Danny Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as we return from recess, all of us saw a great deal of basketball; and I want to congratulate three outstanding high schools in my district for having won championships: Westinghouse, State of Illinois Boys' Championship; Providence St. Mel, Elite 8 Illinois high school regional champions. And I might add that 95 percent of all the students at this school go to college. I would also like to give accolades to Marshall High School for winning the city of Chicago's girls' championship under the leadership of Mr. Pitman and Dorothy Gaiter, who is the winningest female basketball coach in the United States of America. I congratulate all of them.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I would consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) in consideration of this resolution. This resolution, which recognizes the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and commends the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations, NECO, encourages diversity and tolerance in American life. The mission of the NECO is to preserve ethnic diversity, promote equality and tolerance, combat injustice and bring about harmony and unity to all people. To promote its mission, the NECO hosts the Ellis Island Medals Awards Gala, which honors Americans of various ethnic origins for their outstanding contributions to this country. From 1892 to 1954, over 12 million immigrants entered the United States through the portal of Ellis Island, a small island in New York Harbor. Ellis Island is located in the upper bay just off the New Jersey coast, within the shadow of the Statue of Liberty. From the very beginning of the mass migration that spanned 1880 to 1924, a group of politicians and nativists demanded increased restrictions on immigration. Laws and regulations such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Alien Contract Labor Law, and the institution of a literacy test tried to stem the tide of new immigrants to this country. Ellis Island ceased to be a major entry point for immigrants in 1921 with the passage of Quota Laws and in 1924 with the passage of the National Origins Act. These restrictions were based upon a percentage system according to the number of ethnic groups already living in the United States as per the 1890 and 1910 Census. It was an attempt to preserve the ethnic flavor of the ``old immigrants,'' those earlier settlers primarily from northern and western Europe. The perception existed that the newly arriving immigrants, mostly from southern and eastern Europe, were somehow inferior to those who came earlier. It is appropriate then that Congress recognizes organizations like NECO and American citizens who recognize the importance of preserving ethnic diversity and fostering harmony and unity among all peoples. Who decides whose identity, culture, or ethnicity is more important or has more value? Who has that authority? No one. No human being has that authority. We can, however, embrace our own cultures and those that are unknown and unfamiliar to us. America is a land of United States and of united peoples of various cultures and backgrounds. That is America's strength and greatest asset, and this resolution recognizes that. It is hard to think of Ellis Island at any time without thinking of the words of Emma Lazarus when she wrote, Give me your tired, your huddled masses, teeming to be free. Yes, Ellis Island has been a beacon of the openness of what America is seeking to become. I am proud to join in this resolution and would urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, The narrator in the PBS documentary written by Mary Dickson, ``No Safe Place--Violence Against Women,'' began by relating that: In the early hours of a hot August morning, three men pulled a woman from her car after a minor traffic accident. The men threatened her with a crowbar, made her strip, then chased her until she jumped off a bridge to her death in the Detroit River. None of the 40 or so passers-by tried to help the 33-year-old woman. Some reports say onlookers cheered as the men taunted her. A judge in New Bedford, MA, sentenced the confessed rapist of a 14- year-old girl to probation. He then said that the victim ``. . . can't go through life as a victim. She's 14. She got raped. Tell her to get over it.'' The San Francisco Chronicle reported that: Cassandra Floyd was a respected physician, a single mother living in an affluent San Jose suburb, and ardent volunteer and a role model for young black women. The 35-year-old was also the victim of domestic violence . . . when her ex- husband shot and killed her as their 4-year-old daughter slept nearby and shot and wounded Floyd's mother. He then fled and killed himself. These are not isolated incidents selected to cause sensationalism. Violence against women is a worldwide epidemic. According to the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Violence against women--rape, sexual assault and domestic violence--affects women worldwide, regardless of class or race. Violence not only affects women in the home, but in the workplace, school and every arena of life. The Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health found that Around the world at least one women in every three has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family. Increasingly, gender-based violence is recognized as a major public health concern and a violation of human rights. The dimensions of this issue were illustrated in a joint study by the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which made the following conclusions: In 1998 there were approximately 2.8 million assaults on women. The Journal of the American Women's Association reported that those most at risk are ``. . . younger, separated or divorced, of lower socioeconomic status and unemployed.'' The risk of assault by an intimate partner increases when a woman is pregnant. Just four in ten women who are physically injured by a partner seek professional medical treatment. Women are more likely to be the victim of rape or sexual assaults by an intimate partner or acquaintance, rather than by a stranger. The National Violence Against Women Survey found that one out of every 12 women, a total of 8.2 million women, has been stalked at some point in their lives. Women are more likely than men to be killed by someone they know, and nearly one-third of women are killed by an intimate partner, compared to approximately four percent of men, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Black women are more likely than White or Hispanic women to be the victims of nonlethal violent crimes. These statistics are appalling. Just as we have come together with our allies to declare war against terrorism, so too must we unite and declare war against this form of terrorism--violence against women.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, listening to the inspiring thoughts of Darin Johnson, I can't help but reflect on the words uttered over 40 years ago by President John F. Kennedy: ``In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country, and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.'' There was perhaps no more eloquent a call to government service than this speech by President Kennedy. Even though our enemies may be different than they were in 1961, we are still charged with ``defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.'' In the aftermath of 9-11, many Americans, like Darin Johnson, are looking for ways to serve and ``make a difference'' for their country. In fact, according to data collected by the Partnership for Public Service, in the three months after September 11th, the number of applications for federal jobs received by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's service centers increased by 14 percent. We need to seize this opportunity to hire a diverse group of the best and brightest women and men this country has to offer. However, we can't do this using outdated recruitment methods and incentives that penalize those who choose Federal service. That's why we are here today. With college tuition costs spiraling, many college graduates are left with huge loans to repay following graduation. Even those who are attracted to government employment, out of necessity, gravitate toward the higher salaries of the private sector in order to repay their personal debt. Although we are standing here on Capitol Hill, this is not just an ``inside the Beltway issue.'' The reach of our Federal government is evident across our great nation. In Cook County, Illinois, for example, my home state, there are over 20,000 Federal employees. I am, therefore, pleased to be a cosponsor of Generating Opportunities by Forgiving Educational Debt for service (GOFEDS). Currently, when Federal agencies repay student loans for employees, these payments are taxable to the employees. However, many educational institutions have instituted similar loan repayment benefits to encourage graduates to go into government service or to work for non-profit organizations--and these payments are not taxable. This bill will erase this disparity. However, let us not see this bill as an ending, but rather, a beginning--one in a series of initiatives we need to take to ensure that our Federal government is a model employer--we own the American people no less.