Recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day, and expressing the sense of Congress that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and more effectively facing the challenges of the future.

Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chair of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership on environmental issues and look forward to working with her on continuing the Speaker's leadership on the Green the Capitol Initiative, both in terms of planting of the trees and the greening of roofs, and I look forward and appreciate her input.

At this time, Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I think it's unfortunate that the gentleman from Georgia, the distinguished former chairman of this committee, has chosen this opportunity as a message opportunity, as opposed to working together in a bipartisan way, like the ranking member and I have done, to make sure that we can provide for the safety and security of the facilities of this institution.

He knows full well that the Capitol Visitors Center and the employees of the subcontractors that have been engaged to build that facility, while moving entirely too slowly, and we certainly have decried the cost overruns, are required to hire people who legally may work in this country and are required to ensure that a background check and a security check has been done on them. So his remarks are unfortunate, but everybody makes their own choices.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, I am really proud of the work that the subcommittee and I have engaged in. We offer this legislation to the House and ask for their support. We have endeavored to make sure that this bill is fiscally responsible, provides for the life, safety and security of the needs of the people who work here as well as the people who visit us here, and make sure that we can engage in Congress's oversight role and provide for accountability for the American people.

I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Wamp from Tennessee on making sure that we can consistently

provide those initiatives for the American people.

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition even though I am supportive of the amendment.

Madam Chair, very briefly, I fully support this amendment and appreciate the bipartisan cooperation that was endeavored in moving it forward.

I do want to express some concern about how the light bulbs will be adapted to the historical lighting that we have in this facility, in the Capitol complex.

I look forward to working with the sponsors of the amendment as we move this legislation through conference to ensure that that occurs.

I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and Mr. Wamp as we move through the conference process and commend them, as well as Speaker

Pelosi, for including the shifting from the light bulbs we use now to energy-efficient and environmentally friendly light bulbs as part of the initiative of the greening of the Capitol.

I yield back my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons.

While I support the gentleman, who is from the same generation that I am, in his endeavor to make sure that we can communicate and receive information in an electronic format, the approach that the gentleman is taking is absolutely inappropriate and won't accomplish his goal.

We have crafted a tight and fiscally responsible bill. As I outlined in general debate, we have held the bill to a 4.1 percent increase. We actually held it to $276 million below the total request.

In their traditional views, the minority agreed. They said that, on balance, the funding provided in this bill to operate the legislative branch agencies is fiscally responsible. This amendment would add to existing shortfalls. It would add to what is already a growing funding shortfall in this account.

To be fiscally responsible, we have had to make some tough choices, including funding levels for GPO. The bill already, our colleagues should know, holds congressional printing and binding $62,000 below what was provided in fiscal year 2007. GPO is expecting an $8 million shortfall in this account in fiscal year 2007 in addition to a $3 million shortfall in fiscal year 2006. These shortfalls are due to the flat funding provided to this account since fiscal year 2007, in spite of increasing costs and workloads. These shortfalls will continue in fiscal year 2008. Eventually they are going to have to be paid.

This amendment would make that situation even worse. Most of the appropriation for congressional printing and binding goes towards Congress' printing requirements. I want to point out that the gentleman is incorrect when he states that there is a statute. While there is a statutory number in the Code that the GPO is told to print, they only print the number that is requisitioned. In other words, they only print, on a daily basis, the number that they are asked for. We have a deficit in the account that allows them to print the number that is asked for. GPO has no control over those requirements. It's required by law to produce the information.

If the gentleman is concerned about the number of printed materials being produced, he should take it up with the authorizing committee, the Joint Committee on Printing, and seek reductions in the amount of material that GPO is required to print in the Code.

Simply gratuitously cutting out and leaving people with the impression that we are doing something, when we are not, and all we are doing here is cutting $3.2 million when GPO will still be required to print the Code, is the wrong approach. The suggestion that this amendment was accepted previously but then cut out in conference also leads people to believe that we have done something when we have not.

I refuse to be disingenuous when it comes to being forthright with the American people. We do need to make sure that in the future the Congressional Record is produced electronically. This is not the right way to do it. It is irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just want to point out that the amendment offered by Mr. Flake does not say anything about reducing the number of copies printed of the Congressional Record. It simply cuts $3.2 million out of the Congressional Printing and Binding account. It provides no direction. It simply cuts that funding. There is no assumption that any of what the gentleman is suggesting would occur. It would simply further add to the deficit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I believe the gentleman has his own time.

How much time do I have left?

