Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, today this is not about overturning election results but reforming a broken election system. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my friends from the other side I become quite upset when I hear them say things like, we are trying to break down the election system, taking away from the credibility of our election system. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are trying to do is make sure that every single voter has the right to vote and that their vote is counted. This is not a black and white issue. This is not a Republican/ Democrat issue. This is a red, white and blue issue. This Constitution that we base our country and our laws on, the fundamental things of that Constitution, that building block, is the vote; and when we take away that vote, then what we do is we basically are destroying our democracy. That is what this is all about. I wonder, I really do, if it were your wife who was denied the right to vote or your child, would you be making the same arguments? All we are saying is we want to make sure that if we have a broken system, if there is one person whose vote is not counted, if there is one person who does not have the right to vote, then that is one person too many. It is as simple as that. So it upsets me that you keep saying these things about us denying Bush his opportunity to be President and all this kind of thing. That is not true. What we are addressing is the fundamental right to vote. It is simple as that. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concern for our nation's democracy. At its core, our form of government is based on the premise of ``one person, one vote.'' When you take away that right to vote or when you deny a cast vote from being counted, then you denigrate the building blocks of our great democracy and our Constitution. We are not here to contest the election results, but urge election reform of a broken system. In fact, today, we are reliving the painful experiences of the 2000 election. Those problems included: outdated and unreliable technology, confusing ballots, lack of poll worker training, and inaccurate voting lists. As a result, 6 million voters were disenfranchised. We all remember that this disenfranchisement was most prevalent in Florida. And here we stand again, four years later, to discuss flaws that led to a significant disenfranchisement of voters in the recent 2004 Presidential Election. This is not an effort to overturn the results of the election. Rather, this is an effort to address the irregularities of the election and to fix our broken election system. Although there were general reports of irregularities across the country, we must examine the prevalent problems that occurred in the state of Ohio, in particular. There were numerous accounts of eligible voters--waiting on line for up to ten hours in the cold and rain--facing insufficient resources at polling places, voting machine shortages, the denial of provisional ballots, voting machine errors or tampering, and the intentional distribution of inaccurate information. I think many of my colleagues find these irregularities appalling. My friends of the House and Senate this is a red, white and blue issue; not black or white; not urban or rural; or even Republican or Democratic. We must stand up to these injustices. That is why, as a result of these irregularities, I believe these critical steps must be taken: 1. Congress needs to enact meaningful non-partisan election reform-- HAVA can and needs to be improved, particularly by providing for a verified paper trail for electronic voting machines. 2. Congress should engage in further hearings into the widespread election irregularities reported in Ohio and around the country to fix our piecemeal election system. Our duty to uphold democracy in America is clear. If even one American is denied the right to vote, or one vote is not counted, that is simply one too many. I applaud the brave gentlelady of Ohio, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and the equally brave Senator Barbara Boxer of the State of California for raising this contest to the electoral votes from Ohio. I leave this great Chamber with a fitting quote from Thomas Jefferson, ``[It is] by their votes the people exercise their sovereignty.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Congressman Robert Matsui. Bob Matsui was one of those elected officials who earned the right to be called a ``statesman.'' He was a force for compassion, competence and integrity--as well as a wonderful human being whom I was honored to call my friend. I extend my heartfelt sympathies to his loving wife and family. Mr. Speaker, Bob Matsui embodied America's promise, demonstrating how a citizen of humble beginnings could rise to the heights of American governance. Bob also reminded us of our country's sins. During the Second World War, Bob's family was interned in the Tule Lake internment camp. This time of curtailed liberties and rampant xenophobia is one of the darker moments of American history. Mr. Speaker, internment left an indelible mark on Bob Matsui's family. Bob's mother contracted German measles at Tule Lake, and as a result, Bob's sister was born blind. The experience also deeply affected Bob, inspiring him to use his platform in Congress to reclaim the dignity of those wrongly interned. Bob worked tirelessly to enact the Japanese American Redress Act, in which the government formally apologized for internment and offered compensation. Mr. Speaker, James Baldwin once said, ``I love America more than any other country in the world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.'' Bob Matsui loved America in just this spirit. When John F. Kennedy told Americans to ask what they could do for their country, Bob pledged to become a public servant. He served diligently for 26 years. Mr. Speaker, we will miss Bob's leadership as the new Congress wades through the murky waters of Social Security policy. Our Democratic House Leader, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, was quite accurate when she noted that ``America's seniors have lost their best friend in the Congress.'' I would add only that so have this nation's children and all of us who seek balanced, progressive solutions to the challenges at the center of people's lives.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, ``Just wait, there may be some fireworks.'' These words were spoken by Ms. Shirley Chisholm after she was elected the first black woman to serve in Congress. And, Mr. Speaker, there were fireworks. As a founding member, Shirley Chisholm made the Congressional Black Caucus the ``Conscience of the Congress.'' Throughout her career, she was an advocate for the unemployed, for low-wage workers, for women, children, and people of color. The daughter of a laborer and a domestic worker, Shirley Chisholm won awards for her debating skills at Brooklyn College and went on to receive her masters in education at Columbia University. When she came to the House in 1968, she became a teacher to us all. And Mr. Speaker, there were fireworks. Shirley Chisholm carried the double burden of being black and being a woman. She was no stranger to resistance, but when Shirley wanted something done for her constituency or for her country, nothing could stand in her way. She called herself ``unbossed and unbought,'' and she was. From the moment she entered the Congress, she worked to make it a more fair and equal body. She said, ``Our representative democracy is not working, because the Congress that is supposed to represent the voters does not respond to their needs. I believe the chief reason for this is that it is ruled by a small group of old men.'' Shirley did not rest until she got the committee assignments she wanted and the respect she deserved. Mr. Speaker, there were fireworks. Shirley Chisholm made history, twice: as the first black woman in Congress, and then as the first African American to run for President in 1972. She said, ``I am an historical person at this point, and I'm very much aware of it.'' When asked of her legacy, Shirley said, ``I'd like them to say that Shirley Chisholm had guts.'' Mr. Speaker, we will say that and we will say more. Shirley Chisholm had spunk and spitfire, she had commitment and courage, she had wit and wisdom--she was an inspiration to us all. As we move forward into this new Congress, let us learn from our great teacher Shirley Chisholm. Let us remember her courage to be independent, to speak her mind, and to fight for the under-represented in this country. Let us remember that she cared not what the Congress was, but what it could and should be. Let us remember her sense of historical purpose and find our own. Mr. Speaker, in the name of justice, equality, and fairness--in the memory of Shirley Chisholm--let there be fireworks.