Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, along with Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton and Connie Morella, the ``Federal Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity Act of 1999.'' The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 required States to enact legislation requiring employers to enroll a child in an employee's group health plan when a court orders the employee to provide health insurance for the child but the employee fails to do so. The Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) law provided that a Federal employee ``may enroll'' in a FEHB plan ``either as an individual or for self and family'' coverage. The law does not allow an employing agency to elect coverage on the employee's behalf. Further, FEHB law generally preempts State law with regard to coverage and benefits. Therefore, a federal agency is unable to ensure that a child is covered in accordance with a court order, even when the same order would ensure coverage for the child if the child's parent were employed by an employer other than the federal government. To correct this inequity, my proposal would enable the federal government to enroll an employee and his or her family in the FEHB Program when a State court orders the employee to provide health insurance coverage for a child of the employee. If the affected employee is already enrolled for self-only coverage, the employing agency would be authorized to change the enrollment to self and family. If the affected employee is not enrolled in the FEHB Program, the employing agency would be required to enroll him or her under the standard option of the Service Benefit Plan, Blue Cross Blue Shield. Finally, the employee would be barred from discontinuing the self and family enrollment as long as the court order remains in effect, the child meets the statutory definition of family member, and the employee cannot show that the child has other insurance. I am very pleased about the broad constituency that supports my proposal. Among the groups that have offered support for the change are the American Payroll Association, which represents employers, the Center for Law and Social Policy, which represents the rights of indigent parents and several state child support program officials. I am also pleased to introduce this important legislation during National Payroll Week--September 13-17--and to have the support of those who are key to the wage and medical support withholding process. Please join me and Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton and Connie Morella in cosponsoring this worthwhile measure. It will help our efforts to ensure that our children have access to needed health insurance coverage.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to address this whole issue of the courts. As a lawyer of 21 years, I am very concerned about this. It is interesting to listen to this argument as basically a new Member and listen to the other side talk about how the law firm is doing its thing and working hard for the District. And I certainly applaud that, but the thing that they fail to say is that this is something that has been basically rammed down their throats. It is nice for that law firm to be doing this, but when we hear the words of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), which really shocks the conscience when she talks about the fact that the corporation counsel on his own time has to then go back and report to a Member of Congress, I do not think any Member of this body would stand for that kind of thing in their district. There is a portion of the Bible that says a very simple, simple thing; and I think that we ought to think about it more in this body, and as a new Member I say it to my colleagues: ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' As I said before a little earlier, I do not think any Member of this body would stand for the people in their districts not being represented and not having the funds and not being able to use their funds to do the things that they want to do. On the issue of needle exchange, I want to make it clear. I started not to speak, because I did not want this bill and this effort to be viewed as a needle exchange effort. It is not about that. But the needle exchange portion is very important because it is about saving lives. I hope that none of my colleagues on the other side, and those people who may be against needle exchange, ever have the opportunity to attend the funeral of someone whose body is all shriveled up. I hope they never have a loved one who is lying in bed in pain, and in so much pain they do not even know they are in pain. I hope they never experience that, but I have seen it in Baltimore. I do not have to go to Sweden; I can go 45 miles away from here and see a program that works and works very effectively. The people of the District of Columbia are simply saying we want to do this; we want to use our funds to do this, and they are asking us to yield and give them that opportunity. So when we err, and we always worry about erring on the side of what is right or erring on the side of what is wrong; but if we err, let us err on the side of life and not death. Let us err on the side of those programs that do work. As I said, we do not have to go to Sweden; we can go 45 miles away and see something that works. I see it every day. I see it working. I see crime reduced. I see the number of AIDS cases reduced. I see the number of people on drugs reduced. And I see that in my district.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of our nation's infants and their mothers. As a parent, I understand that children flourish in our society when they have a healthy environment to develop and learn. But most importantly, they must have a healthy start at life. Sadly, however, four babies die each hour and 33,000 babies die each year in the U.S. before they are a year old. In 1992, 17 out of 1,000 babies born in my home district of Baltimore City did not live to see their first birthdays. In the most deprived neighborhoods of our city, that rate was 20 out of 1,000! Poor women were effectively shut out of affordable prenatal care and often had children who were severely underweight or born with birth defects that could have easily been prevented through adequate medical treatment. However, our city's infant mortality rate has dropped 31 percent since the implementation of Healthy Start. In fact, in the two neighborhoods where Baltimore's Healthy Start Centers are located and easily accessible, the rate has been slashed a staggering 61% from earlier rates. The national infant mortality rate is also at a historic low of 7.