Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I come tonight to address this House along with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, and I guess one thing, as I heard our previous speaker talking about Martin Luther King, I could not help but think about a quote that King stated many years ago when he said that when you talk about peace, it is not just the absence of conflict but it is the presence of justice. And tonight the Congressional Black Caucus, as we did last week and we will continue to do over and over again, come forward in the spirit of justice, justice with regard to the American people, who have a right to know what is going on in their country and with the tax dollars that they work so hard to give to our national Treasury. I think they want justice so that they can fully understand why it is that just a few months ago the President came asking for close to $80 billion and this Congress gave it to him for Iraq. I think they will consider justice to simply be that they now have answers to the questions with regard to the present $87 billion, questions answered which will help them understand what is going on and why it is that their tax dollars are being spent. Those same citizens, like the Congressional Black Caucus, are very clear with regard to support of our troops. We support our troops with everything we have got. As I often say, we support our troops 1 million percent, but the fact is that, if justice is to prevail and if peace is to really come to this world, we also need to know and the American citizens need to know whether those troops, while we applaud them over and over again, whether they are receiving justice when they ask the question and send the letters to their congressmen and to their representatives and to their Senators asking what do we have to do to get the things that we need to address this war that we are in? So I want to make it very clear that there is not the slightest bit of reluctance to support our troops. We do. But now we must begin to answer some questions, and we presented these questions to the President before, and we will present them over and over again. Recently, we in the Congressional Black Caucus released the principles that will guide our evaluation of the administration's $87 billion supplemental funding request regarding the United States' involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. This latest $87 billion request, I should note, is in addition to the $80 billion that Congress appropriated just last spring. In the Congressional Black Caucus statement of principles, we declared the following: The administration should provide to the Congress the full details of the information relied upon by the President in his decision to go to war. We asked for a detailed accounting from the administration as to all funds expended to date, including details about all contracts for works in or related to Iraq. We asserted that the President should provide full details about how the efforts will be paid for, including a full accounting of how and to what extent Iraqi resources could be used to reduce the United States' costs. We indicated that the President should provide the Congress with a detailed plan showing how the proposed new funding will be spent, distinguishing between what will be used for the protection and maintenance of our troops and what will be used for the rebuilding of Iraq. We went on to say, and we declare that the President should provide full details about the future obligations of the United States and about how responsibility and authority for these obligations will be shared with the United Nations and other nations around the world. And we asked that the President set forth the criteria he will expect to be met before bringing our troops home. Mr. Speaker, next week this House will vote on the administration's $87 billion request. Personally and on behalf of my colleagues within the Congressional Black Caucus, I once again pledge our unwavering support for our troops. We must provide our brave young men and women with all the resources they need to complete their mission and return home as soon as possible. I suggest, however, that our evaluation of the administration's supplemental funding request requires further consideration of what precisely the mission of our troops in Iraq will be from this point forward. That question is central to the last four CBC principles that I just mentioned, and it is central to the concerns of the 26 million Americans the Congressional Black Caucus members represent. I must note that we are being asked to appropriate this $87 billion, more than twice the amount of the entire Homeland Security Department's fiscal year 2004 budget. I must also acknowledge that we have not yet provided the Federal funding needed by our States and local governments to assure the security of our people right here at home. I believe that there is substantial support in this House for a continuing and significant United States role in the rebuilding of Iraq and the transition of Iraq to a democratic peaceful society. Once again, however, we are faced with a critical issue of national policy. Must the United States substantially go it alone in financing the reconstruction of Iraq? Or, in the alternative, will the administration be able to obtain substantial United Nations involvement and financial participation? The answers to these questions will be central to our evaluation of the administration's $87 billion request and especially the $20 billion plus requested for rebuilding Iraq. As I speak, Mr. Speaker, the administration's proposed resolution seeking U.N. support is in trouble