Kweisi Mfume

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I was detained in my congressional district in Baltimore today and thus forced to miss three record votes. Specifically, I was not present to record my vote on rollcall vote No. 636, on ordering the previous question; rollcall vote No. 637, the motion to recommit the conference report to H.R. 1854; and rollcall vote No. 638, on agreeing to the conference report to H.R. 1854. Had I been here I would have voted nay on rollcall vote No. 636, ordering the previous question; yea on rollcall vote No. 637, the motion to recommit the conference report; and nay on rollcall vote No. 638, on agreeing to the conference report.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1289 and H.R. 2062.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for offering this amendment which would correct the provision within H.R. 1555 that increases TV broadcast ownership. As you know, this amendment would limit to 35 percent the percentage of households nationwide that may be reached by TV stations owned by a single network. It also restores the cross-ownership limit which prohibits owners of local TV stations from owning a cable system in the same local market. However, I still have concerns about the problems facing radio ownership limits. H.R. 1555 would eliminate current FCC rules that limit national ownership of radio stations to 40 stations (20 AM and 20 FM) and which limits local ownership of radio stations to four (2 AM and 2 FM). All broadcast ownership limitations were instituted to ensure that the public does not receive its news and editorial programming from a select group that controls the Nation's airwaves. Rather, the present allocation scheme has allowed a diverse set of broadcast owners in each market and has fostered an assortment of news, public affairs and editorial programming. I fear that the elimination and relaxing of local ownership limits has the potential of deterring future minority participation. Currently, African-Americans own only 178 of the approximately 10,000 commercial radio stations operating in the country. The overall effect of this bill is to squeeze minorities, who usually own only one or two small stations, out of the industry. Repeal of ownership limitations will certainly make it more difficult for small and medium sized firms to grow. Consolidation will make it very difficult for prospective owners, particularly African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, to enter the industry. This bill unfairly benefits the large broadcast owners at the expense of the smaller companies. H.R. 1555 will allow media to consolidate in the hands of a few large companies creating an unhealthy concentration of power. While many argue that deregulation is the best means to bring forth competition, in this case, deregulation would actually decrease competition. While I would like to have seen current radio broadcast ownership limitations reinstated, I do, however, lend full support to the Markey amendment which would restore some of the limitations eliminated by this bill.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, most authorities now agree that the current number of cardiologists practicing in the United States is more than sufficient to meet the anticipated demand for cardiovascular care.\1\ However, even with this surplus, concerns persist with regard to the distribution of cardiologist over various practices roles (e.g., pediatric, clinical, interventional, research, etc.) and patient populations (e.g. identified by race, ethnicity, proximity to an urban center, etc.)., The harm in maldistribution over practice roles in easier to identify than the harm in maldistribution over patient populations. Furthermore, the maldistribution itself is easier to quantify and remedy in the former case than in the latter. Yet, just as we appreciate the need to correct the imbalance of cardiologist \2\, we must also recognize that the dearth of doctors in poor communities seriously affect the health status of African-Americans. Footnotes at the end of article. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Adarand v. Pena, 1995 U.S. Lexis 4037 (1995), the Supreme Court's most recent affirmative action ruling released on June 13, 1995, was a significant setback on the general issue of affirmative action, but it does not pose an insurmountable hurdle for federal programs such as those that would increase the number of Black cardiologists. Adarand held that affirmative action programs must meet a standard of ``strict scrutiny'' and must be ``narrowly tailored.'' The Supreme Court was careful not to suggest that affirmative action programs were unconstitutional. While heightened standard requires more of a direct relationship between the programs administered and previous racial discrimination, the lack of Black cardiologists in the Medical profession and its subsequent impact on African-Americans communities should be sufficient to meet this burden. African-Americans and the communities in which they live are typically underserved and the need for cardiovascular care greatly exceeds their proportion of the United States population. In fact, African-Americans have one of the highest rates of mortality from cardiovascular disease in the world. Significant intraracial, interracial, and ethnic differences in the incidence and management of cardiovascular disease have been repeatedly demonstrated. For instance, the prevalence of coronary heart disease, while similar for both African-American male and white men, is greater in African-American women than in white women.\3\ The prevalence, and severity of hypertension is substantially greater in Africa-Americans than in whites. Yet the causes of these disparities have never been sufficiently explained. Because cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in African-Americans, it is a pressing issue in the African-American community. Although there has recently been a steep nationwide decline in mortality from coronary heart disease and stroke, little of that much heralded improvement has trickled down to the African-American community. In fact, stroke mortality has increased in African-American men. While there is a strong public consensus that social status and income are corrected with improved health and longevity, Dr. John Thomas of Meharry Medical College found that the mortality and morbidity of African-American physicians mimic that of high school dropouts. He reports a wide death gap between African-American and white physicians with white physicians living almost 10 years longer than African-American physicians. Where African-Americans have benefitted from the decline in mortality, they have not done so in sufficient numbers to halt the widening of the gap between African-Americans and whites. If the mortality rate in African-Americans from all causes were reduced to that of white Americans, 60,000 fewer African Americans would die each year \4\. Cardiovascular disease accounts for more than 40 percent of the excess deaths in African American women and more than 20 percent of the excess deaths in African American men.