Kweisi Mfume

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my remarks to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], who spoke earlier, and I recognize the duties of the Chair, having served there for many years. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Maryland, on the gentlewoman's time, for his kind remarks, for his friendship over the years, for leading the delegation, from all of us who served the State of Maryland, and for extending the first hand toward me shortly after my election in 1986. Both he and former Congressman Tony Coelho came to Baltimore at that particular time to find out what it was they could do for me as an incoming Member. It has been that kind of relationship over the years, Steny, and I really appreciate your kind remarks.

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I could not, obviously, not respond to your heartfelt comments, Carrie, and the friendship that we have developed over the last several years working on a number of issues, both here in Washington and down in your district in Florida and elsewhere. It is those kinds of words at this kind of moment that really makes the last 10 years worth more than they might have been otherwise. I know that words are inadequate on my part to tell you how much you mean to me as a person, and why I will miss this institution, not because of the partisan bantering that takes place, but because of the genuine kind of dialog and fellowship that I have learned to develop and I have learned to develop with people like you. I love you very much. Thank you for your kind words.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I know the time of the gentleman is short, but I do first of all want to thank my colleague from Maryland. We were elected together in 1986, kind of cut our teeth here in this House together and grew to be dear, dear friends. Connie, I will miss you very much also, and I thank you for your kind words and for coming here. Vic, let me thank you also for yielding part of your time that the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] might in fact be recognized. We have a long way to go in this institution, but clearly, individuals, such as yourself, who are coming here with bright ideas and a real commitment for change will make that happen. Thank you so much for coming out and for being a part of this, and I mean that honestly from the bottom of my heart. I look forward, beyond this point, to working more with you. Thank you.

Mr. MFUME. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I recognize the time constraints that the House is under, and I appreciate the comments of Mr. Cardin that perhaps we can conclude this portion of the special order tomorrow or perhaps later today. I know there are a lot of Members that are starting to come over on the floor for that. Quite frankly, I am honored and flattered by it, and I appreciate their presence here and look forward perhaps to spending some more time on this special order either later today or certainly tomorrow.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues an innovative organization that is providing leadership and direction in the care of the millions of individuals afflicted with hand and upper extremity disorders and injuries. Included among these individuals are significant numbers of military personnel who suffer from repetitive motion disorders, loss of extremities, and other dysfunctional injuries to the hand. The Raymond M. Curtis Hand Center at the Union Memorial Hospital has established a National Center for Treatment of the Hand and Upper Extremity. The mission of the center is the initiation of clinical guidelines for treatment, collection of data government, labor, and industry and leadership for training and research in the field of hand and upper extremity surgery. It is estimated that more than 16 million people experienced upper extremity injuries, accounting for 90 million days of restricted activity and 16 million days lost from work in a year with a total direct and indirect cost of $10 billion. In fact, one-third of all injuries, military and civilian, involve upper extremities. The center and its staff have long been associated with the Army Medical Corps and as an expression of commitment to both the military and the field of hand surgery, the Curtis Hand Center has trained every Army hand surgeon since World War II at no expense to the Department of Defense. Staff from the hand center also regularly speak at Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda and the Bethesda Naval Hospital. The national center is a cost-effective treatment for Maryland and the Nation. In 1992, the most frequent hand surgery procedure, carpal tunnel release, was performed by hand center staff at 22 percent below the average charge of other Maryland hosptials'. While maintaining the Curtis Hand Center's history of multidisciplinary cost-effective care, the national center will expand current patient capabilities and referral services to neighboring States. Outreach centers will be established throughout the State to provide localized care in areas not currently capable of treating hand and upper extremity injuries. The national center also will train hand therapists in an effort to address the shortage of these professionals. The center will train occupational and physical therapists and develop a curriculum for this training that can be replicated at hospitals throughout the country. The hand center's current physician training capabilities are being expanded, including the staff's work with the armed services, regional hospital and universities, and foreign hand specialists. At the core of the national center's work, though, is basic research on the future of hand surgery. Led by the hand center's research director, Dr. Thomas Burshart, the national center will be