within the United Nations Security Council. The critical question appears to be this: Who will control the reconstruction of Iraq, the United Nations or the United States? We also rapidly are approaching the International Donors Conference in Madrid which is scheduled for October 27. The administration is maintaining the position that we, not the U.N., must remain in control of the Iraq process. This is the current situation. We in the Congress are being asked to approve another $87 billion in American funds at a time when we are filled with uncertainty. The questions that the Congressional Black Caucus have posed have not yet been answered. We are uncertain about the role of the UN; we are uncertain about what other nations will come forward to help pay the costs and how much they are prepared to contribute. What we can reasonably conclude is this: Unless the United States is prepared to share power and control regarding the future of Iraq with the United Nations, we cannot reasonably anticipate that other major nations will be willing to share any substantial portion of the costs. In addition, thus far we have seen very little reference in the administration's proposals with respect to the appropriate use of Iraq's own resources to help rebuild the Middle Eastern Nation. I should also note that according to an examination the Marshall Plan analogy, a report prepared by the minority staff of the Committee on Appropriations, the $20-plus billion we are being asked to appropriate far exceeds Iraq's need for humanitarian assistance. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, with 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and another probable 220 billion barrels. At the current world market rate, the value of the proven Iraqi reserves would amount to $2.8 trillion, together with another $5.5 trillion in probable oil reserves. However, the administration's supplemental request does not seem to contain any plans to utilize this resource to cover the costs for building Iraq, as President Bush suggested that we would do before we began this war. Even those of us who are inclined to support U.S. assistance in rebuilding Iraq must question the size of this request in the context of our national priorities. Mr. Speaker, I must also conclude that serious questions about our motives would be raised abroad if we maintained unilateral control over the reconstruction process while using Iraqi oil resources to pay part of the cost. Recall the core issue that we face, however: Who will control the process, us, or the U.N.? Would not UN control of the rebuilding process make the use of Iraqi resources far more acceptable, both in Iraq and abroad? Would not UN participation reduce the cost to the American people? Would not power sharing with the UN allow us to bring our troops home faster? Would not the truly international process give far greater legitimacy to the process and results of an Iraqi reconstruction? These, I submit, are serious questions that must be answered to our satisfaction before we can justifiably appropriate more than $20 billion in additional American funds. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the great State of California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman and the members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. CUMMINGS

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

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the ``Federal Employees' Benefits Equity Act of 2003.'' I reintroduced this very important legislation that works to eliminate a number of inequities found in the computation of benefits for law enforcement officers, firefighters, nuclear material couriers and members of the Supreme Court police under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Additionally, this bill would correct inequities resulting from the court case Wassenaar v. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), regarding benefits for survivors of law enforcement officers and firefighters who die as federal employees. Under current CSRS and FERS statutes, certain employees immediately qualify for an enhanced annuity if separated from service after reaching age 50 and completing 20 years of service. This enhanced annuity, however, requires that these employees make retirement contributions that are 0.5 percent higher than those of the average employee. Some employees are forced to retire due to disability, or involuntary separation (not for cause), before reaching age 50. In these cases, employees receive only a regular annuity even if he or she has had 20 years of service. This legislation remedies this problem by providing enhanced annuities to all employees who have given 20 years of service. Those forced to retire, at any age, due to involuntary separation or disability are covered by this legislation. The bill also allows for the refund of the additional 0.5 percent retirement contribution, with interest, when employees in these occupations retire or die before attaining eligibility for the enhanced annuity. During the 106th and 107th Congresses, many federal employees contacted my office stating their concerns about the retroactive language in the bill. I listened to their concerns and worked with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to address this issue. This bill is no longer retroactive. I am extremely pleased this bill will capture federal employees from the day of enactment.