Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to ``The King Legacy Award for International Service.'' In January 2007, Greek Ambassador Alexandros Mallias received this coveted award for his contributions to peace in the Balkans, to Greek-American relations, and to efforts to prevent such abhorrent practices as human trafficking, which is a modern form of slavery.

Accepting the award, the Greek ambassador spoke of Dr. King's struggle for freedom and against discrimination in the context of the search for justice memorialized by classic Greek tragic playwrights, like Aeschylus in his play ``Prometheus Bound'' and Sophocles in his play ``Antigone.'' He also highlighted the inspiration given by Dr. King to struggles for democracy worldwide, including Greece during military dictatorship in the late 1960s, and against discrimination, noting also that AHEPA, the largest and oldest Greek-American association, was founded in Atlanta, GA in 1922, precisely to defend Greek immigrants from persecution and segregation.

Below is an article Ambassador Mallias wrote on Dr. King and the Greek classics.

[From the Washington Times, Jan. 29, 2008]

Dr. King and the Greek Classics

(By Alexandros P. Mallias)

This year will mark the 40th anniversary of the death of

Martin Luther King, Jr. His death on April 4, 1968, found my

country in the midst of one of its darkest hours, as the one

year anniversary of an oppressive military dictatorship

neared.

With my fellow citizens living under military rule and

deprived of the very basic freedoms, I was inspired by the

people of Birmingham, Ala., of Memphis and Atlanta, who, in a

most dignified way, poured into the streets, standing up for

what was rightly theirs.

Across the Atlantic, the civil-rights movement reached us

in the clarion voice of Martin Luther King Jr., and hope

stirred in the hearts of many Greek people like myself that

``We'', too, ``Shall Overcome.''

Upon my arrival in Washington as Greece's ambassador, and

influenced by what I call the current ``Golden Age for the

Classics'' in the United States, I have gone back to the

staples of my education with new appreciation--Sophocles,

Plato, Homer, Heraclitus, Thucydides. And I realized that the

Rev. King's speeches and homilies are fraught with references

to the Greek classics.

I pored over his writings and speeches and realized his was

no simple preaching. I began to sense he had a profound

understanding of what we call the ``classics.'' In his Nobel

acceptance speech, he spoke of Greek literature, of Homer and

the temptresses Sirens, of Orpheus--not in dry academic

fashion, but as part and parcel of his understanding of the

world.

As the beneficiary of a classical education, as were most

young Greeks of my generation, the words of Dr. King brought

to mind great orators of ancient Greece--Demosthenes, for

one, who had to overcome his own particular limitations.

In his sermon ``Loving Your Enemies,'' delivered at Dexter

Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Ala., Nov. 17, 1957, Dr.

King expounded on the power and comprehensiveness of the

Greek language, explaining how Greek ``comes to our aid

beautifully in giving us the real meaning and depth of the

whole philosophy of love . . . for you see the Greek language

has three words for love . . . eros . . . a sort of aesthetic

love. Plato talks about it a great deal in his dialogues, a

sort of yearning of the soul for the realm of the gods. Then

the Greek language talks about philia . . . the intimate

affection between personal friends. The Greek language comes

out with another word for love. It is the word agape . . .

the understanding, creative, redemptive good will for all

men. It is a love that seeks nothing in return.''

Erudite men and women have researched the education of Dr.

King, concluding that he studied the ancient Greek classics

at length and drew inspiration not only from the Bible, but

also from ancient Greek philosophers, playwrights and

political figures.

Dr. King's ``Letter From Birmingham Jail'' of April 16,

1963, was addressed to his fellow clergymen and expounded

upon his own theory of civil disobedience: ``I submit that an

individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is

unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment

. . . is in reality expressing the highest respect for law''

brought to mind Antigone, a reluctant but inevitably brave

heroine, in Sophocles' namesake play, who said: ``I will not

obey an unjust law, and if something happens because of it--

so be it.''

This was not wasted on classics professor Lewis Sussman of

the University of Florida, who wrote extensively on this

connection.

I need no further proof of the inspiration Dr. King

imparted from the classics than his own words in the last

speech of his life, ``I've Been to the Mountaintop,'' which

resounded around the world on April 3, 1968, just one day

before his assassination in Memphis: ``I would take my mental

flight by Egypt through, or rather across the Red Sea,

through the wilderness on toward the promised land. And in

spite of its magnificence, I wouldn't stop there. I would

move on by Greece, and take my mind to Mount Olympus. And I

would see Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euripides and

Aristophanes assembled around the Parthenon as they discussed

the great and eternal issues of reality.''

Dr. King's words continue to inspire me. And what I impart

from him is similar to what I imparted from the ancient Greek

tradition that the ``good life'' is the one in which the

individual partakes in the responsibility and concerns of all

society.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Metropolitan Family Services on its 150 years of service to individuals and families of the Chicago metropolitan area.

Metropolitan Family Services, MFS, was launched on February 15, 1857, as the Chicago Relief and Aid Society, renamed as United Charities in 1909, and then renamed again in 1995 as Metropolitan Family Services.

MFS was assigned by Chicago Mayor R. B. Mason to help citizens recover after the Chicago Fire. It assisted more than 18,000 families, constructing more than 7,000 temporary homes and administering more than $10 million, in 1871 dollars in aid donated around the world.

MFS was one of the Nation's first organizations to provide free legal services for the poor through the Legal Aid Society.

A leader in meeting the needs of thousands of people through the Great Depression, World War II, and postwar years, MFS provided a range of services including mental health counseling, elder care, and early childhood education.

MFS successfully advocated for State legislation enacted in 2005 that protected poor and lower-income families from predatory lending practices.

Presently, Metropolitan Family Services employs 559 professionals serving close to 55,000 families and individuals. It has seven community centers that provide a full range of services, including child and youth development, mental health services, child welfare, employee assistance programs, legal aid, services for older adults and their families, social policy and community development, and violence prevention and intervention.

I congratulate MFS on its success in providing and mobilizing the services needed to strengthen Chicago area families and communities.

Mr. Speaker, I was deeply saddened to learn that Henry J. Hyde passed away on Thursday, November 29, 2007. I know I join my colleagues both past and present in thanking this truly remarkable man for his contribution to this country.

Former Representative Henry Hyde served his country honorably both in the U.S. Navy during World War II and later as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Representative Hyde was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1975, where he later served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the House International Relations Committee.

During his tenure in Congress, Henry Hyde will most be remembered for leading the impeachment proceedings against former President Bill Clinton and for his staunch opposition to abortion rights, both issues on which he and I strongly differed. Despite my opposition, Henry Hyde always took principled stands on issues and legislation and personified what it means to be called ``The Honorable.''

Henry Hyde had always been considerate to me, generous with his time and extremely helpful to me as a legislator. Not long after I was sworn in as a new Member, he acted as a mentor and we became close friends despite our political and ideological differences. I was pleased to work with Henry on ``The Hyde-Jackson Partnership,'' the effort to bring a third airport to the Chicagoland region. On this specific issue, I owe Congressman Hyde a debt of gratitude for his leadership, public service, experience and wisdom.

I will miss my good friend and trusted mentor and my deepest condolences go out to his family.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me express my great appreciation to the chairman and to the ranking member of this committee.

Today we have come to this temple of democracy on this momentous occasion to write a new chapter in the unfolding story of human freedom. The event of emancipation marks one of the most if not the most significant event in American history.

Emancipation was more than an act; it was a process. Emancipation was not a date but a period. Emancipation was not an event but the fulfillment of providence that the arc of history may be long but it bends towards justice and human freedom.

When the American city war erupted, both North and South defended their causes as morally just, legally right, and constitutionally sound. Northerners and southerners saw themselves as the true Americans following in the tradition and the footsteps of the Founding Fathers. North and South used the Constitution as their source of moral and legal authority for conducting a war against each other. Both sides saw themselves as standing in the tradition of the American Revolution.

Each side contended that it was fighting for freedom and liberty, though certain facts contradicted the beliefs of both. The South said it was fighting to preserve the freedom, while owning slaves. The North said it was fighting for liberty, while not initially fighting to grant liberty to the slaves. President Abraham Lincoln's address to the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore on April 18, 1864, summed up the quandary.

