Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to just clear up some things. The IAEA's separate arrangements with Iran are not part of the agreement within the definition of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. The separate arrangements were negotiated between the IAEA and Iran to resolve outstanding issues. The arrangements between Iran and the IAEA are considered safeguard confidentials, meaning that the IAEA does not share the information with member states. The U.S. also has safeguard confidentials, arrangements with the IAEA, and we would not want any member state to be able to request access to information about our nuclear infrastructure. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, IAEA Director General Amano has declared that the arrangements between the IAEA and Iran are technically sound and consistent with the Agency's long-established practice. They do not compromise the IAEA safeguard standards in any way. Let's be clear. There is no self-inspection of Iranian facilities, and the IAEA has in no way given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran, not now and certainly not in the future. That is not how the IAEA does business. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that this agreement isn't based on trust. It is based on the most intrusive verification regimen in history. The international inspectors will have 24/7 access to surveillance of enrichment facilities and reactors and regular nonrestricted access to all other declared sites. Beyond declared facilities, the inspection provisions give the international inspectors the access they need, when they need it, to carry out the most intrusive inspection system ever peacefully negotiated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A few speakers ago, there was a statement made about folks loving America. Well, guess what. We all love America. The fact that we may have disagreements with regard to this proposal does not take away from our love of this great country. We may differ, but the fact still remains that we love our country. And I just want to make that clear, because it is sickening to hear those kinds of comments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. May I inquire as to how much time we have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that this agreement is not based on trust; it is based on the most intrusive verification regimen in history. There has been a lot of talk about $100 billion--others have floated other figures--in sanctions relief, but we know that it is more like around $50 billion, and it is conjecture as to how Iran will spend this money. Our terrorism sanctions will remain firmly in place to combat the money that Iran passes to any terrorist groups. This is a good deal, not because the President says so, not because I say so, not because anyone else in this Chamber says so. It is a good deal because the experts say so. Nuclear physicists, disarmament experts, antinuclear proliferation experts, members of the intelligence community--including the former head of Mossad--and our allies all agree that the right thing to do to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is to support this deal.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. With regard to what the gentleman just stated, I would refer him to Senator Bob Corker, who drafted the process that gave Congress the right to review the agreement. In talking about this situation that we are addressing today, he says that the motion is not worth considering. Apparently, he feels satisfied that the arrangement with regard to the IAEA has been satisfied. Let's also focus with the matter at hand, and the matter at hand is preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, instead of working on pointless partisan measures like this one and others we will be considering tomorrow. This entire piece of legislation that we have been debating is about accusations that the President did not comply with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Even, as I said a moment ago, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee does not believe that. Let's get back to the business of the people and stop wasting their money and wasting their time. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, we urge the House to vote in favor of this very important legislation. It is bipartisan and does address issues that are of concern to all of us. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the author of the Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act, I would like to thank Chairman Chaffetz and his staff for working with me in drafting this bipartisan legislation. I also appreciate the chairman's support for this bill during the committee's consideration this past March. I thank Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for cosponsoring the bill. As a former Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, her expertise in employment law is unparalleled in Congress. I also appreciate the support of Representatives James Sensenbrenner and Sheila Jackson Lee, who cosponsored the bill. I especially want to thank Tanya Ward Jordan, Paulette Taylor, and all the members of the Coalition 4 Change, also known as C4C, for their invaluable assistance on this legislation. I am also grateful that this bill has strong support of the Make It Safe Coalition. Both C4C and the Make It Safe Coalition are dedicated to ending discrimination and retaliation against whistleblowers in the Federal workplace, and I applaud their leadership and their hard work. The Federal EEO programs are critical to ensuring that Federal workplaces are free from discrimination and that any barriers impeding fairness in personnel decisions are identified and eliminated. These programs exist to ensure that our Federal workplaces uphold the guarantee of equal opportunity. That is the right of every citizen in this great country. If discrimination occurs, these programs must be able to investigate and adjudicate employee complaints impartially and in a timely manner. In fiscal year 2012, Federal employees and job applicants filed nearly 16,000 complaints alleging that they had been victims of discrimination. Although