Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield to the majority to inquire about the schedule for next week. I am pleased to yield to my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman.)

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to yield in order for the gentleman to clarify which appropriation bills we expect to move or he expects to move to go to conference on next Tuesday. We are hearing that the DOD, Military Construction and Legislative branch bills are possible.

Mr. Speaker, I will further yield to inquire, is there any other bill possible? What about the Labor-HHS-Education bill, does the gentleman expect we will move to go to conference on this bill next week?

I will further yield to my friend from Ohio. What about the charitable choice tax bill, what type of rule might we expect on this bill? Will amendments or a substitute be allowed?

Mr. Speaker, I will not continue to keep my colleague long, but I would like to know, and I will yield, will the FAA conference report be on the floor next week? If so, which day?

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to yield to inquire, the gentleman suggested that there may be other conference reports. Can we expect to have any other conference report on the floor next week? If so, which conference reports might we have?

Mr. Speaker, let me just ask my friend maybe in closing, why is there a need for us to be here late next Thursday night? The gentleman says as a possibility.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for being so forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great contributor to civil rights and to the empowerment of people in this country. Peter Smith has worked for almost forty years to promote civil rights and to provide legal services to those who have traditionally been denied such access--African Americans and other minorities, the poor, juveniles, and those with disabilities.

In his Cornell Law School graduating class, he was one of the very few who chose to turn their backs on the prestige and financial rewards that would come to those who entered private law practice. In a period of our history where the fashion was ``me first'', Mr. Smith has without exception put ``you first.'' And for four decades, the ``you'' was individuals who for reasons of race, poverty, age or disability were denied equal access.

In 1964, having worked there earlier during law school, Mr. Smith joined the staff of the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice. As a member of the small and elite Appeals and Research Section, he wrote and argued appeals in some of the most significant cases in the civil rights struggle of the 1960s and played a role in drafting the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In 1966, again breaking new ground, Peter Smith joined the first legal services appellate section in the nation. He argued before the Supreme Court of the United States the landmark case that brought an end to welfare residence requirements. The work that he did in public housing and welfare reform continues to this day to promote the quality of lives of those people who are dependent upon government policy for their very survival.

After five years of working to deliver legal services to those who, because they were poor or minorities, were denied access to such services, Mr. Smith concluded that the problems would never be solved unless the private bar was brought into the struggle. After much effort, he convinced an establishment Baltimore law firm to open a branch office in Baltimore's inner city that would deliver legal services to the underserved the same way the rest of the firm delivered legal services to the privileged. That office, under Smith's leadership, became a model for a number of other law firms in the country.

In 1972, Mr. Smith joined the faculty of the University of Maryland School of Law and, almost immediately, created one of the first clinical legal education programs in the nation--a program with two parallel goals. The first goal was to change the way that law students were educated, by creating an opportunity for students to practice law, representing clients, while under very close supervision--a model that the medical community had long used. The second, and equally important goal was to deliver legal services to a class of people who ordinarily did not have access to such services--juveniles. Smith operated the Juvenile Law Clinic until 1979, representing many clients in administrative and judicial proceedings including before the Supreme Court of the United States where he helped to guarantee key legal rights for juveniles.

Almost without exception, the students who went through his clinic consider that experience to be the most significant of their law school education. In 1979 he spent a sabbatical in England helping to develop clinical legal education there.

In 1991, Smith returned to his childhood home in New Hampshire where he assumed a new challenge--to provide legal services to yet another segment of American society that traditionally had been denied that access--individuals with disabilities whose legal problems were related to their disability. For the last few years Mr. Smith has narrowed that focus even more, representing parents of children with disabilities in cases where the school district was not complying with federal law.

Mr. Speaker, on April 27th, Peter Smith celebrated his 65th birthday. While he continues to actively practice law, delivering legal services to those who have so long been denied that access, I did not want this occasion to pass without acknowledging his long service promoting civil rights for minorities, the poor and the disabled.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the resolution. As many of you know, I am a man of peace. During the 1960s, many of us involved in the Civil Rights movement were threatened with arrest for sitting in at lunch counters, standing in at segregated theaters, or marching for the right to vote; and sometimes we were arrested and jailed. We were charged with disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, and we were very peaceful and we were orderly.

I never thought that as a Member of Congress I would be threatened with arrest by sitting in the library of the Committee on Ways and Means. As a Member of Congress and as a member

of the Committee on Ways and Means, I thought, I really believed that it was a safe place to meet and to discuss the business of the committee.

