Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to celebrate National Nurses Week, May 6-12, 2005, I would like to start off by reciting a passage of a poem written for Florence Nightingale--the original nurse who began the revolution that would bring us the health care we know today: Now God sent this woman to succour the brave Some thousands she saved from an untimely grave Her eyes beam with pleasure, she's bounteous and good The wants of the wounded are by her understood. Mr. Speaker, while this poem was a dedication to the care and ease the ``Lady-in-Chief', as Florence Nightingale was called during the Crimean War, brought to the soldiers as they laid in pain, it can easily be applied to the nurses that are thoughtfully attending to the needs of the sick and wounded today. From a mere ache in the neck, to recovery after surgery, nurses are the ones who are consistently by their patients' side, taking care of their daily needs. By the time a patient leaves, his or her nurse will know not just what the patient needs in order to complete his or her medical treatment, but what makes the patient laugh and what makes the patient cry. A great nurse makes the difference between a tolerable stay in the hospital and endurable pain, or an insufferable wait and excruciating agony. Today, our country relies on the tender care of 2.4 million nurses, who are truly the silent heroes of our health care system. Their diverse occupation provides comfort to women and men of all ages, illnesses, and professions, beginning from their first day on earth to their very last. Nurses across this country deserve the same support and consideration as they have given to us, and as I stand here today to honor their tireless work and selfless acts. Mr. Speaker, I also ask my colleagues to join me in giving their undivided attention to the crisis of nurse shortage in our nation. Mr. Speaker, as health care costs continue to rise, and as the number of uninsured has climbed to its highest number ever of 45 million Americans, nurses across this country are being overstretched and underappreciated. Consequently, the backbone of our health care system is starting to falter, as the number of registered nurses drops to its slowest growth rate since 1980. Enrollments in nursing schools are not meeting the demands of the population, and job burnout is causing current nurses to leave the profession. According to the June 2001 issue of TrendWatch published by the American Hospital Associations, 75 percent of vacancies in hospitals nationwide are nursing positions. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in history, the nurses of our country are suffering in a wounded profession. Let us work together to ensure that incentives are provided so that the younger generation considers becoming a part of one of the oldest and most venerable professions again. Let us be at the side of our nurses as they are at our side during our time of need. It took nurses 29 years before they were able to get a week of recognition for all of the hard work they put into our society year- round. Let us make sure it doesn't take another 29 years before we start tending to the needs of their profession. They need more training, more research and more resources--I hope our budgets begin to reflect these priorities. Lastly, I want to recognize our colleagues who served as nurses prior to joining us in the House of Representatives--Eddie Bernice Johnson, Lois Capps and Carolyn McCarthy. I applaud your tireless work in raising nursing issues to a level of national significance, thereby improving our nation's healthcare delivery system.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bear witness to the millions who perished in the Holocaust. From 1933 to 1945, a dark cloud descended on Europe and death rolled like thunder across the Continent. Six million Jews died unspeakable deaths at the hands of the Nazis. Thousands of homosexuals, political dissidents, blacks and gypsies were corralled into concentration camps, tortured, and killed. Righteous Germans gave their lives to protect their neighbors, and millions of civilians succumbed as bombs fell like rain during air raids. Mr. Speaker, we hear the screech of sirens piercing the night, and we say ``Never Again.'' We see shattered glass littering the streets and we say ``Never Again.'' We feel bodies pressed against each other in cattle cars--no room to move, no air to breathe--and we say ``Never Again.'' We hear the hiss of gas pouring from shower spigots and see fingernails scratching at concrete walls, and we say ``Never Again.'' We remember the curl of smoke reaching toward a white winter sky and ashes drifting down amidst snowflakes. Never Again. Mr. Speaker, in the 60 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, Holocaust survivors across the world have borne witness to the atrocities of the Shoah. They have taught us about the dangers of prejudice and ignorance. They have shown us by their shining example the power of strength, education and activism. I rise today to thank these survivors for all they have taught us, and to express my sympathy for the loved ones they lost long ago. But, Mr. Speaker, I also rise today because, somewhere in Darfur, Sudan the electricity has gone out in a small town, signaling that an attack is imminent. Soon, a village will be burned to the ground with only scorched earth to testify to the lives once lived there. When the sun sets on this day, 500 more innocent Sudanese will have died at the hands of Janjaweed killers, bringing the death toll to over 400,000. Meanwhile, the rainy season is fast approaching in Sudan. In the coming weeks, it will become even harder for aid workers to reach those most desperately in need. Three million Sudanese have already been displaced, and children are dying in refugee camps from illness and malnutrition. Mr. Speaker, innocent people are being killed because of their ethnicity, and I ask, ``Never again?'' Children are starving in relocation camps, and I ask, ``Never again?'' Homes are being burned, women raped, and men mutilated. Is this what we call Never Again? Voices rise from the ashes at Auschwitz, the killing fields in Cambodia and the hills of Rwanda, begging us to intervene. It is time we answer their cries, not with words, but with action. It is time to pass the Darfur Genocide Accountability Act, H.R. 1424. We must increase our aid to refugee camps, halt the spread of disease, and provide food where there is famine. Towards the end of her life, Anne Frank wrote, ``I feel the suffering of millions. And yet, when I look up at the sky, I somehow feel that everything will change for the better, that this cruelty too shall end, that peace and tranquility will return once more.'' Mr. Speaker, today, on this Day of Remembrance, let us make Anne Frank's vision our own, and ensure that this cruelty too will end.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as our Nation recognizes ``Cover the Uninsured Week'', I rise today to bring attention to the plight of the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance and access to healthcare. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a health insurance and healthcare crisis in our country. While our Nation spends more per capita than any other country on healthcare, our delivery systems are disjointed and ineffective. There was a time when it was assumed that having a job meant having health insurance. This is no longer the case. More than 80 percent of uninsured Americans are workers, most with full time jobs. Within my own state of Maryland, 90 percent of the 750,000 citizens lacking health insurance are employed. Increasingly, more Americans lose health coverage every year, and those who have coverage pay more for it. Healthcare and drug costs are rising, as are premiums. As a result, many small businesses struggling to stay competitive in today's economy cannot afford to offer their employees insurance coverage. As a result, workers with access to employer-based group insurance plans often cannot afford the costs they must bear for insurance premiums. The inability to obtain medical insurance unduly affects minorities. A staggering 1 in 3 of Hispanics are uninsured, compared to 1 in 10 of the Nation's white population. Whereas, the African American community is disproportionately affected by diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other health problems that require regular access to healthcare, 1 in 5 African Americans unfortunately are also uninsured. The consequences are severe. Citizens without health insurance are less likely to seek preventative care or help with minor medical problems, leading to major, more costly medical problems. Without insurance, a person's health is compromised, and their lifespan is shortened. In fact, there are 18,000 deaths each year in this country caused by a lack of health insurance--these deaths are preventable. The increase in the uninsured population affects not only the health of our citizens, but the health of our economy as well. In fact, nearly half of all bankruptcy filings result from medical expenses. Having just one uninsured family member suffer from just one major medical problem or hospital stay can devastate the financial and emotional resources of an entire family. To stop the drain on our healthcare infrastructure, our society, and our economy, we must provide insurance coverage to all Americans. We must find a way to lower healthcare and drug costs. We must find a way to make premiums more affordable for employees and employers. Our small businesses should not have to choose between economic success and meeting their employees' healthcare needs. Workers should not have to refuse insurance for themselves and their children because premiums are too high. Please join me in supporting the goals of Cover the Uninsured Week. Join me and those stalwarts like Congressmen John Conyers, Pete Stark, Charlie Rangel and Frank Pallone, and Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin, Barbara Lee and Donna Christensen--as we continue our commitment to solving our health insurance crisis and to making sure that all Americans have access to healthcare. Congress must urgently examine ways to transform our healthcare system so that it is comprehensive, universal, and sustainable. I look forward to taking part in that discussion.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the critical need for racial equality in health and healthcare. America takes pride in its diversity, defining itself as a melting pot of ethnicities and cultural backgrounds. We are a Nation founded on a commitment to provide equal opportunity for all. Though we have made great strides in the last century, we have not yet accomplished that goal, particularly with regard to health care. The health and health care problems facing minority Americans are shocking. Numerous studies have shown minorities experience far higher rates than Caucasians of suffering and death from many diseases. Statistics from 2000 show that American Indians and Alaska Natives were 2.6 times more likely to have diagnosed diabetes compared with Caucasians; African American and Hispanic populations were each 2 times more likely. Furthermore, African Americans are 40 percent more likely to suffer from eye disease, 4 times more likely to experience kidney failure, and almost 3 times more likely to be hospitalized for lower limb amputations, all serious diabetes-related complications. Heart disease and stroke are the leading causes of death for all racial and ethnic groups in the United States. However, rates of death from diseases of the heart are 29 percent higher among African American adults than among white adults, and death rates from stroke are 40 percent higher. Although African-Americans and Hispanics represent one-quarter of the nation's population, they represent more than half of new AIDS cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control. Among children, the disparities are even more dramatic, with African-American and Hispanic children representing more than 80 percent of pediatric AIDS cases in 2000. There are many more statistics I could give you, which demonstrate more disparities in obesity, mental health, cancer, emergency care and kidney disease. But they all point to one fact: racial and ethnic minorities are living sicker lives and dying younger. In fact, according to the American Journal of Public Health, over 886,000 deaths could have been prevented from 1991-2000, if African- American minorities