\5\ Despite their disproportionate demand for health services, African Americans as a group do not receive sufficient cardiovascular care. They make fewer office visits for coronary disease than their white counterparts and are less likely to be seen by cardiovascular disease specialists \6\. Even when cost or insurance coverage is not an issue, African Americans receive fewer interventions that White Americans. The cardiovascular care that African Americans receive is insufficient for many reasons. African Americans communities tend to be poorer and underserved with regard to all services, medical services included. Perhaps, more importantly, many of the medical professionals who serve in such communities lack a meaningful understanding of the cultural factors which may distinguish their patients from the mainstream. Insight into a patient's routines, traditions, family structure, diet, stresses, and other factors which are largely culturally determined are key to developing a treatment plan that works for that patient. African-American patients may be wary of the medical establishment that has not responded appropriately to their needs. There are still physicians who have separate rooms for Africa American and White patients. This wariness may make them less likely to make routine nonemergency visits to the doctor, to follow a treatment plan, or to follow up with a specialist. This situation is of special concern in the field of cardiology because so much of cardiovascular health depends on early detection of ``silent'' signs, such as hypertension. Furthermore, patients with cardiovascular diseases are often called upon to endure the unpleasant or even painful side effects of medication or give up activities they enjoy in order to combat a health problem that is not causing them pain. So much of cardiovascular disease and its treatment seems counterintuitive that it has been the subject of a great deal of misinformation and home remedy. Crisis care of cardiovascular diseases is not a good option. African American cardiologists are the best hope for allaying many of these insufficiencies. The key reason is that many more African American doctors than other doctors locate their practices in socio- economically underserved areas \7\. A second reason which should not be overlooked is that African American cardiologists are more likely to have insight into the cultural differences in treating African Americans and are best situated to develop rapport with them. They are better able to instill confidence in their patients and thereby ensure their patients' compliance with treatment plans. An increase in the number of African American cardiologists will increase their positive effect. African American patients have shown that they will; go out of their way to receive care at the hands of African American practitioners, but all too often they do not have the choice. In most American cities with an African American population of at least 5%, patients do not have the option of receiving their care from an African American cardiologist. Consequently, 80% of the cardiovascular care that African Americans receive is provided by practitioners who are not African American. There are very few African American cardiologists. African Americans make up 11.2% of the U.S. population, but less than 3% of the U.S. physicians. There are approximately 15,000 board-certified cardiologists in the United States,\8\ of whom less than 300 are African-American. A mere 1.5% of cardiologists in training are African-American. The number of African American subspecialists is low for many of the same reasons that the number of Black professionals is generally low. The main reason is economics. As a group, African Americans have fewer financial resources than whites and so are less likely to have the luxury of pursuing subspeciality training. Their communities' need for their skills and their families' need for their earning power may push them into the work force earlier. By that reasoning, the proposed extension of training requirements from three to four years will weed out African American physicians even further from subspeciality training and Board certification. Often white males benefit from the assumption that they are honest, competent, and possessed of a work ethic where their African American counterparts do not. Although this imbalance is largely due to an unwillingness on the part of Americans and the media to recognize these attributes where they are displayed by African Americans, there is also unmistakably a crisis in the African American community. Whatever the reason, unacceptable levels of violence, crime, drug abuse, welfare dependence, and other social ills pervade a segment of the African American community. The odor of bad apples tempt a segment of the population to throw up their hands at the whole barrel. African American professionals have paid dearly for this state of affairs. Every member of the Association of Black Cardiologists has a story to tell about the perseverance it took to overcome these presumptions. A related reason for the low number of African American subspecialists is the self-perpetrating nature of prestige and connections. Only those who have the intangible benefits are in a position to acquire them. African Americans are less likely to have the benefit of role models and mentors to help them develop as black professionals and unlock career opportunities for them. The administrators who make the admissions and hiring decisions along a cardiologist's path to success remain [[Page E 1527]] mostly white, which is perhaps not as important as the fact that they also remain mostly beholden to the status quo. For many of them, there is a network of relatives, family friends, colleagues, fraternity brothers, and club members to be considered for these choice slots before an opening is made available to a minority. Furthermore, even where the old boy network is not abused, many administrators consider it beyond the scope of their task to consider the populations their beneficiaries will serve. They have little reason to seek out or invest in a candidate who is not like them. Furthermore, there are forces at work to make it more difficult to establish a health care practice. Cutbacks in government health funding and reimbursement levels threaten to destroy vital primary and speciality practices. Moreover, new emphasis on ``managed'' care is expected to reduce the demand for specialists in cardiology.