Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about poverty in our nation--the harsh reality of which played out painfully for all of the world to see after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast region. The televised images of hardship, death and despair from New Orleans may have opened the doors to this nation's reservoir of compassion--but something more than a momentary outpouring of conscience will be required to keep those doors from slamming shut again once the television spotlights dim. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath revealed the harsh realities of poverty in America. The heartbreaking visions of lost children searching for their families, elderly people trapped in their homes, diabetics suffering without their insulin and corpses floating in the streets have the potential to become a transforming event. That potential will be realized, however, only if Americans of conscience join together in a national movement to end poverty in America. Once again, a generation of Americans must find within ourselves the courage, optimism and organizational skills that will allow us to demand an end to the poverty that underscored the New Orleans tragedy-- and to make permanent our demand for positive change. The road toward achieving this goal must begin, as all missions of change begin, in our personal experience as a people. Consider two families who have been transformed by the New Orleans disaster--whom I will call the Jones and Smith families. I am using fictitious names and relaying a blended story to protect their privacy--but quite frankly Mr. Speaker their stories are a common refrain from the Katrina fallout. Prior to this storm, Mr. and Mrs. Jones lived in public housing with their three children. Neither parent had a high school diploma and--as a result--they lived in a neighborhood surrounded by unemployment and poverty. If it had not been for Hurricane Katrina, the Jones family might never have met the Smiths, a middle-aged couple who live in an upscale suburban home hundreds of miles away. The Smiths were haunted by the suffering that they were witnessing on their television screen. Called to take action by their church, they reached out to the Jones family and gave them a place to live in the basement of their home. The impact of their generosity has been profound. Before the storm and the flood, Mr. Jones had been unemployed due to layoffs at the New Orleans oil refinery where he had worked. Now, one of Mr. Smith's neighbors, a lumber yard supervisor, has given Mr. Jones a job--and the Smiths are helping the Jones family research GED programs that can help them get even better jobs. Across America, churches and good people like the Smiths are coming together to provide the shelter, warm meals, clothing and other help that will allow many of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina to rebuild their lives. School districts have opened their classrooms to the more than 372,000 students displaced by the storm. Government and non-profit organizations are holding job fairs to help those who have been displaced find employment. We cannot remake the past, but we can give meaning to the staggering toll of those who have suffered and died as a result of this national tragedy. That is what the Smith family is doing, and they deserve our applause. Yet, if the debacle in New Orleans is truly to become a ``tipping point'' that guides this nation toward a more just and humane society, something more than individual acts of compassion will be required. Consider these facts. In New Orleans before the storm, three out of every ten residents lived below the poverty line--and at least 37 million Americans (including 13 million American children) are now living in poverty nationwide. In fact, the number of Americans falling into poverty increased again last year for the fourth straight year. While the economy grew 3.8%, median income has remained flat for the fifth straight year at $44,389. Income inequality is at an all time high with 50.1 percent of income going to the top 20 percent of households-- where only the top 5 percent of income earners saw an increase in real income gains in 2004 according to the Economic Policy Institute. Mr. Speaker, it is an undisputable fact that many of the victims of Hurricane Katrina were victims of poverty and neglect. However, I believe like many of my colleagues that they should not have to wait for our compassion until another disaster brings with it their televised deaths in our streets. At the federal level, we must demand that those who now control both the Congress and the White House back up the words of compassion that they speak. That is why I have joined House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in urging that the House Republicans set aside their plan to cut the federal budget by $35 billion to help pay for another $70 billion tax cut for the rich. Americans need to know that, while the Republican leadership expresses compassion for this nation's poorest citizens, they are planning to cut $10 billion from Medicaid, $9 billion from federal student aid, and additional tens of billions of dollars from the federal food stamp program, public housing assistance, Head Start, public education and job training programs. As a nation, we can do better than this. Shortly after the New Orleans tragedy touched our Nation, I offered this challenge to the Bush Administration and its allies in the Congress. ``We cannot allow it to be said by history,'' I declared at a Washington press conference, ``that the difference between those who lived and those who died in the great storm and flood of 2005 was nothing more than poverty, age or skin color.'' This, I submit, is the continuing challenge of poverty in America--a challenge that will continue to test the moral fabric of our Nation. I applaud my colleague Representative Barbara Lee, for her tireless efforts to shine a bright light on America's economic disparities and resultant poverty. I hope that her bill H. Con. Res. 234, serves to allow us to begin to discuss and to address solutions to ending poverty in this country. To do so, I firmly believe that we have to rethink how our federal fiscal and social policies are lending significantly to the poverty problem. A moral people would take up this challenge. A moral people would understand that it is time for a change.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 years ago on December 1, 1955, history was altered considerably by the refusal of a Black woman to give up her seat to a White man on a public bus. This woman was Rosa Parks, a seamstress and the secretary of the NAACP from Montgomery, AL. Mr. Speaker, on that day Rosa Parks was not only tired from a hard day at work, but also of the torment and persecution endured by Blacks of her day. Based solely on the color of her skin, she had encountered much discrimination throughout the years, and finally, on that day, decided she was fed up. We all know the story, but let me remind my colleagues. On that Thursday evening in December, Mrs. Parks decided that she would not give up her seat for a White man to sit down in the ``Colored'' section, and was consequently arrested for violating segregation laws. Ms. Parks' arrest marked the point of conception of the civil rights movement. What followed can be described as no less than monumental. The Black community of Montgomery, AL, decided to boycott the bus system--that by the way, relied heavily on their 75 percent ridership for revenue. Montgomery's Black community, led by a young Martin Luther King, Jr. who endorsed nonviolence as a means to achieve equality, chose to walk, carpool, or ride bicycles instead of riding the bus. Despite huge revenue losses, the Montgomery bus system refused to alter its segregation policies. Despite endless provocation from Whites, who often resorted to acts of violence and harassment, the Black community continued its boycott for over a year. Finally, approximately a year after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, on November 13, 1956, the Supreme Court declared Montgomery's bus segregation ordinance unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Interstate Commerce Commission banned segregation on all interstate trains and buses. Although there were many other subsequent laws and decrees that helped to desegregate America, Rosa Parks' courage was the incipient act that sparked the stand for equality across the Nation--culminating in the civil rights movement. It is for these reasons that I strongly support this resolution honoring Mrs. Parks' bravery. I thank my good friend, Representative John Conyers, for spearheading this noble effort and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we consider four realities about our nation's response to Hurricane Katrina. Allow me first to commend all of the Americans who have responded so nobly. They have demonstrated the best of our shared humanity. That brings me to a second, less-praiseworthy reality. Poverty, age and skin color--in that order--have been major factors in this life-or- death equation for the vast majority of the victims. That is a fact, not an opinion--a fact that we must address as a nation. As Americans, we are all in this life together--especially during times of imminent danger and emergency. And the policies and actions of our Federal Government should reflect this reality. Third, as we respond to this disaster--and as we prepare for the dangers that the future will surely bring to our country--we cannot eliminate the reality of widespread (and growing) poverty on the Gulf Coast and throughout this country. And we must not act as if what we do here in Washington has no impact upon that deprivation. The Census Bureau just reported that for the fourth straight year, the number of Americans falling into poverty has increased. Thirty-seven million Americans now live in poverty, including 13 million children. Not surprisingly, those who were already most vulnerable were the largest group of Americans left stranded, unable to escape the storm or the flood that followed. The poor, the sick, the weak, the vulnerable--so often after-thoughts in today's Federal budget decisions--were left behind again. We must care for them and help those who survived to reclaim their lives. That means, in the first instance, that we must not further penalize those who have suffered so much. For those who were living in the Gulf Coast disaster area, we should: (1) Stop the clock on Federal time limits for all income related benefits (including those related to TANF, food stamps, and Federal Unemployment Insurance benefits); (2) Suspend the work requirements for TANF and the requirement that those who receive unemployment insurance continue to look for work; (3) We should extend Medicaid eligibility to CHIP parents for 12 months; and (4) The Federal Government should cover all the costs for these programs, relieving the hard-hit states of this burden. In addition, we should do everything within our power to employ the people who have lost their jobs and homes as a result of this disaster in the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Government and the private sector should begin immediately to retrain and hire these Americans to participate in the rebuilding of their communities. We should make sure they are mentally ready to begin rebuilding by offering counseling services, similar to those offered after 9-11. With skills, job and counseling where necessary, they will be able to become home owners and re-establish the foundation of their communities. Finally, we also must face and overcome another reality. Federal budget choices (misguided choices, in my view) have seriously weakened the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the federal agency that is supposed to be our safety net of last resort when disaster strikes. The media has been accurate in reporting how decisions by the Administration and the leaders of this Congress to cut funding to the Army Corps of Engineers and the FEMA disaster prevention programs have weakened our ability to respond effectively. Choices made in Washington have resulted in deaths in New Orleans. The President and this Congress must account for the shortcomings in the Federal disaster effort for which we are responsible--and work together to do a better job in the future. As I close, allow me to say that I remain optimistic. I am optimistic that we will find a way to organize FEMA in a way that allows it to respond effectively--maximizing the saving of lives. I am optimistic that this Congress will come up with a viable plan to try to make these victims and evacuees whole again--partisanship aside. I believe that the American people are up to this test--that we truly can rise to overcome almost any hardship that is thrust upon us. Any of us--and our families--could well be facing the same hardships, the same pain, the same loss of home and job and dignity that the survivors of Hurricane Katrina must now overcome. These are our people, my friends, and this is our country. We have it within our power to rise from the hesitancy and failure of past days and rebuild. We shall rebuild New Orleans. We shall rebuild the Gulf Coast. And we shall rebuild our self-confidence as a great Nation and a great people.