For a man who didn't have a law degree, the late U.S. Rep. John Lewis appeared a lot in a newspaper focused on the legal profession. My records show he was in the Daily Report more than 200 times.

Each of those moments—commenting on a legal issue or, often, being honored by a legal organization—-reflects his importance to the law he shaped through heroic deeds during the civil rights movement and decades as a lawmaker in Washington.

The beating Lewis endured during the 1961 Freedom Rides tested whether the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Boynton v. Virginia, outlawing segregation in public facilities for interstate travel, was being followed. (It wasn't.)

His lead of the seminal voting rights march from Selma, Alabama—and the brutal attack he suffered at the hands of state troopers—-led directly to the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

The respect he earned in the civil rights movement led Lewis to long service for the city of Atlanta in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he spoke out against injustices as often as he could.

In 2001, Ed Bean, then the editor-in-chief of the Daily Report, led a series of Newsmaker interviews, and fortunately Lewis agreed to be one of the subjects. Below is a transcript of that conversation, which gives a sense of what the man was like when he wasn't marching or preaching. He gave thoughtful answers on a wide range of topics of the day, including affirmative action and immigration (and an interesting reference to Robert Mueller) that remain relevant today.

I must also mention another civil rights hero, the Rev. C.T. Vivian, who died Friday, hours before Lewis. Vivian also made the occasional appearance in the Daily Report, like Lewis, weighing in on a legal issue or serving as an inspiration for lawyers. In 2014, the State Bar of Georgia held a symposium on the U.S. Constitution, and Vivian spoke before a list of legal heavyweights, such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Justice David Nahmias of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Early Saturday morning, John Disney, the Daily Report's longtime photographer, found a terrific image he shot of Lewis and Vivian, joined by others, doing what they were known for best: marching.

Below is the 2001 interview with Lewis.

LEWIS: THOMPSON WOULD BE A BETTER AG THAN ASHCROFT

Newsmaker Interview Q & A

July 16, 2001

Editors and reporters of the Daily Report interviewed Congressman John Lewis July 9 at the newspaper's offices in downtown Atlanta. A court reporter attended and prepared the transcript, which we excerpted and lightly edited for readability. The topics were not discussed in the order they appear, though we tried to provide each its full context.

On Bill Campbell >>

I'm sure you are aware of the federal investigation of Mayor Bill Campbell at this point. The mayor has claimed that he is being targeted because he is African American. Is this an appropriate time to replace U.S. Attorney Richard Deane, who is African American?

Well, it would be my thinking that the people in Washington, the president, the attorney general and others would be concerned about their ongoing investigation and maybe would not remove Mr. Deane until this investigation is complete. Maybe we should let Mr. Deane see it through.

Do you believe that the investigation might be racially motivated?

It is very hard and very difficult. I know Richard Deane. He is a very sincere, very honorable guy. I know all of the people. I met the FBI person from the region, who is African American. The U.S. attorney is African American.

It's very hard and very difficult for me to accept the idea that it's racially motivated. I just think it's a group of civil servants appointed by the Clinton administration doing their job.

Are you disappointed in the way the mayor has conducted himself during the investigation and in raising race as an issue?

He is the mayor of the city and he is an elected official. Sometimes he is very, very outspoken and feels very strongly about certain things. I cannot—I'm not going to—well, if it was John Lewis, I just wouldn't do that. It's not me.

On Thompson and Ashcroft >>

One of the most high-profile Washington appointments has been that of Larry Thompson as deputy attorney general. What kind of job do you think he will do in that position?

I think Larry will do a great job. I think he will be fair, and he is going to get along with the attorney general.

Do you still have reservations about John Ashcroft?

[When he was nominated] I didn't think he was the [right] person. But I didn't have a vote. I didn't think he was the person because of his history and his background.

But we have met with him. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus had a meeting with him. It was give and take. We discussed affirmative action, racial profiling.

People grow. People have the ability and the capacity to change and to grow. Sometimes people get appointed to positions, they turn out much better. So let's just see whether he will grow.

I think, more and more, he is listening to members of Congress, especially minority members. He is being confronted with more issues than he was as a senator and governor of Missouri.

Do you still have concerns about specific positions he has taken?

Whether he would take a strong stand and enforce civil rights laws and take a strong stand in the issue of civil liberty and whether he will allow his sort of personal and religious feeling.

