Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] and I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] for their cooperation in bringing this very important piece of legislation before us. Once again, I think it is a very important piece of legislation in that it serves a very important public purpose, and the bipartisanship that was displayed in bringing this together is very, very important. Mr. Speaker, we have no other requests for time. Therefore, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, weeks ago, a vicious assault was made against Washington, D.C. public schools by offering vouchers as a cure- all solution; today, another assault is being directed against American public education. This proposed $310 million funding is not an investment with an anticipated return for better education in America; this funding is merely a political ploy. I oppose political motives at the risk of poor and disenfranchised children in America. I oppose this assault on public education. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Brown versus Board decision, announced in 1954, our nation began to address the issue of unequal education systems in the United States. Today, a different phenomenon catches our attention. We witness a continued disparity within our education infrastructure among the rich and poor children of our society. The rich continue to gain access through the door of opportunity, while the poor are simultaneously condemned to the locked room of despair. Mr. Speaker, the advocates of this bill say that it would correct the problem of continued disparity in our impoverished and disadvantaged communities. Mr. Speaker, few students will actually benefit from this scholarship program relative to the entire group of impoverished students in America. Many students currently enrolled in public school will be left behind in inferior and unequal education institutions. Finally, many families, to whom vouchers would be given, would not have the necessary income to defray the residual costs of additional tuition for private schools. It is emphatically clear that the most needy families in America will not benefit from this voucher initiative. Mr. Speaker, the day Congress appropriates for school vouchers is the day Congress abdicates from the long-lived and enduring concept of quality public education in America. Mr. Speaker, I support the continued development and success of public education in America. Voucher programs are impractical, and do not allow us to address the real concerns of American public education. I urge my colleagues on both sides to consider the full effects of this bill, and vote against this legislation. Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation. The so-called ``HELP'' Scholarships would gut our public school system and provide no help at all to the children who need it the most. It's not surprising that a party with a member who painted public education as a ``communist legacy'' continues to try to dismantle our nation's tradition of public schools. Time and time again Republicans have tried to push through their anti-education agenda, only to be pushed back by Democrats and a President who has vowed to veto these bills which would destroy our public schools. A few weeks ago, Republicans passed with a one vote margin a measure to impose vouchers on the D.C. school system. Today they are trying to impose the same experiment on all of our nation's children. 90 percent of America's children depend on public schools to provide them with the skills they need to excel in the future. But the Gingrich voucher experiment will not help these students get a better start in life. Instead, the Gingrich voucher experiment will siphon funds out of the public school system and give them to private schools. Public schools will be left without the resources they desperately need to buy books, fix leaky roofs, and put computers in the classroom. This is unacceptable. Our nation was founded on the principle that everyone would have an equal opportunity to succeed. Public schools bring together students of all races, creeds and economic classes to learn together. Each student comes in at equal footing, and everyone gets the same opportunities. That is the formula that works. No one is arguing that public schools don't need improvement. So let's rise to that challenge and give them the means to improve. Let's not set our public schools up for failure by denying them the assistance to make changes and improve their students' performance. Don't abandon the public school system. Give our children help they can use--invest in our public schools, and oppose the Gingrich voucher experiment.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to take a moment to compliment the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], the subcommittee chairman, who has worked very closely with this side of the aisle to make sure that we came up with a very, very good bill. I would also like to take a moment to recognize the ranking member of our full committee, Mr. Waxman, and to recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, our chairman, for this excellent piece of legislation. Furthermore, I would like to recognize two of our Members on our side, the gentlewoman from Washington, DC [Ms. Norton] and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), who have worked very, very hard, and of course the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], my colleague, who has played a very significant role with this legislation. I want to thank all of my colleagues for what we have been able to do together to make life a little bit easier for our Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1836, the Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act of 1997, 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 perpetrated by unscrupulous health care providers. The enactment of this particular reform was requested by OPM earlier this year. I support it, and in fact, introduced a narrow bill to achieve the same result. H.R. 1836, however, contains some additional provisions that would improve the administration of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. I will highlight just a few of them. The bill contains a provision that would strengthen the current preemption statute in title V so as to ensure that FEHB's programs and 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 enter the FEHB Program. This will save both agencies several millions of dollars in future premium costs. 