964, John Lewis coordinated SNCC efforts to organize voters' registration drives and community action programs during the ``Mississippi Freedom Summer.'' The following year, Lewis led one of the most dramatic nonviolent protests of the Movement. Along with fellow activist, Hosea Williams, John Lewis led over 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965. Alabama state troopers attacked the marchers in a confrontation that became known as ``Bloody Sunday.'' That fateful march and a subsequent march between Selma and Montgomery, Alabama led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This is an appropriate tribute to a man who has dedicated his life to promoting human rights and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very emotional issue. I come to the well with mixed emotions, simply because we are asked to do two things here: We are asked to stand up and support our troops, and, at the same time, we are asked to stand up and support our taxpayers.

I want to answer the first question quite frankly and straightforward, that I will vote for this supplemental based on the needs of our soldiers who are not into this political debate, but simply need equipment and support to do the job that our country sent them to do.

This bill provides $65 billion out of the $87 billion and provides needed funding for our troops. Part of this money is designed to go and purchase body armor to protect our soldiers. Part of this money is going to support continued payment of per diem for travel for family members.

I have just come from my district, and I realize the hardships being placed upon family members. There is an increase in the monthly rate of imminent danger pay in this budget from $150 to $225, and also for family separation.

Now, with that out of the way, it still remains a fundamental question that we must stand up for the taxpayer as well, and that is the convoluted position we are in. How do we stand up for our troops and support them in their needs for battle, to do the job that we sent them there to do? How can we not vote for these precious items that will protect their lives, including equipment to defuse ordinances away from land mines to save their lives? At the same time, we must speak up properly and effectively as good stewards of the taxpayers' money for the $20 billion going for the reconstruction?

Many of us pleaded and worked hard to get this debate broken down along two lines, because, yes, we must stand up for our troops. But we are Congressmen and women. We are elected to do one essential thing, more than any other, and that is make the decisions to determine how the taxpayers' money is spent.

I am here to tell you that this $20 billion added on for the infrastructure rebuilding of Iraq is not good stewardship of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, good morning. I rise at a moment of great honor to introduce legislation this morning that will recognize an outstanding Georgian and an outstanding American and one of my constituents, S. Truett Cathy. This legislation will recognize Mr. Cathy by naming the United States Post Office in Jonesboro, Clayton County in my district after him.

The Chick-Fil-A story back in 1946 when Mr. Truett Cathy and his brother, with a $10,000 loan, opened up a small, 24-hour restaurant in Hapeville, Georgia in my district called the Dwarf Grill. In 1967 in the Greenbriar Mall in Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Cathy opened the first of the Chick-Fil-A restaurants and actually starting the concept of in- mall, quick-service, fast-food restaurant service.

Mr. Cathy is a devoutly religious man, and just to give an example of his character, every Sunday for the last 45 years, Mr. Truett Cathy teaches Sunday school to a group of 13-year-olds, and this has been going on for 45 years. Mr. Cathy is an extraordinary human being, a great American, who has established Chick-Fil-A restaurants all across this country, over 1,080 of them in 36 States, including the District of Columbia. What an extraordinary story.

Beyond that, a great humanitarian. Through his Winshape Foundation, he has established several foster homes across Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee,

and even in Brazil. It is with great honor, Mr. Speaker, that I introduce to you this morning this legislation recognizing Truett Cathy and naming the post office in Jonesboro, Georgia after him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the honorable gentleman from Arkansas for yielding me this time, and I stand to support the motion to instruct.

I must admit that I am really amazed at my good friend on the Republican side. It amazes me to see how he speaks out of not only both sides of his mouth but apparently out of the back of his head as well. If we remember very carefully what he said about the military, the point that he failed to mention was that combat pay is exempt and falls below the threshold level, so that those soldiers serving in Iraq are not covered.

With the Democratic plan, what we are pushing would include those soldiers and their children. And quite honestly, it brings tears to my eyes, Mr. Speaker, when I think of us sending our troops into harm's way and to come with this tax credit and not have them included. The gentleman knew that. He said purposefully the military,

but he did not say combat soldiers, because they are exempt from taxes. We know that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the facts as they should be. First of all, why are we here? We are not here because of the Democrats. If it were up to us and the Senate and the President of the United States, the bill would be passed and these 6.5 million families would be getting that check in the mail right now. We are here because of the Republicans in this House that insisted on killing the child tax credit by holding it hostage with an $82 billion irresponsible tax cut.