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Last month we praised our forefathers as we observed President's Day, and this month is Women's History Month. And as it gets underway, I want to recognize some of the outstanding women; women who dared to be first; women who strove for equality and social justice; women who not only broke ceilings but shattered spheres in pursuit of rights that should have been inalienable at the time, and whose contributions continue to pave the way and continue to inspire others. Of course, Mr. Speaker, as you know I am from Chicago, a city that is rich in women pioneers and trailblazers in both the past and the present. One such woman that I would like to mention is Ida B. Wells, who founded the first black female suffrage club in Illinois as well as the first kindergarten in a black neighborhood. Ida B. Wells was born in 1862, was a slave for the first 6 months of her life, and spent the remainder of her life fighting for civil and economic rights for African Americans and for others. Declaring that one had better die fighting against injustice then die like a dog or rat in a trap, Wells crusaded against lynching and segregation until her death in 1931. Another outstanding Chicagoan and another outstanding pioneer in the suffrage movement was labor activist Sylvia Woods, who was a pioneer in civil rights, a woman that I got an opportunity to actually know. During World War II she held the union organization drive at Bendix Aviation. She spent much of the 1940's organizing the United Auto Workers Local 330 and formulating the UAB resolution against sex discrimination. Following the war, she assisted women who were laid off in Chicago and co-founded the National Alliance Against Racism. However, at present there are future history makers who are also making a tremendous impact on the lives of citizens in Chicago and throughout the Nation. Exemplary individuals from today include Reverend Addie Wyatt, Reverend Willie Taplin Barrow, Dr. Johnnie Coleman, and Ms. Mamie Bone, as well as a number of others. Reverend Addie Wyatt has the distinction of having had active involvement with the three major movements of the 20th century: labor, civil rights, and women's rights. Her leadership roles in labor were the international vice president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, and she broke ground as the first female local union president of the United Packing House Food and Allied Workers and as international vice president of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America. One of the most eloquent spokespersons I have ever heard, Addie Wyatt also played a founding role in Operation Breadbasket and Operation PUSH, as well as her work with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., illustrates her commitment to civil rights. Her involvement in the women's movement has also generated a number of worthy achievements. Reverend Wyatt is a founding member of the National Organization of Women and in the early days was appointed by Eleanor Roosevelt to serve on the Labor Legislation Committee of the Commission on the Status of Women. During her distinguished career, she advised Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter and other important leaders on these causes. She and her husband, Reverend Claude Wyatt, currently serve as pastors emeritus of the Vernon Park Church of God in Chicago, which they helped to develop and which stands as a monument to their tremendous religious and spiritual leadership. Reverend Dr. Willie Taplin Barrow is the co-chair of Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. She is well known for breaking barriers in a male-dominated profession. She is an ordained minister and on the Governor's Committee on the Status of Women in Illinois. She is a member of the Democratic National Committee, is a dynamic preacher and inspirational speaker, and travels all over the world motivating, stimulating, activating people to realize their own potential for not only self-sufficiency, but the potential that they have to help shape and mold the society of which they are a part. Almost any Saturday morning you can encounter Reverend Barrow at Operation PUSH where she co-leads that organization along with its founders, the Reverend Jessie Jackson. Another fine citizen of Chicago is Reverend Dr. Johnnie Coleman, sometimes referred to as the first lady of the religious community. She is the founding minister of Christ Universal Church where 4,000 people go to hear her words of wisdom and healing every Sunday. To her credit, Reverend Coleman has several organizations in Chicago; the Universal Foundation for Better Living, Incorporated, the Johnnie Coleman Institute, and the Johnnie Coleman Academy, as well as a book of teachings entitled ``Open Your Mind and Be Healed.'' Also, an outstanding minister is Reverend Jennie Pettis, who is the founder and pastor of the Family Altar Evangelistic Church. In a relatively short period of time, the Reverend Pettis and her parishioners have built a brand new edifice, which they expect to inhabit during the spring of this year. Chicago is a magnificent city, a tremendous city. I represent a Congressional District that is one of the most diverse in the Nation. It includes downtown Chicago, the Gold Coast, the Magnificent Mile, outstanding museums and universities, 23 hospitals, 4 medical centers, 4 medical schools, almost anything that one can imagine. But also in that landscape, of course, I represent Chinatown, I represent Greek Town, I represent what is called Little Italy, a great Italian community, and I represent the Ukrainian Village. I also represent a large percentage of the public housing in Chicago, more than 68 percent; and as the chairperson of the Central Advisory Council, Ms. Mamie Bone fights for the residents of public housing. She currently serves as a member of the CHA Board of Commissioners and continues to champion and continues to work and advocate for the employment, security and safety of public housing residents. Other individuals who provide leadership in public housing are people like Deverra Beverly, who is the chairman of the local advisory council at the Abla Public Housing Complex. Also, Ms. Cora Moore at Cabrini- Green, and Ms. Carolyn Willingham. Both provide tremendous leadership in the Cabrini-Green complex. Ms. Maner Wiley and Lorena Nellum at the Hilliard Homes. Ms. Gloria Williams at the Nazariah Safe Haven. Ms. Brenda Bolden in the Lawndale area. Ms. Cora Dillard in Robert Taylor. Ms. Deborah Martin and Ms. Mildred Dennis in Robert Taylor. Ms. Mary Baldwin at Rockwell Gardens. Ms. Francine Washington at Stateway Gardens. Ms. Beatrice Harris at Wentworth Gardens. And, of course, Ms. Shirley Hammond, who has developed a business in the Cabrini area and represents the senior housing on the north side of the city; and Ms. Martha Marshall, who represents the Senior Housing Central and has developed a business which is part of the business development activity for the area. The last woman that I will mention, as we talk about outstanding Chicago women, is one of great historical significance. Jane Addams, the mother of social work, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and an individual extolled by President Franklin Roosevelt as Chicago's most useful citizen. Jane Addams established Hull House, Chicago's first settlement house for the underprivileged in 1889. Hull House quickly became an innovative place for gathering, learning, obtaining a free meal, gaining employment, and even organizing union activity. She later became a vocal advocate for women's suffrage and humanitarian causes in the early 20th century and reasoned that ``civilization is a method of living and an attitude of equal respect for all people.'' She held leadership positions in several key organizations throughout her life, including the National Progressive Party and the International Congress of Women. Fortunately, Jane