at the vanguard of research on nerve regeneration, carpal tunnel syndrome, and prosthetic devices. The hand center has received several commendations in the past from the National Security Appropriations Subcommittee, which praised the center's work and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, which recognized the important work of the center in 1994. Members of the center's staff are in ongoing discussions with the Department of the Army and the Office of Defense Health Programs to explore ways in which they may work together to further enhance the military's specialized surgical capabilities. The center has and deserves broad-based support from all who come in contact with it, from the Department of Defense to other health care professionals to the thousands of people who have been treated there. It is my hope that the center will be able to continue to grow and prosper, as it will clearly benefit all Americans. I invite all of my colleagues to visit the center, and to join me in supporting it in its mission.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I actually thought I would wait until later in the week or perhaps later in the month to come before the House and to express to my colleagues who are here and those who are watching in their respective offices a great sense of appreciation, a great deal of loss, and, at the same time, a great deal of anticipation of what, for me, becomes the beginning of a new journey of a thousand miles. Mr. Speaker, I came to this institution in early 1987 with the class of the historic 100th Congress. It was a different Congress then, and in many respects there were different people. This institution, over the years, long before I got here, and I am sure long after I am gone, will continue, in many respects, to be the scorn in the eyes of some, the hope in the eyes of others, but the only institution that, as Americans, we have in our legislative branch of Government. So as we contemplate coming and going, for me it was a tough decision and yet an easy decision. I was always taught that we come here with nothing and we leave this life with nothing, and that it is what we do between our birth date and our death date that determines our worth and our value and our substance as a human being. Those of us who have come to this point to be in service to America and to our colleagues and to people all across this country, whose policies affect countless millions of nameless, faceless Americans, and whose conduct, quite frankly, and whose decorum is watched by persons who want to be here and by those who will never get here. But all of those things in the aggregate essentially determine what kind of government we have and how we, as caretakers of that government, are perceived. Mr. Speaker, I will miss, obviously, this institution. I have come to love it. I believe in the necessity of an open and free Democratic form of government. I will miss the individuals here, who I have served with on both sides of the aisle, all from different walks of life. We have debated great issues together: The Civil Rights Act of 1991, the gulf war, the great decisions to think of and to ultimately pass an Americans With Disabilities Act, and numbers of other bills and measures that speak to the life style that many of America's people now enjoy. I will also miss, to some extent, the process. But I think those who know me recognize that because I come from humble beginnings, it really was not a major decision to give up a safe congressional seat, with 82 and 84 percent of the vote election after election, and to walk toward an organization considered by some to be in disarray and perhaps by some to be in disrepair. Because I have an excitement inside of me that speaks of a new vision, a new vision of hope and possibility, I believe in the aspect of coalition. I know what it will take in this country for us to be a better Nation. I want to be a part of the process. I agonize, like many of my colleagues going home at night, in the comfort of my own surroundings, and knowing that violence still plagues our Nation, that hatred and racial polarization have not gone away, that many people who look like you and look like me, regardless of their station in their life, still have a dose of despair in their eyes, that are young and have given up on themselves, and they plan now for their funerals because they do not expect to reach the age of 25, that drug abuse and spousal abuse and child abuse run rampant in a Nation that ought have been beyond that and ought to have found lessons to have gotten there. All of those things are also part of the America that we love, but they beckon me in a different way tonight, and they call me in such a way that I cannot say no.

Mr. MFUME. I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind and heartfelt words. There is an aspect of service in this America that I talked about, even fraught with all those problems and difficulties, that I also need to say before I yield back any time I have remaining, and that is the relationships, the personal relationships that we develop in here and the desire to always want to believe in the best of other people. I looked at the gentleman from Missouri, Harold Volkmer, go through the agony of watching his wife, die of cancer over a sustained period of time. I have talked to Members on both sides of the aisle about the birth of a child, or a wedding, or the ability to get a child through college, or the need just to find a way to get away from the day-to-day agonies of the job and to be people again. I would hope that as we all come to grips with what we do in this institution, that we recognize that as individuals and as Americans, aside from party affiliation, it really is what we do between that birth date and that death date that will determine our worth as human beings.