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an American hero. Army Specialist Toccara Green, a native of Rosedale, Maryland, served with the 10th Mountain Division based in Fort Drum, New York. While on mission in Al Asad, Iraq, with her transportation company, she was unfortunately killed by the detonation of a roadside bomb. Specialist Green was the first woman from Maryland killed in combat in Iraq. What we know with certainty is that she made the ultimate sacrifice in service of her country. The lasting lesson about this tragedy arises in part from the fact that Specialist Green was only 23 years old. Her wonderful and promising life was cut too short by far. Mr. Speaker, for as long as humanity has walked this earth, we have been forced to deal with the terrible devastation of war. This age-old truth brings little comfort, however, when the loss becomes so personal. Knowing this, I offer my deepest condolences to her family during this very difficult time, and I join the entire Maryland Federal delegation in mourning their loss. Our prayers go out to a very strong and close family, which includes her mother and father, Yvonne Green and Detective Garry Green of the Baltimore City Police Department; her brother, who she loved dearly, her ``big brother,'' she called him, Marine Staff Sergeant Garry M. Green, Jr.; her sister-in-law, Kim; her nephew, Jayline; and all the family and friends who have been touched by Toccara's life. This remarkable young woman was one of Maryland's finest citizens. Public service was in her blood. The Armed Forces seemed like a natural progression for Specialist Green. She spent 4 years in ROTC while attending Forest Park High School in my district in Baltimore. Her dad, a Baltimore City police detective, risks his life for us on the streets of Baltimore every day. Her brother, whose life was an inspiration to Specialist Green, serves in the Marines. Her mother and father instilled in their children the importance of serving others. Yet, knowing the perils of war, they were apprehensive when their only daughter shared with them her dream of joining the Army. As loving parents, her safety and security was their priority. But Toccara Green's determination was steadfast. Along with her intense desire to serve, she also shared her father's love of cars, and she transferred that love to her duty in the Army as a motor and transport operator. She was serving her second tour, her second tour of duty in Iraq when she was killed. Toccara Green loved her country. She wanted to do all that she could to help people and give back to the Nation that had given so much to her. Yet, as I noted, Mr. Speaker, her death is an all too painful reminder of how deeply the sorrows of war cut into our hearts and burden our souls. Now we will never know what her future would have become. Her family and her friends will never celebrate the milestones and triumphs that each passing year would have brought to her life. They have been deprived of her laughter, her affection and of her love. Nevertheless, Specialist Green has left with them, and all of us, a legacy that can inspire. I am sure she saw more horror while serving in Iraq than most of us can ever imagine. Yet, even in the face of death and destruction, she had the ability to provide strength and a positive outlook to her weary fellow soldiers. She was an eternal optimist who could find the good in the worst of situations. They called her the unofficial morale officer of her unit. Toccara Green was following a higher calling, a calling to serve. She rose above the adversity that surrounded her, lifting herself and others by her courage and her unyielding determination to do her part in attempting to make the world a better place. Toccara Green gave our Nation her very best. She willingly did her job because she was a woman of honor and a courageous soldier. She touched the hearts and lives of all of those who knew her. As Americans, we owe her a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. We can only do our best to give meaning to her sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, I thank the family of Specialist Green for sharing her with the Nation and the world. She is now at rest; and as a Christian who was active in her church, I am sure she is looking down from above saying, It is well, it is well, it is well with my soul.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this emergency appropriation. This is a moment of crisis for America. This is a test of our character as a great nation. As we gather here in relative comfort, Americans are dying in Louisiana. At this moment, Americans are facing danger and desperation in Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi. We all have seen the horrific pictures. We have heard the desperate screams for help. We all have heard the accounts of the almost unimaginable devastation that has gripped America's Gulf Coast. Now is the time for Americans to immediately respond. Now is the time for us, as a people, to take action with a force equal to that of Hurricane Katrina. We face an enormous challenge; yet, this is not the time to become overwhelmed. It is, however, a time that cries out for a heightened sense of urgency. Now is the time for immediate and effective action, as a nation and individually. The Federal Government is responding--and we are moving to pick up the pace. Today, the Congress will approve a $10 billion emergency aid package to help fund relief efforts. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus have pledged to do all that we can to help. Several of our members will be visiting the Gulf Coast in the next few weeks to provide support. However, we cannot stop here. The Bush administration and the Congress must demonstrate that we share the sense of urgency felt by those on the front lines of this battle for survival on the Gulf Coast. We must dedicate the full resources of the Federal Government to stabilize, repair, and rebuild this important region of our country. There is no time to waste, for people are dying. The destruction caused by the aftermath of this storm gets worse every hour. Hundreds of thousands of Americans felt lucky just to be alive after surviving the storm. Now, they are in a continuing struggle for their survival. Men, women and children (our countrymen) have now gone days without food--and far too long without the clean water and medical attention that they need. They are surrounded by flood waters littered with dead bodies. It is the frail, sick, weak, and elderly that are dying, all while the Nation is about to celebrate a long holiday weekend. Many of those now in such dire circumstances were already living in poverty and destitution even before Hurricane Katrina. They had no ability to evacuate. And, now, their very survival depends upon the response of their country. Many of these Americans who now are struggling to survive are Americans of color. Their cries for assistance confront America with a test of our moral compass as a Nation. We cannot allow it to be said by history that the difference between those who lived and those who died in the great storm and flood of 2005 was nothing more than poverty, age or skin color. It would be unconscionable to stand by and do nothing. I had a constructive conversation yesterday with Mr. Claude Allen, the President's top assistant for domestic policy. I am confident that the Federal Government is expanding and intensifying its response as I speak. Yet, government cannot succeed in this challenge without help. We must challenge leaders in the private sector to formulate strategies as to how they can best contribute. We have long heard claims of ``compassionate conservatism'' among our Nation's leaders. This is the time for those with wealth and resources to step up to the plate and demonstrate that compassion. This is the time to save human lives. People are dying because they have no water. Companies that bottle water now have the power to save lives. Infants are dying because there is no baby formula to keep them alive. Companies that make this formula must be on the front lines. Food companies could work. with the National Guard to coordinate the distribution of food to the victims. Private contractors that have helicopters and boats and buses at their disposal could put those tools to work in the service of their country. It has been reported that oil producers and home improvement stores may actually benefit in the long run from Hurricane Katrina. These are industries that should be the first to offer support. Ladies and gentlemen, I am not saying that nothing is being done at this time, although we all expected the Federal response would have been more immediate. Nevertheless, generosity of spirit is being demonstrated by countless individuals in this country who have given an outpouring of support. Now, however, is the time for those who can make a major impact with just one phone call to do so. And if these private companies already have something planned, it is important that they coordinate their efforts to provide their help most effectively. This crisis demands a heightened--and sustained--sense of urgency. The public has asked what they can do. They can begin by donating to the various charities that have pledged to help in the relief effort. They can also follow our lead today by demanding that the mayors and governors across this great Nation provide essential services to those now seeking shelter and aid. In Matthew 25, verses 34 through 40, the Lord gives a simple explanation of what is demanded of true Christians: Then the King will say to those on his right, ``Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'' Then the righteous will answer him, ``Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'' The King will reply, ``I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'' Mr. President, the least of our brothers have lost the little they had. They are hungry, they are suffering, and they are vulnerable now to the worst expressions of human desperation. You have recognized that our response to date has fallen short of our duties. And I fear that God, also, would not be pleased. We are called on to do all that is necessary to care for our brothers at this time. And we pledge to work with you to extend our Nation's hand and all of our Nation's resources to those in dire need. When history looks back upon how our Nation pulled through this difficult time, let it reveal a record worthy of a great Nation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on August 6, 2005, our Nation will commemorate a major milestone in our Nation's democracy: the signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This bill, signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, ended an iniquitous era in our country that