\9\ As African Americans generally have practices with less than three partners, they are at greater risk under the new efficiency paradigm in health care delivery. In addition, African Americans, having only lately come into the subspecialties in significant numbers, may be more vulnerable to these forces than more established practices. The number of cardiologists in this country has been determined by factors that have little to do with patient demands, primarily the labor needs of the hospital community. Unlike some areas of the private sector, opportunities for training and a career in a medical specialty are kept artificially finite, as the bands on the electromagnetic spectrum. Medical schools, residency programs, fellowships, hospitals, and medical boards are ordained to dole out ever-scarcer privileges. The medical community must be free to compensate for the artificial scarcity. In order to ensure that underserved communities get the health care they need, we must bolster and protect the existing practices of primary and specialty care physicians in underserved communities and ensure that the number of African-American physicians continues to grow. We must protect and expand hard-won positions set aside for the medical training and career development of minorities, especially in the subspecialties. We must be uncompromising in our condemnation in our condemnation of the violent, anti-social, anti-intellectual, or irresponsible forces in the African-American community while supporting the institutions that are working. Just as medicine has moved from crisis management toward prevention as the best approach to public health, we must put our resources into halting the cycles of poverty, crime, and isolation. The best law enforcement policy has always been a sense of community. The best welfare program has always been education. We must target promising African-American students early, motivate them to pursue medicine, and give them financial support and mentoring at every stage of the career path. We must call on training and hiring institutions to take an active role in shaping the health care community in two key ways: First, to commit to compensating for the artificial barriers to African- Americans' success; second, to commit to ``casting a wider net'' in seeking out talented African-American. Over 50 percent of cardiology training programs have never admitted an African-American. If the United States to benefit from inclusion, it must do more than fight discrimination. It must lean against the exclusionary tilt that exists in training program. We must come to see no minority participation in cardiology division as a sign that such an exclusionary tilt is at work and call on those institutions to pursue their commitments with more vigor. African-American physicians are not supplicants at a rich man's door. Contrary to the beliefs of some, the choice is not between a highly qualified White candidate and a barely qualified African-American candidate. There is an ample cadre of talented African-American physicians yearning to be cardiologists. While there is no shortage of cardiologists in general, the disproportionate number of Black cardiologists will only be enhanced if programs which increase the number of minority cardiologists are abolished. If the Adarand case is used as fuel to feed fires of negative legislative action, it will re-enforce the stereotypes America needs to eliminate in order to move forward as a nation. A precise reading of Adarand verifies that under certain circumstances, the use of race or ethnicity as a decisional factor can be legally sustained. The extremely high mortality and morbidity rates of African-American more than establish the need for increased Black Cardiologists. Affirmative action programs can assist in reaching this goal. footnotes \1\ 19th Bethesda Conference: Trends in the practice of cardiology: Implications for manpower. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1988; 12(3):822-836 \2\ Last year the 25th Bethesda Conference of the American College of Cardiology pronounced that cardiac surgeons are in adequate supply, and that there is even an overabundance of invasive cardiologists. The college recommended that the number of trainees in adult cardiology be decreased. But in the same report, the ACC found that more pediatric cardiologists are needed if the underserved are to be brought into the mainstream of cardiac care. 25th Bethesda Conference: Future personnel needs for cardiovascular health care. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1944;24(2):;275-328. \3\ Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Black and Minority Health. Margaret Heckler (secretary): U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 1985. \4\ Ibid. \5\ Ibid. \6\ Ibid. \7\ Council on Graduate Medical Education Third Report. Improving access to health care through physician work force reform; directions for the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, October 1992. \8\ In 1992, there were 13,611 board-certified cardiologists in the United States. \9\ 25th Bethesda Conference: Future personnel needs for cardiovascular health care. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1994; 24 (2): 275-38.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I was, unfortunately, detained in my congressional district in Baltimore earlier today to attend the funeral of five family members who were tragically killed late last week. In my absence, I was forced to miss two record votes. Specifically, I was not present to record my vote on rollcall vote No. 563, motion to recommit the Bill H.R. 1942, and rollcall vote No. 564, final passage of H.R. 1942. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 563, the motion to recommit, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 564, final passage.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry about tomorrow's schedule, and was wondering if someone on the other side could perhaps enlighten me with respect to the order of the schedule, the chronological order. I assume that there will be a limited number of one-minutes, and I am trying to find out whether or not we will proceed from that point into consideration of the corrections bill, or will we resume where we are tonight dealing with the matter before us?

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, would there be a Member on the other side of the aisle who might be able to inform me?

Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. MFUME. There is a 1-hour debate then on the corrections bill?