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1997, and the proportion of mothers getting early prenatal care is at a record high of 82 percent. Healthy Start is a phenomenal program that empowers urban communities to fully address the medical, behavioral, cultural, and social service needs of women and their infants by building strong coalitions and commitment among families, volunteers, the private sector, and health care and social service providers. I have seen the difference this program has made in saving the lives of our children and their parents, as well as transforming the lives of the men and women who work for the program. The employees and volunteers have developed invaluable skills and a sense of pride in their service to nurture families. As such, I will reintroduce legislation that I sponsored during the 105th Congress that makes the Healthy Start Initiative, which began in 1991 as a demonstration program, a permanent one. I believe that as lawmakers, we have a duty to our nation's mothers and their unborn to: encourage women to make healthy choices during pregnancy by seeking prenatal care; reduce infant deaths and promote the birth of healthy babies; and provide healthy environments in which these future generations can flourish. Healthy Start has been a successful component to accomplishing these goals and should be a permanent instrument in our efforts to cultivate healthy children. Let's make a permanent difference in the lives of our nation's children. We owe every baby a healthy entrance into this world and each deserves a healthy start! I urge support of my Healthy Start legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her tireless work against the scourge of HIV/AIDS, a disease which has not only plagued and crippled American society but the global community as well. Nearly 33 million people worldwide are infected with HIV/AIDS. Ninety percent of them live in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. However, 90 percent of the resources spent on prevention and care are devoted to people in industrialized countries. The funding provided in this bill is just a drop in the bucket compared to the funding needed to address this deadly crisis developing in these countries. I am encouraged that the committee has provided $141 million for international HIV prevention and care, a $20 million increase over last year's funding level. As such, I hope that in the future, we will make an even stronger commitment to this fight.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, when I think of the manner in which the GOP tax cut legislation was drafted, the title of the movie ``Eyes Wide Shut'' comes to mind. Still, this is no sultry suspense film. In this horror, we will only find a terrible plot that sacrifices Medicare and Social Security and steals $112 billion away from school construction. The stars of this movie, the House Republicans, act with a level of irresponsibility that automatically comes from doing anything with your eyes shut. With such blocked vision, it is hard to believe that they have a clear view of the problems or their solutions. Beyond all the hype, the GOP tax cut is hardly a masterpiece. It is poorly directed, horribly produced, and the Republican actors demonstrate a sophomoric concern for people of our country. I can only hope that their vision will go from wide shut to wide open and that we will ultimately be able to fulfill our duty of fiscal responsibility and public service to the American people.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment. A lot has been said about the Baltimore program, but the fact still remains that the Baltimore program lowers the rate of crime. In those areas where needle exchange takes place, it has lowered the crime rate. Second, it lowers the rate of the spread of AIDS. It has been very, very clear and it has been studied by Johns Hopkins Hospital and University, the number one university and hospital in the country. Number three, it has reduced the use of drugs. I live in a drug- infested neighborhood. The argument that was just made does not even make sense. The fact is that in the areas where needle exchange takes place, they have discovered that there are less needles on the streets so that people can stub their toes and whatever. This is a very, very, very bad amendment. We sat here last year and I talked about people dying. The fact is that many have died because we did not do the right thing last year, and now we have an opportunity to save some more lives. This is our opportunity. And so it is. I beg the House to vote against this Tiahrt amendment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. The Johns Hopkins University just concluded a study in which they found that neighborhoods in Baltimore with needle exchange programs had a drop in economically-motivated crimes even though those same categories of crime rose over the same 4-year period. That needle exchange program did not significantly increase the willingness of teens to use drugs and the communities with needle exchange programs did not experience any increase in the number of discarded drug vials and needles found in the streets.