I'm concerned because I believe he is one of the big supporters of charitable choice [faith-based social service providers] and the whole question of resources being made available from the federal government to churches and religious institutions. I happen to believe that there should be a strong and solid wall between church and state. And I'm afraid the attorney general may be willing to bend a little bit.

There's also the whole question of capital punishment. Apparently Ashcroft takes a very strong position in support of the death penalty.

Do you think Larry Thompson would make a better attorney general than John Ashcroft?

Well, I think Larry would be a great attorney general. Larry is a Republican. I know him. I know his wife. He was with a very prestigious law firm [King & Spalding] here in Atlanta. He is a straight shooter. And he would make a great attorney general.

Better than Ashcroft?

On the issues that some of us are concerned about, I think [Thompson] probably would have been much better.

On the Death Penalty >>

I'm sure you have been following some of the debate around the country over the death penalty. In Georgia, it's more focused on the issue of the electric chair versus lethal injection. Is this a diversion or should we have a death penalty at all?

The real issue is whether we should have the death penalty. There are only a few countries in the world that still use capital punishment. I have taken a very strong stand against the death penalty. I think it represents another period in our history. It is not worthy of a great nation. It's not worthy of a democratic society.

I happen to believe that we don't have a right as a nation, whether it be the federal government or the state government, to take the life of another person.

I happen to believe that in the bosom of every human being there is what I call a spark of the divine. We don't have a right to abuse it. It should be left for the Almighty and not for human beings to take the life of another human being. The state shouldn't sanction it. It shouldn't sanction putting someone to death.

We appeal to the larger society not to kill, and practice the philosophy of nonviolence, and then we use legal machinery to put people to death. We should abolish it. I think it's barbaric. It's not worthy of a civilized nation.

So whether someone is put to death by an electric chair, lethal injection—I know there are one or two states [that] still hang people, one or two [that] use a firing squad—we should find a way to abolish it once and for all.

In recent years, the debate seems to have shifted not so much on the moral issue, but on questions that the system [of capital punishment] is terribly flawed. For example, Illinois has released 13 people on death row who had been wrongly convicted. Is that something that could draw people to your position?

You just might put the wrong person to death, and when you put someone to death, [there's no] way to bring that person back. You can't say, 'Oh, we made a mistake.' You keep a person on death row for many, many years and then you find out through DNA that this person maybe didn't commit the crime. How do you make up? How do you compensate?

Why has the death penalty been so popular in the South?

Well, maybe it's the history of us as Southerners. Maybe it's something in the very climate or the very environment. I don't know. But hopefully the South, and the American community as a whole, will join the rest of the world in abolishing this form of punishment.

How about capital punishment on the federal level? I know there were a number of years when there were no federal executions, and now we have them back to back [Timothy McVeigh and Juan Raul Garza in June and July].

There have been members of Congress every single year during the past few years introducing legislation to abolish [the death penalty]. There is ongoing discussion. Attorney General Janet Reno had a commission study whether it was discriminatory. The report just came out and, I believe, it found that there was no discrimination. If you look at the numbers—and I'm not sure that I have the exact numbers—there are about 21 people on federal death row. And about 17 of them are minorities, African Americans and Hispanics. [According to the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, as of June 19, there were 19 persons on the federal death row, 16 of whom are minorities.]

Congressman, I think many people wrestle with the moral implications of the death penalty here, but the unspoken issue here is the extremely high level of violent crime. In the city of Atlanta we probably have more murders each year than some European countries. What is to be done about the other side of the equation, the level of violent crime that prompts people to support the death penalty?

I think, more than anything, we've got to continue to use our resources at the federal, state and local level to combat violent crime. More police on the street, more community policing. But we've also got to reach our young people—our very, very young in many of our large urban communities and also our rural communities because crime is not just [limited to] urban America. You see it more and more in small towns and rural America.

[We've got to be] teaching people the way of nonviolence. You don't hear too many politicians talking about the way of nonviolence. We've got to reach children, young people in day care and Head Start and elementary school and teach them to have a reverence for life, to respect the dignity and the worth of every human being.

We don't have to continue to go down this path of violence and more violence.  [We have to] respect other people, all people, and respect other people's property.

Congressman, how do we do that? What are some specific things to do, because what you suggest would take a long time. Is there anything that can be done in the short term or do we just have to rely on tougher laws?