Mr. MFUME. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, today we vote on legislation which would create a constitutional amendment that would authorize the Congress and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the Nation's flag. There are many dangers presented by this constitutional amendment, particularly to the first amendment right to free speech and free expression. In 1989, the Supreme Court handed down a decision which supported this argument. In effect, the decision reversed 48 State flag protection laws that were already on the books. In response to this decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 and deleted any reference to an individual's intent in mutilating the flag. However, in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional because it infringed on the first amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The statute was found to ``suppress[es] expression out of concern for its communicative impact.'' I agree that the burning of the American flag is disrespectful and I am often disgusted and disturbed by this act. I also feel compelled to protect the right of any American to express themselves as they see fit. In a democratic society, we have the enormous and sometimes difficult duty of protecting all forms of speech. House Joint Resolution 79 seeks to eliminate the already rare incidents of flag burning. From 1777 to 1989, there were only 45 incidents reported. Since the 1989 and 1990 Supreme Court decisions which deemed the flag-desecration statutes unconstitutional, there has been no outbreak of flag burning. In fact, fewer than 10 flag burning incidents have been reported since 1990. There is no flag burning problem sufficient to justify the radical step of amending the Constitution. The Supreme Court has been consistent in its rulings that the destruction of the flag is a political statement and political expression, which is exactly the kind of unpopular speech which the first amendment has always sought to protect. For example, in Street v. New York, Sidney Street publicly burned the American flag in protest of the shooting of civil rights activist James Meredith. He was convicted under a New York law which made it illegal to mutilate a flag or to show contempt for it in words or conduct. The Supreme Court overturned the decision and stated that the language was too broad because it punished not only Street's actions but his words as well. The amendment we debated today was written with such broad strokes that it fails to define desecration and fails to establish which flags or representations of the flag are to be protected. Such open-endedness and vague wording provides Congress and the States with enormous powers to criminalize a broad range of acts which fall short of flag burning or mutilation. This bill would amend the Bill of Rights and damage the first amendment's protection of freedom of expression. Prohibiting the right of expression is characteristic of a totalitarian society not a democracy such as ours. We must not erode the right of citizens to express their political opinions no matter how repugnant they may seem to some. There is only one thing more distressing than the desecration of this national symbol and that is the desecration of the principles which it represents. It is certainly a sad day in this country when we invest all of our beliefs into a single symbol and are willing to forgo real constitutional rights for it. The freedom of expression that is guaranteed to every citizen of the United States carries with it a great responsibility. Any attempts to curb that right must not be taken lightly. If so, our freedom of speech and expression becomes the price for adopting a constitutional amendment.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to take a hard look at its contents, as well as its long-term effects, prior to voting. One of the primary reasons for my opposition is the heartless, and indeed cruel, manner in which this bill treats the current employees of the House folding room, the House printers, and the various other programs that are being privatized, downsized, and eliminated. This bill tells them that while we have used, and many of us have appreciated, their services since coming to Congress, we are now casting them off, with really very little concern for their futures or their families. While I can appreciate the move to save the taxpayers' money--and I agree, wholeheartedly, that we need to begin to reduce the deficit by reviewing spending on ourselves--I have concerns that this is a short- term fix that in the long run may not produce any fiscal savings. As long as Members send out districtwide constituent communications, such as newsletters, we will need the services currently provided by the folding room. While I recognize that the House Oversight Committee has estimated that closing the folding room will save money, I am skeptical, to say the least, that the amount estimated will ever be realized. Representatives of Washington-area companies that provide mail processing services have said that they can ``* * * undercut the upper end of the estimate of the folding room costs.'' Would it not make sense, then, to also look at how we can keep the folding room costs down to the lower end of the current estimates, and perhaps save the taxpayers money by keeping the job in-house? To my knowledge no such study, on how to improve the current operations, has been performed. Finally, I am also curious as to why we are rushing into this matter. As many of us know, the Congressional Accountability Act, which would provide the employees of the folding room with the rights which are afforded to people in the private sector who are facing layoffs, will not be in place until the end of this year. It is my understanding that many of the folding room employees will not even be able to apply for retraining under the JTPA for Dislocated Workers program. This is a shame. In short, I have concerns that this legislation is wreaking havoc with people's lives for the sake of a quick, and perhaps ultimately expensive, political hit. I hope that the Members will take the time to review their actions before voting. The actions of this House have already ruined the reputations of many fine people. Passage of this bill may, very well, ruin their lives. I urge my colleagues to review the costs of this bill in light of the questionable savings.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I was, unfortunately, detained in my congressional district in Baltimore earlier today and thus forced to miss two record votes. Specifically, I was not present to record my vote on roll call vote number 380, approving the previous day's journal, and roll call vote number 381, the Markey amendment. Had I been here I would have voted yea on roll call vote number 380 and yea on roll call vote number 381.