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, in 1995, the National Treasury Employees Union, along with other Federal employee and retiree organizations, defeated the first attempt by the 104th Congress to raise Federal employees' retirement contributions and reduce their pension. At a press conference celebrating the victory, the NTEU national president, Robert Tobias, is quoted as saying, told over 500 Federal employees in attendance, ``You promised to serve the public with honesty. You promised to work hard. You promised to serve the public. And in return, you were promised fair treatment and fair pay. It sounded like a fair deal. You kept your word. Now we're asking Congress to keep its word.'' Bob Tobias has spent the last 31 years making sure that the executive branch and Congress keep their promises to Federal employees. He has used lawsuits as a way to further Federal employees' causes and to escape the narrow confines of Federal collective bargaining. He has testified before the Subcommittee on Civil Service on behalf of the 155,000 Federal employees NTEU represents on numerous cases. Mr. Tobias is a leading authority on Federal employees' issues and by extension has expanded his union's lobbying power on Capitol Hill. In the last 20 years, Mr. Tobias has been involved in the development of a Federal employees retirement system, FERS, protecting Federal employees' health benefits program, restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, advocating for closure of the pay gap for Federal employees, and he worked with Vice President Gore to create labor-management partnership councils across the Government. Mr. Tobias is leaving the NTEU to embark on a second career, writing, teaching, and educating a new generation on public policy. Given Mr. Tobias' history, this is probably an attempt to train future politicians on how to vote on Federal employees issues before they get to Capitol Hill. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and on behalf of all Federal employees in my congressional district and throughout this wonderful country, I wish you the best, Mr. Tobias, in your future endeavors.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minority, I am happy to rise in support of S. 1258, a bill to reauthorize the Patent and Trademark Office. S. 1258, like H.R. 1225, reflects bipartisan opposition to surcharges on patent applications and support for fees that will fully fund the PTO and its obligations to its retirees. The bill explicitly authorizes the use of carryover funds to pay for the expense of the Employees Health Benefits and Life Insurance Funds. The Patent and Trademark Office is 100 percent funded through application and user fees which all too often in the past have been diverted to other agencies and programs to the detriment of the efficient function of our patent and trademark systems. S. 1258, like Public Law 105-358 from the last Congress, reflects our resolve that this practice be firmly a matter of past history. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1259, the Senate trademark bill that is substantially similar to the bill reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary earlier this year, H.R. 1565. This legislation is a necessary follow-up to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, which was enacted last Congress and which gave a Federal cause of action to holders of famous trademarks for dilution. The bill before us today is necessary to clear up certain issues in the interpretation of the dilution act which the Federal courts have grappled with since its enactment. In particular, S. 1259 would provide holders of famous marks with a right to oppose or seek cancellation of a mark that would cause dilution as provided in the dilution act. The legislation enacted in the 105th Congress authorizes injunctive relief after the harm has occurred, while the legislation before us today will allow the right to oppose or seek cancellation of a mark hopefully before harm has occurred. While we today take up the Senate bill, it is substantially the same as the House bill on which a hearing and committee markup occurred earlier this year. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1259. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her kind comments, and certainly I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), for making sure that we moved in a bipartisan effort to bring this bill to the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, I introduced already 457, the Organ Donor Leave Act, because it supports Federal employees who make the lifesaving decision to become living organ or bone marrow donors by granting them additional leave time to recover from making the donation. In the last 20 years, important medical breakthroughs have allowed for a larger number of successful organ and tissue transplants and a longer survival rate for transplant recipients. In many cases, transplantation is the only hope for thousands of people suffering from organ failure or in desperate need of corneas, skin, bone, or other tissue. Despite the success rate of organ transplants, the need for donated organs and tissues continues to outpace the supply. Currently, however, 60,000 Americans are waiting for life-saving transplants. Tragically, every day 12 people die while waiting for a transplant. Every 16 minutes another name is added to the waiting list. This is a solvable problem and the Federal Government and its employees can help. In December of 1997, Vice President Al Gore and Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala launched a national organ and tissue donation initiative. In 1998, after the first full year of the initiative, organ donations increased 5.6 percent, the first substantial increase since 1995. During 1998, HHS issued a new regulation to ensure that hospitals worked collaboratively with organ procurement organizations in identifying potential donors and approaching their families. HHS has conducted a national conference aimed at identifying the most effective strategies to increase donation and transplantation. In conjunction with dozens of partner organizations in the private and volunteer sectors, HHS has worked to increase the awareness of the need for organ and tissue donation. Recognizing that Federal employees also have a role to play, I first introduced the Organ Donor Leave Act last year. The bill passed the House, but the Senate failed to take action before adjournment. This session, Senator Akaka introduced companion legislation in the Senate, S. 1334. I am not only pleased that he did so but that his bill is cosponsored by Senator Frist, one of the Nation's leading transplant surgeons, and the only active surgeon serving in the Congress. The Organ Donor Leave Act is supported by the American Society of Transplantation, the largest professional transplant organization in the United States. In a letter expressing their support for the bill, the AST stated that ``a lack of leave time has served as a significant impediment