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette) is a lifelong public servant who has spent her career fighting for our families and our children. Denise Majette was born into a working-class family, her mother, a teacher, and her father, a civil servant, who instilled in her the values of hard work, dedication to public service and strong religious beliefs. It is these childhood lessons that guided her life and her rise from these roots against tremendous odds to become one of the first African American women to attend Yale University and Duke University School of Law. Upon graduation, Denise Majette answered the call of public service, joining the Legal Aid in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, as a staff attorney. At Legal Aid, Denise Majette helped hardworking families who were struggling to make ends meet. After moving to Georgia in 1983, Ms. Majette continued working for her community, serving as a law clerk for the Georgia Court of Appeals, a special assistant attorney general and an administrative law judge. Then in 1993, Ms. Majette was appointed as a judge on the State court of DeKalb County. In 2002, Denise resigned from the bench and was elected to Congress, a talented legislator fighting for our children, our seniors, our veterans, and yes, our families. Denise lives the lesson her parents taught her, that to whom much is given, much is required. So when it looked like time was running out for Democrats in Georgia, she put it all on the line. When no one else was willing to take a chance and give up what they had, Denise made that sacrifice, and we thank her for her courage, her determination and for the thousands of new voters in Georgia. She made history, the first African American woman in Georgia, and that is the deep south, to become the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate. The Democratic nominee for the United States Senate from Georgia, just think about that. There were a lot of little girls watching this race. They saw Denise's commercials. They saw Denise debate time and time again and hold her own. They saw a legitimate, professional campaigner. Those little girls now know about a new option, a new path in life that is open to them. It is rare these days to meet a politician who is willing to make real sacrifices, someone willing to put it all on the line for the greater good. Denise Majette serves as a reminder to all of us that this position we hold is not really about us. It is not about how many titles we obtain or how many plaques hang on our walls or how many dollars we raise. We are here to be of service. We are not celebrities, but we are servants, and I thank Denise for reminding us of that. So, Mr. Speaker, we are so proud of Denise Majette and all that she has accomplished, and I do not have to wish her luck because with her faith in God, who is on her side, a strong conscience and an unshakable will, Denise Majette will never need it. She will be sorely missed in this body. May God bless her.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Clinical Laboratory Compliance Improvement Act of 2004, legislation to improve the accuracy and reliability in medical testing and to provide protections 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 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 poses an especially serious threat to the public health. On March 11, 2004, the Baltimore Sun reported that Maryland General Hospital (MGH), located in my district had issued invalid HIV and hepatitis test results to hundreds of patients from June 2002 to August 2003 when an Adaltis Labotech Immunoassay Analyzer (``Labotech'') was used to conduct HIV, hepatitis and other tests at the MGH lab. The tests results were issued despite instrument readings indicating that the results might be erroneous. It was also disclosed that the testing equipment itself might be at issue. In May and July of this year, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources held hearings to investigate the lab deficiencies that led to the release of hundreds of invalid HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C test results by MGH. 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, Representative Mark 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, longstanding 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 (CMS) responsible for implementing federal regulations governing medical diagnostic devices and for regulating laboratory operations, respectively; the former chief executive of Adaltis US, Inc., manufacturer of the device used to run the invalid tests; the College of American Pathologists, the 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. In fact, it was Ms. Turner's complaint in December 2003 that triggered investigations by the state, CMS, the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), and CAP, between January and March. The investigations confirmed Ms. Turner's allegations 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 two years by CAP, receiving CAP's Accredited with Distinction certificate (standard for CAP-accredited labs). 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. I should also point out that the ongoing faulty testing and related problems at the MGH lab were brought to the attention of the public only after former lab technician Kristin Turner filed a lawsuit. This spring, inspectors from the state, CMS, and JCAHO concluded that laboratory staff had falsified federally instrument quality control results and reported patient results even though quality control checks 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 the HIV and Hepatitis C tests. In addition, Maryland General has made enormous strides in improving its lab operations so that patients receive test results that are accurate and reliable. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that caused great distress to the community that Maryland General serves, and I should note that I live in that community and have received care at Maryland General Hospital. This is a situation that could have put many lives in jeopardy and one that simply should never have occurred given the regulatory safeguards that exist to ensure quality testing. Mr. Speaker, Congress recognized the importance of ensuring that all Americans receive accurate diagnostic test results when it enacted federal standards for medical laboratories under the Clinical Laboratories Improvements Amendments Act of 1998, now known as ``CLIA.'' Under CLIA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were charged with developing and implementing regulations to ensure that all labs conform to strict federal standards. Pursuant to CLIA regulations and agreements between CMS and the states, clinical laboratories that choose to be accredited by CAP or one of the five other private accrediting organizations are ``deemed'' to be in compliance with federal and state regulatory requirements and can bill for services provided to 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 Hospital 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; state and CAP inspection teams were unable to identify or verify serious ongoing deficiencies during accreditation and complaint surveys; and enforcement entities failed to share information about reports of deficiencies, investigative actions taken, and their investigative findings. Since our hearings concluded, another CAP-accredited laboratory in my state, Reference Pathology Services of Maryland, had its CAP accreditation and state license revoked because of longstanding deficiencies related to testing for sexually transmitted diseases and cervical cancer. This case and other information brought to the Subcommittee's attention suggest that at least some of the problems that occurred at Maryland General are not unique to the Maryland General case. Chairman Souder and I have asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine a number of issues related to the enforcement of federal standards for labs and I expect that investigation to tell us more about the prevalence of such problems. For now, it is unclear how many other laboratories may be experiencing such problems and, certainly, one would hope the number is few. But the record gives us little assurance that what happened at Maryland General could not occur elsewhere and I believe the Maryland General case reveals weaknesses in the current system for ensuring compliance with federal clinical laboratory standards. The bill I am introducing today aims to correct the weaknesses that are apparent. The Clinical Laboratory Compliance Improvement Act of 2004 seeks to improve compliance with laboratory standards by (a) facilitating the disclosure and detection of deficiencies by employees and (b) increasing cooperation and accountability among entities involved in the accreditation and monitoring of federally regulated medical labs. Specifically, the bill would amend Section 1846 of the Social Security statute to: (1) Establish whistleblower protections for employees of clinical laboratories and providers; (2) Require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, state health agencies, and private laboratory accrediting organizations such as CAP to share information about reports of deficiencies and investigative activity undertaken pursuant to such reports; (3) Require that standard accreditation surveys be conducted without prior notice to the provider or clinical laboratory facility to be surveyed; and (4) Require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit an annual report to Congress describing how CMS, private accrediting organizations, and state health agencies responded to reports of deficiencies during the preceding year. The whistleblower provisions would facilitate reporting of deficiencies by: Requiring that participating providers and clinical laboratories post a conspicuous notice advising employees how and to whom to report deficiencies; prohibiting retaliation by providers and clinical laboratories against employees who report deficiencies to CMS, accrediting organizations, or state health agencies; and establishing a federal cause of action for employees who are retaliated against for reporting deficiencies. With regard to unannounced inspections, the bill sets forth a civil monetary penalty of up to $2,000 for persons who provide notice to a lab or provider about the timing of a survey. Mr. Speaker, it is sad but true that we cannot afford to take it for granted that all laboratories will approach compliance with laboratory standards in a good faith manner, or even that deficiencies will be discovered when conscientious lab employees want to disclose them. The Clinical Laboratory Compliance Improvement Act of 2004 would reduce the likelihood that serious laboratory deficiencies will escape the notice of entities charged with ensuring compliance with the standards that we in Congress have established to ensure a high standard of healthcare for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in demonstrating their support for strengthening our national system for ensuring accuracy and accountability in medical laboratory testing. I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation. Finally, I want to thank my Subcommittee counsel, Tony Haywood, as well as Jolanda Williams, Trudy Perkins and Kimberly Ross of my staff for their tireless work on this issue.