He said, ``We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word, we do not mean the same thing. With some the word `liberty' may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men's labor. Here are two not only different but incompatible things called by the same name: liberty. And it follows that each of these things is, by their respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names: liberty and tyranny.''

Today women, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered Americans, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and students see in the word ``liberty'' one thing. Today for the Titans of Industry, it still means quite another. For the disposed, it means for each person to do with himself as they please. For the Titans, it means for them to do as they please with other men and the product of other men's labor anywhere in the world. As Lincoln said, ``And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names: liberty and tyranny.''

That is why the efforts to name the great hall Liberty Hall will settle for some but still not settle for others the fundamental question of human freedom. For millions of Americans to pass through Emancipation Hall and not Liberty Hall is an important acknowledgment about the process for attaining human freedom in the American historical context.

Mr. Speaker, it is most appropriate that the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Zach Wamp, offered this amendment, in conjunction with the gentleman from Illinois, to help establish a marker in the Capitol of the United States about the significant role that these Americans, these Africans, played in the process not only in constructing the temple of our democracy but in strengthening America.

Madam Chair, it is probably most appropriate that the Emancipation Hall designation be established during this Thanksgiving period, as the first Thanksgiving established by proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln was during the American Civil War when President Lincoln, on October 3, 1863, looked out over a Nation torn by war, ravaged by internecine, intrafamily and interfamily struggles, and concluded that because of the extraordinary efforts of the North and the South, men and women who thought their causes were just, that we needed a national day of thanks. And so on October 3, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln affixed to a national proclamation a national day of thanks to say thank you for now until eternity for all of the blessings that have been bestowed upon our Nation.

Thanksgiving has a lot less to do, Mr. Speaker, with Pilgrims in 1620 and much more to do with the emancipation of human freedom.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Lincoln understood for his time and ours that we must not be confused about the language and process of human freedom.

Much has been said about Lincoln and his ambivalence about emancipation. I believe when placed in context greater clarity emerges in Lincoln's calculation of emancipation.

In 1862, Lincoln's announced support of colonization, along with his lack of public support for emancipation, was generating sometimes vicious attacks from militant abolitionists, including a ``Prayer for Twenty Millions'' editorial urging emancipation that appeared in Horace Greeley's New York Tribune. On August 22, a month after the private announcement to his cabinet on July 22 that he intended to issue an Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln replied to Greeley's editorial with a masterfully written open letter:

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they

could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with

them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless

they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree

with them. My paramount objective in this struggle is to save

the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would

do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I

would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and

leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about

slavery, and colored race, I do because I believe it helps to

save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do

not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less

whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and

I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help

the cause.

Lincoln was reiterating his central thesis, that the purpose of the war was preservation of the Union, but in light of the intransigence of the border States, he was publicly hinting that he might have to do something more, including emancipation, to save the Union. In this open letter, Lincoln was saying ``if,'' but he had already concluded in his own mind ``that'' the only way to save the Union was to free the slaves.

After the emancipation proposal became public, Lincoln was sometimes ridiculed in political oratory and newspaper editorials about

his Emancipation Proclamation, which would free the slaves only where the president had no power to do so--in the rebel southern States--but preserve the institution everywhere else. But Lincoln's enemies either misunderstood the president, lacked his understanding of the Constitution, or ignored his politics. On saving the Union, Lincoln had additional flexibility under the Constitution. Politically, he could sometimes get away with violating it by engaging in arbitrary arrests and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. On the question of ending slavery, however, Lincoln saw no such flexibility. His understanding of the Constitution committed him to acting within both it and the law, for neither had yet been changed. Under the Constitution, slavery was still legal in the United States.

On the first question, Lincoln and all Republicans agreed that a Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery must be added to the Constitution. The Senate quickly passed such an amendment, but the House--which had gained thirty-four Democrats in the 1862 midterm elections--was opposed.

Lincoln understood, if others didn't, that issuing the Emancipation Proclamation would convert a struggling Union army, trying to hold a Nation together, into a liberation army to free the slaves. The newly freed slaves could help win the struggle by fighting alongside the Union soldiers. Of course, the liberation of slaves would happen only if the North won the war. Militant abolitionists still thought the proclamation weak, southerners thought it an outrage, but most antislavery advocates, both black and white, understood its revolutionary implications. It was the one act that changed the entire character of the war. It gave the war a moral purpose--human freedom-- to bolster the political goal of saving the Union. And a purpose with such deep emotional power condemned the Confederacy to sure defeat.

The question now was, having transformed the conflict into a war of liberation, would the northern Union soldiers still fight? Some said no. ``An Ohio Democrat amended the party's slogan to proclaim, `the Constitution as it is, the Union as it was, the Niggers where they are.' '' But most said yes! ``A Democratic private in the Army of the Potomac whose previous letters had railed against abolitionists and blacks now expressed support for `putting away any institution if by so doing it will put down the rebellion, for I hold that nothing should stand in the way of the Union--niggers, nor anything else.' ''

With the July 4, 1863 victory at Gettysburg and Vicksburg northern hopes rose and southern spirits sank.

The burial of the Gettysburg dead was originally planned for October 23 but rescheduled to November 19 because the principal orator, Edward Everett of Massachusetts, could not be ready before then. Lincoln, by comparison, was casually invited to attend and make a few remarks. ``No insult was intended. Federal responsibility or participation was not assumed, then, in state activities. And Lincoln took no offense. Though specifically invited to deliver only `a few appropriate remarks' to open the cemetery, he meant to use this opportunity. The partly mythical victory of Gettysburg was important to his administration's war propaganda.''

There are mythical accounts that Lincoln wrote his Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope. Even though the 272-word speech probably took less than three minutes to deliver--interrupted with applause five times by the twenty thousand in attendance--such cavalier preparation would have been totally uncharacteristic of Lincoln, who took such opportunities very seriously.

Lincoln intended to use this occasion and speech to lift the Nation's eyes above the death and carnage of Gettysburg ``to a level of abstraction that purges it of grosser matter . . . Lincoln did for the whole Civil War what he accomplished for the single battlefield.'' He transformed its meaning and in so doing transformed what it meant to be an American.

Lincoln mentioned neither slavery nor Gettysburg. He drained his speech of all particulars in order to lift up an ideal. Lincoln intended to create something good and new out of this tragic and bloody episode. Both North and South strove to interpret Gettysburg to further their own war interests. Lincoln was after an even bigger victory-- winning the ideological as well as the military war. And he succeeded. ``The Civil War is, to most Americans, what Lincoln wanted it to mean. Words had to complete the word of the guns.''

When we wave the flag and celebrate on July 4, Independence Day, we are not so much celebrating our American-ness in terms of our independence from England. We are celebrating the meaning of the flag and America as Lincoln interpreted them in his Gettysburg Address. At Gettysburg, Lincoln reinterpreted the Constitution. Looking past slavery in the Constitution, he appealed to the Declaration of Independence and its claim that ``all men are created equal.'' Conservative political ``heirs to his outrage still attack Lincoln for subverting the Constitution at Gettysburg.''

Lincoln is here not only to sweeten the air at Gettysburg,

but to clear the infected atmosphere of American history

itself, tainted with official sins and inherited guilt. He

would cleanse the Constitution--not, as William Lloyd

Garrison had, by burning an instrument that countenanced

slavery. He altered the document from within, by appeal from

its letter to the spirit, subtly changing the recalcitrant

stuff that legal compromise, bringing it to its own

indictment. By implicitly doing this, he performed one of the

most daring acts of open-air sleight-of-hand ever witnessed

by the unsuspecting. Everyone in that vast throng of

thousands was having his or her intellectual pocket picked.

The crowd departed with a new thing in its ideological

luggage, that new Constitution Lincoln has substituted for

the one they brought there with them. They walked off, from

those curving graves on the hillside, under a changed sky,

into a different America. Lincoln has revolutionized the

Revolution, giving people a new past to live with that would

change their future indefinitely.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was transforming the United States from a plural to a singular noun--from the United States are into the United States is a free government.

According to Garry Wills, Lincoln, by his words and action, converted the Union from a mystical hope into a constitutional reality.

July 4, 1776--only white men could vote; July 4, 1863--Gettysburg; July 4, 2007: Barack Obama, an African American, Hillary Clinton, a woman, Mitt Romney, a Mormon, All are candidates for President; America and what it means to be an American today will not be the same definition of what it means to be an American tomorrow. We are all part of the Emancipation process.