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce the ``Federal Employee Health Benefits Glaucoma Screening Act.'' This bill ensures that federal employees will have access to annual glaucoma screenings. Specifically, this bill ensures that a contract or plan cannot be approved unless it provides coverage for such screenings for persons determined to be at high risk for glaucoma, individuals with a family history of glaucoma, and individuals with diabetes. The service must be furnished by or under the supervision of an optometrist or ophthalmologist who is legally authorized to perform such services in the state where the services are furnished. Glaucoma is a specific pattern of optic nerve damage and visual field loss caused by a number of different eye diseases which can affect the eye. It is one of the leading preventable causes of blindness in America. I have read that blindness is the number three health fear for most Americans, right behind heart disease and cancer. Blindness is particularly terrible because it can strike healthy people, people in the prime of their lives. While it can affect Americans of all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, glaucoma most frequently attacks diabetics, people suffering from hypertension, and African Americans. There is no cure for glaucoma--but it can be prevented if caught early enough. Through a comprehensive screening, an eye care professional can determine how well one can see at various distances, check fluid pressure in eyes, inspect optic nerves for signs of damage and, if needed, measure one's visual field to see if there is a loss of side vision (one of the earliest findings in glaucoma). I believe this measure will encourage persons to be screened for glaucoma, in turn, increasing the number of persons with early signs of glaucoma who can be treated by eye care professionals before blindness sets in--recognizing the importance of glaucoma screenings as an effective way to educate and prevent glaucoma or blindness. Finally, I would like to thank Bud Grant, the Friends of the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus Foundation, the University of Maryland School of Medicine, and Dr. Eve J. Higginbotham, who is Maryland's own nationally known expert on glaucoma, for all they are doing to preserve America's vision. Please join me in cosponsoring this legislation that will help in the fight against blindness.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and congratulate the Honorable Victorine Q. Adams who is deservedly being honored by the Black/Jewish Forum of Baltimore, Inc. (BLEWS) at their 25th anniversary dinner meeting in Baltimore on November 19, 2003. Mrs. Adams served effectively in both the Maryland General Assembly and the Baltimore City Council, where she served for 16 years. While a member of the City Council, she led the successful effort to establish the Baltimore Fuel Fund, the first such assistance fund in the nation. Early in her career in 1946, she organized the Colored Women's Democratic Campaign Committee and initiated a voter registration campaign that enrolled 4,000 persons. In 1958, Mrs. Adams and Ethel P. Rich organized Woman Power, which was instrumental in desegregating Baltimore's downtown hotels. Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Mrs. Adams for her significant contributions to Baltimore as an elected official, community leader, civil rights activist, businesswoman and humanitarian.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise today to speak in favor of my resolution, H.J. Res. 52, to recognize the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, located in Baltimore, Maryland, as the official national museum of dentistry in the United States. This resolution has the strong support of every major dental association including the American Dental Association and the National Dental Association. The museum is located in my district and is the most comprehensive dental museum in the world. Its focus is to remind people--especially children--about the importance of good oral health care. For seven years now, it has been a learning center for scores of children's groups in and around the City of Baltimore, as well as those visiting. It uses extraordinary exhibitions and expert presentations to deliver the message that oral health is important to achieve overall health. Children love its message and respond by being more aware of their own oral health care needs. An estimated 5,000 school children visit the museum each school year, touring the new interactive exhibitions and discovering the wonders of dental history. In addition, over 10,000 visitors from across the Nation encounter this interactive, educational and entertaining museum. The museum's traveling exhibitions reach national audiences, providing a resource to expand public awareness of the importance of oral health in overall health. Branches, Bristles and Batteries: Toothbrushes Through Time teaches families about the evolution of the toothbrush and how to achieve good oral health through engaging interactive stations and high-tech computer programs. The exhibition will reach approximately 2 million visitors during a national three- year tour of children's and science museums. Temporary exhibitions keep the museum alive and help to highlight important dental issues and celebrate the great heritage of dentistry. Currently, The Future is Now! African Americans in Dentistry pays tribute to the movers and shakers who paved the way for African Americans' success as dental professionals through dramatic portraits, moving memoirs and inspirational stories. The exhibit demonstrates the tremendous gains of dentistry over the past 30 years, promoting the message that there remains much to do to increase diversity in dentistry and recruit African American dental faculty and improve access to health care. The exhibition