Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Paul's amendment that would bar Federal funds from being used for mental health screening programs. This amendment misunderstands the recommendations offered by President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, minimizes the importance of mental health to the well- being of Americans, and threatens vital efforts to promote access to mental health services.

Mental health is one of the greatest problems facing our Nation. During any one-year period, up to 50 million Americans--more than 22 percent--suffer from a clearly diagnosable mental disorder involving a degree of incapacity that interferes with employment, attendance at school or daily life. Among other things, mental health affects whether one gets involved in substance abuse, commits violence, follows through on medical advice, cares for a child, performs his work, and engages in healthy behaviors. In short, one's mental health affects almost every aspect of life.

I believe strongly in the need to support children's physical and mental health, while respecting parental rights. Recognizing that early childhood is a critical period for the onset of emotional and behavioral problems, the President's Commission encouraged organizations that work with children to improve early identification of children with mental health needs. Research shows that early detection, assessment, and connection to treatment and support helps prevent mental health problems from worsening. Because more than 52 million students attend schools in the U.S., the Commission recognized that schools are in a key position to identify mental health problems early and help link children to appropriate services. The Commission in no way recommends mandatory legislation or any effort to circumvent parental consent to screening. Quite the opposite, in fact. It repeatedly recommends that child-serving organizations work with parents to support identification and treatment efforts.

Like so many disorders, mental illness does not discriminate and effects every age, ethnic, and socioeconomic group. Given its widespread effect on individuals and society, we need to put more emphasis on mental health, not less. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Paul amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to extend condolences to the family of a dear friend of mine and a friend of all people who love culture, art, music, literature.

Oscar Brown, Jr., died a few days ago, and of course, Oscar was a noted entertainer who always stayed close to his roots. Some of his great pieces were things like Mr. Kicks and, of course, his great song about the snake.

I simply say to his wife Jean Pace, to their children, especially his daughter Maggie who is a great entertainer in her own right, that we appreciated having the opportunity to know and benefit from Oscar's great works and wish you all much happiness as you continue to live out his legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding me this time.

I also want to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Synder) for his introduction of this legislation and the committee for moving it expeditiously to the floor so it, in fact, can be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride to honor the legacy of the courageous Little Rock Nine. Dr. Martin Luther King once said, ``The sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality.''

One September morning in 1957, on the eve of the new school year, the cool winds of change brushed across the city of Little Rock, Arkansas. Nine young men and women decided they would not settle for discontent.

After the landmark case, Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled in favor of integrated schools, these nine young men and women attended Little Rock Central High School. Despite the taunts, violence and venomous hatred endured by these youth during their tenure at Central High, they pressed on and pursued a dream for the millions of African Americans that cheered them on across the country.

It is a very meaningful time for me because I too lived at that time in Arkansas. I was born in a little city in the southeastern part of the State. In 1957, and I guess the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and I are kind of in the same age group; I, too, was a college freshman on the campus of the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, which was then known as Arkansas A&M College about 45 miles from Little Rock. This was our daily news, our daily activity, our daily occurrences.

I have been fortunate to know many of the individuals who were intimately involved, such as Ernie Green. Minnijean Brown and I spent part of a weekend together down at Southern Illinois University last year. Melba Pattillo's mother was a teacher at the school where I did student teaching, and I have had a chance to know them. Wallie Branton, who was the attorney intimately involved with the NAACP, I knew him and his family; and Daisy Bates, who was the leader of the NAACP in Arkansas at that time, are all people with whom I have had an opportunity to interact and to get to know. They were indeed a part of me and I am indeed a part of them. So I take great personal pride in knowing that there will be recognition of this historic struggle and the tremendous courage displayed.

Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Synder) for his legislation which brings into work this commendation which puts a footnote in another chapter of the historic struggle for equality and justice in America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania in consideration of H. Con. Res. 71, which expresses the sense of Congress that June should be designated as National Caribbean- American Heritage Month.

This concurrent resolution, introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), recognizes that emigration from the Caribbean region to the American colonies began as early as 1619 with the arrival of indentured workers in Jamestown, Virginia. During the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, a significant number of slaves from the Caribbean region were brought to the United States.