the vast majority of Federal workplaces are in compliance with current EEO requirements, some Federal agencies have failed to meet the standards of a model EEO program. For example, in 2014, the EEOC issued a report on the Social Security Administration that made 12 findings regarding Social Security's failure to maintain a model EEOC program, ensure efficient management of the various stages of the complaint process, provide uniform training to ensure equal opportunities, and implement effective and efficient antiharassment policies and procedures. The EEOC made more than 60 recommendations for reform of that one program alone. My bill would require that EEO programs operate independently of an agency's human resources or general counsel offices and that the head of the program report directly to the head of an agency. This would ensure that effective implementation of the EEO program is prioritized at the highest level of an agency and that program's sole purpose is ensuring equal opportunity for all employees. H.R. 1557 would also strengthen the accountability mechanisms that are central to the effectiveness of the EEO process. This legislation would expand the notifications that agencies are required to provide when discrimination is found to have occurred and would require agencies to track and report whether such findings have resulted in any disciplinary action. Finally, the act would prohibit the use of nondisclosure agreements that restrict an employee from disclosing to Congress, the office of special counsel, or an inspector general any information that relates to any violation of law, rule, or regulation or instance of waste, fraud, or abuse. According to the 2014 Federal employee viewpoint survey, only 60 percent of Federal employees agreed that they could ``disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule, or regulation without fear of reprisal.'' As I often say, we are better than that. Employees need to have confidence that they can report an act of discrimination without suffering retaliation, and they need to know that such reports will be thoroughly, fairly, and timely investigated and adjudicated. The Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2015 will strengthen existing requirements to ensure that Federal EEO programs meet these standards and that agency management of the EEO process follows the best practices available. Again, I take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to thank Chairman Chaffetz. This was truly a bipartisan effort. We saw a problem, and we put our heads together and tried to address it. I would urge all Members of the House to vote for it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Brit Kirwan, Chancellor of the University System of Maryland on his recent retirement. Dr. Kirwan has been a strong and inspirational leader of the university system in our great state, and we are sad to see him go. Dr. Kirwan first left his mark on the University of Maryland when he served as an educator and instructor at our flagship campus in College Park for 25 years. When he left Maryland in 2002 to become President of the Ohio State University, he did so after having risen from an assistant professor in the mathematics department to department chair, provost, and eventually university president. When Dr. Kirwan returned to Maryland in 2002, to become chancellor of the University System of Maryland he quickly set to work, helping to shift the focus of the system and create innovative ways to support student development. To do so he often used technology and the unique resources of the state of Maryland and national capital region to do so. Since Dr. Kirwan became chancellor, enrollment has risen 24 percent and the number of students receiving bachelor's degrees has also grown significantly, by 36 percent. When he retired on June 30, completing a proud career of public service, Dr. Kirwan had led significant improvements to our university system that will benefit both students and faculty for decades to come. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Dr. Kirwan for his dedicated service to our students and congratulate him on an impressive career. The entire Maryland congressional delegation is proud to have worked alongside him and we wish him well in his hard earned retirement.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose this appropriations measure--and to oppose the policies that it embodies. The THUD bill before us, like all of the non-defense appropriations measures being drafted by my Republican colleagues, adheres to the budget caps set under sequestration, which require cuts in BOTH non- defense and defense discretionary programs. My Republican colleagues have decided that applying these caps to the defense side of the ledger, where the budget authority appropriated by Congress for discretionary programs topped $560 billion in fiscal year 2015, is intolerable. However, they have decided that these cuts are not only acceptable on the non-defense side of the ledger, they are inadequate, and so the Republicans' budget plan would impose additional cuts over and above those required under sequestration. Mr. Chair, what is intolerable is failing to invest in our own nation. The Republicans' unmistakable budget priority is to disinvest in the United States, and that objective is clearly reflected in the THUD bill before us. Let me tell you about the people who are suffering the consequences of this disinvestment. They are people just like Freddie Gray. Mr. Chair, the eyes of this nation saw Freddie Gray only after he was dead. They didn't see him when he was reading from text books that were 30 years old. They didn't see him when he was suffering from asthma because of exposure to lead paint in his home. And they didn't see him when he couldn't find a job. There are tens of millions of Americans who are facing the same deep and systemic economic challenges today in cities and towns across this nation. These Americans have watched employers leave their communities and have been left with substandard schools, few job training options, and no path to the better future they want for themselves and their families. They have been intentionally