Mr. MFUME. I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I know I am out of time.

Mr. MFUME. I thank the Chair for his generosity, and I promise I will not use all of that, because despite the best wishes of some, I am still going to be around here for a few more weeks raising you know what. I do want to say, before sitting down that I believe that we have a golden opportunity, and certainly I do, heading up the NAACP, America's oldest and largest civil rights organization, to bring a sense of balance, to add to the dialog, to seek coalition, to give hope to our young people, to defy the odds, to put in place an apparatus for economic empowerment, to do away with some of the disparities in our society, to emphasize against educational excellence and individual responsibility, and to really provide a clear and consistent path that might be visible to other people. So I welcome that task and I thank all of my colleagues who I have served with, for their friendship over the years, for their counsel, for their ability to engage in debate on those principal issues that they believed in, but most of all for being a part of what I consider to be the greatest institution of American Government, and that is the House of the people.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, let us, if we might, try to set the record straight on a couple of aspects of this bill that are pretty much irrefutable. This bill eliminates national service as we know it in this country, never to occur again. It eliminates community development financial institutions. It decimates the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to do what it has set out to do, whether it is Superfund cleanup or rewarding polluters, as this bill does, it is bad news for the EPA, for the environment and for Americans no matter where they may be. And it goes so far, it cuts the EPA by 20 percent. Some critics are upset because some of us have raised the question about veterans and are arguing, well, veterans are concerned about a balanced budget. Every veteran I know is, but they are also concerned about knowing that they will have someplace safe to take care of them in their old age. We were not worried about offsets when we were sending them into World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. We should not be worried now except to say that we have an obligation to veterans that goes beyond just maintaining the funding. We cut 60 percent in construction facilities alone and that adversely affects veterans no matter who they are or where they are. Finally the bill reduces funding for housing by 20 percent. It takes all of the things that many of us have worked for on both sides of the aisle under the name of a balanced budget and eliminates them by saying, this is what we have to do. Conscience tells me what we have to do is to reorder priorities. In doing that, we will find other ways to take care of the balanced budget, but not by decimating the EPA, by doing away with housing throughout this country and housing programs, and by severely hurting veterans who all across this Nation are looking for decent, adequate veterans care and a right to believe that this country and this Congress on December 7, Pearl Harbor day, have their best interests in mind. It is [[Page H 14193]] a bad bill. In fact, it is a disaster. I would urge its defeat.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which was initially brought to the attention of this House by my good friend, the late Congressman Mickey Leland. This legislation seeks to amend the Second Morrill Act which contains the unconstitutional separate but equal doctrine. The obsolete language that this bill seeks to delete permitted racial segregation in agricultural and mechanic arts colleges that were funded by the Agricultural College Act of 1890, or as it is more commonly known the Second Morrill Act. However, this legislation would not affect the continued funding of any institutions which were established by the act. The Second Morrill Act authorizes Federal funds for the support of colleges to teach agriculture and mechanic arts in the States and territories. Congress stipulated in the act that funds authorized by the act may not be used for colleges which made ``a distinction of race or color in the admission of students.'' However, in the 1890's, many States either provided no education for black students or educated them in schools separate from white students. Therefore, the act allowed for the ``establishment and maintenance of such colleges separately for white and colored students'' and ``for a just and equitable division of the fund . . . between one college for white students and one institution for colored students.'' This language, which remains in the U.S. Code, stirs up memories from one of the most troubling chapters in our Nation's history. Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court decisions in Brown versus Board of Education and Bolling versus Sharp rendered the language meaningless. Although the law may be moot, the fact that it remains on the books is an affront to all African-Americans. The continued presence of the language in the U.S. Code contradicts our national policy against racial segregation and serves no valid function. The deletion of the language is long overdue. I sincerely hope that the committees of jurisdiction will act quickly on this measure and that enactment will be forthcoming.