Well, I think we've got to be tough in terms of enforcing the existing laws. We've got to say to people if you commit a crime, and especially a heinous, hideous crime of murder or whatever—then you will be sentenced. And I can see putting people in prison for life, but in the meantime I think we've got to spend more of our limited resources on giving all of our young people the best possible education.

Along with that education, you've got to teach people the way of nonviolence, the way of peace. There's nothing wrong with talking about loving people, loving all human beings, because we all are a part of that one family, that human family.

We are all part of what I like to call one house, and I don't think we should give up on human beings. I don't think we should give up on anyone. I think there are certain people who are prone, maybe there is some psychological makeup or chemical imbalance, that moves people in a particular direction, but I don't think you should give up on them.

I don't want to see our society—whether it's Fulton County, the city of Atlanta or the state of Georgia—become a place where we continue to warehouse hundreds and thousands of people, especially young ones.

You put someone in prison at the age of 15, 18 or 19, and then they are still there until they are 80 or 90.

I'm not so sure that society is willing to continue to warehouse hundreds and thousands and millions of people. We've got to do something to stop this trend.

Congressman, let me ask you about the warehousing of people. We have seen a move toward considerably harsher punishments for criminals. Is there any evidence that this works to discourage crime?

Well, from what I have been able to gather, the crime rate is down. I believe the latest FBI reports show that violent crime tends to be going down in America. Why? Is it is because of the stiffer punishment? Is it because the economy got so good at a particular time, especially during the Clinton administration? I don't know.

On Indigent Defense >>

An issue before the State Bar of Georgia right now is the extent to which lawyers should be obligated to provide pro bono defense for indigents accused of crimes. What should be done?

All you have to do is visit some of the courtrooms here in Fulton County and the city of Atlanta and see individuals. We get calls [about legal help] even at our [Congressional] office and we're not in the business of recommending lawyers. I just think the system needs to be fixed.

Whose obligation do you think it is?

I think it is the obligation of all of us, the larger society, not just members of the bar. But the bar should take the lead.

Do you think lawyers should have an obligation to devote a certain number of hours a year to indigent defense?

I'm not sure if it should be something that is fixed. If it's at all possible, you would like people to have the sense of caring, the sense of sharing and feel like they have an obligation to give something back. People who have been blessed with certain skills and training and know-how should help the larger society. It's in the best interest of the total community. And people look up to the bar.

There are many lawyers around Georgia who do feel that sort of obligation that you described, but it's not enough. What more can be done?

Maybe the state and the federal government can [provide] resources to encourage this type of participation. I don't know how that can be done. In Congress, we have had these fights to continue to support legal aid, [and] there are people in Congress who want to zero the budget for this type of assistance.

Is indigent defense a federal obligation or a state obligation?

I think it's both. Again, we all live in this house together. And we cannot put it off to just the state or just the federal government. I think you need the assistance of both.

What is the likelihood of getting something like that through Congress at this point?

At this point, I'm not that hopeful. It's not the in thing. You don't see a rallying cry to help the poor and the needy.

So what do you do if you don't think funding is probable at the federal level?

I think that you've got to insist that the state intervene to make some assistance available.

Meaning state funding?

Yes, and encouraging the state bars, the local bars, the state legislatures to lobby members of Congress to try to do something. It's not a mindset in this Congress to move in this particular direction at all.

Large numbers of indigents are African Americans. Is this a civil rights issue?

The civil rights community should be involved. There are groups like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, but if they say your case is not a civil rights issue, per se, they will tell you to go to the Legal Aid Society [or] somewhere else. It's not a case of discrimination, but—as you indicated—it tends to be an issue of race and class. Because whether it be African American, Hispanic or [other] low-income people, [they] are not receiving proper legal services.

On the FBI >>

Former Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley wrote a guest column in May for The New York Times—after Thomas Blanton Jr. was convicted of murder in the 1963 bombing of a Black Birmingham church—-in which he said the FBI had deliberately withheld evidence in the case. He wrote that he would have been able to convict Blanton and suspected accomplice Bobby Frank Cherry years ago had the FBI not stonewalled the case. What are your thoughts on that?

Well, that is to think the unthinkable—to think that the FBI under the leadership of Mr. [former FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover deliberately held back or refused to share the information with the attorney general of Alabama. I know Bill Baxley. I met with him when he was the attorney general. He is a very honorable person. I read the piece in The New York Times, and I think he was writing out of his gut and soul, and I don't think he would just be saying this.