targeted by leading banks to receive subprime mortgages, or have been left to obtain financial services from liquor stores and pawn shops when banks closed in their neighborhoods because their communities were deemed ``unprofitable.'' They are people who are working full-time jobs at the minimum wage-- but are still left below the poverty line. They are the millions who are tired of being tired. Anyone who sees these people should find the bill before us today intolerable. This bill does nothing to restore the funding cut in past years from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. As a result of these cuts, the CDBG award amount to Baltimore has fallen from $27 million in federal program year 2005 to just $18.8 million in federal program year 2014. Baltimore officials have indicated to me that they will be unable to fund any new non-profit social service activities in calendar year 2016. City officials indicated to me that among the requests they cannot fund was a request for $187,000 to help provide legal assistance for 300 households facing foreclosure. This is particularly devastating in my state, which continues to have one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation, and where many of the people now facing foreclosure are the very people illegally targeted by banks to receive subprime loans. The bill before us also cuts funding for the maintenance and repair of public housing, cuts the Choice Neighborhoods program, and fails to provide the funding requested by the President to restore the more than 60,000 housing vouchers lost due to sequestration. According to the Baltimore City housing authority, there are tens of thousands of people waiting for housing assistance in our city. And that's just one city in this nation. This bill even cuts funding--by 30%--for lead hazard abatement. Baltimore City has one of the highest rates of children testing positive for elevated lead levels among urban centers in the United States, and the highest rates are in the lowest income neighborhoods. As I've walked Baltimore's streets in the weeks since Freddie Gray's death, I have met countless young people who want exactly what every child in this nation wants. They want a safe place to live. They want a good school. They want a way to fulfill the promise they feel in themselves. And they want to know their lives matter--a right deserved by every American, not just the privileged few. The President has already indicated he would veto this bill--so rather than wasting time on it, why don't we craft a new budget framework that will ensure every American has the chance to succeed?

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Subcommittee Ranking Member Garamendi and Chairman Hunter for their work on this legislation. I fully support this very important piece of legislation. H.R. 1987 authorizes robust funding for the United States Coast Guard's operations, and particularly for its acquisition program. The Coast Guard has been cut to the bone, and everybody knows that. If we fail to ensure adequate funding for the construction of critically needed new cutters, then the Coast Guard of the future will be less capable than the Coast Guard of the past has been, something that should be unacceptable to our Nation. I strongly support section 303 of this measure, which strengthens the enforcement of existing statutes that require government-impelled cargoes to be carried on U.S.-flagged vessels. Today, according to the Maritime Administration, there are just 83--just 83--ships flying the U.S. flag in the foreign trade. We have lost more than 20 ships from the U.S.-flagged foreign trade fleet just since the end of 2012. Our merchant marine not only carries commercial cargo, it provides vital sealift capacity to the United States military. And yet, particularly during periods of demobilization, we have repeatedly allowed our blue-water fleet to decay until unforeseen crises have created an urgent new need for sealift capacity. Such a post- mobilization decline is happening again, but now our fleet is falling to such low levels that we risk reaching a tipping point from which we may never recover. We cannot afford to let that happen, and I remind my colleagues this is our watch. Mr. Speaker, effective enforcement of our existing cargo preference requirements is essential to the success of our U.S.-flagged fleet, and it is just like any other Buy America policy that ensures the expenditure of U.S. taxpayer dollars supports the interests of United States taxpayers. I want to thank my colleagues on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee for working with me to look closely at this critical issue. I also commend Chairman Hunter for offering an amendment to the NDAA that would provide a 1-year increase in the MSP annual operating stipend. I want to thank him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, as I close, I note that section 302 of this bill is of deep concern to me. Section 302 would gut much of what was enacted in section 609 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. Section 609 was enacted to ensure that all survival craft approved by the United States Coast Guard provide the basic protection of keeping individuals out of the water if they are forced to abandon a vessel. Of particular concern is ensuring that the elderly, children, and those with disabilities have access to a survival craft that can actually ensure their survival. The National Transportation Safety Board has been clear for the last 40 years that out-of-water survival craft save lives. Rather than rolling back the requirements contained in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, we should be focused on ensuring full implementation of these requirements. As such, I hope that before this authorization is finalized, section 302 is removed from it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which would disapprove of the D.C. Council's passage of the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act. This resolution infringes on the reproductive rights of American citizens. It allows employers to discriminate against employees based on their personal health decisions. And it tramples on the rights of the