Addams was not destined to always be a suffragette, never a voter. She lived until 1931 and saw an American woman's right to vote become a reality in 1920. In closing, Jane Addams also sagaciously stated that national events determine our ideas as much as our ideas determine national events. Indeed, Women's History Month is a national event which celebrates the ideas of our Nation and the spirit and triumph of the women's movement; and so it makes sense for us to stop, to pause, to realize and to recognize the tremendous contribution that women have made and continue to make in the development of this country. Reintegrating Ex-offenders Into Society I think I will shift at this time a bit, Mr. Speaker, and talk about an issue that I think is one of the most serious issues facing our country, and that is the issue of successfully reintegrating ex- offenders back into the normalcy of society; that is, successfully reintegrating ex-offenders back into normal life after they have been incarcerated, after they have served time and are now looking for a way to become, one might say, normal again. On February 7, I introduced what is now called the Public Safety Ex- offender Self-sufficiency Act of 2002. The Public Safety Ex-offender Self-sufficiency Act amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reflect an ex-offender low-income housing credit to encourage the provision of housing, job training, and other essential services to ex- offenders through a structured living environment designed to assist the ex-offenders in becoming self-sufficient. The United States Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice, said in November of 2000 that in the United States, and I quote them, ``There are virtually no systematic, comprehensive approaches to dealing with reintegrating ex-offenders.'' This is a comprehensive legislative initiative that will address recidivism, cost of crime to victims, and public safety. Let us see if we can make the case. The problem of successfully reintegrating ex-offenders back into normal life is one of the major issues facing low-income and minority communities throughout the Nation. It is a serious public safety issue that requires serious public attention. While 5 percent of the world's population lives in the United States, 25 percent of the world's prison population are in United States' jails and prisons. Nationally, the United States Department of Justice reports that there are now over 2 million people in State and Federal prisons, more than a threefold increase since 1980. This year, more than 600,000 people will leave prison and return to neighborhoods across the country. The problem of ex-offenders impacts all levels of our society. In 1998, there were 225,700 veterans held in the Nation's prisons and jails, 56,500 Vietnam War era veterans, and 18,500 Persian Gulf War era veterans. The Justice Department reports that 20 percent of those veterans in prison or jail reported seeing combat duty during their military service. As of November 2000, 45,617 adults were incarcerated in Illinois prisons. During that same period, 29,120 were on parole. We have even looked at a study prepared by Claritas and commissioned by the Stein Family Foundation that 70 percent of men between the ages of 18 and 45 in one particular Chicago community are ex-offenders. In America, the poor and people of color are more likely to be incarcerated. Fifty- three percent of people warehoused in our Nation's prisons earned less than $10,000 a year prior to incarceration. Although the minority population is approximately 13 percent, 66 percent of the Nation's prison population are people of color. Nearly 4.6 million adult men and women were on probation or parole at the end of 2000, an increase of almost 70,700 during that year. While 52 percent of those on probation have been convicted of committing a felony, 46 percent were convicted of misdemeanors. Of the offenders on parole, 97 percent had been sentenced to incarceration of more than 1 year. According to the Soros Institute, 72 percent of those entering State prison for the first time were nonviolent offenders. Studies indicate that the median education level of released prisoners is 11th grade. In addition, three-fourths of those reentering prison have a history of substance abuse. Not surprisingly, 16 percent suffer from mental illness. According to the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice statistics, at the end of 2000 State prisons were operating between full capacity and 15 percent above capacity, while Federal prisons were operating at 31 percent above capacity. As our Nation's prison population explodes and prison operating costs skyrocket, little is done to prepare these adults for reentry. In fact, the National Institute of Justice reports that 14 States have abolished discretionary parole and the parole boards that historically managed prisoner reentry. There is a shortage of vocational, educational and substance abuse programs in prison. In fact, like States all over the country, Illinois recently cut the post-GED programs. According to the sentencing project, more than 100,000 prisoners are being released each year without any form of community correctional supervision. The recidivism rate remains high, and studies show that a direct correlation between homelessness and recidivism exists. The Chicago Continuum of Care reported that 6.5 percent of respondents noted that release from jail was a contributing factor for homelessness. In addition, 7.1 percent responded that release from incarceration was the primary factor for homelessness. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 62 percent of those released from State prisons will be rearrested within 3 years, and 40 percent will be reincarcerated, including many for technical violation of parole. In 1997, the Illinois recidivism rate for African Americans exceeded the national norm: blacks, 48.2 percent; whites, 35.7 percent; Hispanics, 30.9 percent; and others, 28 percent. A staggering 36.4 percent returned due to a new sentence. Ex-offenders that are truly interested in reintegrating back into community life, interested in finding employment and taking care of themselves and their families, locating housing, going to school, oftentimes have no place to go. There are very few second chances. What happens to a man or woman who cannot find an employer willing to give them a second chance, refused TANF benefits, cannot receive subsidized housing, educational or medical assistance? We have seen over and over again that they return to prison. We hope to convince the Nation that by supporting these initiatives we begin the process of, one, saving ourselves; two, protecting our persons and property; three, reducing the human and capital costs of recidivism; and, four, we begin to seriously impact in a positive way the quality of life for everyone. Neighborhoods across the Nation are absorbing the economic and social cost of reintegrating hundreds of thousands of ex-offenders back into society each year. In 1991, the Bureau of Justice reported that the cost of the justice system per resident was $299. In 1996, the Department of Justice reported that the cost of crime to victims rises to approximately $450 billion a year, or $1,800 per man, woman, and child. That is to say if we could find a way to seriously reduce crime, reduce recidivism, provide opportunities for these individuals to become self-sufficient, to learn a trade, develop a skill, go to school, get a job, then not only are we providing for them, but we are in reality helping all of America. According to a poll commissioned by the ACLU, people across the Nation are not satisfied with the current prison system. In addition, the poll released in July 2001 found that six in 10 Americans believe that it is possible to rehabilitate a nonviolent offender. Other key findings of the ACLU poll support alternative punishments for many nonviolent offenses. In addition, 69 percent of respondents believe that prisons should be required to teach skills. That is, individuals ought to be able to develop to the extent that when they leave a correctional facility they are in better shape than they were when they first went in. As these men and women transition from incarceration to freedom, what they need most are comprehensive reentry solutions. What they find instead are often cold stares, unreturned phone calls, and closed doors. The jobs are like an old man's teeth, few and far apart. Housing is scarce, and other social services are in most cases nonexistent for the serious and earnest men and women desirous of working to clean up their act and transition