had received the same care as White Americans. Of course this number increases when you add in other minority communities, indicating the sheer numbers of American families affected. These numbers mean that someone loses a mother, brother, father, sister, husband, wife or other loved one too early-- unnecessarily. Mr. Speaker, we have invested a great deal in medical research, and have seen huge advances in scientific knowledge and technology to develop preventative treatments and cures. However, it is clear that the benefits of our investment and knowledge are not reaching all segments of the population equally. The dramatic differences in health among minority populations are caused by many factors, including the lack of access to quality health care. Communities of color are disproportionately represented among the ranks of the uninsured. One third of Americans are minorities, but they account for more than half of the 45 million Americans lacking health insurance. Additionally, it has been shown that racial and ethnic minorities often receive inferior health care compared to their white counterparts. There are many contributing factors, including cultural and linguistic barriers, a lack of trust between patients and health care providers, and prejudice. The well-known Unequal Treatment study conducted by the Institute of Medicine, shows that, given equal income, insurance, and education levels, minorities are still less likely to receive adequate health care than Caucasians. Despite all of our efforts, and however subtle or unconscious it may be, prejudice still exists within our health care system. Mr. Speaker, one-third of Americans are minorities. As such, one- third of our citizens live with a threat of inferior health and inadequate health care. For underprivileged minorities, this amounts to a death sentence. We are at a critical juncture. The color of your skin, or the language you speak, should not decree that you are more likely to die from cancer, from heart disease, from AIDS, from diabetes. It is time to make a reality of our vision of an America in which all populations have equal opportunity to live long and healthy lives. The Federal government has recognized this serious problem, and we have set a goal of eliminating health disparities by the end of the decade. We have taken some important first steps, including establishing a new National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities within the National Institutes of Health. But we are halfway through the decade, and there is still much to do to prove this is not a hollow promise. We need legislation that will clearly establish a base for building effective communication strategies and increasing awareness of health care providers and minority patients. Clinical studies should be redesigned to include more minorities. Health insurance coverage must become accessible for everyone. Our funding priorities must show our moral commitment to eradicating health and healthcare disparities. We cannot place all the responsibility for a solution on minority Americans. Disparities are the result of problems inherent in our health care system that prevent quality care and allow disparities to persist. There are a number of factors that contribute including the lack of knowledge about how diseases can affect different races in different ways; insufficient training in medical schools; and, lack of diversity in the medical field. Mr. Speaker, Congress and the Administration must assume the lead responsibility to achieve equality in health care. I urge you, and all of our colleagues, to join with me in supporting the Minority Health bill--soon to be reintroduced in the House and Senate and other critical initiatives to end minority health and healthcare disparities.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, ``You are empowered to do justice. You are empowered to ensure that this great system of ours works. Listen for a moment, will you, please.''--Johnnie Cochran, Closing Statement, O.J. Simpson Trial. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Johnnie Cochran, Jr, who died of a brain tumor on March 29, 2005. The New York Times called him ``fierce,'' ``flamboyant,'' and ``electrifying.'' Johnnie certainly was fierce, flamboyant and electrifying. He was also nuanced, principled, and persuasive--a giant in the legal profession. Mr. Speaker, throughout his life, Johnnie Cochran believed wholeheartedly in the power and promise of the American judicial system. He was born in a charity hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana. His great grandparents had been slaves, his grandparents were sharecroppers, and his father was a pipefitter. When he was still a child, the Cochran family moved to California in search of opportunity and a better life. It was from California that the 11-year-old Johnnie watched Thurgood Marshall prosecute Brown vs. the Board of Education. Inspired by the trial, Johnnie, at only 11 years old, decided he wanted to be a lawyer. As he said in an NPR interview toward the end of his life, ``After Brown vs. Board came along, I knew I wanted to use the law to change society for the better.'' Mr. Speaker, throughout his life, Johnnie Cochran was on the frontlines where race, politics and the law intersected. There are some detractors who mistakenly believed Johnnie fostered race divisions, but, in truth, he spent his life as an integrator. He was one of two dozen black students to desegregate Los Angeles High School in the 1950s. As a young lawyer, he served as an inspiration to many African Americans who watched him, a lone black face amidst a sea of white lawyers, as he crusaded against corruption and racism in law enforcement. When the riots broke out after a verdict was reached in the Rodney King trial, Cochran represented Reginald Denny, a white truck driver who had been attacked by a mob, arguing that his civil rights had been violated. But, Mr. Speaker, Johnnie made a career out of defending African Americans--from the O.J.s to what he called the ``No Js,'' cases in which the ``chances for getting paid are actually pretty slim.'' High profile trials made Johnnie Cochran a celebrity, but it was the victories for justice that made him proud. In 1978, Johnnie Cochran traded in his $300,000 salary for a $49,000 job as an Assistant District Attorney in Los Angeles County because he wanted to effect change from inside the system. His most cherished triumph was the vindication of Elmer ``Geronimo'' Pratt, a former Black Panther who served 25 years in prison for murder before being exonerated. In 1997, when the judge read the verdict that set Pratt free, Johnnie said, ``It doesn't get any better than this.'' Mr. Speaker, Johnnie Cochran was a courtroom wizard with a practical sensibility and a lyrical lilt. He was a champion of racial justice, with just a touch of the razzle dazzle. We will miss him. If I may, I would like to close the way I began. Let Johnnie Cochran's words serve as a reminder to us today and everyday. ``You are empowered to do justice. You are empowered to ensure that this great system of ours works. Listen for a moment, will you, please.''

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor excellence in education as I congratulate the Howard University School of Law's Mock Trial Team for their outstanding performance in the American Bar Association Mock Trial Competition--besting Harvard Law School and 6 other highly-regarded law schools in this venerable contest. This competition is designed to showcase the dedication and talent of law school students from across the country. Without question, the Howard University students displayed a great deal of both in their victorious efforts. The Huver I. Brown Trial Advocacy Team made history on April 2, 2005, becoming the first team representing a historically black college or university to take overall first place in the competition. The team of 20 students sent four bright young scholars to the competition: team captain, Derrick Simmons, along with Adonna Bannister, Nisha Brooks and Chris Stewart. Mr. Stewart also won the title of ``Best Advocate'' during this year's competition. Mock Trial Court Competitions are an opportunity for law school students to demonstrate their skills as advocates in a court setting. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the team from my Alma Mater took on the challenge of an esteemed national competition and used it as an opportunity to excel. I was a member of the Mock Trial Team when I was in law school at the University of Maryland, so I know first-hand of the serious dedication, hard work and countless hours of preparation that is required to effectively demonstrate a command of the law, rules of evidence, and procedure. Howard University's victory represents the very best in effort and education. I commend Kurt Schmoke, the Dean of the Howard University School of Law, and Patrick Swygert, the President of Howard University, for fostering an atmosphere of excellence in which students can succeed. Mr. Speaker, becoming a member of the Huver I. Brown Trial Advocacy Team is one of the highest honors a Howard law student can earn. The Team is named for Huver I. Brown, an African American attorney who in 1939 sued the District of Columbia Bar Association to gain access to the District of Columbia Bar Association Law Library. During a trial, the presiding judge asked Attorney Brown to provide legal support for an argument he made. Because at that time only white attorneys were allowed to use the law library, African American attorneys had to skillfully argue without the aid of legal precedent. In his suit, Attorney Brown asserted that a private bar group could not deny black lawyers access to the law library because it was located in a federal courthouse. Therefore, the denial of access was unconstitutional. In 1941, the lawsuit was settled, and African Americans were allowed access to the library. In winning that lawsuit, Huver I. Brown achieved a phenomenal victory for the entire country and generations yet unborn. Mr. Speaker, the impressive win by Huver I. Brown students at the national ABA Mock Trial Competition this year is a testament to their commitment of honoring the legacy for which the team is named. The victory is also a solid confirmation of the recognition of Howard University as a national power. Such success is worthy of our admiration and praise. Let the triumph of the Huver I. Brown students remind us of the rich tradition of African American excellence in the mastery of law. I look forward to meeting these future Thurgood Marshalls and Johnnie Cochrans one day, here in the halls of our nation's Capitol, where they would clearly serve well. Again, I congratulate the members of Howard University School of Law's Trial Advocacy Team on their victory over Harvard Law School in the American Bar Association Mock Trial Competition.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Reading Failure Prevention Act of 2005. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Education to make grants to States to establish statewide screening programs for children who are 5 to 7 years of age to help prevent reading failure. Reading failure is pervasive. Declining test scores in reading have been noted in many states. Just as troubling, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 37 percent of our nation's 4th graders and 26 percent of 8th graders score below the basic reading level. The Reading Failure Prevention Act of 2005 would help address this crisis by authorizing grants to States for screening incoming students for dyslexia or other reading failure traits. It also would provide adequate professional development for personnel who administer the screening programs. Dyslexia, often referred to as a language-based learning disability, is the most common form of learning disability. Recently, approximately 15 percent to 20 percent of the population was reported to have a learning disability and the National Institutes of Health reported that 60 percent to 80 percent of those with learning disabilities have problems with reading and language skills. Predictions for the coming decades indicate that the number of children with learning disabilities will increase for associated social, economic, and educational reasons. In spite of the fact that reading success in early grades is an essential basis for success in later grades, current methods of identifying children as learning disabled rely on a ``wait and fail'' model, where children must demonstrate severe academic problems before receiving help. The Reading Failure Prevention Act of 2005 would end this cycle by providing early screening so that appropriate intervention can begin immediately. Because reading disorders, such as dyslexia, often affect oral language functioning, individuals with these disorders are at a disadvantage as they enter their adolescent years, when language becomes more central to their peer relationships. If these students do not receive proper intervention, they can begin to experience academic failure and a host of social and emotional problems. However, when trained professionals catch learning disorders such as dyslexia early, learning strategies and proper treatment can help them to succeed academically and to develop a positive self-image. I firmly believe that this legislation represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that our nation's children are adequately prepared for lifelong reading success. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by co-sponsoring the Reading Failure Prevention Act of 2005.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, while Vice President Cheney still refuses to release the records of his Energy Task Force, it is obvious from the bill under consideration today who participated in the task force and who shaped the Energy Policy Act before us. For the uninitiated, let me tell you, it was the big oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy companies and concerns who shaped this legislation. According to the Congressional Research Service, U.S. energy consumption has almost tripled between 1950 and now. The U.S. has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves--but now uses 25 percent of the oil produced in the world. In 2003, our nation used approximately 20 billion barrels of petroleum per day--while producing just under 6 billion barrels of crude oil. How much has our energy use increased? Our petroleum usage in 2003 was almost 3 times higher than it was in 1950. Our consumption of natural gas in 2003 was almost 4 times greater than in 1950. Our consumption of coal in 2003 was double the amount we used in 1950. In fact, today, in 2005, 86 percent of the energy we consume is still generated through the use of non-renewable fossil fuels. America's energy policy at this critical time should pioneer the use of renewable fuels and move our nation away from dependence on fossil fuels. At a minimum, national energy legislation should reduce our dependence on foreign oil However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration has concluded that the legislation before us today will not support the development and wide usage of renewable fuels or even reduce our reliance on foreign oil. In fact, the Energy Information Administration concludes that the bill will reduce oil imports by just over 1 percent by 2025-- 20 years from now. While not taking any responsible steps to lay the foundation for a new energy policy in America, the bill before us does provide $8 billion in tax breaks for the energy industry. In keeping with the basic irresponsibility of this legislation, less than 10 percent of these tax breaks will go to the renewable fuel industry. H.R. 6 would also allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve despite the fact that the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that there is less than a year's supply of oil in the Preserve. Only 15 percent of Federal land in the Rocky Mountain states is currently off-limit to oil drilling. A total of 42 million acres of federally held land are currently leased to oil and gas companies. There is no reason to expand drilling to include Alaska's Wildlife Preserve. Similarly, H.R. 6 would provide $2 billion to support research on recovering oil and gas resources from the deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico--despite the fact that oil companies are generating record profits. H.R. 6 would also limit the liability of MTBE manufacturers for pollution to drinking water supplies despite the fact that the use of MTBE was not mandated and that there was evidence even before it was widely used that it could be harmful to drinking water supplies. The costs of cleaning up MTBE pollution will be in the billions of dollars--far more than many local jurisdictions can afford to pay from their own resources. While the groups who met with Vice President Cheney were clearly focused on maintaining the status quo in America's energy policy, there are in fact many things that can be done to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and particularly to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. We can support increased energy conservation. We can revamp--not repeal--the Public Utility Holding Company Act. We can implement policies to reduce the ability of energy traders to manipulate markets and rates. Further, we can increase spending on the development of bioenergy and other renewable fuels. For example, the 2002 Farm Bill authorized $150 million in spending in fiscal 2006 to support bioenergy initiatives. However, the President's short-sighted fiscal 2006 budget proposes to limit expenditures on these initiatives to just $60 million. Such reductions in spending on bioenergy--especially given the provisions of the H.R. 6--are misguided. H.R. 6 does not provide the new energy policy we so desperately need. I urge a no vote on this legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, after eight years of consideration, we are now poised to enact bankruptcy legislation that is deeply flawed. Like so many of the policy priorities pursued by this Congress and the Administration, this bill hurts the most vulnerable among our citizens. Many of my colleagues have already discussed the terrible provisions that the legislation now before the House would implement. For example, this bill would institute a means test for eligibility to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy that two national commissions have concluded would be counter-productive, difficult to administer, and would yield little revenue to creditors. It would remove critical automatic stay provisions that currently prevent the eviction of those who are seeking to clear arrearages in their rent. S. 256 also would reduce the amount of personal property that those filing for bankruptcy can retain. The Republican-crafted and credit-industry driven bankruptcy reform bill is inapposite the goals for which bankruptcy was conceived. Bankruptcy is intended to provide a `fresh start' to those who file-- not leave them sinking in financial quicksand. However, rather than highlight the numerous other misguided provisions of S. 256, I want to look for a moment at the economic policies of which this legislation is just one more disappointing part. The sponsors of S. 256 claim that the rising number of people filing bankruptcies in our nation is evidence that there is widespread abuse of our current bankruptcy protections. Actually, the rise in bankruptcy filings is a powerful and tragic reminder that our Administration's economic policies are not raising living standards but are instead contributing to the increases in bankruptcy filings. I note that bankruptcy filings actually decreased in 2004. In the Economic Report of the President delivered to Congress in February of this year, the Administration wrote that the ``President's policies are designed to foster rising living standards at home, while encouraging other nations to follow our lead.'' The President's policies are not worthy of emulation in other nations--and they are not worthy of continuation in our nation. Job creation in our nation is failing to keep pace with the growth in the labor force. The Brookings Institution has noted that since the year 2000, there has been a 2 percent decrease in workforce participation among young people aged 25-34, which is unprecedented since World War II. Slow job creation has also put little pressure on businesses to raise wages. As a result, wages for many low- and middle-income workers are now not keeping pace with consumer prices. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Congressional Research Service found that in 2001, 27 percent of families in the lowest one-fifth of household income distributions had debt obligations that exceeded 40 percent of their incomes. While workers are not seeing increases in their purchasing power, they are also being left without health insurance to cover their medical expenses. A recent Harvard Study published earlier this year found that nearly half of all bankruptcy filings involve some major medical expense. As recently as 1981, medical expenses accounted for less than 10 percent of bankruptcy filings. Forty-five million Americans are now uninsured--and countless millions more regularly experience lapses in coverage. More than 38 percent of those who filed bankruptcy for medical reasons were found to have experienced some type of lapse in their insurance coverage during the two years preceding their filing. In fact, 90 percent of the bankruptcies filed are by those who have been injured, are sick, have been laid off, and/or are going through a divorce. Laid-off workers are the fastest growing group of people filing bankruptcy. All the while, credit card company abuses are mounting in the form of deceptive marketing practices, irresponsible accounting practices and other predatory practices. Negative amortization by credit card companies require minimum payments so low as to allow debt to increase rather than be reduced. These practices are designed to give the debtor a false sense of financial health while incurring more debt. The result is often inevitable. The minute a tragedy strikes and a debtor falls behind in one payment, debtors are often swarmed upon by all of their credit card companies--who want to collect immediately. This is an unfair result for these debtors and a boon for creditors. And now, Congress is poised to add insult to uninsured injury by destroying the basic protections that our bankruptcy laws have offered to those most in need. Mr. Speaker, the increase in personal bankruptcy filings in our nation is not proof that our bankruptcy laws need reform. It is, instead, proof that our economic policies need reform--and need reform urgently. This bill only serves to disadvantage those honest Americans struggling to make ends meet. I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 256.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to tell a story. In January of 1945, a young Jewish girl, 13 years of age, stumbled from a Nazi labor camp in Poland, starved to skin and bones, and clad only in her striped rags. She shivered in the Polish winter. Though she did not know it yet, Edith Zierer was completely alone in the world, her mother, father and sister murdered in Nazi camps. When she felt that she could no longer bear the cold, Edith rested in the corner of a train station. Suddenly, a young man wearing a long robe, only 24 years of age himself, approached her. He gave Edith tea, bread and cheese and offered to help her get to Krakow to find her parents. She rose to thank him, but fell to the floor, unable to stand because she was so weak. The young man took Edith in his arms, carried her to the train, and sat down in a cattle car beside her. He shielded her from the cold with his coat, built a small fire for warmth, and accompanied her to Krakow. Edith Zierer lived, and she still lives today as a result of the kindness of this stranger. Mr. Speaker, that generous stranger was also an orphan, a young seminarian named Karol Wojtyla, eventually Pope John Paul II. Mr. Speaker, this is what we mean by a culture of life. A culture of life is surviving tragedy as Pope John Paul II did and pledging yourself to bettering the lives of others. A culture of life is forgiving those who try to extinguish your life as Pope John Paul II did when he visited his would-be assassin in jail and forgave him for his sins. A culture of life is knowing too well the misery of war and becoming a champion of peace. A culture of life is embracing the diversity of people living on this planet, advocating religious tolerance, human rights, and a more equitable distribution of the Earth's precious resources. Mr. Speaker, a culture of life is treating each human being as Karol Wojtyla treated Edith Zierer. Let a culture of life, in this fashion, be Pope John Paul II's legacy.