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor an individual who has demonstrated talent and ambition at a very early age. His name is Camara Yero Kambon, which means ``teacher, warrior, of the people,'' his creative aptitude and musical gifts appear endless. Camara has a wide variety of musical interest and ability. Whether he is mastering the keyboard to produce an urban contemporary sound or melodically soothing you with a classical or jazz rendition, Camara always plays with poise and passion. As a native of Baltimore, he began his musical career at the age of 3, when he learned to play the piano under the instruction of Odell Wilson of Delwar Studios. At 10, he was awarded a scholarship to attend the Peabody Preparatory of Music. His early focus was exclusively on classical and jazz piano but his instructors saw in him an endless energy and inexhaustible talent. Little did they know that he was also to become a perfectionist. Camara has explored rhythm and blues, jazz, fusion, house music, classical, and straight ahead jazz, but for the past few years he has worked on developing his own new and novel sound. His abilities have also been acclaimed in the numerous film scores he has helped produce, including several PBS documentaries and projects for Boston University, Cornell University, Blackside Film & Video, Inc., and most recently the film scores for, ``Malcolm X: Make it Plain'' and ``Frederick Douglass: When the Lion Wrote History.'' His talents have earned him several scholarships over the years, including the Eubie Blake Scholarship, the Hilton Head Jazz Society Scholarship, the Boston Jazz Society Scholarship for Jazz Performance, the Berklee College of Music Merit Scholarship, and the Jesse Stone Scholarship. In the process of perfecting his sound he has compiled numerous awards for his hard work. He won the Emmanuel Zembelli Award for Classical Performance. He was a finalist in the ASCAP Young Composers Competition and the National Guild of Composers Competition. In 1991, he came in first place at the NAACP Act-So National Competition for music composition and won first place for contemporary music. He also won second place for music composition at the 1990 competition. In addition to the impressive array of awards, scholarships, and competitions, Camara has performed with some of music's most distinguished artists: Dizzy Gillespie, Gary Bartz, Phil Wilson, Chuck Rainey, Dennis Chambers, and Giovanni Hidalgo to name a few. Outside of his music, Camara finds it absolutely essential to develop himself as a role model for younger people. While others have continued to praise him as a musical prodigy, Camara hasn't forgotten his commitment to others. Camara's mother, Anana, has sacrificed over the years in order to see both her children's talents flourish. She has never failed to encourage, support, and share in the growth and development of her children. Camara probably wouldn't have had the same opportunity to develop his gifts if it were not for his mother's selflessness and dedication to him. This is a young man to watch, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt that Camara's greatest artistic abilities have yet to be discovered. As he graduates this month from the Berklee College of Music in Boston I want to pay tribute to his numerous achievements and thank him for presenting his many talents with love and dedication. Our Nation and its people join the citizens of Baltimore in congratulating Camara Kambon and wishing him continued success.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, get ready, because after 4 months of blue smoke and mirrors, the Republican budget proposal is getting ready to pick your pockets. It gives a new meaning to the term ``out of luck.'' If your are on Medicaid or Medicare, you are now out of luck. If you receive unemployment benefits, you are out of luck. If you happen to be a college student or the parent of a college student, you, too, are out of luck. If you believe in the importance of the National Endowment for the Humanities or the National Endowment for the Arts or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, under the Republican budget proposal, you are out of luck. It gives tax breaks to the wealthy and gets away from the whole notion of trying to do anything about corporate welfare. Spends more money on weapons during a time of peace and plays games under the guise of balancing the budget. We were given the task to balance the budget also and we have one we believe that is more humane, more dedicated to principle, more honest, more equitably distributed and more, quite frankly, American in many respects because it does not do unto people things that we would not have done to us. And so I would ask Members of this body, as you watch this debate and as you come to the floor to cast this vote, recognize that we are talking about years of fiscal policy and ask yourself, when you juxtapose these two balanced budget amendments, which one comes the closest to where the American people do? We believe that the proposal offered by the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from New York that has the support of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, meets that challenge. And we are prepared to debate that issue with anybody from the other side on any day and in this debate at any time. I urge support of this and rejection of the so-called balanced budget amendment by the Republicans.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I was, unfortunately, required to attend to business in my congressional district in Baltimore this evening and thus forced to miss two record votes. Specifically, I was not present to record my vote on rollcall vote No. 325, the amendment offered by Mr. Visclosky of Indiana and rollcall vote No. 326, the amendment offered by Mr. Laughlin of Texas to the Emerson of Missouri amendment. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 325 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 326.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues, as well as the American public, that the week beginning April 30 is National Small Business Week, and I would like to take this opportunity to discuss small and minority-owned businesses and the role they play in our economy. Not all Americans realize how important small businesses are to our national economy. Although the definition of a small business is sometimes varied, the fact of the matter is that firms with less than 100 employees account for more than 98 percent of the Nation's enterprises. Furthermore, between September 1991 and September 1992, jobs in small business dominated industries increased by 177,700 which helped to offset the 400,000 job decrease in industries dominated by large businesses. While nonminority men still own the lion's share of small businesses and still represent the largest number of sales, minority- and women- owned businesses are increasing in size and number. Minority-owned businesses have increased from approximately 380,000 in 1969 to 1.5 million today. Despite this increase, however, minorities are still not fairly represented in small business ownership; while minorities comprise nearly 20 percent of the total U.S. population, they own less than 9 pecent of American businesses. In addition to playing an important role in the national economy, minority- and women-owned businesses also tend to play important roles in their communities. In many poor, urban communities, minority-owned businesses are often the only commercial establishments available. Furthermore, as was demonstrated in a recent Department of labor study, minority- and women-owned businesses are more likely to hire minorities and women than are businesses owned by nonminority men. In short, minority- and women-owned labor market that otherwise may be left empty. Despite the importance of small and minority-owned businesses, they nevertheless face numerous problems. The primary obstacle facing most small businesses, regardless of their ownership, is the lack of capital. Despite numerous creative programs at the Federal, State, and local levels, the fact remains that capital is hard to come by. This is especially true of minority- and women-owned businesses. In addition to the fact that minorities and women often lack the business connections and record of experience that has been so useful to many nonminority men in establishing their businesses, discrimination unfortunately also remains a problem. Further, many banks or lending institutions are hesitant to lend capital to minorities or women, especially if their business is going to be based in a poor, inner-city neighborhood. As a member of the Small Business Committee as well as the Banking and Financial Service Committee, I am committed to do what I can to see that small and minority-owned businesses are provided with the tools necessary to succeed. Small and specifically, minority-owned businesses are too important to our national economy and our communities to allow them to falter. As we salute Small Business Week, I hope we will move forward with an agenda that supports the growth and development of small and minority-owned businesses.