It is unreal, it is unthinkable that another Member of Congress would threaten to have another arrested for carrying out his or her congressional duties. In another period of time, a few short years ago, some of us stood up to Bull Conner in Birmingham, Alabama, and we stood up to Sheriff Clark in Selma, Alabama. And I must say to the chairman of this committee, we will not be intimidated. We will not be immobilized. We live in a democracy and not a police state.

What happened today in the Committee on Ways and Means should cause a sense of righteous indignation among all of us. As Democrats, as Members of this House, the People's House, we will not get lost in a sea of despair. We will continue to stand up and fight for what is right and for what is fair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember, to honor and celebrate a great citizen and a dear friend, Maynard Jackson.

Maynard Jackson's untimely death was shocking and is still unbelievable. I have known Maynard Jackson for more than 35 years; and, Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleagues Maynard Jackson was a man who thought the impossible was possible. In 1973, he was the first African American to be elected mayor of the city of Atlanta. He served 12 years as mayor of the city.

During his tenure as mayor of Atlanta, he began encouraging and fostering an interracial understanding, transforming the city into a new Atlanta, to the gateway to the South, the city that was too busy to hate. I truly believe that Maynard Jackson must be looked upon as one of the founding fathers of the new Atlanta, the new South and the new America.

Maynard Jackson was a strong supporter of affirmative action, civil rights and expansion of social and economic gain for minorities. As our current mayor Shirley Franklin stated a few days ago, Maynard Jackson was a lion of a man. He was a champion of inclusion for all people and never wavered in his commitment to Atlanta.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, Maynard Jackson helped create an Atlanta that we all could be proud of. He was not afraid or scared to do what was unpopular. He was not scared to take a chance. Maynard Jackson was not afraid to do the right thing.

Because of his leadership, vision and dedication, our city, State and Nation will never be the same. We will miss you, Maynard. Atlanta will miss you, the Nation will miss you, but we would never, ever forget you. You have left your mark on each and every one of us. Thank you for your service. Thank you for giving your heart and your soul. As you take your passion and energy to the great beyond, again a grateful Nation, a grateful people and a grateful city say thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballance).

(Mr. BALLANCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), the former mayor of the city of Macon.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of the Members who participated this morning and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for yielding so much time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the family and friends of Maynard Jackson and to all of the citizens of Atlanta and the citizens of our Nation that we have lost a son of America, a citizen of the world. Maynard Jackson was a very proud graduate of Morehouse College. He loved the school, the glee club; he loved the citizens of our city. He will be deeply missed, but we take this as an opportunity to honor and pay tribute to him for all of the good things that he did to make our city, our State, our Nation, and our world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire of the leader the schedule of the House for next week.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for responding, but I would like to continue to yield to him to find out if next week we are bringing up the Head Start reauthorization bill, and do you expect to have an open rule on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, continuing to yield and to inquire, on Medicare prescription drugs, when does the gentleman expect we will appoint conferees on this legislation?

If this does occur on Monday, as the gentleman stated, when during the day would that be scheduled? What time of day would it be scheduled?

Mr. Speaker, when does the gentleman think we might see a conference report? Would it be before the August recess?

Mr. Speaker, I would continue to yield to my friend from Michigan on the child tax credit. When does he expect the conference committee to meet to report out a conference report? It has now been 27 days, 22 hours-plus since we appointed conferees. Does the gentleman have any idea when we can expect a report coming to this House?

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to yield to my friend from Michigan to inquire about trade agreements. Does the gentleman anticipate that we may have votes before the August recess on any trade agreements?

Let me say to my friend from Michigan, Mr. Speaker, that it seems like we are going to be very busy during the next few days before the August recess.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for responding to the questions.

Mr. Speaker, here we are once again debating Medicare. Thirty-eight years ago, the Republicans did not like Medicare, and they do not like it now. In 1965, 88 percent of Republicans voted against Medicare. And here they are, once again, trying to privatize prescription drugs for seniors, just like they tried to privatize Medicare.

This is just another scheme by the Republicans to entice older voters. Not

last week, not last year, but just yesterday, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, made it crystal clear when he said, ``To those who say that the bill would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is: We hope so.'' He went on to say, ``Old-fashioned Medicare is not very good.'' Tell my mother. Tell your mother that old-fashioned Medicare is not good. Tell your grandmother, tell your grandfather that old-fashioned Medicare was not good. It was good in 1965. It was good yesterday. It was good then, and it is still good right now. We do not need to destroy Medicare. We need to save and strengthen Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just another Republican scheme to deceive our seniors, to deceive our elderly. That is not right. That is not fair. I want my Republican colleagues to tell the American people the truth. We must tell our seniors that the Republican bill does not offer our seniors the basic right to affordable prescription drugs. We must and we will tell the American people that the Republicans want to privatize Medicare.