and disincentive for individuals willing to share the gift of life.'' Currently, Federal employees may use up to 7 days of leave in each calendar year to serve as an organ or bone marrow donor. Yet, experience has shown that an organ transplant operation and postoperative recovery for living donors may take as long as 6 to 8 weeks. In order to address this disparity, I worked with the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Health and Human Services in drafting this legislation to increase the amount of leave that may be used for organ donation to 30 days. The amount of leave that may be used for bone marrow donation will remain at 7 days because that is generally viewed to be adequate. Under this legislation, donors will not have to be concerned with using their personal sick or annual leave for these vital medical procedures because the leave granted is in addition to what they routinely earn. Ultimately, this bill will benefit the 62,000 people who are on the organ transplant waiting list. I urge all Members to give their support to this very, very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments that is often made about transplantation is that there are two types. One is where, of course, a person dies and their organs are used. And the other is where the person is still living. A lot of people wonder why is it so important that organs be transplanted from living people. I mean, do not get me wrong, those who have died are very important also. But the living are very important because of the following reasons. The time shown from harvesting of an organ until the time of transplantation is as follows: If a person dies and it is a heart transplantation, it would be 4 to 6 hours; heart and lung 4 to 6 hours; lung 4 to 6 hours; pancreas 8 to 16 hours; a liver 12 to 24 hours; kidney 24 to 36 hours. And so, therefore, when the person is living, doctors have a lot more time to plan and to carry out the procedure. So often what has happened is many people have donated their organs, but by the time doctors find out after death, they simply to not have enough time to work within the parameters that I just spoke of. Finally, let me just say this. While we are talking here about the organ donations from those who are living, there is a very fitting quote that comes from Stephanie Kristine Crosse of the University of Dayton School of Law where she talked about organ donation. Although this talks about donations of the dead, I think that it still says a lot for donations. She says, ``The day will come when my body will lie upon a white sheet, neatly tucked under four corners of a mattress, located in a hospital busily occupied with the living and the dying. At a certain moment a doctor will determine that my brain has ceased to function and that, for all intents and purposes, my life has stopped. ``When that happens, do not attempt to instill artificial life into my body by use of a machine. And don't call this my deathbed. Let it be called the bed of life, and let my body be taken from it to help others lead fuller lives. ``Give my sight to the man who has never seen a sunrise, a baby's face, or love in the eyes of a woman. Give my heart to a person whose own heart has caused nothing but endless days of pain. Give my blood to the teenager who was pulled from the wreckage of his car so that he might live to see his grandchildren play. Give my kidneys to one who depends on a machine to exist from week to week. ``Take my bones, every muscle, every fiber, and every nerve in my body and find a way to make a crippled child walk. Explore every corner of my brain. Take my cells if necessary, and let them grow so that, some day, a deaf girl will hear the sound of rain against her window. Burn what is left and scatter the ashes in the winds to help the flowers grow. If you must bury something, let it be my fault, my weaknesses and all the prejudices against my fellow man. ``Give my sins to the devil. Give my soul to God. If by chance you wish to remember me, do it with a kind deed or word to someone who needs you. If you do all I have asked, I will live forever. ``Make a miracle, be an organ donor.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the subcommittee, is delayed and asked me to stand in for him, which I am glad to do. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1260, a bill making technical corrections in title 17 of the Copyright Act. If ever a bill were truly technical, this is it. The House Committee on the Judiciary labored long, hard, and successfully last Congress to reduce landmark legislation in the copyright area. This past spring we brought to the House floor H.R. 1189, making a number of technical corrections to the copyright code. As we noted then, the brevity of that bill was testimony to a job well done by all concerned in our efforts last Congress. Subsequent to passage in this body of H.R. 1189, a small number of additional glitches were identified by our staffs and the staff of the Copyright Office. S. 1260 differs from our House-passed bill for the simple reason that it makes several additional and necessary technical corrections. I commend the bill to my colleagues and urge its passage. I commend this technical corrections bill to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, throughout this Congress we have reached many forks in the road, and once again the Republicans have irresponsibly led us in the wrong direction. This time it is under the belief that we should approve what is nearly an $800 billion tax cut that would cut veterans, education, and defense. I believe in responsible navigation and direction to our common destination, which will truly uplift the American people. It is not responsible to spend all non-Social Security surpluses for the next 10 years while sacrificing debt reduction. It is not responsible to jeopardize the future of Social Security and Medicare. It is not responsible to give tax breaks to the wealthiest 10 percent at the expense of our Nation's schools. It is obvious that the Democrats of this Congress must once again force a U-turn and reroute us toward a more responsible and direct path. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2488.