we should never revisit. Mr. Speaker, we celebrate this bill because its mandate speaks to the most essential exercise of American citizenship--the right to vote. If it were not for the Voting Rights Act, millions of Americans, particularly African Americans and other people of color, would not have access to this precious right. I remember well the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., as he and so many others sacrificed their lives for the creation of this bill: ``The most revolutionary action our people can undertake is to assert the full measure of our citizenship.'' His words ring with the same truth today. As a result of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, States with a history of racial discrimination were forbidden from using illegal and biased tactics to determine an individual's eligibility to vote. The 1965 Voting Rights Act also required these States to obtain Federal approval before enacting any election laws and assigned Federal officials to monitor the registration process in certain localities. In the 40 years since the passage of this bill, the number of African American registered voters has increased dramatically. Nationwide, the number of African American elected officials has grown from just a handful in the early 1960s to more than 9,000 today. In addition, Americans of all ethnic backgrounds have found strength in the promise of the Voting Rights Act. However, despite these accomplishments, it remains clear that America still has much work to do before the mandate of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is fully realized. As we saw in the 2000 presidential election and as reported by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, there is a new brand of voter discrimination and intimidation. As a result of inconsistent State voter registration laws, inefficient voter equipment and in many instances, subjective oversight at the polls, millions of Americans were denied their right to vote in 2000. As recently as July 2004, it was revealed that Florida State officials were preparing to use an erroneous voter registration list for the November 2004 elections. Although this voter list was abandoned, it reveals the gross inefficiency that continues to burden our elections process. Today, we must not only celebrate the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we must breathe new life into this bill. As several provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 expire in 2007, namely the preclearance and bilingual provisions, I urge the President and this Congress to make certain reauthorization does not become a back burner issue. Lastly, I applaud my colleagues of this body who are the stalwarts on the issues of civil rights and voting rights, particularly Representatives John Lewis, John Conyers and Charlie Rangel. I also applaud Reverend Jesse Jackson and many other faith leaders who continue to stand up for civil rights and human rights. Again, I say to my colleagues that we should use every resource in Congress, especially those resources encapsulated in the Help America Vote Act, to ensure that every vote that is cast is counted.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in celebrating the completion of the conference report on the transportation reauthorization. I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for their tireless leadership. I also thank them for working with me to include funding in this bill for 9 studies that will expand research on critical issues in hazardous materials transportation. In its Special Report 283, the Transportation Research Board found that perhaps ``the most notable gap'' in America's system for ensuring the safety and security of hazardous materials transportation is the lack of research that is cross-cutting and multi-modal in application. The studies funded in SAFETEA-LU will begin to fill this gap by providing information on such issues as integrating safety and security in hazardous materials transportation, developing multi-modal emergency response guidelines, and examining hazardous materials routing. I also look forward to receiving the Department of Transportation's assessment of whether a permanent hazardous materials transportation cooperative research program is needed--as I believe it is. I am also pleased that our conference produced a bill that includes significant provisions that support the increased development of livable communities--particularly by supporting an expansion of transit funding, transportation enhancements and the revitalization of existing roadways, and projects that significantly expand opportunities for people to hike and bike in their neighborhoods. Finally, I want to take just a moment to reflect on how regrettable it is that the process of funding our nation's transportation system has become so acrimonious. It has been said that even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. For the past two years, we have been sitting in place. I truly hope that as we confront the significant challenges in transportation that await us in the future, we will remain focused on what must be our shared goal: adequately investing in the infrastructure needed to move our nation forward. Thus, while I do not agree with every provision in this bill, I strongly support this bill because it will provide the investment in our nation's transportation system that is so essential to keep our economy moving forward by reducing congestion, expanding funding for our nation's transit systems, and creating good-paying jobs. I encourage my colleagues to remain focused on the future by supporting this conference report.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representative Cleaver and the Congressional Black Caucus for bringing focus to this sensitive issue. The Mexican government's decision to release the ``Memin Pinguin'' stamp series has rekindled many memories of past racism in this Nation and abroad. I am outraged and disappointed that Mexico's President, Vicente Fox, has allowed such a negative racial depiction to circulate throughout Mexico. Growing up during the heart of the Civil Rights Movement, I saw firsthand the struggles of my parents and many others more famous, like Representative John Lewis of Georgia, Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, and many others that fought for the equal and fair treatment for all people, not just African-Americans. To publish a stamp that celebrates a stereotypical image of people with African ancestry is offensive to those who have fought and to those who are still fighting for the equal treatment of all people. The ``Memin Pinguin'' depicts a young boy with much exaggerated features including large lips and bulging eyes. These depictions have served as a source of distasteful comedy for far too many years. This Mexican stamp series does nothing but hinder the ongoing efforts to remove racial barriers worldwide. The ideology expressed in this stamp shows the world that it is okay to mimic and belittle people, which is something that I know this Congress and this country do not condone. Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to explain to the constituents of Maryland's 7th District, which includes a growing South American population, as well as a sizeable African-American population, how the Mexican government justifies the distribution of such a derogatory stamp--that could possibly be mailed worldwide. Our own administration has stated that these racially insensitive stamps have no place in the modern world. Conversely, Mexico's President Vicente Fox has stated that he does not feel that the stamps express racial stereotypes and has ignored all calls to pull them from circulation. Additionally, he has stated there is absolutely nothing discriminatory about this stamp collection. In May 2005, President Fox said that, ``Mexican migrants in the U.S. did jobs even blacks don't want.'' President Fox's comment was a slap in the face to all American citizens who believe in justice and equality worldwide. Today, as we face the new world on terror, people of all races, nationalities and backgrounds are forming powerful political and economic coalitions. The comments and actions of President Fox do nothing to strengthen the bonds in these communities. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, many civic organizations are disturbed by the release of the ``Memin Pinguin'' series and the subsequent comments made by the Mexican government. The NAACP has called the stamps ``injurious to black people who live in the United States and Mexico.'' The Mexican Negro Association, which represents some 50,000 blacks, said ``Memin Pinguin rewards, celebrates, typifies and cements the distorted, mocking, stereotypical and limited vision of black people in general.'' These groups, in addition to various other civil rights groups have demanded, but to no avail, that President Fox apologize for his actions. I agree with these groups and support their efforts to not only have President Fox immediately cease the circulation and production of this stamp, but to also hold himself accountable for the inflammatory statements he has made against African-Americans. In response to the public outcry, the Mexican Ambassador to the United States Carlos de Loaza released a letter. In the letter Ambassador de Loaza writes, ``Mexico acknowledges and recognizes the relationship of mutual respect that it has with the African-American community, based on the struggle to protect our communities against discrimination and in the promotion of human rights and diversity.'' While I appreciate the sentiments expressed in his letter, I believe that actions speak louder than words. If President Fox wants to show the level of respect that he has, for not only the African-American community, but for all people, I would request that he issue a formal apology and halt all sales and production of the ``Memin Pinguin'' stamps. The insensitivity embedded in the circulation of the ``Memin Pinguin'' stamps are a clear indication that we still have a long way to go in improving race relations globally. It is truly disheartening when a world leader possesses apparent racial and cultural insensitivity and lacks the humility to apologize when there is nothing to lose. The 750,000 stamps that were sold out after two days represent 750,000 symbols of ignorance and bigotry. Since the civil rights era, we have worked hard on healing as a Nation--we must not revert to the hatred and injustice of the past. These stamps are a haunting memory of America's iniquity that we should never revisit.