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. As a member of the Joint Economic Committee, I rise today to speak on the economic policies of the budget resolution. Mr. Chairman, both the Bush and Republican budgets suffer from the same infirmities, fiscal irresponsibility and self-serving and out-of- touch priorities. Both are wholly inadequate to meet the needs of our Nation and will pass along mounting deficits and debts to generations yet unborn. First, the 5-year Republican budget will result in a deficit of $376 billion in 2006, $44 million over the President's projection. The Republicans' budget proposal also has many cost omissions, because they know that their deficit numbers explode after 5 years. As such, this budget does not take into account the cost of fixing the AMT, which will cost at least $642 billion. It does not take into account the $774 billion needed to pay for the President's much-talked about but yet unveiled Social Security privatization plan. I suppose the Republican budget proposal deserves a little credit for hiking its deficit projection as it at least includes $50 million in 2006 for the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The President's budget proposal contained zero dollars. As a matter of fact, it reported that the costs could not be known. However, both figures are fantasy. The realistic figure over the next 10 years, in addition to the $80 billion that we just passed in the supplemental, is likely to be $384 billion. To pay for its misguided policies, the House budget resolution cuts nondefense discretionary spending by $12 billion below the amount needed in fiscal 2006 just to maintain current spending levels, and it cuts spending on mandatory domestic programs by $8 billion. To add insult to injury, the Republican budget provides $18 billion in additional tax cuts. These misguided tax cuts will actually cost much more when the tax cuts actually expire in 2010. In fact, 97 percent of these tax cuts will benefit taxpayers with incomes above $200,000. I think most reasonable people can agree that these priorities are not America's priorities. While little good can be said about the Bush administration's budget, it at least provides detailed information on the programs it seeks to cut. The House resolution shrouds its cuts in darkness, leaving the American people to wonder what vital programs will find their way to the chopping block next. Both the Republican and Bush budget proposals are travesties. When the Bush administration took office, the Nation was experiencing record surpluses. It has managed to turn a $521 billion surplus into a $367 billion deficit. In contrast, the Spratt alternative budget, as well as the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget that we will consider tomorrow, focus national spending on priorities that benefit all Americans and get us on the road to economic recovery. They do this by funding key domestic priorities which address the needs of working families while fully supporting the national defense and protection of our homeland and preserving Medicaid, Social Security, pension programs and student loans. Let me speak particularly about the budget developed by the Congressional Black Caucus which corrects the irresponsible fiscal and economic policies contained in the House budget resolution by supporting existing programs that are essential to closing disparities, creating opportunities and helping our citizens build their future. It will get our country on the road to recovery, while funding meaningful national priorities for our children, for our seniors, for our veterans and for our communities. Importantly, the Congressional Black Caucus budget supports these priorities, while also meeting our obligation to our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The CBC budget funds community development programs, including restoring funding to the Community Development Block Grant Program and supporting increased funding for elderly and disabled housing programs. The Congressional Black Caucus budget will also restore funding for veterans' health care, rather than imposing new copayments on them for essential services and prescription drugs. Importantly, the Congressional Black Caucus budget will reduce the budget deficit by $167 billion during the next 5 years below the deficit that will be produced by the House budget resolution. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget cuts educational, housing and health programs for our children, while bequeathing to them a public debt that has increased by $1.268 trillion over the last 4 years and that will exceed $4.6 trillion even before we begin fiscal year 2006. These actions are not only irresponsible, they are unconscionable. In the end, one can only conclude that the Republican budget balances itself on the backs of Americans who can least afford it. I urge the administration to reconsider its ill-conceived economic policies. The Congressional Black Caucus budget is the ultimate expression of our national priorities; and our priorities must be our children, our families, our elderly and our veterans and, of course, our soldiers.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 44th Anniversary of the Peace Corp and to also recognize National Peace Corp Week, which was officially celebrated February 28 to March 6, 2005. Mr. Speaker, in 1961, President John F. Kennedy courageously challenged American citizens during his inauguration speech to ``ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.'' This, along with a speech then Senator Kennedy gave in October 1960 to the graduating students of the University of Michigan, daring them to be agents of peace and freedom by living and working abroad, became the guiding principles of what the Peace Corp has become today. In countries where poverty is rampant and development lacking, American volunteers, through the work of the Peace Corp, have helped bring medicine to the sick, education to the illiterate, and skills training to the poor. American Peace Corp volunteers accomplish this by living two years of their lives away from their family, away from their loved ones among the people who need their help the most. They are there in the morning, when the farm needs irrigation; during the day, when the children need guidance; and at night, when the community comes together to share the day's experiences. They are there not only as volunteers, but also as advocates and friends. Mr. Speaker, because of these dedicated and compassionate young men and women and because of their desire to promote equality and knowledge among those less fortunate, the volunteers of the Peace Corp have helped to build a positive image of America around the world, even during some of the most trying times in our nation's foreign policies. As ambassadors of American ideals, they have allowed nations around the globe to gain a better understanding of our country, and have in turn taught us about the cultures and practices of other nations. As current Peace Corp volunteers, scattered over 72 countries, carry on the legacy of those before them, I stand here today to applaud all the progress and achievements the Peace Corp has accomplished to date. On the 44th Anniversary of this uniquely American institution, I urge the volunteers of the Peace Corp to remember their responsibility to the world and to the nation they represent. I urge them to maintain the idealism that brought them to countries such as Albania, Niger, El Salvador, Uzbekistan, and East Timor. And in return, I ask my colleagues to help promote the same ideals of peace and freedom within our Nation. Let us not forget the poor and the unfortunate inside and outside our borders, let us not forget the underprivileged, and let us continue to fight for equality for all.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield further, I often ride from Baltimore up to Connecticut on Amtrak, and I see some of the little small stops that we stop at. The stations are very small, but the fact is that people get on the train and people get off the train. And I say to myself, I wonder what they would do if we did not have that kind of service? That is the kind of sensitivity that we have and that we must maintain. Then we have got to take our beliefs and make sure we turn them into action.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, first of all, for having this special order this evening. I also thank her for her leadership as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Railroads of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I feel very fortunate to be a part of that subcommittee, and I thank her for her vigilance and constantly standing up for people who need a voice. Certainly, there is no question about it this evening, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of people that, just this morning and this evening, as a matter of fact, are crowded on trains trying to get home, many of them having worked all day, glad to be able to sit down and relax as they ride home in an efficient and fast system of which Amtrak has structured itself and made available to them. The interesting thing that we face is that, so often, when we have good things going for us and they are working, sometimes folk like to tinker with them. And when they tinker with them, quite often they lose a lot of their effectiveness, and a lot of times they are thrown off the track. But the fact is that here we have a case where the President basically, by his actions, and I know he says otherwise, puts this very important system, this system that I just spoke about, that so many people take advantage of, and certainly those in my district do, is about to take it and put it in a situation which would make it almost impossible to operate. So it is; I rise today to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in again expressing our strong support for Amtrak, our national intercity passenger rail service. Regrettably, this expression of support is necessary because the President has proposed eliminating Federal assistance for Amtrak from the fiscal 2006 budget, contrary to what the public wants, as our ranking member just stated, with over 60 percent saying they want to see Amtrak supported, and they certainly want to see Amtrak survive. The simple fact of the matter is that the elimination of Federal aid to Amtrak will send the system into bankruptcy, where the service could be liquidated. Liquidation of Amtrak is simply not in our national interest. As a matter of fact, if we did not have Amtrak, we would have to invent it. The fiscal 2006 budget passed by Congress must include Federal aid for Amtrak at a level to support the system's continued operation. Unfortunately, the President's proposal to eliminate Federal funding for Amtrak is not a new one. Particularly during the last 5 years, Amtrak has repeatedly faced threatened shutdowns and proposed elimination of its operating subsidy. These threats have done nothing to improve Amtrak's service but have created continued uncertainty among Amtrak's 25 million annual passengers and 20,000 employees. I believe that it is time that we bring to a close the prolonged debate about national passenger rail service in which we have been engaged in recent years by recommitting ourselves to Amtrak and to the value of national passenger rail service. Over the past 30 years, intercity passenger rail service provided by Amtrak has become essential to ensuring mobility in every corner of our Nation. Amtrak provides its 25 million intercity passengers with access to more than 500 stations in 46 States, including access to more than 100 cities that have no commercial air service. Amtrak also provides mobility to many segments of our population who might not otherwise be able to travel. According to the results of a study outlined in a 2004 Congressional Research Service report, approximately 42 percent of Amtrak's ridership is drawn from households with incomes less than $50,000, while 16 percent of its riders do not own their own cars. In creating Amtrak, Congress and the Nation made a commitment to the value of maintaining a national passenger rail service. It is long past time for Congress to clearly define the nature of this commitment and to honor this commitment by providing sufficient and reliable funding to Amtrak to enable it to succeed as a transportation service. Our commitment must be a national commitment to national rail service. Congress must not shift the responsibility for funding our national intercity passenger rail service to the individual States which cannot afford to meet it and which cannot guide a truly national, seamless, intercity passenger rail service. In examining how Amtrak can be strengthened, Congress must look broadly at all aspects of Amtrak service, including its relationship with freight railroads, and we must establish clear objectives for Amtrak that emphasize excellent national service. Congress must also demand that Amtrak respond to our investment by developing and implementing a workable plan to provide the most efficient and cost- effective service possible. Such a plan must include appropriate benchmarks for measuring progress. And Congress must be vigilant in demanding accountability from that system. Finally, America has had an intercity passenger rail service for more than 150 years, and this service remains an essential component of our transportation network. I urge the Congress to renew our commitment to intercity passenger rail service and to move past the annual struggle over Amtrak by creating a reliable funding stream and to embark on a concerted effort to enable this service to realize its full potential. One hundred and fifty years of rail service, the fact is that, now, that same service is under our watch, and so it is up to each of us, each one of us and the President, to ensure that that service lasts for another 150 years, so that when generations yet unborn look back at what we did in 2005, they can say that we sent a powerful message to the future, and that is that we cared about Amtrak and that we cared about the passenger who simply wants to move from one place to another to have the very, very best lives that they can. With that, I again thank the gentlewoman for her vigilance and leadership.