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute one of our Capitol Police Officers, a decorated soldier and a constituent of mine. James T. Martin of Catonsville died of cancer on November 27, 1995. He was born in Newberry, SC; the son of Ida L. Martin and the late Frank Martin. Mr. Martin left Newberry and enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in 1948 and retired as a master sergeant in 1969. While serving during the Korean war, Mr. Martin was decorated with the Soldiers Medal for Valor, the Korean Service Medal, the Good Conduct Medal and the United Nations Medal. Upon his retirement from the U.S. Air Force, Mr. Martin joined the U.S. Capitol Police Force, a branch of the House of Representatives and completed his second career serving as a sergeant and retired after 22 years. Mr. Martin was an active member of St. Josephs Monastery Paris and was engaged in a number of organizations, including the Glad Men of Song, the VFW and the American Legion. Mr. Martin is survived by his wife Regina T. Martin, four daughters, Theresa, Bridghe, Eileen, and Patricia, one brother and three sisters. He is also survived by 3 granddaughters and 11 grandsons. Because of his service and dedication to our country, to the House of Representatives and to his family, I stand today to pay tribute to James T. Martin.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise in absolute opposition to this conference report. I urge Members at the conclusions of this debate to soundly defeat it.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the same. The bill before us represents bad policy; it is bad for America on several fronts, and I frankly fear for the future of our Nation should this legislation become law. Supporters of this legislation are likely to talk about the future. They will say that over the next 7 years this bill will lead us toward a balance budget, and that they are doing this for their children and grandchildren. Yet what kind of a world will these future generations be inheriting? They will be living among seniors who do not receive adequate medical care or enough income to survive, despite having worked all their lives. They will be surrounded by under-educated people, who were bought up in public schools that were plagued by drugs and violence and out-of- date books. Most of these people will then be relegated to menial jobs because they cannot afford a college education. Everwhere they look, there will be whole families without adequate housing and without adequate help. Entire communities will be subject to decimation by crime, the lack of viable businesses, and by abject poverty. Mr. Chairman, if this bill becomes law our children and grandchildren will be living in a world where hard work is not rewarded unless it reaps more than $100,000 per year. This bill is rife with problems. In almost every area that this bill touches, it has the potential to wreak havoc on millions of Americans. To add insult to injury--and there will be injury to millions of this Nation's most vulnerable citizens--this bill then gives aid and comfort to those who need it the least. Let us look at just two unrelated areas which demonstrate the pain that this bill will inflict on millions of hard working Americans--the provisions addressing Federal employees and those addressing the Community Reinvestment Act. Under this bill, Federal employees' contributions to their Federal retirement system will be increased and their cost-of-living adjustments will be delayed. In other words, Federal employees will be paying more and receiving less under this plan. On another issue, this bill dilutes the effectiveness of the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA], which has been essential in past years in assuring that banks return some of the money they earn to the communities in which they are located. Through several provisions, this bill effectively exempts close to 90 percent of the banks and thrifts from CRA coverage. The bill also eliminates the sole enforcement mechanism in CRA. While these two issues may not appear to be related, they are both in this bill and they are demonstrative of the destructiveness this legislation will cause to average Americans. While I will not claim that this Congress under Democratic rule was able to resolve all of this Nation's problems, at lest we attempted to address them. This bill is simply saying to the old, the infirm, the middle class, the working poor, the students, and the children, that Congress no longer cares about their pain. With this bill, we are saying that Congress has new priorities, and the average American is not one of them. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 117 and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. While H.R. 117 does not break any new ground in terms of what a public housing authority can do to ensure the security and happiness of its senior residents, it does clarify the intent of Congress in this area. Furthermore, H.R. 117 is a good example of Members from both sides of the aisle working together to produce solid, fair legislation. It is clear that the law allowing disabled people into senior-only public housing, while extremely well intentioned, has led to problems. And, while we do not want to say that all handicapped people should be excluded from senior-only housing, it is clear that we should enable public housing authorities [PHA's] to make and enforce policies that ensure the rights of all senior citizens to pursue a safe and peaceful existence. H.R. 117 does, I believe, a good job of clarifying that the PHA's do have the power they need while at the same time ensuring that they cannot and should not use this law to act in a capricious or arbitrary manner. As originally brought before the full Banking Committee, H.R. 117 contained some language that concerned me. Amendments which were adopted by Mr. Lazio and Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Flake and Ms. Waters, Mr. Ney and Mr. Weller, and Mrs. Roukema and myself, however, improved the bill considerably and eased many of my concerns. In the case of my amendment, I had concerns that by explicitly stating that PHA's could evict a person for disruptive or illegal behavior by others in their household or guests ``regardless of whether the resident had actual knowledge of such activity'' would provide disingenuous PHA's with too much authority to follow their own agendas. It would be wrong, for example, for a grandmother to be put out into the street because a grandson sold drugs from the apartment once, if it was done without her knowledge. At the same time, I do not believe that a claim of ignorance, especially when it is false, should absolve a person of all responsibility. For this reason, I feel comfortable that the language which is contained in the amendment offered today by Chairman Leach, which reflects the agreement between myself and Chairman Lazio, will allow a PHA to evict problem tenants while at the same time protecting the rights of the truly innocent. I believe that the legislation before us, which reflects the changes adopted in committee, is a good bill which will, hopefully, provide PHA's [[Page H 10660]] with more clarity as to what they can do to cope with the problems facing their senior populations. The amendments accepted in committee were not compromises; rather I would view them as improvements. All of them addressed issues that we all felt were important, regardless of our party affiliation. In this vein, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the Banking Committee, especially Chairman Lazio, and their staff for their cooperation on this matter. While, as I said earlier, I had some concerns that in a few isolated cases the original text gave the PHA's too much discretion, Chairman Lazio and his staff worked hard to address my concerns and in the end I feel that we arrived at a product that is satisfactory to all involved. I am especially pleased to see this situation addressed by this Congress as it is a problem in Baltimore City. Since the 1988 change in regulations there have been several--too many, in fact--incidents in which the peace or safety of seniors living in public housing has been threatened. While Baltimore's PHA has taken steps to alleviate the problem, I understand that there are concerns as to whether or not such actions are legal. I hope that this bill will alleviate the city's concerns. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it. Our seniors deserve to live in peace and safety.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act. This bill makes the most sweeping changes in the Medicare Program since its establishment in 1965. Since assuming control of Congress this January, House and Senate Republicans have been pushing for passage of the deepest package of Medicare cuts in the program's 30-year history. These changes will increase the cost of Medicare to the average senior citizen by nearly $1,000 and force many to give up their own doctors. According to the American Association of Retired Persons, the Republican Medicare cuts would be ``the end of Medicare as we know it.'' There is much in the bill that concerns me and my constituents. However, the provisions of this bill to change nursing home standards have raised the ire of many others. H.R. 2425 repeals current federal standards for nursing homes participating in the Medicare Program and replaces them with a requirement that nursing homes be State certified. Many of my elderly constituents and their families recall the days when some nursing homes were little more than abusive prisons for America's seniors. They are not impressed by this so-called preservation effort. Why the assault on Medicare? Why propose deep and potentially devastating cuts in a program that is a contract between Government and seniors who have paid into the program all their lives? Some Republicans will say that they are trying to save the program from bankruptcy. Others will say they need to raid Medicare to balance the budget (although at the same time they are proposing huge tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans). What are the real answers? In understanding this latest attack on Medicare, I believe it is important to look beyond the latest conservative rhetoric about Medicare and examine the record instead. The fact is, since the 1950's, the GOP has consistently opposed even the creation of Medicare. Many of the party's prominent leaders voted against Medicare when it was first established in 1965. And current party leaders have repeatedly attacked Medicare and Social Security. If the Republican Party had been in the majority in 1965, Medicare simply would not exist. A full 93 percent of House Republicans voted against Medicare when it was introduced. In fact, the Republicans voted overwhelmingly