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, fifteen years ago today, our Nation enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act, giving civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities. This landmark legislation can be described as nothing less than monumental and groundbreaking for those with disabilities as it brought this community into the mainstream folds of our Nation. The ADA has brought about many changes in workplaces, transportation, schools, public buildings, parks and telephone services. Closed captioning, sidewalk curb cutouts, accessible entrances and restrooms, equal employment opportunities--all are a direct result, making the ADA one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation ever enacted by our Nation. Perhaps more important than removing physical barriers, the ADA has been successful in changing the way society views our members with disabilities. Society understands and now demonstrates that people with disabilities could, and should, fully participate in all aspects of life. Mr. Speaker, despite the progress achieved through the ADA, there is still a long way to go before we truly achieve ``full participation'' for people with disabilities. In 1985, the widely regarded Harris poll determined that two-thirds of working age Americans with disabilities are unemployed, the highest unemployment rate by far of any group, and much of the impetus for enacting the ADA. The U.S. Census Bureau shows that little has changed in the last 20 years. Today, only 42% of working-age men, and 34% of working-age women, with disabilities are employed. The ADA levels the playing field, but it cannot ensure that an individual with a disability is actually able to apply for that job, or to that university. As technological advances continue to close physical gaps for people with disabilities in and out of the workplace, let us also be mindful to provide the tools needed to cross the mental gaps they may face. Confidence and recognition of self-worth are absolutely necessary to taking those big steps toward employment, or education. To promote this, we need legislation like the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act, H.R 910, a bill introduced by my colleague Rep. Danny Davis and which I have cosponsored. This bill would provide individuals with disabilities equal access to community-based attendant services and supports, taking many out of institutional care and placing them back into their homes, families and communities where they belong. In supportive and familiar environments, people with disabilities will be better prepared to take advantage of education and employment opportunities. We must continue to educate the public, and help inspire employers to seek out qualified employees with disabilities. We must fight to broaden, not narrow, the scope of the ADA as we continually redefine the meaning of ``disability.'' America has become more accessible to people with disabilities. This fact rightfully deserves 3 celebration today. However, Congress must continue to level the playing field and continue the promise to push for full, unrestricted access and participation for our disabled communities.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 45, which amends the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient limitation on prescribing drug addiction treatments by medical practitioners in group practices. This bill is the companion legislation to H.R. 869, which I have cosponsored. On that subject, let me acknowledge the sponsorship of H.R. 869 by the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). As Chair and myself as ranking member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, we have worked tirelessly on the issue and are pleased to have it considered on the floor today. In 2000, Congress passed the Drug Addiction Treatment Act, otherwise known as DATA, to expand treatment options for patients addicted to opiates. To address concerns about potential abuse or diversion of the treatment medications, DATA limited the prescription of this drug to 30 patients per physician. Unfortunately, DATA also contained language that imposed a 30-patient cap on group practices in addition to the limit per physician. This resulted in an unintended effect of limiting large group practices such as that of Johns Hopkins Medical Center in my district from meeting the high demand for drug treatment. However, S. 45 would eliminate this disparity by removing the 30-patient limit imposed on group practices, thereby expanding access to treatment for all patients regardless of where they receive their medical care. S. 45 is especially important for my district which includes Baltimore City. According to the latest data available, Baltimore has the third highest rate per 100,000 people of heroin-related addictions among the 21 metropolitan areas reporting this information. Further, Baltimore's heroin use ranked at 195, which is much higher than the national rate of 37. Heroin abuse counted for the most drug treatment admissions to publicly funded facilities in the city from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. In addition, mortality data indicate that there were 349 heroin/morphine-related deaths in the Baltimore metropolitan area in 2001, more than for any other illicit drug. I must also note that heroin abuse via injection has contributed significantly to the number of HIV cases in the Baltimore area. S. 45 would greatly reduce these numbers by increasing the availability of treatment medications such as buprenorphine or ``bupe'' in institutions such as teaching hospitals and community health clinics. Treatment medications such as buprenorphine will allow more people to remain productive while trying to overcome their drug addiction. Experts say that buprenorphine leaves patients more clearheaded than methadone and produces less intense withdrawal symptoms. They point out that in the brain, buprenorphine behaves like heroin but works more slowly and less efficiently than other opiates. In other words, this specific treatment reduces or eliminates withdrawal symptoms without producing euphoria. When we passed the law in 2000, our legislation limited bupe's availability because we wanted to avoid the creation of prescription- writing mills. It is important to note that this bill will not open prescription-writing mills. Rather, it would expand access so that more physicians in large group practices would be able to prescribe the drug. I urge my colleagues to support S. 45. This is an important piece of legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, currently, too many of our nation's ``special needs'' children are underserved due to inadequate training of general education teachers. It was recently reported that approximately 80 percent of students with learning disabilities receive the majority of their instruction in general education classrooms. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 50 percent of disabled students between the ages of 6 and 11, and 30 percent of disabled students between the ages of 11 and 12, are taught in regular classrooms. These figures reflect the mandate under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that requires, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities . . . are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. IDEA 612(a)(5)(A). As more children with disabilities enter general education classrooms, it is critical that general education teachers and personnel are adequately trained to adapt curricula to suit their needs. Regular education teachers and personnel must be equipped to collaborate with special education teachers to ensure that the best individualized approaches are utilized for the successful integration of disabled students into the classroom. For these reasons, I am reintroducing the Teacher Training Expansion Act of 2005, legislation that would address this crucial area of teacher development. Specifically, this legislation would authorize the Secretary of Education to give preference, in the distribution of certain grants under IDEA, to local educational agencies and certain public or private nonprofit organizations that provide training to regular education personnel to meet the needs of children with disabilities. Under current law, institutions of higher education are already granted such a preferential status in the distribution of these grants. However, I firmly believe local educational agencies and public or private nonprofit organizations that are at the forefront of training teachers who work with disabled students, must be eligible to receive equal consideration in provide this vital type of professional development and training. Mr. Speaker, by supporting this legislation we will help our teachers gain the skills they need to work effectively with disabled students in general education classrooms and help make good on our promise to provide a quality education to all students. Lastly, as we celebrate the 15th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act today, let us be ever mindful to continue to level the playing field for our disabled and special needs communities in any way that we can. This bill would help in furthering this goal and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Teacher Training Expansion Act of 2005.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, the USA PATRIOT and Intelligence Reform Reauthorization Act of 2005, H.R. 3199. Mr. Chairman, after the tragic events of September 11, every American knows, in every nuance of the truism, that freedom is not free. I firmly believe that in order to have security in our homeland we must have a reasonable expectation of infringement of some of our civil liberties. The stakes are too high to maintain a pre-9/11 mentality and the threats of terrorism are too real. However, this bill crosses the reasonableness threshold by abrogating rights guaranteed under the Constitution without a corresponding increase in the real tools law enforcement needs to fight the war on terrorism. I believe that we should focus on securing our homeland, not by infringing on civil liberties as outlined in the PATRIOT Act--but, by securing our rail and transit systems, by securing our ports and waterways systems, by securing our airspace, and by refining our intelligence organizations for maximum outcomes, just to name a few. But I digress. Subsequent to passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, a hastily devised bill brought to the floor 45 days after 9/11, I received many letters from my constituents who applauded my voting against its passage. While they were opposed to the bill, many were comforted by the fact that the provisions would sunset and Congress would take a closer look when clearer heads might prevail. As the sunset date approached for the more troubling PATRIOT Act provisions, I received even more letters concerned about the prospect of extending or making permanent the more intrusive aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act. I also received reports from people who believed that their rights had been unduly violated under the PATRIOT Act. That is why I held a PATRIOT Act Town hall earlier this ear to further examine the extent of the problem. Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example reported to my office. Some months ago, a Maryland-based engineer of Iranian descent was at work when the State Police showed up at his employer's doorstep and started questioning him. Without explaining the reason for their interrogation, they asked him where he had gone to school, where he had lived, how many times he traveled internationally and whether he had ever rented a car. Then, they demanded that he hand over his laptop--equipment that belonged to his employer--and, after some haggling, they took the device without ever obtaining a warrant. Later, the engineer (whom I'll call ``Mr. L'') was told that a former police officer had seen a group of people who ``looked Middle Eastern'' driving around an airport and ``acting suspicious.'' Fortunately, Mr. L had proof that he was nowhere near the airport during the time in question. He has since been cleared of any wrongdoing. Yet, Mr. L. remains convinced that his professional reputation has been seriously damaged, and in all likelihood, he is correct. Far too many Americans of ethnic descent can relate to Mr. L's story of being accused of wrongdoing based only upon a racial or ethnic ``profile.'' Although our U.S. Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures, we know that this guarantee has not always been uniformly assured. Sadly, the governmental intrusion into Mr. L's life seems to be one of these cases. It was an erosion of his personal freedom clearly allowed under the PATRlOT Act, which as Americans the rest of us take lightly at our peril. Mr. L's story is not unique; the danger his experience illustrates is not limited to Islamic Americans; and the erosion of our freedom is not confined to investigations of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, the expressed purpose of the PATRlOT Act was to assure that U.S. law enforcement agencies would possess the legal tools that they said they needed to protect us from acts of terrorism. From the time of its initial passage, however, there has been serious concern that the wider police powers granted to our law enforcement agents by the legislation--as well as other assertions of executive power by the Bush Administration--were not adequately balanced by sufficient constitutional safeguards. The purposes of this bill are the same and it suffers from the same infirmities as its predecessor. As the Dissenting Views to Accompany H.R. 1399 reports, and I paraphrase, ``there are numerous provisions in both the expiring and other sections of the USA Patriot Act that have little to do with combating terrorism, that intrude on our privacy and civil liberties and that have been repeatedly abused and misused by both the Justice Department and the Administration.'' These include, but are not limited to, the inadequate judicial oversight permitted by this bill and the roving wiretaps targeting innocent Americans--Americans not involved in terrorism in any way. Further, the ``sneak and peak'' provisions authorize federal agents to enter our homes, search them and even seize our property, notifying us only after the fact. It should come as no surprise that since 2002, 389 communities and seven States representing over 62 million people have passed resolutions opposing parts of the USA-PATRlOT Act. It may come as a surprise however, that groups ranging the political spectrum from the ACLU to Gun Owners of America are equally opposed to many sections of the bill. They are concerned, like my constituents and many other citizens around the country, that the PATRlOT Act has been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual's home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases having nothing to do with terrorism. They are concerned that the PATRlOT Act has been used to coerce an internet service provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and websurfing of its members. They are concerned that it has been used on innumerable occasions to obtain reading records from libraries and bookstores--and that on at least 200 occasions has been used to solicit reader information from libraries. They are concerned that they may be next for these unreasonable intrusions. Yet we never had a discourse on these issues. Unfortunately, again the House process has been distorted to leave us to consider a one- sided partisan bill. Instead of thoughtfully considering the tough questions like: how much governmental power is truly required to protect us and what constitutional freedoms are we going to leave in place for our children and generations yet to be born, we consider a partisan bill of which the Minority members inform they never received the facts necessary to fully evaluate. For this and other reasons, I decided to cosponsor the bipartisan bill spearheaded by Butch Otter and Bernie Sanders, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2005, H.R. 1526, the SAFE Act. Among other corrections to the PATRIOT Act, this bill would require ``specific and articulable facts'' (rather than a more generalized suspicion) that a suspect is an agent of a foreign power when the government wishes to seize records. It would require a far more detailed justification before ``roving wiretaps'' could be utilized and it would protect our library and bookstore records from unwarranted inspection. In addition, H.R. 1526 would re-define the new crime of ``domestic terrorism'' in far more narrow terms, making it clear that our traditional freedom to assemble and challenge governmental action must not be chilled. Although this bill does not resolve every concern about the USA PATRIOT Act, I believe it represents a better beginning for the House debate than the bill under consideration. Democrats and Republicans alike are seeking to better protect the freedom of Americans--without reducing our ability to protect ourselves against terrorist threats. Since September 11, Americans have learned to accept some additional intrusions into our privacy as the price that we must pay to protect ourselves. Yet, we must also remain vigilant.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to congratulate Chairman John Duncan and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson--and of course Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar--for bringing the Water Resources Development Act, H.R. 2864, to the floor. Congress has not enacted a new WRDA since 2000--and I applaud the leaders of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for bringing a bill to the floor of the House before this year's August recess. The WRDA Act guides the Army Corps of Engineers' management of our Nation's waterways and water resources by authorizing projects that in many cases have literally reshaped the rivers and waterways of our Nation. For example, past WRDA bills have authorized the massive restoration of the Florida Everglades--and this WRDA bill authorizes significant changes to the Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway and as well as projects to restore coastal wetlands in Louisiana. When we as a Nation assume this kind of control over our environment--particularly over elements as powerful as our rivers and coastal plains--I believe it is imperative that policies and procedures be in place that will ensure that the projects undertaken by the Corps will achieve clear objectives. It is also essential that the potential impact of such projects on our natural resources be fully studied and understood. We are the stewards of our planet's riches--and we must remember that we will bequeath them to generations yet unborn. I encourage Congress to continue to move thoughtfully as this bill is refined and deliberated through the conference process, which I hope will begin sooner rather than later. In closing, I want to thank the committee for authorizing a study in the 2005 WRDA that will enable us to undertake the kind of informed interventions that are necessary to preserve the health of the Patapsco River, which is a critical natural resource in my district in Baltimore and indeed in the State of Maryland. WRDA instructs the Corps to assess the impact of debris accumulating in the Patapsco River basin on wetlands, water quality, and public health. Using the results of this study, the Corps can assess the impact of this debris on wetlands, water quality, and public health, and can then develop strategies to help clean up Baltimore's Inner Harbor. I am hopeful that this project will be a component of a larger initiative planned to restore the water quality and habitat of the Patapsco River Basin--and I thank the Committee for their continued support.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to the Souder Amendment that would prevent the use of funds in the bill to enforce the District of Columbia's laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm or ammunition, as well as laws relating to keeping a firearm or a pistol. It is the apex of hypocrisy to defend the right of local communities to govern themselves free from the burden of needless federal interference, but deny that very right to the citizens of our Nation's capital. I encourage members of this body to agree that we need not agree on the merits of the District's gun safety laws to respect home rule for the District of Columbia. Since the passage of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act or Home Rule Act in 1973, the District has utilized its authority to not only elect a Mayor and a City Council, but also to regulate firearms. In 1976, the District of Columbia Council passed the Firearms Control Regulations Act, establishing one of the most robust limitations on gun ownership in the nation with the intention of and protecting public safety. Specifically, this gun safety law required all firearms in the District be registered, restricted the classes of individuals who can register a firearm, and generally banned the registration of all handguns. Despite the suggestion by my colleagues on the other side that all firearms are banned in the District, it must be noted, however, that since 1976, 100,000 firearms have been lawfully registered. Although Mayor Williams and Metropolitan Police Department Chief Ramsey testified just yesterday before the Committee on Government Reform that they passionately support the District's gun safety laws, this amendment would undermine their efforts to safeguard their city from the ravaging effects of gun violence. In evaluating the District's limitations on firearm possession, one is compelled to ask two central questions: one, are the District's gun safety laws effective; and two, are they constitutional? In short, the answers to both those questions seem to be yes. The District's gun safety laws are effective at discouraging gun violence by making firearms less widespread throughout the city and assisting law enforcement efforts in recovering unlawful firearms that endanger the lives of police officers and law-abiding citizens. What is most tragic is the fact that some in Congress would seek to undermine or repeal the District's gun safety laws at a time when the District's homicide rate is the lowest it has been since 1986. Secondly, the two lawsuits challenging that the District's gun laws are a violation of the Second Amendment rights, failed to overturn these laws on constitutional grounds. Specifically, the judges in both cases ruled that the District's gun safety laws were constitutional declaring that the Second Amendment does not confer a protected right of private gun ownership, rather the Second Amendment applies solely to State militias. Mr. Chairman, it seems wise to move forward guided by the principle that democracy often functions best when those closest to an issue are empowered to address it. The residents of the District of Columbia speak through their elected Mayor and City Council that their existing approach to gun safety is best for their community. If the residents of the District want to repeal their gun safety laws, then we should let democracy work and permit them to elect those leaders who will ease the existing restrictions on firearms within the city. Until then, let us embrace the constitutional principle from whence our great Nation was born--the right of self-determination--and let the District of Columbia manage this matter how best it sees fit. When the sun rises tomorrow, let it rise upon a city where the right of self-determination is not subject to the interest of the NRA or a congressional veto. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the committee for its accomplishments in crafting H.R. 3058, including increasing funding to public transit and preserving the CDBG program, I join my colleagues in expressing my disappointment that Amtrak has not been adequately funded. By providing only $550 million for Amtrak, this bill would have the effect of pushing Amtrak into bankruptcy. Many people might think that $550 million is an enormous amount. In fact, $550 million is only 5 percent of the total amount that is provided in this bill for the air traffic control system, and it is $323 million less than Congress has appropriated to support the redevelopment of transportation infrastructure in Iraq. In addition to failing to adequately fund Amtrak, the committee inserted a provision in the bill that would have the effect of eliminating up to 18 different Amtrak routes, including six routes that travel through my district in Baltimore. Mr. Chairman, it is time we bring to close the prolonged debate about the future of Amtrak by recommitting ourselves to the value of our national intercity passenger rail service. I have therefore joined with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), in sponsoring an amendment that would save these 18 routes and preserve passenger rail service in 23 States. I urge my colleagues to keep Amtrak on track.