Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) such time as she may consume.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 505, which recognizes the contributions made by recreational boating community to our national economy, and calls on the President to issue a proclamation to observe National Boating Day. There are now more than 13 million recreational boats registered in the United States. These boats support some 380,000 jobs in the U.S. and generate an estimated $39 billion to the U.S. economy. They depend on 12,000 marinas across the waterways of the United States for essential services. Impressive as they are, however, these numbers do not begin to reveal the many contributions that boating makes to recreational life in the United States. Boating offers people the chance to catch up with family and friends while watching the world float by, to introduce their children to the natural environment, and to slow down and enjoy a relaxing weekend on a vacation away from home. Perhaps not surprisingly, a survey conducted by the National Marine Manufacturers Association found that boating was among the top three stress-relieving activities among survey respondents. Recreational boating is also far more accessible than many may assume. More than 90 percent of Americans live less than an hour's drive from a body of water on which recreational boating can be undertaken. Because of boating's importance to our Nation, the United States already observes many days to honor different aspects of the boating industry. For example, on August 11, the United States will observe National Marina Day. During the week prior to Memorial Day, we observe National Safe Boating Week, intended to remind boaters of the need to practice safe boating habits and to use personal flotation devices while on the water. The message of National Safe Boating Week bears repeating. In 2005, nearly 5,000 boating accidents resulted in just under 3,500 injuries and nearly 700 deaths, the vast majority of which were caused by accidental drowning that could have been prevented if those who fell in the water had been wearing life jackets. H. Res. 505 now calls on the President to set aside a day specifically to honor recreational boating and the boating industry. I believe such recognition is due to the pastime of boating, and I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein) for introducing this resolution and supporting a wonderful activity in our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 505) recognizing the innumerable contributions of the recreational boating community and the boating industry to the continuing prosperity and affluence of the United States.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I urge passage, and yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. NORTON. I have no additional speakers.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 801 is a bill to designate the United States Courthouse bordered by O Street, P Street, Tulare Street and Capitol Street in Fresno, California, as the Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse. Judge Coyle recently retired from Federal service, was appointed to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, in 1982. He has served on the bench for 25 years, including 6 years as chief judge. Judge Coyle is a native Californian. He was born in Fresno in 1930, graduated from Fresno State College in 1953 and from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1956. Judge Coyle's career includes time as Fresno County Deputy District Attorney. He is a member of numerous associations, including the American Bar Association, American Board of Trial Advocates, State Bar of California, and the Fresno County Legal Services. He is a trusted mentor and a highly respected member of the ninth circuit. Judge Coyle has devoted his public career to the citizens of California's central valley and was instrumental in supporting the construction of the courthouse. It is both fitting and appropriate to honor his legacy with this designation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 801.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 801) to designate a United States courthouse located in Fresno, California, as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse''.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for her excellent work on her maiden voyage as chair. I have come to say a few words that I think need saying about the performance of GAO with respect to the grand experiment that our committee allowed on pay for performance. We allowed it. We have not tried to interfere with it. But the actions taken by the Comptroller General where you would at least have expected it has produced nothing short of a revolution within, of all places, the GAO workforce. They were chosen for this grand experiment because they were a fairly upscale part of the Federal workforce. And what have we got? How would you feel if you had worked at or above performance, and yet you were among 300 employees of, what is it, 2 million Federal employees who did not receive the across-the-board pay increase that everybody else receives? Well, some of you might have sued or filed a claim with the Personnel Appeals Board within the GAO. And those employees, all 12 of them, have received their COLA, have been promoted, and have had their retirement fixed. But there are 300 employees from 2006, 130 from 2007 who have been punished as to their pensions and pay because the Comptroller did not keep his promise with the Congress, which was that nobody's across-the- board pay would be affected. In fact, what he did was to insert a market-based study without informing the subcommittee, an unvalidated study, and now he has a whole racial claim on top of it because the African Americans have been disproportionately affected by his action. If the Comptroller wanted some help, he could have gone to the OPM. Instead, he used a market-based study from a consultant. If he wanted to know how to deal with unionization which is now upon him, he could have gone to the OPM. He could have gone to the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Instead, he is spending taxpayer funds in order to try to beat a union within the Federal sector, the first time ever. If we allow taxpayer funds to be used that way, then it seems to me we ought to be called to account.