Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern with regard to predatory lending practices in the subprime mortgage industry and to emphasize the need for Congress to act swiftly in addressing this critical issue. Owning a home is an essential component of the American Dream. Simply put, homeownership has the power to transform lives. I still remember the day 45 years ago when my family first moved into our own home. I was only 10 years old, but I will never forget that momentous event. Homeownership changed life for me and my seven brothers and sisters. We were able to go to better schools, and our family was able to build wealth. Over the years, my parents worked hard to make the mortgage payments every month, building equity, and eventually paying it off. My mother at 81 still lives in that house, mortgage-free. Because my parents invested in their home, my mother can now live out her final years in dignity and with a sense of security. Every American family deserves the benefits of homeownership that transformed my life. That is why I am outraged by reports of predatory lending practices in the subprime mortgage industry and the upsurge in foreclosures that have occurred as a result thereof. The national foreclosure rate has been increasing at an alarming rate. According to RealtyTrac, a realty research firm, foreclosures increased by 42 percent from 2005 to 2006, to 1.2 million. That translates into one foreclosure for every 92 households. Much has been made of the impact these foreclosures will have on Wall Street. However, I am equally concerned with the impact that they will have on the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are losing their homes. Increasing foreclosures are directly related to the subprime mortgage industry, which has grown from less than 8 percent of the total mortgage market in 2001 to approximately 20 percent of the market today. Subprime mortgages, which target borrowers with low credit scores, often cost more than prime mortgages, and include terms that allow payments to balloon or grow exponentially over time. Predatory lending practices are common in the subprime mortgage industry, where borrowers are more likely to either have limited options available to them or be unaware of their options. Disturbingly, African Americans and Latinos are more likely to get higher rates than white borrowers with the same qualifications, and borrowers over the age of 65 have five times the odds of receiving a subprime loan than younger borrowers. This trend is illustrated in the congressional district that I represent, the Seventh Congressional District of Maryland. If you look at these maps, it is clear. In the map on the left, the red indicates the concentration of low-income African American and Latino populations. In the map on the right, the red area is the highest concentration of subprime loans. Note that the two areas are nearly identical, indicating that subprime loans in the Seventh District are more likely to be given to African Americans and Latinos and lower-income people. This is simply unconscionable. Somebody is making big bucks off of vulnerable families in my district who are losing their homes. For those of us who remember redlining, this is simply more of the same. We must end discrimination in lending practices now. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by urging my colleagues to continue to work on this issue. Today I introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that issues related to the subprime market must be addressed. Specifically, the legislation identifies the following goals for reform: strengthening Federal regulations, banning unfair and deceptive practices, requiring lenders to establish a borrower's ability to pay, increasing the disclosure of alternative mortgage products, reducing or eliminating the prepayment penalty, eliminating mandatory arbitration, identifying brokers and lenders with high rates of foreclosure, and mandating preloan counseling. As a member of the Baltimore Home Ownership Preservation Coalition and the Joint Economic Committee, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and join with our chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), in addressing this critical issue. Finally, I want to thank all of my colleagues who have come to the floor this evening to address this issue.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce the reintroduction of the ``Minority Entrepreneurship Development Act,'' a bill designed to address economic inequality in minority communities by fostering business development and entrepreneurship. The numbers explain why this legislation is necessary. Strikingly, the average income for African Americans is only equal to 62 percent of that earned by Whites. More than 40 years after the last Jim Crow laws were repealed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the economic value of blacks is still about three-fifths that of whites. The average incomes of Native Americans and Latinos are similarly unbalanced, with the income in those communities equaling 65 and 74 percent respectively of the income earned by Whites. This race-based ``wealth gap'' is simply unacceptable. All Americans deserve the right to share in the American Dream, regardless of their race or ethnicity. We know that small business development has provided great opportunities for minority communities. Minority-owned businesses promote personal economic growth, provide employment opportunities, and support local economies. Everyone wins when minority-owned businesses thrive. That is why I have introduced the ``Minority Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007,'' to help promote these vitally important enterprises. The legislation would set up a $15 million, three-year pilot program to promote small business development in colleges and universities that serve African American, Native American and Latino communities. Through grants of up to $1 million, the institutions would provide students who are not business majors with the tools necessary to use their area of expertise as entrepreneurs. The bill would also allow institutions to set up Small Business Development Centers to conduct research and provide training, counseling, capacity building and niche market development services to start-up entrepreneurs. The legislation garnered support from 42 of my colleagues in the 109th Congress, and is the companion to S. 98, which was introduced by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts in January. In the past, this legislation was supported by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. I again look forward to their support and working with them to implement this important piece of legislation during the 110th Congress. A great legacy of the American Dream has been the opportunity for ordinary citizens to improve their livelihoods by starting their own business, and minority communities deserve a chance to share in that dream. I would like to urge all of my colleagues to join me in this important initiative by becoming a cosponsor of the ``Minority Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007,'' and by working to ensure its swift passage.