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, the Labor-HHS Education Appropriations bill (H.R. 3010) that we are considering today is a sad reflection of Congress' commitment to our Nation, as it represents a gross underfunding of key domestic priorities as well as widens the disparities gap. Access to an affordable, high-quality, public education helps save our children and generations yet unborn from the clutches of poverty, crime, drugs, and hopelessness. I would ask what could be more important or more necessary than to make sure that those who wish to better themselves through a high quality education are able to achieve that goal unobstructed by the barriers of financial disadvantage? Regrettably, this bill would close the door of opportunity to more students by providing the smallest increase in education funding in 10 years. Specifically, H.R. 3010 eliminates 24 important education programs. It freezes funding for after school centers, maintains the broken promise of IDEA full funding, and underfunds Title I by $9.9 billion below the investment promised in NCLB, leaving 3 million needy children to struggle without the academic assistance we pledged to provide. Despite the need to expand the affordability of higher education, this bill would provide only a paltry $50 increase to the maximum Pell Grant award. Mr. Chairman, I am also deeply troubled by the fact that this bill fails to move America in a direction in which being a minority is not a mortality factor. The National Institute of Medicine concluded that: Americans of color tend to receive lower-quality health care than do Caucasians; Americans of color receive inferior medical care--compared to the majority population--even when the patients' incomes and insurance plans are the same; and these disparities contribute to higher death rates from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and other life-endangering conditions. H.R. 3010 would expand the disparity in health care access by eliminating the Healthy Communities Access Program and ten health profession training programs. It would also cut by $871 million the Health Resources and Services Administration and freeze nearly all Ryan White AIDS Care programs at a time when AIDS disproportionately ravages communities of color. H.R. 3010 would also leave the neediest with even less help by cutting the Community Services Block Grant by 50 percent. Lastly, I know I echo the sentiments of many of my constituents and those around the country when I say--restore the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). I received almost 200 calls from constituents concerned about the detrimental impact cuts to the CPB will impose. In my state, the $100 million rescission in the bill means that Maryland Public Television will be cut by $1,192,198. For Maryland's public radio stations, it also translates into significant decreases in funding--WBJC by over $84,000; WESM by almost $63,000; WSCL by $55,000; and WEAA and WYPR, both based in my district, by $78,673 and $138,029 respectively. The CPB is an invaluable part of the educational and informational structure of our Nation--for both those young and the old. We should not deafen its voice by cutting nearly 50 percent of its budget. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3010 represents a misguided attempt to restore fiscal sanity on the backs of those least able to bear the heavy burden. Our collective belief in the principles of fairness and equality demand that we do more than the Bush Administration and House Leadership--who only offer hollow promises to address these disparities. We should hold them accountable and force an actual delivery on these promises by restoring funding for the numerous critical domestic programs in this bill. America expects and deserves this accountability.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen hero, Sergeant First Class Neil Armstrong Prince, who grew up in my district in Baltimore, Maryland. This brave 35-year-old Army sergeant was killed on June 11 in Al Taqaddum, Iraq, after a roadside bomb exploded near his vehicle. Sergeant Prince's convoy was traveling to another city in Iraq when it encountered several improvised bombs. The first bomb did not injure anyone, but as the convoy stopped to secure the area, two more bombs exploded. The last bomb detonated directly under Sergeant Prince's vehicle, killing him and 22-year-old Specialist Casey Byers of Schleswig, Iowa. Sergeant Prince was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division in Fort Carson, CO. Mr. Speaker, as a committed member of the United States Army for nearly 16 years, he demonstrated his unyielding courage and strong sense of patriotism in serving this country. I offer my deepest condolences to his family during this time. I, along with the other members of the Maryland Federal delegation, mourn their loss. Our prayers are with his wife Suzette; his 4-year-old son Jordan; his parents Cecil and Olive Bailey; his brother Aldean Lindo; and three sisters, Ann-Marie Richards, Ava, and Shane Prince. Sergeant Prince was one of Maryland's finest citizens. I did not know him personally; however, we share an inseparable bond as graduates of Baltimore City College High School. It was at City College where Sergeant Prince decided to pursue a career in the military. He wanted to serve his country and give something back to a Nation that had given so much to him. Sergeant Prince took his job as a member of our armed services very seriously. It is evident that he accepted each challenge with valor and dignity, regardless of the inherent dangers involved. While he was in Korea last year, a sergeant in another unit with the same job had a back injury, and Sergeant Prince was assigned to replace him when that unit was deployed to Iraq. This brave young American knew of the perils of the high-risk areas into which was being sent, but he was proud to be a soldier. He was proud that, by serving in the United States Army, he was not only making a better life for himself, but he was trying to make a better life, a safer life for us all. When his family expressed justifiable concerns about his safety in Iraq, Sergeant Prince responded with the quiet confidence that defined him. He said, ``That is what I joined the Army to do. It is simply my job.'' Mr. Speaker, the deadly consequences of war are a reality that we must all face. However, the knowledge of what may happen in war does little to diminish the pain, the anguish when that reality reaches your front door. Sergeant Prince had three loves in his life: his wife, his son, and his sports. Needless to say, his wife and son will miss him immensely. How do you comfort a wife who has lost her lifelong partner, confidant and friend? How do you calm the fears of a 4-year-old boy who must now come to terms with the fact that his father will never return home? And when young Jordan Prince scores his first touchdown or hits his first home run, his dad will not be in the stands to cheer him on to victory. Jordan has lost his father, the one who is supposed to teach him how to become a man. Perhaps there is no consolation for a loss so deep. However, there are memories to help ease the pain. This Maryland family has the memories of a man who loved them dearly and loved being a soldier. He had a vision for his life and followed that vision with intensity. Many of us who are blessed with longevity will spend years upon years never feeling fulfilled and never doing what we were born to do. There is comfort in knowing that during his brief stay on this Earth, Sergeant Prince lived a life of purpose. Finally, there is little doubt that his parents named him for the famous astronaut Neil Armstrong because they wanted him to be a part of a legacy of bravery and triumph. They hoped his achievements would pierce the stratosphere and reach out onward to the Moon, just like the astronaut before him. There would be no limit to Sergeant Prince's potential in this country. They were right. Neil Armstrong Prince reached for the stars. Like all of our men and women in armed services, his courage and his commitment to the defense our great country were almost not earthly.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reintroduce the Servitude and Emancipation Archival Research ClearingHouse (SEARCH) Act of 2005, companion legislation to a bill soon to be reintroduced by Senator Landrieu of Louisiana. The SEARCH Act would authorize the creation of a national database of servitude and emancipation records within the National Archives. Mr. Speaker, for most Americans, researching their genealogical history involves searching through municipal birth, death, and marriage records--most of which have been properly archived as public historical documents. However, African Americans in the United States face a unique challenge when conducting genealogical research. Due to slavery and discrimination, and their residues, African- Americans were denied many of the benefits of citizenship that produce traceable documentation such as voter registration, property ownership, business ownership, and school attendance. As a result, instead of looking up wills, land deeds, birth and death certificates, and other traditional genealogical research documents, African Americans must often try to identify the name of former slave owners, hoping that the owners kept records of pertinent information, such as births and deaths. Unfortunately, current records of emancipation and slavery are frequently inaccessible, poorly catalogued, and inadequately preserved from decay. Although some states and localities have undertaken efforts to collect these documents with varying degrees of success, there is no national effort to preserve these important pieces of public and personal history or to make them readily and easily accessible to all Americans. While entities such as Howard University and the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture Library have extensive African American archives, the SEARCH Act would create a centralized database of these historic records. This database would be administered by the Archivist of the United States as part of the National Archives. The SEARCH Act would also authorize $5 million for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to establish the national database, as well as $5 million in grants for states and academic institutions to preserve local records of servitude and emancipation. On behalf of the many African Americans throughout the United States, and in recognition of the observance of June 19th as African American Emancipation Day or Juneteenth, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the SEARCH Act. I believe that this legislation will be a vital step in resurrecting the rich history of African Americans and the vital role that they played in building America. This legislation is not only a means by which African Americans can trace their lineage, but also as a means by which our nation can preserve historically comprehensive and accurate information for generations yet unborn. Author Maya Angelou once said that ``No man can know where he is going unless he knows exactly where he has been and exactly how he arrived at his present place.'' Let there be no mistake Mr. Speaker, the SEARCH Act will provide African Americans an opportunity to forge a crucial nexus between the past and the present. Just as important, it will give our nation an opportunity to continue to correct the unintended consequences of the past. Join me in ending the horrible legacies of slavery and discrimination by giving African Americans a real chance to understand who they are and from whence they came.