Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, and certainly the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and all of those who have taken part in this discussion today. I think that when we just see the Members of Congress who have come here today to the floor to speak on this issue, it is clear that it is again a bipartisan effort, an effort to reach out and touch children, children who, in many instances, cannot fend for themselves and cannot speak for themselves, but yet and still they are our most important resource. I think it is that spirit that brings this legislation to the floor of the House today. It is that spirit that has garnered a bipartisan effort, and it is that very spirit that should allow and make feel good every Member of Congress when they vote for it. I certainly urge all of us to do so. Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today. H.R. 4280 is an extremely important bill for our families and for our children. This bill will allow federal agencies to use their salary and expense accounts to help federal employees pay for child care. This bill does not require any additional appropriations, it simply requires a commitment on our part, as responsible legislators who care about our future, to ensure that our federal government employees receive the same benefits, the same benefits, the same access to affordable child care that our military emplyees receive. Not only will this bill provide employers with the authority to help its employees with child care costs, it will also improve the quality of our federal child care centers by requiring that these centers follow and maintain state and local regulations for health, fire and safety. We know that \1/4\ of all federal workers had children under age six requiring child care during their parents' work day. Some federal child care facilities charge up to $10,000 a year per child! We must vote to help many of our federal employees who are caught in a serious child care crunch! All parents want to provide their children with the best quality care they can. I hope you will vote to allow federal agencies and federal employees to meet their child care needs.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), someone who also has been at the forefront of making sure that Federal employees receive equity and parity and that our children be lifted up.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who has constantly been at the forefront of making sure that our children are uplifted.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I take this moment to congratulate the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for this outstanding piece of legislation. It is so very important. Three thousand nine hundred ninety-four Federal workers currently enroll their children in the 109 child care centers established in Federal agencies across the country. The cost of child care is a particular burden for low-income families. For the poorest families, child care costs on the average represent more than one-quarter of family income. I support this bipartisan bill because it will help make child care more affordable for many Federal workers and their families as well as provide their children with developmentally appropriate environments in which to spend their days as they grow up to be productive adults. As parents move from welfare to work and attend job training and preparatory classes, child care becomes of great concern, as is the case in my district. At the White House Conference on Child Care in October of 1997, President Clinton asked Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin to convene a group of business and labor leaders to look at child care problems facing working parents. The group found that when employers provide quality and affordable child care, employee morale improves, turnover and absenteeism is reduced and productivity is improved. So good child care pays for itself. Perhaps more importantly, they found a growing body of research that substantiates the view that investments in the care of young children affects a child's physical and emotional development, and these investments can have positive returns for families and society. These benefits will last those children until the day they die. The Federal Government has taken the first steps in making such an investment. All child care facilities designed and renovated after 1992 reflect state of the art child care designs and are built to promote child-oriented, developmentally appropriate, efficient and effective environments. As the Nation's largest employer, do we not have an obligation to ensure that these facilities are more financially accessible for Federal employees? H.R. 4280 will do the following: Allow Federal agencies to use appropriated funds to pay a portion of the costs incurred by private operators of child care centers in Federal facilities; require that such payments improve the affordability of care for lower-income Federal employees; authorize alternative methods for providing child care in Federal facilities; and will require that agencies perform a background check and a criminal history of employees of day care centers located in Federal facilities. During full committee consideration of H.R. 4280, two amendments were added to it. The first amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) would have required Federal child care centers, including the United States Congress, to follow and maintain State and local regulations for health, fire and safety. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) offered a second degree amendment to the Gilman amendment providing that child care facilities be inspected for, and be free of, lead hazards. Though I supported both of these amendments, jurisdictional concerns have been raised by the Committee on House Oversight, and they have been removed to ensure passage of the bill. I hope at some point in the future, the Gilman and Waxman provisions will be enacted by this body. This bill now before us is one of many steps that the Federal Government should take to provide accessible, high-quality child care to Federal workers. Carl Sandberg said it best when he said, ``The birth of a child is God rendering his opinion that the world should go on.'' As a cosponsor of this legislation, I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add on to something that the distinguished lady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) was just speaking about. Back in 1998, the FEHBP amendment has not been an effective tool because it mandates exhaustive due process in every case, requiring a hearing on the record to be offered before any adverse determination takes effect. This precludes OPM's use of less formal administrative procedures to deny health care providers access to the FEHB program, even where a court or State licensing authority previously has found a provider guilty of misconduct. I just want to say that this law that we are passing today makes that process much more practical. I think it is good government. I take a moment to thank the other side, particularly my colleague from Maryland for all her work that she has done with regard to this legislation and other pieces of legislation which we will be considering today. It is truly a bipartisan effort and is about lifting up the people of our great Nation, those people day in and day out, hour after hour who work to make this Nation the best that it can be. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1836, the Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act of 1998, is a good bill that has won strong bipartisan support. It has at its core a provision that would enable the Office of Personnel Management to effectively use administrative sanctions to protect our health care program from fraud and abuse perpetuated by unscrupulous health care providers. By strengthening OPM's administrative powers and giving it the authority to impose monetary sanctions on health care providers who engage in professional and financial misconduct, OPM will be able to assure Federal employees that they are being provided with health care services free of mismanagement and abuse. The enactment of this reform was requested by the Office of Personnel Management last year because they found imposing administrative sanctions under current law was time-consuming and expensive. The House passed H.R. 1836 last November, and the Senate passed a bill last week after making necessary technical changes to update the dates on which certain sections of the bill are to be implemented. H.R. 1836, however, contains some additional provisions that will also improve the administration of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. I would like to highlight just a few of them. The bill contains a provision to strengthen the current preemption statute in title 5 so as to ensure FEHBP's national plans can continue to provide uniform benefits and rates to enrollees regardless of where they live. Another provision would permit active and retired employees of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve System to reenter FEHBP. This will save both agencies several millions of dollars in future premium cost. This bill also requires OPM to encourage participating health plans that contract with third parties to obtain discounted rates from health care providers to seek assurances that a condition surrounding those discounts had been fully disclosed. Finally, H.R. 1836 clarifies a provision of existing law concerning direct access and reimbursement to health care providers in the program. Mr. Speaker, I believe that H.R. 1836 makes important and needed improvements in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. I urge all Members to give it their support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a distinguished Member who has consistently fought hard for Federal employees and been at the forefront of just about every battle that I have seen with regard to this House and Federal employees.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just today there was an article in the Washington Post about a woman named Nancy Nearing who, along with her husband, Steve, made a very critical decision, and that was to donate an organ to her boss, whose name is Art Helms. This took place back on September 10. I am very pleased to say that Ms. Nearing and Mr. Helms are doing fine. These were two people that were contractors for the Federal Trade Commission. This is the kind of legislation that, if it were effective for contractors and these types of Federal agents, would truly benefit them. I think that as we move forward with this legislation, as I know that the Members of the House will agree with me, it is so wonderful to know that out of the 3,665 living organ transplants taking place per year, there were only 153 who were not family members, and Mrs. Nearing and Mr. Helms participated as one of the 153. So we say to them as a Congress as we discuss this legislation, we thank them for that spirit, and just as they had the spirit, as Mrs. Nearing and her husband Steve had that wonderful spirit to give life to life, that hopefully this legislation will cause others to look at the situation with regard to organ transplantation and do similar acts of courage. Finally, I would like to take a moment to again thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and all of those who have taken part in making sure that this legislation came to the floor. I would also like to take a moment to thank former staffer John Alexander who worked very hard on this legislation; Ms. Tanya Shaff of my staff, and Kimberly Braves and Kimberly Miller, all working hard to try to make a difference in people's lives. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will touch the lives of many and make their lives better. As I have often said, we only have one life to live. This is no dress rehearsal and this so happens to be that life. Mr. Speaker, at this time I include for the Record a letter from John F. Neylan, President of the American Society of Transplant Physicians. American Society of Transplant Physicians, Thorofare, NJ, October 1, 1998. Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Cummings: The American Society of Transplant Physicians (ASTP) commends you for your continuing efforts to improve our nation's system for organ donation and transplantation. The ASTP is the largest professional transplant organization in the United States and represents over 1,200 physicians, surgeons and scientists. During the last few years, the Society has greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with you and your staff in addressing many important organ transplantation issues. The ASTP applauds your most recent efforts to improve organ donation by introducing legislation, H.R. 2943, to increase the amount of leave time available to Federal employees serving as organ donors. In the past, a lack of leave time has served as a significant impediment and disincentive for individuals willing to share the gift-of-life. The provision in your legislation allowing for 30 days of paid leave following an organ donation is a very positive first-step in addressing this issue. We look forward to working with you in the 106th Congress to further expand upon this initial policy to provide appropriate leave times for living donors. As we have discussed in the past, the problems that our nation faces in the allocation of organs and tissues for transplantation, a precious and scarce resource, are complex, and continue to evolve from both a medical and policy perspective. However, the real answer to dealing with the dilemma of allocating and distributing an inadequate supply of organs is through efforts such as yours to increase donation. On behalf of the thousands of U.S. patients currently awaiting organ transplants, we commend you for your leadership in this area. In addition, we look forward to continuing to work with you in the future to improve the field of transplantation medicine. Sincerely, John F. Neylan, President. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of the Members of the House to vote in favor of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), our ranking member, and particularly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) who is our ranking subcommittee chairman for the cooperation they gave me in making sure that this bill came to the floor today. I really thank them. I also thank our entire subcommittee which worked very cooperatively in a bipartisan spirit to make this bill happen. Mr. Speaker, in the last 20 years, important medical breakthroughs such as tissue typing and new drug therapy have allowed for a larger number of successful organ transplants and a longer survival rate for transplant recipients. Certain organs such as single kidney, a lobe of a lung, a segment of the liver, or a portion of the pancreas can be transplanted from living donors, making it possible for them to save lives of family members, coworkers, and friends, and thus bring life to life. I introduced H.R. 2943 because it supports Federal employees who make the life saving decision to become living organ or bone marrow donors by granting them additional time to recover from making a donation. This bill also has the support of the American Society of Transplant Physicians, the largest professional transplant organization in the United States. In a letter expressing their support for the bill, the ASTP stated, and I quote, ``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 make use of 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 adequate for bone marrow donations. 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 an addition to what they routinely earn. Since the first kidney transplant in 1954, hundreds of patients have received successful transplants from living donors. Yet, each day, while 55 people receive an organ transplant, another 10 people on the waiting list die because not enough organs are available. A new name is added to a waiting list every 18 minutes in the United States. Last year, only 15,000 people donated, leaving 35,000 people desperately in need. Currently, over 58,000 are waiting for a life saving organ transplant. One lung can help another person breathe. One kidney can free someone from dialysis. A portion of a liver could save the life of a patient dying from disease. One's bone marrow could help repair another person's damaged joints. Every year, Federal employees donate one of these organs to save a life. This legislation will give Federal employees who may consider becoming organ donors the assurance that they will be granted an adequate amount of time to recuperate from the life saving process they voluntarily undertake. It will also serve as a guide and encouragement to other employers, public and private, to provide a similar benefit to their employees. Ultimately, this bill will benefit the 58,000 people who are on the organ transplant waiting list. As I said earlier, this is a piece of legislation which will bring life to life. I urge all Members to give it their support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I wanted to take a moment to also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for the introduction of this legislation. I feel very close to this legislation because Thurgood Marshall lived in a home which is literally about eight blocks from where I live in Baltimore right now. As a matter of fact, we also share something else in common, in that we are both graduates of Howard University. I think Thurgood Marshall brought to our Nation a sense of fairness, and he is one who consistently stood up for the things that he believed in. Another interesting thing that I love about him is that a lot of his research for his cases was done in Clarendon County in South Carolina. That is where my mother and father were sharecroppers. And so Thurgood Marshall has played a very, very significant role in the city of Baltimore. And, of course, he was turned away at one time from the University of Maryland Law School, which is the law school I attended and graduated from. I think it is very fitting that this courthouse be named after Mr. Marshall. I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), that my only regret is we could not name a courthouse in Baltimore after Mr. Marshall, for he is truly a hero for all of us. And he is one who is set out amongst lawyers, as we look at lawyers, and young African American lawyers looking for a role model. Thurgood Marshall was that role model, and I am sure he was a role model for many, many other lawyers and for many other people. So I want to thank the gentleman for this legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Charlie Rangel, and in opposition to a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund in the form of a fool-hardy tax bill. This body can and has agreed on many, if not all, of the tax relief provisions included in this bill. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to discuss those provisions today because, quite simply, we can not pay for them. Mr. Speaker, there are no budget surpluses projected for at least the next five years. What there is is the Social Security Trust Fund which the people of the United States have entrusted to the Congress so that we can continue to guarantee the solvency of the Social Security system. It is fool-hardy, irresponsible and dangerous to use this money for tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, I want to provide the American people tax relief. My wish list for my constituents is a long one. Unfortunately, we in this body have fiscal responsibilities. We need to be disciplined. We can not act simply off of wish lists. We must act based on fiscal realities. We need to be conservative with the American people's money and we need to ensure that the Social Security system is there for our children and for our grandchildren as it has been there for us. We can do this, as long as we leave the Social Security Trust Fund alone. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the Rangel Substitute because it provides tax relief only after we have guaranteed the solvency of the Social Security system.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and his amendment to protect Social Security. Without Social Security, an additional 11.5 million older Americans, our mothers, our fathers, our brothers and sisters, would be impoverished, dramatically increasing the overall poverty rate from 13 percent to nearly 50 percent among those over the age of 65. It is very simple. Social Security works. Social Security reduces poverty, and the American people want this Congress to ensure that Social Security remains solvent well into the future. I, for one, intend to do whatever it takes to make sure that this body meets that demand. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to me that the very party that at one point would have turned Social Security over to Wall Street is proposing to use the potential budget surplus not for Social Security but rather for a tax cut that I find imprudent, ill-timed, inefficient, poorly targeted and risky. Mr. Speaker, we may end this fiscal year with a budget surplus. If we do, we owe it to the American people to put that money, all of that money, and that is the difference, all of it, aside until we are sure that we can maintain the long-term solvency of Social Security. Therefore, I stand in support of the Rangel substitute.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the United States Congress and in opposition to fast track. I am going to be brief because what I have to say is straight forward: fast track may have been right in the past, but it is clearly wrong for the present and wrong for the future. There was a time then international trade agreements were little more than the terrain of bean-counters: the fees applied to the importing and exporting of goods. Today, however, these agreements have expanded well beyond bean- counting, and even beyond trade into the realm of finance and investment. Such agreements directly impact the meat and potatoes of what our work in Congress is all about: worker rights, the environment, economic equality, human rights, food safety, even health care and education spending. Therefore, we, the Members of Congress, must have a voice in the direction of these international agreements. I did not become a United States Representative to act as a rubber stamp. Rather, I came here to represent my constituents by using my voice to debate and to amend as I see fit legislation that has a direct bearing on their lives. And, to those among us who argue that the United States needs fast track to participate in the international global economy--I ask for one, just one example from the last four years during which time we did not have fast track that the United States has not had a seat at the table in an international trade, investment or finance negotiation? Anyone? I thought not. Because there are no examples. We have never been kept from the table and we will not be left out in the future. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I continue my opposition to fast track by voting against this bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment a question, and I will yield to him in a moment once I get the question asked. I read the amendment. During the gentleman's discussion, he said that the way this thing would work is that if a supervisor had some kind of cause to believe, I think he said, and he can correct me if I am wrong, to believe that someone might be using drugs, that that might be the reason for a drug test, so that might be the cause; is that correct? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to answer that question.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the reason why I ask those questions is because, when the gentleman talked about having a reasonable belief that the person may be using drugs, I think that is a very, very tough determination to make. I mean, it is one thing when somebody comes in stoned; it is another thing if somebody perhaps wants, and I have seen this in my State where there has been random drug testing and testing for cause, the kind of cause that the gentleman talked about a little bit earlier and what happened. There has been some abuse of that where a supervisor may have wanted to get rid of an employee or whatever, that kind of thing. The other thing that I am concerned about is, once they discover the person is on drugs, having some kind of way so the person does not lose their job, I know that is the gentleman's intent, so that the person can get some type of treatment as opposed to that person losing their job. We have seen that come up, like I said, in many instances in our Workman's Compensation laws in Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time for another question. I guess the gentleman is still not answering my question. What I am going to ask is exactly the practicality of how this works. In the gentleman's amendment, it talks about random unannounced testing. I am just asking, is there something; but in the gentleman's statement of explanation of the amendment, he talked about having some kind of cause to believe that this person, and he just did it again, as having some cause to believe that this person is using drugs. I guess my question is, when the gentleman talks about random and unannounced, as I read this amendment, that means that we do not even have to have any kind of cause. I mean, is it one or the other, or is it both? Is the gentleman following me? First of all, I believe that the gentleman's intentions are good, and I know the gentleman is concerned, because I know we have talked about this subject before. I guess I am trying to look at the practicality and trying to make sure that when the Members vote on the amendment, they understand what they are voting for. It is one thing if the gentleman is saying that having some kind of a reasonable belief that this person is using drugs, that is one thing; to say that it is just random and unannounced for anybody at any time, that is a whole other thing. So I am asking the gentleman for clarification so that all of us will know what we are voting on, what the gentleman's intent of the amendment is. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman to answer.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. So the gentleman is telling me, contrary to what he said a little bit earlier, there does not have to be any kind of cause. There does not have to be any kind of reason for believing or suspecting that that person may be using drugs. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi to answer.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments of all of my colleagues on both sides. I am reminded of the story of Mr. Sosa when he was a young boy about 10 years old. His father died and he was left to help his mother take care of his seven brothers and sisters down in the Dominican Republic. There he got some rags together and some shoe shine polish and would go to the beach and he would shine people's shoes. As fate would have it, he met a man named Bill Chase who lived on the outskirts of San Pedro, and Mr. Chase was a factory owner. He was so impressed with the shoe shine operation of the Sosa brothers, because he did it with his brother, that he would give them extra tips. He bought Sammy a glove and then he began to watch him play baseball. He was so impressed with them, that he helped them to move forward to a baseball career here in the United States. There is so much to that story, Mr. Speaker, of how when we work together, when we bond together and lift each other up, how we can make things happen. How when we touch other people with our lives, that we can help them get to where they have to go. But there is another important lesson in that too. So many Minor League baseball players are playing baseball right now, not knowing whether they will ever have an opportunity to come to the big leagues. But we want to salute all of them, including, of course, our friend Mark McGwire. We want to salute Sammy Sosa with a simple, simple quote. It is from a noted religious scholar named Dr. Charles Swindoll, and I think it epitomizes our two players that we honor today. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Swindoll says, ``. . . men and women of God, servant-leaders in the making, are first unknown, unseen, unappreciated and unapplauded. In the relentless demands of obscurity, character is built . . . [T]hose who first accept the silence of obscurity are best qualified to handle the applause of popularity.'' Mr. Speaker, I think that statement by Dr. Swindoll certainly epitomizes and describes our two great baseball players that we honor today. And so as this Congress pauses to salute these great gentlemen, we say to Mark McGwire and to Sammy Sosa, ``The Congress of the United States of America salutes you. And we thank you for bringing life to life and lifting all of us up, including our children, so that generations to come will look back on this wonderful, wonderful year and say that we too were a part of it.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join in voting for this tremendous and wonderful resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Guiterrez), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for introducing this very, very important resolution. Today, this Congress pauses to salute a man named Sammy Sosa. Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs is being honored today for being a fine sportsman and for conducting himself with dignity and modesty while in pursuit of Roger Maris' single season home run record. A native of the Dominican Republic, Sammy Sosa is an inspiration to Americans, Latin Americans, and all who love the game of baseball. On Sunday, in a critical Cubs-Brewers game, Sosa caught up to Mark McGwire and hit his 62nd home run. At that moment, the Cubs were still behind, and though he was experiencing a personal victory, Sosa did not celebrate until his teammate Mark Grace hit the winning home run to end the game 11 to 10. Sosa carried Grace a few steps to the dugout, and the Cubs carried Sosa. Baseball is a team effort, and Sosa's actions exemplify just that. Sosa is the player in Cub's history, the only player in Cub's history to hit 30 or more home runs and steal 30 or more bases in the same season. In 1997, he became the third player in team history to hit more than 25 home runs at Wrigley Field more than once. He was the first Cub in 37 years to collect more than 100 runs-batted-in in three consecutive seasons. But these statistics only speak to his athletic abilities. Sosa supports schools and medical facilities in his homeland. He has a now famous two-finger gesture where he touches his heart for his fans, then blows two kisses, one for his mother, and one for the family and relatives back home whenever he hits a home run or has a major accomplishment in a game. This speaks to Sosa as a man, a man who has never forgotten from whence he came. He remembers and talks about quite often when he was in the Dominican Republic as a young boy. And like many poor young people, he had to improvise. He would use a crushed up milk carton as a glove and would take a sock and ball it up real tight and use it as a ball to play baseball. The fact is is that he now remembers those days and consistently and constantly gives back to his native Dominican Republic. He is a man who loves the game of baseball and, just as important, just like Mark McGwire, he cares about people. Sosa is a team player and a gracious winner. He is a true sportsman and is quite deserving of this wonderful and very significant honor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), a very distinguished gentleman, who is one of the sponsors of this legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), one of the cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished majority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)