And I can say irresponsible tax cut with great credibility because I was one of only seven Democrats who voted for the original tax cut. And I voted for it because my constituents in Georgia wanted me to vote for it and because we were able to get $567 million in aid to my State. And, yes, it brought stresses to the deficit. But they want to take another $82 billion tax cut, knowing the Senate is not going to accept it; that the President of the United States already said he does not want it. He came out with a report just 2 weeks ago that we are already $500 billion into deficit now without even impacting this tax cut that we have. Irresponsible.

We are here because of my good friend from Arizona and the leadership. Now, I have been here just 6 months. I am new, and I am just a country guy from the south, from Georgia, but I have learned a couple of things since I have been here in 6 months. I have learned that the House leadership runs the ship here. And that is why we Democrats are often in the position of trying to correct the course of the ship when it gets off course from what the American people want.

Now, why are we here? We are here because the Republicans cut out, in the dark of night, this child tax credit. It was there. Many who voted for this tax cut assumed it was there. The American people assumed that this child tax credit was there for everybody.

One of the things about the American people is this: the American people root for the underdog. They always want us to stand up for the little fellow. Why should we not give this tax credit to low- and moderate-income people? And who are these low- and moderate-income people? Who are these 6.5 million families? They are families making between $10,500 to $26,000 per year, a sizable number of people, who have children, who deserve this tax credit.

And they want to say, well, they do not make enough to qualify. My goodness, they make enough. $10,500 to $26,000 a year in some cases is a decent salary. Twenty-three percent of the families in my State make this and 23 percent of the families in my State do not have this child tax credit. Twenty percent of those from 13 States do not have this credit.

Mr. Speaker, let us be right. Let us be fair. These folks deserve a tax credit. It is the American way. I want to thank my honorable friend from Arkansas for giving me that opportunity to speak. I just urge my good friend, and we have several good friends in the Republican Party that I have worked with, to put pressure on our leadership and let us do right by the low- and moderate-income people and include this child tax credit and get it to them immediately.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is very kind in his introduction. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the time to come to a summary.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important, because we probably do have several million of our American citizens watching tonight, it is very important, you argue the point on our motion to instruct. That is not the issue we are here for. The motion to instruct is our only means to press the case.

The issue we are here for is because the House Republican leadership is standing in the way of our getting a child tax credit down to those folks making between $26,000 a year and $10,500 a year. That is the issue here.

In the remaining moment I have, I would just make this appeal to some of my Republican friends to help us tomorrow. We cannot do it unless we get a sizeable number of Republicans to help us. I do believe we have some Republicans who will do that for us.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2575.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), for yielding me this time. This is an extraordinary moment that we pay tribute in these hallowed halls of Congress to an extraordinary man, an extraordinary American, a man of soaring magnitude whose contribution and legacy speak right to the core of the foundation upon which this country was built: that is freedom, that is equality, that is making the best of us.

Maynard Jackson came on the scene at an extraordinary time in the history of this country. It was in 1968, when two very monumental things happened that directed his life from that moment on. In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, and it moved Maynard Jackson to enter into the world of politics. The second monumental thing that happened was he chose to challenge Senator Talmadge, a legendary figure also of soaring magnitude, and in many ways in a different direction.

That was a monumental crossroads in the history of Georgia and started us on a path of inclusion for African Americans in the world of politics, but especially in Georgia. I stand here as a Member of Congress and unashamedly say to my colleagues that had it not been for Maynard Jackson taking that chance in 1968 against Herman Talmadge, many of us African Americans who are in politics today might very well not have been in politics or had the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, in 1968 when Maynard Holbrook Jackson chose to challenge Herman Talmadge, it opened up a new era. He did not win that election, but he got over 25 percent of the vote and he set us on a course. The very next year, 1969, he became vice mayor of Atlanta, the first African American to do so. Following that in 1973, he was elected to become the first African American mayor of the City of Atlanta.

During that period, there was a burgeoning of political participation the likes of which Georgia had never seen. I am a beneficiary of that because as a kid in 1973 I was out helping Maynard Jackson get elected to become the first African American mayor of Atlanta. Exactly 1 year later, Maynard Jackson was in the streets of Atlanta helping David Scott get elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 1974, at that time to become the youngest person to be elected in the history of the Georgia legislature.