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I request that you join me today in recognizing May as American Stroke Month. In doing so, we are presented with an opportunity to educate one another about the shattering effects of stroke that leave no American community unscathed. Stroke, the third leading cause of death in our nation, is caused by an interruption of blood flow to the brain from a blood clot or ruptured blood vessel. Every 45 seconds someone in America suffers a stroke, and every 3 minutes someone dies from one. Over 700,000 Americans of all ages, ethnicities, and gender suffer new or recurring strokes each year, taking the lives of more than 160,000 people. For those who survive an attack, the consequences of a stroke can be emotionally and physically devastating, often leaving victims with speech problems, impaired thinking, and paralysis. Over half of all stroke survivors must live with a disability. With 4.8 million stroke survivors, stroke is the leading cause of serious, long-term disability in the United States. Many of us possess an image of stroke as a catastrophic, uncontrollable event that can be neither prevented nor treated. However, given adequate resources and education, nearly 80 percent of all strokes can be prevented, and many others can be effectively treated. High blood pressure, elevated cholesterol levels, smoking, a lack of physical activity and obesity have all been linked to increased susceptibility to stroke. Diabetes increases the risk of stroke by a factor of three. By controlling our medical risks with a healthy lifestyle and regular medical care, particularly among African Americans who are hardest hit by cardiovascular disease and diabetes, we can significantly decrease our chances of suffering a stroke. Surviving a stroke with little or no disability is possible. Understanding the symptoms of a stroke, and taking immediate emergency action by calling 9-1-1, is crucial to a chance for full recovery. Rapid administration of clot-dissolving drugs, if delivered within the first 3 hours of the onset of stroke symptoms, can greatly improve a patient's chances for recovery. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a majority of Americans are not aware of their risk for a stroke, nor are they aware of the signs and symptoms of an impending stroke. Hospitals and emergency medical services are not organized to maximize the benefits of available treatments. The average time between the onset of symptoms and medical treatment is far too long, averaging an astounding 13 hours. Fewer than 5 percent of stroke patients receive potentially lifesaving clot-dissolving medication. Many stroke patients do not receive preventive care, such as cholesterol screening and smoking cessation counseling, before leaving the hospital. What can we do to help? We can start by encouraging our family, friends and fellow citizens to simply ask their doctors, ``Am I at risk for a stroke?'' and ``What do I do if I have a stroke?'' Education is power, and it can preserve crucial moments that mean the difference between death or a life of disability, and a healthy future. We can also support legislation like the STOP Stroke Act, H.R. 898, a bill sponsored by my good friends Representatives Lois Capps and Charles Pickering of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. This bill would authorize initiatives to help patients with symptoms of stroke receive timely and thorough care, and would establish campaigns to raise public awareness of stroke prevention and treatment. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this critical legislation. Mr. Speaker, improving systems of stroke care and increasing awareness and education of stroke treatment and prevention will help ensure that all stroke patients have access to the best available, timely treatment. On behalf of the millions of Americans currently at risk or living with the consequences of stroke, I urge us to do everything in our power to help save lives and educate the public about this devastating disease.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, today, we are poised to enact our seventh extension of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21). This Act was originally set to expire in September 2003. Unfortunately, after nearly two years of consideration, Congress has been unable to pass a new reauthorization measure. I truly hope that this is the last extension we have to pass. The transportation reauthorization guides all federal spending on highways and transit systems. The delay in enactment of this legislation has left states and transit systems uncertain about the funding they will have. As a result, they have delayed critical constructions projects-- and good paying jobs have been lost. State departments of transportation reported at the end of last year that collectively they had already delayed the implementation of more than $2 billion worth of highway and transit projects, which has caused nearly 90,000 job opportunities to be lost. The delay in implementation of transportation construction projects is also causing the traveling public to suffer. The new 2005 Urban Mobility Report published by the Texas Transportation Institute found that drivers now waste nearly 4 billion hours and $63 billion waiting in congestion. The only way to reduce this congestion and to create new jobs is for states to build the new roads and transit projects they need--and states cannot do that until the federal government meets its responsibility and commits funding for these projects to the states. There is an old saying: even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. Right now, it is time to get moving--and to get our transportation system moving--by passing a transportation reauthorization.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to recognize Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, one word comes to mind when I think of the people to whom we dedicate this month--and that word is persistence. From the transcontinental railroad to academy-nominated films, Asian Pacific Americans have helped shape this Nation in incredible ways. In fact, as many may know, the backbone of our country's railroad system was built with a labor force that consisted of 80 percent Chinese Americans, who prepared the foundation of our railroad tracks by dangling over cliffs with a mere rope tied to their waists on mountains that rose over 7,000 feet. In literature, we have the contributions of scholarly elites such as Maxine Hong Kingston and Amy Tan, who have opened our eyes to the different practices of the Far East. In fitness, we are exposed to the discipline of the world of martial arts with disciplines ranging from Tai Chi to Judo. Finally, in philosophy, we are introduced to the idea of Confucius, Sun Tzu, who wrote The Art of War, and Feng Sui to guide our lives. Not to mention the Chinatowns of our nation, with cuisines ranging from India, Thailand, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, that has transformed our taste buds with some of the best and most diverse Asian dishes--but more importantly shown the diversity of the continent. But this wonderful list of Asian contributions did not come without a price. Thousands of Chinese Americans died under dangerous working conditions while building the transcontinental railroad, yet when the railroad was finally completed, they were not even allowed to be a part of the official photograph that documented those involved with the construction. Their names were not mentioned anywhere in news articles, and their faces quickly forgotten in American history. Chinatowns were created out of necessity as a form of protection from discrimination and a need for survival. Stereotypes that bias our perceptions today came to form as a result of Asian Americans being restricted to specific low-level jobs as deemed appropriate by the majority of the time. Various anti-immigration laws during the early 1900s ensured racial offenses against Asian Americans were abundant and legal. Our nation should never forget the atrocious violations we imposed on the Japanese Americans during WorId War II as we shunned them from society as a result of their ethnicity. Mr. Speaker, despite all the hardship and adversity that Asian Americans have faced during their time in the United States, the persistence and resilience of Asian Americans have allowed them to flourish into the leading minority group they are today. I encourage my colleagues to learn from the history of Asian Americans in the United States, so that we may avoid the civil rights violations and discriminatory practices that hurt ethnic communities in the name of national security. I would also like to encourage the future generations of Asian Americans to follow in the footsteps of their ancestors. Persist in your dreams of a fair America, persist in your desires for an equal America, and persist in your fight for an America that is as dedicated and tolerant of you as your ancestors have been with us.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I rise today, during National Transportation Week, to recognize our remarkable transportation accomplishments and to draw attention to the critical challenges that we now face. During the half-century that has passed between the first permanent Transportation Week in 1962 and this week in 2005, we have created a world-class transportation system that moved our nation forward to the 21st century. We built an Interstate System that now extends more than 46,000 miles. We built major new subway systems in cities like San Francisco; Washington, DC; and Atlanta. We created a cabinet-level Department of Transportation. We created Amtrak to preserve intercity passenger rail service. And we maintained and expanded a Federal transportation financing system based largely on the collection of gas taxes. Unfortunately, that system of financing is now breaking down and our forward progress is threatened. This week, as we celebrate the 43rd annual National Transportation Week, we are 2 years into the effort to reauthorize Federal transportation spending. Unfortunately, all the proposals currently under consideration fall short of funding our extensive transportation needs. The transportation reauthorization legislation adopted by the House would provide $284.9 billion, while the bill passed this week by the Senate would provided $295 billion. Both of these funding levels are imperfect compromises. Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar originally introduced the House reauthorization legislation at a funding level of $375 billion. The Bush Administration has, however, demanded that spending be limited to $284.9 billion--or a figure that is approximately $90 billion below the level of investment that even the Department of Transportation says is needed. What is the real difference between $375 billion and $285 billion? It is the difference between merely maintaining a transportation system in which drivers experience nearly 4 billion hours of delay and constructing the new roads and transit facilities necessary to reduce congestion and to save some of the more than 40,000 lives lost on our highways each year. It is the difference between the 13.5 million jobs that would be supported by $285 billion and the nearly 18 million jobs that would be supported by $375 billion. To fill the gap between the funding the Federal Government is willing to provide and the funding that is needed, we have created so-called ``innovative'' financing mechanisms, such as garvee bonds. These mechanisms enable states to issue increasing amounts of debt to try to meet the transportation needs that Federal funding is no longer meeting. As the title of an insightful report issued this year by the Brookings Institution describes it, these are simply short-sighted and unsustainable means of building ``Today's Roads with Tomorrow's Dollars.'' The Federal Highway Administration reports that at the end of 2003, States had more than $77 billion in total highway related debt outstanding. As with our growing national debt, States' reliance on debt only shifts the burden of paying for our present transportation infrastructure needs on to future generations. We are going to confront a time in the not-too-distant future when States will have a back-log of construction projects that cannot be built because states are still paying for the roads they built 15 years ago. There is an old saying: even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. The transportation reauthorization bill has now been passed by both the House and the Senate. Our immediate task must be to provide a measure of relief to our States by passing a conference report as soon as possible. As we approach the end of our sixth extension to TEA-21, we must remember that the more we delay, the less we are able to relieve the burden of debt States are incurring to