into productive citizens. Mr. Speaker, with the implementation of this bill nationally, the recidivism rate just might decrease. Prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation are just as important as incarceration. These men, women, and children always must live in some communities. Increased public safety is a primary concern of communities and neighborhoods all over the country. In the Seventh Congressional District of Illinois, Ex-offenders Task Force representing a broad group, including representatives from national and local civil rights organizations, community-based organizations, ex-offenders, academicians, law enforcement officials, elected officials, community activists, faith- based organizations, block club residents, businesses and community residents, are all in serious collaboration to try and find direction and, hopefully, solutions. The Public Safety Ex-Offender Self-Sufficiency Act addresses several serious needs and barriers this population must overcome in order to successfully reintegrate. Through the efforts of the task force, we confirmed that housing still remains a key barrier. In fact, secure and safe and affordable housing is a stabilizing force for the formerly incarcerated. From Los Angeles to New York and in Chicago, ex-offenders are deterred from a fresh start, a second chance. These men and women face countless legal barriers. In Chicago, for example, ex-offenders are prohibited from living in public housing and from working in many public agencies. In Illinois, ex-offenders are prohibited from working in 57 occupational categories without some form of waiver. Nationally, ex-offenders that are convicted of drug offenses after 1996 are unable to receive Pell Grants. According to a 1998 NACRO study, 13 percent of prisoners were homeless before their sentence, and 34 percent had lost homes because of prison. As a result, half the sample were therefore at risk of being homeless on release. The study also notes that prisoners that are released homeless are much more likely to offend or to reoffend. In addition, a housing research study, ``The Housing Needs of Ex- Prisoners,'' identified three factors to determine whether ex-offenders succeeded in retaining their homes: one, the quality of family relationships; two, the availability of housing entitlements; three, current financial status. The study also noted that ex-offenders face other problems in rehousing which includes access to independent mainstream accommodations, arranging housing accommodations other than in hotels prior to release, and very few ex-prisoners agree to live in hotels or homeless shelters because of concern about recidivism. But the issues are much broader than housing alone: Federal Pell Grants, expungement, jobs, health care. Through our legislative initiative, we are looking at reintegrating ex-offenders from a holistic perspective, trying to address factors while acknowledging that affordable and available housing is an overarching need. This legislation will help to meet that need. But the other thing about this legislation is that it is cost effective. It is not designed to just ask the government or somebody to provide grants. It really uses the low-income housing tax credit system that we are all familiar with where States receive credits based upon population. In this instance we simply take the number of ex-offenders who are released to a particular State, and then provide credits to that State based upon its number of ex-offenders. Private developers will be encouraged to develop the housing that is needed which they must hold for 15 years. After 10 years, they will have recouped the money that they have invested so it makes good business sense, good business sense for the private developers who will develop the housing that is needed; good business sense for the communities who will have help in aiding their ex-offenders; and good business sense because it will help a category of individuals to become self-sufficient, contributing members of society who then will be in a position to give rather than to take, will be in a position to become substantial helpers, to make America become what America has the potential of being. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, I urge business and industry, I urge social workers and social scientists all to get behind this legislation because I believe that it could provide hope for the hopeless and help for the helpless. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, let me suggest this, that ownership determines who the commentators are; and so in a sense you cannot discount the impact of ownership on what ultimately becomes the direction and content. I find that people listen to those stations more often that they relate to. And so if they relate to the right-wing station, that is where they are going to go. And so if the owner hires a right-wing commentator, then I would have to agree with the gentleman from Vermont, that ownership does play a role in what ultimately gets on.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman, and, reclaiming my time, I would have to agree. I would even go beyond just the media. I mean, one of the reasons, for example, that I am so much in favor of employees reaching the point where they exercise more ownership of where they are and where they work is because the more you spread the ownership, the more you open up the process; and the more open the process, the greater the potential for this commodity that we call democracy. I think that is what we are constantly striving for, a more democratic Nation, where more people are engaged and are part of the decision-making. I want to thank the gentleman for coming down.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I think both gentlemen would, in fact, have to agree that in our country and in a democracy like ours, we live often by the golden rule; but we also have to acknowledge that whoever has got the most gold, most often makes the rules. And I am afraid that too much of the gold is becoming concentrated in too few places, which really means that corporate ownership is becoming too powerful; and when it does, then it makes for a skewed democracy or a more one-sided decision-making process, and it needs to be balanced off a little bit, which really means that more people need to become part of the ownership of America, rather than too few people owning too much. If that is the thesis that the gentleman from Vermont is promoting, then I would agree with him, and yield for further amplification.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I have been intrigued with some of the discussion that has taken place relative to Social Security and what we need to do with it. And I count myself as one of those who believe that our Social Security system, which was actually developed and generated by Democrats, a Democratic President, of course, undergirded much of it; and, of course, Democrats want to preserve and protect it. I am one of those who believe that at all costs we must, in fact, protect and preserve our Social Security system as we have known it. But that is not what I really came to talk about this evening. As a matter of fact, I have two things that I am going to discuss. Women's History Month

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) to explain the concurrent resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, when I think of this bill, which was introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), I think of the words of Langston Hughes, the African-American poet, who stated: ``O, let America be America again. The land that never has been yet And yet must be. The land where every man is free. The land that's mine-- The poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, me-- Who made America, Whose sweat and blood, Whose faith and pain, Whose hand at the foundry, Whose plow in the rain, Must bring back our mighty dream again.'' That is from ``Let America be America Again.'' Those eloquent words of celebrated African American poet and writer Langston Hughes resound today as we celebrate Black History Month and as we discuss this resolution recognizing the significance of Black History Month. On February 1, 2002, Mr. Hughes joined the other 24 prominent African Americans distinguished by having a stamp issued in their honor as part of the U.S. Postal Service's Black Heritage Stamp service. There was certainly a time in our not-too-distant past when this would have been unthinkable, issuing stamps depicting prominent African Americans. Indeed, this was the case in February 1926 when renowned African American educator Carter