will become the museum's second traveling exhibition beginning a national tour in Fall 2004. Presenting this exhibit to a wide national audience will create a new awareness of opportunities and challenges and present positive role models of the profession, both past and present. The museum offers educational programming, such as MouthPower, enabling young people to make informed choices about their oral health that have a positive effect on their overall health. Using the museum's unique resources, MouthPower participants understand the meaning of good oral health and become aware of the role oral health plays in overall health, learn the benefits of good nutrition and the harmful effects of tobacco and other substances on oral health and become aware of career options in dentistry. The positive outcomes from this program include a stronger sense of self that will help prevent participants from becoming addicted to smoking or using spit tobacco products and also will encourage family members and friends to abstain. Through a partnership with the American Dental Association, the program will be available nationally with the addition of a web-based version and a resource kit for dental professionals to use in their community. Designating the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of dentistry the official national museum of dentistry in the United States will ensure the education of thousands of Americans about the importance of dental care. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this national treasure by passing H.J. Res. 52. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, we merely say to the President, be accountable, be accountable. I thank my colleagues very much.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, this evening the Congressional Black Caucus is coming before this Congress to address the issue of the $87 billion that the President just recently requested of this Nation to continue our efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We certainly are a group of 39 people, and I often say 39 very gifted legislators, who are simply ordinary people called to an extraordinary mission, and in the process of doing the extraordinary, I do believe that we have become extraordinary. And we have been consistently standing up for our troops over and over and over again because they are our children, they are our brothers and sisters, they are fathers, they are mothers. And just the other night, Mr. Speaker, at the Congressional Black Caucus annual banquet, we were very pleased to honor Sergeant Shoshanna Johnson, who of course we know was shot in both feet and taken captive in Baghdad. So tonight we come to address this $87 billion because it is our belief that our troops must be supported, but at the same time we are very clear that we need to look at the moneys that are being spent on what I would title the resurrection of Iraq after we tore it down, and we want to look at both sides of it. In other words, we want to look at the money that it is going to take to support our troops, but at the same time we want to look at the money that will be spent, and is being spent, for these no-bid contracts and for repairing the infrastructure of Iraq while the infrastructure of so many of our cities and our rural areas are falling apart. We want to certainly look at the issue of schools, building a new school system. And it has all been on the news here recently, particularly today and yesterday, about how the Iraqi children are now beginning their school year, and certainly we are a very compassionate group of legislators, but at the same time when we go back to our districts, we fail to understand why it is that so many of our children in our districts are sitting in classrooms with rain falling on their heads and trudging through mud because they are in portables or they have situations where they are in overcrowded schools. So we question that. We also come questioning the whole question of elections. It is our understanding that a substantial amount of money is going to be spent on making sure that Iraq has a wonderful election system. And then we look at what we just saw here in the United States, the fiasco down in Florida and throughout the United States with our election process in the year 2000. And we believe, as the Congressional Black Caucus, that we are asking the basic questions, the questions that anybody would ask in any very serious family matter. This is not rocket science stuff. Questions like, Mr. President, we just spent $80 billion. What did we do with that? And can you account for that and tell us what that was spent for? Questions like, it is our understanding that there is quite a bit of oil over in Iraq, and we want to know simply what that money is being spent for, because we were promised a long time ago that that money from those oil reserves would be used to resurrect Iraq but, at the same time, you now come to the American people asking them to do it. The other thing that we are certainly concerned about is that we hear over and over again that we are fighting terrorism for the world, and we do believe that. But at the same time, we ask the question, if we are fighting terrorism for the world, if there is going to be substantial benefit to the world, why is there not substantial giving or sacrifice on the part of other countries? And certainly we want to know the exit strategy. One of the things that the President said when he was running for office, and we certainly hold him to it, as the American people do, is that he would never go into another country, let our Armed Forces go into another country without having an exit strategy. We want to know what the exit strategy is. Then finally, and there are some other questions that will be raised by my colleagues, but certainly we are very interested in knowing, how do we measure success. The answer has to be very clear with regard to our schoolchildren, and he has made excellent arguments about how we need to measure how our children are doing. That is all well and good. So we come to the President asking him, exactly how do we measure our accomplishments in Iraq? I am so glad that this evening I am joined by my colleague who sits on the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), a freshman who is just doing a great job. But the gentleman has an opportunity to look at it from an armed services standpoint, and I would like to hear from the gentleman.