You know, the FBI used to tell us during the [civil rights movement in the] late '50s and early '60s that they couldn't do certain things because they needed the help of the local authorities on other cases.

But it makes you very sad, really, to think that the highest level of law enforcement in our country withheld that information that could have been very valuable at this time.

Congressman, years ago we heard allegations of abuse by the FBI in compiling files on civil rights leaders and anti-war leaders. In recent years, we've heard similar allegations from the right. There's a perverse theme that runs through this, which is the FBI seems to be a power unto itself. Is it time to, revamp this agency?

Well, I do think the new director [Robert S. Mueller III] being appointed by President  [George W.] Bush is a person who is apparently going to have strong bipartisan support in the Congress. And with the recent revelations of what's been happening, this may be the time to take a serious look at what type of FBI we want.

And what type would we want? One with less power?

Well, the FBI in so many ways has been so superior in investigation. I don't want to do anything to dampen the effectiveness of the FBI, but maybe there needs to be greater Congressional oversight.

During the J. Edgar Hoover days, the Congress and the president [adopted a hands-off policy]. It was almost from a sense of fear. I think people didn't know what Mr. Hoover had on them.

So now we have an opportunity. The last director [Louis Freeh] was at war with the attorney general [Janet Reno] and with President Clinton. Freeh was sort of independent. I don't know what [Mueller] is going to be like, but I understand he apparently has tremendous administration skills.

Maybe this is a time for the Senate and House judiciary committees and people in the administration to take a serious look. Maybe we need some type of government commission to study what type of FBI we have.

On Reapportionment >>

The Georgia General Assembly is getting ready to tackle the issue of reapportionment. How you see your role in that process?

I don't think that is a role for a member of Congress to play.

So you won't be following it at all?

I will take a great deal of interest in keeping up with what is happening. Hopefully we will be out of Washington [Congress is expected to recess throughout August] and I'll be able to come home and observe what is happening. But it's left up to the Georgia Legislature and I don't have a vote there. But I have some friends there.

You have an incredibly secure district. You have won overwhelmingly time after time. You haven't won exclusively on the minority vote, but would you be willing to have a district with fewer minority voters in order to help Democrats in other districts?

Well, I'm willing to be helpful and supportive. I would love for us to get some assistance, some help from the State of Georgia in helping us take back the House. We need more Democrats in this delegation. Something is out of balance. It doesn't make sense in this state to only have three Democratic members from Georgia in the House. So if you move toward a question of fairness and try to balance the delegation, we have to come out of this process with greater opportunity to assure more Democratic members.

In terms of cold politics, how do you do that and who has to give up what?

Oh, I think we all have to give up a little. We all have to be willing to share for the greater good.

Do you think that is going to happen?

I think it's going to happen. We went down this other road 10 years ago, and I don't think we are prepared to do it again, so there must be some sharing.

Congressman, how low a percentage of minorities would you be willing to accept in your new district?

I really haven't given a great deal of thought about the percentage of minorities because, as you indicated, I come from a very good district. Wherever they put me, I'm prepared to run and do my best. So I don't have any fear of a lower percentage of minority voters. I would love to see the political subdivision stand tight, but we may have to give that up.

Looking at your district, what areas do you see as most likely to get pushed off into a different district?

Oh, I don't know. I have part of North Fulton and the Sandy Springs area. And then I have that Atlanta-DeKalb area. Something could happen there. Something could happen down in south Fulton or north Clayton, I don't know.

Do you think your colleague Cynthia McKinney feels the same way about sharing? She fought very hard for the district that she has.

I don't know, but I think the three Democrats in our delegation realize that what we have now in Georgia is not fair. It's not balanced. It's not what the state is. You have a Democratic governor. The Legislature is Democratic and the two U.S. senators are Democrats. And then you have this unbelievable imbalance when it comes to the House delegation. So we know that something has got to give.

On Immigrants >>

Demographics in the metro area are shifting. In the past 10 years we have had an increasing numbers of Asian and Latino immigrants. Are there ways to focus on areas that have a high immigrant proportion? They seem to be up for grabs. Are there ways to attract that voting base when they become voting citizens?