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 the conditions surrounding those discounts have been fully disclosed. This proposal had proven to be somewhat controversial. I am pleased to say, however, that the majority worked cooperatively with our side and with the Office of Personnel Management to reach agreement on the language in the bill. Finally, H.R. 1836 clarifies a provision of an existing law concerning direct access and reimbursement to health care providers in the program. The inclusion of that provision had also stirred some controversy; however, a compromise was reached on it as well. 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 their support to this very, very significant piece of legislation. Again, I thank the subcommittee chairman for his cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to close by saying, again, that this is a very excellent piece of legislation. I would recommend that all the Members of this great House vote in favor of it. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of a great labor leader, a great citizen, and a great man, John N. Sturdivant. John Sturdivant was president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), one of the largest Federal unions, which has about 178,000 active members in 1,100 locals and represents about 600,000 workers in 68 Federal agencies. Through all the Congressional debate about the role and responsibilities of the Federal Government, one person was always there ensuring that U.S. tax dollars were not wasted and that vital public services were not lost. He was a watchdog against inefficiency and a champion of worker and human rights. Mr. Sturdivant, a full partner in President Clinton's efforts to reinvent government, knew Americans wanted a more effective government. His efforts have made AFGE a leader in overcoming the Federal bureaucracy and achieving results. He combated the notion that workers are part of the problem when it comes to increasing government efficiency. Thanks to leaders like John Sturdivant, front-line workers are perceived as the solution and AFGE members are bringing about important changes in the way the Federal Government operates. During the 1995 and 1996 Government shutdowns, intensive work by Mr. Sturdivant and AFGE secured important public support for the hundreds of thousands of Government employees who were locked out of their jobs or forced to work without pay. As a result of AFGE's comprehensive campaign, strong public pressure was brought to bear on an intractable Congress, ending the shutdowns and returning Federal employees to work with the guarantee of back pay. As a key member of the National Partnership Council led by Vice President Al Gore, Mr. Sturdivant has helped agencies like Veterans Affairs and Social Security, once plagued with adversarial labor relations, improve customer service and save taxpayers' money. The changes his leadership brought to the Federal workplace have not only given workers a greater voice on the job, but also removed the roadblocks which prevented them from taking part in the political process. A familiar face on Capitol Hill, Mr. Sturdivant helped AFGE achieve its 20-year legislative initiative with the passage of Hatch Act Reform, legislation that allows Federal employees to become politically active without undue restrictions. Mr. Sturdivant not only amplified the chorus of Federal workers and their issues, he was also a new voice for America's minorities. One of Ebony Magazine's 100 Most Influential Blacks in America, he was the first African-American to head AFGE and first to serve as president of a major AFL-CIO union. Elected in 1988, Mr. Sturdivant also served as a vice president of the AFL-CIO. In 1989, he was elected vice president on the AFL-CIO Executive Council. John Sturdivant was a trailblazer whose commitment and contributions on behalf of the labor movement, government workers and our way of life will be sorely missed. His passion and sacrifice have made a lasting impression on my colleagues and myself, and the people on behalf of whom he toiled will continue to benefit from the fruit of his efforts and cherish his memory for a long time to come.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, while I do not support this bill, I do believe that we must solve our nuclear waste problem. This bill is merely a temporary fix for a problem that has long-term implications. Our Nation is at a crossroads. We have benefited from nuclear technology. We are a Nation that has won wars and deterred others because of nuclear science. This technology is a cheap and efficient way to light our towns and cities. We have paid a price for this benefit. Over the last 50 years, our Nation has generated tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive nuclear materials and waste. I cannot stress the importance of finding a permanent and viable solution to the disposal of these wastes. I have many fundamental problems with the bill before us that can be solved if the issue were given further consideration. This legislation allows for nuclear waste to be stored above ground in so-called interim storage facilities located in the State of Nevada. I am concerned that legal limitations to ensure that interim storage does not become permanent storage will be eroded. The bill does not adequately address public health and safety protections relating to transportation, interim storage, and permanent disposal of nuclear waste. My constituents in Baltimore, as customers of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, pay into their nuclear waste fund, which is designed to cover costs of both interim storage and the permanent repository. I worry that places a continuous burden on utility customers around the country because this bill does not create a permanent repository. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. We have much more work to do to ensure the protection of the public health, safety and environment.