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I really believe that we should approach this in the appropriate way. If we want to change the statute and go to electronic production of the Congressional Record, that is what we should do. We should not simply hamstring the GPO by requiring them to print a Congressional Record and not ensuring they have adequate funds to do that, when they are already in a deficit situation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this is a fiscally responsible bill. Again, we have held the bill to a 4.1 percent increase, only $122 million over actual spending in fiscal year 2007, and if you take into consideration the $50 million rescission in the CR, we are at a 2.3 percent increase. That is $276 million below the total budget request.

Again, I want to point to the minority views, where the minority agreed this bill is fiscally responsible. They say, ``On balance, the funding provided in this bill to operate the legislative branch agencies is fiscally responsible.''

This bill funds the must-have's, not the nice-to-have's, by targeting increases towards keeping the agencies running, providing Congress with the tools it needs to perform its oversight responsibility, and funding critical security and life safety projects.

The amendment, if adopted, would eliminate $50 million worth of critical health and safety and security projects that we would be unable to fund if a 4 percent across-the-board reduction were adopted.

This amendment would eliminate funding for things like the $5 million we have in this bill to ensure that the Capitol Police have interoperable radios. According to the new police chief, a new radio system is their number one priority. The existing radio system is 20 years old. It is antiquated and outdated. It is not encrypted nor secure, and it is not interoperable. Hurricane Katrina showed the importance of interoperable communications during a crisis.

It also would eliminate funding potentially monitoring the utility tunnel abatement. We had tunnel workers who were subjected to horrendous conditions and have been exposed to asbestos, and we are endeavoring to make sure that we can make up for that and provide the funding for the abatement. That would be impossible if this amendment were adopted.

We provide $1.2 million for escape hoods for our Library visitors, $1 million for emergency exit signs and lighting in the capital, and emergency lighting upgrades in Rayburn.

The amendment would also impair our agency's work. It would put the legislative branch agencies back to a fiscal year 2006 funding level since there was no increase in 2007.

In practical terms, the impact of this would be less capability on the part of GAO to assist Congress in its oversight responsibilities; fewer and less timely products from CRS to assist Members in their legislative duties, a further reduction in CBO's ability to score Member bills, which was pointed out in the Rules Committee as already being a problem; elimination of the digital talking book conversion program for the blind; a reduced ability for the Office of Compliance to pursue health safety issues around the Capitol complex, even as we get ready to add new space with the approaching opening of the CVC; the Architect's operations would be strained to keep up with increases in utility costs; and, finally, since 77 percent of this bill is labor costs, as is most of the increase, this amendment would surely result in a reduction in our workforce.

It is irresponsible. Mr. Wamp and I have endeavored to put forward a bill that is fiscally responsible, fiscally tight, and ensures the life, safety and security needs of the people who work and visit here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?

I would ask that he speak for 1 minute and then we will close in opposition.

Madam Chair, at this time I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the former ranking member of this subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

I want to point out and remind my colleagues that Mr. Wamp and I are proud to report to you that we have brought the legislative branch appropriations bill in at $276 million below the request. The easiest thing in the world to do is jump on the table and to cry waste.

I want to also point out that this is a security upgrade, funding for security upgrades requested by former Speaker Hastert and continued by Speaker Pelosi so that we can ensure that we provide swing space for our very cramped space so that we can properly renovate the Cannon and Longworth House Office Buildings.

I ask my colleagues to come over and look at these pictures of the deterioration of our facilities. These are pictures of the 100-year-old Cannon House Office Building. If you take a look at the deterioration and life, safety and security upgrades that this facility needs, we can no longer wait to make these upgrades, and to make sure that we can protect the people who work here and the people who visit us. They are deteriorating and badly in need of renovation.

What the gentleman from Georgia's motion to recommit would do is delay for years, if not make it impossible, for us to begin renovation and repairs on our aging House facilities.

My colleagues, this committee does not deal with the sexiest of subjects that confront us every day, and I have only been here for 2 years and the chair of this subcommittee for the last 5 months. You don't earn a reputation as an institutionalist in that short period of time, but it is my hope to be able to do that over time.

We are stewards of this great institution, but we are also stewards just as much of these facilities. My colleague on the Appropriations Committee, Jose Serrano of New York, recently made a wonderful suggestion to remind us of the history embedded even in what may seem mundane, the space we occupy each day. He suggested that we each have plaques in our offices with the names of our predecessors in Congress who occupied that space before us. My own office, I was thrilled to learn, was once occupied by former Congressman Lyndon Johnson.