G. Woodson, founder of the Association for the Study of African American History and Life, designated a week in February coinciding with the birthdays of two great Americans, Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, as Negro History Week. Mr. Woodson hoped that the contributions of African Americans would be studied as integral to our shared American history. Fifty years later, in 1976, the observance was expanded to embrace the entire month of February, and here we are today commemorating yet another Black History Month. In 1926, the landscape in this country for African Americans was demonstrably different than it is today. At that time, ``separate but equal,'' a doctrine that afforded Black Americans second-class citizenship, was the law of the land, although an immoral one. Through the heroic efforts of many Americans of all races, legalized discrimination became a thing of the past. This body passed landmark legislation, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, the story of racial discrimination did not end in 1965. Here we are in 2002, and the theme for this year's observance of Black History Month is most appropriately timed: ``The color line revisited: Is racism dead?'' The answer obviously is a resounding ``no.'' One only needs to read the newspapers from around the country every day to see that racism is not dead. New York Times, January 15: ``New Jersey troopers avoid jail in case that highlighted profiling.'' Chicago Tribune, January 21: ``Racial profiling is bad policing.'' Detroit Free Press, January 11: ``Black Arab-American leaders assail racial profiling.'' Denver Post, November 28, 2001: ``Hispanics, Blacks, get searched more.'' Dallas Morning News, January 2, 2002: ``Racial profiling ban takes effect.'' I could go on and on and on; but African Americans, despite our robust laws, face a daily dosage of humiliation as the result of racism. Thousands of African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities have been the victims of racial, ethnic or national origin profiling; targeted, identified, stopped, questioned and searched by law enforcement officials under the guise of committing a crime, when in reality their only crime was the color of their skin or their country of origin. Young black men are particularly prone to DWB, driving while black. Since September 11, law-abiding Arab-American citizens have been targeted for profiling by law enforcement officials. Racial profiling violates the equal protection provisions of our great Constitution. Not only is it un-American, it is also bad law enforcement. Salim Muwakkil, in the Chicago Tribune, wrote about University of Toledo law professor David A. Harris' new book, ``Profiles in Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work.'' Harris' book, for the first time, compared all of the available data on racial profiling with relevant crime statistics and makes clear that the ``hit rate,'' the rate at which police actually find contraband on people they stop in racial profiling, is actually lower for blacks than for whites. The hit rate for Latinos is much lower than for either. In 2001, a Department of Justice report came to the same conclusion. Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights said, ``Most Americans think that the most blatant forms of discrimination and segregation have ended, that we are dealing now with a much more complex, often more subtle form of discrimination. Yet incidents like the ones we are discussing now seem to belie the point. They seem to suggest that even the more blatant forms of discrimination, though not as institutionalized as they once were, are still occurring, and I think stand in mockery of the perception that America has become a color-blind nation.'' Since June of last year, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001 has been pending in our esteemed institution. This 107th Congress could put an end to racial profiling by passing this act and sending it to the President for signature. Then we would really be celebrating Black History Month 2002. So I end, Mr. Speaker, as I began. ``O, let America be America again; the land that never has been yet and must be; the land where every man is free.'' I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and amazing contributions of United States postal workers who since September 11, since the anthrax scare has continued to do yeoman work in delivering the mail without any sense of stoppage. I just think that these men and women are continuously owed a debt of gratitude, and we say thanks to the American postal workers.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as we continue to celebrate the achievements and milestones that comprise black history. Indeed, my remarks proclaim how far we have come and chronicle the lives of historical individuals of preceding generations. There are trailblazers today as well, and I appreciate the opportunity to pay tribute to my friend, Professor Haki Madhubuti. In August 2001, Professor Madhubuti was appointed Distinguished Professor by Chicago State University, the first African American male to obtain this distinction in Chicago State University's 135-year history. Born Donald Luther Lee in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1951, Haki Madhubuti is an influential poet, essayist, activist, and editor. As a child, he moved to Chicago and later attended the University of Illinois, Roosevelt University, and earned his Masters of Fine Arts from the University of Iowa. According to Professor Madhubuti, ``Ideas are important. The writing of ideas, the publishing of ideas, and the purveying of ideas. So at 17 years old, I got into the idea business: thinking them, writing them, and later on at publishing them.'' Consequently, he is the author of more than 20 books, including ``Heart Love: Wedding & Love Poems''; ``Groundwork and Selected Poems of Haki R. Madhubuti Don L. Lee''; ``Killing Memory, Seeking Ancestors; Earthquakes and Sunrise Missions: Poetry and Essays of Black Renewal''; ``Book of Life''; and ``Directionscore: Selected and New Poems.'' These ideas shaped black literature and history and have helped to make Professor Madhubuti an important part of our intellectual landscape. He has developed his own new concept private school which he and his wife have made a citadel of learning opportunities. Professor Haki Madhubuti has indeed distinguished himself as an important intellectual, writer, lecturer, poet and, yet, has a spirit of humility as he walks among kings and queens and yet has not lost the common touch. A man of distinction, I am pleased to recognize his contribution.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have listened to much of the discussion this evening, and I have decided that I am going to talk about something that I do not think we talk about nearly enough, and I am sure that we do not do nearly enough about it, and that is the whole issue of poverty and what it does to millions of people in our Nation and what it does to millions of people throughout the world. Madam Speaker, the stubborn persistence of poverty in America is one of the most inexplicable features of our national life. America, that is our country, in the 21st century is the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world. We have the resources to provide for all of our citizens, and certainly we have the resources to end hunger, homelessness, and to offer quality health care and education to all of our people. Yet, in our great national paradox, we have not chosen to do so. The gap between the few ultra-wealthy and the overwhelming majority of working people, that gap, which was once quite small, has grown and is now wider than at any time since the Great Depression. It has, in the judgment of many, become so large that it undermines our sense of a Nation of equals. Poverty and income inequality present a real challenge to our notion of America as a Nation that promotes equality and that is seriously moving in that direction. In 1997, the top 1 percent of the U.S. population, that is, 2.6 million people, had as much after-tax income as the 100 million Americans with the lowest income. At the same time, household debt reached historic highs. The total value of all forms of outstanding household debt was greater than the total disposable income of all households. The wealthiest 1 percent reduced their share of the debt by 27 percent, while the middle 20 percent of households increased their share of the debt by 38.8 percent. There was no progress in reducing poverty between 1995 and 1999 despite an increasing economy. More than 1.4 million Americans are classified as food