It is so much to contain such a life, but not only in politics. Maynard Jackson made great contributions in opening up so many doors of opportunity, not just for African Americans, but for white Americans and for women, doors that were closed. He built, yes, he built the Atlanta International Airport. He built it on the foundation of many others, but it was Maynard Jackson that used that airport to open up tremendous business opportunities and partnerships for black and white Georgians

and for Americans, and for that we are eternally grateful. As I pass almost two or three times a week, I look down at that point where he fell in Reagan National Airport, and I say a silent prayer; and that prayer is Dear God, thank you for sending Maynard Jackson our way.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the cochairs of the Democratic Study Group on National Security, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), I am very delighted to stand on the floor this evening to talk about American foreign policy and post-war Iraq.

I certainly want to extend appreciation to our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for having the foresight and vision to establish our Democratic Study Group on National Security.

I supported the President's decision to go to war against Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. I am also pleased that this regime can no longer victimize the Iraqi people. The United States military has done very well, a superb job, and I am very proud of our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, but we cannot let go of Iraq just yet.

As the world's only remaining superpower, we must recommit ourselves to peace, diplomacy and nation building now that the war is winding down.

The United States of America is a strong Nation, with the strongest military in the world, but with that force must exist a strong diplomatic strategy. The situation in Iraq teaches us that we cannot simply overwhelm a regime with force and then disengage from the area. If we do not back our strength of action with strength of diplomacy, then we will fail in our goal to provide a rebuilt, free democracy in Iraq.

I am concerned that there is a lot more that still needs to be done to make Iraq a safe and secure country, more than the United States can

achieve on its own. This task is so monumental that we must be open to accepting all types of assistance from other countries. Increased multilateralism reduces our financial burden, reduces our exposure of our troops, helps repair our international alliances and diffuses the international and regional criticisms that we are receiving about our presence in Iraq today.

The United States currently has approximately 150,000 military personnel in Iraq, and between 12,000 and 15,000 allied forces are also in Iraq. In order to avoid the financial burden and criticism that the United States is an adversarial occupation force in Iraq, it is important to involve more international forces. And given the current level of deadly guerrilla attacks on our American soldiers, 34 American soldiers have died since the President declared major combat operations over on May 1, and the growing strength of Saddam Hussein's loyalists, it is very clear that this war is very far from being over.

We need additional forces and particularly an international force of police officers and civilians that can keep the peace in Iraq so that rebuilding can take place. There can be no building in Iraq if Iraq is not secure and safe.

We must involve the United Nations. We must involve NATO and other nations in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. And most importantly, as a fundamental prerequisite to economic redevelopment, the United States and the international community must reestablish Iraq's banking system. You cannot move to rebuild anything if your banking system is out of repair. We must create a uniform currency, and we must develop a plan for an electronic system of financial transactions that includes lines of credit, capital requirements and prudential oversight.

In addition, Iraq needs that uniform currency. Because, right now, there are four different forms of currency being in operation in Iraq. An economy cannot be developed if there are four pieces of different moneys. We have got to have a medium of exchange and a store of value in order to revive its economy and in order to encourage foreign investors and, most importantly, to develop Iraqi-owned businesses.

Furthermore, the United States and its allies need to help Iraq quickly increase its current oil production from 800,000 barrels per day as of now, of which 500,000 barrels per day are needed for domestic consumption, to increase to its pre-war production of 3 million barrels per day. It is vitally important that Iraq's oil industry be reestablished so that it can help pay to rebuild the country's infrastructure since it is the country's largest exporter and foreign currency earner, largest industry and one of their largest employers.

All of this requires that the United States establish a long-term plan for our military presence in Iraq, a strong long-term diplomatic strategy in Iraq to involve more nations and a blueprint with specific benchmarks and timetables for turning over the reins to the Iraqi people as soon as it is practical.

Often our parties, Democrat and Republican, we oftentimes divide on which is the more important component, foreign policy, military or diplomacy, and for some reason, too often it is assumed that to support one of these is to reject the other. I disagree. Diplomacy is nothing if not backed with strength and force. At the same time, strong force may end the immediate threat, but without diplomatic action such a victory will be short-lived and will create new instabilities.

That is where we are right now in Iraq. Indeed, our military force has won the war, but we are weak in having a strong diplomatic presence that is credible in the region to bring about a lasting peace, curb the violence and the guerrilla warfare so that rebuilding can take place.