This concurrent resolution also recognizes that millions of people have

emigrated from the Caribbean region to the United States since 1820 and points out that Alexander Hamilton, a Founding Father of the United States, was born in the Caribbean. Other influential Caribbean- Americans include Jean Baptiste Point du Sable, the pioneer settler of Chicago; Celia Cruz, the world renowned queen of Salsa music; James Weldon Johnson, the writer of the Black National Anthem; Shirley Chisolm, the first African American Congresswoman and first African American woman candidate for President; Colin Powell, the first African American Secretary of State; and Al Roker, a meteorologist and television personality.

Caribbean-Americans have played active roles in the civil rights movement and other social and political movements in the United States; and they have contributed greatly to education, fine arts, business, literature, journalism, sports, fashion, politics, government, the military, music, science, and technology. This concurrent resolution will increase national awareness of contributions made by Caribbean- Americans to U.S. culture, history, and politics.

I am also pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, that Ambassador Sidney Williams is an ambassador to the Bahamas and is also a spouse of a Member of this body, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I know that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) had wanted to be here to speak to her resolution; but, unfortunately, her flight was such that she could not make it.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join with my colleague in consideration of H.R. 2346, legislation naming a postal facility in Hammond, Louisiana, after the late John J. Hainkel, Jr. This measure, which was introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) on May 12, 2005, and unanimously reported by our committee on June 16, 2005, enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the entire Louisiana delegation.

John Hainkel was first elected to the Louisiana legislature in 1968. He held that position for 20 years, also serving as speaker of the house from 1980 to 1984.

The voters in uptown New Orleans elected him in 1988 to the State senate, where he served until his death representing the Sixth District. While serving in the senate, his colleagues elected him president of the senate in the Year 2000, a position he held until 2004. He is the only legislator in Louisiana history to hold the leadership position in both houses.

Senator Hainkel supported the arts, was pro-business, worked hard to clean up Lake Pontchartrain, and loved to hold legislative meetings over the barbecue pit. He loved his district and State and served 38 years in politics working to improve the lives of his constituents. Sadly, John Hainkel passed away this past April.

Mr. Speaker, designating the post office in Hammond, Louisiana, is an excellent way to honor the memory of

one of Louisiana's political legends, John Hainkel, Jr. I commend my colleague for sponsoring this measure and urge swift passage.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in consideration of H.R. 2490, legislation naming the postal facility in Allentown, Pennsylvania, after the late Joseph S. Daddona, the former mayor of Allentown.

This measure, which was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) on May 19, 2005 and unanimously reported by our committee on June 16, 2005, enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the entire Pennsylvania delegation.

Born and raised in Allentown, Joseph Daddona served 8 years in the U.S. Navy during and after the Korean War. From 1966 to 1994, he served as the mayor of Allentown, the longest serving mayor in the town's history. As mayor, Joseph worked hard to improve the lives of his constituents. He established parks, housing for seniors, and improved environmental conditions.

Sadly, he passed away last June.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for seeking to honor the legacy of Joseph Daddona and urge swift passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the proposed cuts of more than $100 million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This organization funds over 1,000 public television and radio stations nationwide, and the funding from Congress is essential to its functioning. CPB also funds producers, educators and technology specialists for the development of new public television and radio programming and new media. The CPB supports educational programs, as well as, provides education resources for parents and teachers.

I support the mission of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in its goal of providing the public with education and informative media sources. In a time when much furor exists over the decency of much of what is broadcast on our televisions and radios, it is only logical that Congress support an organization that has held traditional values to a high standard which is reflected in its programming. Children's programs such as Sesame Street and Arthur, programs which undoubtedly educate our children and instill them with positive values, will lose the necessary funding that keeps them on television. This is simply unacceptable.

When CPB comes to the Hill, it is clear that children of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle watch public television. Children from both parties laugh at Elmo and get their picture taken with Cookie Monster. Like my colleagues, my office has also received hundreds of phone calls urging Congress to restore funds for public broadcasting. Our constituents do not support these cuts which represent 25 percent of CPB's overall funding. I urge my fellow members to oppose the proposed cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3010 falls far short of helping rectify many of the problems facing our Nation's and specifically, my constituents' healthcare needs. There are a number of areas of this appropriations bill that will have a significant impact on the future of healthcare delivery for the underserved communities of this country. As the number of uninsured and underinsured continues to rise, the government programs which act as a safety net continue to be challenged to provide more care with less funding. While the President and his administration support the funding of Community Health Centers, CHCs, the implication of the funding shortfall with regards to the training of health care professionals is that there will be a lack of future physicians and health care providers to staff these very centers.