insecure, including the cruelest feature of poverty, the concentration of children among the poor. Madam Speaker, 45 percent of children in poor families are considered food insecure. Reductions in poverty as a result of economic growth were entirely offset by increased poverty due to cuts in government safety net programs. The poor in the United States are less likely than the poor in other countries to leave poverty. On average, 28.6 percent of the United States poor are able to escape their economic situation, while in Sweden the rate is 36 percent. In Germany, the rate is 37 percent; in Canada, the rate is 42 percent; and in the Netherlands the rate is 44 percent. Counting the poor has become a cynical art. Measures of poverty have come and gone, many of them arbitrary from their inception. The current poverty level has never been permitted to adjust to cost of living increases and other impacts. The debate over defining poverty and who is poor has been used to limit the ability of public policy to address poverty in a meaningful way. As William Greider has pointed out, ``The effect of the poverty line is to obscure the existence of a vast pool of struggling families who are above the poverty line, who are not officially poor, and to exclude them from the political equation.'' Further quoting, ``Helping the poor is considered virtuous even among conservatives. Helping the nonpoor is considered wasteful or even fraudulent. The problem of poverty is presumed to reside in the poor people themselves, not in the structure of wages available in the private economy.'' According to a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute, 29 percent of working families in the United States with one to three children under age 12 do not earn enough to afford basic necessities such as food, housing, health care, and child care, even during a period of national prosperity. Nearly one-third of families with incomes below twice the poverty threshold faced at least one critical hardship, like going without food, getting evicted, having to double up in housing with another family or not having access to medical care during an acute illness. The report calculated a basic budget level for each State, the budget a family would need to afford food, housing, child care, health insurance, transportation, and utilities. Even for families that include a full-time worker, nearly one-quarter of the families below twice the poverty line face these problems. Of families with incomes below the basic income line, half include a parent who worked full time, and nearly 60 percent are two-parent families. More than 75 percent are headed by a worker with a high school degree or more. About one-third live in the suburbs, one-third in the cities, and one-third in rural areas. Just over half of all families living below the basic budget level are white families. However, about half of all black and Hispanic families fall below the basic budget levels. No one argues for income equality in the sense we demand equality in polling places. Nevertheless, there is, somewhere, a line where economic inequality becomes incompatible with democracy. The marketplace makes no allowance for democracy, and there is no greater challenge to our democracy than economic injustice and poverty in the first place. So out of concern for basic economic justice, out of the fundamental need for capitalism to balance production and consumption and a profound need to preserve our sense of Nation, we face no more critical task than shaping a national economic policy which addresses the issue of poverty. The question of poverty and economic income inequality has moved center stage as, for the first time in a decade, America is mired in recession. And of course we know that when we talk recession overall we are talking serious depression for those at the lowest levels of our economic stratum. More than 8 million Americans are now out of work. More than 1 million workers have lost their jobs since September 11. Our economy has been shedding 100,000 jobs a week. Two million workers will likely lose their unemployment insurance benefits in the first 6 months of this year. Ninety-four percent of those who lose benefits will not receive additional assistance. It is extremely unfortunate that the President's budget slashes job training in 336 cities from $225 million to $45 million. We have now experienced more than 13 consecutive months of industrial decline, the longest such period since the Great Depression. American consumers, which have accounted for two-thirds of our economic engine in recent years, have been staggered by the current crisis, and both the November and December retail sales have been characterized as dismal. As usual, the most vulnerable are the hardest hit. Unemployment of African Americans and Hispanics have increased at least 50 percent faster than the national average. For African American teens, the increase is 400 percent faster. While the number of African Americans in poverty began to decrease in the last years of the period of economic expansion in the 1990s and the wage gap decreased during those recent years, the income gap has remained substantial. The persistent racial inequalities and inequities are underlined by a recent study by Edward N. Wolff. Wolff points to the persistence of these inequalities and notes that even if we could immediately eliminate the racial income gap, it could take another two generations for the wealth gap to close. Unemployment rates for women who are heads of household have soared. 200,000 single moms are scheduled to be dropped from Federal assistance in 2003. Also soaring is the homeless rates. According to the Coalition for the Homeless, a record number of people, more than 29,000, were spending nights in shelters in New York during November, up from 8,000 in October. Meanwhile, the so-called safety net, gutted by welfare reform, has begun to reveal fearsome gaps. Even before the downturn began, more than 100,000 families lost their income support because of time limits. In the first 3 years of TANF, 540,000 families had benefits terminated for not complying with program rules. State reserves for income support programs are drying up rapidly. Illinois and Michigan are among states most at risk. Food stamps have traditionally been one of the basic protections of the safety net. However, over the past few years participation rates have fallen sharply because of barriers to access. One of the other basic fixtures of the safety net has been unemployment insurance. Benefit levels now replace only 33 percent of the coverage that average workers lost, down from 36 percent in 1990. The percentage of unemployed workers who actually get unemployment benefits has also declined over the past 40 years, peaking at 49 percent in 1975 and declining to a mere 37 percent in 2001. We know that recessions are particularly cruel to State budgets. Those who have been following events in Illinois know that Medicaid is high on the endangered list. We need an economic stimulus to jump-start our economy, and we need it immediately. While some talk about tax cuts which will primarily benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, and do nothing for the bottom 75 percent, let me suggest that any serious economic stimulus package must consider and be focused on the needs of the poor and the most vulnerable among us. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget calls for cutting job training and employment funding by almost $700 million while unemployment is increasing. The President's budget calls for reducing community development support by 28 percent while poor communities and programs for child care and social services are in crisis. The President's budget proposes to cut home energy assistance by $300 million compared to fiscal year 2002. The President's budget cuts funding for JAIBG, which helps States improve facilities and services to incarcerated youth by 13.8 percent. The President's budget makes the first of 10 annual $780 million cuts to our teaching hospitals; and, to add insult to injury, then adds a 30 percent cut to a program which funds medical training at hospitals that specialize in the care of children. The President's budget request reduces his own plan for prescription drug benefits from the $48 billion he proposed last year to $13.2 billion this year. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health would take a $29 million hit, while the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will take a $9 million hit. Public housing will face a $382 million cut along with the $417 million cut for public housing repairs and $268 million from the Community Development Block Grants. Now is the time for some hard thinking about priorities and about cutting waste in government. Here is what Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, United States Navy, retired, former commander of the United States Second Fleet and head of the Military Advisory Committee of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities wrote about the President's budget on February 13. He said: ``The decision to ask Congress to increase the Pentagon budget by $48 billion or more may sound reasonable in light of America's ongoing war on terrorism, but the reality is that the Pentagon budget should actually be trimmed by 15 percent.'' Further quoting: ``To be sure, our military will require new tools to fight modern adversaries. The Pentagon needs more unmanned aircraft, better communications and reconnaissance technology, as well as more mobile weaponry. ``We need to spend more money on military personnel and ideas, as we create a force that is capable of a seamless transition from humanitarian activities to peacekeeping to actual combat and back again. This places a premium on the individual soldier who gets the job done with minimum loss of life on both sides, with minimum property damage and in the shortest possible time. ``But these new military expenditures can easily be paid for with money saved from eliminating outdated weapons from the Pentagon budget, wasteful expenditures that President Bush himself pledged to cut. ``None of the weapons that the administration reportedly wanted to eliminate prior to September 11, like the F-22 fighter jet, the Crusader artillery system, and the Comanche helicopter, would have been of any significant benefit to our troops in Afghanistan. Likewise, they will not be needed by our military personnel in any foreseeable conflict with our most likely adversaries. ``But the money that could be saved by cutting these Cold War weapons could definitely be put to good use. The administration is correct that America needs to spend more on shoring up national security. But rather than add to the Pentagon budget, President Bush should trim it of Cold War fat and apply the savings to our more expansive and pressing security needs.'' Madam Speaker, we must provide protection for those at greatest risk of economic hardship: low wage, entry level and part-time workers, women, minorities, the underprivileged, small businesses, marginal communities and those who have lost their jobs. Specifically, what does this mean? I believe it means raising the minimum wage to a livable wage. Obviously, there is never enough time to really talk totally about the minimum wage or the living wage movement. But suffice it to say that the living-wage movement has become one of the most potent and effective tools for attacking poverty. Chicago and Cook County are just two of the more than 70 local units of government which have passed living-wage ordinances. We now have extensive research which shows that when the lowest-paid workers receive additional income, they spend those dollars to meet their family's needs. This provides a boost to the local economy which more than offsets the increased salary costs. Further research demonstrates that businesses do not flee these communities because of modest increases in wage costs, but are actually attracted to communities with healthy economies. Extending unemployment and medical benefits both with regards to time and eligibility has become a central feature of the current legislative initiative in the Congress and offers one of the fastest and most efficient means of stimulating the economy. Providing direct loans and grants to small businesses affected by the September 11 terrorist attacks has become a hot topic of discussion, especially since the Congress passed the airline bailout. I believe that it makes a lot of sense to look towards assisting small businesses which today generate the majority of jobs in our Nation. Reauthorizing a TANF program, which not only takes people off welfare, but takes people out of poverty, is one of the largest issues facing us this year. The unfortunate fact is that welfare reform has been successful. Unfortunately, the problem is that it was never intended to meet the needs of the poor, but to shed public responsibility for addressing poverty. Welfare rolls have declined, but many of those who have left TANF are in worse economic condition than they were before they left. The U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that emergency shelter requests in 27 cities have increased 13 percent over the last year, but the President's budget cuts public housing repairs $417 million. That is 14.7 percent. Real welfare reform must address, at a minimum, improving the safety net for children while helping parents meet work-related goals; empowering families to find resources and tools and make decisions needed to meet their needs and goals as a family; ensuring families with multiple barriers to employment and economic independence receive necessary services, including mental health and substance abuse treatment; revising the time limits on eligibility, as was emphasized by the just-completed National Governors Conference; redefining the goal of reform to reduce poverty, especially child poverty, not just caseloads. We will never eliminate poverty until we recognize the need for a federally funded daycare program for children of all ages. Forty-nine States have child care costs greater than tuition to public colleges; yet quality day care is not only a critical prerequisite for parental employment, it is critical for healthy child development. Finally, and critical for our growth as a Nation, is a system of national health care, including prescription drug coverage and the treatment of mental illness on par with all other illness. America is abuzz these days with response to the new Denzel Washington movie ``John Q'' and how it relates to people's own experiences with paying for health care in America. No nation in the world has the health care resources, the technology, the trained health care professionals of America. But our health care delivery system is broken and our priorities, especially our lack of focus on prevention, are sadly misplaced. I hope that the result of the November election in Portland, Maine, will be a bellwether of things to come in health care. Portland voters passed a referendum on universal health care, despite the fact that opponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars more than congressional candidates usually spend in Maine trying to defeat the measure. A single-payer, universal health care system would be more efficient, would cost less as a result of eliminating mountains of paperwork, would offer more choice and would provide coverage to every one of our people. Integral to my dream, my vision for America, is an America where poverty and all of the social, moral, mental and physical ills associated with poverty are eradicated forever. Of course, a part of that poverty syndrome is the fact that our prisons are filled to the hilt with individuals, 2 million of them. While we are only 5 percent of the world's population, we have 25 percent of the world's prison population. The Justice Department has predicted that 630,000 of these individuals are going to be released from prison this year. About 30,000 of them will be in my State, the State of Illinois. Unfortunately, we have not prepared for them as they come back to neighborhoods and communities. So a good part of our attack on poverty has to be a serious look at our correctional system and a serious look at what it takes to reform, to rehabilitate and to prepare people for reentry into normal society once they are released from correctional facilities and institutions. I introduced the week before last a bill, the Public Safety Ex- Offender Self-Sufficiency Act, that is designed to provide structured living arrangements for ex-offenders as they return home, an arrangement that is not designed to cost taxpayers a great deal of money. We use a creative approach to financing by creating a model like the low-income-housing tax credit program, where instead of credits on the basis of population, that we provide credits on the basis of the number of ex-offenders in a State. Private developers are encouraged to develop housing. This bill calls for the development of 100,000 units over the next 5 years, the idea being that corporations who do this will get the benefit of their resource back within a 10-year period. They must hold the facilities at least for 15 years. Individuals will then have a place to live, a place to go, where they can also receive education, job training, skill development, counseling for whatever their social or physical-medical problems may be, as well as health care and assistance with job placement. I believe, Madam Speaker, that if America is to become the Nation that it has the potential of being, then we must seriously address the problems, needs, hopes, and aspirations of all our citizens, and even those who are mired down at the bottom. I believe in the theory and the concept that a rising tide should lift all boats; and I am confident that as we lift and improve the lives of those at the bottom, as we help the American dream become more of a reality for all of our citizens, then America becomes that Nation that Langston Hughes talked about when he suggested that we ought to let America be America again, the land that it has never been, but yet must be. In all of our greatness, we have not realized the fulfillment of our potential. It is my hope that as we deal with the issues of poverty and the issues of those who are the most needy among us, we will lift America to heights that it has never seen.