against the creation of Medicare on three other occasions in the early 1960's. Their arguments were extreme then and they're extreme now. In 1965 they called Medicare ``socialized medicine'' and claimed it would ``impair the quality of health care, retard the advancement of medicine and displace private insurance.'' Nevertheless, Medicare passed, and for many years was widely hailed, even by Republicans, as a triumph of government. Despite the doomsday predictions 30 years ago, Medicare has dramatically improved the health and welfare of American seniors and ensured that the elderly will never again have to choose between health care and food or rent. Ironically, one of the reasons we even have a debate about reforming Medicare is because of its profound success. Americans are living longer and more productive lives. That means many more reach an age where greater health problems can emerge. We should not use the success of Medicare as a reason to recklessly cut the program. The Medicare Preservation Act being voted on today does not preserve Medicare. Rather, it will violate the compact made with American's elderly over 30 years ago. This bill will push patients into managed care; provide obstacles for Medicare beneficiaries to find a physician willing to provide them care because of lower reimbursement rates; double Part B premiums for seniors living on a fixed income by the year 2002; close inner-city and rural hospitals which are already on the brink of bankruptcy and give a few bad doctors an open license to provide shoddy treatment since patients would no longer be able to rely on the court system for redress. Additionally this bill would repeal balance billing requirements for some categories of beneficiaries; encourage doctors to perform unnecessary tests--increasing overall health care costs--and allow them to refer patients to facilities they have a financial stake in; and increase costs by allowing healthier, younger seniors to opt out of Medicare through Medical Savings Accounts while leaving sicker and older patients in traditional Medicare. The Republican cuts in Medicare are misguided and faulty. They go way beyond what is reasonable or necessary to maintain the solvency of the program. And when you strip away the rhetoric, all that remains is a huge tax break for the wealthy. They need a way to pay for their trickle-down tax break, and they believe they can pull it out of the pockets of [[Page H 10384]] struggling seniors. America's seniors were told that their deepest beliefs in fairness, personal responsibility, social duty and contribution to society would be rewarded if they trusted Congress with their health care. Now Congress is using Medicare cuts to pay for a tax break for the wealthy. Despite the feel-good rhetoric, the reality is that Medicare has been moved into the bulls-eye of the GOP target for massive cuts. When you look at the shotgun of this crew and the other targets of the conservatives--student aid, summer jobs, Federal workers--it looks less like responsible budget cutting and more like a drive-by shooting.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, today we vote on legislation which would disapprove the U.S. Sentencing Commission's guideline amendments regarding the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. When Congress created the Sentencing Commission in 1984, it entrusted an independent body with the difficult task of establishing and making recommendations regarding guidelines for Federal crimes. During deliberations on last year's crime bill, Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to study the sentencing disparity in cocaine. Under current law, individuals who are convicted of crack cocaine offenses are subject to penalties that are 100 times more severe than those convicted of powder cocaine offenses. In other words, a defendant who sells 5 grams of crack cocaine will receive the same 5-year [[Page H 10272]] mandatory minimum sentence as a defendant who sells 500 grams of powdered cocaine. In addition, possession of 5 grams of crack results in the imposition of the 5-year penalty, but possession of 5 grams of powdered cocaine will only result in a 1-year maximum sentence. Earlier this year, the Commission produced a report in which it strongly supported the elimination of the current 100 to 1 ratio. Despite an indepth study that took into consideration empirical and scientific data, this House now seeks to dismiss the Commission's recommendations and thereby allow the sentencing disparity to continue. Passage of this bill would mark the first time that the Congress has rejected the guideline amendments proposed by the Sentencing Commission. Americans have looked upon the judicial system with increasing mistrust partly in light of the controversy surrounding the disparity in setencing involving cocaine. The findings of the Commission indicate that African-Americans accounted for 88.3 percent of Federal crack cocaine trafficking convictions in 1993, Hispanics 7.1 percent and whites 4.1 percent. The low cost of crack cocaine makes it the drug of choice for poorer Americans, many of whom are African-American. The Commission found that ``the high percentage of blacks convicted of crack cocaine offenses is a matter of great concern . . . Penalties clearly must be neutral on their face and by design.'' The presence of such a racial disparity calls into question the integrity of a judicial