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I fully support the quality amendment. It is a very, very important amendment. I applaud the gentleman for it. But I am also in support of another amendment. Today's debate on the House floor echoes with the concepts of empowerment and mobilization. However, I charge that the definitions of these terms as they appear in H.R. 1995 are heavily misguided. Empowering teachers means allocating $1 billion more than H.R. 1995, investing in thousands of new teachers, and shrinking the size of our Nation's classrooms. Empowering teachers means providing teachers with the resources, conditions, and training which will enable them to do the best job educating our Nation's youth. Empowering teachers does not mean robbing Peter to pay Paul. We can provide funding for new teachers and special education training. This definition of empowerment does not change from one school district to another, but remains universal in all of our local school systems. We must move forward and mobilize all of our schools so we create an even educational playing field for all of our children in this country.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, this body is made up of 435 Members, 22 of which are in the health profession, and 10 are medical doctors. Yet today we stand ready to determine the type of reproductive health services Federal employees should be provided, basically infringing upon the rights of women, their doctors and health plans to make this determination. I believe that public policy should advocate the provision of comprehensive reproductive health care services in a manner that protects the essential privacy and rights of our Nation's women. Unfortunately, provisions in this legislation would work to chip away at this very important principle. I believe that we must uphold the constitutional protections provided to women by giving doctors the ability to consider a woman's life, extenuating circumstances such as rape or incest and health when making reproductive health decisions. The significance of this issue comes to light when we answer the following questions: First, who does it affect? 1.2 million of our Nation's women of reproductive age who rely on FEHBP for their medical care. Second, why should plans participating in FEHBP provide expanded reproductive health coverage? Attempts to prohibit comprehensive coverage discriminate against women in public service who are denied access to legal health services and procedures based on who they work for. Federal employees, like private sector workers, should be able to choose an insurance plan that covers a full range of reproductive health services including abortion. Approximately two-thirds of private fee for service plans and 70 percent of HMOs provide such coverage. Lastly, how will expanded reproductive health coverage make a difference? These women, along with those in private insurance plans, currently spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men, and much of this gap is due to reproductive health services. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), one of the many world cup women we have in the House who is truly a role model for the world, just as these young ladies are with regard to the soccer world.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia talked about opening the doors and what Title 9 has done, is one who is constantly doing everything in her power to open doors for all people.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment first of all to thank Leah Phillips, one of our interns who was very helpful to us, who also happens to play soccer at Mary Washington College, and I want to thank her for all her efforts and our entire staff for what they have done with regard to this very, very important resolution. I want to send a message out to our U.S. Women's Soccer Team. We want you to understand, soccer team, that you have made us very, very proud. The fact that you took advantage of an opportunity and turned it into something very, very, very significant is so important to all of us. So often in the past women have not had the opportunities that you have had. So often when we stand on the floor of this House and we speak, and so often when we push the button, green or red, we do not know exactly what impact we are having. But when the House of Representatives of the United States of America, as our Members watched you, we were reminded that the things we do here today do affect your lives. But understand that you have affected so many people. There were little girls sitting around television sets watching you, watching your every move, and they see you as role models. By not only were the little girls watching you, there were little boys, too, and they were watching and they were excited and they saw all of those fans in the stands. And now when they go back to their fields this evening and tomorrow evening and they play the soccer games, they will be reminded of the greatness that you have brought to their living rooms and to their lives. So, to you, some may say that sports does not mean a lot. Well, I happen to differ in that opinion. Sports mean a lot. It means a lot when one takes the opportunity and gives their blood, sweat and tears and gives it everything they have to be the best that they can be. All of us, as Americans, are very, very proud of you. Not only are we proud of you, we are proud of all that you stand for, all that is good in America; for it was your efforts, it is what you did, that said not only to America but to the world that we are, indeed, the greatest. It was something called Title IX that opened up so many, many doors. Going back to what I said a little earlier, we realize that you have the genetic ability, we realize that you have the will, but what you have been given is the opportunity to make a difference, and you have. And so we say, we are proud of you, we wish you Godspeed, and may God bless. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that the distinguished congresswoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) had a similar resolution and she worked very hard on that, and I just wanted to express the fact that she, too, is very concerned about this. It is very important to her. I want to thank my colleagues on the other side for the resolution.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has?