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our ranking member and chairman for all of their hard work and the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee. This bill has indeed been a long time coming. We all know that $283.9 billion is a lot of money but certainly not enough, but the fact is that this is a continuing process. Also, I want to express my sincere appreciation to our ranking member and our chairman and their staffs for working with me and my staff to include language in the floor manager's amendment that will expand research on critical issues in hazardous materials transportation. The hazardous materials title of the TEA-LU bill regulates hazardous materials transportation to ``protect against the risks to life, property and the environment that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials.'' TEA-LU's Research Title must set a research agenda that will support the accomplishment of these objectives. 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 cost-cutting and multi-modal in application. My provisions amend TEA-LU's Research Title to require the administrator of a newly created Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to research nine crosscutting issues in hazardous materials transportation not adequately addressed by existing mode- specific research programs. Mr. Chairman, there are more than 1 million shipments per day in the United States of hazardous materials. Between 14,000 and 18,000 unintended releases of hazardous materials occur during transportation annually. Between 1994 and 2003, these incidents resulted in 210 fatalities. Recent incidents in my district in Baltimore, in South Carolina, Texas, and South Dakota have dramatically reminded us of the danger that hazardous materials shipment can pose. In response to these findings, I introduced the Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Act of 2005, H.R. 909, which would establish an ongoing cooperative research program for hazardous materials transportation. While not creating this permanent hazardous materials cooperative research program, the provisions included in today's bill respond to the Transportation Research Board's report by requiring research on crosscutting topics recommended for further study. In addition, the Secretary will be required to report on the need to establish a permanent cooperative research program for hazardous materials. I again thank the committee's leaders and their staff for working with me to begin to create a hazardous materials research program that is truly comprehensive and multi-modal in scope. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the countless communities across this Nation that live under a tyranny of fear due to witness intimidation. Our criminal justice system relies on witnesses to provide essential evidence to law enforcement in the administration of justice. Unfortunately, drug dealers and other criminals employ brutal tactics to silence witnesses, including threats, vandalism, violence, and even murder. When cases crumble due to witness intimidation, defendants that may be convicted for their crimes are free once again to violate the sanctity of our communities. A National Institute of Justice study concluded: ``Witness intimidation is a pervasive and insidious problem. No part of the country is spared and no witness can feel entirely free or safe.'' A number of prosecutors interviewed for this study ``suspect witness intimidation occurs in up to 75 to 100 percent of the violent crimes committed in some gang-dominated neighborhoods.'' With that said, we must acknowledge that witness intimidation is a menacing cancer in our society that, if left untreated, will continue to spread and intensify, undermining the very foundation of our criminal justice system. Mr. Speaker, witness intimidation is eroding public trust in the government's ability to protect witnesses and demoralizing needed community cooperation to enforce the law. Around the country, from urban centers to the heartland, reporting crimes can be extremely dangerous and even deadly. On February 4 of this year, WGAL, Channel 8 reported a 10-year-old named Katie Collman was found dead in an Indiana creek. A suspect in her killing confessed he wanted to intimidate little Katie after she witnessed him producing or consuming methamphetamine. In the city that I call my home, Baltimore City, our State's Attorney reports that at least 25 percent of the nonfatal shooting cases are dismissed due to witness intimidation issues and most murder cases are affected in one way or another. Since September 2004, five witnesses have been shot or murdered. Mr. Speaker, perhaps nowhere is there an example more clear in illustrating the realities of witness intimidation than in the tragedy that claimed the lives of the Dawson family from my district in East Baltimore City. In response to Mrs. Dawson's heroic efforts to report intense drug distribution activity in her neighborhood, the Dawson family home was firebombed in the middle of the night on October 16, 2002. This insidious act not only stole the lives of Mr. Dawson and Mrs. Dawson, but also those of their five young children. Unfortunately, this was not the only serious incident of witness intimidation to surface in Baltimore City. Baltimore Police Detective Thomas Newman was murdered 2 years ago after his testimony in a trial concerning a shooting. On December 2, 2004 a DVD produced by criminals entitled ``Stop the Snitching'' surfaced in Baltimore. It graphically illustrates the violent drug culture and the code of silence on the streets that can paralyze entire communities seeking to abide by the law. ``Stop the Snitching'' goes so far as to depict grotesque images of three bullet ridden bloody corpses accompanied by the phrase ``snitch prevention.'' On January 15, 2004, in the North Baltimore community of Harwood, Edna McAbier had her home firebombed in apparent retaliation for her work to purge her community of criminal activity. I am sure many of my colleagues could recount many other such incidents in their districts. Regrettably, these examples are representative of a growing problem of bold intimidation that send a clear message to the Nation that cannot be overstated. Those who would cooperate with police in the pursuit of justice face serious retaliation and possibly execution. Witness protection programs provide an indispensable tool to law enforcement to combat crime and address witness intimidation. The Witness Security Program established in 1970 and administered by the Department of Justice has successfully carried out its charge to protect witnesses testifying in extremely serious Federal cases. The United States Marshals Service has done an outstanding job of providing witnesses and their family who have been placed in their custody with long-term protection, relocation, new identities, housing, employment, medical treatment and funds to cover the most essential of needs. In over 30 years, not a single witness has been harmed that followed security procedures while being actively protected by the United States Marshals Service. More to the point, cases involving the testimony of the WSP participants have an 89 percent conviction rate. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the countless communities across this nation that live under a tyranny of fear due to witness intimidation. Our criminal justice system relies on witnesses to provide essential evidence to law enforcement in the administration of justice. Unfortunately, drug dealers and other criminals employ brutal tactics to silence witnesses, including threats, vandalism, violence, and even murder. When cases crumble due to witness intimidation, defendants that may be convicted for their crimes are free once again to violate the sanctity of our communities. A National Institute of Justice study concluded, ``Witness intimidation is a pervasive and insidious problem. No part of the country is spared and no witness can feel entirely free or safe.'' A number of prosecutors interviewed for this study ``suspect witness intimidation occurs in up to 75 percent to 100 percent of the violent crimes committed in some gang-dominated neighborhoods.'' With that said, we must acknowledge that witness intimidation is a menacing cancer in our society that, if left untreated, will continue to spread and intensify--undermining the very foundation of our criminal justice system. Mr. Speaker, witness intimidation is eroding public trust in the government's ability to protect witnesses and demoralizing needed community cooperation to enforce the law. Around the country, from urban centers to the heartland, reporting crimes can be extremely dangerous and even deadly. On February 4, 2005, WGAL Channel 8 reported, a 10-year-old girl named Katie Collman was found dead in an Indiana creek. A suspect in her killing confessed he wanted to intimidate Katie after she witnessed him producing or consuming methamphetamine. In the city I call home, the State's Attorney for Baltimore City reports that ``at least 25 percent of non-fatal shooting cases are dismissed due to witness [intimidation] issues and most murder cases are affected on some level,'' and that, since September 2004, five witnesses have been shot or murdered. Mr. Speaker, perhaps nowhere is there an example more clear in illustrating the realities of witness intimidation than in the tragedy that claimed the lives of the Dawson family from my district in East Baltimore City. In response to Mrs. Dawson's heroic efforts to report intense drug distribution activity in her neighborhood, the Dawson family home was firebombed on October 16, 2002. This insidious act not only stole the lives of Mr. Dawson and Mrs. Dawson, but also those of their five young children. Unfortunately, this was not the only serious incident of witness intimidation to surface in Baltimore City. Baltimore Police Detective Thomas Newman was murdered 2 years ago after his testimony in a trial concerning a shooting. On December 2, 2004, a DVD produced by criminals entitled ``Stop Snitching'' surfaced in Baltimore. It graphically illustrates the violent drug culture and the code of silence on the streets that can paralyze entire communities seeking to abide by the law. ``Stop Snitching'' goes so far as to depict grotesque images of three bullet-ridden, bloody corpses accompanied by the phrase ``snitch prevention.'' On January 15, 2005, in the North Baltimore community of Harwood, Edna McAbier had her home firebombed in apparent retaliation for her work to purge her community of criminal activity. I am sure many of my colleagues could recount many other such incidents in their districts. Regrettably, these examples are representative of a growing problem of bold intimidation that send a clear message to the nation that cannot be overstated--those who would cooperate with police in the