Specifically, three HHS programs targeting underrepresented minorities in the healthcare professions have been completely eliminated by this bill with no explanation from the committee. This evisceration totals $158 million that would otherwise directly lead to underrepresented minorities entering healthcare professions and potentially serving the very communities they grew up in and are hurting the most from the lack of access. The ``Centers of Excellence'' program, which last year contributed $33.6 million to health professions schools with significant minority enrollment, will no longer exist under this appropriations bill. In my district, the University of Illinois at Chicago has benefited from this program and stands to lose necessary funding to train a greater number of minority students.

The ``Health Careers Opportunity Program,'' HCOP, is also effectively eliminated by the $35.7 million cut from last year's funding again with no explanation from the committee. This program strives to build diversity in the health professions by developing a more competitive applicant pool. The program provides students from disadvantaged backgrounds an opportunity to develop the skills needed to successfully compete for admission to and graduation from health professions schools.

Lastly, the ``Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry'' program is effectively eliminated by the $88.8 million cut, again with no explanation from the committee. The aim of this program is to improve access to quality health care through the appropriate preparation, composition and distribution of the health professions workforce. The program emphasizes diversity, distribution and the quality of the health professions workforce as a means of improving access to care. Grants for training in primary care medicine and dentistry support academic administrative units, residency training, pre-doctoral training, faculty development, physician assistants, and general and pediatrics dentistry program areas. Like the previous two programs eliminated, this program specifically aims at increasing underrepresented minorities in healthcare professions with a focus on meeting the increased demand for primary care physicians and health care providers.

Overall, these programs are vital to meeting the needs of underserved communities in my district as well as those all around America. Eliminating their funding will create more holes in an already fragmented and fractured healthcare system. As the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans continues to rise, a greater number of health professionals will be needed to meet their demands. Cutting funding that would increase the numbers of these health professionals is not in the best interest of our constituents that are in need of increased access, quality professionals, and overall better care.

Mr. Chairman, recognizing the fact that serious disparities continue to exist for African Americans in practically all aspects of life, the Congressional Black Caucus has focused much of its attention this session on closing these gaps and reducing those disparities.

Unfortunately, this budget, this appropriation in many ways dashed the hopes of those who had thought and hoped that maybe it would provide some help. Instead, it cuts at the heart of many of these programs and areas of concentration, which are absolutely essential if we are to reduce these gaps. This budget cuts job training, job development programs, health services, education.

We reduce educational opportunities and cut funds for prisoner reentry and successful reintegration of these individuals back into normal life as self-sufficient and contributing members of society.

I would hope, I would urge, I would implore, I would importune conferees that as you go to conference, please look seriously at putting money back into reentry programs so that these individuals, both juveniles and adults, can lead happy, productive, contributing lives; and let the 630,000 individuals who come home from prison each year have some help to become productive citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the call for an independent commission to review accusations of abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and other places continues to grow. This is not a partisan issue. Members from both sides of the aisle, citizens who consider themselves progressives and citizens who consider themselves conservatives, have joined the call for such a commission. Opinion polls reflect the American people's deep concern about prisoner abuse. The security of our Nation is profoundly impacted by our reputation, by how we are viewed by the rest of the world.

Our response to terrorism is based on contrasting our values to theirs. We are conducting an ideological war in parallel with police and military operations. The outcome of both the ideological struggle and the armed struggle hinge to a significant extent on this great test of values.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is great shame that attention has been diverted in recent days from the fundamental issues to the words used by one Senator, a Senator whom I much admire and greatly respect, who has admitted that the words he used were too strong and who has apologized to those whom he may have offended. The issue raised by the Senator was timely, on target, and central to our Nation's best interests, despite the fact that his specific words failed to properly frame his message.

It is imperative that we remain focused on the issue that the Senator called to our attention and not allow ourselves to be dissuaded, deterred, or discouraged from pursuing a thorough public inquiry into prisoner abuse in much the same manner as the commission we created to examine September 11.

Do some of the policies of our government endanger our troops by disparaging the image of America? Are our own troops endangered by our strained and unique interpretation of the Geneva Conventions? Has our approach to human intelligence distorted and limited our ability to understand and respond to the insurgency in Iraq and the terrorist threat in general? Do the incidents of abuse flow from decisions taken at the highest levels with regard to the conduct of American intelligence?

These are urgent and critical questions that cannot be answered adequately in the inquiries launched to date. We owe a great debt to those who have spoken out, calling for an independent commission, sometimes at great personal cost. I thank them for their leadership.