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from Florida said something that really hit home. I too thank our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for all of her hard work and the work of her staff. When we look at some of the information that we have been looking at here lately with regard to this whole $87 billion, it is very interesting to know that that $87 billion can do a lot of things with regard to our education system. Mr. Speaker, $87 billion will hire 2 million new teachers. That is a lot of teachers. And we could spend an additional $1,824 on each child in American public schools. We could spend seven times more than the President's proposal for title I education programs in fiscal year 2004. The reason why we are bringing this up is because we want people to understand that we just spent about $80 billion a few months ago, and now the President is talking about another $87 billion. And again, one of those kitchen table questions is what should we expect in the future, Mr. President? Will you be coming back to us asking for some more money? Some people look at it and say, oh, you are attacking the President. It is not about attacking the President. It is a question of accountability. What we want the President to do is be accountable. Talking about accountability, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) serves on the Committee on Homeland Security. I know the gentlewoman has a number of comments she wants to make. But when we look at what we are doing with homeland security, we are very concerned about homeland security. I get complaints, and I am sure the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) does, from our mayor and our local fire departments about the fact that they do not have the kinds of things, the equipment they need to really be true first responders. I just was wondering, how does the gentlewoman see this $87 billion request with regard to homeland security?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). One of the things that certainly concerns all of us and the last thing that was just talked about is our troops being properly equipped. That is why I said we are not asking rocket-scientist questions. What we are asking are basic questions that any person would ask in their family if they had a serious issue at hand. And I tell you, if your son or daughter came to you and said, mom, I got an emergency, you gave her $80 to deal with the emergency; and then she came back and the emergency still was not dealt with, or you asked some questions about it, you are going to ask the question, what happened to the money I gave you? This is basic stuff. So the more we look at what has happened here with the President, it seems as if the President does not want any questions asked. That is crazy. I mean, that does not even make sense. So what we are trying to do, we want to make sure our troops are protected and make sure when they go out on that battlefield in 100- plus degree weather that they have everything they need, and we want to make sure at the same time that if we are going to be about the business of rebuilding Iraq, we would like to have a separate vote. Let us vote on the resurrection of Iraq and let us vote on the support of our troops and let us have accountability. Speaking of accountability, the gentlewoman from Washington D.C. (Ms. Norton) has consistently addressed this whole issue of accountability. Being here in Washington D.C., and I do not say the capital of the Nation because, actually, it is the capital of the world, we certainly saw what happened on September 11; and when you talk about first responders, we have to make sure that it starts here.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has just spent a phenomenal amount of time along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on the whole issue of AIDS. It is just interesting, again, we are trying to do a number of things this evening, but we want to put this $87 billion in context. Before the gentlewoman comes on, I just want to note that with $87 billion, we could spend 27 times more on AIDS research than the Federal Government spent in fiscal year 2000. We could spend $226,000 on each individual AIDS patient in the United States, and we could fulfill the President's promise of $3 billion for funding for AIDS in Africa this year and have enough left over to make a similar commitment for 28 more years.