Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Scott amendment and wish to cite improvements in the District of Columbia as one good reason this amendment is minimally necessary if we are really going to pass this Ed-Flex bill at all. I hope we will not throw poor children into a power struggle to get money, Title I money, and that is what we are doing if we do not safeguard this flexibility, if you will, for those who need it more. If one asks any parent, any child, any teacher what could the Congress most do that would help you, I do not think they would say give us flexibility. I think they would say give us results. I implore my colleagues to look at the question: If we are freeing up funds, for what and for whom? No government spends money so well that we should want to give it a blank check. If my colleagues do not think much of the way the Federal Government spends money, I hope they do not believe that the State governments are paragons of fairness and of efficiency in spending money. The problem, as usual, is that one has to watch government and to make sure government spends its money wisely where it is most needed. We have had an extraordinary thing to happen in the District of Columbia, a turnaround in test scores. Every grade, test scores have significantly gone up. How do we do it? We did it by giving individual attention to the children most in need, because they are with children who are pulling down the test scores for everybody else. We did it by our Summer Stars program, where children were in classes of 15 children to 1 teacher. We do it now with a Saturday Stars program, with the children most in need going to school on Saturday for special attention. We have not spread the money all around the city and said that whether the children needed it or not, here is some money. We do not need to shoot in the dark, nor do we need to say, here is the bank, come get it, and whichever of them are most powerful, and we know who they are, they will be sure to get it. Moreover, we have learned something finally about education. Essentially we have learned that if a child is going to learn to read at all, they had better learn to read in those early grades. It becomes very, very difficult afterwards. Who is having trouble reading? It is the 35 percent that the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) would set aside money for. Mr. Chairman, there is a direct correlation between test scores and income. The evidence there is irrefutable. There is a direct correlation between income and IQ. So we do know that if income, which means access to education, goes up, that we do improve what happens to a child. The gap between the poor and the middle class is not going to erase itself by ``flexibility''. If we want that gap to be erased, then we have to make sure that at least some of the money is targeted where it is most needed. Why did we pass this bill in the middle of the war on poverty in the first place? We passed it because there were children who were not getting the attention that was needed. If we must pass this bill, and I have grave problems with this bill, it seems to me that the other side owes us some continuing guarantee that we are not simply blowing the lid off of Title I, telling poor children that they and their parents are now in the mix and may the most powerful and most outspoken win. We have an obligation to, at the very least, if we must pass this bill, to make certain that the flexibility that we all seek redounds especially to those most in need.

Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have just come from a markup where a unanimous vote was taken for an historic breakthrough similar to what this body achieved last year with the highway trust fund monies. We voted H.R. 1000 in the House Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to allow the gasoline taxes to go for what the taxpayers intended them for, and that is to pay for infrastructure improvements in our airports. We hope to break a stalemate that developed last year. My interest is very special, because the National Capital region, through which most Members travel, has been the subject of a special spotlight. The trust fund will undoubtedly do for other airports what it will do for National and for Dulles. For example, to triple the amounts that would be forthcoming for these two airports, if this bill passes. I do not need to remind Members that 25 million people come through these airports, many of them your own constituents, so you have surely the same kind of concern and interest I do, that these funds be released. Some of my colleagues may wonder why the new terminal is completed but the historic old terminal is as it was, and that is because our funds have been held up quite apart from the reauthorization but because National and Dulles have been caught in the slot and perimeter controversy; that is to say, in the controversy over how many takeoffs and landings will be there. Republican and Democrat, Maryland, Virginia and the District, we have stood side by side saying no more slots at National, no more slots, because despite economic benefits for the District which I would ordinarily be for, there are such significant safety hazards, insufferable noise and increased ground and air pollution that it made no sense to crowd overcrowded National. At the same time we would seriously hurt Dulles Airport which, instead of having its competitive advantage increased, would lose millions of dollars' worth of business. In our subcommittee, we reached a reasonable accommodation with the addition of only six slots, and those going at only two per hour for underserved airports with no increase in the perimeter, that is, the number of miles from Washington that can be traveled, so there will not be increased noise in our neighborhoods. Remember, we are talking about an airport that is essentially located in downtown Washington. We have also succeeded in getting $200 million released that was held up irrationally because in 1996 a link between getting nominations to the Metropolitan Airport Authority and the release of this money appeared in a bill. Our subcommittee delinks this so that when Members go to National Airport, they in fact will see the whole airport being renovated. We are to the point where if we do not proceed, the burden will be very great and we simply cannot wait much longer. The other body has a provision in its reauthorization of the FAA, that is what is here, H.R. 2000, they have in S. 82, the companion bill, an additional 48 slots. I just want to say to this body here and now that the one thing National cannot accept is 48 new slots. That is unacceptable special interest legislation. It is this body that some years ago instituted a slot rule because National is one of the most dangerous airports in the country to fly into. It is greatly overcrowded. We hope that we can reach out in accommodation with the other body. This is an airport for the world and for the country. In its wisdom, this body gave oversight of this airport to a metropolitan regional authority a few years ago. That authority has done a spectacular job. You can see it with your own eyes in the additions that are being made at Dulles, with the renovation of National Airport. Nevertheless, it is not a state of the art airport. It can never be a state of the art airport. We can make it more comfortable for people coming in. We must not overcrowd the air and make an airport that is now safe only because of a restriction on the number of slots unsafe because without thinking through this issue we have bowed to the Senate. I am sure that when we get into conference we can reach the kind of accommodation that all can live with. To the Members I say, welcome to National Airport, welcome to Dulles Airport. Let us pass H.R. 1000 and get them both finished and safe.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in recognizing WTOP Radio, our local and regional news station. WTOP is celebrating its 30th anniversary today, Tuesday March 9, 1999. I am sure the Members of the House and Senate listen to and are informed by WTOP. The station has been a prime source of information of news events and a pioneer in all-news radio. Without fail, WTOP usually gets there before we do and before anyone else does. From the mundane news of traffic and weather, to breaking news in the nation and around the world, WTOP is there for Washington, the region, and Members of the House and Senate. Mr. Speaker, I also must say a special word of tribute to Dave McConnell, who has been with WTOP for 34 years, even before it was an all-news station. Dave is one of the best reporters in any of the media in Washington. His amazing dexterity and extraordinary range have made him a one-man class reporter and commentator capable of speaking to any and every subject. Members listen to Dave's Today On the Hill broadcasts to find out what is really happening in Congress! Dave McConnell is only one of the best of an extraordinary group of first rate radio journalists at WTOP who keep the nation's capital truly informed. I ask the House to join me in expressing our gratitude to WTOP for the indispensable service the station performs as well as our congratulations for 30 years of a job very well done.