My point is they may seem like buildings and office space to the outside world, but we know better. How many of us countless times have found ourselves approaching this beautiful building we are now in and marveling privately to ourselves, wow, I work here, what an incredible privilege.

But with privilege comes responsibility. We must think about the institution, but we must also think about our hard-working staff. The number of hours they toil in these facilities is mind-boggling. You might be surprised to learn that the average work space for each of our staff is about 36 square feet. And I want to show you what 36 square feet is. This is 36 square feet. That is how much space that we allot, on average, to our employees.

GSA recommends an average of 100 square feet of space per employee. We need to renovate so that we can make sure we are not cramming our staff into unreasonable boxes for hours on end. Our staff make incredible sacrifices to serve the public, our constituents, and they help us do our job. We must make sure that we keep these facilities, the place they work every day and night, safe for them. We must make sure we keep these facilities safe and in good condition for our constituents and our successors.

Mr. Kingston's amendment is well-meaning, but it is not responsible, and it is not an eye toward the future with respect for our past. I strongly urge you to vote against the motion to recommit.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Yes, it is. It is an initiative from former Speaker Hastert.

I strongly urge you to vote against the motion to recommit.

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

Madam Chairman, this place, this House is always at its best when Members of the United States Congress work together. And I want to congratulate the chairwoman of this committee and the ranking member of this committee for working together.

Most people don't understand that the legislative branch creates an atmosphere of hospitality in this place. As I look and see the number of visitors that we have, your responsibility is to secure them and to welcome them. Let me thank you personally for the task that you have undertaken.

I want to thank you for the increase in the House Child Care Center, and I hope that our community does not criticize the fact that we are family friendly so that employees have the opportunity to have child care.

I want to thank you for supporting the Speaker's Green Initiative because we, too, must do what we ask Americans to do.

And, of course, the brave men and women that serve us, I welcome the increase in the Capitol Police, and I also look forward to their continuing to address the questions of discrimination and equality as they increase the numbers of police.

Let me join in the words of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and hope that we will challenge, if you will, the GAO to be responsible in its dealings with its employees and unionization.

But I came today to be able to offer to the American public the sense of pride and the sense of humbleness that I am now experiencing because of your grand leadership and that of the Appropriations Committee. And my good friend Congressman Jesse Jackson and, of course, members of the Congressional Black Caucus signed a letter, which I was proud to sign, because this picture reflects something that is near and dear to Texas.

My good friend comes from Tennessee. He knows that we have a lot of continuity or connection between Tennessee and Texas and the good State of Florida.

But we celebrated this week the Emancipation Proclamation. We celebrated, in particular, Juneteenth. Those of us in the South remember Major General Gordon Granger coming 2 years late to indicate that we might be free. Isn't it wonderful that now we will name the Visitors Center, and we hope for our good friends in the other body to be as reasonable, the Emancipation Hall.

I went through the hall just outside this door before I came to the floor, and I saw the name of William Jennings Bryan. I saw the name Wheeler of Alabama, Huey Pierce Long, Lew Wallace, Sequoyah, Sam Houston.

I met a woman who told me about her grandfather, Levi Coffin, who had helped slaves in the Underground Railroad. Her name was Ms. Holt. She was just standing there talking to me.

That's what naming the Emancipation Hall means to America. It reflects the wholeness of America, the wonderment of our history, the dignity of our history. Yes, slaves built this place, but all Americans will be able to go into Emancipation Hall, and it will symbolize the freedom of this Nation. I am so grateful that we have come to this place at this time.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, Emancipation Hall.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2771, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2008 and to commend Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz for her leadership in shepherding this bill though the legislative process. This legislation funds the House, Senate and various entities in the legislative branch, including the Library of Congress, the Capitol Police, the Government Accountability Office, and the Government Printing Office.

But it does more than that, Madam Chairman. The bill provides funding for ``Greening the Capitol'' to reduce carbon emissions from the operations of House buildings and the Capitol. It makes the necessary investments for critical health and safety needs by funding security upgrades and addressing health hazards and safety requirements in law. In short, this legislation demonstrates a commitment by the new Democratic majority to increased oversight, accountability and fiscal responsibility.

H.R. 2771 appropriates $3.1 billion for legislative branch entities, including $1.2 billion for House operations and $1.9 billion for legislative branch agencies and other offices. The total provided is $275.7 million (8 percent) less than requested by legislative offices and agencies and only $122.2 million (4 percent) more than comparable FY 2007 funding. Nearly 25 percent of this increased funding is directly attributable to costs associated with the 2008 presidential election and subsequent inauguration.