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. CUMMINGS. The interesting thing is that I think one of the most brilliant moments since I have been here is the few weeks before we went to war, and I think just about everybody who was on the floor tonight came up, and we talked about the war. We talked about the principles and we asked the President to meet with us, and he refused to meet with us; but we wanted to raise those key questions, and I think it does have relevance to a degree of what happened before the war and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. I think what it does is it should cause us to say, well, if we went to war on that basis and weapons have not been found, then why is it that we should just sit back and not at least question how we go further into this venture? I think it is important that we do that; and as I said, these are the basic questions. That night, I will never forget the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) stood up and gave probably the most brilliant speech I have ever heard, talking about why we are going to war, and literally did a wonderful job in just laying out her rationale; and I would be happy to yield to her, but I believe she will come back just after we finish. I want to thank my colleagues, and now I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) because I know you had a lot of concerns. I do not want to go back and rehash a prior war, but I just do think it has relevance because, again, we were told and I think the caucus was trying to raise the issue back then that we questioned whether or not we should be going to war, whether we should have more patience in looking for these weapons. We felt the things were working well, maybe not at the pace the President wanted them to, but at least we could have avoided the loss of life.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I would like to say that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) just raised an issue. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is on the Committee on Armed Services. I was wondering briefly, have we heard anything about an exit strategy or how we define success in this from anybody?

Mr. CUMMINGS. One of the things that was so interesting, I shall never forget at the State of the Union address, if my colleagues recall, there was a part of the speech the President made that showed over and over again on the television, when he said that we in our generation right now must take care of this situation and that we should not leave it to future generations to address terrorism and what have you. Basically what he was saying, too, is that we should be paying for it. It is going to be impossible for us, the living, to completely pay for this war. This war will be paid for by our children and our children's children and our children's children's children; and when we look at this $87 billion again, one wonders where does it end, and that is why this whole question of exit strategy is so very significant. How do we mention success? At what point do we say, okay, we have done the job, we have accomplished what we are supposed to accomplish? I just thank the Congressional Black Caucus for coming together this evening and constantly over and over again being that conscience of the Congress and I would say the conscience of the country; and I will yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my wholehearted support to the motion to instruct the conferees, offered by Mr. Obey and spearheaded by Mr. Miller of California, on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, which would instruct the conferees to recede to the Senate and accept the Harkin amendment. This amendment prohibits the Department of Labor from issuing regulations that take away overtime protection from employees who are currently entitled to receive it. Mr. Speaker, the national economy and our working families are struggling. This White House administration has the dubious honor of having the worst job creation record since the Great Depression. Since 2001, over 3 million jobs have been lost. The Nation's jobless rate hovers around 6.4 percent and is substantially higher in communities of color, at over 10 percent. Additionally, the administration's rounds of tax cuts are projected to cost the Federal treasury $3.12 trillion over the next decade. We have gone from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $4 trillion deficit. While real wages continue to fall, simultaneously the income gap continues to widen and middle class taxpayers are being asked to sacrifice more each day. Mr. Speaker, now to add insult to injury, the Bush Labor Department is now proposing regulations that will hit as many as 8 million hard working American families. If these regulations are implemented the Federal Government will reach into the pockets of these hard working Americans and cut the overtime pay they depend on to pay their mortgages, feed and educate their children, care for their sick and elderly parents, and preserve their standard of living. It is estimated that overtime pay accounts for roughly 25 percent of the income of people who work overtime. Hardest hit will be our first-responders and healthcare professionals, amongst others. Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to grant huge tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers while cutting the legs from underneath middle-class working Americans. Is this the message we want to send to those whom we have asked to sacrifice their sons and daughters in Iraq? To those who are sacrificing better schools, safer communities and access to healthcare while the Federal deficit grows exponentially, meaningful programs are cut and the wealthiest 1 percent enjoy an enormous $84,000 tax cut. I urge my colleagues to protect middle-class working Americans by supporting this motion to instruct. Many American families are already struggling to make ends meet with one wage earner. Cutting overtime pay will put them in further economic hardship. Let's be fair to our nation's most valuable assets--our working men and women and their families.