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I reintroduce a bill to give the District of Columbia and the four insular areas a privilege the 50 states achieved last year: to choose a design for the reverse side of the quarter coin in order to commemorate our history as part of the United States. This program was authorized in the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act, which passed overwhelmingly in the 105th Congress. However, the bill unintentionally excluded the District of Columbia and the four territories. My bill would correct that oversight by extending the 10-year commemorative coin program for an additional year to include the District of Columbia and the four insular areas--American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. I objected to the exclusion of D.C. and the four territories when the original bill came to the House floor. In order not to impede passage of an otherwise worthy bill, however, I deferred my protest. In turn, Congressman Mike Castle, the former Chair of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, agreed to cosponsor my bill to allow the District and the four insular areas to participate. Although Mr. Castle no longer chairs the subcommittee, I want to thank him for his continued support. The new Chair, Spencer Bachus, has promised his full support and cooperation in helping with this effort, and he is an original cosponsor of the bill I reintroduce today. I also want to thank the Delegates from the four insular areas who have worked on this bill from the beginning. Although the residents of the District and the insular areas are American citizens, there are some differences between us and the states. However, qualification to be part of a program to redesign quarters to commemorate Members' home districts is surely not one of them. There is no legal or constitutional reason to exclude D.C. and the terrorities from this bill. Congress should be at great pains to avoid any appearance of treating the District and the insular areas as colonies. The Commemorative Coin Program may seem like a minor activity, but the ability to participate in this program is an important recognition to my constituents.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 120th anniversary of the establishment of Saint Luke Baptist Church. I am pleased to enter into the Record the church's inspiring history. Saint Luke Baptist Church was organized at Fort Totten, District of Columbia on March 23, 1879. It evolved from a series of religious meetings, held over a two year period in the home of Brother Solomon Kemp. Other original members were Brothers George Brooks, James Clark, Walker Clark, Frank Grinage, Sydney Walker, Anthony Walker, and Sister Lucy Jenkins. Reverend Shelton Miller was the spiritual leader of the group and became the first pastor. The group continued to worship in the home of Brother Kemp until the increase in membership made those quarters inadequate. The first church was erected at Shepherd Road and Magnolia Avenue, NW. As the membership continued to grow, it became necessary to move again. The new church was located at Shepherd Road and Georgia Avenue and thrived there for thirty-six years when the site was purchased to create what is now known as Missouri Avenue. In 1928 a new edifice was erected at Fourteenth and Peabody Streets NW. It is worthy of note that the three churches were built within a one mile radius and were constructed by Reverend Shelton Miller, church members, and friends. Saint Luke was a beacon of light in the Brightwood area and obtained its Charter of Incorporation on January 15, 1898. Saint Luke Baptist Church thrived under the inspired leadership of Reverend Shelton Miller (1879-1931), Reverend Arthur Chichester (1931- 48), and Reverend John Lucas (1948-72). Saint Luke's anointed and dynamic pastoral ministries now flourish under the Reverend Aubrey C. Lewis (1974-present). Church outreach programs are diverse and include all age groups. The Bible study program has evolved into the Saint Luke Bible Institute, the Senior Adult Ministry (SAM) provides entertaining cultural and spiritual activities for retired and senior members, church retreats provide opportunities for study and reflection, and the day care center is a source of employment for church members and community residents as well as a source of revenue for the church. The Youth and Young Adult Ministry (Y.Y.A.M.) provides Christian programs for the church's youngest age groups. In 1998, the outreach program expanded to a new level with the initiation of a Cable Television Ministry. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the many sacrifices, freely made, required to write each chapter of Saint Luke's rich history and to celebrate a spiritual and civic anchor in the Brightwood community.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I especially appreciate the leadership of the gentleman in bringing this matter forward at this time. The census controversy continues unabated. We are about to precipitate a constitutional crisis because we have got to have an accurate count. The reason we do not have one is because we are so late in getting our act together and we are keeping Census from doing what it is supposed to be doing because we cannot agree among ourselves on what that should be. One of the reasons we cannot agree is we do not know what that should be as a technical matter. We asked the court to decide the apportionment issue. It decided the apportionment issue. Census has said we abide by the apportionment issue when it comes to apportionment for this House. Census continues to have the same interest that every Member of this body, I would hope, has in an accurate census. If the way to get the most accurate census for the distribution of Federal funds and for offering the States data is to use sampling, then it seems to me that there is no further question about what should be done. With the apportionment issue settled, we are now at a point where, because sampling cannot be used, there will be the need for thousands and thousands more census takers than would otherwise have been the case. So we are deeply into having to spend money, which, according to all the experts, one might have spent if this were the turn of the last century, but not the turn of this century given what we know about sampling. This is a stalemate that must be broken. Offering an adjusted census after the traditional census has been taken, offering the States census figures adjusted by sampling is consistent with the Supreme Court decision. It is up to the States to decide how they do their own redistricting. The court has spoken as to our apportionment. The vested interest of us all in sampling techniques, to make sure that the maximum in Federal dollars becomes available, should need no elucidation. There is not a Member who has minorities or pockets of poor in his or her State or city which will not want the maximum feasible count. If that is by sampling, we would find it acceptable. The court has settled the toughest issue. Let us come together to make sure that we do not have another extended fight on how we are to count ourselves.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding, and I thank her for her hard work on this special order in tribute to a great American. It is, I think, quite appropriate that there should be a special order for Judge A. Leon Higginbotham here on this very Floor of the House of Representatives. He testified shortly before his death here in the House. His work for many Americans and their right to representation in this body after he left the bench also entitles his memory to be noted here. May I say that this is only one of many commemorations that are being held for Judge Higginbotham around the country. I myself was at such a memorial for him just 2 weeks ago at the Yale Law School. There are memorials at the several law schools where he taught, in addition to the many other things that he did in his life. There will also be a memorial here in the House sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus for Judge Higginbotham in April, and Members will receive notice of that memorial. We expect that his wife, herself a distinguished scholar, Dr. Evelyn Higginbotham, will be here. The man we commemorate on the Floor this afternoon is a man of rare talent and humanity, an extraordinary American, an astute scholar, a great Federal judge. I would like to say a few words about his role as a judge and his role as a scholar, as Members may come to talk about the role he played in lawsuits that were brought by Members in order to secure their places here as representatives in the House of Representatives. When Judge Higginbotham was appointed, initially named to the bench by President Kennedy, who then was assassinated, and had his name moved forward by President Johnson, he was one of the youngest men ever appointed to the bench, and one of the first African Americans ever appointed to the Federal bench. But I must tell the Members that this was not the kind of superlative that Judge Higginbotham was after in his life, the youngest or the blackest or the first of a kind. He spent his life being the best. He gave real meaning to a word we throw around without always being able to document it, the word ``excellence.'' Who is Leon Higginbotham? Leon Higginbotham was a poor black boy from Trenton, New Jersey, whose parents had no education, elementary school education, but whose life tells us that all you need is a mother and father who care deeply that you get an education in order to reach your own potential. He had deep racial experiences as a child, even in the north, as Trenton, New Jersey, is located. But in a real sense, his own dedication to racial equality goes far beyond the personal. It is very easy for me to be against racial segregation, because I went to segregated schools. That is hardly a principled position. It is a very important stimulus, and it is a very compelling way in which to understand racial segregation. But Judge Higginbotham understood equality in racial terms out of his own life, and understood and was dedicated to equality as a universal principle. He felt as deeply about equality for women, for example, as for African Americans. He did not believe that the word or the idea of equality could be segmented. It was my great privilege to know Judge Higginbotham up close when I was a young woman just coming to the bar, because I was privileged to be his first law clerk. Every student out of law school wants to clerk somewhere, and particularly for a Federal judge. But I have to tell the Members that there are Federal judges and there are Federal judges. The experience of clerking for an energetic, young, principled, brilliant Federal judge was a very important one for my own professional development. Judge Higginbotham had already been the first black to serve on the Federal Trade Commission, but he had not had a lot of experience with young people. He was very young himself. He immediately made me into his apprentice, an extension of the judge. Of course, clerks do research