fund transportation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment (No. 10) offered by Mr. Souder, the chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, with whom I serve as Ranking Minority Member. The amendment would extend through FY 2006 the authorization of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The amendment would authorize the office at a level of $6 million annually--the same amount authorized by Congress, but not funded by the Administration, in FY 2005. Our government's response to the attacks of 9/11 has been to take the fight to the terrorists militarily and to take steps to insulate our people and infrastructure from threats to our national security at home. Congress created the Department of Homeland Security with the stark realization that gaps in security at our borders and ports of entry provide an open door not only to illegal immigration and dangerous illegal drugs, but also to terrorist threats. Investigations into the 9/11 attacks also led to a greater understanding of the extent to which drug proceeds are the lifeblood of international criminal and terrorist organizations that threaten U.S. security. Congress's recognition of the importance of stemming the flow of drugs into the United States is reflected in the mission statement of the Department of Homeland Security. Codified in the original authorizing statute, that statement directs the Secretary of DHS to explore links between terrorists and drug trafficking organizations and otherwise pursue drug interdiction. The gentleman from Indiana and I share the view that we must not allow the threat of singular catastrophic events to detract from domestic efforts to stop the daily onslaught of illegal drugs that gradually turns American lives to waste and local communities into war zones. Let us not forget, Mr. Chairman, that domestic consumption of illegal drugs claims roughly 20,000 thousand American lives each year--nearly seven times the number of Americans who perished in the 9/11 attacks. Thousands more Americans go to jail or prison for drug-related crimes or become a victim of drug-related violence or property crime. An estimated $150 billion in economic productivity is lost annually due to drugs. That is why I co-authored with Chairman Souder a provision in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that created within the Department of Homeland Security the position of Counternarcotics Officer, or ``CNO.'' It was our purpose in proposing the CNO provision to create a high- level position within DHS that would maintain a high profile and priority for counternarcotics missions. The CNO was tasked with ensuring that DHS drug interdiction, investigation, and enforcement efforts would be coordinated internally and also meshed with the efforts of other Federal agencies to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of anti-drug efforts throughout the government. Three years later, the Homeland Security Department is up and running, but the record shows that the Administration has stood in the way of our efforts to support and improve coordination of counter-drug enforcement efforts. Last year, in response to the Administration's failure to prioritize anti-drug efforts with DHS, we replaced the CNO position with the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, authorizing $6 million for the office in FY 2005. Unfortunately, President Bush ignored the will of Congress and chose not to fund the office. The Administration's budget request includes nothing for the office in FY 2006 and further seeks to undermine drug enforcement by proposing deep cuts in major anti-drug programs including HIDTA, Byrne Grants and the COPS program. Mr. Chairman, the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement deserves to be reauthorized and to be funded at a level adequate for it to fulfill its mission. By extending the authorization of this office, we can help to ensure that the war on drugs and the war on terror both can be fought with maximum vigor, efficiency, and effectiveness. We need to show a real commitment to our Nation's counternarcotics efforts--extend the reauthorization of the CNO and give the office permanent funding and personnel. I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, I urge the Committee to make the amendment in order, and I support the gentleman in his efforts to secure funding for the office as the DHS appropriations bill goes to conference.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our fallen heroes and to offer my heartfelt thanks to our brave men and women in blue. Yesterday, sadly, was an eerily familiar day. Once again, fighter jets circled the bright blue sky and alarms echoed throughout the halls of Congress. As my colleagues and I rushed off the House floor, a police officer exclaimed, ``This is not a test! Run!'' Mr. Speaker, there was fear in the officer's eyes, but there was bravery in her voice. This was the moment for which she had trained, and she was determined to shepherd us to safety. I thanked God, once again, for the commitment, courage and competence of the Capitol Police. Mr. Speaker, it is all too fitting that this week is National Police Week. When an unidentified aircraft entered restricted air space yesterday, Members of Congress witnessed the efficiency and fearlessness of our police force first-hand. But it should not take an emergency for us to recognize those who risk their lives for our protection. It should not take a tragedy for us to say thank you. Mr. Speaker, 415 names will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial this week. I'd like to speak to you about one of the names that will be written on the Memorial, a name that many from my hometown of Baltimore hold in our hearts. Almost exactly a year ago, Officer Brian D. Winder was killed in the line of duty as he responded to a 911 call. He was only 36. Mr. Speaker, you need only read the postings on Officer Winder's memorial website to know how much he meant to his wife, children, and fellow officers. In fact, if I may, I would like to read the posting written by Officer Winder's partner, LeTanye. Hey B., today starts a tough time for me and a lot of others who miss you. I have that task of making sure that your family makes it through all of the ceremonies that are upcoming in honor of Police Memorial Week. There have been so many times, recently, that I just wanted to give up being a peace officer because it has gotten so much more dangerous for us on the streets. The department is falling apart one by one. These are things that you and I spent countless times discussing. But now you are gone and it's hard. My sister was attacked the other day by an unknown male and I told myself that I had to continue this job. I have to continue to see that my family and yours are safe. I know that you would want me to do so. I just ask that you stay by my side and help me continue the fight, even when I feel that I can't do it anymore. Mr. Speaker, LeTanye has reason to feel lonely and overwhelmed. The President, and yes, this Congress, have abandoned her. The President's budget slashed billions of dollars from essential law enforcement programs like COPS, a program that had added thousands of police officers to our most dangerous neighborhoods. Now law enforcement officers like LeTanye will have to shoulder even more of the burden of our collective safety. So, I ask you, how many more partners will LeTanye lose as a result of these cutbacks? Deep cuts to the COPS, Byrne grants and HIDTA programs endanger their lives and hinder their ability to protect our communities. How can we say to her, we know it's hard, and it's going to get harder because we aren't willing to give you the support you need? How can we look Capitol Police Officers in the face, knowing they are willing to give their lives for our protection, while we pass legislation that endangers theirs. Mr. Speaker, we should honor all of our law enforcement officers by giving them the resources they need to do their jobs well and safely. We must do more than etch one more name onto a memorial wall. We must speak truth to power by etching a legacy of respect, gratitude and priority funding into our fiscal policies for our nation's law enforcement forces. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our fallen heroes and to offer my heartfelt thanks to our brave men and women in blue. Yesterday, sadly, was an eerily familiar day. Once again, fighter jets circled the bright blue sky and alarms echoed throughout the halls of Congress. As my colleagues and I rushed off the House floor, a police officer exclaimed, ``This is not a test! Run!'' Mr. Speaker, there was fear in the officer's eyes, but there was bravery in her voice. This was the moment for which she had trained, and she was determined to shepherd us to safety. I thanked God, once again, for the commitment, courage and competence of the Capitol Police. Mr. Speaker, it is all too fitting that this week is National Police Week. When an unidentified aircraft entered restricted air space yesterday, Members of Congress witnessed the efficiency and fearlessness of our police force first-hand. But it should not take an emergency for us to recognize those who risk their lives for our protection. It should not take a tragedy for us to say thank you. Mr. Speaker, 415 names will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial this week. I'd like to speak to you about one of the names that will be written on the Memorial, a name that many from my hometown of Baltimore hold in our hearts. Almost exactly a year ago, Officer Brian D. Winder was killed in the line of duty as he responded to a 911 call. He was only 36. Mr. Speaker, you need only read the postings on Officer Winder's memorial website to know how much he meant to his wife, children, and fellow officers. In fact, if I may, I would like to read the posting written by Officer Winder's partner, LeTanye. Hey B., today starts a tough time for me and a lot of others who miss you. I have that task of making sure that your family makes it through all of the ceremonies that are upcoming in honor of Police Memorial Week. There have been so many times, recently, that I just wanted to give up being a peace officer because it has gotten so much more dangerous for us on the streets. The department is falling apart one by one. These are things that you and I spent countless times discussing. But now you are gone and it's hard. My sister was attacked the other day by an unknown male and I told myself that I had to continue this job. I have to continue to see that my family and yours are safe. I know that you would want me to do so. I just ask that you stay by my side and help me continue the fight, even when I feel that I can't do it anymore. Mr. Speaker, LeTanye has reason to feel lonely and overwhelmed. The President, and yes, this Congress, have abandoned her. The President's budget slashed billions of dollars from essential law enforcement programs like COPS, a program that had added thousands of police officers to our most dangerous neighborhoods. Now law enforcement officers like LeTanye will have to shoulder even more of the burden of our collective safety. So, I ask you, how many more partners will LeTanye lose as a result of these cutbacks? Deep cuts to the COPS, Byrne grants and HIDTA programs endanger their lives and hinder their ability to protect our communities. How can we say to her, we know it's hard, and it's going to get harder because we aren't willing to give you the support you need? How can we look Capitol Police Officers in the face, knowing they are willing to give their lives for our protection, while we pass legislation that endangers theirs. Mr. Speaker, we should honor all of our law enforcement officers by giving them the resources they need to do their jobs well and safely. We must do more than etch one more name onto a memorial wall. We must speak truth to power by etching a legacy of respect, gratitude and priority funding into our fiscal policies for our nation's law enforcement forces.