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Teacher Training Expansion Act of 2004. Right now, too many of our Nation's ``special needs'' children are underserved. This bill seeks to improve education for all of our children by increasing support for public and private organizations that train teachers to meet the challenges of special education. Specifically, the Teacher Training Expansion Act of 2004 would authorize the Secretary of Education, under the auspices of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), to give grant preference to local educational agencies that train teachers to use special education techniques. Currently, about 80 percent of students with learning disabilities receive the majority of their instruction in general education classrooms. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 50 percent of disabled students between the ages of 6 and 11, and 30 percent of disabled students between the ages of 11 and 12, are taught in regular classrooms. These numbers indicate a 10 percent increase in inclusion over the last 10 years. Mr. Speaker, these numbers demonstrate that IDEA, one of the most comprehensive bills addressing equality in education, must continue to expand training of special education teachers. IDEA requires that: to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities . . . are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be attained satisfactorily. IDEA Sec. 612 (5) (B) As more children with disabilities enter general education classrooms, it is critical that general education teachers and personnel are adequately trained to adapt curricula to suit their needs. Regular education teachers and personnel must collaborate with special education teachers to ensure that the best individualized approaches are utilized for the integration of disabled students into the classroom. My bill, the Teacher Training Expansion Act of 2004, encourages this crucial kind of staff development. Because local educational agencies, private and public organizations are at the forefront of training teachers who work with disabled students, these groups should be eligible to receive the highest consideration when awarding grants. By enabling these agencies to receive grant preferences, we will help our teachers gain the skills they need to work effectively with disabled students in mainstream classrooms. Education is central to changing the way disabled students are viewed by their peers, but it also helps disabled students cultivate the intellectual and social skills they need to compete in society. To ensure that inclusion and mainstreaming benefits all students, teachers must be trained appropriately. With adequate funding, the quality of education will continue to improve for all students. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by co-sponsoring the Teacher Training Expansion Act of 2004.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Voter Protection Act of 2004. This bill would allow criminal prosecution of any individual, group, or organization that tries to mislead, intimidate, misrepresent or otherwise interfere with anyone exercising the right to vote. It would impose a fine, imprisonment for up to one year, or both against violators. I introduce this bill, because as the presidential election fast approaches, it is evident that there are concerted efforts to mislead or intimidate voters across the country, especially minority voters. A recent report entitled The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today, (September 2004), coauthored by the People for the American Way Foundation and the NAACP, highlights efforts to intimidate and suppress minority voters around the country. It contains many recent egregious examples during this election cycle that illustrate the necessity for this legislation: In July 2004, Kentucky Black Republican officials joined to ask their State GOP party chairman to reject plans to place ``vote challengers'' in African American precincts during the upcoming election. (Source: Louisville Courier-Journal, 8/3/04). Just this summer, a Member of the Michigan State Legislature, Representative John Pappageorge, was quoted as saying, ``If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time this election.'' Mr. Speaker, you may not be aware, but African-Americans comprise 83 percent of Detroit's population. (Source: Detroit Free Press). In South Dakota's June 2004 primary, Native American voters were prevented from voting after they were asked for identification, which they are not required to present under state and federal laws. In 2004 in Texas, students at Prairie View A&M once again are suing for the right to register to vote in Waller County--after being threatened with criminal prosecution by the district attorney. In fact, an earlier controversy had led to a lawsuit and a 1978 federal court order prohibiting the local registrar from treating Prairie View students differently from other county voters. (Source: Houston Chronicle, 2/6/04). These are glaring examples that demonstrate that the problems surrounding the 2000 presidential election in Florida were not a fluke, but symptomatic of a larger nationwide problem. I cite one other recent example from the press. The New York Times recently reported that police officers visited the homes of elderly African Americans in Orlando, Florida flaunting their guns and questioning them about their legal voter registration activities. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to cite a not so long ago example of attempts to mislead voters in my own district: In Baltimore, Maryland, in the 2002 election, anonymous fliers were posted in several predominantly Black neighborhoods with the heading ``URGENT NOTICE''. The flier listed the wrong date for Election Day and warned that parking tickets and overdue rent should be paid before voting. (Source: Baltimore Sun, 11/6/02). I think my colleagues can see the pattern of suppression, misrepresentation and intimidation, especially in ``high stakes'' elections--it is both obvious and atrocious. Mr. Speaker, as the men and women of all backgrounds in our armed services fight abroad to promote democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is absolutely unconscionable and unpatriotic to allow illegal voter suppression activity to persist in our own country. Yet it does. Allowing such improprieties to continue--by those who actively seek to hinder or to deny altogether certain individuals' ability to vote--goes against the fundamental tenets of fairness and freedom woven into the fabric of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, we are now 26 days away from what will be one of the most decisive elections of our lifetime. In order to ensure every person's ``right to vote,'' voter intimidation and interference must be stopped. Accordingly, we must combat these tactics by ensuring that there are sufficient repercussions--and that these individuals are held accountable for their actions. The Voter Protection Act of 2004 will help to ensure this accountability. It would do so by imposing criminal penalties and fines for anyone or group that engages in fraudulent tactics, including distributing fliers or calling potential voters with misinformation, or any other such attempts to mislead or intimidate voters. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you, 40 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, asking that the Congress ensure that we not repeat the mistakes of the past, but indeed write a new page in history. I ask that we send a message to this country's citizens that they will be free to vote. I ask that we send a message to those so inclined that misleading, suppressing and intimidating voters is wrong and cannot continue. The Voter Protection Act of 2004 will help to assure Americans of the unencumbered right to vote. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, when the Constitution of the United States was originally adopted in 1788, many of us would have been ineligible to vote. Thankfully, there were people in this country who resisted against that injustice--in fact, died to correct it. The Voter Protection Act of 2004 will continue this tradition of ensuring that every vote is precious and protected. If Congress passes this legislation, we will demonstrate to the Nation and to the world that America does not tolerate any impositions on the sacred privilege of voting. I urge all of my colleagues to join me by co-sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, H.R. 3193, an outrageous effort spearheaded by my friend Representative Souder of Indiana, to repeal the ban on the possession of firearms in the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the DC elected officials, Mayor Anthony Williams, business, labor and civil rights groups and most importantly the District's local residents, who have spoken out against repealing this ban. If this Congress passes H.R. 3193, we will ignore their urgent cries--to spare their communities from further gun violence. I think I should point out to those Members who believe that the NRA interests should trump the interests of the District's citizens, let's remember the principles of DC home rule that were recently cemented by the Federal courts in Seegars v. Ashcroft. In Seegars, the court held that because the District of Columbia is not a State, then the second amendment did not apply and the ban was not unconstitutional. Congress should respect the court's decision and the District's right to home rule to allow the gun ban to remain in place. Just ask the parents of 16-year-old Ashley Walker, killed Sunday, September 26, 2004, and the parents of 13-year-old