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I want to thank first of all the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concern, sorrow and sympathy for the victims of the volcanic eruption in Goma, Congo, on January 17, 2002. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), an original cosponsor, for their support and efforts in getting this resolution to the floor. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), also an original cosponsor, for their constant support and assistance on this resolution and other issues concerning the people of Africa. In the early hours of January 17, 2002, the massive volcano Nyirangongo exploded, creating three deadly lava paths, each estimated to be approximately a mile wide, which instantly destroyed homes, buildings and innocent life that crossed its path. After the volcanic eruption ended, the dangers did not cease for the people of Goma. Earthquakes followed by tremors and heavy rains extended the misery. Almost a week later, hope began to emerge in the Goma region. The experts announced that the eruption had stopped. The water supply that was feared to be contaminated by volcanic ash was declared safe, although the water distribution system was only up to 50 percent of its capacity. The aid workers, who were forced to wait due to the recurring dangers, were finally able to begin the process of delivering food and supplies to the distraught. I agree with President Bush that the United States should and will help the victims of Goma to rebuild their town and their lives. I am very pleased that the United States has allocated up to $3 million for relief efforts to date, which will become more than $4 million in total aid, for the homes and lives that were taken within seconds will take years to rebuild. America, Madam Speaker, is at her best when we come to the aid of others in great need. So again I want to thank all of those who have shown support for this resolution. I also commend and thank Mr. Franz Stuppard, a Congressional Fellow on my staff, and Jennifer Luciano for their work on this resolution. This happens to be Franz's last week of his fellowship, and I want to thank him for his service as he returns to the General Services Administration, which is his regular workstation. I wish that we could keep him, because he has done such an outstanding job, but I know that GSA is awaiting his return. I again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for their support, and I urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today is Valentine's Day--a day when we celebrate matters of the heart. It is, therefore, quite appropriate that we recognize February as American Heart Month. Over 61 million Americans--1 in 5 adults--have one or more types of cardiovascular disease (CVD). CVD is a leading cause of long-term disability. Since 1990, CVD has been the number one killer in the United States every year but one. Every 33 seconds an American dies of cardiovascular disease. Forty percent of all deaths in the United States and in my home state of Illinois are due to CVD. Although we used to think of CVD as a man's disease, it is now the leading cause of death for American women--and in 1999, more women than men died of CVD--over one half million deaths. This is a terrible health crisis that demands immediate attention. According to American Heart Association President Dr. David Faxon, ``For each minute that passes without defibrillation and CPR, the chance of survival for a cardiac arrest victim decreases by 7 to 10 percent. In order to battle this disease, more Americans have to arm themselves with the knowledge that is crucial to saving lives.'' Let's mount a public awareness campaign so that Americans can reduce their individual CVD risk factors, and recognize and respond promptly to cardiac emergencies. If we can do this, we can really have a Happy Valentine's Day.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituent, Mr. Wallace E. Goode, Jr., who will be awarded the Franklin H. Williams Award by the U.S. Peace Corps this month. Most Americans visualize the Peace Corps as groups of student volunteers working in the ``developing world.'' A far away world dogged by poverty and disadvantagement, a place we only visit through somber images of undernourished children and devastated villages on television. However, the developing world is not necessarily that remote. In fact, it may reside within our own borders. Wallace Goode fully understands this, as Executive Director of the Chicago Empowerment Zone and an individual with a solid record of serving and helping in areas that need it most. Mr. Goode has a crucial role in the revitalization effort, as he manages the push for community self-sustainability for distressed neighborhoods in Chicago. The Peace Corps mission pinpoints ``to help; to learn; to teach'' as core duties. Mr. Goode learned as a student at Elmhurst College in Elmhurst, IL, a grad student at the University of Vermont and as a doctoral candidate at Loyola University while studying Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. Early in his career of helping and giving, Mr. Goode served as Director of Rural Development in Central Africa, Community Development Field Officer in the Solomon Islands and Trainer for the U.S. Peace Corps. Furthermore, he helped to teach others as a Dean at Allegheny College in Meadville, PA, Assistant Dean of Students at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, IL, and a Manager at International Orientation Resources (IOR) teaching fellow managers and executives how to approach business with other cultures and cross-cultural conflict resolution. Today, he continues to advance the Peace Corps legacy of civic service by addressing Chicago's Empowerment Zone revitalization initiatives, of economic empowerment, affordable housing, public safety, cultural diversity, Health and Human Services, and Youth futures. Each year, the Franklin H. Williams Award honors the outstanding leadership contributions that Peace Corps volunteers of color have made in the area of community service. And I can't think of a better, or more deserving recipient, and that is most likely how the Chicago Area Peace Corps Association felt when they nominated him. Mr. Speaker, seldom do we get to sing the praises of individuals whose hard work and positive deeds improve the world. Thanks to the Peace Corps, Mr. Wallace Goode's inspiring example will not be unsung.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Florida in consideration of this resolution, H.R. 1748, legislation naming a post office after former Representative Thomas Bliley. H.R. 1748, introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) on May 8, 2001, has met the committee requirements and is supported and cosponsored by the entire Virginia delegation. Former Representative Bliley, who represented the 7th Congressional District in Virginia, served with great distinction and honor in the Congress from 1980 to 2000. Former Representative Bliley began his political career in Richmond in 1968, first serving on the Richmond City Council, then vice-mayor, and later as mayor. A Democrat in State politics, Thomas Bliley switched to the GOP when he ran for Congress. Prior to leaving Congress, Representative Bliley served as the chairman of the House Committee on Commerce, whose agenda tackled such issues as telecommunications, energy, and environmental matters. Madam Speaker, he was truly an outstanding member of this body. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.