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act [FWRA] (P.L. 103-226) to reduce the Federal employee ceiling between 1993 and 1999 by 272,900 positions to a level of 1.88 million workers. In his January 23, 1996, State of the Union Address President Clinton proclaimed: The era of big government is over. . . . Our Federal Government today is the smallest it has been in 30 years and it's getting smaller every day. The FWRA goal has been reached 2 years early. In fact, the administration predicts that by the end of this fiscal year that we will have achieved 110 percent of the original downsizing target. The question we must now ask ourselves as lawmakers is did we accomplish what we set out to achieve. By getting rid of Federal employees have we made our Government work better and cost less or have we simply replaced civil servants with contractors? Most observers believe that Government downsizing is driving the increase in contracting-out for services. According to a recent policy analysis from the Cato Institute, at the same time the Government was downsizing there has been a ``rapid growth rate of contracted labor, which has become a kind of shadow government.'' By 1995 the Government was spending $114 billion a year on service contracts while the total cost of the Federal payroll was only $111 billion. Former OMB Deputy Director for Management John Koskinen acknowledged last year that the Government does not know how many private workers it is paying for. ``You can use any number you want,'' he said, ``but whatever it is it is a lot of people.'' Current OMB Deputy Director for Management Ed Deseve said recently before the House Civil Service Subcommittee that not only do we not know how many contractors work for Uncle Sam ``we don't really have any need for this type of information.'' I disagree. If you consider the fact that taxpayers are paying the salaries of both Federal employees and contractors, the truth is that we really don't know if the Government today is the smallest it has been in 30 years. More importantly, we really don't know over the long term if contractor performance is more cost effective than in-house performance of Government functions. When the public sector and the private sector compete to provide Government services, both sides strive to provide the best service for the best price. In these competitions, the public sector wins half the time and the private sector wins half the time. The real winners, however, are the taxpayers who generally benefit from the competition driven 30 percent reduction in the cost of Government services. Under current Government contracting rules (OMB Circular A-76) when the Government wins a contracting competition its workers are periodically audited to determine if they remain the most cost- effective providers of service. Ironically, no similar rule is applied to contractors that win competitions. My legislation closes the gap in current contracting rules and keeps the competitive spirit alive by providing a mechanism for automatically reviewing contracts that have exceeded their initial projected costs to determine if the work could be performed more efficiently in-house. If you are interested in ensuring that the American taxpayers are getting the best bang for the buck, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I first of all want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership as the ranking member of our subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. This bill is indeed controversial. A number of amendments, including one that was offered by myself, was offered by Democratic Members but rejected by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This bill should not be on the suspension calendar. At the very least it should be placed on the House calendar and be considered under regular order where issues surrounding the reauthorization can be debated. I object to a provision within the bill that does not allow high intensity drug treatment areas, HIDTA's, to expand their drug treatment programs. The Washington-Baltimore HIDTA is the only 1 of 17 federally funded HIDTA projects nationwide that uses drug treatment as one of its strategies. The success of the Baltimore-Washington HIDTA treatment program has been remarkable. Analysts have found that arrest rates plunge for drug-addicted nonviolent criminal offenders when they are forced to participate in sanctions-based drug treatment programs. After 9 months of experience in the treatment programs, only 12 percent of HIDTA's clients were rearrested. Only 13 percent of HIDTA's clients tested positive for illegal substances in a typical month. This should be contrasted with the fact that 100 percent tested positive prior to entering the HIDTA program. The Washington-Baltimore HIDTA is the only HIDTA that operates a program of this kind, and it should serve as a model for the remaining 16. Under this bill, the expansion of this successful program approach is not possible. The bill sets a series of unrealistic and unworkable goals to reduce drug use. According to Barry McCaffrey, the requirements in this bill are arbitrary targets, goals and timetables, and contain unachievable goals. I agree with the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Hastert, that the HIDTA's primary focus should be law enforcement. However, I firmly believe there should be a partnership with a proven drug treatment program, which the Baltimore-Washington HIDTA drug treatment program provides. I regret this bill hamstrings the HIDTA drug treatment program.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. This amendment would increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation from $141 million to $250 million. I applaud both of my colleagues for their leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, one of the cornerstones of our constitutional democracy is the premise that all citizens should have competent legal counsel in a criminal or civil justice matter. Nevertheless, the reduction in funding for the Legal Services Corporation in this bill undermines that premise. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation is a modest but vitally important and effective program that assists millions of needy families in gaining access to the civil justice system in cases relating to domestic violence, landlord-tenant disputes, consumer fraud, child support, and other legal matters. This program is the only means of assuring that poor children, battered and abused spouses, the elderly, the disabled, migrant workers, and other low-income individuals have access to legal representation in civil cases. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation has provided affordable legal assistance to 5 million Americans in 1995 alone. Legal Services clients are as diverse as our Nation, encompassing all races and ethnic groups and ages. Older Americans represent 11 percent of the clients serviced by legal services programs. Over two-thirds of legal services clients are women, most of whom are mothers with children. For children living in poverty, a parent's access to legal services can prove to be the difference in securing support fro an absent parent, obtaining a decent home in which to live, or receiving equal and fair access to educational opportunities. Mr. Chairman, the representation of women and children who are victims of domestic violence has always been a high priority for the Legal Services Corporation and its grantees. In 1996, local programs closed 50,000 cases in which the primary legal issue was the representation of women seeking protection from abuse. In my home State of Maryland, while costs and demands on the law have augmented, funding for general civil legal services has fallen by over 30 percent. In 1996, because of reduced funding levels, legal aid offices in the State of Maryland have closed. Currently, the Legal Services Corporation only has the capacity to serve less than 25 percent of the eligible population. Mr. Chairman, by reducing funding, the Congress will continue to tell battered women in our Nation that they have no legal refuge against abuse, the elderly that their right to legal resources has been eliminated, and defrauded consumers that no legal protections exist. The words, as emblazoned on the Supreme Court Building, ``equal justice under law,'' would not apply to all if funding were to be cut for this program. Mr. Chairman, I practiced law for 20 years. As a lawyer, I was one of 130,000 volunteer lawyers registered to participate in pro bono legal services, encouraged by the Legal Services Corporation. During my service, I discovered that our civil justice system does belong to the rich and powerful in our Nation. Rare is the day when poor Americans receive equitable treatment. Mr. Chairman, by increasing funding for the Legal Services Corporation, we will send a powerful message to the American people that our civil justice system does not belong just to the wealthy and privileged in our Nation; it belongs to all citizens. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment. To conclude, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the call of the Private Calendar today.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on June 10, 1997, Representatives Weldon and Deutsch introduced bipartisan legislation, House Concurrent Resolution 95, to officially honor the only U.S. servicemen to be held prisoner in a concentration camp. I am delighted that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service [Mr. Mica] and I have been able to quickly bring this bill to the floor for the consideration of Members. I strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 95 and urge its immediate passage so that this body might go on record as commending 82 brave United States airmen who were held at the Buchenwald concentration camp in Weimar, Germany, during World War II. These men shared a unique and painful experience that no other American servicemen have endured. A total of 168 allied airmen were captured and held at Buchenwald, and allied governments in other parts of the world have already bestowed special recognition upon these servicemen. The deplorable conditions, inhumane treatment, and personal suffering of the 82 American servicemen must not go unrecognized by our Nation any longer. Though more than 50 years have passed since the liberation of the Buchenwald concentration camp, the appreciation due these men for their bravery, service, and unique sacrifice, is as considerable today as it was in 1945 when the camp was liberated. It is perhaps even more momentous because it is so long overdue. Tragically, some of these men can no longer be located and informed of this legislation. Thirty-three of them are now deceased. It is my hope that the news of our action here today, our official recognition of their service, reaches all who survive, those who have passed on, and all of their families, so that they might know what has finally transpired here this day. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge this entire body to join me in support of this important resolution so that all 82 Americans held at Buchenwald concentration camp may receive the honor they have for so long deserved. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and 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 today in support of legislation, H.R. 1254, as amended, which would designate the U.S. Post Office Building located at 1919 West Bennett Street in Springfield, Missouri, as the John N. Griesemer Post Office Building. Mr. Griesemer, a Springfield, MO businessman, was named to serve on the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors in 1984. He was elected chairman of the Board in 1987 and 1988 and served for 3 years as the vice chairman. A native of Billings, MO, John Griesemer worked for his family's business, the Griesemer Stone Co. He served as its president and director until his death in 1993. H.R. 1254, introduced by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt] enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the entire Missouri congressional delegation. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, which is a fitting testament to the great work of Mr. Griesemer. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], our ranking member, for bringing this resolution to the floor in cooperation with our side of the aisle. I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. King] for his leadership in guiding this bill to the House floor. James Stewart was born on May 20, 1908 in his parents' home in Indiana, PA, the only son of Alexander and Elizabeth Stewart. After Jimmy's arrival, the family expanded to include daughters Virginia and Mary. Young Jimmy graduated with honors from Princeton with a degree in architecture in 1932 in the midst of the Great Depression. His first film was ``Murder Man'' with Spencer Tracy for MGM in 1935. He appeared in 24 movies over the next 4 years, with an Oscar nomination for ``Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.'' In 1940, the Oscar went to him for his performance in ``The Philadelphia Story.'' Within the next year his acting career was brought to an abrupt halt by World War II. Mr. Stewart enlisted in 1941 and became an air corps pilot and a squadron commander. His war record included 20 combat missions as command pilot. After being promoted to squadron commander, he became operations officer, and from 1944 to 1945 served as chief of staff, 2d Combat Wing, 2d Division, 8th Air Force. It was after the war that Jimmy Stewart, under the direction of Frank Capra, starred in ``It's A Wonderful Life.'' As we all know, it is a story of a small town and how one man's life really does make a difference. This was his favorite film, and for this he won his third Academy Award nomination. Jimmy Stewart is among Hollywood's most highly honored and deeply loved men. This is not only for his professional successes, but every bit as much for his integrity, his character, and the fact that he was a true humanitarian. He retained his all-American-boy image; the years only added to his stature. The American Film Institute recognized the magnitude of Mr. Stewart's accomplishments by awarding him the Life Achievement Award in 1980 for fundamentally advancing the art of American film. In presenting the award, the Institute so accurately declared: In a career of extraordinary range and depth, Jimmy Stewart has come to embody on the screen the very image of the typical American. Whether flying the ocean as Charles Lindbergh, going to Washington as Senator Jefferson Smith, or playing ordinary men who somehow never got around to leaving their own towns, Stewart has captured the essence of American hopes, doubts, and aspirations. His idealism, his determination, his vulnerability, and above all, his basic decency shine through every role he plays. Once again, I thank the sponsors of this legislation, and I urge its unanimous passage. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of funding in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for historically black colleges and universities in the United States. I am also elated to note that this bill appropriates more funding to historically black colleges and universities than what was officially requested in the President's budget proposal. In all, this funding is indicative of Congress' commitment to the preservation of educational opportunity for students of color in our Nation. Among many universities, Howard University, my alma mater, here in Washington, DC, will stand to receive approximately $210 million. This money will be used for the continued procurement of academic and educational programming, and to fund much needed renovation efforts throughout various dormitories. I graduated phi beta kappa from Howard in 1973. The wonderful experience and enriching environment of Howard shaped the way in which I view and live in today's world. It is because of Howard University and funding for historically black colleges and universities that I am able to address this distinguished body as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, historically black colleges and universities have graduated many leaders in the world of law, finance, ministry, and government. The late Justice Thurgood Marshall led a fight to end the vestiges of racial segregation. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was a leader in the civil rights movement in the 1960's. People not just in the United States, but around the world, have benefited from the contributions and efforts of many graduates of historically black colleges and universities. Mr. Chairman, as we stand on the brink of the 21st century, it is readily apparent that education is the means by which success is achieved. In our increasingly technical and sophisticated world economy, it is exorbitantly important that we launch an indefatigable initiative toward educational success for all Americans. I believe that the mission of historically black colleges and universities throughout our Nation comport with the mission. So in conclusion, I exhort my colleagues to vote in support of increased funding for historically black colleges and universities in America. Let us say yes to our children's futures, say yes to our children's success, and say yes to the success of our nation for the years to come. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of the bill, H.R. 1031, the American Community Renewal Act. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Snowbarger]. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and to advocate on behalf of full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA]. In creating the NEA in 1965, this institution wisely noted: An advanced civilization must not limit its efforts to science and technology alone but give full value and support to other great branches of scholarly and cultural activity in order to achieve a better understanding of the past, a better analysis of the present, and a better view of the future. Mr. Speaker, the arts are the heart of our Nation and the NEA is the heart of the arts. Today, there are those who would rip out the heart of the artistic community. Current funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is certainly a modest effort. It accounts for less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of our Federal budget. We should already be embarrassed at the amount of public support for the arts. Each year Americans pay just 38 cents of their taxes to support the arts. In Canada and France, per capita support for the arts is $32. But the impact of this small program is immeasurable. Today, more Americans have access to the arts than ever before. The NEA funds projects in small cities and rural areas where corporate and foundation dollars never reach. It is the NEA funds that attract other moneys in these otherwise neglected areas of our country. Since its inception in 1965, the number of symphony orchestras has quadrupled, the number of theaters has increased eight times, and the number of dance companies has gone from 37 to over 250. Each year, the Arts Endowment opens the door to the arts for millions of schoolchildren, including many at-risk youth. The arts make an extraordinary contribution to the lives of our citizens. Not only do they