Michael Swan, killed Monday, September 27, 2004, if they believe that more guns should be permitted in the District. These parents know all too well what it means to lose someone to gun violence. They know the importance of maintaining this ban and that creating an environment of proliferation of guns is antithetical to saving lives. Yet despite these tragedies, Mr. Speaker, the homicide rate in DC is approaching a 20-year low. In fact, DC homicides are down by 24 percent from last year and 55 percent since 1994. It is clear that this ban saves lives. In my own district in Maryland, there has been an overwhelming decline of assault pistols used in crimes since the Maryland Assault Pistol Ban in 1994. The Baltimore City Police Department concluded that since the ban's enactment that 55 percent fewer assault pistols were used in crimes. These are real statistics from cities that had been plagued by violence in the past decade; but these cities are also evidence of the success that has sprung from banning assault weapons. Once again Mr. Speaker, with statistics such as these, we cannot ignore the fact that this ban saves lives. There are Members of this body who will argue that this bill will give DC residents a sense of protection and restore their second amendment rights. I argue just the opposite. First, under the current law, DC residents may currently own registered guns--in fact over 100,000 firearms have been registered since 1976. Secondly, lifting the ban would engender all sorts of travesties: fully loaded assault weapons--to be carried in public in some instances--acquisition of armor-piercing ammunition--including ``cop-killer'' bullets-- elimination of the District's registration program--even for assault weapons--and issuance of permits to individuals to carry concealed handguns in their places of business. I and other reasonable-minded individuals agree that this legislation is a far cry from providing residents with a ``sense of protection.'' We would argue that this legislation would only restore a culture of violence that the ban has significantly reduced. Mr. Speaker, if H.R. 3193 is passed we will once again ignore the millions of Americans who have pleaded with the administration and this body to extend the ban in the District of Columbia and the national assault weapons ban, contained in H.R. 2038. We cannot fail the residents of the District like we failed the millions of Americans when we allowed the assault weapons ban to expire just weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, we must listen to the residents of this District, citizens who do not have voting representation in Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote against repealing the DC gun ban--vote against H.R. 3193.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 792, honoring the United Negro College Fund, (UNCF), on the occasion of its 60th anniversary and the Fund's unflagging dedication to enhancing top quality college opportunities to millions of students. Mr. Speaker, we know ``the mind is a terrible thing to waste.'' And Mr. Speaker, we know that education is an unequaled blessing. Before Emancipation, slaves risked corporal punishment as they secretly gathered to read together. As a slave in Baltimore, Frederick Douglass tricked his white playmates into teaching him the alphabet, trading morsels of food for morsels of schooling. Throughout American history, African Americans possessed an unquenchable thirst to learn, finding innovative ways to educate each other. Dr. Frederick Patterson was a key contributor to that history. One hundred and fifty years after Douglass's death, Dr. Patterson founded the UNCF in an effort to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities and make higher education more accessible to African Americans. In the last 60 years, through grants and scholarships, the UNCF has raised over $2 billion in aid and has helped over 300,000 students attain a college education. Sixty percent of the students UNCF supports are the first in their families to go to college. Many of these students come from families who make less than $25,000 a year. The UNCF also extends its aid to students beyond the confines of college campus, providing internships at hundreds of Fortune 500 companies and supporting students in their doctoral and post-graduate study. Additionally, UNCF provides millions of dollars in technical and structural support to Historically Black Colleges and Universities by providing computers and training faculty. I am grateful to the UNCF for its contributions to the education of many of my esteemed colleagues in Congress, including, to mention a few, Congressmen Hastings, Lewis, Owens, Thompson and Bishop of GA. I know these men personally. I know how their education has contributed to their quest for justice and their tireless work for a better America. I have seen the fruits of their education as they harness their inquisitiveness and leadership to the most difficult challenges of governance. Mr. Speaker, there are countless others I do not know personally who have received the immeasurable gift of education because of the UNCF. Let me share a few stories with you from the UNCF's 2003 Annual Report. When she was in high school, Gabrielle Brown maintained a part time job mowing lawns in public parks to help her family. The UNCF made Ms. Brown's dream of college a reality. At Johnson C. Smith University, Ms. Smith was on the honor roll and served as a Big Sister. She said, ``the people and companies who give to the UNCF may not realize that their contribution is more than just money, it's hope for the future.'' Another UNCF recipient, Theodore Wesby, spent much of his childhood homeless, sleeping in shelters and bus stations. When he could not afford to live in the dorms at Edward Waters College, the UNFC awarded him a scholarship to cover his expenses. The formerly homeless young man plans to pursue a career in real estate, helping others locate their homes, just like the UNCF helped him locate his. It is in the name, honor, and gratitude of these inspiring students that I express my appreciation to the UNCF for its contributions W.E.B. DuBois, a graduate of the historically black Fisk University and Harvard University, wrote in The Souls of Black Folk: ``I sit with Shakespeare, and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm and arm with Balzac and Dumas, where smiling men and welcoming women glide in gilded halls. From out of the caves of evening that swing between the strong-limbed Earth and the tracery of stars, I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn nor condescension. So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the veil.'' Mr. Speaker, because of the United Negro College Fund, so many more of us have been able to sit above the veil of ignorance with Shakespeare and Balzac, with Einstein and Pythagoras, with Martin and Mandela. I thank the UNCF for the tremendously important work it does, and I urge my colleagues to accept this resolution.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I was thinking as she talked about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in a way it is a kind of sad thing that we are even standing here talking about this, talking about guaranteeing the right to vote and to have a vote counted here in 2004. But we do and we have to stand up. Every second January, come January, we put up our right hand and we swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and part of that Constitution is our right to vote. So I am very pleased that the gentleman from North Carolina has joined us. The next chairman of our Congressional Black Caucus, who is, without a doubt, one who has consistently looked at our Constitution very carefully, as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has. And whenever there was what might appear as a violation of that Constitution, they have consistently raised that on the floor of this great House. And I think history will go down and it will be written, and maybe hundreds of years from now somebody may just be flipping through some pages and hear about members of the Congressional Black Caucus, particularly those in the Committee on the Judiciary, standing up for what they believe in.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his statement. So it is, Mr. Speaker, that, again, the Congressional Black Caucus stands up for Americans' right to vote and to have their vote counted.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one of the things that I think we have to keep in mind is a lot of people listen to this discussion and say it seems like these Members of Congress are not trusting the military. It is not about trusting. It is a thing of integrity of a system. One of the things that I think people want to know is that their ballot and the ballot of their sons and daughters and friends and neighbors are, in fact, being counted properly and being sent to the appropriate places so that we can maintain that integrity. And we do not even want the appearance of any kind of improper procedures. One thing is for sure. When we talk about a democracy, we also talk about people's confidence in that democracy. As I am sure the gentlewoman has seen and heard, there were some people who were so discouraged by the 2000 election, they began to question why they should vote. And, of course, we have a ready answer to that. But the fact is we want everybody to know that their vote will be properly counted and that they will have the opportunity to vote. So I think people need to take all of that into consideration because I think it is very important.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one of the things that, as she was speaking, I could not help but think about is how in my district when we go to vote, the voter, and I am sure this is the case throughout the United States, is entitled to a certain level of privacy to cast their ballot. And certainly when the gentlewoman raised the question of what happens to ballots when perhaps they will be sent to the Pentagon, the privacy question comes up, the integrity of the system comes up. So I agree with the gentlewoman totally that we should write a letter. We will do that, and we will look into further action so that we can guarantee the integrity of those ballots coming from our military. They are citizens of the United States of America. They are entitled to the same rights as all others. So it just seems logical to me that on their behalf and certainly on behalf of all citizens of our country, we will want to ensure the integrity and perhaps have that order reversed so that they could go directly, as they would normally, to whatever the various precincts are in their local voting offices throughout the country. So we will take a look at that and write that letter