for the judge, but we did research together. We wrote together. He would give me something that he wrote to edit. I would give him something that I wrote to edit. The experience of working that closely with someone that accomplished is a wonderful way to get initiated into the profession. He was a consummate professional, a first class technical lawyer, which is something every young person could do with when you get out of law school and are, in effect, first then learning to be a lawyer. Moreover, Judge Higginbotham was a wonderful mentor. That is not the word we used then. Mentoring has become something that is often spoken of today. It was simply a natural way to proceed for the judge, for I was the first of a very long line of clerks, research assistants, interns. We are all over the country now. Many of them worked on his books. Some of them assisted in his chambers. All of them learned from him. At the same time, Judge Higginbotham, who will be known for his boldness on racial issues after he left the bench, enjoyed enormous respect at the bench and at the bar for his work as a judge. First of all, there was his prodigious capacity for work. Then there was the thoroughness with which he went about his work, first as a lawyer, and then as a judge. Although we know the judge for his deep racial views, he is one of the most respected judges or was one of the most respected judges in the United States for his principled interpretation of the law. If you are a judge, and ultimately Judge Higginbotham became the chief judge on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, you have to follow precedent if you are abiding by the rule of law, the rule of the law. Let me quote from the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit today, Judge Edward Becker. I am quoting: His jurisprudence was always anchored in the record. He could be and was eloquent in opinions when he was vindicating civil rights, but he didn't reach for the result. He was a good craftsman and an altogether solid judge. Now, as judges go, Judge Higginbotham, I think, when one evaluates his work, will be remembered as an activist judge. I am proud of that. I know the gentlewoman is. But the fact that he could do that within his craft, adhering to the rule of law in a principled fashion, says everything about why he was so highly regarded everywhere among his peers who serve or have served on the bench. Make no mistake about it, A. Leon Higginbotham was a black man, and understood himself as a black man. The gentlewoman has spoken about and has read from his own works about some of his early experiences. This is a man who would never forget that he was a black man. Yet, his approach to equality coming out of his treatment as a black man was universal because it taught him that everyone had to be treated in just the same way as he demanded to be treated. One of his opinions that I believe will become an American classic was a case where the defendant sought to disqualify the judge because of his racial views off the bench. The judge had no prejudicial racial views off the bench, but he was known to speak before groups about his feelings about racial equality. The judge responded to this request that he recuse himself from hearing the case about racial discrimination with an exhaustive opinion. Here was a judge that just did not say that ``I am not going to do it, and I resent the fact that you want me to get off the case simply because I am black and believe that black people should be treated equally and have deigned to say so.'' That is not how the judge did it. He wrote an exhaustive opinion showing why he should not be disqualified. One of the lines from that opinion I want to read: ``Black lawyers have litigated in the Federal courts almost exclusively before white judges, yet they have not argued that white judges should be disqualified on matters of racial relations.'' But I would like to say a word about Higginbotham the scholar. The gentlewoman from Texas read from a book by the judge, ``In the Matter of Color.'' I have an autographed copy here that is very precious to me, and it is a book that was 10 years in the making because it documents the way in which the law was as enmeshed in all of our racial doctrine and practices. What he demonstrates through a detailed evaluation of the case law and the statutory law in about a half dozen of the colonies is that without the law every step of the way, slavery, and later discrimination, would have been impossible. Law was the handmaiden of slavery and discrimination. Facilitated it. Augmented it. Made it possible. Here was a man who loved the law. Loved the law enough to expose the law for the role it had played in the deepest injustice in our society so that we could understand it, throw it off, as will be the case when we do understand the derivation of an issue. Leon Higginbotham lived several lifetimes all in one for his 70 years. I believe that his role as a scholar of the history of the law will be remembered as least as much as his role as a lawyer and a judge, because of these two monumental books, ``In the Matter of Color,'' and the second book, ``Shades of Freedom.'' He had intended to do about a half dozen such books. He got two done. Essentially, what Higginbotham did was to look at 300 years of law. And when I say ``law'' I do not mean reading decisions of the Federal courts. I mean looking at every single case in the colonies, every single statute in the colonies, and in the process he unmasked what was and can only be called a jurisprudence of racism that is part and parcel of our law and was there from the very beginning. He showed how it was there even at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence which, of course, does not mention race at all. Thus, what Higginbotham did as a scholar was to show us the law at its worst and our law as it is now becoming as its best. In effect, what he shows are the extraordinary, huge contradictions in our law and that these contradictions survived even the Civil War, which after all was fought in part to erase slavery and contradictions based on race. Instead, a new case law came into being and fortified discrimination to follow slavery. In a real sense, Leon's time on the bench and his scholarly investigation is what undergirded his passion against racial discrimination. It is, as I have indicated, easy enough to have passion against racial discrimination that is felt. What was extraordinary to see was how Higginbotham was animated by what he had read about slavery, what he had discovered about the role of the law in perpetuating slavery and discrimination. At the end of his life, that is what propelled him. It was intellectual curiosity at its best. And as one of his former law partners have said, he died working, which is what he wanted to do. He died in love with the law, exposing the law, wanting to let everyone know what was wrong with it so that we could make it right. And he spent much of his life doing what it will take to make it right. Like the gentlewoman, I would like to close by reading a couple of passages from ``In the Matter of Color,'' because these passages document what I have been trying to convey about why the judge wrote about the law's imperfections. I am quoting here: ``Specifically, this book will document the vacillation of the courts, the State legislatures, and even honest public servants in trying to decide whether blacks were people and, if so, whether they were a species apart from white humans, the difference justifying separate and different treatment. I am aware that an analysis of cases, statutes and legal edicts does not tell the whole story as to why and how this sordid legal tradition managed to establish itself. Nevertheless, there is merit in abolitionist William Goodell's statement: `No people were ever yet found who were better than their laws, though many have been known to be worse.' '' Finally, let me read the last passage I want to bring to the attention of this body. The judge goes on to say, ``While I do not represent what I put forward here as a complete picture of the practices of the society, that canvas will never be painted unless someone first treats adequately the interrelationship of race and the American legal process.'' Mr. Speaker, we are a part of the American legal process. To the extent that we come to grips with the scholarly discoveries of Leon Higginbotham, we will avoid the pitfalls out of which we have just come. Leon Higginbotham served us in so many ways. As a lawyer, as a judge, as a scholar, enlightening us, humanizing us in each and every role. This special order simply brings to the attention of this body the role that a great man has played in the life of our country. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me this time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am re-introducing the Jacob Joseph Chestnut-John Michael Gibson United States Capitol Visitor Center Act of 1999 (Chestnut-Gibson Act), which I originally introduced shortly after the deaths of Capitol Police officers Jacob Joseph Chestnut and John Michael Gibson. My bill authorizes the Architect of the Capitol ``to plan, construct, equip, administer, and maintain a Capitol Visitor Center under the East Plaza of the Capitol'' grounds. The primary purpose of the bill is to increase public safety and security. According to the Capitol Police and the U.S. Capitol Police Board, a visitor center would provide significant distance between the Capitol and visitors, and for a host of reasons they have documented, would make the Capitol more secure. No one knows whether Officer Chestnut or Special Agent Gibson or, for that matter, any other officer or individual would have been spared had a visitor center been in place last July. What we do know is that our nineteenth century Capitol was not built with anything like today's security hazards in mind. I have also been a strong supporter of a Capitol Visitor Center since coming to Congress in 1991, not only for security reasons but also because the existing conditions here do not ensure the health, convenience, and cordiality that our constituents are entitled to. Members are often forced to address constituents seated on stone steps outdoors. In the blistering heat and merciless cold of Washington, visitors wait in line outdoors to tour the Capitol. Last summer, the hottest on record in the United States, saw tourists faint while waiting in line and then rushed inside to be treated by our physicians. Even if the Capitol had not incurred a terrible tragedy, we would be in need of a more civil way to welcome the people we represent. Although the Congress did not pass this bill in the last Congress, it recognized the urgency of building a Capitol Visitor Center by providing $100 million for its construction in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. However, the appropriation does not contain any guidelines for the Architect of the Capitol to follow in administering the project. My bill would require the Architect to work within the framework of recommendations issued in 1995, to identify alternatives for construction to achieve cost savings, and to submit a report containing the plans and designs within 120 days of passage of my legislation. This procedure would ensure that the Capitol Visitor Center is undertaken expeditiously and cost-effectively. I feel a special obligation in introducing this bill because the residents of the District have a special relationship with the Capitol Police. In 1992, when there was a large spike in crime in the District, Congress passed the United States Capitol Police Jurisdiction Act, a bill I introduced authorizing the Capitol Police to patrol parts of the Capitol Hill residential community closest to the Capitol. Capitol Police officers were not only willing; they were enthusiastic to use their excellent training and professionalism for the benefit of residents and the many tourists and visitors whose safety might be compromised by having to travel through high-crime areas in order to get to the Capitol. Our foremost obligation is to protect all who visit or work here and to spare no legitimate consideration in protecting the United States Capitol. The Capitol is a temple of democracy and is the most important symbol of the open society in which we live. It is even more so than the White House, in part because the President's workplace is also a residence and cannot be entirely open. The Capitol symbolizes our free and open society not only because it is accessible but also because of what transpires here. It is here that the people come to petition their government, to lobby and to persuade us, and ultimately to discharge us if we stray too far from their democratic demands. Thus, we neither have nor would we want the option to make the Capitol more difficult to access. After last summer's tragedy, we have an obligation to demonstrate that security is not inconsistent with democracy.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a model of excellence, Ms. Vernice D. Ferguson. Vernice Ferguson was a Senior Fellow in the School of Nursing at the University of Pennsylvania holding the Fagin Family Chair in Cultural Diversity. She is immediate Past President of the International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care. For more than twenty years she served as a top nurse executive at two VA Medical Centers affiliated with academic health science centers in Madison, Wisconsin and Chicago, Illinois. For twelve years, she was the nurse leader for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest organized nursing service in the world with more than 60,000 nursing personnel. Prior to the VA assignment, she served as the Chief, Nursing Department of the Clinical Center, the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Ferguson is a Fellow of the Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom, the second American nurse so honored, and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing and Past President. She is Past President of Sigma Theta Tau, nursing's international honor society, and served as Chair of the Friends of the Virginia Henderson Library Advisory Committee. Her awards and honors are numerous, including seven honorary doctorates. She was the recipient of two fellowships, one in physics at the University of Maryland and the other in alcohol studies at Yale University. She was a scholar-in-residence at the Catholic University of America. Ms. Ferguson was also the Potter-Brinton Distinguished Professor for 1994 at the School of Nursing at the University of Missouri at Columbia. In 1995, Ms. Ferguson spent nine weeks in South Africa where she served as Visiting Associate Professor in the Department of Nursing Science at the University of the North West. While in South Africa, in her capacity as President of the International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care, she toured the country extensively, meeting with health care providers in university nursing programs, voluntary associations, hospitals, and homes in townships and squatters camps. She conducted workshops and offered presentations in a variety of settings throughout South Africa. Ms. Ferguson serves on the Board of Directors of the Bon Secours Health Care System, The Washington Home, the Board of Visitors, Indiana University School of Nursing, and the National Institutes of Health Alumni Association. Mr. Speaker, I ask that each Member join me in this tribute to Vernice D. Ferguson.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding; and I thank her, in addition, for keeping alive the tradition of her esteemed predecessor, Congressman Louis Stokes, who retired last year. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) brings precisely the kind of intelligence and dedication that Congressman Stokes was well-known for, and so he has left his seat in the best of hands. I also congratulate the gentlewoman that she has chosen a subject which allows us to speak on this floor about the contributions of African-Americans. In outlining the history of Negro History Week and Black History Month, she reminds us that the reason for an occasion like this is precisely that black history and the contribution of African-Americans have been obscured, even suppressed. This floor is an appropriate place to begin to expose Members and our country to these important contributions which have helped build our country. I would like to devote a few minutes to discussing the life of a great American leader who died on December 14 and who contributed much to his country in general and to the Congressional Black Caucus in particular. I speak of former Judge A. Leon Higginbotham. And may I say that the Congressional Black Caucus will hold a memorial service for Judge Higginbotham on Wednesday, April 14, at 345 Cannon. That, of course, has to do with our own special relationship to Judge Higginbotham, who was counsel to us in the voting rights cases. I was Judge Higginbotham's law clerk, so I have to confess that for me this is also personal. I remained close to the Judge throughout my professional life. And to the extent that there is anything noteworthy about my life as a lawyer, I owe much of it to the head start I got when I clerked for Judge Higginbotham shortly after I graduated from law school. Quite apart from how we may view the Judge as a person or any personal relationship the Members may have had with him, I think it fair to say that Judge A. Leon Higginbotham will be evaluated as one of the great Federal judges of the 20th century. I believe that that will be the verdict of his own peers on the bench. He went to the bench at the age of 36 and became known as a principal judge who was a fine technical lawyer, a man of awesome work habits who enjoyed the most extraordinary reputation among his peers on the bench. At the same time, he began to teach while he was on the bench, as a number of scholarly Federal judges often do. While he was on the bench, he taught at the University of Pennsylvania, which of course is in Philadelphia, where he served first as a District Court judge and then on the Court of Appeals, finally as the chief judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. But this extraordinary man managed also to teach at Harvard and Yale and at Stanford and at NYU. His capacity for hard work is itself an example for us all and for young people. The Judge always planned to leave the bench. Perhaps this was because he was so gifted that it was unthinkable that he would have only one life. He planned to leave the bench and did so in order to pursue the scholarly work that had become such a great part of his life while on the bench. He wrote two extraordinary books: ``In The Matter of Color'' and ``Shades of Freedom.'' These books have helped to place Judge Higginbotham in black history and in the history of the United States of America. Because, in these volumes, Judge Higginbotham demonstrated, on the basis of prodigious investigation of the statutes and of the case law, that slavery and discrimination in the United States of America owed their existence to American law. He did this not simply by exclaiming it but by years of investigation into the case laws of the States and of the United States. And there he discovered a real perversion of law. I do not speak only of the Jim Crow laws, under which some of us lived, I, for one, in the District of Columbia, which had legal segregation, because we all know about those. I speak of law that enmeshed slavery and discrimination into the character and life of this country from the very beginning and without law, it must be said, neither slavery nor discrimination could have either existed or become so thoroughly embedded in the fabric of our country. It is the painstaking research, it is looking at it statute by statute and State by State that gives the Judge's work on the history of law in discrimination and slavery its credibility. I would like to give two examples of the kind of discovery, that is the only word for it, ``discovery'', the Judge made in the complicity of law in the greatest injustices of our country, slavery and discrimination. I refer first to the Declaration of Independence. There was what the Judge discovered a discarded July 2 draft of the Declaration of Independence, written of course by Mr. Jefferson. Now, listen