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the University of the District of Columbia Graduate Programs Act that amends Section 326 of the Higher Education Act to provide federal Historically Black College and University (HBCU) grant funding to the qualified graduate programs at the University of the District of Columbia. The University of the District of Columbia (UDC) is the District's only public university and institution of higher learning. An open admission institution at the undergraduate level, the University has consistently and historically provided higher education opportunities to D.C. residents at low and affordable costs. The University justifiably prides itself on its vital role in educating the leaders of the next generation by producing theoretically sound and practically skilled graduates, ready to undertake careers in service in both the public and private sectors. UDC also is one of the Nation's oldest HBCUs, but the university did not receive federal funding as an HBCU until 1999. When Congress passed the District of Columbia College Access Act, I was able to convince Congress that the necessary complement to the College Access Act was long overdue HBCU funding because of the indispensable function of UDC for thousands of students for whom UDC was not only a choice, but the only practical option. Funding from the Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs) program will allow UDC to increase its production of skilled graduates in vital disciplines and jobs in which African Americans, Hispanics and others are underrepresented and to strengthen its graduate programs in occupations where there are shortages and jobs in our region. For example, the University has graduate degree programs in cancer biology prevention and control, early childhood education, mathematics, special education, and speech and language pathology, and other graduate programs in the College of Arts and Sciences, the David A. Clarke School of Law, and the School of Business and Public Administration. A graduate curriculum is being developed in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the ``District of Columbia Loan Repayment Equity Technical Amendment Act of 2007.'' This bill will ensure that undeserved communities in the District of Columbia have access to adequate health care services in selected health professional shortage areas, HPSAs, identified by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under the State Loan Repayment Program, as Congress intended. This bill does not involve any new funds. It will make the District eligible to receive assistance through the Public Health Service Act grants system, as would already be the case if the District had a matching program. Until 2006 there was no matching program in the District thus making it ineligible to apply for assistance. This bill is revenue neutral. Adding the District of Columbia to this program will not have any effect on federal funding because the District will be required to compete for the Federal funds exactly as every other State competes for the grants. The State Loan Repayment Program, SLRP, was implemented in 1987 in response to Section 3381 of the Public Health Service Act, which authorizes the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to States to help recruit and retain primary health care professionals in HPSAs. Under the State Loan Repayment Program, clinicians provide primary care health services in HPSAs in exchange for funds for the repayment of their qualifying educational loans. These individuals are fully trained and licensed primary health care clinicians dedicated to meeting the health care needs of medically underserved communities. Under the State Loan Repayment Program, grants are made to States to operate their own loan repayment programs. Primary care health professionals who are providing a minimum of 2 years of full-time clinical services in public or non-profit facilities located in HPSAs are eligible to apply for a loan repayment. The State Loan Repayment Program is a collaboration of Federal, State, and community efforts. The Federal Government provides up to 50 percent of the funds to make loan repayment funds to primary health care professionals. The remaining 50 percent of the funding comes from State and local community resources. The District of Columbia has 13.8 percent underinsured residents compared to 15.7 percent of individuals that are uninsured across the country. Approximately 17 percent of non-elderly adults and l0.4 percent of children are uninsured. Today, millions of Americans lack access to health insurance. In 2005, more than 46 million persons were uninsured for the entire year. There are several reasons for the lack of health coverage for Americans among all uninsured persons under age 65, more than half were underprivileged and 34 percent lacked health coverage. Improving the health care system is a huge priority for Congress. The Institute of Medicine found that the insurance status of parents affects the amount of health care that their children receive. By amending the Public Health Service Act, this bill would provide eligibility to the District of Columbia for the State Loan Repayment Program. It is extremely important that underserved populations have access to primary health services regardless of their low-income status. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 32nd Annual Capital Pride Festival, a celebration of the National Capital Area's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender, GLBT, communities, their families, and friends. The Capital Pride Festival has grown from a small block party in 1975 to the current week- long celebration. This year Capital Pride culminates with the Pride Parade on June 9th and ``The Main Event,'' a street fair on Pennsylvania Avenue in the shadow of the Capitol, June 10th. I have marched in the Pride parades since coming to Congress to emphasize the universality of human rights and the importance of enacting federal legislation to secure those rights for the GLBT community. This year's theme, ``Together we can, Together we will,'' holds special meaning for the citizens of the District of Columbia and its GLBT community in particular. Washingtonians live in distinct diverse neighborhoods such as Colonial Village to the North, Fort Drum to the South, Northeast Boundary to the East, and Spring Valley to the West. Together we can unite in our quest for all the rights guaranteed U.S. citizens by the Constitution. In 1994 the District of Columbia lost the first vote it ever won on the floor of the House of Representatives, the delegate vote in the Committee of the Whole. The Republicans retracted the District's vote when they assumed control of the House and this right was re- established under Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Our city of 550,000 residents, 10 percent more residents than the entire State of Wyoming, who pay more taxes per capita than 49 of the 50 states, remains the only jurisdiction in the United States subject to Taxation Without Representation. Our Nation's Capital is entitled full voting rights in the House and the Senate. On April 19, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1905, The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. The measure is now before the Senate and is an important milestone on DC's road to full and equal representation. This one success is a reminder of the pending legislation that the 110th Congress must pass: The Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act, The Early Treatment for HIV Act, The Employment Non- Discrimination Act, The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, The Military Readiness Enhancement Act, The Responsible Education About Life Act, The Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, and The Uniting American Families Act. I ask the House to join me in welcoming the celebrants attending the 32nd Annual Capital Pride Festival in Washington, DC, and I take this opportunity to remind the celebrants that U.S. citizens who reside in Washington, DC are taxed without full voting representation in Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to permit two statues honoring citizens of the District of Columbia in Statuary Hall of the Capitol, just as statues honoring citizens of States are placed in the historic hall. This legislation would allow the city to offer two statues to the Congress on behalf of DC residents. This bill is important to ensure equal treatment for the residents of the District of Columbia with the residents of the 50 States who already have statues representing them in Statuary Hall. On August 10, 2006, the DC Commission on Arts and Humanities began the process of creating the two statues to be placed in Statuary Hall when the Commission chose Frederick Douglass and Pierre L'Enfant as the two prominent residents whose statues would represent the District of Columbia. The Commission also hired two Washington area sculptors, Steven Weitzman and Gordon Kay, to work on the sculptures of Frederick Douglass and Pierre L'Enfant and they are scheduled to complete their work later this year. Douglass, (1818-1895), was born a slave in Maryland and became a District resident in 1870. He held diplomatic and District appointments and is considered to be the Father of the Civil Rights Movement. Douglass also displayed his talents as an orator and journalist throughout his life here. His home in the District of Columbia is a national monument which attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors annually. L'Enfant, (1754-1825), an architect, engineer and soldier came from France to serve in the American Revolution. George Washington chose L'Enfant to design the new federal city of Washington D.C. He became a US citizen and spent the remainder of his life in D.C. implementing his plan and making D.C. the beautiful city it is today. The District of Columbia was born with the Nation itself 206 years ago. Throughout these two centuries the city has created its very own rich and uniquely American history. Congresswoman Norton said, ``It goes without saying that the almost 650,000 American citizens who live in the Nation's capital deserve the honor of having two of its history makers represented in the halls of the Nation's Capitol as citizens who live in the 50 states have long enjoyed. That when we allow the District to be excluded from its place among the 50 States, we undermine the Nation's efforts to spread full democracy around the world. While DC residents have not yet obtained the same political equality and voting rights as the citizens of the States, they have all the responsibilities of the States, including paying all Federal taxes and serving in all the Nation's wars.'' Norton said, ``Today when our residents are serving in Iraq, the least we should do is to give this city its rightful and equal place in the Capitol.'' There are more than 100 soldiers still serving in Iraq from Specialist Dent's 547th Transportation Company. ``The statues would offer District residents the opportunity to enjoy the same pride that all other citizens experience when they come to their Capitol--the opportunity to view memorials that commemorate the efforts of deceased local residents who have made significant contributions to American history,'' Norton said.