A bit of trivia, when was the first Thanksgiving? 1620. Why? Landing of Plymouth Rock. Interesting, because the first slaves arrived in Jamestown in 1619.

In November 1863, Abraham Lincoln looked out over a Nation ravaged by war, internecine warfare, intra and inter family feuding, and saw light at the end of the tunnel for Northern victory and proclaimed the 3rd Thursday in November as a national day of thanks. Proclamation of Thanksgiving:

Washington, DC,

October 3, 1863.

This is the proclamation which set the precedent for

America's national day of Thanksgiving. During his

administration, President Lincoln issued many orders like

this. For example, on November 28, 1861, he ordered

government departments closed for a local day of

thanksgiving.

Sarah Josepha Hale, a prominent magazine editor, wrote a

letter to Lincoln on November 28, 1863, urging him to have

the ``day of our annual Thanksgiving made a National and

fixed Union Festival. `` She wrote, ``You may have observed

that, for some years past, there has been an increasing

interest felt in our land to have the Thanksgiving held on

the same day, in all the States; it now needs National

recognition and authoritive fixation, only, to become

permanently, an American custom and institution. `` The

document below sets apart the last Thursday of November ``as

a day of Thanksgiving and Praise. ``

According to an April 1, 1864, letter from John Nicolay,

one of President Lincoln's secretaries, this document was

written by Secretary of State William Seward, and the

original was in his handwriting. On October 3, 1863, fellow

Cabinet member Gideon Welles recorded in his diary that he

complimented Seward on his work. A year later the manuscript

was sold to benefit Union troops.

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled

with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To

these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are

prone to forget the source from which they come, others have

been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they

cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is

habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of

Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled

magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign

States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has

been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained,

the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has

prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military

conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by

the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful

diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of

peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested

the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the

borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron

and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more

abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily

increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in

the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country,

rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and

vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large

increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath

any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the

gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with

us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be

solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one

heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do

therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the

United States, and also those who are at sea and those who

are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the

last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and

Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.

And I recommend to them that while offering up the

ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances

and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our

national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender

care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or

sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are

unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition

of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to

restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine

purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony,

tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and

caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October,

in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-

three, and of the Independence of the United States the

Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln.

William H. Seward,

Secretary of State.

The question for contemporary American memory is why would we appropriate the memory for Thanksgiving as ``Plymouth Rock'' an event that has its formation in quite a different story.

The same can be said for the story of our capitol. From the moment a visitor enters this building the unfolding process of emancipation, the players in this drama, the actors, the people, the heroes and the sheroes have been hidden, denied a fair and accurate account of these unfolding events.

Rotunda: Story of America from pilgrims to the Wright Brothers. Not a story of America; Statuary Hall: Emancipation is ignored in Statuary Hall as we count among our honored dead Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Confederate Vice President Alexander Hamilton Stephens, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, and Confederate Commander Joseph Wheeler--still in uniform; Rather than discuss this history we reduce the story of this Nation to acoustics; Old Senate Chamber: Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks, Plessy v. Ferguson; Old Supreme Court Chamber: Dred Scott, Amistad Africa.

It is the emancipation process that led to the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. And as descendants of Slaves we believe that as Americans are better educated on this history that process will lead to our twenty-eighth amendment, our twenty-ninth and thirtieth: Health care for all; Education of equal and high quality for all; Cleaner environment; Fix our Nation's voting system; Provide equality for women.

It is our Nation's historical process and only that process can provide emancipation for all.

Interpreting Lincoln's life and work is extremely important. Recently there have been questions raised as to whether Lincoln should be credited with freeing the slaves. The argument goes: Given some of Lincoln's history, his racial attitudes and stalemates, his moderate views on the subject, his noninterference with slavery where it already existed, his one proposed solution of colonization, his gradualist approach to ending the institution, his hesitancy with respect to issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and using colored troops in the war, his late conversion to limited voting rights for blacks, and more, why should he be given credit with freeing the slaves? Some have even argued that it was various actions taken by the slaves--including the power given to the Union cause as a result of the moral case for overturning slavery, plus the actual military role of working and fighting in Union campaigns--that actually freed them. By forcing the emancipation issue onto the agenda, first of military officers, then of Congress, and finally of Lincoln, it was their actions that led to freedom.

Clearly, just as the Congress and Lyndon Johnson would not have been able to pass and sign the civil rights and social legislation of the 1960s apart from a modern civil and human rights movement, so too the military commanders, the Congress, and Lincoln would not have been able to achieve what they did without the agitation and movement of the slaves and their allies. On the other hand, the slaves would not have become freedmen apart from what these leaders did. Because historical interpretation has played up the role of white male leaders while playing down the role of mass movements and leaders of color and women, our understanding of history has been skewed. Some of the current ``putdown'' of traditional historical interpretation is legitimate rejection and reaction to his past limited and distorted understanding and interpretation of our history. The search now, it seems to me, should be for a more balanced interpretation, which includes striving to put many forces and multiple players in proper balance and perspective. That, I think, is what is at issue with regard to the question: Did Lincoln free the slaves?

To answer this question James M. McPherson says in Drawn With the Sword that we must first ask: What was ``the essential condition, the one thing without which it would not have happened? The clear answer is the war.'' Slavery had existed for nearly two and a half centuries, it was more deeply entrenched in the South than ever, and every effort at self-emancipation--and there were plenty--had failed. ``Without the Civil War there would have been no confiscation act, no Emancipation Proclamation, no Thirteenth Amendment (not to mention the Fourteenth and Fifteenth) . . . and almost certainly no end of slavery for several more decades at least.''

As to the first question, what brought on the war, there are two interrelated answers. What brought on the war was slavery. What triggered the war was disunion over the issue of slavery. Disunion resulted because initially seven and ultimately eleven southern States saw Lincoln as an antislavery advocate and candidate, running in an antislavery party on an antislavery platform, who would be an antislavery president. Rather than abide such a ``Black President'' and ``Black Republican Party,'' southern States led by the Democratic Party severed their ties to the Union. Through secession, which Lincoln and the Union refused to accept, they went to war over preserving the Union. While Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to stand where it stood from 1854 when he reentered politics onward, Lincoln never wavered or compromised on one central issue--extension of slavery into the territories. And while gradualist in approach, Lincoln (and the slave states of the South) knew this would eventually mean the end of slavery. It was Lincoln who brought out and sustained all of these factors.

Thus, while Lincoln's primary emphasis throughout was on saving the Union, the result of saving the Union was emancipation for the slaves. If the Union has not been preserved, slavery would not have been ended and may even have been strengthened. Strategically, Lincoln understood that the Union was a common-ground issue around which he could rally the American people, while slavery and antislavery were divisive. And looked at in perspective, by holding his coalition together around the issue of the Union, enough Unionists eventually saw the connection between the two issues that he could ease into emancipation in the middle of the war--when it gave the North a huge boost.

Even when Lincoln believed he was going to lose the presidency in August 1864, he said, ``There have been men who proposed to me to return to slavery the black warriors'' who had fought for the Union. `I should be damned in time and eternity for so doing. The world shall know that I will keep my faith to friends and enemies, come what will . . . In effect, he was saying that he would rather be right than president . . . As matters turned out . . . he was both right and president.

Clearly, many slaves did self-emancipate through the Underground Railroad before the war, and through flight during the war. Even so, that is not the same as bringing an end to the peculiar institution of slavery, which only the Civil War and Lincoln's leadership did. By pronouncing slavery a moral evil that must come to an end and then winning the presidency in 1860, provoking the South to secede, by refusing to compromise on the issue of slavery's expansion or no Fort Sumter, by careful leadership and timing that kept a fragile Union.

Toby--Kunta Kinte.

Toby--Kunta Kinte.

Toby--Kunta Kinte.

Boy your name is Toby!

Today we begin the process of educating America on who Mr. Kinte was! Today we acknowledge in a small way Mr. Kinte's contribution to the Union making it more perfect.

Mr. Speaker, let me first begin by expressing my support of a suspension bill that was offered to this body by Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Miller and the ranking minority member on education to help provide emergency funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities that are seeking some bridge loans for construction projects.