to this sentence from that discarded draft. This sentence refers to King George. ``He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carry them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.'' Here is Jefferson criticizing King George for transporting slaves and for the institution of slavery itself. Well, if that is the case, you would have expected the Declaration of Independence to say something about how there should not be slavery, and, of course, we know there should not be. This is the kind of work that the judge is known for. Let me give my colleagues one further example of what he discovered. There is, of course, the myth of slavery as a southern institution. We know that it got its worst features perhaps in the South and in how long it remained in the South. But let me quote from Judge Higginbotham. So that we will be at peace with this institution, let us quote from Judge Higginbotham about the State that one least associates with slavery and most associates with abolition, Massachusetts. I quote from ``In the Matter of Color'': ``Unlike Virginia, for example, which developed a legal framework for slavery in response to societal custom, the Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth colonies statutorily sanctioned slavery as part of the 1641 Body of Liberties a mere 3 years after the first blacks arrived. Thus, Massachusetts was the first colony to authorize slavery by legislative enactment.'' We will never rid ourselves of discrimination and its effects unless we come to grips with how it got into our law. And as lawmakers it is particularly important for us to recognize how discrimination and worse can be, and in our case was, imported into the law. Judge Higginbotham was recognized in virtually every important way, from the Medal of Freedom that he won from the President to the Spingarn Medal which he was granted by the NAACP. The Congressional Black Caucus is particularly grateful for the role he played in assisting us in the voting rights cases when we were most under attack. I close by reminding this body that on April 14, there will be a memorial service in 345 Cannon for Judge A. Leon Higginbotham. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I reintroduce the National Urban Watershed Model Restoration Act, a bill to establish a new approach to restoring urban waters. This pilot program, to be administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will serve as a national model for the restoration of urban watersheds and community environments. The Anacostia River has been chosen as the pilot river because it is an especially polluted urban river located in the nation's capital that has drawn national attention and thus can lead the way for community- involved cleanup approaches that can be modeled and taken up nationally. To achieve more focused and rapid action, the new program will integrate the various regulatory and non-regulatory programs of the EPA with other federal, state, and local programs to restore and protect the Anacostia River and promote community risk reduction. EPA is to coordinate its efforts with other federal partners, particularly the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to addressing a major local environmental concern, this model program will provide a framework for urban communities around the nation to work towards sustainable community redevelopment and to meet national environmental goals. Under the new program, EPA shall allocate a total of $750,000 per year over the next 4 fiscal years to implement the provisions of the Model Program. EPA may authorize no less than $400,000 annually in the form of grants, which are to be matched on a 75-25 basis with other federal funds and state, local, and private contributions. The Anacostia River has been my top environmental priority since coming to Congress in 1991. In the 104th Congress, I worked through the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment to authorize $12 million of construction projects to help clean up and restore wetlands along the Anacostia watershed. I am pleased that the Administration has proposed over $4 million in the Army Corps of Engineers' FY 2000 budget for Anacostia projects that springs from the original $12 million authorization. I am committed to whatever time and effort it takes to restore the river that runs through the neighborhoods of the nation's capital. The bill that I introduce today marks a renewed effort, as well as an innovative approach, to advancing this top environmental priority.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 24th Annual Capital Pride Festival, a celebration of and for the National Capital Area's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities and their friends. Since its inception in 1975, the Capital Pride Festival has grown from a small block party into a 9-day series of events which culminate in a downtown parade and Pennsylvania Avenue street fair on Sunday, June 13th. Last year over 3,000 people marched in the parade and participated as exhibitors, entertainers, or volunteers at the street fair. More than 175,000 people attended this annual celebration. It has been 35 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and gays and lesbians are still not covered by its protections. We must fight to make sure that not another 35 years or 10 years or even 1 year more passes without this Nation recognizing sexual orientation as a protected class in the United States. Congress must pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and I will do my best to make sure that it is passed in this Congress. This year, the Capital Pride Festival organizers and sponsors, the Whiteman-Walker Clinic and One-in-Ten, have selected ``Unite, Celebrate, Remember'' for the Festival's theme. Let's take that theme to heart and unite to achieve our goal of eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation, celebrate our accomplishments, and remember those, like Matthew Shepherd, who we have lost because hatred and discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered Americans still exist. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in saluting the 24th Annual Capital Pride Festival, its organizers, and the volunteers who make it possible.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not need to tell this body that Medicare and Social Security are the two most popular Federal programs, with good reason. The need has been long established and the people who benefit or their survivors have paid their dues to build this society. These programs are in effect twins, but they were born about 30 years apart. We have been talking a lot about the eldest of the twins, Social Security, but we must not forget or neglect the other twin, the Medicare twin. Time will run out sooner with Medicare than with Social Security. We have about 10 years to make sure that Medicare is there for everyone who needs it. We should devote 15 percent of the surplus to making sure with a bipartisan commitment not only to Social Security but going the rest of the way to Medicare. The only thing that could get us in more trouble with the American people than letting Social Security drift into bankruptcy is not fixing Medicare. Let us do it together.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I particularly thank the chairman and the ranking member for their attention to this bill. I strongly support H.R. 396. I support this bill which names a Federal facility for a man who loved his country, even when he was one of its greatest critics. Ron Dellums had range in this body, from his deep leadership on international affairs to his involvement in the most local of issues, the District of Columbia. He was ranking member of the Committee on National Security, and he chaired the D.C. Committee. When I say, ``range,'' I mean range. On the great issues of the day, eliminating poverty, protecting civil rights, making sure that all Americans had civil liberties, Ron Dellums' name is indelibly left with this body. Ron may be remembered perhaps most of all for South Africa's sanctions. He fought for sanctions against South Africa when it was all but a lost cause, until finally they developed a national and an international consensus that in fact led to the elimination, the beginning of the end, of South African apartheid. Mr. Speaker, I say without fear of contradiction that there was no more popular man in this body even when his views, as they often were, were unpopular in this body. Here is a man who could take his unpopular views, walk over to the other side of the aisle, ask for time to speak to give his unpopular view and get it from the other side. That is a man who enjoys respect and admiration. I cannot close without saying what Ron Dellums did for the District of Columbia in particular. He was a long-time chair of the Committee on the District of Columbia. It was a different time, very different. There was plenty of money. And, thus, the kinds of scrutiny that has become necessary in the hard times in the 1990s were not what the D.C. Committee was all about. Then it was all about protecting home rule and moving the District forward to stand on its own feet. He held the District's feet to the fire, while insisting that the District stand on its own feet. He will be remembered particularly fondly among the residents of this city. In this body, he will be remembered as one of its great orators, as he would have it I suppose, given his work on the Committee on Armed Services, as an officer and a gentleman.