We must tell the American people the truth. This is no time to play partisan politics with the lives of our seniors.

The clock is running. Time is running out. My Republican colleagues, you still have time to do the right thing. Do not turn your back on our seniors, on the elderly. This is a matter of life and death.

I beg, I plead with my colleagues to vote against the Republican bill, not just for our parents, our grandparents, our children, but also for generations yet unborn. Old-fashioned Medicare was like a bridge over troubled waters. It was reliable. It was dependable then, and it is still dependable.

Ask the seniors, ask the old people who live on fixed incomes in our cities and rural areas. I say to my Republican colleagues, follow the dictates of your conscience. You have a moral obligation, a mission, and a mandate to uphold the legislation of 1965 when Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this unreliable bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to speak on the untimely passing of Maynard Hollbrook Jackson. I was blessed to know Maynard Jackson for almost 40 years. Maynard Jackson was a wonderful human being, a gifted, brilliant politician. He was the kind of individual who was not afraid to take risks. Maynard Jackson was always

getting in the way for the common good.

In 1968, moved by the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy, he ran for the United States Senate in the Democratic primary against incumbent Senator Herman Talmadge. He later made history by becoming the first African American mayor of a major southern city. His leadership as vice mayor of Atlanta and later as mayor of Atlanta for three terms transformed our city into the gateway to the New South. As mayor, Maynard Jackson emerged as a role model for other big-city mayors and younger elected officials. We often heard, if Maynard Jackson can do it, so can we. His accomplishments created a greater sense of possibility, a greater sense of hope, a greater sense of optimism.

Mr. Speaker, it is so ironic and almost eerie, really strange that Maynard Jackson's passing would happen at almost the same time as the Supreme Court's decision in support of affirmative action. He was one of the great champions for diversity, inclusion, and fairness, not just in government and business but in all areas of American life.

Perhaps Maynard Jackson's greatest accomplishment as mayor was the building of the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. Under Maynard Jackson's leadership, Atlanta Hartsfield became one of the largest and busiest airports in the world. At one time, Atlanta Hartsfield included more minority contractors than any other airport in the country. Maynard Jackson insisted that if majority contractors were to participate in construction of the airport, so would minority contractors.

Maynard Jackson must be remembered as one of the founding fathers, not just of the new Atlanta, not just of the New South, but of the new America. He will be missed by all of the good people of Atlanta, all of the good people of Georgia, and the Nation and around the world. As mayor, he established in a profound way the sister city program. Many of our cities around the world became sister cities of the city of Atlanta. He traveled far and broad to carry the message of hope.

Mr. Speaker, my prayers are with his wife, Valerie, his children, and all members of the Jackson family. We all mourn for the family. We mourn for the citizens of Atlanta, for the citizens of Georgia, and for all of his friends.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), for bringing this Special Order tonight to honor Al Davis.

Mr. Speaker, it is true, Al Davis was a brilliant economist. But to all of my Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, he was so much more. He was our conscience on the committee. Somehow, the words ``dedication'' and ``tireless'' do not seem adequate to describe the strength of Al's commitment to his work. He spent countless hours on weekends and at night responding to all sorts of Members' inquiries and issues; even some that, to put it kindly, might be considered harebrained.

Still, he took every request seriously and would leave no question unanswered. His efforts were never halfhearted. Unsatisfied with one analysis or two or even ten, Al would often put together hundreds of analyses. Al would leave no stone unturned to provide all the facts, no matter how obscure.

Despite his unparalleled knowledge and command of some of the most complicated issues dealt with by Congress, Al had an amazing and rare ability to distill and explain information so that it was understandable to the least knowledgeable person. Yet he never, but never, condescended to anyone.

There was something about Al's absentminded-professor persona that was both disarming and reassuring. He could always be counted on to calm passionate temperaments and remind us all of the facts. He would not let us get caught up in hyperbole, and he kept us focused on why we are here: to serve as a voice for the underprivileged and the disenfranchised.

Though he might not have enjoyed the name recognition that my colleagues and I do, there is no doubt that his work was critical to our efforts. Without capable and dedicated staff like Al, this place, Mr. Speaker, would not run. I tell the Members tonight, we will forever be grateful for his service, commitment, and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, Al Davis fought the good fight. He kept the faith. He worked hard to make things better for those who needed it most. I truly believe we are blessed to have known him. Al, we will miss you. My friend, a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to stand on the floor of the House to question whether those in power deliberately misled and deceived the American people and the community of nations. However, the events in Iraq leave me no other choice.