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I wholeheartedly support H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. I echo the words of Mr. Pence, who just spoke. I think he said it quite precisely and concisely, the citizens of the District of Columbia deserve a full right to vote. This bill does not go as far as I would like for it to go; but at the same time, it is a step in the right direction. I applaud my colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for tirelessly giving everything she has to make this happen. So this is a great day for her and a great day for our country and our Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, because the time is long past due for District of Columbia residents to gain the right to vote. It is very fitting that we are considering giving D.C. residents the right to vote this week. April 15th marked the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers as the first African- American player in the Majors, and on Monday, D.C. residents celebrated Emancipation Day. In keeping with this line of great accomplishments, today we have the honor, the privilege, and the duty to correct one of this Nation's oldest violations of civil rights. District residents have been denied full representation in Congress for over 200 years. This disenfranchisement impacts more than 500,000 people who live in the District, pay federal taxes, and fight for their country in war. Further, it disproportionately impacts the African American community, which makes up fifty-seven percent of the population in the District. No other state in the union has a larger percentage of Black residents. However, this is an issue that surpasses race. It is about basic equality. I find it ironic that we are spending billions of dollars to export democracy, when our fellow American citizens are denied the very cornerstone of democracy, the right to vote. The residents of the District of Columbia demand and deserve the right to fully participate in our democracy. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has shown great resolve in her tireless efforts to secure full voting rights for her constituents. And Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis has been a great ally in this cause, both now and when the Republicans were in the Majority. The bill includes a number of important provisions. It will increase the size of the House by two seats, from 435 to 437 seats. One of the seats will go to the District of Columbia and the other seat will go to Utah, the next state in line to get a congressional seat. The bill prevents partisan gerrymandering by creating the new seat for Utah as an at-large seat and by ensuring that Utah does not redistrict its other congressional seats until apportionment is conducted following the 2010 Census. Importantly, the bill contains a non-severability clause, providing that if a court holds a section of this bill invalid or unenforceable, all other sections will be invalid or unenforceable. Members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee recognize the compelling need for granting full representation to the citizens of the District of Columbia. I hope that all of our colleagues in the House will join us, and vote in favor of H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. To be sure, while I support this bill, I do not think it goes far enough. However, this compromise legislation is a step in the right direction--a step towards granting residents of the District of Columbia the ability to fully express their democratic right to vote. This is a historic moment, and I would urge all of my colleagues to be on the right side of history by voting in favor of this bill. Again, I would like to express my appreciation to Congresswoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Chairman Waxman, and the House Leadership for their dedication in bringing this vitally important legislation to the floor and for providing us with the opportunity to correct years of disenfranchisement.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, today we have the opportunity to pass a bipartisan piece of legislation that will assist in correcting many of the wrongs that are rampant throughout our armed services health care system, as most recently illustrated in the reports and investigations surrounding Walter Reed. I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting this very vital piece of legislation that is an initial step, and I emphasize that, initial step in tearing down the bureaucratic red tape that can hold wounded service men and women in limbo for months and even years after they return home with injuries from the battlefield. H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, ensures better access to health care, better conditions in outpatient and inpatient treatment, a better means to report substandard conditions and, finally, better oversight. H.R. 1538 responds to concerns raised by the men and women of our armed services and does the following things that are so important: Providing them with an assigned medical care case manager and limiting their caseload in order to prevent extensive backlogs; providing medical advocates to stand with soldiers before medical evaluations boards; and I think this is so important, providing a toll-free hotline that soldiers and their families can use to report inadequacies in care; and establishing a pilot program to ensure that our servicemembers have a seamless transition from Armed Forces to the Veterans Affairs agency. Finally, let me say this, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that our chairman, Mr. Skelton, who has done an outstanding job, and Mr. Hunter, our ranking member, were very significant, along with Mr. Filner, in seeing that an amendment that I put forth was passed, and that was to give the head of Veterans Affairs two appointments to the Oversight Committee. So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very outstanding piece of legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, such time as he may consume.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 802) to amend the Act to Prevent Pollution from ships to implement MARPOL Annex VI, as amended.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, I am pleased that the first piece of maritime legislation to be brought to the floor by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is a bill that will enable us to combat pollution emitted by ships. The Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007, H.R. 802, would institute the legal changes needed to bring the United States into compliance with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the MARPOL Convention Annex VI. MARPOL Annex VI limits the emissions from ships of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide, which are ozone-depleting substances. The Annex VI treaty was ratified by the Senate in April 2006 and came into force internationally in May of 2006. According to the United States Department of Transportation, ocean- going ships transport 80 percent by weight of all goods and services moved into and out of the United States. The volume of trade through U.S. ports is only expected to increase. In fact, the United States Maritime Administration estimates that the total volume of trade handled by United States ports will double in the next 15 years. Unfortunately, the ships on which we rely to carry the trade that keeps our economy growing release excessive amounts of pollution. In fact, according to a very disturbing study released just last week by the International Council on Clean Transportation, the sulfur oxide emissions from ocean-going ships may exceed the total amount of such emissions produced by cars, trucks and buses in the world. Further, the International Maritime Organization, also known as IMO, estimates that as much as 80 percent of all ship emissions may be released within 250 miles of shore. That means that much of the pollution emitted by ships is affecting the residents of port communities such as my hometown of Baltimore. The emissions of sulfur oxide from ships are also high because the bunker fuel used in ships may contain as much as 3 percent sulfur content by weight, or an astounding 28,000 parts per million of sulfur. By comparison, the new ultralow sulfur diesel fuel that is mandated for use in trucks in most of the United States is not allowed to contain more than 15 parts per million of sulfur. Given the nature of shipping, it is not possible for any single nation to unilaterally regulate emissions produced by ships. Instead, regulations applied to ocean-going vessels are usually developed through negotiations conducted by IMO, a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for developing multinational conventions regulating international shipping. The member