people of the District of Columbia to govern themselves. In January, the Mayor of the District of Columbia signed the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act. This Act was passed by the District's elected representatives on the D.C. Council. The Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their reproductive health decisions. It also protects the reproductive health decisions of their spouses and their dependents. By passing this resolution, congressional Republicans are impinging on the rights of women in the District of Columbia to make their own reproductive health decisions without fear that their bosses will punish them. This resolution would permit an employer to fire a woman because she has an abortion after being raped. It would allow an employer to demote a woman--or pay her less--if she chooses to take birth control pills. This resolution would not affect only the rights of women. It would allow an employer to fire a male worker because he uses condoms, because his wife uses the pill, or because his teenage daughter becomes pregnant out of wedlock. As I told my colleagues in the Oversight Committee when we marked up this resolution, this is the same Committee that brought the world Sandra Fluke. She wanted to come before the House Oversight Committee to testify about contraceptives on February 16, 2012. But she was not allowed to speak. She was deemed ``unqualified.'' Today, this is exactly what House Republicans are doing to the people of the District of Columbia. They want a voice in their own governance. They expressed their will. And their elected officials passed a law protecting their rights. But now, House Republicans are trying to silence the voters of the District of Columbia, just as they tried to silence Sandra Fluke. This approach will backfire, just as it did with Sandra Fluke. She gave a voice to millions of women across the country, and she was heard far and wide. The simple fact is that, regardless of what House Republicans do here today, this resolution has no chance of becoming law. We all know this is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. But it reveals very clearly what Republicans stand for. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this measure,

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor, admiration, and respect that I take this time to honor one of this Nation's most distinguished citizens, Bishop Walter Scott Thomas, Sr., in recognition of his 40 years of service to God as a pastor, mentor, and community leader. I am honored to rise today to share with my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives the accomplishments of this remarkable man. For the last 40 years, Bishop Walter Scott Thomas, Sr., has faithfully served as the pastor of the New Psalmist Baptist Church located in the Seventh Congressional District in Baltimore, Maryland. Bishop Thomas is a Baltimore native who was called to proclaim God's Word to the world. He received a bachelor's of science degree from the University of Maryland in economics, a master's of divinity degree from Howard University School of Religion, and a doctor of ministry degree from St. Mary's Seminary and the University of Baltimore. In 1975, Bishop Thomas was called to pastor the New Psalmist Baptist Church. He is a devoted leader who cares about the needs of his congregation, the community, and the world. Under his dynamic leadership over the last four decades, New Psalmist Baptist Church has grown to serve several thousand members. His vision and message of ``empowering disciples'' has inspired thousands to make a positive impact in their personal lives, communities, the State of Maryland, the country, and the world. He is an influential leader who graciously uses his gifts to serve clergy and religious leaders. From 1999 to 2002, Bishop Thomas served as the president of the Hampton University Ministers' Conference. He has coached and mentored pastors, church leaders, staff, and ministry teams all over the country. On July 20, 2005, Bishop Thomas was elevated to the office of bishop and presiding prelate of the Kingdom Association of Covenant Pastors by ministers from across this great Nation. Bishop Thomas has led multiple outreach initiatives to provide services and resources to the community. These initiatives include assisting economically disadvantaged families and homeless persons, providing employment assistance for job seekers, and partnering with school principals to provide school resources. In 2013, Bishop Thomas and the New Psalmist Baptist Church donated $40,000 to the Baltimore City Northwestern Police District to renovate the station entrance and lobby for our police officers and community members. In addition to his leadership in the local community, Bishop Thomas has been a global leader, supporting projects to improve the quality of life for the world's underserved citizens. Bishop Thomas and New Psalmist Baptist Church support a school in Nairobi, Kenya, as well as clean water and sanitation projects in Africa. Bishop Thomas has also been the guest of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki- moon to represent the United States and the Christian faith in the Many Heavens, One Planet faith and conservation event in Windsor, England. In 2009, Bishop Thomas had the honor of delivering the invocation during President Barack Obama's whistlestop tour at Baltimore's War Memorial Building. In 1998, Bishop Thomas hosted President William Jefferson Clinton at the New Psalmist Baptist Church. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Bishop Thomas is a devoted husband, father, and friend. He is the loving husband to first lady Patricia Thomas and the proud father of three very successful children: Joi; Walter, Jr.; and Joshua. Bishop Thomas is a source of wisdom and encouragement to his family and friends. Bishop Thomas is a great friend who has inspired me through his faithful leadership of his family and the New Psalmist Baptist Church. I am honored that God allowed our lives to eclipse, and today I wish to thank him on behalf of Baltimore, Maryland, and indeed the Nation and the world for his dedication, commitment to God, his church, his family, and his community.