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I want to submit for the Record a column prepared by the chairperson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights [LCCR], Dr. Dorothy Height. This column speaks to the endless contributions that this organization's executive director, Ralph G. Neas, has made over the years. Ralph is completing his 14-year tenure at the helm of the LCCR and I wanted to take this time to share this article which reflects upon his contributions to equal opportunity for all Americans. The Neas Years at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Last summer, Ralph G. Neas announced that he would be leaving as Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR)\1\ in the Spring of 1995. Much too soon that time has come. As Ralph completes his fourteen-year tenure at the helm of the Nation's oldest, largest, and most broadly-based coalition, it is an appropriate moment to reflect upon his extraordinary contributions to the cause of equal opportunity for all Americans and some of the reasons why he has earned his reputation as an effective leader, strategist, advocate, and coalition builder. \1\On May 3rd, at its Annual Dinner to be held at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill, the Leadership Conference will be celebrating its 45th Anniversary and presenting its Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award to Ralph G. Neas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- the bipartisan legislative successes Ralph Neas took over as Executive Director of the Leadership Conference, the legislative arm of the civil rights movement, on March 31, 1981, after eight years as a chief legislative assistant to Republican Senators Edward W. Brooke and Dave Durenberger. Ronald Reagan had just been sworn in as president. Senators Strom Thurmond and Orrin Hatch had just replaced Senators Edward Kennedy and Birch Bayh as chairs of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, respectively. The previous year, Senator Hatch had successfully filibustered to death the Leadership Conference's top legislative priority, the Fair Housing Act of 1980. Many feared that a similar fate awaited the Conference's top priority in the 97th Congress, the legislation to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was to be introduced in early April of 1981. No small wonder then that many friends of Ralph, who just two years earlier had been totally paralyzed, on a respirator, and near death in a Minneapolis hospital room, told him that this was not their idea of a brilliant career move. But Ralph believed that his professional training in the Senate, where he had been the senior staffer on civil rights issues, and his bout with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which had profoundly influenced his life, had prepared him for such a professional challenge. The situation in the Spring of 1981 demanded bipartisanship, creativity, pragmatism, and leadership. Ralph and his LCCR colleagues showed an abundance of these qualities during the arduous eighteen month campaign to enact the 1982 Voting Rights Act Extension. Many people argued that the time for federal control over local voting processes had ended. But LCCR advocates demonstrated a continuing need and their efforts helped pass the extension by votes of 389 to 24 in the House of Representatives and 85 to 8 in the Senate, leaving President Reagan with no choice but to sign the historic measure into law. That law not only extended the Voting Rights Act for 25 years, but also extended the Act's bilingual assistance provisions and overturned a 1980 Supreme Court decision by reinstating the results standard in the Voting Rights Act. The remarkable victory against great odds set the tone for the next fourteen years for LCCR. Indeed, the 1982 Voting Rights Act Extension campaign embodied several of Ralph's principal legislative theorems. Theorem number one is to always put together the strongest possible bipartisan bill that can be enacted into law. During the twelve years of the Reagan-Bush presidencies, that usually meant having at least two-thirds majorities in both Houses. Theorem number two is that any successful national legislative campaign must effectively integrate grassroots, Washington lobbying, and media strategies. If one component is absent, the legislative campaign is likely to fail. And third, it is essential that the coalition always remains cohesive and united, never allowing adversaries to successfully use the tactics of divide and conquer. If these basic principles are understood, then one can comprehend the success of the 1982 Voting Rights Act Extension and the legislative victories that followed. And there were many other LCCR legislative successes. No one could have predicted that more than two dozen LCCR legislative priorities would be enacted into law during Ralph's years at LCCR. In addition to the 1982 Voting Rights Act Extension, Ralph coordinated many of these legislative achievements for the Leadership Conference, including the: Civil Rights Act of 1991--Overturned eight Supreme Court decisions which had made it much more difficult for victims of discrimination to get into court and to prove discrimination (the first time Congress has ever overturned more than one Supreme Court decision at one time). It also codified the ``disparate impact'' standard. And it provided for the first time monetary damages for women, religious minorities who are victims of intentional job discrimination. Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)--Perhaps the most significant and dramatic improvement in civil rights law in two decades. Provided civil rights protections in employment, transportation, communications, and public accommodations for the 49 million Americans with disabilities. Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988--Provided for the first time an effective enforcement mechanism. Also prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities and discrimination against families with children. Japanese-American Redress Bill (1988)--Apologized to Japanese-Americans interned in prison camps in the United States during World War II and authorized $20,000 to each of those who are alive. Civil Rights Restoration Act--Congress overrode a presidential veto and overturned the 1984 Supreme Court Grove City decision. The Civil Rights Restoration Act restored the broad coverage of the four major civil rights laws that prohibit the federal funding of discrimination against minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and older Americans. The final passage votes on all these laws averaged 85% of both the House and the Senate. In recognition of that extraordinary bipartisan success, Senator Edward Kennedy has called Ralph ``the 101st Senator on Civil Rights.'' Ralph also managed the successful campaigns to preserve the Executive Order on Affirmative Action in 1985-1986 and to defeat the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. The Bork campaign was perhaps the most forceful statement of the determination of the coalition that the civil rights gains of three decades would not be rolled back. Other LCCR legislative priorities enacted into law over the past fourteen years include the Family & Medical Leave Act, the Motor Voter Bill, the South African Sanctions Legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1982, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994 (including Chapter One reform), the Martin Luther King Holiday Act, three disability measures which overturned Supreme Court decisions, the Age Discrimination in Employment Claims Assistance Act, the Gender Equity in Education Act, the Voting Accessibility for Disabled and Senior Citizens Act, the 1989 Minimum Wage Increase, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, and key provisions of the Economic Equity Act. Without question, the past decade and a half has been, legislatively, a bipartisan reaffirmation of civil rights laws and a bipartisan repudiation of the right-wing legal philosophy. Indeed, the right wing did not enact one major item on its regressive civil rights agenda during that time. The LCCR victories are even more remarkable when one considers that during this time two branches of government were hostile to civil rights. While the civil rights coalition and its congressional allies achieved considerable success, there was a serious downside to the Reagan-Bush years. We had to refight the civil rights battles that had been won during the 1960's and the 1970's. While these battles were won once again, Congress, the civil rights community, and the Nation had to devote an inordinate amount of time, energy and resources in waging these rearguard actions. Consequently, while the legal achievements of the past 30 years were preserved and in a number of instances, strengthened, the Nation by and large was unable to address the unfinished agenda of the civil rights movement--the quest for social and economic justice. For years, Ralph and his LCCR colleagues have been advocating that economic justice must be the civil rights coalition's top priority. Our legislative efforts should focus primarily in such issues as health care; affordable housing economic security, especially for women and children; child care; Head Start and other early educational opportunities; employment opportunity, including job creation and job training; and economic empowerment issues. Regrettably, just as this economic opportunity agenda seemed to be moving to the front of the legislative line, once again we may have to devote our energies to resisting efforts to dismantle the legislative achievement of the past several decades. While the battles will be hard fought, I remain confident that LCCR and its allies will once again defeat the efforts of the right wing, whether the issue be affirmative action or the economic security net for millions of Americans. Indeed, the same type of bipartisanship, creativity, and pragmatism that characterized our efforts in the 1980's and early 1990's will lead us to victory in the last half of the 1990's. the explosive institutional growth of the leadership conference While the legislative successes are critically important, it is also important to point out the institutional successes as well. the fourteen years Ralph has spent managing LCCR have been characterized by explosive growth. The budget of the Leadership Conference has grown seven-fold since 1981. And the Leadership Conference, always the nation's largest coalition, has added more than 50 new national organizations, during this time. Some of the new members are the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the Association of Junior Leagues, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the American Association of University Women, the Mexican American legal Defense and Education Fund, the Service Employees International Union, the Congress of National Black Churches, the American Nurses Association, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Families USA, the National PTA, People For The American Way, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the Human Rights Campaign Fund, Citizen Action, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. There are now 180 national organizations, with memberships totaling more than 50 million Americans, who belong to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Such institutional growth has meant also the expansion of LCCR priorities. In addition to minority, gender, religious, and age issues, the Leadership Conference has forged a consensus on disability and gay and lesbian civil rights issues. The exceptional growth of the coalition, while generating new challenges, has made the Leadership Conference stronger and even more effective. Throughout the years, Ralph has masterfully maintained unity among the diverse elements of the LCCR coalition. And through his work in LCCR, on Capitol Hill, with the Executive Branch, and with the business community, Ralph has earned respect for his ability to build bridges between disparate communities of interest and across the spectrum of political ideologies. Ralph has also managed the Leadership Conference Education Fund (LCEF), an independent organization that supports educational activities relevant to civil rights. Along with Karen McGill Arrington, LCEF's Deputy Director, he has supervised projects such as an award winning public service advertising campaign promoting tolerance and diversity; a children's anti-discrimination campaign; and the publication of books and reports on emerging civil rights issues. ralph's new career To say the least, things have not slowed down during Ralph's final months as LCCR's Executive Director. He was a key strategist in the successful effort to defeat the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. Presently, he is coordinating the campaign to save affirmative action. In addition, Ralph is lecturing one day per week on the legislative process at the University of Chicago Law School. In May, Ralph will embark on a new phase of his professional life. He will join the Washington law firm of Fox, Bennett, and Turner, where he will be Of Counsel. At the law firm, he will set up an affiliate, The Neas Group, which will provide strategic counseling to business and non-profit institutions. In addition, Ralph will be a Visiting Professor on a part-time basis at the Georgetown University Law Center where he will teach courses on the legislative process. Among the boards on which he will continue to serve are the Guillain-Barre Syndrome Foundation International, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and the Children's Charities Foundation. On behalf of everyone in the Leadership Conference, I want to express our deepest gratitude to Ralph and wish him well in all his new endeavors. We will miss the personal qualities that made Ralph so effective in his job--his cheerfulness and optimism even when facing great challenges, his patience in working with people to resolve differences within the coalition, and the respect he accorded to everyone's point of view. But we know that there will be many opportunities to work with him as we confront the challenges ahead of us. There is no question in my mind that Ralph will continue to be one of the drum majors for justice.