states of IMO developed the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships treaty, known as MARPOL, which was adopted in 1973. This groundbreaking convention has already successfully limited all pollution and pollution from ships' garbage and sewage. The most recent annex to MARPOL convention, Annex VI, sets limits on emissions from ships of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide. This annex also establishes specific limits on the sulfur content of fuel oil used in ships. The measure before us today, H.R. 802, is a bipartisan measure that would bring United States law into compliance with the requirements of MARPOL Annex VI. The substitute amendment clarifies that the MARPOL Annex VI amendments apply only to vessels in the United States' exclusive economic zone once Annex VI becomes customary maritime law. The amendment also requires the EPA to consult with a State when establishing an emission area and requires that regulations regarding reception facilities be jointly prescribed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Coast Guard. Through our participation in Annex VI, the United States will contribute to a global effort to control a large source of ozone-depleting emissions that has been virtually unregulated to this point. Mr. Speaker, our natural resources are our most precious gifts, and we are merely the stewards of these resources, responsible for preserving them for generations yet unborn. When you go into Sea World and Disney World, one of the things the signs that are written there say, ``We do not inherit our environment from our parents; we borrow it from our children.'' I applaud Chairman Oberstar for his outstanding leadership on this issue and for his commitment to implementing measures that will help us combat the release of emissions from mobile sources that are contributing to global warming. I also thank our ranking member, the very distinguished gentleman, Congressman Mica, and the ranking member of our subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Congressman LaTourette, for their leadership in helping us to get this very, very important bill to the floor of the House so that we can send it on to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and certainly Ranking Member Mica. But I also thank you very much, Mr. LaTourette, for your cooperation in moving this bill along. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 802.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago we commemorated the fourth anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq. Today we pause, and we voted for the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, and we took a pivotal step in responding to the mandate issued by the American people. I have opposed this war from the very beginning; however, I voted for this legislation because I am realistic about our circumstances. As long as our brave men and women are serving in this country, we have a moral obligation to ensure that they are trained, equipped and rested when they go into battle. Supporting this measure was not easy, especially in light of the fact that a young man from Baltimore, Kendall Waters-Bey, who lived only a few blocks from me, was the first to die in the Iraq war. However, after many discussions with my constituents and much contemplation, I strongly believe that H.R. 1591 was in the best interest of our brave men and women, the people of Iraq, and the people of these great United States. Although I am opposed to the war, I have a responsibility to vote my conscience and a responsibility to help protect the servicemembers while they are risking their lives in Iraq. However, it is more important that we take care of those wounded warriors when they return home. When they have risked so much, we much respect them enough to provide the quality of medical treatment that they deserve. Of the $124 billion to be spent, $900 million will be dedicated to two areas that I feel are of utmost importance, injuries which some military doctors say have become the signature wounds of the Iraq war: traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. This is in addition to the $20 million dedicated to addressing the problems that we saw at Walter Reed. While H.R. 1591 provides $2.8 billion for military health care, this is not nearly enough for the thousands who have already returned or for those who are expected to need that care in the future. However, it is my hope and my intention to revisit this issue at a later date. This legislation is monumental because it marks the first time during our efforts in Iraq that Congress will hold the President accountable. No more blank checks. We have established benchmarks for the war in Iraq that the President himself has repeatedly stated must be reached to resolve this crisis. If these benchmarks are not met, this legislation requires the troops to be fully redeployed by August 2008. I know that there are many reasons that others oppose the legislation; however, the reality of the situation is very simple. Our troops will be in Iraq. In fact, more troops are being mobilized as we speak. We can no longer remain silent. We do not have the right to remain silent. Failing to pass this legislation was no option, because if we had failed to pass the legislation, we would have been in a situation where we would have sent to the President the possibility of a stripped-down supplemental. So we have a moral obligation to provide the equipment and the adequate health care that our troops need. We have done that with the passage of H.R. 1591. I congratulate the Democratic leadership, our Speaker Nancy Pelosi, certainly to Steny Hoyer, and to our whip Jim Clyburn and all of the leadership members.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support both for the men and women fighting for our Nation with immeasurable courage and commitment and for the legislation that would bring them home, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.'' While I have opposed this war from the beginning, our duty now is to resolve this conflict as quickly as possible. We must stabilize the country, protect innocent Iraqis, and lay the groundwork to return our troops to their families. We were lead into war on the basis of false presumptions drawn from faulty intelligence. Our soldiers are now being attacked daily by anonymous road-side bombs that the factions fighting in a civil war are targeting against our troops--whom we were told would be greeted as liberators. Billions of taxpayer dollars have simply vanished in Iraq, while billions more have been given away in no-bid contracts or embezzled. At the same time, our troops are going without the body armor and the advanced HUMVEE protections--such as the MRAP system--that would reduce casualties. This is simply inexcusable. Further, at the present time, according to a survey by USA Today and other media, 6 in 10 Iraqis (61 percent) believe their lives are going badly, while only a third (35 percent) agree that improvements in current conditions are on the horizon. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to the disaster that the Administration's actions in Iraq have created. However, I believe we must try to ensure that we do not leave Iraq worse off than it was before the invasion. Until Iraqis feel safe in their country and see progress in their lives, it will not be possible to bring stability to that nation. Importantly, as the most recent National Intelligence Estimate has made clear, this is not something that can be accomplished by the use of military force--it can be achieved only when Iraqis come together to make the difficult political decisions that will create a government truly capable of governing. Further, the Iraq Study Group advised that a gradual draw-down of troops is most likely to stabilize the country when combined with serious negotiations with all of Iraq's neighbors--including Iran and Syria. This is why I stand here today in support of the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.'' This bill would hold the President and Iraq to the benchmarks President Bush himself has stated must be reached to resolve this crisis. If these benchmarks are not being met in the months to come, this Act would require that our troops be redeployed. Frankly, if we are not making progress in Iraq, we have no reason to be there. Further, we owe it to the Iraqis, who have lost tens of thousands of their loved ones, to require that the political solutions that are central to their success are the benchmarks against which we measure our progress. Additionally, let me note that this bill would also require that all forces sent to battle be adequately rested, trained, and equipped. While the President could waive this requirement, frankly I do not believe it is ever in our interest to send forces into combat who are not fully ready and who do not have the latest protective equipment we can provide. Our forces have done all and more than we have asked of them and their families have been patiently sacrificing for four long years. We owe it to them to adequately protect them while they are deployed and to bring them home before the 5th anniversary of this war passes. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1227, the ``Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007.'' This legislation institutes long overdue reforms in our response to the devastation that hurricanes have inflicted on the Gulf Coast region. I have been an outspoken critic of the way this Administration has mismanaged Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, and their resulting aftermath. Anyone who has traveled to the Ninth Ward in New Orleans, as I have, can tell you about overwhelming devastation in that community. Entire city blocks were flattened, with their rooftops smashed and scattered on the ground. The lives of millions were similarly fractured, when governmental systems that were already weak broke down under the pressure from the storm. The entire Nation and the world watched with dismay as news reports chronicled the gross mismanagement and abuse thrust upon the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I told President Bush then that I did not think God would be pleased with our response to the disaster. Sadly, I am not convinced that He would pleased with our current response. One and a half years after the hurricane hit, thousands of Americans remain displaced, their lives and families torn apart first by the storm, and second by the resulting bureaucratic mismanagement. We do not know for sure how many families remain displaced, but our most conservative estimates indicate that at least 150,000 are still affected. Make no mistake: The people of the Gulf Coast region want to return home, but many of them cannot find affordable housing to which to return. Public housing was decimated by the storm. Approximately 70 percent of the 300,000 homes that were severely damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina belonged to low-income families. Homeowners who want to return have been asked to do the impossible. We have appropriated the necessary funds to help rebuild the region, but the money has yet to trickle down to the people. Today, we will take an important step in rectifying this situation by considering the ``Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007.'' The bill would institute much needed reforms, including: freeing up $1.2 billion in funds for Louisiana's Road Home Program, a program that compensates eligible displaced homeowners up to $150,000 for their losses; providing a stock of affordable housing by prohibiting the demolition of public housing until there is a plan in place to replace the current units; and most importantly, extending the Disaster Voucher Program, DVP, for former public housing and Section 8 voucher holders, until January 2008. We have a moral obligation to restore a sense of normalcy to those whose lives have been affected by storms in the Gulf Coast region. They have already suffered for far too long. For this reason, I support and will be voting in favor of H.R. 1227, the ``Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007.'' I would like to thank Chairwoman Maxine Waters and Chairman Barney Frank for their leadership in introducing this vitally important legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 198, a resolution recognizing the significance of Black History Month. I am an original cosponsor of this important legislation. Celebrated during the month of February, Black History Month allows all Americans to celebrate the accomplishments of African Americans, the famous and the not so famous, who have made strides in all walks of life. I would like to share with you the words of one of the most noted African Americans in history--civil rights leader, Pan-African sociologist, educator, historian, writer, editor poet, and scholar, W. E. B. Dubois, who said: ``The shadow of a mighty Negro past flits through the tale of Ethiopia the shadowy and of the Egypt the Sphinx. Throughout history, the powers of single blacks flash here and there like falling stars, and die sometimes before the world has rightly gauged their brightness.'' This is time to celebrate the trials, tribulations, accomplishments and contributions of African Americans, who have certainly created and attained so much in this nation's young history. As many of my colleagues know, many of our ancestors were brought here in the grips of iron chains on slave ships. Despite this demoralizing beginning, African Americans created a noble culture that encompasses the American spirit of survival through adversity. I would like to share a few stories of my past, of why it is so important that we continue to celebrate Black History Month and continue to reflect on our country's struggle with the equality of all people. More than 60 years ago, my parents, Robert and Ruth Cummings, grew up in rural South Carolina--near a small Clarendon County town called Manning. Some here may recall that Clarendon County would later have the dubious distinction of having its segregated mis-education of Black children successfully overturned in one of the Supreme Court's five Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation cases: Briggs v. Elliot. I will never forget the painful lesson that my father taught us children about our Grandfather's death in Clarendon County. When my father was a child in South Carolina, his father was taken back to their home after collapsing in church. Granddad lay close to death as two white doctors arrived to examine him--an older doctor and his younger assistant. Later on that moonless night, they emerged from the house onto the front porch. They did not notice that my father was sitting over in the corner, alone in the dark. ``We should take this man to the hospital in town,'' the younger doctor pleaded. ``It's not worth the effort,'' the older doctor replied. ``He's just a N-*-g-g-*-r.'' My grandfather died on that dark, South Carolina night. As a result, I never had a chance to meet the man whose blood flows through my veins. I never sat on his knee. He never took me fishing. I never learned about the struggles and joys of this strong and good man. This, I think, is why I became convinced at an early age that we all must work together to create an America in which no life is considered to be without value. For Americans of Color, the implications of this personal tragedy are clear. Unable to depend upon the larger society to value our humanity, African American families have learned that we must create our own doctors and nurses. We founded first-rate medical schools like those at Howard University College of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science and Morehouse School of Medicine. We have sent our children to study at world-class nursing schools like the ones in my District at the University of Maryland at Baltimore and Coppin State University. And, in response, brilliant African American men and women have followed their calling to become