I think that my remarks today in the 60 minutes that I have been allotted under the Speaker's announced policy are very consistent with the historical concept and circumstances for which that bill will be passed into law and hopefully signed by the President of the United States.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we have come to this temple of democracy on this momentous occasion to write a new chapter in the unfolding story of human freedom. Today this body passed H.R. 3315, a bill to name the Visitor Center great hall Emancipation Hall, offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and the gentleman from Illinois, myself, Mr. Jackson.

The event of emancipation marks one of the most, if not the most significant event in American history, and so too, at least from my perspective, was the passage of this bill. Unfortunately under the rule, it did not afford Members of Congress the opportunity to have a broader discussion about the significance and the importance of this bill. But I do want to take this time to remind the Nation of the importance of this period and to reflect upon it during this Thanksgiving season.

Emancipation was more than an act; it was a process. Emancipation was not a date but a period. Emancipation was not an event but the fulfillment of providence that the Arc of history may be long, but it bends towards justice and human freedom. When the American Civil War erupted, both North and South defended their cause as morally just, legally right and constitutionally sound. Northerners and southerners saw themselves as true Americans following in the tradition of the footsteps of the Founding Fathers. North and South used the Constitution as the source of their moral and their legal authority for conducting a war against the other. Both sides saw themselves as standing in the tradition of the American Revolution. Each side contended that it was fighting for freedom and liberty, though certain facts contradicted the beliefs of both. The South said it was fighting to preserve freedom while protecting the institution of slavery. The North said it was fighting for liberty while not initially fighting to grant liberty to the slaves.

President Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President's address to the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore on April 18, 1864, summed up the quandary. He said, and I quote, ``We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word `liberty' may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor, while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men's labor. Here are two not only different but incompatible things, called by the same name, `liberty.' And it follows that each of these things is, by their respective parties,'' President Lincoln goes on to say, ``called by two different and incompatible names, `liberty' and `tyranny.' ''

He then went on to say, ``The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon the definition of the word `liberty'; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures, even in the North, and all profess to love liberty.''

Today, women, lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgendered Americans, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and students see in the word ``liberty'' one thing. Today for the Titans of Industry, it still means quite another. For the dispossessed, it means for each person to do with himself as they please. For the Titans it means for them to do as they please with other men and the product of their labor anywhere in the world.

As Lincoln said, ``And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names, `liberty' and `tyranny.' ''

That is why efforts to name the great hall Liberty Hall will settle for some but still not settle for others the fundamental question of human freedom in the American historical context. For millions of Americans to pass through Emancipation Hall and not Liberty Hall is an important acknowledgment about the process for attaining human freedom in our context as Americans.

Lincoln understood for his time and ours that we must not be confused about the language and the process of human freedom.

Much has been said about Lincoln and his ambivalence about emancipation. I believe when placed in the greater context, clarity emerges in Lincoln's calculation of emancipation. In 1862, Lincoln's announced support of colonization, along with his lack of public support for emancipation, was generating sometimes vicious attacks from militant abolitionists, including a ``Prayer for 20 Millions'' editorial urging emancipation that appeared in Horace Greeley's New York Tribune. On August 22, a month after the private announcement to his Cabinet on July 22 that he intended to issue an Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln replied to Greeley's editorial with a masterfully written open letter. Here's what our 16th President had to say:

``If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forebear, I forebear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.''

Lincoln was reiterating his central thesis, that the purpose of the war was preservation of the Union, but in light of the intransigence of the border States, he was publicly hinting that he might have to do something more, including emancipation to save the Union. In this open letter, Lincoln was saying ``if,'' but he had already concluded in his mind ``that'' the only way to save the Union was to free the slaves.

After the emancipation proposal became public, President Lincoln sometimes was ridiculed in public political oratory and newspaper editorials about his Emancipation Proclamation, which would free the slaves only where the President had no power to do so, those States in rebellion, but he preserved the institution of slavery everywhere he did have the power, those border States that chose to stay in the Union.

But Lincoln's enemies either misunderstood the President, lacked the understanding of the Constitution, or ignored his politics. On saving the Union, Lincoln had additional flexibility under the Constitution. Politically, he could sometimes get away with violating it by engaging in arbitrary arrests and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. On the question of ending slavery, however, Lincoln saw no such flexibility. His understanding of the Constitution committed him to acting within both it and the law, for neither had yet been changed. Under the Constitution, slavery was still legal in the United States.

On the first question, Lincoln and all Republicans of that era agreed that a 13th amendment outlawing slavery must be added to the Constitution. The Senate quickly passed such an amendment; but the House, which had gained 34 Democrats in the 1862 mid-term elections, was opposed. Lincoln understood, if others didn't, that issuing the Emancipation Proclamation would convert a struggling Union Army, trying to hold a Nation together, into an army of liberation to free the slaves. The newly freed slaves could help win the struggle by fighting along the Union forces and soldiers.

Of course, the liberation of the slaves would only happen, and only happen if the North won the war. Militant abolitionists still thought the proclamation weak; Southerners thought it an outrage, but most antislavery advocates, both black and white, understood its revolutionary implications. It was the one act that changed the entire character of the war. It gave the war a moral purpose, human freedom, to bolster the political goal of saving the Union, and a purpose with such deep emotional power condemned the Confederacy to sure defeat.

The question now was, having transformed the conflict into a war of liberation, would the Northern soldiers still fight? Some said no. ``An Ohio Democrat amended the party's slogan to proclaim, `the Constitution as it is, the Union as it was, the N-I-G-G-E-R-S where they are.' '' But most said yes. ``A Democratic private in the Army of the Potomac whose previous letters railed against abolitionists and blacks now expressed support for putting away any institution if by doing so it will put down the rebellion, for I hold that nothing should stand in the way of the Union, the N-I-G-G-E-R-S, nor anything else.''

With the July 4, 1863, victory at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, Northern hopes rose and Southern spirits sank. The burial at Gettysburg nearly 144 years ago this month was originally planned for October 23, but rescheduled to November 19 because the principal orator, Edward Everett of Massachusetts, could not be ready before then. Lincoln, by comparison was casually invited to attend and make a few remarks. ``No insult was intended. Federal responsibility or participation was not assumed then in State activities. Lincoln took no offense. Though specifically invited to deliver only `a few appropriate remarks' to open the cemetery, he meant to use this opportunity. The partly mythical victory at Gettysburg was important to his administration's war propaganda.''

There are mythical accounts that Lincoln wrote his Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope. Even though the 272-word speech probably took less than 3 minutes to deliver, interrupted with applause five times by 20,000 in attendance, such cavalier preparation would have been totally uncharacteristic of President Lincoln, who took such opportunities seriously and chose his words very carefully.

Lincoln intended to use this occasion and this speech to lift the Nation's eyes above the death and the carnage of Gettysburg ``to a level of abstraction that purges it of grosser matter.'' Lincoln did for the whole Civil War what he accomplished for the single battlefield.'' He transformed its meaning and, in doing so, transformed what it meant to be an American.

Lincoln mentioned neither slavery nor Gettysburg in the Gettysburg address. He drained his speech of all of the particulars in order to lift up an ideal. Lincoln intended to create something good and new out of this tragic and bloody episode. Both North and South strove to interpret Gettysburg to further their own war interests. Lincoln was after an even bigger victory, winning the ideological as well as the military war, and I believe he succeeded. The Civil War today is, to most Americans, what Lincoln wanted it to mean. Words had to complete the work of the guns.

What is it that President Lincoln had to say on that occasion? He said: ``Four score and seven years ago,'' and this is a 3\1/2\ minute speech. In fact, Martin Luther King delivered the ``I have a dream speech'' in about 13\1/2\ minutes. So my thinking is anytime someone speaks, they should speak between 3\1/2\ minutes and 13 minutes. If they give a speech longer than that, well, they are really giving history a fit. Also, if you can't say it between Gettysburg and ``I have a dream,'' it probably shouldn't be said at all.

So let's see what Lincoln had to say at Gettysburg, 3\1/2\ minutes: ``Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent,'' November 19, 1863, right around the time we are trying to break for Thanksgiving, 144th anniversary, and let's reflect, 144 years ago. ``Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new Nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great Civil War testing whether that Nation, or any Nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those here who gave their lives that the Nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.'' I love this part: ``But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here but it can never forget what they did here.'' That is his message to the future, that we should not forget what happened there.