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak about the District of Columbia. But I think it only appropriate to report what I have just heard, and that is that in the capital murder trial of John William King, the first of three men accused in the dragging death murder of James Byrd, Jr., the jury has just reported a guilty verdict in Jasper, Texas. Justice has been done, and southern justice this time has been done. Mr. Speaker, we are back to work in earnest. The Speaker has developed a workmanlike schedule. I come to the floor this afternoon to ask that the easiest bill in the House, the bill having least to do with the business of this House, be the first appropriation bill reported in this House. I speak of the D.C. appropriation bill. It is amazing that most often it is the last and not the first bill. When I brought the new Mayor to see the Speaker, he agreed that we should hasten this bill. During the fiscal crisis, it has been especially painful to have the District appropriation bill so late. The District has been on time, but the bill has been needlessly controversial. Delay hurts in the worst way because it affects the credit standing of a city that is only now getting its credit back. And it is getting its credit back. It has had three straight years of surpluses. However, it is the unpredictability of the appropriation process here that hurts the credit rating. There is no Federal payment any longer, so it is quite amazing that the budget of a local jurisdiction would have to come here at all. Suppose my colleagues' cities, their counties' budgets came here. They would tell us to get out of town. It is an historic anomaly; it is an injustice. It has to come. At least let no more injustice be done by holding it up. We collect $5 billion from D.C. taxpayers in the District of Columbia. All the District asks of this body is: ``Give us back our money as soon as you get it.'' We will have before us a consensus budget. It will be a very balanced budget. The consensus budget notion came out of an amendment that I put into the Control Board statute that allows the District now, instead of having its budget go through the normal separation of powers, to have everybody sit around a table and agree on a budget so as to hasten the time. Therefore, to hasten the time to draw their own budget, the least the Congress can do is to enact their own budget as soon as possible. After 3 years of surpluses, a new Mayor who earned his stripes as chief financial officer and helped get the city back on its financial feet, the city, I think, has a right to ask of the Congress that we do our job. If we must look at a local budget, look at it fast, say what we have to say, do what we have to do, and let us then get on with the business of the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House does have confidence in the Mayor and in the District itself. Last week or the week before last, we passed in this House the first half of my D.C. Democracy 2000 bill which gives back to the new Mayor, Tony Williams, powers that were taken from a previous Mayor in 1997. There has already been real confidence in this Mayor. The best way to encourage the Mayor and to encourage the city is to give it back its money first. The first bill to come here should be the District bill. It is a way of saying to the District that they have reached a consensus budget, they have balanced their budget. In light of that, we have given them the respect to which they are entitled. It is a way of saying, ``Here is your money back. Here is your budget back. Please run your own city.''

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend my time this afternoon talking about Social Security, one of America's great all-American programs. It is in a class by itself, except for Medicare, of course. But, like so many programs, its beneficiaries vary according to race, sex or class, even given the universality of this extremely popular program. When people say that they think it will not be there for them, they also say that they do not want it changed much because they want it to be there for them. There are proposals floating around for private accounts where people would invest in equities in the stock market themselves. In considering these proposals, I ask only that this body consider that women are hugely, disproportionately affected by whatever we decide to do to Social Security. Twice as many women who live past 65 are poor as men, and so, in its wisdom, the Congress has structured the Social Security program to reflect this basic reality. Proposals for private accounts thus far do not take into account two characteristics that are unique to women: One, that they have less earnings over their lifetime, much of it due to discrimination, some of it due to family responsibilities; and, second, that they simply live longer. Personal savings accounts would, therefore, adversely affect them, because they have had less time in the workforce and because they have had lower earnings when they have been there. So what does Social Security do? Recognizing this feature, instead of giving a benefit that looks the same for everybody, we have created a progressive Social Security benefit structure. The higher benefits go to the lower earnings, and I do not think there is anybody in America who would want that any different. Let us look at two groups of women so as to make my point, housewives and widows. Let us take a woman who has spent her life taking care of her family and has not gone near the workforce. She will get 50 percent of her spouse's benefit. She has never had and could never have a personal account in the stock market, no matter what we do for her. Let us take an older woman whose husband dies. She gets 100 percent of her husband's benefit. Now, the majority has typically shown particular concern for these women, women who have taken care of their families and have not gone in the workforce at all, and older women whose husbands have died and do not have any income. These are the women that must be in our mind's eye if we toy with the Social Security System. The great majority, 63 percent of women over age 62 have their own income, as to opposed wives and widows who get pensions. Thirty-seven percent have had no earnings history at all, no personal savings account of their own, and cannot control what a husband shall have done with the personal savings account that he may have. They are in our hands, and we have taken that responsibility through the Social Security system. I ask this body to measure any proposal that comes before it, not by looking at the American population as if they were some big glob, but to look at who is likely to be most affected by whatever we do. Overwhelmingly, those most affected are going to be women. It is women who have the most to lose. It is women who are most vulnerable. I ask the majority who call to the floor any discussion of changes in Social Security, especially discussion of personal savings account, to call to the floor the women whose lifelong work has been for their families and the women who have only their husband's pensions. Those women are in our hands and are dependent upon our doing the right thing with Social Security, bearing in mind that any personal savings account is not in their lexicon, has not been in their lives, and they need us to remember that salient fact.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation, I would like to say a few words in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, my special thanks to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for the priority they have each given to H.R. 433. Our bill returns full legal authority over nine agencies to the Mayor and unfettered authority to confirm the mayor's appointees to the City Council. Both Mayor Tony Williams and the council will be able to carry out their responsibilities as elected officials without risk of being overruled. It is important to note that this House was not responsible for withdrawing this authority. A Senator's attachment to the President's all-important revitalization package that was incorporated into the 1997 Balanced Budget Act was responsible. It is now appropriate for the House to initiate action to devolve democratic control to locally-elected officials, and all indications are that the Senate is prepared to do the same and empower the new Mayor and the revitalized City Council. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) deserves credit for carving H.R. 433 out of my D.C. Democracy 2000 Act. H.R. 433 is the first part of that act. The chairman and I are in agreement that the second part of the act to retire the Control Board a year early must await the building of a track record by the new Mayor and council. I thank the House leadership and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for bringing H.R. 433 to the floor as one of the first bills of the 106th Congress. In doing so, the House has shown, as nothing else could, that this body is prepared to build a new relationship with the District of Columbia. I want to thank Speaker Dennis Hastert, Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt, and Chairman Tom Davis for their leadership in bringing the ``District of Columbia Management Restoration Act of 1999'' to the House floor today. This bill incorporates key provisions of my bill, H.R. 214, the District of Columbia Democracy 2000 Act (D.C. Democracy 2000), which return to the Office of the Mayor authority over the city's nine largest agencies and the ability to hire and fire senior managers in the government, and return to the City Council full authority to approve mayoral appointees without control board intervention. I am especially grateful to Mr. Davis for taking Section 3 of D.C. Democracy 2000, the only section that is ripe for consideration at this time. The bill accomplishes this transfer of power through repeal of the Faircloth attachment to the District of Columbia Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, which had vested control of the management reform of the city's nine largest agencies with the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Authority). The purpose of the District of Columbia Management Restoration Act of 1999 is to ensure that the new city administration has sufficient control of the District government to be held accountable in preparation for the expiration of the control period. This bill carries out the purpose of the Authority Act ``to ensure the most efficient and effective delivery of services, by the District government during a period of fiscal emergency.'' P.L. 104-8, Title I Sec. 2(b)(2). On January 2nd, Alice Rivlin, for the Authority, signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) delegating authority to the Mayor to run the District government to the fullest extent