Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished sponsor of the bill from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would say that we on this side of the aisle say ``yes'' to opening the entire government. And with that, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great appreciation and respect to recognize a true pioneer in the field of health care and in the Civil Rights Movement. Dr. Levi Watkins, Jr. has distinguished himself as one of the nation's most highly regarded cardiac surgeons. He has been an inspirational figure for the medical community, African Americans and the entire nation. After 40 years in medicine, Dr. Watkins has announced that he will retire from Johns Hopkins Medicine located in my congressional district. Dr. Watkins attended Tennessee State University and graduated with a degree in biology with honors. Inspired by his experiences during the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Watkins, who had set his sights on medical school, decided that ``it was time Vanderbilt was integrated.'' In May of 1966, Dr. Watkins became the first African American to be admitted into Vanderbilt University's School of Medicine. This was just the beginning of the many ``firsts'' that Dr. Watkins would amass as he blazed his trail of success. When he subsequently graduated from Vanderbilt School of Medicine in 1970, Dr. Watkins became the first African American to do so. In late 1970, Dr. Watkins began a surgical internship at Johns Hopkins University Medical School in Baltimore, becoming the first African American in that program. He interrupted his internship in 1973 to complete two years of cardiac research at Harvard Medical School. It was at Harvard where Dr. Watkins experienced his first scientific breakthrough with his research into the connection between the renin angiotensin system and congestive heart failure. This discovery later led to the use of angiotensin blockers in the treatment of heart failure. After returning to Johns Hopkins and completing his residency, Dr. Watkins became Johns Hopkins' first African American chief resident in cardiac surgery. Three years later, in 1978, Dr. Watkins became an assistant professor in the Division of Cardiac Surgery at Johns Hopkins Medical School. Some months later, in February 1980, Dr. Watkins performed a ground breaking procedure. He implanted an automatic implantable defibrillator into the human heart, saving a woman's life and becoming the first surgeon to perform the operation. This operation has saved many lives by shocking the heart back into its normal rhythm when the heart starts to go into arrhythmia. Critically, Dr. Watkins didn't just save lives, he also changed them. An active participant in the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Watkins was a member of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was pastor. Dr. Watkins drove the church station wagon on Sunday mornings and was active in the Montgomery bus boycotts. When Dr. Watkins joined the Johns Hopkins University's admission committee, he made it his mission to diversify both the admitted students and the faculty. He assisted many future Black doctors in entering and graduating from medical school. Dr. Watkins actively wrote letters to qualified candidates encouraging them to apply to the school. His relentless determination and hard work increased minority representation at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine by 400% in four years. Dr. Watkins created the Johns Hopkins' Martin Luther King Jr. Commemoration in January of 1982 and has held the event every January since that time. The event honors Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his ideals and has brought an array of speakers to the hospital to address students and faculty members, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, actor Danny Glover, and the late Coretta Scott King. Thankfully, even after his retirement, Dr. Watkins will continue to play an integral role in the annual commemoration. In 1991, Dr. Watkins was promoted to be a full professor of cardiac surgery, becoming the first African American at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine to hold this position. He was later appointed Associate Dean in the School of Medicine and Dean of the university's postdoctoral programs and faculty development. It is with a sense of great appreciation and admiration that I thank Dr. Watkins for all he has done for the medical field, the Black community and the entire nation. Baltimore is very fortunate to have such a dedicated pioneer to call its own. I wish Dr. Watkins all the best in his retirement and thank him for his visionary work that has made a profound impact on our country. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whom Dr. Watkins knew well, ``The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.'' By this or any measure, Dr. Watkins is truly a great man.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Levi Watkins, a pioneer in the medical field and civil rights movement. After four decades with Johns Hopkins Medicine, Dr. Watkins will retire on December 31, 2013. He is a man of many firsts. He was the first African American to attend and graduate from Vanderbilt Medical School. His first scientific breakthrough was his research into the connection between the renin angiotensin system and congestive heart failure that led to the use of angiotensin blockers in the treatment of heart failure. He also performed the first implantation of the automatic implantable defibrillator in the human heart. Dr. Watkins fought for African Americans' civil rights in the 1950s and fought for equal opportunities in education throughout his career, increasing minority enrollment at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine by 400 percent in 4 years. I thank Dr. Watkins for all that he has done for our Nation and for the legacy he leaves to inspire generations yet unborn.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend talked about safety and safety systems. It's my understanding that the vessel has fire suppression systems installed in the nonpublic spaces. They have not installed fire suppression systems in the public spaces, that's like the staterooms and dining rooms, because they would have to alter the historic fabric of the vessel to do so. This would violate requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act and presents a safety liability. The mention of trained firefighting crews and round-the-clock watches is not unique. In fact, all vessels must have such crews and maintain such watches. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the distinguished subcommittee ranking member of the Maritime and Transportation Subcommittee of the Transportation Committee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Garamendi be allowed to control the time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was the chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee in 2008 when Congress last rejected the measure before us today, and there has been no change in the intervening years that would now make this measure good policy. H.R. 1961 is a bill that would amend Federal law for the benefit of one single vessel, the Delta Queen. As such, I think we should call this bill what it really is: it's an earmark. Let me say that again: it's an earmark. And what would this earmark do? First, it would create a potential fire trap on the water. In 1936, the United States required all passenger vessels to be constructed of fire-retardant materials. The Delta Queen was built in 1926, and part of its construction occurred in Europe. Its superstructure is wooden and not flame retardant. Exempting the Delta Queen from current fire safety standards would present an unacceptable and, frankly, unnecessary risk to passenger safety. When this issue was last considered, the Coast Guard stated the following: The combustible construction of the vessel presents an unacceptable fire risk that cannot be mitigated by the addition of fire suppression measures. Just yesterday, I talked to Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, the Coast Guard's assistant commandant for prevention policy. He oversees vessel inspections, and he made it clear to me that the Coast Guard continues to oppose this waiver. He also made it clear that a number of safety concerns may persist from the Coast Guard's 2008 special inspection of the Delta Queen. And, frankly, the exemption this legislation seeks to make is not needed for the Delta Queen to operate on the Mississippi again if it wanted to do so. Let me say that again: the Delta Queen does not need the exemption that would be provided by this bill to operate in U.S. waters. The Delta Queen could take passengers on day cruises, and it could host up to 49 overnight passengers right now. But under current law, it cannot host 50 or more overnight passengers. The only thing the exemption sought in H.R. 1961 would do is increase the number of overnight passengers the Delta Queen could carry along our Nation's waterways, thus increasing the number of passengers who would be at risk should a fire break out on the boat. What else would this earmark do? This earmark would interfere in a competitive market to pick winners and losers by giving an advantage to one vessel, something I thought my friends on the other side of the aisle said Congress should not be in the business of doing. Today, the Queen of the Mississippi, a boat built in 2012 in the United States is in compliance with all applicable safety standards, is operating on a Mississippi River system. And another boat that will comply with current safety standards is under construction here in the United States. But if H.R. 1961 were to pass, these American-built boats, safety-compliant vessels, would have to compete with a vessel that would not have to meet the same safety standards required of all other vessels. So not only would the earmark before us create an unsafe situation, but it would also create an unfair situation. Rather than creating an unnecessary safety hazard, and rather than picking winners and losers, I urge my colleagues to reject this earmark. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a member of our committee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2879 and to the failure of this House to address the issues of real concern to the American people and the people of my district. Congress has been in session now for more than 200 days, and yet we have not passed a single bill to create a single job. The government must be funded by October, yet House Republicans have refused to appoint conferees to resolve a budget resolution after repeatedly calling for regular order. After bringing to the floor a farm bill that gutted the SNAP program on which tens of millions of hungry Americans depend, including 17 million children, the majority brought a T-HUD appropriations measure that would have gutted the Community Development Block Grant program, the HOME program, Amtrak, and the effort to modernize our Nation's air traffic control system. It became clear this week, however, that the majority did not have the votes to pass it. We could be working today to end the damaging cuts imposed by the Ryan budget, which the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee called ``unrealistic and ill-conceived.'' That's the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Instead of working on any of these issues, we're wasting the last days remaining before a 5-week recess on a measure that threatens to impede our Nation's law enforcement efforts and continues senseless attacks on our Nation's civil servants. H.R. 2879, the bill before us now, was thrown together last night from the ruins of three bills the majority did not have the votes to pass yesterday. The Rules Committee had to call an emergency meeting last night to push this bill through, and no amendments are being allowed. So what would this legislation do? First and foremost, it would undermine our Nation's law enforcement activities. In fact, this bill should more appropriately be called the ``Ignoring the Concerns of Law Enforcement Act.'' It would allow individuals to record telephone calls and in-person conversations with Federal employees, including Federal law enforcement agents, without their knowledge. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association have all written letters opposing these provisions. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association wrote: This legislation puts law enforcement activities at risk and does a disservice to the brave men and women who are asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from terrorists and criminals. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association wrote: This proposal risks undermining criminal investigations by reducing the willingness of individuals to cooperate with law enforcement, and would result in the creation of recordings of law enforcement conversations that could jeopardize sensitive and important criminal and counterterrorism investigations. This morning, after listening to the debate we had here on this floor yesterday, and after this bill was filed last night, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys sent a letter to every Member of the House, opposing the bill. Their letter states: Section 301 of H.R. 2879 will undermine Federal civil enforcement activities and criminal prosecutions during the investigative, pretrial, trial, and enforcement phases of litigation involving the interests of the United States. The fact is that we have held no hearings on this legislation before we marked it up in committee last week. We had no testimony from law enforcement officials about their concerns with the bill. Instead, the House Republicans rushed it to the floor without adequate consideration. In fact, in their rush to bring this bill to the floor, committee Republicans apparently did not even contact key law enforcement agencies to make sure this bill would not harm ongoing investigations. This morning, I directed my staff to contact the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security, including its operational components, the Secret Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Officials from all of these entities have now reported that they have significant operational concerns with the bill. Does that matter to the supporters of this bill? Don't you think it makes sense to hear from key stakeholders before changing Federal law in this extreme way? The bill also would interfere with existing State laws prescribing the conditions under which conversations can be recorded. Thirty-six years ago, my home State of Maryland enacted a law that made it a felony to record a private conversation unless every party to the conversation consents to the recording or another exception applies. Maryland statute requires actual consent, not forced or assumed consent. The bill negates these protections--and the protections of 11 other States--by deeming Federal employees, including all law enforcement personnel, to have consented to the recording of their official conversations just by coming to work. The bill has several other troubling provisions. It would remove due process protections from members of our Senior Executive Service by giving politically appointed agency heads broad discretion to fire these employees without providing advance notice, without conducting a proper investigation, and without giving employees an opportunity to respond to accusations against them. Under this bill, employees could be fired and then forced to prove their innocence to seek reinstatement. This turns on its head the most basic protection guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution: the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I urge Members to reject this senseless, ill-considered legislation that will impede law enforcement activities and eliminate constitutional protections for civil servants. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2879, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Supreme Court Loudermill case, which Mr. Lynch cited, says that the employee must be given notice before they are fired and an opportunity to respond. This bill, basically you're fired and then you appeal trying to get your job back, so you don't really truly have notice. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as I've listened to all of these arguments, I cannot help but think about the many employees whom we see every day--the hardworking employees who give their blood, sweat, and tears to keep our country together. When we talk about our senior executives, I will remind this body of something that Mr. Hoyer talked about and, that is, under current law, senior executives may be disciplined for misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or of the failure to accept reassignment or transfer. There is a current statutory list of reasons for which actions may be taken against senior executives that covers a broad variety of situations, and they are adequate to deal with the problems that we are addressing today. Senior executives suspected of criminal activity may already be removed or placed on indefinite suspension without pay. We need to focus on improving agency implementation rather than passing legislation that would deprive employees of their due process. I know Mr. Moran is right. There has been a relentless attack on Federal employees. The fact is that they're in their third year of pay freezes. They've been asked to pay more for their pensions and get less. We constantly hear negative comments about them, still folks say, We love them; we appreciate them. They are often the ones that aren't seen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and unapplauded. We have a bill here that takes away something very fundamental, and that is their due process rights. A lot of people may think about due process and say, Oh, it's no big deal. Later, we'll take a little bit of due process here and take a little bit there. It is that due process that is the basic foundation of our Constitution and of our democracy. What we're talking about here is making sure that employees are afforded that due process. So you get somebody who says, Okay. Fine. Fire them, and then let them appeal to get their job back. That's not how it's supposed to work. They're to be given some type of notice and given an opportunity to simply address whatever the accusations are. A lot of times we may look at folks and say we don't like what they allegedly did, but the fact is that we still have that little document--which, to me, is a big document--that we must adhere to. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members of the Congress to vote against this bill and give us a chance to come back, perhaps, and make the appropriate amendments so that it will be one that is suitable for the Congress to vote on. I yield back the balance of my time.