``It is for us the living, rather, to be here dedicated to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus so far nobly advanced.

``It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us . . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain . . . that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.''

When we wave the flag and celebrate on July 4, Independence Day, we are not so much celebrating our American-ness in terms of our independence from England. We are celebrating the meaning of the flag and America as Lincoln interpreted them in his Gettysburg Address, because July 4, 1776, only white males could vote, and then they had to be landowners.

On July 4, 1863, with the Northern victory at Gettysburg and the Northern victory at Vicksburg, Abraham Lincoln saw an opportunity to reinterpret what July 4 would mean for the future. So when we barbecue on July 4, and when we celebrate our Independence Day, when we look at Hillary Clinton running for President; Barack Obama; Mitt Romney, a Mormon running for President, none of this was possible on July 4, 1776. An African American running for President on July 4, 1776, was a different America. A woman running for President on July 4, 1776, was a different America. Barack Obama running for President, Mitt Romney, a Mormon running for President on July 4, 1776, a different America.

Abraham Lincoln says this July 4, 1863, is going to yield a new birth of freedom for all Americans and we will never look at July 4 again because July 4 will never be the July 4 that it used to be because we are en route to being a different America.

At Gettysburg, Lincoln reinterpreted the Constitution. Looking past slavery

in the Constitution, he appealed to the Declaration of Independence and its claim that all men are created equal. Conservative political heirs to this outrage still attack Lincoln for subverting the Constitution at Gettysburg.

Let's see what Garry Wills had to say about this. He said that Lincoln is here not only to sweeten the air at Gettysburg but to clear the infected atmosphere of American history itself, tainted with official sins and inherited guilt. He would cleanse the Constitution, not as William Lloyd Garrison had, by burning an instrument that countenanced slavery. He altered the document from within, by an appeal from its letter to the spirit, subtly changing the recalcitrant stuff that legal compromise, bringing it to its own indictment. By implicitly doing this, he performed one of the most daring acts of open-air sleight-of-hand ever witnessed by the unsuspecting. Everyone in that vast throng of 20,000 people who heard Abraham Lincoln on that day had their intellectual pocket picked. The crowd departed with a new thing in its ideological luggage, that new Constitution Lincoln has substituted for the one they brought there with them. They walked off from those curving graves on that hillside at Gettysburg, under a changed sky, and into a different America. Lincoln has revolutionized the revolution, giving people a new past to live with what would change their future and our future indefinitely.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was transforming the United States of America from a plural to a singular noun, from the United States ``are'' into the United States ``is'' a free government.

According to Gary Wills, Lincoln, by his words and his actions, converted the Union from a mystical hope into a constitutional reality.

Looking out over the extraordinary events of 1863, on October 3, 1863, realizing that the North had made substantial progress in Gettysburg and substantial progress in Vicksburg, and Robert E. Lee, the Democrats, troops were on the retreat throughout the South, and he saw an opportunity to make an extraordinary period for which all of us are grateful even to this day.

On October 3, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the following, Mr. Speaker, proclamation:

``By the President of the United States.

``A proclamation.

``The year that is drawing towards its close,'' and I quote, ``has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and promote their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except the theater of military conflict; while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle or the ship. The ax has enlarged the boarders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals have yielded,'' this is in spite of a civil war, they have ``yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camps, the siege and the battlefield; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins has nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and with one voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of Thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverance and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become,'' because of the Civil War, ``widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the intervention of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of our Nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.

``In testimony whereof, I have heretofore set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

``Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.

``By the President: Abraham Lincoln.''

Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the Pilgrims and the Native Americans. Thanksgiving is looking out over a national disaster, a war over Federalism between the big government in Washington and the States and the fact that the slaves had been freed and the Northern armies were in pursuit through Vicksburg and Gettysburg, and Abraham Lincoln said the Nation is going to be preserved. And we deserve to give the person who is responsible for its preservation the greatest thanks, God, and therefore every third Thursday in November is set aside as a national day of thanks to remember the path that we took to save the Union. That is what Abraham Lincoln was after.

I haven't quite figured out yet why national memory has bypassed this event and decided to somehow ascribe it to events that have absolutely nothing to do with Abraham Lincoln's proclamation. The very first Thanksgiving was about the Civil War and about emancipation.

The same can be said for the story of our Capitol. From the moment a visitor enters this building, the unfolding process of emancipation, the players in the drama, the actors, the people, the heroes. The ``sheroes'' have been hidden. They have been denied a fair and accurate account of these unfolding events.

When you enter the Capitol Rotunda, we look up at the ceiling and we see the story of America, from Columbus all the way around the Rotunda to the Wright Brothers, from Columbus to the Wright Brothers, and not a single African American in the Rotunda's mural of the story of America. From Columbus to the Wright Brothers.

In Statuary Hall, the Old House Chamber, emancipation is ignored in Statuary Hall, where there today are status of the honored dead of the Confederacy. President Jefferson Davis is there, the greatest traitor in American history. Confederate Vice President Alexander Hamilton Stephens has his statue there. Confederate General Robert E. Lee is there, in uniform. Confederate Commander Joseph Wheeler is there, in uniform.

In that room, Old Statuary Hall, is where States were admitted to the Union, one free and one slave, to keep the balance between the North and the South, so that the House of Representatives and the Senate would never have more Members than any regional faction of the country.

Yet for the millions of visitors, Mr. Speaker, who come through our Statuary Hall, we never tell them that story. We would rather talk to the floor and show them that the Chamber has acoustic capabilities that allow us to talk to the floor and watch our voices bounce off the ceiling and arrive somehow on the other side of the room.

In the Old Senate Chamber, Charles Sumner got beaten half to death by Preston Brooks, and a book still sits on Charles Sumner's desk, the central story in the Old Senate Chamber.

The Old Senate Chamber doubled as the Supreme Court Chamber while the Supreme Court was under construction. It was in the Old Senate Chamber that Plessy v. Ferguson was decided, the Old Supreme Court Chamber. Of all of the decisions made in that room, it is known for two decisions under Justice Taney's leadership: Dred Scott and the Amistad Africans.

So whether it is the Rotunda, from Columbus to the Wright Brothers; whether it is Old Statuary Hall where people visit our Capitol and are taught about the acoustics of the building and not about how States were admitted to the Union to keep the balance between North and South or why all the Confederate generals have their statues in Statuary Hall; whether it is the Old Senate Chamber, Charles Sumner getting beaten, caned half to death by Preston Brooks and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision; or whether it is the Old Supreme Court Chamber, where Dred Scott and the Amistad Africans, Joseph Cinque and the others, were told they could go back home, only parts of the story are told, when they are told.

Mr. Speaker, it is the emancipation process, process, process, not an event, not a date, not a time, it is the emancipation process that led to the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

And as descendants of slaves, we believe that as Americans are better educated on this history, that that process, that American process, that process that we cannot change, it is part of our history, as more Americans are educated about that process, that it will lead to our 28th Amendment, our 29th Amendment, our 30th Amendment: health care for all, education of equal high quality for all, a cleaner environment for all, fixing our Nation's voting system for all, providing equality for all people, especially women. It is our Nation's historical process, and only that process that can provide emancipation for all. Not liberty. Emancipation.

Mr. Speaker, interpreting Lincoln's work and his life is extremely important. Recently there have been questions raised as to whether Lincoln should be credited with freeing the slaves. The argument goes, given some of Lincoln's history, his racial attitudes and statements, his moderate views on the subject, his noninterference with slavery where it already existed, his one proposed solution of colonization, his gradualist approach to ending the institution, his hesitancy with respect to issuing the emancipation and using colored troops in the war, his late conversion to voting rights for blacks and more, why should he be given credit for freeing the slaves?

Some have even argued that it was the various actions taken by the slaves themselves, including the power given to the Union causes as a result of the moral calls for overturning slavery, plus the actual military role of working and fighting in Union campaigns that actually freed them. By forcing the emancipation issue on to the agenda, first of military officers, then of Congress, and finally of Lincoln, it was their actions that led to freedom.