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Metropolitan Police Service Act of 2007. This bill would conform the federal formula for calculating its share of the District of Columbia's Firefighters and Police officers pension to the new 20 year threshold adopted by the District government. The original bill introduced to the D.C. City Council in 1999 set the minimum to 20 years of service, but then Chief of Police Charles Ramsey asked that the minimum be increased to 25 years. He was concerned that 300 police officers serving on the Police Department in 1999 who were eligible to retire at 20 years might retire en masse. The timeframe for these retirees has passed and the DC government has stepped up to take care of its firefighters and police officers, by resetting the eligibility to 20 years. These firefighters and police officers now request that the United States Congress fulfill its promises to these first responders. The Federal government made a commitment to pay District of Columbia firefighters and police officer annuity payments that accrued before 1997. Thus, it was necessary when the District of Columbia changed its formula from 25 to 20 years, that the Federal government make the same change for these first responders, so that every first responder has the opportunity for the same annuity payments that accrue at the same time. This legislation is consistent with what happened in 2000. At that time, the District first changed the retirement plan for Metropolitan Police Department to permit service longevity payments to be considered part of the basic compensation used to calculate the retirement annuities. Congress then followed suit in 2001, by making the adjustment in the Federal Government's share of the payments, namely, the share attributable to service provided prior to July 1997. Thus, the federal formula for its share of each affected firefighter and police officer then mirrored the formula established by the District of Columbia government. In January of 2007, Mayor Adrian Fenty signed a new law which amends the District of Columbia formula to provide that eligible firefighters and police officers must complete just 20 years of service to receive their long-term annuity. Chief Ramsey did not oppose the lowering of the threshold. Congress should now proceed, as it did it 2001, to change the federal formula for retirement annuities, so it mirrors the District of Columbia's.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of one of my constituents, David Hearn, who will retire this month after almost 46 years as the organist for St. Paul's Lutheran Church here in the District of Columbia. For more than four decades, Mr. Hearn has graced the congregation of St. Paul's and this city with classical and religious music including hymns, spirituals, and music from other lands. Mr. Hearn's love of church music was influenced early by his mother, a singer and choir director, as well as his father who had a fine tenor voice. He earned a music degree from Ashland University in Ohio and a graduate degree from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. He also completed summer courses at Oberlin College and Baldwin Wallace Conservatory in Ohio. After a stint in the Army, Mr. Hearn came to the Washington area when offered a teaching contract in the Montgomery County school system. While there, he taught in all grades and eventually became Choral Director and Head of the Music Department at Wheaton High School. Under his direction, the choir performed in many local venues, including St. Paul's. They also traveled widely and were honored to sing a Sunday morning service at Old North Church in Boston during the Bicentennial year celebrations. The Madrigal singers also sang in Montreal, Boston, and Washington Cathedral. When Mr. Hearn became Music Director at St. Paul's on a snowy Sunday morning many years ago, he played a small Hammond organ in the chancel of the church. As the church grew and prospered, Mr. Hearn led the effort by the church to acquire the impressive Shantz pipe organ that today attracts prominent organists from around the country for recitals. In addition to directing the St. Paul's choir and participating in services for decades, Mr. Hearn has hosted innumerable choirs and solo artists at St. Paul's for performances that have touched the lives of countless District residents. He has placed a special emphasis on developing the talents of gifted young singers and musicians and providing them with an opportunity to perform for appreciative audiences. Mr. Hearn has spent decades enriching the cultural and religious life of District residents. I am pleased to join the congregation of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in recognizing Mr. Hearn's service to his church and contributions to our community as he begins a well deserved retirement.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, Memorial Day Weekend, May 23-27, is the 17th Annual Black Pride celebration in Washington, DC. DC Black Pride is an exciting 5-day event complete with dynamic workshops, receptions, cultural arts activities, small and large nightclub events that culminates in the world's oldest, most inclusive Black Pride Festival in the Washington Convention Center. Many consider DC's festival one of the world's preeminent Black Pride celebrations. The festival consistently draws more than 30,000 people to the Nation's Capital. Attendees come from every major urban area in the United States as well as Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. The Black Pride Festival features activities for the entire family, including performances by national recording artists, 200 exhibition booths, book signings from noted writers, participation from national and local health organizations, and arts and crafts. Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc. (BLGPD), the celebration's organizing body, chose the theme ``Black All Over: Liberty-Unity- Strength'' to encourage the Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans gender (LGBT) community to work together towards combating homophobia, promoting health and wellness, strengthening their community, and encouraging Black LGBT people everywhere to live their lives with pride. Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc., a non-profit organization with a volunteer Board of Directors, coordinates this annual event. BLGPD's 2007 Board consists of James W. Hawkins, President; Ray Daniels, Vice President; Janisha Gabriel, Secretary; Lisa Washington, Treasurer; and the following Members at Large: Donovan Anderson, Khalid Parker, Courtney Snowden, Sterling A. Washington, Shanika Whitehurst, DaJuan Xavier; and these Members Emeritus: Earl Fowlkes, Eric E. Richardson, Clarence J. Fluker, and Cheryl Dunn, who lead BLGPD in its mission to build knowledge of and to create greater pride in the Black LGBT community's diversity, while raising funds to ameliorate and prevent health problems in this community, especially HIV/AIDS. I ask the House to join me in welcoming all attending the 17th annual DC Black Pride celebration in Washington, DC, and I take this opportunity to remind the celebrants that United States citizens who reside in Washington, DC, are taxed without full voting representation in Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly thank him for his own hard work and strong support on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 1124, the bill that will reauthorize the District of Columbia Access Act of 1999 and extend the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant program, which it authorizes, for an additional 5 years, and, of course, to thank the House for a bill that has afforded higher education to many students who would otherwise have not received it. I especially thank Chairman Henry Waxman and Chairman Danny Davis for facilitating early consideration of this noncontroversial bill on suspension. A very special thanks is particularly due to committee ranking member and co- author Tom Davis for his strong and indispensable leadership on this legislation when he was Chair of the full committee and for his continued strong support of DCTAG. This legislation is already returning unusually large dividends for the Federal investment. DCTAG has increased college attendance of D.C. students by an astonishing 60 percent over 5 years. For the 2005-2006 school year, almost 5,000 students received funding from DCTAG to enroll in 646 universities and colleges in 47 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Most of these students are the first in their families to attend college. These documented results represent the city's most important progress toward developing a workforce that can meet the increasing education requirements for employment at average wages in the region. Importantly, this legislation has been instrumental in reversing the steady flight of taxpayers from the District of Columbia, many of whom left the District in order to gain access to lower cost State colleges and universities in the region. DCTAG acts as a proxy and a substitute for a State university system for the District, which has an open admissions State university, the University of the District of Columbia, but, unlike every State, has no unified system of several colleges and universities. UDC, supported entirely by the city and tuitions of students, is the university of choice for students who must get their education in the District and is itself indispensable to the city, and so much so that I used the opportunity provided by this bill to achieve funded historically black college status for the UDC that the city has long sought for its State university because the University of the District of Columbia is one of the oldest Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the United States. As a result, UDC has received an attractive annual HBCU payment since 1999. However, this bill provides higher education access to young people here equivalent to opportunities available in all the States, rather than only one university, and increases the number of choices necessary to meet today's D.C. student population. Maryland and Virginia, for example, each provide more than 30 different college options to residents. DCTAG provides up to $10,000 annually, which covers State college tuition at most public colleges, or provides up to $2,500 annually to attend private institutions in the city and region. DCTAG has enjoyed strong bipartisan support since it was created in 1999. The President has shown his confidence in the program by including $35 million for DCTAG in his fiscal year 2008 budget request. The D.C. State Education Office deserves special credit for working diligently and successfully since the bill was enacted to maintain a very solid administration of the program. The District has even moved ahead of the curve to foreclose any future funding shortfalls by engaging in careful planning and calculations, measuring expected demand and costs and has made adjustments in offerings accordingly. We are particularly grateful to business leaders in the region, led by Donald Graham, chairman of The Washington Post, who was instrumental in helping to convince Congress of the necessity for the bill. Mr. Graham and the business leaders did not stop there, however. They established the College Access Program, which we call CAP, to provide additional financial support. More important, CAP provides essential guidance and encouragement to students as they reach the critical