Following the long-established practice that each house of Congress determines its own housekeeping requirements without interference from the other body, the bill contains no funding for Senate operations. The bill appropriates $1.2 billion for operations of the House of Representatives, which is $36.5 million (3 percent) less than requested, but $54.1 million (5 percent) more than current funding.

The total for the House includes $581 million for members' offices, also known as MRA's, 5 percent more than current funding, but 5 percent less than requested and $162.8 million for House committees, 8 percent more than current funding and 4 percent more than requested. The bill also provides $169.4 million for the various House officers and employees, including the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), 8 percent more than current funding, but 3 percent less than requested.

H.R. 2771 provides $21.1 million for joint House-Senate items, 13 percent less than current funding and 23 percent less than requested, when the recent June 8 supplemental request for the Capitol guides is taken into account. The appropriated amount includes $9.4 million for the Joint Committee on Taxation, 7 percent more than current funding.

Madam Chairman, H.R. 2771 provides a total of $1.9 billion for other offices and legislative branch agencies that directly or indirectly support congressional operations. This funding is $71.2 million (4 percent) more than current levels but $232.8 million (11 percent) less than requested. Among the agencies this bill funds are the Architect of the Capitol; the Capitol Police; the Library of Congress; the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office.

For the Architect of the Capitol, the bill provides $348.4 million, 9 percent less than current funding and 12 percent less than requested. Included in the bill is $27.5 million for the Capital Visitors Center. I cite with particular approval that the bill renames the center's Great Hall as ``Emancipation Hall'' in remembrance of the slave labor that created this mighty edifice.

Earlier this week, the House passed H. Con. Res. 155, which recognized the historical significance of June 19, 1865, or ``Juneteenth,'' the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery. On June 19, 1865, Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, landed at Galveston, TX, with news that the war had ended and that all slaves were now free. But this was 2\1/2\ years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation--which had become official January 1, 1863.

Madam Chairman, I suppose it may just be another irony of life that the U.S. Capitol was rebuilt during the Civil War and completed around the time of Juneteenth. This magnificent symbol of democracy, freedom, and equality could not have been brought in to being without the blood and sweat and unrequited toil of slave labor. For much of our history the contributions to our country by slaves and their descendants has not been fully acknowledged. But in renaming the Great Hall to the Capitol Visitor Center as ``Emancipation Hall,'' we begin to rectify this error. It is a wonderful thing we are doing.

The bill also provides $3.9 million to implement the ``Green the Capitol'' initiative, including $2.7 for shifting from coal to natural gas for heating in the Capitol power plant, and the report requires the House CAO to purchase carbon credits. The bill also requires the hiring of an inspector general.

The bill provides the Capitol Police $286 million, which is $13.1 million (4 percent) less than requested, but $20.3 million (8 percent) more than current funding. The Library of Congress is slated to receive $572.5 million, $63.8 million (13 percent) more than the current level, but $89.1 million (13 percent) less than requested. There is $125.8 million for the Government Printing Office; $37.8 million for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO); and $503.3 million in net funding for the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The bill does not contain any earmarks as defined under House rules.

To conclude, Madam Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2771 because it makes the necessary investments for critical health and safety needs by funding security upgrades and addressing health and safety hazards. I support this legislation because it reflects the commitment by the new Democratic majority to increased oversight, accountability and fiscal responsibility.

I thank Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz for her fine work in bringing this exceptional legislation to the House floor where it should receive an overwhelmingly favorable vote.

Thank you, Mr. Wamp. And I thank the Chair and congratulate both of you on your work for this bill.

I want to say, however, I do not support it. I am very disappointed that after the bill left the Appropriations Committee and went to the Rules Committee, a funny thing happened. All this transparency and all this promise of open government and open rules seemed to fade away in a dark corner room up on the third floor of this building, because there were 23 amendments offered, and yet only three of them were accepted.

We talk about bipartisanship and we talk about sunshine in the process, and yet this is the very bill that basically funds and perhaps even governs our own body, our own congressional branch, and yet it has the closed rule. And 20 amendments won't get the sunshine, will not get the debate because of the Rules Committee under Democrat leadership. I would say you need to go back to your campaign brochures and look at all the promises that you made before you pass another rule like this.