Clearly, just as Congress and Lyndon Johnson would not have been able to sign the civil rights legislation of the 1960s apart from a modern civil rights and human rights movement, so too the military commanders, the Congress and Lincoln, would not have been able to achieve what they did without agitation and movement from the slaves and their allies. On the other hand, the slaves would not have become freed men, apart from what these leaders did.

Because historical interpretation has played up the role of white male leaders, while playing down the role of mass movement and leaders of color and women, our understanding of history has been skewed.

Some of the current putdown of traditional historical interpretation is legitimate rejection and reaction to this past limited and distorted understanding and interpretation of our history. The search now, it seems to me, should be for more balanced interpretation, which includes striving to put many forces and multiple players into proper balance and perspective. That, I think, is what is at issue with regard to the question that did Lincoln free the slaves.

Mr. Speaker, but for Abraham Lincoln and the answers for which he so nobly fought and advanced, we today would be without the capacity of building a more perfect Union for all Americans. The naming of Emancipation Hall is an extraordinary event on behalf of all Americans. We begin the process now of broadening the education of all Americans to make the Union more perfect for all.

I would close, Mr. Speaker, by just saying this: I shall never forget the movie ``Roots.'' There was a great scene in the movie ``Roots'' when Kunta Kinte was being told by a slave master that his name was Toby. And he kept saying no, my name is Kunta Kinte. And he said, no, your name is Toby. He said Kunta Kinte. Toby.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kinte made an extraordinary contribution to saving this Union, to preserving it, and his descendants are making a contribution and making it more perfect. Congratulations to all Members of Congress today who voted to name the great hall Emancipation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2206, a bill that simply provides technical corrections to Public Law 109-116.

This legislation authorizes the Architect of the Capitol to enter into agreement on behalf of the Joint Committee of the Library to acquire a statue of Mrs. Rosa Parks. It also extends the time period for that agreement by 2 years.

In 2005, it was my privilege to introduce this very important legislation with Senator John Kerry and Senator Mitch McConnell of the other body to honor the life and work of the late Mrs. Rosa Parks by placing a statue in National Statuary Hall.

Everyone knows the story of how Mrs. Parks helped spark the modern civil rights movement when she refused to give up her seat on a legally segregated bus that fateful day, December 1, 1955, leading to the Montgomery bus boycott and the emergence of Martin Luther King, Jr.

From the beginning, Mrs. Parks led a life dedicated to social change, becoming an active member of the Montgomery, Alabama, chapter of the NAACP, which in the 1940s and 1950s was considered a dangerous organization. It could cost you your job. It could even cost you your life.

In 1943, along with the State president of the NAACP, she mobilized a historic voter registration drive in Montgomery and was later elected NAACP chapter secretary. Mrs. Parks was a courageous woman who possessed the firm and quiet strength necessary to challenge injustice.

Following the 1954 Brown Supreme Court decision which provided equal protection under the law's legal framework, her refusal to give up her seat eventually led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the 1968 Open Housing Act, all of which helped make America better for all Americans.

Rosa Parks remained a committed activist until the end of her life. In the 1980s, she worked in support of the South Africa anti-apartheid movement. In Detroit with Congressman John Conyers in 1997, she founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development, a career counseling center for African American youth.

With dignity, with grace and with courage, Rosa Parks inspired generations and helped to make the world a more just and compassionate place. In life she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 1999, the highest honors our Nation bestows on civilians.

This placing of a Rosa Parks statue in National Statuary Hall is a testament to the fact that the long arc of history bends towards freedom and justice and equality. When Statuary Hall was created by law in 1864, African Americans could not be citizens of the United States. Indeed, the term ``African Americans'' did not exist. Under that law it was impossible for us to be considered favorite sons or favorite daughters of States.

When Rosa Parks takes her place in National Statuary Hall, she takes with her Frederick Douglass. She takes with her the United States coloreds troops. She takes with her Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth. She takes them there. Indeed, she takes the legacy and history of redefining what it means to be an American for all Americans as she takes her place among the enormous statues that presently represent the various States within that great Hall.

She takes with her countless nameless people of African descent, who from slavery to today, sacrificed for an America many would never live to see.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose half statue is not in Statuary

Hall, would implore us, Now is the time.

I want to thank Senator Feinstein for introducing this bill in the other body. I want to thank Matt McGowan and Khalil Abboud from the Joint Committee on the Library for diligently working to get this extension enacted into law. I want to thank Barbara Wolanin from the Architect of the Capitol's Office for working with all of us to make sure that the goals of my original bill are realized.

I want to thank Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Ehlers for their sensitivity on this critical issue at this critical hour. And I want to thank in a special way our late Chair, Juanita Millender-McDonald, who worked with me tirelessly on this effort.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I might add that in the 13 years I have had the privilege of serving in this body, I have only missed two votes: one vote because my pager died and the battery did not forward my pager the power to let me know to vote; and the other vote was when I was on the other side of the aisle so overwhelmed by the number of Republicans who were willing to sign onto a Rosa Parks statue in Statuary Hall that the Democratic clerks could not find me to tell me to vote. I was overwhelmed by that occasion.

I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that today Members of Congress will once again vote ``aye'' on S. 2206. I know of no American more worthy of an honor than the late Mrs. Rosa Parks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Elaine Maimon as Governors State University's fifth president.

I am proud to represent Governors State University, the only public university in the Chicago's south suburbs. Established in 1969, GSU's student body currently numbers 6,000 students, consisting primarily of young adults transferring from community colleges as well as older working adults returning to complete their education and advance their lives.

On November 3, GSU will formally install Dr. Elaine Maimon as its fifth president.

Dr. Maimon will lead a university committed to the principles of diversity. Forty-five percent of GSU's students are minority. Thirty- one percent of its faculty is minority--double the national average.

Dr. Maimon will lead a university that is accessible. A study conducted by the Lumina Foundation has recognized GSU as the most accessible university in the region.

Dr. Maimon will lead a university that meets the highest standards of demonstrable academic quality. Eighty percent of its faculty hold doctoral degrees or the highest degree in their field. The university itself is fully accredited, as is each program with an associated national accrediting body.

Dr. Maimon will lead a university connected with its community. Approximately 25,000 elementary, middle-school, and high school students visit Governors State each year for educational and cultural experiences. GSU faculty members work closely with local governments, school districts, and law enforcement agencies to help meet the needs of the region. The university's business development center has helped secure nearly $55 million in financing since 2000 and has created and retained more than 1,100 jobs in the region.

More than 30,000 men and women have graduated from GSU since its founding. Most graduates still reside in the region, where they serve as teachers, healthcare professionals, executives, entrepreneurs, and municipal leaders. Their lives have been transformed and their communities enriched because they had access to a quality university education.

GSU is a model for the kind of university Dr. Maimon has advocated, developed, and enriched throughout her academic career. Over the years, she has invested her considerable talents to provide access and opportunity, to encourage dreamers to help dreams come true, and to help meet the needs of the underrepresented and underserved.

She has demonstrated the integrity, vision, and commitment required to take GSU to new levels of excellence and service.

Welcome, Dr. Elaine Maimon, and congratulations, Governors State University.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Ms. Nailah Oliani Franklin, an extraordinary young woman who was raised in the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois.

On September 19, 2007, hundreds of people began the search for Nailah Franklin after she did not show up for a meeting at work. Unfortunately, the search concluded 9 days later on September 27, 2007, when police discovered her body in a wooded area in Calumet City, Illinois. Her disappearance captured the heart of many in the Chicagoland region and others across the country.

During the week she was missing, a grassroots campaign led her story into the national media. More than 2,000 people filled the sanctuary and vestibules of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side to help celebrate her life. ``Even today Nailah is bringing people together,'' stated family member Marina Franklin.

Nailah Franklin was a gift from God, whose life was cut too short. We will all relish in the impact she left on her family, friends and all that came in contact with her spirit, elegance, courage and strength.

Nailah was born on April 12, 1979, to Maria and Lee Franklin, in Highland Park, Illinois. Her name which means ``one who succeeds'' is a testament to the life she lived. Her confidence and intelligence earned good grades at Homewood--Floosmor High School, where she ran track and was on the Voyager newspaper staff. In 1997, Nailah graduated from Homewood--Floosmor High School and enrolled at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, my law school alma mater.