allowed by existing law. Viewed from the front lines of the District government's present progress, the Authority's considered judgment was that a transition to Home Rule through the delegation of power to the new Mayor was necessary in advance of the transfer of ultimate power at the end of the control period; a clean line of reporting authority unmistakably identifying the responsible officials was necessary for efficient and effective government operational reform; and Mayor Williams, in his role as Chief Financial Officer, had already demonstrated his capacity to administer complicated operations. This section amends existing law to complete a transfer of power that the Authority desired but could not make because of the wording of the statute and, in effect, to place in law the MOA. The Authority transferred to the Mayor its jurisdiction over nine operating agencies, but believed it was unable to return the authority to hire and fire department heads. In returning this power, the bill seeks to enhance and facilitate the Mayor's ability to control managers. It eliminates the possibility of an illusion of an appeal to a higher authority beyond the Mayor to acquire or retain a position. The advantage of having a government that knows that it and it alone will be fully accountable cannot be overestimated in a democracy. Whatever justification some may have found for the denial of self- government has been stripped away by the growing fiscal health of the District government and its prudence in management of its finances and operations. Beyond securing more revenue, city officials have already shown that they know what to do with it. Their decision to use surplus revenues to pay down the city's accumulated deficit demonstrates they can and will make tough financial choices. In the face of the sacrifices that District residents have made and the unanticipated surpluses that have been produced, there is no justification for delaying a return to coherent and fully accountable self-government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill crucial to the continued revitalization of the nation's capital. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for a brief statement.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do not intend to object, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for the purpose of explaining the bill. (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I have good news about my city and yours. This morning's paper reports that the District of Columbia has a $450 million surplus and a clean audit. Yes, this is the same city that needed a control board three years ago and clearly does not need one now. The District will not even have to use the authority Congress gave it to borrow and eliminate an operating deficit. The city will pay down that large deficit from its own revenue. The surplus is by no means all a matter of a good economy. Cuts in government redundancy and waste and improved tax collections have had a lot to do with it. The District has a new mayor and a reinvigorated city council. A quiet revolution is in progress in the city where this House lives, right under our noses. Look for me to come to the floor often to tell my colleagues what they need to know and, I am sure, what they want to hear about a Nation's Capital where all can be proud.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in a tribute to the legacy and spirit of Absolom Jones, an 18th century slave and join the 1999 Absalom Jones Day Celebration presented by the Washington Chapter of the Union of Black Episcopalians. ``Standing Firm in Faith: Accepting the Challenge'' is the theme of the celebration. Mr. Speaker, Absalom Jones, a house slave, was born in 1746 in Delaware. He taught himself to read from the New Testament and other books. At the age of sixteen, he was sold to a store owner in Philadelphia where he attended a night school for Blacks that was operated by the Quakers. At the age of twenty, he married another slave and purchased her freedom with his earnings. Abaslom Jones bought his own freedom in 1784. At St. George's Methodist Episcopal Church, he served as lay minister for its Black membership. Jones's active evangelism, and that of his friend Richard Allen, greatly increased Black membership at St. George's. The alarmed vestry decided to segregate Blacks into an upstairs gallery without notifying them. During a Sunday service when ushers attempted to remove them, the Black parishioners walked out in a body. In 1787, Black Christians organized the Free African Society, the first African-American society Absalom Jones and Richard Allen were elected overseers. Members of the Society paid monthly dues for the benefit of those in need, and established communication with similar Black groups in other cities. In 1792, the Society began to build a church which was dedicated on July 17, 1794. The African Church applied for membership in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania with the following conditions: 1. That they be received as an organized body; 2. That they have control over their local affairs; and 3. That Absolom Jones be licensed as a layreader and, if qualified, be ordained as minister. In October 1794, it was admitted as St. Thomas African Episcopal Church. Absalom Jones was ordained as a deacon in 1795 and as a priest on September 21, 1802. The Reverend Absalom Jones was the first Black priest in the Episcopal Church. Reverend Jones was an earnest preacher who denounced slavery. His constant visiting and mild manner made him beloved by his own flock and by the community. St. Thomas Church grew to more than 500 members during its first year. Known as the ``Black Bishop of the Episcopal Church'', Reverend Jones was an example of persistent faith in God and in the Church as God's instrument. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Chapter of the Union of Black Episcopalians uses its Absalom Jones Day Celebration in two significant ways. First, the proceeds which are generated will be used for the benefit of the Black Episcopal College scholarship and endowment funds. Scholarship recipients include Saint Augustine's College which was founded in 1867 and is affiliated with the Protestant Episcopal Church. The college is committed to teaching the importance of achievement, leadership and community service. Saint Paul's College was founded in 1888 as Saint Paul's Normal and Industrial School, and became Saint Paul's Polytechnic Institute in 1941. It received authority to offer a four-year degree program in 1941, and the name was changed to St. Paul's College in 1957. Its liberal arts, career-oriented, and teacher education programs prepare graduates for effective participation in various aspects of human endeavor. Voorhees College stands as testimony to the faith and determination of its founder, Elizabeth Evelyn Wright. A former student of Booker T. Washington at Tuskegee, Miss Wright, at 23, dreamed the seemingly impossible dream of starting a school for Black youth in Denmark, South Carolina. From its founding in 1897 as Denmark Industrial School, Voorhees has evolved into a leading four- year, liberal arts college--the first historically Black institution in the state of South Carolina to achieve full accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Secondly, the celebration will include recognition of a person whose life and work in the church and community exemplifies the legacy and spirit of the Reverend Absalom Jones. Mr. Speaker, I ask this body to join this tribute to the legacy and spirit of Absalom Jones and salute the honoree of the evening.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to welcome all Members, especially new Members, to the 106th Congress. Whether one is Republican or Democrat, I am your Congresswoman away from home, and I want to tell you a little bit about this city and a little bit about the assistance I can offer you while you are here, because you are going to spend more time in the District of Columbia than you will spend in your own district. Some of you live here, all of you work here. Many of you will have your entertainment here. Matters arise in the city. If you need help, including help for your constituents, I hope you will call me. If you live in the city, there are inevitable problems that arise with your trash, with rodents. No tickets, please. We cannot take back tickets, for the most part, although there are a few instances where the District cannot write tickets for Members of Congress, and I suppose we will submit those to the District. What we really love are shortcuts to getting a marriage license. Since I have been in Congress, I have helped at least three Members get marriage licenses. In any case, when one is wondering where to turn when anything arises in this city, whether it is city services or the city at large, please call my office. On Monday, February 23, 1999, we are having a formal event called Ask Me About Washington. You and your staffs are invited, with a free lunch. I want to tell you about hometown Washington. Forget what you have heard. A revolution has occurred in this city. It has a new mayor, a reinvigorated city council, and a control board that operates with a much reduced capacity. The city is in the hands of its new mayor, Tony Williams, the man who helped repair the city's finances and, as a result, got elected mayor. I work closely with him and have great hopes in what he can do for this city, because he has already done a great deal for the city when he was chief financial officer. The city' problems came largely from the fact that since its establishment 200 years ago, it has been the only city in the United States that has carried State, county and municipal functions. It is a miracle that the District was up and standing so long carrying State functions, despite its big city urban problems that all of you have in your own States. Congress has relieved the city of some of its State functions, much to the credit of the Congress and the President. So the District has had three years of surpluses and is no longer even close to insolvent. You should also know about the city that it is a city at the very top in