One of the casualties of this closed process was an amendment that I offered that deals with contractors who deal with the Federal Government, who work for the Federal Government. I'll give you some examples. December 2005, 22 Mexican nationals were found illegally working in Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. January 27, 2001, illegal aliens were found working at Fort Benning, Georgia. March 2007, the Golden State Fence Company was actually fined because, in building a border security fence, they had hired 10 illegal aliens.

It doesn't stop there. In Louisiana, December 2005, a local company was busted working on a Veterans Administration hospital because they had illegal aliens. This is absurd. Now, I've heard from many people the theme of ``leading by example.'' Perhaps one thing we could do and absolutely should do is require that if you are contracting for the Federal Government, that you have a Social Security verification process going in your business, more than the sham, more than the, Yeah, but we have an I-9 kind of approach that we're seeing. And this would actually say you need to be in the ICE, which is the Customs and Immigration Enforcement Service, you need to be in the ICE Basic Pilot Program, which is a way to know that your employees have correct and legal Social Security numbers. That's all the amendment would have done.

I would predict that this amendment would get lots of bipartisan support because we see that the biggest issue facing America, besides Iraq and perhaps energy, is the issue of illegal immigration. And here was an opportunity for us to make a definitive statement, to have a significant amendment added to the bill, and the Democrats said no.

I hope they'll reconsider on future legislation.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its current form.

Madam Speaker, I offer this amendment to bring something to the Members' attention that I think is very important.

We are about to create a fourth building for the House of Representatives. We have Cannon, we have Rayburn, we have Longworth. We are about to put on another 200,000-square-foot building. I think you should know about it, and I think we deserve a vote on it.

Number one, this is an earmark. Now, we have been talking weeks and weeks and months and months about transparency and ending earmarks. Yet if you will look in the report on page 20, there is a $16 million earmark for a new House office building. There is no explanation of the project, no total cost, there have been no hearings and no oversight, and it is not in the Democrat budget. It was not requested by the Architect of the Capitol, and, yet, it's in the bill.

Now, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, could be an earmark. That's where we are on this.

Number two, I think Members have the right to vote on a fourth office building. As former chair of this committee, one of the big frustrations I have about the Capitol Visitors Center is none of us owned the project. There wasn't one person that you could say it's his or her fault. It was all diluted and by committee. We never had a vote on it.

Indeed, when I was a chairman of this committee, a staffer put in $18 million to renovate the House floor, which none of us knew about. I took the money out of it, as did Chairman Lewis last year.

But things get stuck in the bills that we don't know about that we deserve a vote on. This gives you an opportunity, unlike the CVC, which started out as a $260 million project, with partial private funding, and now is up to $600 million.

This motion to recommit gives you the opportunity to vote on something and say no to something that has already cost this House $140 million. This is a 200,000-square-foot building. That's the size of 15 House floors. It's the size of four White Houses. It's five football fields big. This isn't incidental swing space.

What is this needed for? In case we renovate the Cannon House Office Building. Now, don't you want to vote on that? I haven't had a debate on renovating the Cannon Office Building, but I want to know about it. This is a big building of substance, and you deserve a vote.

Incidentally, this isn't going to be the only new building. We are adding 580,000 square feet in the form of the Capitol Visitors Center.

This building is huge. To move forward, it's going to cost us not the $16 million that's in the bill, but actually $56 million, and then another $12 million to lease it, plus $18 million for furniture for it.

Think about it. How many times have we heard from some Members in a rather preachy fashion, we need to control our carbon footprints? Ladies and gentlemen, all of those of you who want to reduce our carbon footprint, here is your opportunity. Say ``no'' to a 200,000-square- foot boondoggle which we are about to put in.

This has not had the proper oversight, it has not had the proper hearings. The contracts have all been verbal. That's why we are all in the situation.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 155, which recognizes the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day, and expresses the sense of Congress that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and more effectively facing the challenges of the future.

June 19th also known as Juneteenth, is the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery in the United States. From its Galveston, Texas origin in 1865, the observance of June 19th as the African American Emancipation Day has spread across the United States and beyond, yet it is still not a nationally recognized holiday.

On January 1, 1980, Juneteenth became an official Texas state holiday through the efforts of Al Edwards, an African American state legislator. The successful passage of this bill marked Juneteenth as the first emancipation celebration granted official state recognition. Representative Edwards has since actively sought to spread the observance of Juneteenth all across America.