She remained active in many activities during college. She wrote for the Daily Illini student newspaper, co-hosted a jazz and neo-soul music show on the student run WBML FM, tutored local high school students and assisted with football recruiting. She received her bachelor's degree in advertising in 2001. She then returned to Chicago and began working for advertising giant Leo Burnett. Later, she joined Eli Lily & Co. in 2006 as a pharmaceutical sales representative.

Her family described her as a force to be reckoned with. A presence. Someone who wasn't afraid to speak her mind, try new things and set the bar high for herself and those around her. ``She was strong, resilient, vivacious, opinionated and above all, fashionable. A `girlie-girl,' she loved her family and friends, fashion, spa visits, music and anything and everything related to Oprah. She was exceptional without being ruthless,'' her family noted.

She was a music lover with tastes running the gamet from jazz to house to neo-soul to old school R&B. She loved to watch Grey's Anatomy and she had to find out what songs had been used during each episode so she could put them on her iPod.

Nailah will most be remembered as a successful professional, doting aunt, loving daughter, sister, niece and friend--a woman of extraordinary grace and resilience whose spirit blessed all who knew her.

Her family has established the Nailah O. Franklin Memorial Fund at the Chicago Community Trust. The fund will make grants to prevent violence and guide young people's educational and social development.

I pay tribute to this beautiful life lost.

I thank you, Chairman Payne, for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2828, a bill to compensate relatives of U.S. citizens killed in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

I introduced this bill with Republican Whip Roy Blunt, and it has solid bipartisan support, including 19 members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

On August 7, 1998, an al Qaeda truck bomb exploded at the American embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and in Nairobi, Kenya. The embassy bombing in Nairobi killed 12 Americans serving their government. The Americans killed in the embassy bombings were, and Mr. Blunt will now join me in calling their names, Sergeant Nathan Aliganga, United States Marine Corps; Consul General Julian Bartley; his son, Jay Bartley; Jean Rose Dalizu; Molly Huckaby Hardy; Staff Sergeant Kenneth Hobson II.

The State Department was negligent in not responding to concerns raised about the danger and exposure of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi to a vehicle bomb attack. The U.S. intelligence community had been surveilling several al Qaeda associates in Nairobi for 2 years, yet that information was not shared with the diplomats bidding on assignments in Nairobi, Kenya. Prior to the attack, then- U.S. Ambassador Prudence Bushnell warned the State Department about the vulnerability of the Nairobi Embassy and requested more security.

Members of al Qaeda were convicted of the bombing in New York Federal District Court in 2001. Government witnesses at the trial testified that intelligence and security reports from several different sources had confirmed the presence of an al Qaeda cell in Nairobi and the likelihood that the location of the embassy exposed the employees to an attack given the proximity of the street, but the State Department failed to act on these intelligence reports.

The Accountability Review Board, established to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the embassy bombings, found that the bombings were the result of a ``collective failure of several administrations and Congresses over the past decade to invest adequate efforts and resources to reduce the vulnerability of U.S. diplomatic missions around the world to terrorist attacks.''

Like the families of those killed on 9/11, the families compensated in H.R. 2828 also suffer a similar heartache and pain from an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil. Several of the victims' children still suffer from serious emotional problems. However, unlike quick action taken by Congress and the executive branch to respond to the needs of families of 9/11, these families have waited more than 9 years without any meaningful compensation.

Former Secretary of State Albright has stated publicly that her administration failed to help the families because the attacks happened thousands of miles away and because the Department failed to respond to the pre-attack intelligence report of the serious threat of the al Qaeda organization in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the very least that a grateful Nation can do.

I would like to thank Republican Whip Roy Blunt and his staff member, Brian Diffel, for working with us on this bill. I would also like to thank CBC Chairwoman Kilpatrick and her staff member, James Williams; Dan Burton and his staff member, Brian Fauls, as well as the committee staff of Chairman Lantos, Chairman Payne and Ranking Member Ros- Lehtinen for all the work they did on this bill.

I want to recognize the work of Karen Williams, counsel for the Nairobi Embassy families, and especially Consul General Bartley's daughter, Edith, who has brought this issue to the attention of the Congress and has worked tirelessly to get us to where we are today.

Mr. Speaker, present with us today in the House are members of the Bartley family, members of Ms. Kavaler's family, and members of the Kirk family. And I understand that it's not appropriate or within House rules to acknowledge specifically their location in the House Chamber, but they are here today on this momentous occasion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2828.

Let me rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from Texas's amendment, and I am hoping that the gentleman might engage me in a brief question.

These grants assist in the development of essential community facilities in rural towns of up to 20,000 in population. We talked about them in great detail in a number of hearings on the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee, and witness after witness suggested that these Federal funds, in conjunction with local funds, made it possible for them to advance the idea of health conversations and broader conversations about fire stations and hospitals and purchasing ambulances and other critical community facilities.

I was going to ask the gentleman if he wouldn't mind engaging in just a brief colloquy with me. A brief question: Does the gentleman support the President's budget?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

The gentleman does not support the President's budget. Well, that is important, because let us be clear that the gentleman's amendment is proposing $16.8 million more than the President is proposing in this program.

The President has zeroed this program out. The committee sought to increase the number in this program. And if the gentleman's amendment returns it to the 2007 level, the 2007 level is $16.8 million more.

I encourage you to vote against the Hensarling amendment and support the Community Facilities program.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let's put a face on this program. In Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, no company had invested in providing broadband delivery to the residents until a company called Bitsmart applied for a USDA Community Connect Grant. 770 people live in Horseshoe Bend, Idaho. Now, Bitsmart has established wireless Internet accessibility and availability, an integrated system connecting law enforcement, health care providers and school and government offices.

The USDA Rural Development mission is to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life for rural residents. To level fund a program that connects rural Americans to the rest of our country would be a moral disgrace. We are under an obligation in this Congress to bring rural communities, where large corporations and medium-sized corporations do not invest in them, into the information age and make them part of our more perfect union.

I encourage my colleagues to reject the Hensarling amendment.

I was hoping the gentlelady from Connecticut would yield for just a brief question.

Would the gentlelady care to share with the committee what the President's proposal was for this particular program in this particular budget?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to stand in defense of the subcommittee and its work. We tried to be as responsive to members on this committee as possible, given that many members of the committee do not understand the specific details of every congressional district. But this is what Congressman Artur Davis had to say:

``Auburn University is seeking funding to continue research on endemic and emerging pathogens of catfish. Because the prevalence of catfish diseases constitutes $90-100 million in annual losses for catfish farmers, it is important to prevent these diseases to ensure a healthy national food supply and a successful economic development activity. This funding will allow Auburn University to conduct outreach to farmers and ensure that these vaccines make it into the field to protect the food supply of the American people. Earlier research from this project has already led to the commercialization of two vaccines that are now helping in the reduction of these disease losses.''

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Rogers, and I also want to thank Congressman Artur Davis for looking out for the interests of this vital industry in their State. The committee did its work and honored their request. We should vote down the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by congratulating the hardest-working Member of the Congress, Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, for this outstanding bill.

Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 3161, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Again, I want to congratulate Chairwoman DeLauro and the subcommittee staff for the product here before us today. I also want to thank Ranking Member Kingston of the minority subcommittee staff for working with us to produce this product.

Over the past 8 months, I have learned a lot about agriculture policy. When asked why I serve on this subcommittee, considering my largely urban and suburban district, I quickly respond by saying this bill touches the lives of 647,000 residents of the Second District of Illinois. We all eat, we all want safe food, and we all want safe medicines.

With the recent passage of the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, our Nation's agriculture policy and spending reflects our growing investments not only in rural development and commodity programs but in nutrition, conservation, and renewable energy. We want to continue to support our farmers as well as feed the hungry, protect our Nation's food supply, and invest in research.

One out of five Americans at some point in time in their lives will participate in at least one domestic food assistance program. Our nutrition programs serve as the first line of defense against combating hunger by helping low-income families purchase food. This bill illustrates Congress's commitment to protecting our country's most vulnerable populations. It accomplishes the following:

It increases the Food Stamp Program by $1.7 billion and creates a $3 billion contingency reserve, which helps feed over 26 million people annually. It restores the President's proposed cuts to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and expands the program that serves over 485,000 people monthly by adding five new States. It appropriates $5.6 billion to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and restores State grants to help administer the program. It supports the expansion of the simplified summer school food program that provides up to two meals a day to children under the age of 18 during the summer.