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage, my sorrow, and my sincere condolences to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing and their families. The bombing 2 weeks ago was a heinous act of cowardice which will hopefully never be repeated. We are all shocked, as we should be, any time innocent lives are taken. Yet the magnitude of the devastation in Oklahoma City, as well as the massive number of innocent lives that were lost, has left many of us shaken to the core. The fact that the target of the bombing appears to be Federal employees makes this act even more reprehensive and repulsive to me. As many of my colleagues know, I represent roughly 35,000 Federal employees, many of whom are not just my constituents, but also my neighbors and my friends. It is my experience that Federal employees deserve our gratitude, they deserve our admiration, and they deserve our respect. They do not deserve to be terrorized. As most Americans know, Federal employees play an integral, albeit often invisible, role in our daily lives. Federal employees make sure that our senior citizens get their monthly Social Security checks and that our veterans get the care and treatment they need. Federal employees are responsible for printing out money and insuring it when we make deposits at a bank. Federal employees protect our borders and make sure the food we eat is safe. In short, Federal employees spend their days and often their nights making sure that our Government performs its duties. Furthermore, the American civil servant is perhaps the best Federal employee in the world. All one needs to do is travel abroad to see that American Federal employees are second to none in terms of their devotion to the job, their initiative, and their belief that they are serving their communities as well as their Nation. I am glad that we are taking the time today to discuss this tragedy and to let the American people know that the abhorrent behavior of a few irrational people in Oklahoma City is repulsive to us as well as our constituents. I am also glad that the American public, if they are following this debate, is aware that every Member of Congress, regardless of their ideology or party affiliation, condemns this act of terrorism. The irony of the attack on Oklahoma City is that according to the reports we have been receiving, the primary suspects refer to themselves as ``American patriots.'' This is offensive, not only to the American public, but especially to the people who, since the bombing, have proven themselves to be the true American patriots. I submit to you that the true American patriots are the men, women, and children who gave their lives in Oklahoma City, as well as their families whose loss we can only imagine; they are those who ministered to the lucky few who survived; and they are the people who are still trying to dig through the rubble to find any remaining victims. It is a true American patriot who, in the last 2 weeks, has made it clear that this act of terrorism is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Hoyer for taking the time today to call this special order to discuss Federal employees. In light of the recent bombing in Oklahoma City, I feel it is important that we take the time to reassure the Federal employees in Oklahoma, as well as throughout this Nation, that the vast majority of Americans recognize their contribution to this Nation and respect them for their efforts. We are all shocked, as we should be, any time innocent lives are taken. Yet the magnitude of the devastation in Oklahoma City, as well as the massive number of innocent lives that were lost, has left many of us shaken to the core. The fact that the target of the bombing appears to be Federal employees makes this act even more reprehensive and repulsive to me. As many of my colleagues know, I represent roughly 35,000 Federal employees, many of whom are not just my constituents, but also my neighbors and my friends. It is my experience that Federal employees deserve our gratitude, they deserve our admiration, and they deserve our respect. They do not deserve to be terrorized. As most Americans know, Federal employees play an integral, albeit often invisible, role in our daily lives. Federal employees make sure that our senior citizens get their monthly Social Security checks and that our veterans get the care and treatment they need. Federal employees are responsible for printing our money and insuring it when we make deposits at a bank. Federal employees protect our borders and make sure the food we eat is safe. In short, Federal employees spend their days and often their nights making sure that our Government performs its duties. Furthermore, the American civil servant is perhaps the best Federal employee in the world. All one needs to do is travel abroad to see that American Federal employees are second to none in terms of their devotion to the job, their initiative, and their belief that they are serving their communities as well as their Nation. In light of the Oklahoma City bombing, security at many Federal buildings across the Nation has been tightened. While this may prove to be a minor inconvenience to some employees as well as other Americans who may be visiting the buildings, it is worth it even if it only provides peace of mind. As I said earlier in my statement, Federal employees often perform thankless tasks that many of us take for granted. Despite their consistent performances, however, there are some in Congress who have insisted on using Federal employees as tools to try to balance the budget. In the past few years we have seen attacks on Federal employees' cost-of-living adjustments, their thrift savings plans, and their retirement age. Just recently the Republican Members of the House led a successful attack on the Federal employee pension system. As I said at that time, and I will say it again, they deserve better. I am glad that we are taking the time today to discuss this tragedy and to let the American people know that the abhorrent behavior of a few irrational people in Oklahoma City is repulsive to us as well as our constituents. To any Federal employees who may be listening to this special order, I hope that you will listen to what we have been saying: the majority of Americans appreciate what you do for us, and we respect you. The irony of the attack on Oklahoma City is that according to the reports we have been receiving, the primary suspects refer to themselves as ``American patriots.'' This is offensive, not only to the American public, but especially to the people who, since the bombing, have proven themselves to be the true American patriots. I submit to you that the true American patriots are the men, women, and children who gave their lives in Oklahoma City, as well as their families whose loss we can only imagine; they are those who ministered to the lucky few who survived; and they are the people who are still trying to dig through the rubble to find any remaining victims. It is a true American patriot who, in the last 2 weeks, has made it clear that this act of terrorism is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

Mr. MFUME

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

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

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening when there was an appeal of the ruling of the Chair; then there was from the other side of the aisle a request to table. Following that, there were questions raised on this side of the aisle about why is it so difficult to get a vote on an appeal of the ruling of the Chair? Now, I recognize that the majority has the right to lay it on the table. But if every time there is an appeal of the Chair, a motion is laid on the table and defeated because of the numerical advantage the majority has, it denies not just this side but the entire House an opportunity to vote on the ruling of the Chair. It is a legitimate appeal. The gentleman has legitimately appealed it and ought to, at least at some point in time, have a vote, so I would say to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that, while we will vote on the motion to table the appeal, that there may in fact be another motion to appeal the Chair, and another one after that, and, if that is what it is going to take to get one vote on the appeal of the Chair, then this side is prepared to do that. I would rather not do it. They will win in either case, but this side is just asking for a clean vote on the appeal of the Chair.

Mr. MFUME. I do not dispute that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. When is the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker? When is the appropriate time?