pursuit of justice face serious retaliation and possibly execution. Witness protection programs provide an indispensable tool to law enforcement to combat crime and address witness intimidation. The Witness Security Program, WSP, established in 1970 and administered by the Department of Justice has successfully carried out its charge to protect witnesses testifying in extremely serious federal cases. The United States Marshals Service, USMS, has done an outstanding job of providing witnesses and their families who have been placed in their custody with long-term protection, relocation, new identities, housing, employment, medical treatment, and funds to cover the most essential of needs. In over 30 years, not a single witness has been harmed that followed security procedures while being actively protected by the USMS. More to the point, cases involving the testimony of the WSP participants have an 89 percent conviction rate. In contrast, State witness protection programs are severely under- funded and enjoy virtually no Federal support. While non-federal witnesses can participate in the WSP under certain conditions, States are required to reimburse the Federal Government for the cost of providing such protection unless a waiver is granted. As a result, State and local prosecutors often must choose between funding investigations or funding costly, but necessary witness protection programs. This often leads to some jurisdictions providing no witness protection at all. No one wins when law enforcement officials are forced to make such choices. That is why I introduced the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 908. I am proud the esteemed senior Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, will be reintroducing a companion bill to this legislation in the Senate. H.R. 908 would establish within the USMS a Short-Term State Witness Protection Program tailored to meet the needs of witnesses testifying in State and local trials involving homicide, a serious violent felony or a serious drug offense. H.R. 908 would also authorize $90 million per year in competitive grants for the next 3 years. State and local district attorneys and the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, can use these funds to provide witness protection or pay the cost of enrolling their witnesses in the Short-Term State Witness Protection Program within the USMS. Grants under this legislation would only be awarded to prosecutors in States with high homicide rates to ensure we target those most in need of Federal support. Improving protection for State and local witnesses will move us one step closer toward alleviating the fears of and threats to prospective witnesses, and help to safeguard our communities from violence. While we cannot bring back all those who carried a heavy burden of fear due to witness intimidation, we can honor their sacrifice by taking the necessary steps today to fight against that future intimidation. I urge my colleagues to join me in taking that critical step by cosponsoring, H.R. 908, the Witness Security and Protection Act.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the countless communities across this Nation that live under a tyranny of fear due to witness intimidation. For too long some of our bravest citizens who courageously sought to testify in criminal proceedings have been subject to terror at the hands of criminals right here on American soil. Drug dealers and other criminals have employed a variety of brutal tactics to silence witnesses and intimidate their families, including vandalism, threats, beatings, stabbings, shootings, and even murder. Witness intimidation is a menacing cancer in our society that, if left untreated, will spread and intensify--undermining the very foundation of our criminal justice system. This cancer is eroding public trust in the government's ability to protect witnesses and demoralizing needed community cooperation to enforce the law. Our criminal justice system relies on witnesses to provide essential evidence to law enforcement in the administration of justice. We cannot allow street thugs to persecute citizens determined to rescue their communities in the grips of violence and illegal drugs. In Baltimore City reporting crimes, or testifying in court cases involving drugs or violence, can be extremely dangerous and potentially even deadly. According to Baltimore City's State Attorney Patricia Jessamy, prosecutors throughout Baltimore encounter witnesses or victims on a daily basis who are too terrified to testify. Specifically, her office estimates ``at least 25 percent of non-fatal shooting cases are dismissed due to witness [intimidation] issues and most murder cases are affected on some level.'' They also report ``5 cases where a witness was shot or murdered since September last year.'' When cases crumble because of witness intimidation, potentially guilty defendants are free once again to pollute our communities with drugs and victimize the innocent. Mr. Speaker perhaps nowhere is there an example more clear in illustrating the realities of witness intimidation than in the tragedy that claimed the lives of the Dawson family from my district in East Baltimore City. In response to Mrs. Dawson's heroic efforts to report intense drug distribution activity in her neighborhood, the Dawson family home was firebombed on October 16, 2002. This insidious act not only took the lives of Mr. Dawson and Mrs. Dawson, but also those of their 5 young children. Unfortunately, this was not the only serious incident of witness intimidation to surface in Baltimore City. Baltimore Police Detective Thomas Newman was murdered two years ago due to his testimony in a trial concerning a shooting. On December 2, 2004, a DVD produced by criminals entitled ``Stop Snitching'' surfaced in Baltimore. It graphically illustrates the violent drug culture and the code of silence on the streets that can paralyze entire communities seeking to abide by the law. ``Stop Snitching'' goes so far as to depict grotesque images of three bulletridden, bloody corpses accompanied by the phrase ``snitch prevention.'' On January 15th 2005, in the North Baltimore community of Harwood, Edna McAbier had her home firebombed in apparent retaliation for her work to purge her community of criminal activity. Regrettably, these aforementioned examples are representative of a growing problem of bold intimidation that send a clear message to the Nation that cannot be overstated--those who would cooperate with police in the pursuit of justice face serious retaliation and possibly execution. Witness protection programs provide an invaluable resource to law enforcement to combat crime and address witness intimidation. The Witness Security Program (WSP) established in 1970 and administered by the Office of Enforcement Operations at the Department of Justice has successfully carried out its charge. Civilian witnesses testifying in federal cases that deal with organized crime or 3 other serious offenses have been provided with long-term protection and relocation. The United Stated Marshals Service (USMS) has done an outstanding job in protecting and relocating witnesses and their families who have been placed in their custody. They can provide them with safety, new identities, housing, employment, medical treatment, and funds to cover the most essential of needs. While non-federal witnesses can participate in the WSP under certain conditions, the State is asked to reimburse the federal government for the cost of providing such protection. With record State deficits, local prosecutors are often placed in a challenging position of having to choose between directing their dollars to necessary prosecutorial initiatives such as investigating the illegal distribution of drugs or directing their limited resources into costly, but necessary witnesses protection programs--or, unfortunately, providing no protection at all. No one wins when our criminal justice system is forced to choose between these two worthwhile ends. That is why I rise today to introduce the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2005. I am proud to have the esteemed senior Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, reintroduce a companion measure to this bill in the Senate. This legislation would establish within the USMS a Short-Term State Witness Protection Program tailored to meet the needs of witnesses testifying in State and local criminal trials involving homicide, a serious felony or a serious drug offense. This measure authorizes $90 million in competitive grants per year for the next three years so that State and local district attorneys and the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, can provide short-term witness protection to their witnesses. Specifically, prosecutors can use these funds to provide witness protection or pay the cost of protecting their witnesses in the Short-Term Witness Protection Program within the USMS. We give priority in awarding grants to States with high homicide rates. Given our current fiscal position, it is important to ensure that our dollars are targeted to impact those most in need. While we can never bring back the Dawson family and all those who carried a heavy burden of fear due to witness intimidation, we can honor their sacrifice by taking the necessary steps today to ensure that future tragedies are prevented. I urge my colleagues to join me in taking that critical step by cosponsoring the Witness Security and Protection Act.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to establish a Cooperative Research Program for Hazardous Materials Transportation. This program will enable experts from the multiple Federal agencies responsible for regulating and enforcing the hazardous waste materials industry to join with the private sector and State and local governments to research cross-cutting issues in the transportation of hazardous materials that are not adequately addressed by existing mode- specific research programs. Hazardous materials move through thousands of local communities across the United States every day, usually without the knowledge of residents or even of local officials. During the past decade, the United States Department of Transportation has recorded between 14,000 and 18,000 unintentional releases of hazardous materials during transportation on an annual basis. Between 1994 and 2003, these incidents resulted in 210 fatalities and more than 3,400 injuries. Recent incidents involving the release of hazardous waste being transported by trains, including a 2001 incident in my district in Baltimore that resulted in a massive fire, as well as incidents in South Carolina, Texas and South Dakota that resulted in fatalities, have dramatically reminded us of the danger that these shipments can pose to our communities. It is, therefore, imperative that we take every concrete step available to us to improve the safety and security of hazardous materials transportation, and the bill I introduce today takes a joint step towards enabling us to improve all facets of hazardous materials transportation. Currently more than a dozen Federal agencies have regulatory, enforcement and operational responsibilities over the estimated 1 million hazardous materials shipments that are made on a daily basis in the United States. These Federal agencies share responsibilities with literally thousands of State and local agencies and private sector actors, for anticipating and responding to the varied risks, including safety, security, human health and environmental risks associated with the transportation of hazardous materials. A report just issued by the Transportation Research Board has found that perhaps the most notable gap in America's system of ensuring hazardous material safety and security is in the conduct of research that is cross-cutting and/or multimodal in application. This is a wake-up call urging us to begin to address the transport of hazardous materials from a comprehensive multimodal perspective rather than from the isolated perspective of a single mode program or material type. Modeling the successful cooperative research programs that already exist to study transit and highway transportation, my bill will create a cooperative research program that will bring together representatives of 10 Federal agencies, private sector hazardous material shippers and carriers, and State and local governments to study cross-cutting topics in hazardous materials transportation. Priority will be given in the selection of research projects to topics