system that premises itself on fairness. The harshness of the penalty ratio has been shown to be unfairly focused upon low-level drug dealers and addicts rather than cartels, smugglers, and large scale traffickers who deal in powder cocaine before it is converted into crack for sale at the street level. These problems are further aggravated by law enforcement practices wherein minority areas are targeted. Earlier this year, a Federal appeals court dismissed a case against four African-Americans accused of selling crack because the Government refused to provide evidence that might determine if the defendants had been unfairly targeted. Joining the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Reinhardt stated that the statistics compiled by the Federal public defender's office raised ``a strong inference of invidious discrimination'' against minorities. Conversely, not a single white has been convicted of a crack cocaine offense in Federal courts serving Los Angeles and its surrounding counties since Congress enacted its mandatory sentences for crack dealers in 1986. Rather, these defendants are prosecuted in State courts where sentences are far less. In their dissenting opinion, Democrats on the Committee on the Judiciary properly expressed concern in stating that ``the existence of such a facially flawed sentencing scheme undermines the credibility of our entire system of Federal laws and might invite discriminatory behavior by Federal law enforcement personnel.'' According to research conducted by the Sentencing Commission, mandatory minimum penalties for powder and crack cocaine have not been uniformly applied. This is due in large part to lower State penalties for crack. Thus the decision to prosecute in Federal rather than State court can have a tremendous impact on an individual sentence. As such, the choice of forum is a significant factor in determining sentence length. The problems that have arisen with the current cocaine sentencing disparity highlight the basic problem with mandatory minimum sentencing laws. These laws were designed as an added crime deterrent and were intended to reduce sentencing disparity by eliminating the discretion that judges and parole boards exercise. However, mandatory minimum sentences prevent judges from making the time fit the crime. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and support the findings of the U.S. Sentencing Commission which examined this issue closely and opposed the current penalty scheme.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, my purpose today is to bring to my colleagues' attention an article that was published in the October 7, 1995 edition of The Washington Post. The State of Maryland has developed a program to end the problem of welfare dependency. The success of the effort has been stymied by the current squeeze on welfare. This article from the Washington Post sheds light on the problem of Congress' rush to seek reform without exploring all reasonable options. Mr. Speaker, welfare reform should be strong on work, not strong- arming children. [From the Washington Post, October 7, 1995] Federal Cuts Put Squeeze On Welfare (By Michael Abramowitz) Maryland may have to scrap its pilot welfare program and reduce basic grants to welfare recipients as the result of expected federal spending cuts, a task force of top state officials and welfare advocates has concluded. Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D) said yesterday in an interview that his aides are drawing up plans to cut $25 million to $50 million from the $650 million budget of the Department of Human Resources, which manages the state- federal welfare program in Maryland. That represents the state's best estimate of the immediate fiscal impact of the welfare overhaul plan approved in both houses of Congress. ``We've got to move very quickly on all these [federal] losses,'' Glendening said. State officials said that they had not determined how the cuts will be allocated and that a decision could come by November. But a task force of legislators, Glendening aides, local social, service officials and advocacy groups has drafted a list of recommendations that include requiring welfare recipients to take any job offered and requiring other steps to keep people off welfare to begin with. Although the idea is not part of their formal recommendations, task force members said the state also was seriously considering trimming the basic monthly welfare grant, which is $373 a month for a family of three. That's already less than the $406 monthly payment people on welfare received before the General Assembly cut grants in 1991 and 1992. But the group's most controversial recommendation may be to drop the pilot welfare program scheduled to begin in April for 3,000 families in Prince George's and Anne [[Page E 1938]] Arundel counties and in Baltimore. Aides said Glendening had not endorsed any of the recommendations yet. Touted by state officials as a common-sense approach to the problem of welfare dependency, the pilot program would require participants to get a job or perform community service after three months on welfare. It also is designed to cushion the transition from welfare to work by providing more health and child care benefits for participants. Even though state officials said the plan ultimately would save money, it would cost about $6 million to implement over the next three years in the pilot