our healers. Some became famous--like Dr. Ben Carson at Johns Hopkins University. Yet, despite all of these efforts, the American medical establishment has confirmed that ``unequal treatment'' all too often remains the rule, not the exception, in the medical care that Americans of color receive today. In fact, African Americans receive inferior medical care--compared to the majority population--even when our incomes and insurance plans are the same. These disparities contribute to our higher death rates from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and other life-endangering conditions. Consider this: The December 2004 issue of the American Journal of Public Health contained important findings by a research team headed by President Clinton's Surgeon General, Dr. David Satcher, and Professor Stephen Woolfe of Virginia Commonwealth University. The Satcher-Woolfe team examined data for the period of the Clinton years that they had gleaned from the National Center for Health Statistics. During the 1990s, they found that more than 886,000 deaths could have been prevented if African Americans had received the same health care as White Americans. My friends, when we consider our national health policy, we also are considering our national morality. We must face the harsh truth: Being Black in America continues to be a medically dangerous condition. And being both Black and poor can be deadly. But the crisis is spreading. Today more than 46 million Americans of every racial background are uninsured. And, as a direct result, far too many Americans of every race and creed are dying before their time. More often than not, health care issues are directly related to the broader challenge of providing access to economic opportunity. Again, the story of my own parents illustrates this point. My parents moved to South Baltimore in 1945. They knew that they had to leave South Carolina if their children were to have a better life. Life in Baltimore was difficult for my family. During my earliest years in South Baltimore, all that they could afford for themselves and their seven children was a small, rented, three-room house. Yet, it was there in South Baltimore that my life was changed. It happened at a neighborhood swimming pool, which at that time was segregated. We were just children looking for a way to escape the summer heat of South Baltimore's concrete and asphalt streets. In those days, South Baltimore's white children swam and relaxed in the Olympic-sized Riverside Pool that the City maintained not far from where I lived. Black children were barred from Riverside by the cruelty of segregation. We were consigned by the color of our skin to an aging wading pool at Sharp and Hamburg Streets. That wading pool was so small that we had to take turns to be able to sit in the cool water. Upset about our exclusion from our neighborhood's public pool, we complained. To their everlasting credit, Captain Jim Smith, Juanita Jackson Mitchell, and the NAACP organized a march. Other people soon joined in this struggle. I would like to be able to tell you that the White families at Riverside accepted us graciously. Sadly, that is not what happened. As we tried to gain entrance to the pool each day for over a week, we were spit upon, threatened and called everything but children of God. I still carry a scar that I received from a bottle thrown at me during the march. We were afraid. And our parents became concerned for our safety. Then, when all seemed lost, we saw Juanita Jackson Mitchell marching up the street toward our little group. With her were two reluctant, but grimly determined, policemen. They seemed more afraid of Ms. Mitchell's anger than of the jeering, hostile crowd. Four decades later, the history books say that the Riverside pool was peaceably integrated. We know the truth. My friends, the struggle to integrate that public swimming pool at Riverside may not have been a large thing in the eyes of the world. It was not Little Rock--not Selma, Birmingham nor St. Augustine. But Riverside has a LARGE meaning for me. At Riverside, I learned that there are dividing lines in every human lifelines that separate hatred from love. And I learned that we all will face a time when we must choose on which side of these lines we will take a stand. That choice is the same no matter who is the victim of prejudice, exclusion and hatred. We face that same choice today as we open up America to people from every continent, language, religion and race. And how we handle this choice will determine the future of generations yet unborn. Black History Month means so much to so many people and I want to thank Congressman Al Green for his leadership in introducing H. Res.198 to recognize this fact. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act, which I have cosponsored, because we have an obligation to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. I am simply appalled by the reports of pervasive waste, fraud and abuse in government contracting. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, I led a hearing back on January 30 on the U.S. Coast Guard's troubled $24 billion 25-year-long Integrated Deep Water Systems Project. The project was supposed to modernize the Coast Guard's aging fleet, but a series of failures by contractors and poor oversight by the Coast Guard have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars instead. In one of the more disturbing examples, the modernization of 49, 110- foot patrol boats was halted when the hulls of the first eight modernized boats cracked upon being sent out to sea. In the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and in the House Armed Services Committee, we have consistently heard reports of waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq contracting. Examples include: a report from the Iraq Special Inspector General, Stuart Bowen. He found gross mismanagement in a $75 million contract awarded to Parsons Corporation to build the largest police academy in Iraq. According to the report, the police academy was so poorly constructed that feces and urine rained from the ceilings into the barracks of students, floors heaved inches off the ground and cracked apart, and water dripped so profusely in one room that it was dubbed ``the rainforest.'' Investigators fear that, with its structural integrity in question, the academy is beyond repair, and public health concerns are being raised. Unfortunately, this scenario is not unprecedented. In total, Pentagon auditors have identified $3.5 billion in questionable and unsupported costs in Iraq reconstruction contracts. For one Halliburton contract alone, its $16.5 billion logistic civil augmentation program, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, identified $1.1 billion in questionable costs. Halliburton whistleblowers have shed light on the company's deceitful practices, reporting that the company paid subcontractors up to $45 for a case of soda and $100 for a 15-pound bag of laundry. And the IG in the past has reported that Parsons, despite spending $186 million of a $500 million contract to build hospitals and health clinics, has barely gotten the project off the ground, with just 20 of the 142 clinics completed. The list of such atrocities is endless. Last Monday we visited Walter Reed Medical Center for a field hearing of the Oversight and Government Reforms Committee's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs to investigate reports that substandard treatment is being provided to our troops and veterans. There, too, contracting played a role. It appears that wherever we find failures in government these days, contractors are sure to be involved. We have consistently been told by this administration that privatization of critical government functions would cost less. But instead it has been both costly and ineffective. We need accountability in contracting. We need the Accountability in Contracting Act. This vitally important legislation would institute critical reforms, including limiting the length of non-competitive contracts, minimizing no-bid contracts, minimizing cost-plus contracts, ensuring public disclosure of justification for no-bid contracts, disclosing contractor overcharges, funding contract oversight, and closing the revolving door. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud you for doing such an outstanding job on this legislation. And I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007, which I have cosponsored. To say the least, this administration has not prioritized openness in government, and I was not surprised to learn that the President is opposed to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. I am similarly not surprised to learn that the President and many of his colleagues here in the Congress have threatened that by affording our Federal employees whistleblower protections, we are also threatening national security. This administration has consistently used security threats to strike fear into the public's consciousness. But let me be clear: Claims that the legislation we are considering here today would threaten national security are baseless. If anything, the opposite is true. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I know how vitally important it is for Federal officials to be able to share their knowledge and their firsthand experience with the Congress. We now know that, going into the Iraq war, Federal officials at the CIA and the State Department were aware that the pre-war intelligence about Iraq purporting to show that the nation had weapons of mass destruction was wrong. Thousands of Americans and Iraqi lives and billions of American taxpayer dollars could have been saved if these individuals had been able to share their knowledge with a Congress willing to listen to them and protect them from retribution. But, lacking whistleblower protections, they were afraid to do so. Recognizing the critical need for Federal employees to communicate openly with the legislative branch, Congress in 1912 enacted the Lloyd- LaFollette Act. And that act, which has never been repealed, by the way, affords all Federal employees, including employees at the national security agencies, the right to contact Members of Congress. The statute states as follows: ``The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition the Congress or a Member of Congress or to furnish information to either House of Congress or to a committee or Member thereof may not be interfered with or denied.'' The statute's language was intentionally drafted to be broad because Congress recognized in 1912, as we recognize today, the compelling need for Federal employees to exercise their rights to free speech. But the law clearly does not go far enough. Consider the case of FBI Special Agent Bassem Youssef. According to a Washington Post article from July 18, 2006, an internal investigation conducted by the United States Justice Department concluded that Youssef, the FBI's highest ranking Arabic speaker, was blocked from a counterterrorism assignment in 2002 after he had met with U.S. Representative Wolf and met with FBI Director Mueller to discuss Youssef's complaints with regards to the way the war on terror was being conducted. Mueller had approved a transfer for Youssef just days before the meeting, but it never occurred and Youssef was never informed of Mueller's decision, according to the report. Investigators also said that the FBI has provided no rationale or basis for its failure to promote Youssef, although one former senior FBI manager said Mueller was appalled that Youssef had complained to a Congressman about his treatment. Because of this retaliation, we lost 4 years of expertise for the war on terror from a highly qualified Arab American agent. Once the FBI's top Arabic translator, Youssef is now simply processing documents. Under current law, Youssef cannot pursue legal action for the retaliation. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 would rectify this situation. Congress has a mandate to oversee the functions of the executive branch to ensure that government runs as effectively and efficiently as possible, but we cannot fulfill this mandate if we cannot get reliable information, and we cannot get that information if people must put their lives and careers on the line.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, when I assumed the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation at the beginning of the 110th Congress, I promised that the subcommittee would balance oversight of the Coast Guard with our responsibility to strengthen maritime transportation. On February 15, the subcommittee began to fulfill that promise by holding a hearing on short sea shipping, which is the waterborne transportation of goods and people from one domestic port in the United States to another port in the United States or between Canada and the U.S. At the present time, trucks carry nearly 70 percent of the freight tonnage transported in the United States. By contrast, the most highly developed water freight transportation routes in the United States, those running on the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes and the Saint Lawrence Seaway carry just 13 percent of the freight tonnage within the United States. Mr. Speaker, the impact of our continued reliance on trucks to move freight will be measured in increased traffic congestion, increases in polluting emissions and increases in accidents between trucks and cars. However, the only way that we will shift freight transportation away from an increasing volume of trucks is by creating affordable reliable transportation alternatives. I believe that one of these alternatives must be short sea shipping. During our February hearing, our subcommittee heard compelling testimony arguing that one of the challenges currently limiting the growth of short sea shipping is a requirement that with only a few exceptions cargo transported by water to a port in the United States must pay the harbor maintenance tax. This tax, assessed at the rate of $125 per $100,000 of cargo value adds to the costs associated with waterborne transportation and is one factor currently making such transportation less competitive than trucks and other modes. Importantly, if the cargo originated in Europe and is off-loaded in New York, just to be reloaded on a ship bound for Jacksonville, Florida then the cargo owner must pay the harbor tax twice. Further, the tax is paid, not by the ship owner, but by the shipper of the goods. So imagine that a FedEx truck wants to get on a ferry in Windsor, Canada, and be off loaded just across the river in Detroit, Michigan. Each of the owners of the 500 packages that are in the truck must pay the harbor maintenance tax. There is simply no easy way to collect the tax from so many different packages, so the truck travels to the United States across the bridge. In part, because it acts to limit the growth of short sea shipping, the harbor maintenance tax generates only about $2 million per year in revenue from short sea shipping voyages, but stands as a costly barrier to the expansion of short sea shipping options. Today, therefore, I have introduced the Short Sea Shipping Promotion Act of 2007, which would exempt goods moved by water from one port in the United States to another port in the United States or between the United States and Canada from the harbor maintenance tax. This exemption will not significantly reduce revenues into the harbor maintenance trust fund, which already has a significant fund balance, but could help open a significant new course for the movement of freight by water. Our Nation urgently needs to take practical steps to address the significant challenges we face in maintaining the flow of freight on which our economy depends. As chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, the measure I have introduced today is just the first step of a concerted and deliberate effort I will undertake to support the potential of maritime transportation, in general, and short sea shipping, in particular, to be a reliable, cost-effective mode in our national transportation network.