We owe a great debt to Senator Richard Durbin for helping cause Americans to look seriously at this issue of prisoner abuse by our intelligence agencies and our military. I thank the Senator.

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

I am pleased to join with the gentlewoman from Florida in consideration of this resolution and appreciate very much her remarks. I also want to commend Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking Member Henry Waxman of the Committee on Government Reform and the Speaker for the expeditious way in which they moved this matter to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, June 19, Juneteenth as it is called, is a unique people's holiday. It is the oldest known celebration of the end of slavery in the United States. It marks the day that Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, in 1865 with news that the war had ended and that all slaves were now free. Unfortunately, it was 2\1/2\ years after the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued. We do not know why it took so long for the news to get to Texas, but we do know that the military general order which was posted that day read in part, ``The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with the proclamation from the executive of the United States, all slaves are free.''

The news spread like wildfire, and spontaneous celebrations sprang up throughout the State and were repeated each June 19 of each following year. We continue to celebrate Juneteenth because of the importance of slavery in American history and because the lingering effects of slavery remain a part of the legacy of our country. The legacy of slavery continues to play a role in our daily lives and politics. The vast racial disparities in employment, income, home ownership, education, voter registration and participation, health status and mortality all continue to exist. The great historian John Hope Franklin wrote, ``Much history occurs of which some historians decide to take no notice.''

Juneteenth is the people's answer to the obscuring and distortion of much of the history and experience of African Americans in this country. It is an enduring statement that the truth cannot be suppressed forever, and that the struggle for justice and equality will and must continue. Juneteenth is a great time, not only to celebrate but to remember and renew our hope that tomorrow will be different than yesterday.

I thank all of those who were cosigners onto this resolution and urge that all my colleagues support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), an original cosponsor of this resolution.

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

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

I will simply close. Abraham Lincoln once made the statement that our Nation could not survive half slave and half free. Perhaps, as we look at ourselves today, we might say that our Nation will never become all that it has the possibility of being as long as we continue to experience the great disparities, disparities in health care, disparities in job opportunities, disparities in educational opportunities, disparities in housing, disparities in hope that one can experience the fulfillment of their dreams.

So as we support this resolution, we reflect upon the need for equal justice and continuing the pursuit for equal opportunity to every man his chance, his golden opportunity, to become all that he or she would have the potential of being, all that their hard work, integrity, the essence of their strength, all that their history and culture will combine to make them. That is, indeed, as Thomas Wolf would say, the promise of America. So Juneteenth is a day of hope and a day of promise that America will indeed become the land of the free, home of the brave.

I thank all of those who have come to the floor to speak on this concurrent resolution, all of the co-sponsors who co-sponsored and brought it to us today. I urge all of my colleagues to agree to it so that America does become the America that has never been, but the America that we all know can be.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, not very often will Members hear me contradict the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business. But I rise in opposition to this amendment and will include my entire statement in the Record.

I rise in opposition to this amendment, even though I have the utmost respect for its author and have long appreciated her work and her leadership on so many issues which have come before this House.

But the amendment before the House today attempts to effectively repeal the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program Act of 1988, better known as the ``Comp Demo'' law, by prohibiting the use of funds to carry out its implementing provisions.

Comp Demo has not been an effective tool for over 17 years in helping assure that small businesses across a wide array of industries gain Federal contracts. Equally important, Comp Demo does not affect contracts which are set-aside for minority-owned, socially disadvantaged, and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses.

From its inception, the Comp Demo law has sought to address the tendency of agencies to disproportionately rely upon a small number of NAICS codes to meet their small business set-aside goals rather than finding and developing a broad array of codes from which to meet these goals, a practice which, if unremedied, would have the practical effect of precluding small businesses outside those disproportionately used industries from assessing the benefits of the small business set-aside program.

And that is why I oppose this amendment. The Comp Demo law has proven its effectiveness during its 17-year history. It is fair to small businesses interested in Federal contracting and assures that Federal agencies meet the spirit and the letter of the law regarding small business set-asides.

I agree with those who would suggest that this program, as well as practically all, need to undergo changes and need to be shaped in a better way to help make absolutely certain that small businesses have the greatest amount of opportunity to procure business from the Federal Government.

However, I also believe that small businesses that have reached a certain level of their being also need the opportunity to continue to grow and to develop, that small businesses that might be part of franchises but are nevertheless small businesses need the opportunity to participate.