so many ways. We are fifth per capita in the United States in the number of residents who have a bachelor's degree. The residents keep this city running for the 25 million people who come here to see the monuments and the city every year, and we keep it running out of our own pocket with $5 billion raised from taxpayers in the District. We do this with no grant from the Federal Government, despite the fact that the Federal Government takes 40 percent of the land off of our tax rolls for Federal office space and monuments. We are third per capita in Federal income taxes paid to the Federal Treasury, and yet my folks have no representation in the Senate, and only me, a delegate, in the House. This is a historic anomaly, along with the fact that you will be asked to vote on local matters, occasional local matters affecting the District, and even on our appropriation, none of which is raised by the Federal Government. This is an anomaly that is impossible to justify today. All that we ask is that you be respectful of local government, as you insist in your own district and State. Congress should never intrude on the Democratic prerogatives of a local people, and I ask for that respect in the name of the people I represent. Please know that you are in one of the most livable and beautiful cities in the United States. New Members will shortly be receiving a letter from me about this city. Members who have been here before will be receiving an update. You do not need to go far to know what a beautiful city this is as a hometown community. Not only the Congresswoman, but all of the elected officials and the residents stand ready to help you enjoy the city. I want to be clear that my office is here at the disposal of Members of the House and the Senate. If you have a problem in the District, you do not have to call the District straight away to try to find out where and who to go to to deal with it. Call your Congresswoman away from home, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who proudly represents the more than one-half million people who have the good fortune to live in the Nation's Capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the University of the District of Columbia Equal Educational Status Act. The University of the District of Columbia (UDC) is the only publicly funded institution of higher education in the District of Columbia. The District, like most large cities, has a large population which requires access to a publicly funded open admissions institution to go to any institution at all. Under existing law, UDC is, by definition, a Historically Black University that qualifies for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) funds because it meets the three salient requirements: (1) UDC was created from colleges established before 1964; (2) it served primarily black people; and (3) it is an accredited institution. Though technically an HBCU, UDC was denied the funding benefits of HBCU status because of a factual error. In the HBCU provision of Title III, UDC is discussed in the same section with Howard University, and it explicitly indicates that the University receives a direct payment from the federal government. This has never been true, and in any case, the District itself no longer receives a federal payment. The importance of HBCU funding and status is that there is an annual appropriation for HBCUs. I have attempted to get HBCU funding for UDC before. The only reason that UDC has not been included is that no extra funds were available to accompany the request, and the entry of UDC was seen as diminishing the appropriations available for the 103 existing HBCUs. I would remove this impediment by proposing that an amount to be determined from the $17 million in the President's budget for college bound D.C. students be allotted to UDC. The amount in the President's budget is not based on specific underlying assumptions about the available pool of students to go out-of-state. The $17 million is sufficient to allow some funds to go to desperately needed technology and infrastructure at the University. This is now possible to satisfy the needs of all our students--those prepared to go out-of-state as well as the larger number of students who will not be able to take advantage of the scholarship proposal. I support the proposal of Congressman Tom Davis, Chair of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia who, acting on suggestions from District and area business people, is writing a bill for public and private funds to pay the difference between in-state and out-of- state tuition for D.C. residents outside the District. I am pleased that in addition to federal funds, private business in this area is also raising funds for this effort. Mr. Davis' staff and mine have begun working together on a joint UDC-scholarships approach. I have also discussed this idea with Mayor Tony Williams and have asked and gathered his suggestions about how funding for UDC should be targeted. Mayor Williams also supports the UDC-scholarship approach. Working with the White House, we have been able to secure funds sufficient not only for the scholarship proposal but also for the needs of the majority of D.C. students who could not possibly take advantage of out-of-state opportunities. A scholarship--only approach would leave the largest number of college bound D.C. students stranded with access only to a university severely injured by the fiscal crisis. I am pleased that with adequate funding, there is no reason to ignore the demographics of D.C.'s typical student population in need of public higher education. Who is the typical college bound D.C. resident? The profile of UDC tells the story. Two-thirds of UDC students work; many are single parents with obligations to young children; many go to college after years in the workforce; others could not afford living expenses away from D.C.; and many can only attend an open admissions university. The Davis proposal was never meant to be, nor could it substitute for, a public university which serves the residents of this city in this city. UDC funds would not be used for the operations of UDC but would be carefully targeted to urgently needed infrastructure needs that have no hope of finding the needed priority in the D.C. budget for years. The city is constantly being asked why our young people are not being trained for rapidly growing technological jobs in the region but they are left with antiquated computers and other hopelessly out-of-date technology. Further, deferred maintenance has produced pitiful results, such as elevators that don't work, that are shameful in a public institution. Part of the reason for UDC's condition is that it took an enormously hard hit during the fiscal crisis. Its budget went from $69,631 million in fiscal year 1994 to $40,148 million this year, not counting huge reductions that began early in the decade. In the one year since February 1, 1998, the number of full-time faculty has plummeted from 375 to 246, not counting enormous cuts to which the University has been subjected throughout this decade. The University was forced to close for three months in 1996, a calamity that would have destroyed most colleges and universities. Yet, D.C. residents are voting with their feet and returning to UDC. Despite the University's hardships, entering freshmen enrollment rose dramatically by 70% in only one year, from 661 in fall 1997 to 1125 in fall 1998. Today, the University's enrollment of 5,284 represents, an 11% increase in one year. Some emphasize the undeniable fact that UDC needs money. Others indicate that District youngsters need increased opportunities for higher education, a truism if ever there was one. However, I told UDC students who visited the Capitol yesterday that it is wrong to pit individual justice against institutional justice. I say the same thing to my colleagues--we must do the right thing and assure that we have a win-win for higher education for our young people in this city.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I introduce the Student Protection from Sexual Abuse Act of 1999 today because the U.S. Supreme Court has asked for Congressional guidance on whether we intend Title IX to allow damages and/or injunctive relief when a 9th grade student is sexually assaulted and harassed. Like the four Members of the Supreme Court in the closely divided 1998 opinion, Gebser v. Largo Vista School District, I believe that Congress intended damages and injunctive relief when a child is sexually assaulted by a teacher while in school. I agree with Justice Stevens and the dissenting justices, as well as the Department of Education, that the Court's own prior rulings and the statute itself allows damages without meeting criteria that virtually guaranteed no Title IX remedy. The majority of the Court, however, concluded that it needed ``further direction from Congress.'' This bill provides that guidance. I believe that no Member would want to be responsible for the bizarre and unacceptable result that sexual harassment is now covered when a principal harasses a teacher but not when a teacher assaults or harasses an underaged student. I do not believe that Congress intends for a school system to be able to virtually immunize itself from damages even though a teacher repeatedly has had intercourse with a ninth grader. Further, my bill not only protects a child and her parents, but the school system as well by limiting damages to compensatory damages. The Court says it's our fault. Twenty-seven years ago, when Title IX was written, Congress did not foresee what we see clearly today: cases of teacher-student sexual abuse are arising fast and often. The ball is in our court, and this is not child's play. The Supreme Court in the Gebser decision has given the Congress a virtual summons to remedy, or, if you prefer, to update our own language to correct a glaring child abuse gap in our law. I ask for bipartisan support on this the Student Protection from Sexual Abuse Act of 1999 and for passage this year. The earlier we do so, the sooner school systems will take action to prevent sexual abuse of children committed to their charge, thus eliminating the need for court suits.