We must have both. We must maintain a strong military to give weight to our words, both with our allies and with our enemies. And yet if the current post-war situation in Iraq teaches us anything, it is that force alone will not create stability or democracy. Diplomacy must be aggressively valued and pursued to maintain a lasting peace and to ensure our soldiers did not die in vain. Strong military and strong diplomacy must go hand in hand if we are to be successful in Iraq and successful with our foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, let us get right to the chase of it. What the Republican plan is designed to do is end Medicare as we know it today. Make no mistake about it. I have the quote right here and it says, ``To those who say that the bill would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is: We certainly hope so.'' Bill Thomas, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, MSNBC News, on 6/25/2003.

It was stated, to back that up, the chairman of the Senate Republican conference said this, ``I believe the standard benefit, the traditional Medicare program, has to be phased out.''

That is what we are faced with today, and that is what the American people need to understand, and that is what the Democratic Party is doing in here today, to pull these covers off. We are talking about people who cannot afford it. Medicare was designed to help people, to help the least of us, to help those senior citizens who cannot afford the medicine. Government is there for something. They do not want it privatized.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this from one of my constituents, and I want to read this note. He said: ``I am a 74-year-old retired senior on Medicare and this Medicare drug prescription plan is just a stone's throw away from privatization of Medicare. That should not be allowed to happen.'' Let us not let it happen.

Snellville, GA,

June 14, 2003.

Representative David Scott,

Jonesboro, GA.

Dear Representative Scott: I'm a 74 year old retired senior

that's on Medicare at home recovering from a massive heart

attack and bladder infection so I am very concerned about

what course of action Congress is presently taking on the

Medicare Drug Prescription Plan.

When the news first came out that Congress was finally

going to add prescription drugs to Medicare in order to

provide financial relief for seniors that are paying way to

much for their medication verses their meaner yearly income

from Social Security and if they have one, their pension fund

and any life savings they may have. At that time I heard that

Congress would be working on such a plan Medicare

beneficiaries would be given a choice if they needed and

wanted their prescription drugs covered by Medicare. If they

did all they had to do is sign up for it and pay whatever the

cost of the plan covers. For the rest of us who are happy

staying with Medicare and our present secondary insurance

coverage that provides better prescription drug coverage at a

lower cost would not have to participate in any Medicare

prescription drug plan.

Seniors that don't have prescription drug coverage should

be covered by this plan as a matter of choice, however; I

feel it is unfair for Congress to make it a mandatory

requirement for all seniors to pay for this plan which would

override their own secondary insurance plan for their

prescription drug plan. It just isn't fair. Why should we

have to give up our plan and end up paying far more than what

we are presently paying? I'm sure if all seniors were aware

of what really is going on they would want to make it a

matter of choice also.

Representative Scott please give us Medicare beneficiaries

a choice to join or not to join the Medicare prescription

drug coverage. Even though I'm not in your district I'm

asking you to please support us many seniors by making sure

this choice provision will get covered in the final bill that

is sent to President Bush. If this choice does not become

part of this Medicare Drug Prescription plan it is just a

stone's throw away from the privatization of Medicare and

that should not be allowed to happen. Please remember when

you vote whatever the outcome is on this plan it will affect

all Americans nation wide and in some way or other I'm sure

it will have some sort of a bearing on the outcome of the

2004 elections.

May God Bless you and may God Bless America.

Sincerely yours,

Richard McGraw.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, I plead with my colleagues to let us have this opportunity to recommit. We have had so much debate where we have talked about the cost of these plans, and I thought it was an unfair dig at my good friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and their bill being $1 trillion. That was not true, because there was no effort to put the cost containment in.

But we and the Blue Dogs have put together a budget; we put together a plan at $400 billion that falls right within the issue.

This is an important issue to all the people of this Nation. And here we are at 1:30 in the morning on my birthday. But I will tell my colleagues this: I could not find a better thing to do on my birthday than to be down here fighting for these seniors, that the Democratic Party has been fighting for ever since we have had a Democratic Party. I would hope that we would get this opportunity to recommit.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is indeed a sad day. Maynard Holbrook Jackson passed away with a severe heart attack that happened at Washington, D.C.'s Reagan National Airport this morning.

Maynard Jackson was a pioneer of soaring magnitude, not only in just the world of politics but in the world of business as well. It was his guiding influence that made the City of Atlanta a world class city. It was through his guidance that the Atlanta International Airport, which is now the world's busiest airport, was built. It was through his guidance and leadership that Atlanta became host to the 1996 Olympics, making it indeed a world class city.