time decision for college. We are also grateful to CAP for supplying a support network that has helped the District's TAG program receive excellent, excellent retention rates. For example, of the 1,091 DCTAG freshmen in 2001-2002, 72 percent returned as sophomores; of that, 79 percent returned as juniors; 82 percent as seniors, and 77 percent of the seniors graduated. This, I am sure Members recognize, is very enviable retention in college graduate rates compared with others around the country. CAP's 100 percent private funding by business leaders, most from the region, not from the city, is nothing less than a vote of confidence in DCTAG that I believe is warranted by the legislation's documented results. It is difficult to think of congressional legislation that has brought such immediate and positive results, or that is more appreciated by D.C. residents. To be sure, our D.C. homebuyer and business tax credits, unique to the District and reauthorized again last year, have had similar measurable and documented effects on increasing homeownership and keeping taxpaying residents and businesses in a city without a State tax base that instead must itself carry many State costs. However, if there are to be homeowners and taxpayers in the District of Columbia in the 21st century, many more of them must have college training. The economy of this Federal city will always be tied to Federal jobs and jobs related to Federal jobs at the high end. The stability of the Federal sector here has been indispensable to many aspects of the city's economy, but too few of the public and private sector jobs go to District residents. For example, the District continues to be a virtual job machine for the region. The District created 8,500 jobs in the last 12 months, but its unemployment rate remains almost twice the rate in this region. This disparity represents an education and training mismatch that must be eliminated to assume a decent future for the city's young residents. H.R. 1124 is one of the District's top priorities this year because of the program's proven benefits to the economy of the city and region, and especially to the city's residents and families. Families have been willing to make the necessary sacrifices to meet the costs of large annual increases in State tuition nationwide, even though the amount they receive from TAG has not increased at all and remains a maximum $10,000 annually, and this despite the modest family incomes of most of our students. This immensely successful and popular higher education program has proven itself over and over again. It would be difficult, indeed, to think of a program that has returned so much to the city and the Federal Government for the modest amount of Federal funding. Of any measure that I will bring before the House this year, H.R. 1124 certainly ranks near the top in deserving continuing support. I appreciate the strong bipartisan support and the support of the President of the United States that this vital Federal educational assistance program has received, and I ask for the continued support of the House. I believe the results fostered by the program have earned the support. I strongly urge approval of 1124.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the chairman for yielding. I could take a minute to thank him for his masterful handling of this bill in a bipartisan fashion before this committee. I want to strongly thank the chairman for the way in which the committee has insisted on endorsing a headquarters for this department, because one of the continuing and most sustained criticisms of the department has been its management. But how can we expect the department to be managed when they are in 60 different places, 80 different leases? The inefficiencies, Mr. Chairman, associated with the dispersal of this largest department are incalculable. The great cuts and deficiencies we have seen in the Homeland budget pale beside what we see in the way in which it is positioned: multiple and redundant mailrooms and screening facilities and parking and child care facilities and fitness centers; and, above all, shuttles just so that one part of the department can get to meet face to face with another part. Worst of all, one part that I know will be vacated is the Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, and yet they're having to spend $18 million just to make that livable. They are forced to live by short- term leases, rollover leases, wasting money. We have an opportunity, because to the President's credit, he has put money in the appropriation to begin to build a headquarters for this department. It was in there last session. It did not get passed. It's up to the appropriators, the new appropriators, to make sure we have a real department and real headquarters.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, may I offer my thanks to the chairman of the subcommittee, particularly for the very expeditious way in which he has moved my request for early consideration of the matter before us now. I rise to request passage of H.R. 2080, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in keeping with District public school charter revisions proposed by Mayor Adrian Fenty and passed by the Council of the District of Columbia. I very much appreciate that Chairman Henry Waxman and Chairman Danny Davis considered this bill expeditiously, and the leadership has kindly granted our request for early consideration of the bill on the House floor on the suspension calendar in light of the fact that the matter before the House is not controversial. The bill supports the District in moving on its own to correct problems in its local school system. In fact, H.R. 2080 is before the Congress only because the current Home Rule Act now in the process of being revised requires that certain changes to the District's charter be made by Federal