And for those reasons, I would be in disagreement with this amendment. I urge that it be not approved and would look forward to working with all of those who would want to work to try to reshape the law in such a manner that it would be more fair and more equitable to small businesses.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez, and I ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be included in the Record.

I rise in opposition to this amendment even though I have the utmost respect for its author and I have long appreciated her good work on so many other issues which have come before this House.

The amendment before the House today attempts to

effectively repeal the Small Business Competitiveness

Demonstration Program Act of 1988, better known as the ``Comp

Demo'' law, by prohibiting the use of funds to carry out its

implementing provisions.

Comp Demo has been an effective tool for over 17 years in helping assure that small businesses across a wide array of industries gain Federal contracts. Equally important, Comp Demo does not effect contracts which are set aside for minority-owned, socially disadvantaged and service disabled veteran-owned businesses.

From its inception, the Comp Demo law has sought to address the tendency of agencies to disproportionately rely upon a small number of NAICS codes to meet their small business set-aside goals rather than finding and developing a broad array of NAICS codes from which to meet those goals--a practice which, if unremedied, would have the practical effect of precluding small businesses outside those disproportionately used industries from accessing the benefits of the small business set- aside program that Congress intended.

That is why I oppose the amendment before the House today. The Comp Demo law has proven its effectiveness during its 17-year history. It is fair to small businesses interested in Federal contracting and assures that Federal agencies meet the spirit and the letter of the law regarding small business set asides.

As background, Members should be informed that the Comp Demo program was passed in 1988 to assure that small businesses in all product and service categories receive the benefits of the current Small Business Set Aside program when pursuing Federal contracts, rather than just a few, ``easy-to-do'' industries.

As such, Comp Demo has effectively worked for the past 17 years to assure that competition and diversity occurs in small business procurement (See: section 921 of P.L. 99-661) and that small businesses receive a ``fair proportion'' of government contracts in each industry, rather than just a few.

The Comp Demo program recognizes that contracts in certain NAICS codes--including construction, architectural and engineering, surveying and mapping, shipbuilding and ship repair, refuse systems, landscaping and pest control services--have had a history of being disproportionately set aside for small business, even though overall small business participation in the open marketplace in these industries was high.

And while the NAICS codes covered by the Comp Demo program had a significant amount of contracts historically set aside for small business, very talented small businesses in many other NAICS codes have seen little, if any, small business set-aside contracts come their way, despite representation of capable small firms in those other NAICS codes.

Moreover, the practice of disproportionately using a small, unrepresentative sample of NAICS codes for meeting small business set- aside goals has the practical effect of precluding small businesses outside those disproportionately used industries from realizing the benefits of the small business set-aside program as Congress intended.

This practice can also operate to relegate the small business set- aside program to lower-tech products and services while leaving higher- tech NAICS codes less open to small business penetration and success in Federal contracting--something that clearly runs contrary to Congress's desires to both strengthen the diversity of the defense industrial base and assure fairness in Federal contracting.

On the basis of its operation over 17 years, Comp Demo has shown that small businesses covered by Comp Demo can and do compete for and win the majority of the contracts, though on an unrestricted basis. Equally important, Comp Demo does not effect set asides for:

Minority-owned and socially disadvantaged businesses--that is, set asides for 8(a) and HUB Zone companies are not subject to the Comp Demo law.

Similarly, Comp Demo does not apply to set asides for service- disabled veteran owned businesses either.

In addition, very small/local businesses retain important set-aside protections under Comp Demo as well, including:

All contracts under $25,000 on the Comp Demo list must be set aside for restricted competition only among qualified emerging small businesses, i.e., small businesses that are less than 50 percent of the applicable size limit.

Moreover, Comp Demo also requires that all contracts over $25,000 in each designated NAICS category on the Comp Demo list must be set aside for restricted competition only among qualified small businesses, until the agency has met its goal of awarding 40 percent of contracts within that industry group to small businesses.

Only after an agency has met its goal of awarding 40 percent of contracts within a listed NAICS category can contracts over $25,000 in that designated NAICS category be awarded on unrestricted competition-- again, except for those contracts set aside as 8(a), HUB Zone or service-disabled veteran owned companies.

Finally, Comp Demo was begun as a demonstration project some 17 years ago. It was renewed in 1992, made permanent in 1997, and slightly expanded in 2004 to include two additional NAICS codes. In all instances, Comp Demo was part of a larger bill which passed by wide, bipartisan margins or unanimous consent.