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the ``Employee Free choice Act,'' H.R. 800. This is a historic moment for working families, and I am proud to be a part of it. Unions matter. The Washington Post reported yesterday that 12-year-old, Maryland resident Deamonte Driver died from a bad tooth. A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him. Instead, the infection from the bad tooth spread to his brain. Unfortunately, the bakery, construction and home health- care jobs Deamonte's mother has held did not provide the insurance necessary to pay for his care. This tragedy might have been avoided if Deamonte's mother were a union employee. Eighty percent of union workers have employer-provided health insurance, compared with on 49 percent of nonunion workers. Our health care system is broken in this country, and unions provide a solution for so many families. I would like to thank Chairman Miller for his leadership on this issue, and I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007, H.R. 556, of which I am also an original co- sponsor. Last year, the proposed sale of the P&O firm--which manages terminal operations at major East Coast ports, including the Port of Baltimore-- to a company controlled by the government of Dubai raised several significant issues to the attention of Congress. In addition to making many aware for the first time that operations in American seaports are frequently managed by foreign interests, the sale brought renewed attention to the significant gaps in our port security regime. Further, the proposed deal revealed the inadequacy of our systems for assessing the security risks that the increasingly global nature of business ownership relationships may pose--not just in the port management industry but in almost all critical industries in the U.S. Fulfilling our unwavering commitment to the security of our homeland, the Democratic leadership has moved systematically to address the security concerns raised by the proposed sale of P&O to Dubai. The first piece of legislation the House considered and passed this year--H.R. 1--would close an enormous gap in port security by requiring the examination of all shipping containers bound for the U.S. The bill before us today, H.R. 556, will reform the processes of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to ensure that this Committee casts greater scrutiny on transactions involving entities owned by foreign individuals or governments--and to ensure that Congress receives the information it needs to oversee this process. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, I understand the critical need to balance security and economics--particularly at our ports. However, we must ensure that the CFIUS process--which is as much a part of our homeland security system as any scanner or radiation detector--is adequate to ensure that the implications of all transactions involving foreign entities are fully understood and that only those investments that pose no national security risks are allowed to move forward. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 556.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a member of the Board of Visitors of the United States Naval Academy, I rise today to express my unwavering support for the men and women who wear the uniform of our proud Nation and to make clear my staunch opposition to putting more of these men and women in harm's way in Iraq. In the absence of a clear and meaningful strategy for success, it is time to extricate our troops out of this civil war and redeploy them out of the occupation of Iraq. Back in 2002, I joined my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus in formulating a brief and succinct statement of principles regarding the Iraq war. Within these principles we expressed our clear opposition to a unilateral first strike action in the absence of clear evidence of an imminent threat to the United States. We further stated that any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and would likely require a long-term commitment of our troops and treasure. Today, it is very clear that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has provoked sectarian divisions in the Iraqi society that are now expressed daily through violence on a staggering scale. It is also clear that our efforts to stabilize Iraq has, indeed, required the massive commitment of both lives and taxpayer dollars that we predicted. What was not clear then but is clear now is that this administration had no definite plan for achieving our stated objectives in Iraq. The administration had lofty rhetoric, but no strategy for creating a stable democracy that could be our partner in the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, I raise these points to remind our Congress that from the beginning of this war there have been voices raised not in opposition to our President but in demand of a strategic approach to the growing threats we face, opposition and demand of an honest assessment of what could be accomplished with military force, and in demand of a clear purpose for why we send our troops into harm's way, our young men and women, the future of our Nation into situations where they may seriously be injured or killed. These are the very points that the resolution before us today demands. I have no illusions about the danger inherent in the growing number of nations that may soon have the capability to construct weapons of mass destruction. To the contrary, I am convinced that maintaining the peace in this increasingly dangerous world has become a precondition to our continued survival. The question is, given the situation in which we find ourselves in Iraq and given that our primary consideration must always be the security of our Nation, is sending additional troops into action most likely to stabilize that nation and the region? Is it the action most likely to cause Iraqis themselves to take the essentially political actions that only they can take to create a government capable of governing? Is it the action likely to initiate the reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite, and the most recent National Intelligence Estimate says is critical to reducing the violence in Iraq? I have seen no compelling evidence that the answer to any of these questions is ``yes,'' and many of our top military commanders have testified that sending 21,500 more United States forces to Iraq will not create a path to success. Our forces have done all and more than we have asked them to do, and their families have been patiently sacrificing for 4 long years. The voters spoke in November, and we as Members of Congress of the United States do not have the right to remain silent. We cannot allow more to be asked of our soldiers now if their mission is not clear. The President has no plan likely to produce victory. And if, as the National Intelligence estimates suggest, the Iraqi forces and the government are not capable of being partners in their own reconstruction, I urge my colleagues to support our troops by supporting this resolution.