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for all of his hard work. I thank the gentleman for constantly standing up for what is right, so often finding himself standing alone. But as I have often said with regard to the Congressional Black Caucus when the question is asked why is it that you stand up over and over again when it appears you cannot win this battle or that battle, what we do is we consistently stand up, not necessarily to win but to set the trend for justice and for righteousness. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon with my fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus to highlight the importance of protecting the right to vote in our Nation. I have often said this is not a black, yellow, brown, reddish. It is not about race, it is not about culture. It is not about religion. This is a red, white and blue issue. When we talk about the right to vote and have your vote counted, it is clear when we look at our democracy that the very building blocks of the great thing that we call democracy and that so many other countries emulate or try to emulate is built on the individual's right to go to his or her polling place and pull a lever to select someone who will represent him or her in local or State or Federal Government, and that person will hopefully reflect that citizen's viewpoints when it comes to making policy. That is what it is all about. That is what our democracy is all about. That is why voting is so important. When we take away that right to the vote or when you deny a person after they have voted the right to have their vote counted, then we are literally taking away the building blocks of what we call this great democracy. Mr. Speaker, we are now 48 days from what will be one of the most decisive elections of our lifetime. I have said on many occasions that it is not only a decisive election, but that it is probably the most important election. This is that election where we will select the President who will decide who will be the next two or three new members of the Supreme Court, and who will decide exactly where we go with this Iraq war. This is the election which will probably decide the course of America's history for the next 50 years. Therefore, it is critical that within the next 48 days we educate people on registration deadlines, early voting, and the rights each American is entitled to when they go to the polls. As an African American elected official, I am particularly sensitive to the issue of voting rights because when the Declaration of Independence was penned, it did not have my independence in mind. It did not have my independence in mind, nor did it have my great grandfather's, my grandfather's, nor my mother or father. Mr. Speaker, our recent national history record records a time when the right to elect one's own representatives in Congress, in State houses and in the White House was a conditional right. It was dependent upon which State a person resided in, whether a person was born male or female, the color of one's skin or the ability to pass a literacy test. Indeed, our voting rights were limited by a vision of our national future that was clouded by prejudice and by dogged political ambition. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can remember a time just over 40 years ago when the country was in the grips of a national revolution. Freedom fighters took to the streets in protest of an America that did not recognize that its strength was indeed in its diversity. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the products of that revolution, did not come about because Congress had finally come to its senses. Instead it was the manifestation of a slave's dream deferred. As Dr. Walter Scott Thomas of the New Psalmist Baptist Church said this weekend at the Congressional Black Caucus prayer breakfast, when a people fail to dream, when they fail to dream of a better day, then they have indeed doomed their future. So the Voting Rights Act of 1965 grew out of the sweat, blood and tears shed by brave men and women marching hopefully across the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, Alabama, only to be met by police batons and tear gas on the other side. And it grew out of the work of so many other patriots whose names will never be recorded in our history books who may have never been recorded on the front pages of the Washington Post or the Boston Globe, but the fact of the matter is they made significant contributions. It is because of the Voting Rights Act which outlawed the racist policies which shut blacks out of the voting booths that the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), was elected to serve in the United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, our Nation was founded upon the basic belief in a people's government elected by and for the people. Yet for so many years in our history, African Americans were denied the fundamental right to elect their representatives. In this very Chamber, African- American members who were elected by voters in their district were denied seats in the people's House of Representatives and sent back home simply because of their race, simply because they were born black in America. In fact, Mr. Speaker, before there ever was a Congressional Black Caucus, five of the first 20 African Americans elected to serve in the House were not allowed to be seated in this Chamber which in essence invalidated the will and the intent of voters which elected them to office. As a Nation, we have been fortunate to overcome these and other trying times in our history. For the most part we have learned the important lessons of our past. Yet as evidenced by the contested 2000 presidential election, there are still remnants of that ugly past which seeks to remerge with a new name yet created the same result. We may not call it Jim Crow anymore, but voter suppression by any other name is voter suppression just the same. Mr. Speaker, some estimates suggest that there were between 4 and 6 million Americans whose votes were thrown out in the last presidential election. According to a report submitted to the Committee on Government Reform on which I sit, the General Accounting Office stated that counties with higher percentages of minority residents tended to have higher percentages of uncounted Presidential votes. Some would have us believe it is mere coincidence that the African American votes were more unlikely to go uncounted and be invalidated in the 2000 election, but we in the Congressional Black Caucus know better. If Members remember, we came to the well of this very Chamber on January 6, 2001, to express our outrage at the systemic disenfranchisement of so many voters in our own communities. Mr. Speaker, as it was clearly shown in Fahrenheit 9/11, it was the Congressional Black Caucus that stood up to protest the Florida vote so that we could merely speak for an hour and a half. But back then, January 2, 2001, we could not get one Senator to join in with us so that we could at least have a dialogue, because it was our position that whenever one American is denied their right to vote, whenever one American's vote is not counted, then that is one too many. And we were determined to make sure that history would not be recorded, when our great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren would read the history many, many years from now, we did not want it said that we did not stand up and at least protest what had happened in the great State of Florida. We each lined up one by one at this very podium, not because President Bush won or because Al Gore lost, but because the issue was bigger than any one individual. We came to the House floor because the fundamental right to vote had been tampered with solely for political gain and we were not going to stand for it. Unfortunately, in that effort, again now made famous by Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, we were silenced and our voices were not heard. Mr. Speaker, we come to the well of the House this afternoon to declare that this will not happen again, not on our watch. Recent news reports from the New York Times and other reputable papers across the country document an organized campaign taking hold of minority communities aimed at discouraging people from fulfilling their civic duty and voting this November. In my very district at the last election, notices were put out all across the City of Baltimore telling people that if they were behind in their rent or if they were behind in their gas and electric payments or if they had any kind of problems with the Motor Vehicle Administration, they would be subject to arrest if they were to go to the polls. But not only did the notice do that, it also told them that they should appear at the polls to vote the day after the election was to take place. Again, this was another effort on the part of some to stand in the way of people voting and having their votes counted. The Help America Vote Act, a wonderful act which was enacted by this great Congress, has provisions with regard to provisional voting. When we look back at the past election and look at what happened to a lot of those provisional votes, a lot of them, the vast majority in many States were thrown out for simple things, as if on one side of the room was precinct one and one side of the room was precinct two, if the person actually was supposed to vote in precinct one and mistakenly voted in precinct two, a provisional ballot, the ballot was thrown out. While we want to make sure that we protect the integrity of every ballot, I do believe that the founders of this great country when they crafted the Constitution of the United States wanted to make sure that every citizen had the right to vote. Let me just give you a few examples, Mr. Speaker. Recently the New York Times reported that police officers visited the homes of elderly African Americans in Orlando, Florida, flaunting their guns and questioning them about their voter registration activities. Just this week in an editorial, the Times quotes a State legislator in Michigan saying, and I quote, if we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election. The Houston Chronicle tells of students at a historically black college, Prairie View A&M University, being told that if they dared to vote in local elections using their college address, they would be prosecuted. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no question in anyone's mind that these types of activities are geared toward intimidating voters, particularly minority voters, into staying home on November 2. After all, 81 percent of Detroit's population is African American. By suggesting suppression of the Detroit vote, the Michigan State legislator was publicly suggesting suppression of the black vote. The Supreme Court case which established the right of students to vote on campus was actually initiated by a case involving Prairie View University some 26 years ago. Here it is 26 years later and the same forces that sought to disenfranchise students in the seventies and eighties have been reincarnated in 2004. It was just recently that Bishop Vashti McKenzie of the AME Church said, and I quote, that while we may have new battles, and she was referring to African Americans today, we are basically fighting our fathers' and our grandfathers' same battles. We are only dealing with a different person but they are the same battles. Indeed, she was correct. Mr. Speaker, I am sure some people may be listening to this across the country and think that the Congressional Black Caucus is somehow paranoid. But I ask that they simply read the headlines in their local papers. Just 2 weeks ago, voters in Florida's primary were turned away from the polls because they did not have proper identification. The poll workers conveniently neglected to tell people that all they had to do was sign an affidavit attesting to their identity. A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State is quoted as saying, ``The affidavit option in the law is merely a courtesy to the voter.'' I have news for the Florida Secretary of State and anyone else in the country who is thinking about threatening, miseducating or otherwise dissuading people from voting on November 2. The ability to vote is not a courtesy. It is the law. I along with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus will defend that law by any means necessary. Mr. Speaker, it is time that our country get about the serious business of defending this democracy that we champion so proudly abroad. One first step would be to fully fund the Election Assistance Commission. As you know, the Election Assistance Commission was created as part of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to fix our country's broken electoral system. There are some that have argued that the system is not broken. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that it is. All one has to do is do a replay of the 2000 election. But what you and people across this country probably do not know is the fact that the Election Assistance Commission was so severely underfunded that it could not even afford to pay the rent on its office space this year. That is simply incredible. Congress and this President has got to stop giving lip service to the idea of protecting the right to vote. We must act and we must act now. Unless the Election Assistance Commission gets an additional appropriation, they will be forced to pay their rent, salaries and, by the way, oversee an entire Federal election with only $2 million. Not even the greatest magician in the world could pull off that trick. The four election assistance commissioners and their staffs are working around the clock with State election officials to ensure a seamless election process in November. However, by refusing to provide adequate funding for their work, Congress and the President is setting the commission up for failure. Mr. Speaker, as we have been throughout the last 2 years, the Congressional Black Caucus will travel to communities across this great Nation again this weekend to inform voters of their rights. We do not want people to get discouraged by the challenges that some seek to mount against them in November. Instead, we want to awaken a spirit of rebellion against these voter suppression tactics. We want mothers, fathers, teachers and community leaders to feel a sense of urgency this November. If there are forces working against us, we as a community must work harder against them. We must work together, Democrats and Republicans alike, to reinvigorate the civil rights battle cry that famously proclaimed one man, one vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in enthusiastic support of H. Res. 717, honoring former President William Jefferson Clinton on the occasion of his 58th birthday. I wish him happiness--and health--in his 58th year. The outlines of President Clinton's story have become familiar to us. Born in the small town of Hope, Arkansas, the young Bill Clinton began cultivating the values--compassion, perseverance and commitment to social justice--that would guide him throughout his Presidency. He benefitted from the love and will of his mother--Virginia Clinton--a widow and survivor of domestic violence who worked tirelessly to support her children. He was a dutiful son, a protective brother, and a gifted student. In college, Clinton juggled coursework with an internship for Senator Fulbright, relishing his introduction to politics. Awarded the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship, Clinton went on to Oxford University and Yale Law School. There he met his match and wife-to-be in the form of a driven Hillary Rodham. Mr. Speaker, it was as President that Mr. Clinton captured the hearts, the imagination, the hope, of so many Americans. A post-Cold War President, Bill Clinton believed we must become a domestic as well as a military superpower. He knew our strength came from more than just our military might, but from our commitment to the ordinary men and women of this country. He nurtured our country's strength through economic growth, support for the middle class and a ladder for the poor. Bill Clinton forged a Third Way, a new path to bipartisanship that remains a model for lawmakers and citizens alike. He made our streets safer with the Brady bill, he made our working families stronger with the Earned Income Tax Credit, and he made our economy soar by balancing the budget and erasing the deficit. He protected our environment, he created jobs, he strengthened alliances across the world and he labored for peace. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton continues to be a devoted public servant, crusading against the global AIDS pandemic. His foundation has succeeded in lowering the cost of HIV/AIDS tests and treatment for millions of people in developing countries across the world. I am fortunate to call Bill Clinton a friend. I have seen him light up a crowded room, and I have seen him connect with struggling individuals in a way that only he can. A music-lower and a musician, he is a Blues man with soul. He knows the sorrow of life's harsh realities, and he knows the joy that comes from striving towards our collective potential. Most of all, Bill Clinton is a man of heart. I wish him--and his heart--continued health. I thank Congresswoman Maloney for sponsoring this resolution and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 2038, a resolution to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, sponsored by Representative Carolyn McCarthy, member of the committee on Homeland Security. I thank you for your tireless leadership on this issue. September 13, 2004, marks the day that we take a step back. Today marks the day that some Members will ignore the outcries of millions of Americans to extend this legislation, whose communities have been protected for a decade under the Assault Weapons Ban. On this day, the Republican leadership in Congress and the Administration have failed the citizens of this country by allowing this ban to expire. While some Members of these two chambers and the administration are content to play this game of ``cat and mouse,'' the expiration of this progressive legislation unleashes unimaginable threats upon our society. Mr. Speaker, we need not look too far in the recent past to know the terrifying effects of military-style weapons on our society. In 2002 John Lee Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized the Washington Metropolitan area for several weeks. While some Members of this body and the Administration may have forgotten, I can assure you that the D.C. sniper shootings left an indelible mark on the 12 families who suffered at their hands and many Americans. Just last year, in 2003, our society was plagued again by sniper shootings in Ohio. There have been 12 shootings linked to this Ohio sniper, who allegedly used a semiautomatic pistol in his shooting spree. Of course let us not forget Columbine and the more recent Randallstown shooting in Baltimore County--evidence that no one, in no place even our innocent children are safe from gun violence. It is impossible to ignore the impact of gun violence in our society. Mr. Speaker, today we witness a political conundrum--we have an administration that believes that the War on Terror is a continuous battle, but then seeks to potentially arm the people who threaten our homeland, our security, and our safety in this country. By allowing the ban to expire, it demonstrates a lack of leadership, and undermines the very system we are currently trying to strengthen here in Congress. The administration's failure to push Congress to hear this debate, while at the same time announcing its willingness to sign the ban if extended, sends mixed signals. If the administration will not fight to protect millions of lives in the U.S. who inevitably stand in harm's way when the ban is lifted, how can it propose to effectively lead our country as we combat foreign enemies? The importance of this ban is evident. Since its enactment, our Nation has witnessed a sharp decline of assault weapons used in crimes. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives notes that since the ban's enactment in 1994 that usage of assault weapons in a crime has declined by 66 percent, and the Bureau has recovered more than 1.4 million guns in our country. These weapons, which were illegally possessed, were either used in a crime or linked to a crime. With staggering statistics such as these, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to ignore the effectiveness of this ban. In my home State of Maryland, there has been an overwhelming decline of assault pistols used in crimes since the Maryland Assault Pistol Ban in 1994. The Baltimore City Police Department concluded that since the ban's enactment that 55 percent fewer assault pistols were used in crimes. Once again Mr. Speaker, with statistics such as these, we cannot ignore that this ban saves lives. Furthermore, the administration has proposed deep cuts in the Community Oriented Policing Services program (COPS), which provides grants to State and local law enforcement agencies to hire police officers, by cutting funding from 482 million to 97 million dollars. These cuts coupled with the expiration of the ban render our Nation's State and local law enforcement agencies practically unable to defend and protect citizens. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with these final words--the failure to pass this extension signals to millions of Americans that the leadership in Congress once again has not heard their pleas. This failure to extend the ban is only symptomatic of the failure of this current leadership and administration to hear the voices of this nation pleading for better healthcare, better schools, and safer communities. How can we let this ban lapse when it has saved so many lives?

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I, along with my colleagues Congressman James Oberstar, the Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Congresswoman Corrine Brown, Ranking Democratic Member of the Railroad Subcommittee, are introducing the ``Protecting Railroad Operators, Travelers, Employees, and Communities with Transportation Security Act of 2004'' (PROTECTS Act). Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government has authorized over $12 billion on aviation security. Railroad and transit agencies were authorized to receive $65 million in security grants in 2003 and $50 million in 2004. Clearly, this disparity in security funding is unacceptable. We cannot afford to put a price tag on safety. We cannot leave our railroads vulnerable to attack. Nearly five times as many people take trains as planes every day. Our bill authorizes nearly $1.3 billion to protect passenger and freight railroads and the communities they serve. I have grave concerns regarding the vulnerability of our national rail and transit systems. A documented one-third of all terrorist attacks worldwide have targeted railroads and other surface transportations systems. The United States rail network touches every major urban center and hundreds of smaller communities in between. Millions of tons of hazardous materials are shipped yearly across the United States. A large portion of these shipments is transported by rail, sometimes through densely populated areas, increasing the concern that attacks or accidents on these shipments could have severe consequences. Additionally, the 3,000 to 3,300 railroad shipments of spent nuclear fuel from 39 states that the Department of Energy plans to deposit in Yucca Mountain over the next 24 years, highlights the need for stringent rail security to guard against such incidents. Based on recent numerous rail attacks around the world, terrorists seem to have expressed a proclivity for attacking rail systems. Between 1998 and 2003, there were 181 attacks on trains and related targets such as depots, ticket stations and rail bridges worldwide. Lack of screening and inadequate safeguards in the transportation of explosives, chemical, biological and radiological agents have created major vulnerabilities in our rail transportation system. These vulnerabilities are all largely un-addressed. The challenge of protecting our railroads is a daunting one. The demands on our system to deliver travelers and freight safely, quickly, and efficiently make our task all the more difficult. However, these goals are achievable. Failure on this mission is not an option. The PROTECTS Act authorizes over $1 billion to help secure our national rail system against terrorist threats. $500 million is authorized for grants to wholly or partially reimburse State and local governments, railroad carriers and rail labor for the development and implementation of increased security measures. The tragic terrorist attack on a commuter train system in Madrid earlier this year was a urgent reminder of our need to implement safety measures to secure our national rail transportation system. Washington's Union Station, and New York's Penn Station, both have very high volumes of pedestrian traffic that include a mix of Amtrak travelers and daily commuters. Inadequate security measures put these travelers at risk. Our bill authorizes $597 million for Amtrak to address fire and safety issues in tunnels in New York, NY, Baltimore, MD, and Washington, DC. In addition, $65 million is authorized for Amtrak system-wide security upgrades. It is particularly disturbing that the federal government has yet to complete a national, risk-based threat management plan for preventing attacks upon our nation's rail system. The GAO report, ``Rail Safety and Security: Some Actions Already Taken to Enhance Rail Security, but Risk-Based Plan Needed,'' which I, along with my colleagues Jim Oberstar, Henry Waxman, and Marty Meehan requested in 2001, concluded that ``the adequacy of this industry plan to protect communities and the railroad infrastructure is still unclear since the Transportation Security Administration lacks the framework for systematically evaluating and prioritizing actions needed to ensure the safety and security of the transportation of hazardous materials by rail.'' The PROTECTS Act authorizes grants to State and local governments and emergency responders for proper equipment and protective gear for hazardous material incidents. In addition, the act ensures that responders are properly trained and are familiar with the different types of hazardous materials that pass through and are stored in their communities. A clear comprehensive industry plan is needed to protect communities and rail infrastructure. With 530 rail stations throughout the country--some of those no more than open platforms where passengers can walk freely onto the train--stringent airport-like security measures are not possible. However, the PROTECTS Act will ensure that the necessary steps to address security vulnerabilities on our rail system are implemented and that a comprehensive plan is developed. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) in their report that was released today concludes that the United States needs to develop strategies for neglected parts of our transportation security system. Also, the report recommends that we address problems of biometric screening between agencies and governments, including border and transportation systems. Our bill provides funding and authorizations to aid such efforts. We got an urgent wake up call on September 11, which we answered. The commuter rail station bombing in Madrid was a second wakeup call. The PROTECTS Act is how we will answer that call. We have to do all that we can to secure America and its citizens against terrorists' threats. Why wait for the other shoe to drop, we need to act now to protect rail and rail passengers before we wake up to another tragic terrorist incident.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) say we say that we need to end possible core manipulations with regard to our elections. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) may not be familiar, although he visited Florida right after the 2000 catastrophe, where so many African-American people and so many others were not allowed to vote, and their votes were simply not counted. Our last speaker talked about how the U.N. had all this work to do all around the world. Let me tell you something. This is a democracy in the United States. The way this democracy is built, it is built upon the individual's right to vote and to have that vote counted, and basically that is what did not happen in Florida and in other places. I would submit to you that this is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. This is a red, white and blue issue. I cannot figure out anything that could be more important than making sure that every single person in your district and in my district have that right to vote and have that vote counted. I do believe that if the gentleman, the sponsor of this amendment, were to have one of his constituents to come and say, ``Mr. Buyer, I could not vote for you,'' I believe that you would tear down walls, build bridges, do everything you could to make sure that that person could vote. Just this weekend when I was down in Miami, there was a headline in the Miami Herald talking about things that Jeb Bush is doing or had tried to do to stop folk from being able to have their votes cast and counted. And so the beat goes on. That is why the gentleman thinks the Congressional Black Caucus likes coming and saying that we want monitoring? We want to make sure that all of our constituents have their vote. So it is not about manipulation. It is about integrity in this system. That is what it is all about. We want to make sure that another person is not selected but elected.