Our President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Undersecretary of Defense told the men, women and children of this Nation and of the world that we must go to war in Iraq because the country had weapons of mass destruction. Time and time again, they told us that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the health, well-being and life of our people.

Why? Because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them or give them to terrorists who would use them.

So where are the weapons that President Bush promised?

Saddam is gone. For several weeks, American troops have been free to search Iraq. They have been free to search Iraq, virtually at will. Today we find no weapons of mass destruction. No chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no nuclear weapons. Nothing.

Where are the weapons? Where is the threat?

Mr. President, where is your justification for war? The credibility of this administration is at stake.

Americans died in Iraq because President Bush told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Children lost their mothers and fathers. Parents lost their sons and daughters. Women lost their husbands, and husbands lost their wives.

For what?

Excuses and explanations cannot answer this question. We need, we deserve, we demand justification.

What justified the loss of American lives? What justified taking $100 billion out of the pockets of our children, our grandchildren and unborn generations?

Three major American news organizations have cited leaks from Federal intelligence officials that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, that the President and his advisers told the intelligence community to provide evidence to support the war in Iraq.

In Britain, senior war correspondent Max Hastings, who supported the war against Iraq, wrote that ``the Prime Minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and that stinks.''

These accusations cannot go unanswered. We are not just talking about the veracity of the Bush administration. We are talking about the credibility of the United States of America. Our Nation's reputation is at stake.

The next time we go to our allies, the next time we go to the United Nations, they will doubt what we say. Our enemies will be safer, and our citizens will be less secure.

The President and members of his administration have an obligation to come clean, to put their cards on the table and level with the American people. What did they really know and when did they know it?

They are the ones who toured the country, beating the drums of war. They are the ones who told the American people that we needed to go to war. They are the ones who traveled the globe campaigning for a war to save us all from weapons of mass destruction.

In the name of our fallen soldiers, in the name of the credibility of the United States of America, in the name of what is right and just and true.

We need an answer, and we need it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at this irresponsible and unfair tax bill. Those at the very top would get a generous tax cut, but those at the bottom would do no better. And there is no evidence that this bill would create even one job.

We can do better. We have the ability. We have the capacity to do better and we must do better. We owe it to the hardworking American who will not benefit under this bill, and we owe it to the 2.7 million people who have lost their jobs since President Bush took office.

This bill has no compassion, not one ounce of compassion. It is a shame and it is a disgrace and I just do not understand it. I cannot for the life of me understand how we can spend billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq, to build schools, to provide health care, and yet we cannot find a cent for the unemployed here at home. That is not right. That is not fair and that is not just. As a great Nation we must do better. I ask my colleagues to vote down this irresponsible and unfair deal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at this irresponsible, not to mention unfair, tax bill that the majority has concocted.

This bill is full of gimmicks to hide its real cost, but when all is said and done, the total cost of the President's package combined with his previously enacted tax cuts will result in a $2.8 trillion deficit by 2013.

$2.8 trillion.

That's some feat considering that this President inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus.

This bill is beyond irresponsible. And, if that weren't bad enough, this plan is unfair.

Those at the very top will get a generous tax cut, but those at the bottom will do no better.

In the first year, households with incomes of more than $1 million would receive an average tax cut of over $93,000, while households

earning between $40,000 and $50,000 would average a cut of only $452.

Despite their claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that this bill will create even one job.

Nor will it lead to sustained, long-term economic growth. It will undermine our economy and create record deficits that will burden our future generations.

The simple truth is that Republicans designed this bill to give their wealthy friends huge tax breaks, while offering nothing for those who truly need tax relief--the working families and individuals of America.

What little help they do offer to the middle class expires at the end of 2005, while the capital gains and dividend tax cuts continue through 2013. But, it's not secret that the majority intends to extend them indefinitely thereafter.

They did it before, and you had better believe that they'd do it again. And when they do, this $550 billion plan will end up costing us more than $1 trillion.

This bill is unacceptable.

We can do better. We have the ability, we have the capacity to do better, and we must do better. We owe it to the hardworking Americans who won't benefit under this bill.

And, we owe it to the 2.7 million people who've lost their jobs since President Bush took office. This bill has no compassion for them. They're left out in the cold under this proposal.

It is a shame and it is a disgrace. I just don't understand it.

I can't for the life of me understand how we can spend billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq--to build schools, to provide health care--yet we can't find a cent for our unemployed here at home.