I think there are many ways to involve these new immigrants that are coming in, whether it be Hispanics or Asian-Americans. A large number of African and people from the Caribbean are coming, especially in parts of DeKalb County, around Buford Highway and Chamblee.

And if you go up into Hall County there are thousands of Hispanics, and thousands more in the Dalton area. People are coming in. They have to be organized and mobilized. They have to be registered and get involved in the political process. In the next five to 10 years they will play a major role. When you have 60,000 people coming into a particular town or county or even a congressional district they make a difference.

There's some speculation Latinos may be a double-digit proportion of the population in the next 10 years. Should they be classified as a minority for purposes of hiring, contracting and affirmative action?

At the federal level, we consider Hispanics and Asian Americans and Latinos as part of a minority group.

What about the state level? Do you think Georgia has an obligation to do that as well?

I think so. I think we should make all of our citizens as welcome and informed and not discriminated against because of their race or ethnic background.

So to be specific, Latinos should have the same status as blacks in terms of affirmative action programs?

I don't have a problem with that. I disagree with some of my friends in the Georgia Legislature, some of the African Americans, who have argued against including Latinos in minority assistance programs.

On Cynthia McKinney >>

As you know Congresswoman McKinney has a very, shall we say, customized district built to accommodate her. How much give should there be in reshaping this district?

Oh, I don't know. I don't think I want to get into it with Cynthia McKinney because she will read about this interview and then on the [House] floor she will be looking at me and saying, 'Why did you say that about my district?' I'm not going to advise her of what she should be willing to do in politics.

I just think we all must be willing to give, to share. I think in DeKalb, especially in south DeKalb, there are unbelievable pockets of voters. I have told her there is a great undercount. Maybe the census did pick up everybody or most of the people, but I think you still have a [big] number uncounted.

Last election, Congresswoman McKinney stood outside the polls with a bullhorn in an effort to keep them open. Were you comfortable with that approach?

I'm not too sure whether I would have played that role, but I tell you in my own precinct in south Atlanta, Precinct 11-G was almost an hour late opening because the polling manager was not there to swear in the poll workers. And we literally couldn't call anyone down at the Board of Elections.

I got in my car and drove downtown to report it. You had people who came, stood in line and left. One lady in particular came to the polling place three times to vote. I think in a case like that you have to go to court and get a jury to extend the hours so everybody will have an opportunity to participate. Apparently, in parts of DeKalb County you had people standing in long lines and the polls closed.

Were the poll problems due to ineptitude or something else?

Well, I don't think that in Georgia or at least in metro Atlanta that there was a deliberate effort. I don't think there was any systematic effort to deny or keep people from participating.

But in Fulton County we use the punch ballot. It's very similar to what happened in Florida. I think in the state of Georgia there were almost 100,000 votes that were not counted. When I went to the poll, I had a difficult time.

The machinery is archaic. It's not the way to elect a dog catcher. It's just very bad.

It is such a hard and difficult time even reading your name on the registration list. And you've got to find a way to make it easy and convenient for people to vote. Secretary of State Cathy Cox says that we must reform our electoral process. What happened in Florida could have well happened right here in Georgia. If the election had been closer in Georgia it would have been the same thing. It would have been Georgia rather than Florida.

I promise not to ask any more questions about Congresswoman McKinney—after this one.

OK.

I imagine you were disappointed when she did not support you for minority whip in the House. How does that affect your working relationship?

Well, I was disappointed when she told me she wouldn't be supporting me and she would be supporting another colleague. But in terms of my relationship with her, it didn't affect it.

I serve as a deputy whip, and so I spend time talking with her and [Georgia Rep. Sanford] Bishop and other members, especially from this region.

And I walk up to her from time to time and say, 'Cynthia, we need your help, we need your support on this, will you be with us on this?' and she says yes. I don't hold it against her. She did what I guess she felt she had to do.

On Bipartisanship >>

You mentioned the Republican dominance of the Georgia Congressional delegation, but is the group able to work together on some state issues?

There may be one or two exceptions, but for the most part we're able to come together. When it's something that is in the best interest of metro Atlanta or the state of Georgia we can come together.

I would say, it's a peaceful co-existence and we can forget about some of the differences. It's a very diverse delegation. You have members that are moderate and there are members that are very conservative and then there are some of us who consider ourselves somewhat progressive and somewhat liberal.

But, for the most part, we're very civil with each other.