We mourn his loss but indeed we celebrate an extraordinary life of significant and historic and legendary achievement. Not only was his mark on life for African Americans, for he was indeed a bridge-builder across racial lines at a time in Atlanta and in the South where we so desperately needed it.

Truly a giant in the forest has fallen this day. I know everybody in this House of Representatives, the Congress of the United States, joins with me in saying we thank God that he sent Maynard Holbrook Jackson our way. Truly a child of God and a sojourner of truth and righteousness and an extraordinarily great American, Maynard Holbrook Jackson.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart, indeed, for Maynard Jackson was a very dear and close and personal friend of mine.

I say this with all sincerity and truthfulness, that had it not been for Maynard Jackson, I would not be here serving in the Congress of the United States. Maynard Jackson ushered in a whole era of black political participation unprecedented. He was a pioneer of soaring magnitude that touched so many people's lives.

In 1973 he gave opportunities and hope for so many of us when he ran and was elected to mayor. And to show the kind of person he was, one year later he encouraged me to run for the Georgia House of Representatives to start my career. I was elected as one of the youngest members of the House of Representatives of Georgia.

Maynard Jackson, one year after he was elected mayor, was in the street of Atlanta, on the Southside of Atlanta walking day to day and knocking on doors to help get me elected to the Georgia House of Representatives. So I hope you understand me when I say that I stand here with a deep and heavy heart.

I have thought what could we say, what could we say in this hallowed Chamber of the Congress of the United States that would best epitomize Maynard Jackson?

To me, it is summed up in one word and that is great. Maynard Jackson was a great man. He was a great human being, not only great in size but great in his heart, great in his giving, extraordinarily great in his contributions, the guiding force to build the world's busiest airport Atlanta's International Airport, the guiding force to bring the 1996 Olympics to Atlanta Georgia, making us a world class city, opening door after door, not just in the world of politics, which has been mentioned, but in business, opening up doors of business opportunities for many of us who would not have those opportunities and those doors opened.

Greatness is his word. Greatness is its meaning, and maybe we ought to pause for a moment to ponder that word ``greatness.''

That question was put to the great Greek philosopher Aristotle, and Aristotle was asked, What does it take to make a great person? Aristotle replied, In order to be a great person, you must first of all know thyself. Maynard Jackson knew himself. He knew who he was and he knew whose he was, that he was foremost a child of God and he carried that with him.

His faith sustained him, gave him the courage to step out in 1969 as a young man and challenge the legendary Herman Talmadge for the United States Senate seat in Georgia in, 1969, one year after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Later on, that word of greatness was asked of the great Roman general Marcus Aurelius. What does it take to be great, Marcus Aurelius was asked. Marcus Aurelius responded and said, In order to be great, you must first of all discipline yourself, and Maynard Jackson disciplined himself, carried himself.

Oh, he was a master politician. Nobody could work the room like Maynard Jackson, shaking hand after hand. I learned so much from him, how to shake somebody's hand and look them in the eye and make them feel like they are the most important person on Earth. That was Maynard Jackson.

The discipline of getting through Morehouse School at 18 years old, the discipline of becoming the first Vice Mayor of Atlanta, African American, and then becoming the first Mayor of Atlanta, African American; the discipline of Maynard Jackson.

Finally, that question was put to the great Messiah, Jesus Christ, and Jesus was asked, What does it take to make a great person? Jesus responded and said, In order to be great, you must first of all sacrifice yourself. Maynard Jackson sacrificed himself. He gave of his life. Indeed, he did.

We all knew he had some health problems, but he kept going, and I am sure as he was here in Washington, D.C., this morning, he was sacrificing himself to further expand opportunities.

When I last met with him, he said, It is a shame that we have 600,000 African Americans who are able to vote and are the age to vote in Georgia but are not registered to vote. David, we must do something about it. He was a man of action who knew himself, who disciplined himself, who sacrificed himself.

On this day, let it be known that a great oak fell in the forest of America and the world and we all need to thank God for sending Maynard Holbrook Jackson our way, not just the black folks' way, but not just the white folks' way, all of our way, for he was truly a bridge builder, and this Nation and this world is better because God sent Maynard Holbrook Jackson our way.

God bless Maynard Jackson.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the few Democrats that joined my colleagues on the other side to vote for the President's tax cut on the last time, largely because my voters in Georgia felt it would be good for them if we were able to get some badly needed dollars back to our State.