Comp Demo was set up to expand opportunities for small businesses across a broad and diverse set of NAICS codes, rather than in a few, ``easy-to-do'' categories. The repeal of the program has no real justification, would harm overall, broad-based small business participation in Federal contracting, and harm the development of a diverse defense industrial base. As such, I urge its rejection by the House.

Mr. Speaker, June 19th, Juneteenth as it is called, is a unique people's holiday. It is the oldest known celebration of the end of slavery in the United States. It marks the day that union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, in 1865, with news that the war had ended and that all slaves were now free, 2\1/2\ years after the Emancipation Proclamation.

We do not know why it took so long for the news to get to Texas, but we do know that the military general order which was posted that day read in part, and I quote ``The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with the proclamation from the executive of the United States, all slaves are free.''

The news spread like wildfire, and spontaneous celebrations sprang up throughout the State and were repeated each June 19th of each following year. We continue to celebrate Juneteenth because of the importance of slavery in American history and because the lingering effects of slavery remain a part of the legacy of our country.

The legacy of slavery continues to play a role in our daily lives and politics. The vast racial disparities in employment, income, home ownership, education, voter registration and participation, health status and mortality all continue to exist. The great historian John Hope Franklin wrote, and I quote, ``Much history occurs of which some historians decide to take no notice.''

Juneteenth is the people's answer to the obscuring and distortion of much of the history and experience of African Americans in this country. It is an enduring statement that the truth cannot be suppressed forever, and that the struggle for justice and equality will and must continue.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 34 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, June 17, 2005, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a private nonprofit, federally funded corporation that helps provide legal assistance to low-income people in civil matters. When the LSC was first established, its initial goal was to provide all low- income people with at least minimum access to legal services, defined as the equivalent of two legal services attorneys for every 10,000 poor people. This goal was achieved briefly in FY 1980 but not maintained due to inflation and subsequent budget cuts.

Legal services provided through LSC funds are available only in civil matters to individuals with incomes less than 125% of the federal poverty guidelines. The LSC places primary focus on cases that deal with family related issues like divorce, separation, child custody, support, adoption, spousal abuse, child abuse or neglect, evictions, foreclosures, access to health care, debt collection, employment, health and education. Most cases are resolved outside the courtroom via legal advice and telephone calls by attorneys. This is a very cost- effective approach to settling legal matters.

I opposed Representative Stearns amendment to reduce the Legal Services Corporation FY2006 appropriations allocation by $10 million. The LSC is already underfunded to provide low-income people with adequate and necessary resources to solve their legal matters.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) for the outstanding work that they have done in crafting this appropriation.

My amendment is designed, and I actually plan to withdraw it, but my amendment is designed to raise the issue and highlight the fact that 630,000 individuals, roughly 1,700 a day, will be released from prisons to return to their communities. We can expect on an annual basis that this large number of released inmates from prison will continue for the next 5 years. Also, we must be mindful of the fact that local jails are releasing 7 million people each year. Many of these individuals are never able to find a decent place to live, cannot access various entitlement programs such as public housing, financial assistance for college, and, in some instances, food stamps, and are oftentimes denied employment because of their past criminal convictions. Statistics show that nearly 52 percent of these individuals end up back in jail within 3 years.

As these men and women transition from incarceration to freedom, what they need most are comprehensive reentry solutions. Prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation are just as important as incarceration. These men and women and children still have to

live in our communities. Therefore, increasing public safety is a primary concern of communities and neighborhoods all across the country.

Successful reentry is difficult to obtain because of the vast and extreme barriers that ex-offenders encounter every day of their lives. In Illinois, just a year ago, ex-offenders were prohibited from working in 57 occupational categories without some form of waiver. For example, ex-offenders were not allowed to be barbers, nail technicians; they could not be a custodian in a hospital or school. Many of these individuals were convicted of nonviolent offenses, mainly drug convictions. So it is extremely difficult for ex-offenders to find housing and get a job after they have paid their debt to society.

I would hope that as we continue to explore budgetary preparations and appropriations, that we would recognize that if we are to seriously deal with the issue of recidivism reduction, the issue of public safety, the issue of helping individuals become contributing members of society, we must put adequate funding into reentry.

Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for his support of these kinds of programs. I would like to extend a little dialogue, engage in a colloquy with him, and then I would withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, would the chairman explain the kind of resources that we are putting into reentry programs this year for next year's budget?

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) for their sensitivity to these issues, and I look forward to working with them throughout the year as we continue to try and strengthen the possibility of reducing recidivism and helping people maintain quality life in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.