This bill also addresses a wide variety of needs, ranging from increased grants and loans for rural communities to fully funding the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The increases in this bill are sensible, they are prudent, they reflect our priorities, reinforcing our commitment to feed the hungry, to house the needy, and to protect us all.

I recommend that my colleagues vote against any amendments cutting these vital programs, and I strongly urge them to vote for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear. The gentlewoman may not be aware of it, but we

have accepted this amendment. The majority has accepted Mr. Gingrey's first amendment for $50,000. The gentlewoman said that $50,000 is very important to her constituents. The majority has heard it. Therefore, we accept the amendment. I think we can dispose of this amendment and move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the chairwoman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.

The gentlewoman's constituents should be very proud that we have accepted the amendment. The $50,000 that is so important to her constituents, to all Americans, has been accepted. We can dispose of this and move forward.

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Is the gentleman aware that we've accepted the amendment?

Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Chairman, is there a particular parliamentary vehicle that, once an amendment has been accepted by the majority, that the amendment can then be disposed of?

I don't know what the point is here. We've accepted the amendment. It's been asked. It's been answered. We accept it. We want to add it to the bill. We're prepared to move forward. We've accepted the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chair, as I understand previous rulings from the Chair, that the gentleman must confine his remarks to the matter at hand, the Agriculture appropriations bill, and not the SCHIP bill, which will come before the Congress later this week.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.

Point of order. Madam Chairman, the gentlelady is engaged in irrelevant debate.

Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman is engaged in irrelevant debate.

Madam Chairman, I would like a ruling on my point of order.

Point of order.

Madam Chairman, the majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.

Point of order.

The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate about the SCHIP program in another bill for another day.

Point of order.

Madam Chairman, the majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate about a piece of legislation that will come up in a few days. We are discussing the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Point of order.

Madam Chairman, the gentleman sounds like a broken record. The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.

The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment, and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.

I am making the point of order that the debate is absolutely irrelevant.

Point of order.

The minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.

I make the point of order that the debate is irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, and I want to congratulate my good friend from California, Ms. Lee, on producing the bill before us today.

H.R. 180 would put much needed pressure on the Government of Sudan by, (1) prohibiting the U.S. Government from entering into contracts with companies fueling the genocide, (2) authorizing states to divest from the worst offending companies in Sudan, and (3) authorizing states to prohibit contracts with companies fueling the genocide. This bill is necessary because states deserve protection for acting as responsible and moral market participants. Furthermore, this legislation does not affect American companies, and its provisions would expire once the genocide has ended.

In 2004, I traveled to Darfur to see this devastation first hand. I was shocked and appalled at the level of human suffering. As the vice- chair of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I have tried to improve conditions in Darfur with humanitarian aid and peacekeeping funds, but more must be done.

This bill begins to do the things that our humanitarian aid and our peacekeeping funds can't--address corporate and social responsibility and put additional pressure on the Khartoum government to end the genocide.

Again, I congratulate the gentlewoman for her legislation, and I strongly urge an aye vote for H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3123 and want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, my friend Congressman Kennedy, for his leadership and hard work on this issue. This bill provides support and assistance to our ally Liberia, during a critical time in its social and economic reform and recovery.

Specifically, this bill extends until October 1, 2008, the designation of Liberians living in this country under Temporary Protected Status, TPS. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that only 3,600 Liberians are currently eligible for TPS. Many of these Liberians have been in the U.S. for more than 16 years, and all of them have been here for a minimum of 5 years.

TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of designated countries. In 1990, as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress established a procedure by which the Attorney General, and now DHS, may provide TPS to people in the United States who are temporarily unable to safely return to their home country because of ongoing armed conflict, an environmental disaster, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions. During the period for which a country has been designated for TPS, TPS beneficiaries may remain in the United States and may obtain work authorization. However, TPS does not lead to permanent resident status, and TPS holders are not illegal immigrants.

Since 1989, Liberia has been ravaged by two brutal civil wars, which have destabilized the region, displaced hundreds of thousands of people, and destroyed the country's economy and infrastructure. In recognition of these conditions, the United States has protected some 3,600 Liberians in the U.S. from having to return to Liberia.

Recently, DHS has decided to terminate these temporary protections in light of the fact that Liberia's civil wars have finally ended and in anticipation of the political stability that newly-elected President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf will bring. However, while there is no question that President Johnson Sirleaf has put Liberia on the road to recovery, that road will unfortunately be very long.

According to a 2006 United Nations report, Liberia is currently enduring an 85 percent unemployment rate and it continues to be one of the poorest countries in the world. Improvements to the country's infrastructure following the war have come slowly, and it continues to suffer from severe shortages in electricity and running water. The country also lacks adequate medical care, as a mere 26 physicians currently practice medicine for a population of some 3.4 million people.

According to Liberian Government officials, their nation is not yet in a position to provide returnees with employment, housing, health services, education services, and other necessary amenities and services. Due to these and other issues, the Liberian Government has stated that the country cannot absorb and provide for the estimated 3,600 Liberians who would be required to return to their homeland.

As an aside, Liberians in the U.S. also provide financial assistance, including remittances averaging about $6 million monthly, to the Liberian economy. These transfers constitute a vital source of financial assistance and economic stability during the country's still- nascent period of recovery.

President Johnson Sirleaf stated during her address to Congress in March 2006: ``For those unable to come back home now, we must appeal to you to grant them continuing protection status, and residency where appropriate, to put them in a condition to contribute to their country's reform and development.''

For these reasons, and in order to support Liberia as it emerges from two decades of dictatorship and civil war, I strongly support H.R. 3123 and urge its passage.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I was going to yield a minute of my time to the gentleman from Texas to explain his amendment. I appreciate his speech, and I thought the gentleman's speech was a thoughtful speech. He has come to the floor consistently on every appropriations bill in an effort to save money, but I would like to yield to the gentleman just so he can tell us what his amendment does in this bill. If the gentleman would be kind enough to explain that to us, we would appreciate it over here on the majority.

I appreciate the gentleman and his analysis.

At least as I read page 58, line 21, the gentleman seeks to reduce by $8 million section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 and section 505 of the Family Support Act of 1988. That reduction the committee fundamentally opposes in part because of Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 and the Family Support Act of 1988 are reputable programs that have provided an enormous benefit to the American taxpayer. That is precisely why it is in the bill. And it is specifically in the section of the bill ``Children and Families Services Programs'' because of its enormous benefit to the American taxpayer.

I appreciate the gentleman's effort at fiscal accountability and fiscal responsibility, and the gentleman has clearly led a crusade through every single one of these appropriations bills, but I would encourage Members to oppose the Hensarling amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Reclaiming my time, I want to make sure, and I appreciate the gentleman from Rhode Island's thoughts on the subject, but I want to make sure that this amendment is going to the heart of Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 and Family Support Act of 1988.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, as I understand Mr. Hensarling's amendment, he goes at the heart of the Administration on Aging, section 204 of the report, and these programs, including supportive service centers, preventive health, are protection for vulnerable and older Americans that are at the heart of the bill. It's clear to me that according to the Health and Human Services budget in brief that consumer empowerment, healthy lifestyles, community living incentives, are a critical part of taking care of families and their caregivers. And I just don't know where the gentleman arrives at the numbers that he seeks to cut in the bill.

The committee learned through exhaustive testimony from the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services the importance of funding this program. As the gentleman, Mr. Hensarling knows, the President has sought to fund the program, and the committee has worked in a Republican and Democrat bipartisan way, sought to increase the program, and so we are going to stick with this number.

I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding me the time. I am encouraging members of the committee to oppose the Hensarling amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I have a parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman. There is a problem with the amendment that is at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry before the gentleman begins.

Madam Chairman, at the desk, the amendment that the gentleman was speaking to concerned Native Hawaiians, but the gentleman spoke about Alaskans. And I asked the Clerk if he had the amendment that the gentleman was speaking about on Native Alaskans and he said he did not have that amendment. So I'm trying to figure out, are we responding to the Native Hawaiian language for $33,907,000, which is what is at the desk, or the gentleman's argument about Alaskans, which is not at the desk? And that is my inquiry.

Madam Chairman, that's about Hawaiians.

I thank the Chair.