But this is a different story, and I think we ought to recognize why the American people have us here in the first place at this time.

It is not to come back for another tax cut. It is to address an omission, a very serious omission from the first tax cut, and that is to correct that by bringing a clean, crisp bill that pointedly addresses bringing the child tax credit to those working families at the lower-income levels. That is what we are about to do here. I think it is a sham.

Unfortunately, I think it is disrespectful for our Republican friends to do this, and they know full well that what they are doing with this measure is nothing but to delay and certainly, quite possibly, kill any tax credit. That is why I come and urge all of my colleagues to vote against this rule. Let us follow President Bush's lead. Let us get a clean-cut bill, and let us pass it so that he can sign it this weekend and give the Nation's families and poor people an opportunity to have an outstanding Father's Day gift.

I come down here as one of the few Democrats who voted for the President's tax cut because it was a good plan for my Georgia constituents, but it has one problem. It did not provide child tax credits for many working families.

Fortunately, this is an easy problem to fix. The Senate overwhelmingly passed a clean child tax credit which the President has said that he would sign into law. If we passed the Senate child tax credit, it could be on the President's desk before this weekend. President Bush is right about this. He's asked us to pass the Senate Bill with just the 10 billion for the child tax credit for lower income families, so we can get the checks in the mail immediately. By next month at the same time higher income Americans get theirs.

The Republican measure now before us will not do that. It will only guarantee that working families would not get child tax credits anytime soon if at all. By tying on the 82 billion additional tax cuts we would guarantee that the Senate would reject the bill. This is a sham.

Let's vote against this rule so that we can get a clean child tax credit before us today. You would then have my vote and an overwhelming majority of the House and a certain signature by President Bush.

I stand with President Bush on this. Let's stand together and do the right thing, pass a clean child tax credit and help working families immediately. Get it to President Bush so he can sign it, give our nation's working families in lower brackets the relief they need and a wonderful Father's Day gift this weekend.

Let's treat the lower income working families with the respect they deserve. Give them the tax credit immediately--now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to state how disappointed and, quite frankly, disturbed I am with the actions of the FCC on yesterday. That was a very dangerous vote to the future of this country. This country was founded on many, many freedoms, but none more basic than the freedom of the press, freedom of information, and the diversity of that information.

That action on yesterday by the FCC certainly puts us at a very clear and present danger of losing that freedom of the press in many respects. It will certainly short-circuit small business

people, entrepreneurs, and others from having an opportunity to own media. It will certainly lessen the diversity of thought, shaping the opinions, and will certainly almost completely devastate community values and community controls.

I daresay that certainly what is happening on the national stage and international stage is important, but is it not important knowing what happened to a parent's Little League son and how he performed, or what is happening in the board of education?

I urge Members to join with me in sponsoring a bill that will overturn this FCC ruling, the Byrd-Dingell bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act.

Throughout the country, District Attorneys are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain qualified and experienced attorneys. Recent law school graduates face difficult choices regarding their legal careers. While a starting salary at a private law firm now often exceeds $100,000, the average starting salary in a district attorneys office is approximately $35,000.

With undergraduate and law school loans frequently amounting to $100,000, aspiring public attorneys face a crippling debt burden that drives them to other career choices. This financial burden likely hits minority students even harder and makes their decisions about a public service career that much more difficult. A system of continual turnover severely impact on law enforcement and the ability to ensure justice.

Due to the increasing fiscal constraints faced at the state and local level, public officials are unable to raise salaries to a competitive level. More than ever, America needs an effective justice system. The Department of Justice has recognized that public defenders and prosecutors should have access to student loan forgiveness programs as an important means of reducing staff turnover.

Under my legislation, a recently-recruited public attorney would enter a written agreement that specified that he or she would remain employed as a prosecutor or public defender for a required period of service of not less than 3 years, unless involuntarily separated from employment. If the attorney is involuntarily separated from employment on account of misconduct, or voluntarily separates from that employment before the end of the period specified in the agreement, the individual would be required to repay the amount of any benefits received. Successive agreements could be made to continue the loan payments until the maximum amount authorized is reached.

Under the proposal, the Secretary of Education would make the loan payments for the attorney for the period of the agreement if the funds were made available through appropriations. Students loan repayments would not exceed $6,000 for any borrower in any calendar year or a total of $40,000 in the case of any borrower. This legislation is supported by the National District Attorneys Association.

I hope my colleagues will join me by supporting and cosponsoring this legislation.