On Affirmative Action >>

The University of Georgia is involved in several affirmative action cases. The city and the county also have been involved in high-profile cases. They are losing those cases in the courts. If you add up what the city and county alone have spent in legal fees and judgments, it clears $8 million easily in the last few years. Is this legal battle worth the money that is being spent?

Well, I think the legal battle is worth the money. I take a position that there is still a need for affirmative action. There is still a need to include people who have been left out, that have been left behind, whether it is because of their race or because of their gender. We have a history in Georgia, in this region and in our country of leaving people out because they happen to be African American or because they happen to be female. So affirmative action was a means to an end.

The courts here are saying that the people who have been left out in Fulton County and Atlanta are now white people. Are the courts wrong in these decisions?

I'm not going to sit in judgment on the courts and say they were wrong, but it may be the way a jury is interpreting the law, and, if something has gone astray, then we have to correct it. As President Clinton said, don't end it, mend it. Fix it. So if the policy of the city of Atlanta went astray, if it's wrong someplace, fix it. Make it right. And I would say the same for Fulton County.

When you talk about fixing it, what the county and city have chosen to do is continue to appeal. Is that something you think they ought to do prior to mending it, or should they accept a lower court's ruling?

There should be some way for the competing parties to negotiate some type of agreement or settlement rather than going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I think it would save time and would save a lot of money.

Mayor Bill Campbell has taken the position that he will not negotiate on the issue of affirmative action. Do you support him?

I don't know whether the mayor feels that he has an obligation to pursue this all the way for some legal reason or if he thinks he has a chance at a much higher level to prevail.

But with my history and my background coming out of the civil rights movement and believing in the philosophy and the discipline of nonviolence where you can negotiate, some type of agreement or understanding out of the court would be much better for me.

And in the long run, I think it would probably be better for all parties. But I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a member of the city council, and I'm not the mayor, so I don't now want to prejudge.

On the King Legacy >>

You have seen the recent Alltel Telecommunications ads with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous speech to an empty mall in Washington. What do you think of that?

First of all it's a distortion of history. I was there when all this [happened] in 1963. I was 23; I had all my hair, and I was a few pounds lighter. And Dr. King gave an unbelievable speech.

From time to time during the past few weeks I have been walking from the Capitol down to the Washington Monument and down to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I just walk there in the evening and walk back. Part of [the reason] is I want get to get some exercise and part of it is to reflect.

To me you are robbing something [by airing the TV commercial]. You are distorting something. I don't know whether it cheapened the image of Martin Luther King Jr. or cheapened the cause, but I guess that's what we are in the society today. If you take the image of a Martin Luther King Jr. or a great baseball player, you know, to sell communications or telephones or to sell soap or whatever, I guess that's what we're prepared to do. Would you take Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address and do something like that? I don't think so. But what can you do about it?

Have you discussed the ad with Mrs. King?

No, no, I wouldn't do that.

Should the King speeches be in the public domain?

I believe that Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech on Aug. 20, 1963 was in the public domain and that speech belongs to all of us. That speech belongs to history and not to a particular family.

On the WWII Memorial >>

You mentioned your walks recently along the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. What's your feeling about the World War II Memorial that will interrupt the view from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument? Do you support that?

I think it's fitting and proper to have a memorial to World War II soldiers and veterans. I would have preferred some other site.

If you stand on the Capitol steps and look down the Mall, it's such an unbelievable feeling and view, in a sense, it's almost holy. Some people say, well, maybe that's the reason we should have the memorial there. But in the future, if you have huge gatherings similar to the March on Washington, that just sort of disrupts the beauty or the ability of people to gather. I don't know. But in the Congress, I think the politics and everything else dictated that we do it.

On the Civil Rights Museum >>

What is the status of your proposal for a Civil Rights Museum?

The legislation is moving very fast. It's on a fast track. It has the support of almost all of the leadership on both sides, both the House and the Senate. It's brought together an unbelievable coalition of people.

You have a very conservative senator from Kansas, Sam Brownback. Sen. [Max] Cleland [of Georgia] is supporting it. One of the chief sponsors is Hillary Clinton. In the House, we have almost 150 or so supporters, [including House Majority Whip] Tom DeLay. Some of us never can agree on anything, [but] we are all agreeing on this legislation. A few days ago, we had a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, and he was in the process of talking to the president about it, so we're trying to move it. I think it's going to happen.