jurisdictions and $250 million more to put in place statewide. The Clinton administration approved the pilot plan only two months ago. But the task force concluded that it may not be worth it to spend the money in the wake of welfare spending cuts that will reduce Maryland's federal funds by $200 million over the next five years. Instead, members said, the state simply should incorporate some of the less costly features of the pilot program statewide, such as the tougher work requirements. Del. Samuel I. Rosenberg (D-Baltimore), a task force member and one of the authors of the state's welfare reform bill, said the ``fiscal reality is that you can't do'' the pilot program. ``We're being asked to do more with less,'' he said. Like many other states, Maryland is engaged in furious last-minute deliberations over how to cope with the prospect of massive change in the federal-state welfare program. Both the House and the Senate have approved bills that would end the traditional federal guarantee of financial support to poor people who meet certain eligibility standards. Instead, the federal government would send federal money to the states in the form of block grants and give governors and state legislatures more discretion over how the money is spent. Both bills would cut millions from the funds states were expecting to receive from Washington. Virginia officials said yesterday that they are confident that they are in better shape than Maryland. For one thing, Virginia already has implemented its own welfare overhaul that is far broader than Maryland's. State officials have estimated that their plan will pare thousands from the welfare rolls, saving as much as $130 million over five years, or more than the Clinton administration's estimate of what Virginia stands to lose in the federal welfare overhaul.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the continuing resolution and to urge its swift enactment. This resolution, which I understand is a compromise worked out between the White House and the congressional Republican leadership, will allow the Government to continue to operate after the beginning of fiscal year 1996, and through November 13, 1995. This resolution will also mean that Federal employees will be allowed to continue to go to work and collect their paychecks. As the representative of tens of thousands of Federal employees, I can assure you that this resolution is welcomed news. And, although I support the resolution, I would like to take a minute to reflect on why I feel that we should really be doing more. We should be exploring possible options of ensuring that Federal employees are not put in the unenviable position of not knowing if they are going to have a job--or a paycheck--after October 1 every year. We may hear today that Federal employees are being used as ``pawns in the budget battle.'' While I agree that there does appear to be some merit to that accusation, it has always been my sense that in order to use a person or a group in that fashion, you must at least be aware of their existence. I am not convinced that the concerns of Federal employees are even being taken into account by the people who are leading the confrontation that may still result in furloughs. From the Republican leadership, we hear strong words about not backing down and allowing the ``train wreck'' to go forward. Yet I have not heard from one of these ``leaders'' about trying to help, or at least abate the impact of a shut down, on the people who would be most affected. Combine the threat of furloughs with the other proposals that have been floated this year which would have an adverse affect on Federal employees and the result is an unwarranted disrespect for the men and women who have chosen to work for the people of this Nation. Rather than place these dedicated people on a situation of constant uncertainty, we should be thanking them for their efforts on our behalf and providing them with the benefits and security that they deserve. There are Members, on both sides of the aisle, who have been working hard to try to ensure that Federal employees are not adversely affected by a Government-wide shut down. I have tried to contribute to these efforts and I certainly support them. I am hopeful that at some point in the very near future we will be successful and the budget problems that may exist between Congress and the White House do not result in sleepless nights and tension-filled days for Federal employees. It is the right, and indeed perhaps the duty, of politicians to stand up for what they believe in and to fight for their principles. Yet I would urge them to try to develop a means of ensuring that our hard- working Federal employees are not the innocent victims of their convictions. Until that time, I urge support of the continuing resolution and hope that my colleagues will join me in working towards its swift enactment.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, is it not parliamentary procedure that, when the time on one side has expired, the Chair acknowledges for recognition those seeking time on the other side?

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, if I might respectfully disagree with the Chair, the Chair's call for the culmination of the gentleman's time was so fast and the time that he recognized the other gentleman, that there were persons on this side that did not even know that the Chair was seeking other Members.