Today, Juneteenth commemorates African-American freedom. This special day emphasizes education and achievement. It is a day, a week, and in some areas, a month marked with celebrations, guest speakers, picnics and family gatherings. It is a time for reflection and rejoicing. It is a time for assessment, self-improvement and for planning the future. Its growing popularity signifies a level of maturity and dignity in America long overdue. In cities across the country, people of all races, nationalities and religions are joining hands to truthfully acknowledge a period in our history that shaped and continues to influence our society today. Sensitized to the conditions and experiences of others, only then can we make significant and lasting improvements in our society.

The Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's yielded both positive and negative results for the Juneteenth celebrations. While it pulled many of the African American youth away and into the struggle for racial equality, many linked these struggles to the historical struggles of their ancestors. This was evidenced by student demonstrators involved in the Atlanta civil rights campaign in the early 1960's, who wore Juneteenth freedom buttons.

Again in 1968, Juneteenth received another strong resurgence through the Poor People's March to Washington, DC, Rev. Ralph Abernathy's call for people of all races, creeds, economic levels and professions to come to Washington to show support for the poor. Many of these attendees returned home and initiated Juneteenth celebrations in areas previously absent of such activity. In fact, two of the largest Juneteenth celebrations founded after this march are now held in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

Throughout the 80's and 90's Juneteenth has continued to enjoy a growing and healthy interest from communities and organizations throughout the country. Institutions such as the Smithsonian, the Henry Ford Museum and others have begun sponsoring Juneteenth-centered activities. In recent years, a number of National Juneteenth Organizations have risen to take their place alongside older organizations--all with the mission to promote and cultivate knowledge and appreciation of African American history and culture.

Juneteenth today celebrates African American freedom while encouraging self-development and respect for all cultures. As it takes on a more national and even global perspective, the events of 1865 in Texas are not forgotten. The future of Juneteenth looks bright as the number of cities and states come on board and form local committees and organizations to coordinate the activities.

Now in 2007, I push forward with the hope that my colleagues will remember with compassion the African American citizens who helped build this country, but were still held in illegal bondage due to the hatred, bigotry and cruelty of others. I ask that my colleagues help support this resolution and its efforts in making Juneteenth a nationally recognized holiday.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the Chair.

I brought with me today a stack of Congressional Records. All of us are familiar with these. We used to use them quite a bit, but today not so much. Today most of us just simply go on the computer and have a searchable version that is much faster, searchable back to 1989. With the click of a button, you can find what you are looking for. So we don't use these as much. Unfortunately, we haven't caught up with the times.

These are just a few of the thousands and thousands that are delivered that are never read. This was just from one office, the Legislative Research Center in the Cannon Building near my office. These are those that are just going to be thrown away today. One office that collects a few of these will throw these away just today.

This year alone these records will cost the American taxpayer over $25 million. Recently my office did an informal survey of about 100 offices. We went in and said, ``What do you do with the Congressional Record that comes?'' Virtually all of them, nearly every one of those 100 offices, said, ``We throw them away. We wish they would stop delivering them.'' We had some offices say that they had requested that they stop being delivered. They are still delivered.

So they stack up. They are thrown away. They fill up landfills. I believe the figure is something like 57 tons of paper each year are thrown away just here.

Before the Congressional Record was put on line, as I mentioned, they were useful, but they are not now. We obviously do have to have some paper copies. We simply don't need so many.

Our amendment would simply do this, and I should add, this amendment was offered by myself and Mr. Blumenauer 2 years ago and was accepted by the then majority. It was simply taken out in the conference. I think we would do well to accept it again today.

This amendment would simply save $3.2 million annually by instructing the Government Printing Office to print only half as many copies. Today only 5,600 are printed. Half would do us just fine. That amendment would not reduce the funding for preparation, data collection or other aspects of the Record. It would simply reduce the ink-and-paper copies for half of what we print. So those who might oppose this amendment might say that it is going to cut deep and cut personal and others. It won't as long as fewer records are printed. The costs will go down.

This is simply a good way to save taxpayer money. It will show the country that we are interested ourselves in cleaning up our own house, making sure that we move ahead in a fiscally responsible manner.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

Before yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon, let me point out, here is the Code. The Code states that we are supposed to print 30,000 a day, yet we only print 5,600. So, it is not the case that the GPO has to follow what the statute says. They are

required to do by demand. And they already do under; they can simply do less and save a lot of money.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Will the gentlelady yield, since I am out of time?

Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy.

Let me point out, just as with any program that is not an entitlement, everything is subject to appropriation. The Government Printing Office is not bound, no pun intended, to print as many copies as they think they need. They can print as many as they have money for. We were very careful in taking $3.2 million, to take only the printing costs for half of the number that are printed already. I think that is reasonable.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.