That is not right, that is not fair, and that is not just.

As a great nation, we must do better.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this irresponsible and unfair bill.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1261 as written leaves out a significant portion of its targeted population that needs job training. My simple amendment would extend the eligibility requirement from 21 years of age to 24 years of age for training programs in the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act. Existing job training programs such as Job Corps, YouthBuild, Conservation Corps, and others already use the age range 16 to 24. Extending the age from 21 to 24 will enable the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act to coincide with organizations that benefit from it.

When young people drop out of high school, they are in a suspended state of adolescence, not taking responsibility for themselves financially or otherwise. They often are unable to get a job or support themselves or their children, if they have children. Furthermore, the needs of the 22- to 24-year-old high school dropouts are more like the needs of the 18- to 21-year-olds than their counterparts in their late twenties and thirties. The process of completing their high school education, preparing for the workforce, the world of work, and developing the values of responsibility and the sense of belonging to a community are the difficult tasks of youth, but some have taken a detour onto the streets or prison. When they get back on track, they still need to be mentored. They need

help, a sense of purpose, a sense of direction. They simply have not learned the skills and responsibilities in the work world to be adults. This amendment will help our young people meet this goal.

Mr. Chairman, I have visited organizations such as YouthBuild and Job Corps. I must tell you they do good work. These are good and necessary programs to help our young people get ahead. I strongly urge my colleagues, all of my colleagues, to pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire about the schedule for next week.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for the information, but I would like to have additional information, and I will continue to yield for that information.

Our side would be interested in knowing will the tax bill come up next week? The gentleman is calling the economic growth proposal the tax bill, right?

Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman tell us whether the minority side will be allowed to offer a substitute on the floor?

If we deal with the tax bill on Friday, does the gentleman think our work will be completed 2 p.m. on Friday?

On the Workforce Investment Act, will you allow a substitute on this bill on the floor?

I will continue to yield to the gentleman for additional information for the body. I notice the comp time bill is not on the schedule for next week in your announcement, but we keep hearing that this bill is coming. Can you tell us when the bill might come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Whip.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), my friend and colleague, for holding this Special Order, and I want to thank all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus for participating in this order tonight.

I want to be very brief. I had gone home and I turn on C-SPAN, and supper was happening, and I was deeply moved to come to the House floor and to say something. So I want to thank him again for doing what he is doing because I think it is important that we take time to salute and pay tribute to the young people who came here on April 1. By coming here and standing at the steps of the Supreme Court, they were standing up for what is right, for what is fair, for what is just. They were standing up for the very best in America.

I remember when I first came to Washington many, many years ago in 1961, I was 21 years old, had all of my hair, and I was a few pounds lighter, to go on something called the Freedom Ride during those days in Washington, but throughout the American South, segregation was the order of the day. We saw those signs that said white waiting, colored waiting, white men, colored men, white women, colored women. There was so much violence, so much fear, so much hate, and it was the students following in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr., in the tradition of Gandhi. So sitting in, going on the Freedom Ride, marching all over the country, and by marching, by sitting in or sitting down, really they have created the climate, the environment, to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Nothing but nothing, I tell you, nothing moved me more in the last 50 years, or maybe in the last 40 years, than to see these hundreds and thousands of students really marching, protesting, exercising their constitutional right. In America we have a right to protest, as Dr. King would say, protest for what is right. This type of protest helped move our country to the point to get people to say yes, when they may have a desire to say no.

These young people believe in the Constitution. They believe in America. They, like many of us, believe in affirmative action. It is the affirmed inclusion, the participation of people, where they are left out and left behind. I like to think these young people were touched by the spirit of history. Sometimes there comes a time when you have to be moved by the spirit of history.

In 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963 we did not have a fax machine, we did not have a Web site, we did not have a cellular telephone. We had the Constitution. We had our bodies. And that is what these young people had. They had ideas; they had the Constitution.

I think when historians pick up their pens and write about this period, Mr. Speaker, they will have to say that these young people that came to Washington on April 1, not just college students, high school students, elementary school students, by the hundreds and thousands, they started, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) said, a new civil rights movement.

I say to them tonight, and to young people and students all over our country, we will not go back, we will not stand still. We will go forward. We will create a truly interracial democracy in America. We will create a beloved community in America. For we are one people, we are one Nation. I say to all of these young people, keep the faith; do not give up, do not give in, do not give out, keep your eyes on the prize.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for what you are suggesting, your recommendation and your plan of action. It reminds me of another period in our history when we just got out there and did what we had to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will work together and pull together and push together to make it all happen.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 44 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 10 a.m.