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the ``Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007,'' to attempt to provide protection for some of our Nation's bravest citizens. Last year, 38-year old John Dowery of East Baltimore, a murder witness, was shot and killed after having Thanksgiving dinner with his family. Two years ago, Baltimore Police Detective Thomas Newman was murdered following his testimony in a shooting trial. Three years ago, Edna McAbier of North Baltimore survived a series of violent attacks in apparent retaliation for her efforts to drive criminals out of her community. And in perhaps one of the most heartbreaking incidences: Four years ago, drug dealers in East Baltimore firebombed the Dawson family home in an attempt to silence them--killing mother, father, and their five young children. Make no mistake, Madam Speaker: Witness intimidation in Baltimore City is not dreamt up by producers of HBO's critically acclaimed drama ``The Wire.'' The threat is real--and the reality is horrific. To be sure, criminals in Baltimore City produced their own DVD in 2004 entitled ``Stop the Snitching.'' It depicts grotesque images of three bullet-ridden, bloody corpses accompanied by the phrase ``snitch prevention.'' Sadly, my hometown of Baltimore is not the only community plagued by this horrific reality. The problem is pervasive. The National Institute of Justice finds that intimidation of victims and witnesses is a major problem for 51 percent of prosecutors in large jurisdictions (counties with populations greater than 250,000) and 43 percent of prosecutors in small jurisdictions (counties with populations between 50,000 and 250,000). Further, prosecutors estimate that witness intimidation occurs in up to 75 to 100 percent of the violent crimes committed in some gang- dominated neighborhoods. Violent retaliation against witnesses and informers threatens the very fabric of our criminal justice system. Known murders walk the streets every day because we lack the evidence necessary to bring them to justice. Thankfully, witness protection programs can provide law enforcement with an indispensable tool in combating crime and addressing witness intimidation. The Federal Witness Security Program, established in 1970 and administered by the Department of Justice, has successfully carried out its charge to protect witnesses testifying in extremely serious Federal cases. Under the program, the United States Marshals Service (USMS) provides witnesses and their families with long-term protection, relocation, new identities, housing, employment, medical treatment, and funds to cover their most essential needs. In over 30 years, not a single witness that followed security procedures was harmed while being protected by the program. More to the point, cases involving the testimony of the WSP participants have an 89 percent conviction rate. In contrast, State witness protection programs are severely under- funded and enjoy virtually no Federal support. While non-Federal witnesses can participate in the federal program under certain conditions, States are required to reimburse the Federal Government for the cost of providing such protection unless a waiver is granted. As a result, State and local prosecutors often must choose between funding investigations or funding costly, but necessary witness protection programs. This often leads to some jurisdictions providing no witness protection at all. No one wins when law enforcement officials are forced to make such choices. That is why I am reintroducing the ``Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007.'' Senator Chuck Schumer of New York has reintroduced a companion bill to this legislation in the Senate, S. 79. It also enjoys the support of the National District Attorneys Association. The ``Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007'' would establish within the USMS a Short-Term State Witness Protection Program tailored to meet the needs of witnesses testifying in State and local trials involving homicide, a serious violent felony or a serious drug offense. The Act would also authorize $90 million per year in competitive grants for the next 3 years. State and local district attorneys and the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, can use these funds to provide witness protection or pay the cost of enrolling their witnesses in the Short-Term State Witness Protection Program within the USMS. Grants under this legislation would only be awarded to prosecutors in States with high homicide rates to ensure we target those most in need of Federal support. Improving protection for State and local witnesses will move us one step closer toward alleviating the fears of and threats to prospective witnesses, and help to safeguard our communities from violence. While we cannot bring back all those who suffered in the face of witness intimidation, we can honor their sacrifice by trying to prevent future tragedies. I urge my colleagues to join me in taking that critical step by cosponsoring the ``Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007.''

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss some important issues that confront the 110th Congress regarding the structure and missions of the United States Coast Guard and the broader field of maritime transportation. I am deeply honored to have been selected by Chairman James Oberstar and by my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to chair the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee and to move on an ambitious agenda that will address these critical issues. I look forward to implementing the three policy objectives that Chairman Oberstar has laid out for the Transportation Committee, which include ensuring the safety and security of our transportation infrastructure; supporting expanded investment in transportation infrastructure to relieve congestion and enhance mobility; and ensuring environmental stewardship, including combating global warming. In the area of safety and security, the subcommittee will diligently oversee the implementation of the Coast Guard's $8.3 billion fiscal year 2007 budget, including the more than $1.1 billion appropriated to fund the rehabilitation and modernization of the Coast Guard's fleet through the Deepwater procurement program. The United States Coast Guard is a critical part of our homeland security system, and is the lead agency responsible for ensuring the security of all ports in our Nation, including the more than 150 ports that handle the bulk of our Nation's foreign and commercial commerce. The Coast Guard is also a vital part of our emergency response system, as demonstrated when it was the only Federal agency that could come to the rescue of thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims left stranded in the Gulf. Our subcommittee will closely examine whether the Coast Guard has adequate resources to enable it to implement its significant new Homeland Security responsibilities while also fulfilling its other critical missions, including drug interdiction, search and rescue, and maritime safety oversight. We began that effort just yesterday with an oversight hearing on the Coast Guard's $24 billion, 25-year Deepwater procurement, through which the Coast Guard is acquiring the ships, planes and helicopters that the service will utilize for decades to come to ensure the safety and security of the American people, United States ports, and our maritime industry. Importantly, our subcommittee will also balance oversight of the Coast Guard with our responsibility to strengthen maritime transportation. The United States Maritime Administration estimates that the total volume of trade handled by U.S. ports will double in the next 15 years, Mr. Speaker. To prepare our Nation to handle such cargo growth, we will examine how U.S. ports can more fully be integrated into a multi-modal transportation network. We will also work to foster a pragmatic dialogue between the members of the commercial maritime community and the United States Coast Guard to ensure that each group understands what the other needs to succeed in what should be their complementary pursuits. Security of the United States ports and cargo transported through them will be a major priority of the subcommittee. The House of Representatives has already passed H.R. 1, which not only implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission but exceeded these recommendations by phasing in requirements that will lead to the scanning of all cargo bound for United States ports. The Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation will work closely with the Committee on Homeland Security, led ably by Chairman Bennie Thompson, to examine the gaps that remain in port security and to fill these gaps in ways that protect our Nation from emerging threats while not unduly slowing commerce to our ports.