that yield results immediately applicable to risk analysis and mitigation and/or that will strengthen the ability of first responders to respond to incidents and accidents involving hazardous materials, among other topics. My bill mandates that the research program conduct studies that will inform the routing of hazardous shipments and the development of regulations regarding mandatory routing decisions, the formulation of appropriate packaging requirements for those hazardous materials that are most frequently involved in release incidents, the development of reasonable models of State and local risk response and management plans that effectively address both safety and security considerations, and the definition of the roles and responsibilities of carriers and shippers in the hazardous materials events response and even event response procedures that can be consistently applied across all transportation modes. Without the ability to adequately research and respond to issues in hazardous materials transportation that are multimodal in scope and national in application, our ability to make informed legislative, regulatory, and operational decisions regarding hazardous materials transportation is unacceptably limited. Therefore, I urge you to join me in supporting the formulation of a cooperative research program for hazardous materials transportation by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his vigilance and for sponsoring this Special Order. I also thank him for his constant work and hard work with regard to education, fully understanding that as we celebrate Black History Month that a people cannot rise unless that people is educated. So I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) very much for all that he does every day. Mr. Speaker, those who have no record of what their forebearers have accomplished lose the inspiration that comes from history. These wise words were spoken by the Father of Black History, Carter G. Woodson. In 1926 he initiated Negro History Week, a week-long celebration of African American cultural heritage. Woodson knew that self-respect sprang from self-knowledge. He knew that an awareness of our history was crucial to our dignity and essential in our fight for equal rights in this country. Carter G. Woodson also knew, as we know, that African American history is American history. African American history and American history is the sound of slaves invoking the Declaration of Independence. It is Sojourner Truth fighting for all of her sisters as she demanded, ``Ain't I a woman?'' It is the sorrow of spirituals and the joy of jazz. It is the horror of crosses crackling aflame in moonlight, of strange fruit dangling from treetops, of poverty and, yes, of pain. And it is the bravery of freedom fighters desegregating buses, lunch counters, and schools. Mr. Speaker, African American history is the diverse tapestry of people who compose this Congress. Carter G. Woodson would be proud to see that Negro History Week has blossomed into a month of events celebrating the giants of African American arts, letters, science, sports, and politics. He would delight in the flurry of assemblies in schools that showcase the inspirational stories of Frederick Douglass and Rosa Parks, both of whose birthdays fall in the month of February. But Carter G. Woodson would be saddened that this flurry of attention to black history peters out as the snows of February melt out into the warmer days of March. He would realize, Mr. Speaker, that we still have a battle to wage and we are not stopping at February. We will fight for education funding, for Social Security, and for health parity between blacks and whites. We will not accept that the mortality rate for African Americans is 30 percent higher than for whites. We will not accept that homicide is the leading cause of death of black men. We will not accept that 21 percent of African Americans are without health insurance, and we simply will not accept that changing Social Security is a solution to these fundamental inequities. President Bush has declared the theme of this year's Black History Month to be the Niagara Movement. This movement, led by W.E.B. Du Bois, called for civil rights and civil liberties for all. In DuBois's ``Address to the Nation'' at Harper's Ferry in 1906, he said: ``We will not be satisfied to take one jot or tittle less than our full manhood rights. We claim for ourselves every single right that belongs to a free-born American, political, civil, and social; and until we get these rights, we will never cease to protest and assail the ears of America. The battle we wage is not for ourselves alone, but for all true Americans.'' It is in this spirit that I say, let us use this Black History Month as a springboard to call for equality for all Americans all year-round. Let us look to the leadership of Woodson and DuBois as we fight for all who toil and suffer among us. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with the words of a great man to whom we reluctantly bid farewell this Black History Month. In an interview last year, Ossie Davis said, ``We can't float through life. We can't be incidental or accidental. We must fix our gaze on a guiding star as soon as one comes up on the horizon. And once we have attached ourselves to that star, we must keep our eyes on it and our hands on the plow.'' Mr. Speaker, let us not be incidental or accidental. Let Ossie Davis be our guiding star as we pledge to keep our hands on the plow and fight for equality every day of the year. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to announce the fact that I introduce tonight the Dawson Community Family Protection Act of 2005. In my district in Baltimore, unfortunately, about 2 years ago we had A family of seven incinerated in the middle of the night because they wanted to cooperate with the police, and drug thugs made a decision that they would burn them up instead of allowing them to cooperate with the police. The Dawson Family Community Protection Act would require the director of National Drug Control Policy to direct each year a minimum of $5 million in HIDTA funds to support HIDTA initiatives aimed at increasing safety and encouraging cooperation in neighborhoods like the Dawson's.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Ossie Davis, an American legend. Ossie Davis was an actor and an activist who believed the function of art was to better society. He said he could not imagine art without struggle, and he could not imagine struggle without being knee deep in it. His worthy struggled ended on February 4, 2005, at the age of 87, while practicing the craft he loved so dearly on the set of the movie Retirement. Mr. Speaker, throughout his life, Ossie Davis was knee deep in struggle. He was born in 1917, in Cogdell, Georgia, the heart of the segregated South. His mother named him Raiford Chatman Davis, RC for short. But when his mother pronounced his initials to the white nurse in attendance, the nurse mis-heard her, and recorded the infant's name as Ossie. Fearful of challenging the white nurse's authority, Laura Davis accepted her son's new name. Mr. Speaker, Ossie Davis's childhood was not an easy one. His father oversaw the building of railroads in Georgia. A manager and supervisor, Kince Charles Davis was an anomaly in the segregated South. In fact, his esteemed position made the Davis family the target of racism and threats of violence. More than once, the KKK threatened to shoot Kince Davis ``like a dog.'' Mr. Speaker, from a young age, Ossie Davis took refuge from racism by plunging into his studies. He loved Shakespeare and dreamed of becoming a writer and an actor himself. In 1939 he followed his dreams to New York City, and joined the Rose McClendon Players. He befriended the intellectual giants of the Harlem Renaissance, basked in the glow of their brilliance, and was inspired by their passion for empowerment through the unity of arts and politics. Ossie Davis made sacrifices for his craft. After an evening performance, he would often retire to a nearby park bench. But for Davis, the sacrifices were well worth it. Towards the end of his life, Davis recalled the moment he understood his mission as a black artist. In 1939, he heard Marian Anderson, who had been banned from performing in Constitution Hall, sing in front of the Lincoln Memorial. According to USA Today, he told students at Cornell University in the 1990s, ``I understood fully for the first time the importance of black song, black music, black arts. I was handed my spiritual assignment that night.'' Mr. Speaker, Ossie Davis believed he had a responsibility to his race and a responsibility to his country. In 1942, he enlisted in the Army and served as a surgical technician in Liberia. His patriotism, his heartfelt belief in what America could and should be, guided him throughout his life. He chose to perform in plays that showcased America's promise, while demonstrating its flaws. One such play was ``Jeb,'' an American Negro Theater production about a black soldier returning from World War II only to encounter racism in the country for which he fought. ``Jeb'' was an important piece of social commentary. For Ossie Davis, it was doubly important, because it was in ``Jeb'' that he met his wife, his partner in love and life, as well as in art and activism, Ruby Dee. Mr. Speaker, the union of Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee was among the most fruitful acting partnerships in American history. Together, they made well over 150 films and plays. They also made history. During the fiery days of the Red Scare, Davis and Dee, who were nearly blacklisted themselves, stood up for their friend Paul Robeson, and for America's key freedoms. Reflecting on those trying years, Davis told the Boston Globe in 2003, ``I'm sure my wife and I suffered, but we never knew whether we were being punished for being black or being red.'' Mr. Speaker, Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee fought for an end to racism in American cities and in American film. They crusaded for civil liberties and protested for peace. They served as MC's during the 1963 March on Washington. They worked with black leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Fannie Lou Hamer. Upon their deaths, Davis eulogized Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. Ossie Davis understood the value of hard work, the potential for collective action, and the crucial responsibility of government. When President Reagan proposed a 50% cut in the National Endowment for the Humanities budget, Davis registered his dissent to the House Appropriations Subcommittee. He said, ``I was able to pull myself up by my bootstraps--but only because the Federal Government provided the boots.'' Ossie Davis was an actor and activist, a player and a poet, a husband and a father, an example to us all. Mr. Speaker, my words are insufficient to memorialize this great man. Instead, I leave you with Ossie Davis's wise words, from an interview with Tavis Smiley on National Public Radio. ``We can't float through life, we can't be incidental or accidental. We must fix our gaze on a guiding star as soon as one comes up on the horizon. And once we've attached ourselves to that star, we must keep our eyes on it and our hands on the plough.'' Mr. Speaker, let us let Ossie Davis's words be our guiding star. May he rest in peace.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Tuskegee Airmen for their bravery and for their patriotism. The Tuskegee Airmen blazed trails as they grazed the clouds high above the Mediterranean. They fought on the frontlines of two wars simultaneously, and they were victorious in both. These pilots, navigators, and bombardiers helped save Europe from the murderous clutch of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. They also won a crucial battle in the war for racial equality in America. The first African American air squadron, the Tuskegee Airmen were an elite flight unit, known as the Red Tail Angels and as the Black Bird Men. These fearless fighter pilots flew in 15,500 missions and destroyed over 260 German aircraft. They were awarded for their ``extraordinary heroism'' with 850 medals, including numerous purple hearts and silver stars. Mr. Speaker, the Tuskegee Airmen flew under the leadership of a great man, Ben Davis, Jr. Ben Davis knew he wanted to fight for his country and he knew he wanted to fly. A passionate pilot, Ben Davis, Jr. made sacrifices for his dreams. When he set his mind on attending West Point, he was told that he would face discrimination there. Undeterred, he decided to attend the prestigious academy anyway. Throughout his time at the famed school, he was forced to live by himself and eat alone. But, Mr. Speaker, for Ben Davis, the sacrifices were worth it. As commander of the Airmen, he never lost a single Bomber to enemy fire. He became the first African American to hold the title of Major General and Lieutenant General of the Armed Forces. Mr. Speaker, when Ben Davis and the Tuskegee Airmen alighted from their planes at the end of World War II, they returned to America as heroes on two counts. Not only had they helped to ensure the defeat of tyranny overseas, but they had won a decisive battle for racial equality at home. These men were an inspiration for generations of aspiring black soldiers. They should serve as models to the many soldiers fighting bravely and proudly in Afghanistan and Iraq today.