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise the 14th consecutive year that the Johns Hopkins Hospital has topped U.S. News & World Report's assessments of American hospitals. This distinction places them in the company of well-respected hospitals such as the Mayo Clinic and Massachusetts General Hospital. Located in my district in Baltimore, Maryland, Johns Hopkins Hospital ranks in the top ten for 16 out of the 17 specialty categories including: # 1 in Gynecology, Otolaryngology and Urology; #2 in Geriatrics, Kidney Disease, Neurology/Neurosurgery, Ophthalmology and Rheumatology; #3 in Cancer, Digestive Disorders, Hormonal Disorders, Pediatrics, Psychiatry and Respiratory Disorders; and #4 in Heart/Heart Surgery and Orthopedics. Time and time again Johns Hopkins has been noted as one of the country's best hospitals, boasting some of the world's most renowned surgeons, notably my friend, Dr. Ben Carson--so it is no surprise that Hopkins has once again received this great distinction. Though these rankings bode well for the institution, the true recipients of these accolades are the doctors, nurses and staff. These people commit their time and energy to the work of the Hospital and the patients, and it is their professional excellence, like the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (won by Peter Age), for the first triple-swap kidney transplant and other similar distinctions, that encouraged this collective recognition of Johns Hopkins Hospital. Mr. Speaker, this recognition represents Johns Hopkins Hospital's commendable strides to improve development and to encourage the most conducive working environments. In 2003, the Hospital increased its infrastructure development as they moved scientists into a $140 million research building-the new front door to the School of Medicine-and broke ground on a second Cancer Research Building. Also, construction commenced on infrastructure for two patient care towers at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and at the Howard County General Hospital to open larger inpatient operating rooms, while the suburban outpatient facilities continue to expand. In addition to this development, Hopkins Hospital has continually supported excellence in global education and healthcare--evident in the Hospital's 2003 opening of its first overseas division in Singapore where twelve full-time faculty members will lead training and research on diseases endemic to Southeast Asia. Consistent with its desire to curb pandemic crisis abroad, Hopkins Medical has taken an active stance against the spread of disease and infection at home with their fight against bioterrorism. On the national front, with major federal grants, Hopkins' teams will apply lessons learned on-site to enhance safety in 55 Michigan hospital intensive care units and to develop nationwide hospital plans. It is a wonderful moment when the nation recognizes the outstanding achievements of an institution that helps so many people here in America and abroad. However, my pride is not based on this recognition alone. Instead, it is based on the knowledge that my constituents and fellow citizens achieved this honor through their constant and estimable work. Work, which was dedicated not with the desire to receive an award, but with the intent to make a genuine difference.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the enactment of the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2003, H.R. 2424 and S. 1233, companion legislation that I introduced along with my friend Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland. This bill received bipartisan support in both committees of jurisdiction in the House, as well as bicameral support--having passed quickly to the floor from the Senate Judiciary Committee. I thank the President for signing this legislation into law on June 22, 2004. With valued input from Drs. Elmer and Joanne Martin, founders of the Great Blacks in Wax Museum, I introduced this bill to help bring long overdue recognition to African Americans who have served our Nation with great distinction, but whose names, faces and achievements may not be well-known by the average citizen. Rest assured that this recognition can and will be accomplished and preserved through expansion of the Great Blacks in Wax Museum--a national treasure located in my district in Baltimore, Maryland. In addition to the 200 existing figures at the museum, I am pleased to inform that a priority will be placed on exhibits presenting the 22 Black Americans who served in Congress during the 19th century. Several of these 22 were born into slavery. All of these Americans proudly served their constituencies and their Nation. Other members from the 1900s such as Senator Edward Brooke, Representatives Julian Dixon (D- CA), Oscar Stanton De Priest (R-IL), Louis Stokes (D-OH), Parren J. Mitchell (D-MD), J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK) and others will also receive special recognition. Several of the existing figures depict Colin Powell, Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mary McLeod Bethune and former Representatives Mickey Leland of Texas, as well as, Shirley Chisholm and Adam Clayton Powell of New York. The expanded museum will focus on Black military veterans of various military engagements, including the Buffalo Soldiers and Tuskegee Airmen; on Black judges and prominent attorneys; and on the role of Blacks in the discovery and settlement of America. It will also showcase Blacks who served in senior civilian Executive Branch positions, such as Ralph Bunche (FDR administration), E. Frederic Morrow (Eisenhower administration), Robert Weaver (Johnson Administration), William Coleman (Ford administration), Patricia Harris (Carter administration), Louis Sullivan (George H.W. Bush administration), and others who have not received appropriate recognition. Lastly, this legislation authorizes assistance in establishing a Justice Learning Center as a component of the expanded Museum complex. The Justice Learning Center will include state-of-the art facilities and resources to educate the public, especially at-risk youth, about the role of African Americans in our nation's judicial system. It will include a special focus on the civil rights movement, and on the role of African Americans as lawmakers, attorneys and in the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, the Great Blacks in Wax Museum was founded in 1983 by Dr. Elmer Martin and Dr. Joanne Martin, who started the museum with their own funds carrying a few figures and exhibit materials around the country in their car. Today I am proud to report that the museum currently occupies part of a city block in East Baltimore and includes more than 200 wax figures. It is America's first wax museum of Black history. The museum now receives well over 200,000 visitors a year-- more than half of these visitors are school children. I also will mention that several members of Congress and their staff have visited the museum and relayed to me the awesome nature of their visit--how the figures and exhibits both moved and informed--resulting in a truly enriching experience. Enactment makes certain that the Museum can continue its mission to preserve a great part of our nation's history. I would be remiss if I did not relay to you how important and inspiring this Museum is to its East Baltimore community. The Great Blacks in Wax Museum functions as more than just a museum. It is a stalwart in its community. The Martins established the Museum with the primary motivation ``to use education, history and example to help mainly disadvantaged youth overcome feelings of alienation, defeatism and despair.'' It provides a safe-haven for at-risk youth and offers opportunities for young people in the community to take part in employment, intern and volunteer programs. The Museum has enrichment programs for individuals, families, daycare centers, churches, schools and other non-profit organizations. In keeping with its commitment to community involvement, the Museum's many programs serve as a means for taking learning and cultural enrichment beyond the school walls. The Justice Learning Center will extend the outreach efforts of the Museum to homeless shelters, halfway houses, adult day care, domestic violence centers, youth residential facilities and other places to reach disadvantaged and/or at-risk youth and families. Mr. Speaker, enactment of this legislation is a testament to the Martins' persistence and vision. Enactment also means that the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum--a national treasure--will receive needed federal support to ensure that generations yet unborn will be told the story of these great Americans. The Museum will assure that History never forgets this legacy. Finally, again, I want to thank Representative Sensenbrenner and his staff Joseph Gibson and Katy Crooks, Representative Conyers and his staff Lillian German, as well as Representatives Pombo and Rahall and their staffers, Frank Vitello, Richard Healy and David Watkins for all of their hard work in moving this legislation through their respective Committees. I would especially like to thank my legislative director, Kimberly Ross, in seeing this legislation through to its successful end.