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of pride that I rise today in support of the Resolution, sponsored by Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald, commemorating the life and achievements of the great African American tennis legend, Althea Gibson. This trailblazer died on Sunday, September 28, 2003 at the age of 76. I stand here today to pay tribute to her fighting spirit. Mr. Speaker, long before there was a Venus or Serena Williams there was Althea Gibson. As we celebrate the impressive records accumulated by these two tennis stars we often forget that it was just a little over 50 years ago that tennis was an all-white sport. Born on August 25, 1927 in Silver, South Carolina, this 5-foot-11 black woman boldly challenged the conventional wisdom of the day. Overcoming the depths of racism and adversity, Althea Gibson's pioneering efforts to integrate the sport paved the way for the likes of Arthur Ashe, Venus and Serena Williams, Tiger Woods, and future generations of aspiring African American athletes. America owes her a tremendous debt. Her list of accomplishments is impressive. Breaking the color barrier in the 1950s, Althea Gibson became the first African American woman to compete at and win the Wimbledon and U.S. national tennis titles. She was also the first African American player on the Ladies Professional Golfers Association Tour. Between 1956 and 1958, Althea Gibson captured the Wimbledon and United States championships and won the French Open and three Wimbledon doubles titles. In 1957, she was the first African American to be voted by the Associated Press as its Female Athlete of the Year. She won that honor again in 1958. Ms. Gibson attended Florida A&M University where she was initiated as a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. She died as a ``golden soror'' of this elite organization after being a member of the sorority for over 50 years. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I leave you with words that are attributed to this great first lady of tennis-- ``. . . here stands before you a Negro woman, raised in Harlem, who went on to become a tennis player . . . and finally wound up being a world champion, in fact the first black woman champion of the world.'' Mr. Speaker, again it is my honor and privilege to lend my wholehearted support to this important resolution--which honors and commemorates the life and achievements of this great African American woman. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Resolution, H. Res. 386, which honors the indomitable spirit of Althea Gibson.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform. The gentleman has worked very hard on this legislation, and I would like to thank him.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a Member who has worked a long time on the drug issue and the problems of drugs in this country and abroad.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2086, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization of 2003. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater problem in America than drug abuse. Illegal drugs contribute to an estimated 50,000 deaths in the United States each year. Nineteen thousand of these deaths are a direct result of illegal drug use. According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 16 million Americans used an illegal drug on at least a monthly basis in 2001, including 6.1 million who needed treatment. In Baltimore City alone there are some 50,000 people addicted to drugs. Most crime in the United States has an illegal drug nexus; and most of the prisoners sitting in the United States' prisons, jails, and detention facilities are there because of illegal drug activity. These facts paint an ugly picture of the impact of drugs on American society; but they do not begin to describe the tragic harm done to individuals, families, and communities by drugs and drug-related crimes. In neighborhoods in Baltimore and Howard counties, I cannot escape seeing every day the devastating, destructive impact that drugs and drug-related crime, including violent crime, exact on communities. So it is with great seriousness that I approach this legislation reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy and related drug control programs. The Office of National Drug Policy plays a central role in shaping and coordinating our Nation's policy and programs relating to illegal drugs. Established in 1988 and last reauthorized in 1997, ONDCP has the lead responsibility in the executive branch for establishing policies, priorities, and objectives relating to the demand for, and the supply of, illegal drugs in the United States. The director of National Drug Control Policy, or the drug czar, will have strong influence over the shape, direction, and implementation of Federal drug policy by certifying the drug control budgets of Federal departments and agencies that contribute to the national drug control strategy. In addition to its policy and coordination functions, the ONDCP directly administers the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, and the Drug Free Communities program. Each of these programs plays an important role in implementing the national drug control strategy's goal of preventing drug use before it starts, healing America's drug users, and disrupting the market for illegal drugs. H.R. 2086 would reauthorize for 5 years not only the Office of National Drug Control Policy, but also the HIDTA program, the CTAC, and the media campaign. And I believe that the office and these programs should be reauthorized. This bill is not perfect, and I would agree with Mr. Souder that no one is completely happy with it. It is not the bill that I would have written. I know that some of my Democratic colleagues have strong concerns in certain areas, and I share some of those concerns. But we have worked in the Committee on Government Reform to make this bill better than it was. And through bipartisan negotiations with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the drug control policy subcommittee, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I were able to make significant improvements in key areas. In particular, my colleagues who serve on the Committee on the Judiciary have raised legitimate concerns about language in the bill prohibiting the use of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program funds for treatment and prevention. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I have tried over the past several weeks to address this concern with Chairman Davis and Chairman Souder. The majority and ONDCP were not receptive to ideas we proposed that would have allowed additional HIDTAs to establish new treatment initiatives. We were able to achieve, however, an agreement to return to lift the restriction on HIDTA funds used for prevention, and we will continue to work through conference to restore the ability of HIDTAs that already have limited treatment programs to continue their treatment initiatives. I hope that eventually we will see fit to allow additional HIDTAs the opportunity to implement new treatment initiatives as part of a strategy to reduce the public safety threat posed by offenders who use drugs and commit drug related crimes, including violent crimes. I would point out that the Washington-Baltimore HIDTA's innovative use of treatment as a crime control tool in direct support of law enforcement initiatives has resulted in substantially reduced recidivism and rearrest rates for offenders who have participated in HIDTA-funded treatment programs. In other words, our HIDTA law enforcement efforts are more effective because they are linked with HIDTA-funded treatment initiatives that are specifically designed to support them. Other HIDTAs should have the ability to invest in this approach which shows that law enforcement and treatment work best when they are pursued in a closely coordinated fashion. Our negotiations with the majority also resulted in the elimination of a provision that would have opened the door to partisan political use of a national anti-drug media campaign with respect to anti- legalization efforts by the ONDCP director. As a result of our negotiations, the current bill would, one, maintain the existing prohibition on partisan political use of the media campaign; two, bar the use of media campaign funds to support advocacy against or in favor of any candidate, ballot initiative, or legislative or regulatory proposal, even if the candidate or measure is not partisan in nature; and finally absolutely prohibit the appearance of highly visible Federal officials in media campaign advertising. Together, these provisions reflect a bipartisan agreement that the media campaign should place its focus on the goal of preventing youth drug use and that it should stay out of the business of influencing elections and legislative or regulatory proposals involving medical marijuana or any other extraneous issue. The current bill also does not contain a provision that sought to punish State and local law enforcement in high-intensity drug trafficking areas in which States have adopted medical marijuana laws. The bill before us does include H.R. 1599, the Dawson Family Community Protection Act, legislation I introduced in response to one of the most tragic drug-related crimes in memory. The bill commemorates the lives of a courageous mother and a devoted father and five precious children who were senselessly murdered when their home was set ablaze in the middle of the night on October 16 of last year, apparently in retaliation for Angela Dawson's repeated complaints to police about drug distribution in her East Baltimore neighborhood. This legislation would direct the drug czar to fund HIDTA initiatives aimed at increasing neighborhood safety and facilitating witness cooperation in communities ravaged by rampant drug trafficking activity and related violence. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Souder) again for his cosponsorship of H.R. 1599 and for including it in this reauthorization package. Amendments that I offered and were adopted with the gentleman from Indiana's (Chairman Souder) support in subcommittee were slightly modified in full committee but remain mostly intact. This bill says the director must ensure through his budget certification authority that the administration's proposed funding of drug treatment programs will be adequate to enhance Federal treatment programs and capacity. Most of our States are suffering through fiscal crises, and cutbacks in State funding for drug treatment are widespread. Maintaining and expanding access to treatment on demand despite this economic trend is indeed vital. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Souder), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their cooperation of collaborative approach in working with us to resolve the matters of sharpest disagreement between the majority and the minority. I would also like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member, again for his leadership in representing the interests of the minority in this legislation and concerning a multitude of other issues that have come before the Committee on Government Reform and this great House. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this Special Order.