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. This is a day intended to raise awareness and visibility of HIV/AIDS prevention efforts among African Americans. I applaud the efforts of Representative Lee from California in bringing this important resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, this day is unfortunately very necessary. It deserves the attention of this Congress and our Nation because the face of HIV/ AIDS is changing. Since the onslaught of HIV in the early 80s, the face of HIV/AIDS has become increasingly more African-American and more female. In fact, HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death for African Americans between the ages of 25-44. Also, while African Americans represent only 12 percent of the population, we account for 49 percent of all reported cases of AIDS reported among adults and adolescents and the AIDS diagnosis rate among African Americans was almost 11 times the rate among whites. For African-American women the figures are even more shocking as they account for 67 percent of all new HIV cases. Needless to say these figures are appalling and indicate we need to face this pandemic with all due urgency. I think there are many things that we can do to help alleviate the problem, but there are two pressing items that come to mind: First, each of us must be willing to have a difficult conversation with people we love about protecting themselves from AIDS. Having these difficult conversations can save lives. Second, we must work together to fight the virus where it is having its most deadly impact. Federal dollars for HIV/AIDS prevention, diagnosis, and treatment should follow the epidemic and reach those who are most affected. Needless to say, more Federal funding is needed to accomplish this goal. I applaud the President for mentioning this HIV/AIDS problem during his State of the Union Address. However, the meager increase in the Bush budget for the Ryan White AIDS program at $2.1 billion is a good start, but, sadly not enough. That is why full funding for the Minority Aids Initiative, spearheaded by Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus in 1998 is so important. Mr. Speaker, in 1998, I received some local criticism for speaking out about HIV/AIDS in Baltimore. To this day, I occasionally am told that highlighting the health crisis devastating Baltimore's African- American community reinforces negative stereotypes about African- Americans. Nationally, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention inform us that more than one-half of the adult American men infected during the last 20 years have been people of color. Remaining silent about a threat of such magnitude would be an unthinkable moral error. In the Congress, our public conversation about the adequacy of America's response to AIDS will continue as long as Federal policy fails to adequately protect our health. We already know, however, that public policy and Federal funds alone will not fully safeguard those we love. In every household, church and school, Americans must find the will to talk candidly with each other about protecting ourselves. No one else will value our lives more than we do. As a father, I know that talking with our children about their personal lives can be a difficult and uncomfortable duty--but we have no choice. Eight out of every ten American women and children infected by the HIV virus since 1981 have been people of color--and one of the most cruel aspects of this plague is its preference for the young. It has become the second leading killer of young black women--and the current trends offer no comfort. Of the 40,000 new HIV infections reported nationally during 1999- 2000, fully one-half involved young people under the age of 24. Three-quarters of those new victims have been young people who look like us. When we confront these appalling facts, each of us who is a parent or grandparent is faced with a difficult question. What do we say to our young people that will help them protect themselves from this plague? Dr. Ligia Peralta, Director of the Adolescent AIDS Clinic at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, suggests that our private conversations with our children empower them to take control of their own health. ``For young women, in particular'' she informs us, ``the greatest risk of contracting HIV/AIDS comes from an intimate relationship with someone she loves. Theoretically, she understands the risk of sexually- transmitted infection. Personally, though, she may not connect that risk with her man.'' ``If her young man is not an intravenous drug user,'' Dr. Peralta continues, ``a young woman in love may think that she is safe from HIV/ AIDS. She doesn't even think about the possibility that he may have been infected by another woman, or by another man.'' Therein lies their danger. In our private conversations with our children about protecting themselves from HIV/AIDS, we should counsel abstinence. As a practical matter, however, it is wise to discuss all of their options, including condoms. With Federal help, local health departments now offer free, anonymous HIV/AIDS counseling and testing. Sexually active young people should take advantage of that service--and insist that their partners do so as well. Talking candidly with our children about intimate matters can be difficult. It is those private conversations, however, that will save the lives of those we love. Silence about HIV/AIDS feeds the destroyer of lives.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Clinical Laboratory Compliance Improvement Act of 2005, legislation to improve accuracy and reliability in medical testing and provide protection for employees who report laboratory problems to their superiors or regulatory entities. Medical laboratory testing is a fundamental pillar of our Nation's health care system. Virtually every American undergoes testing in the course of receiving medical care and relies on the accuracy of laboratory tests to receive appropriate medical care and treatment. Incorrect test results in the worst case can contribute to a misdiagnosis that leads to inappropriate care and possible adverse health consequences for the patient. In the best case, incorrect or invalid results can lead to undue stress and inconvenience. Inaccurate testing for communicable diseases can pose a serious threat to the public health. In May and July of 2004, the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform held hearings to investigate lab deficiencies that led to the release of hundreds of invalid test results by the Maryland General Hospital located in my district in Baltimore City. I requested the hearings as the subcommittee's ranking minority member, and with the cooperation and support of the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the subcommittee conducted the hearings on a strictly bipartisan basis. During the hearings, the subcommittee received testimony from Teresa Williams and Kristin Turner, two former laboratory employees who complained to superiors and State health officials about serious, long- standing deficiencies in the lab, including failure to implement quality controls on a diagnostic device used to read tests for HIV and hepatitis. Officials from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, responsible for implementing Federal regulations governing medical diagnostic devices and laboratory operations, respectively; the former chief executive of Adaltis US, Inc., manufacturer of the device used to run the invalid test; the College of American Pathologists, a private accrediting organization responsible for certifying the laboratory's compliance with Federal and State regulations on behalf of CMS and the State; and the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene all testified. It was Ms. Turner's complaint in December 2003 that triggered investigations by the State CMS, the Joint Commissioner on Accreditation of Healthcare, JCAHO, and CAP, between January and March. The investigations confirmed Ms. Turner's allegation that during a 14- month period between June 2002 and August 2003, Maryland General Hospital issued more than 450 questionable HIV and hepatitis test results to hospital patients. During this time period, the hospital laboratory was inspected and accredited for 2 years by CAP, receiving CAP's Accredited With Distinction Certificate. Despite an earlier anonymous complaint by Ms. Williams and several colleagues, the State also was unable to identify the problems, and serious deficiencies in two key departments of the lab went undetected by CAP and the State until January of 2004. In Spring of 2004, inspectors from the States' EMS and JCAHO concluded that the laboratory staff had falsified federally required instrument quality control results and reported patient results even though quality control checks had failed. Learning of the problems by way of news reports, CAP conducted a complaint inspection in April, found similar deficiencies, and suspended accreditation of the lab's chemistry and point-of-care departments for 30 days. To its credit, Maryland General Hospital conducted its own internal review and vigorously undertook efforts both to retest the affected patients and to revamp the lab's leadership and operations. Fortunately, retesting verified the accuracy of the overwhelming majority of tests, and Maryland General has made enormous strides in improving its lab operations so that patients receive results that are accurate and reliable. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that caused great distress to the community that the Maryland General serves. I should note that I live in that community, and I have received care at Maryland General Hospital. This is a situation that could have put lives in jeopardy and one that simply should never have occurred, given the regulatory safeguards that exist to ensure quality testing. Congress recognized the importance of ensuring that all Americans receive accurate diagnostic test results when in enacted Federal Standards for Medical Laboratories under the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Amendments of 1998, now know as CLIA. Under the CLIA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were charged with developing and implementing regulations to ensure that all labs conform to strict Federal guidelines. CMS directly inspects some labs to ensure CLIA compliance and State health agencies are responsible for inspecting and certifying the compliance of others. In addition, pursuant to CLIA regulations and agreements between CMS and the States, clinical laboratories that choose to be accredited by CAP or one of five other private accrediting organizations, are deemed to be in compliance with State and Federal regulatory requirements and can bill for services provided for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubting the fact that CLIA has made medical testing more accurate and more reliable, and surely the overwhelming majority of labs do their best to conform to these high standards. Unfortunately, the Maryland General case clearly demonstrates that not all laboratories will play fair and that the current system does not guarantee that serious instances of noncompliance will be detected or corrected. Testimony before the subcommittee indicated that in the Maryland General case, laboratory supervisors failed to implement quality control measures and deliberately masked lab deficiencies from inspectors from CAP and the State. Employees who complained were subject to retaliation and intimidation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).