improve the quality of life, but they are also a significant industry and powerful force in the economic development of our cities, towns, and communities. They contribute far more to the economy than they receive in public funding. The not-for- profit arts create $37 billion in economic activity, $634 million in my home State of Maryland alone. This economic activity supports 1.3 million jobs nationwide. As a result, $3.4 billion--20 times the budget of the NEA--is returned to the Federal treasury through income taxes. The few isolated cases of controversial art work are not an accurate representation of the thousands of grants the NEA gives out each year. Distorting the truth is a tactic that opponents of the Endowment must engage in because their view is contrary to public opinion. A recent Lou Harris poll indicates that 61 percent of Americans ``would be willing to pay $5 more per year in taxes to support Federal Government efforts in the arts.'' But the voice of the American people often falls on deaf ears here on Capitol Hill. A diversity of opinions, a marketplace of ideas--those are the ideals upon which this country was founded. Must we burn the entire orchard if there are a few apples that are not to our liking? Join me to help lend a voice to the painters and the sculptors, the singers and the musicians and the actors--the artists of this country. Join me in saving the National Endowment for the Arts. Join me in saving the spirit of this Nation. Esteemed colleagues, I urge you to join me in opposing this rule.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and to advocate on behalf of full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Mr. Chairman, the arts are the heart of our Nation and the NEA is the heart of the arts. Today, there are those who would rip out the heart of the artistic community. Current funding for the The National Endowment for the Arts is certainly a modest effort. It accounts for less than 1/1000 of 1% of our Federal budget. The impact of this small program is immeasurable. Today, more Americans have access to the arts than ever before. Each year, the Arts Endowment opens the door to the arts for millions of school children, including many at-risk youth. The few isolated cases of controversial art work are not an accurate representation of the thousands of grants the NEA gives out each year. Must we burn the entire orchard if there are a few apples that are not to our liking? Join me to help lend a voice to the painters and the sculptors, the singers and the musicians and the actors--the artists of this country. Esteemed colleagues, I urge you to join me in opposing this rule.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1316, which does nothing more than make a technical correction in the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], our distinguished chairman, for their leadership in bringing this very important measure to the House floor today. As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] indicated, this bill simply ensures that a domestic relations order issued by a court is considered a binding designation of a beneficiary by an employee's agency or the Office of Personnel Management. Under current law, domestic relations orders such as divorce decrees or property settlement agreements do not affect the payment of life insurance proceeds. Instead, when the policyholder dies, the proceeds are paid to the beneficiary designated by the policyholder, if any, or to other individuals as specified by statute. Because an employee could still frustrate the court order by terminating the policy, the bill was amended in committee to allow courts to direct the employee to assign the policy to a specific individual. I also want to take time, Mr. Speaker, to recognize those people in our committee on our side. Of course, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has already recognized the members on the Republican side, but the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] were also very instrumental in bringing this resolution to the House floor as swiftly as we have. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], dean of the Maryland delegation, who has worked over the years on these issues and played a major, major role in this House.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to address a few issues that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] spoke on. First of all, I want to thank the chairman for the bipartisan way in which he has worked with myself and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. I think it is extremely important, the issues that he has brought up. And in that spirit of bipartisanship which we have shared since I have been the ranking member, I just want to thank the gentleman again for his cooperation, because I know it is a major issue for the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and many other people throughout the Nation. Mr. Speaker, this noncontroversial legislation passed the House last year as part of the omnibus civil service bill. That comprehensive legislation was not enacted. Therefore, it is appropriate that we bring forward this bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote favorably. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we are considering today gives the Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight broad and unprecedented powers. This resolution does not have an underlying premise of uncovering the truth in a bipartisan manner; but rather, its goal is to arm its bearers with overreaching congressional authority. My colleagues, if we vote to approve this resolution, we are creating a dangerous precedent. There has never been a single instance in which a chairman of any House or Senate committee has ever unilaterally issued subpoenas for depositions. Common Cause stated, ``Fairness will be ensured only if the committee follows congressional precedents for investigative procedures and gives the minority Members a voice in the investigation.'' The League of Women Voters stated, ``The House is headed towards a partisan sideshow. These are the kind of political games that disgust the American people.'' Let us return comity to this committee and resurrect what is left of this investigation. Let us work in a legitimate fact-finding manner. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.