legislation. I stress that the underlying school reorganization involves no Federal funds and is entirely a local school issue. However, H.R. 2080 is of major importance to the District of Columbia. And if it were possible, the city would have made these revisions effective immediately. Therefore, I am grateful to the Federal Workforce chair, Mr. Danny Davis, and Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman for moving this bill as soon as possible in committee, and the subsequent movement to the House floor the very next week, the week in which we now find ourselves. The school structure change in particular puts a heavy and unprecedented burden on the administration of a new mayor, Mayor Adrian Fenty. Many in the Congress have over the years urged changes in the D.C. public schools; and therefore, I know that the last thing Congress wants to do is get in the way or slow a difficult local school reform process. The extra congressional level of procedure for a local school restructuring is not within the expertise of a national legislative body whose agenda is packed with urgent national concerns. The necessity for a Member of Congress to introduce a bill for a self-governing city is an anachronism neither the Congress nor the District deserves or can afford today. I promise the Congress I will try to make this the last time the House or the Senate is requested to pass a charter bill of no concern and of little interest to the Congress of the United States. I strongly ask that all Members support the swift passage of this bill today.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I introduce the Dedicated Dental Service for HIV/AIDS (DDS for HIV/AIDS) Act of 2007, to establish a loan repayment program for dental school graduates in exchange for their agreement to remedy a critical shortage of dentists for the poor, particularly in areas with a high incidence of HIV and AIDS, by agreeing to serve such patients. This bill is similar to legislation Congress has previously enacted to encourage other health professionals, such as physicians, nurses, optometrists and pharmacists to provide vital services in underserved areas. This bill is being introduced in conjunction with a series of HIV/AIDS town hall meetings that I am hosting in the District of Columbia. I am introducing the bill on the same day when I am hosting a Men's Town Meeting on HIV/AIDS. This public meeting is one of a series of town meetings I am holding to increase awareness and individual responsibility at a time when 50 percent of AIDS cases today are African American. Howard University professors of dentistry inform us that the first indicators of HIV/AIDS infection are often oral health problems. Oral health problems often not only constitute an important early signal of HIV/AIDS symptoms; they also serve as benchmarks for disease progression. One of the most serious problems with the spread of HIV/AIDS is the reluctance of people to be tested for such a disease, especially in the African-American community and other big city and rural areas. Access to dental care, therefore, is critically important from the earliest onset, especially in high impact areas. Access, of course, minimizes long-term oral health complications for patients, but it also provides important linkages to good overall medical care to combat the disease in the community. A recent RAND health study on HIV costs and services found that the vast majority of patients received care at their local AIDS clinic, not a primary dentist. Moreover, these disfavored patients must look for service within the context of a nationwide drop in dental school applicants and graduates, and a projected 60 percent loss of active dentists due to retirement. As a result, the average American, especially those with HIV/AIDS, will, or already are, having difficulty in obtaining dental care. The crisis is palpable for HlV/AIDS patients. They have even more difficulty than other Americans finding dentists who will accept Medicaid or treat patients at reduced cost. Some dentists are reluctant to provide care. Although only one case of transmission between dentist and patient has been documented, problems of access are acute. Many patients must travel long distances to find care. Many states do not include dental care as part of their Medicaid coverage. Patients often must search for providers such as schools of dentistry or local community clinics which receive some funds from the Dental Reimbursement Program (DRP), administered through the Ryan White CARE Act. My bill would create a loan forgiveness program for dental school graduates who agree to serve HIV/AIDS populations in areas where there is a high incidence of such cases, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services. This program is drawn from the nurse loan forgiveness program passed by Congress in 1998. The crisis for the dental profession, especially in the distribution of dentists in underserved areas, is even greater than for physicians. Dental school graduates incur an average loan debt of $100,000. Under the guidelines of the program, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to pay 60 percent of the principal and interest on the loans in exchange for service for a period of no less than two years. If a dentist agrees to participate in a third year of service, another 25 percent of the principal and interest on his loans will be paid. Loan forgiveness programs bring important added value because many recipients remain in practice in the area to which they are assigned. The Secretary of HHS is to submit to the Congress a report on the program, with information including the number of dentists enrolled, the number and amount of loan repayments, the placement location of loan repayment recipients, and the evaluation of the overall costs and benefits of the program. With more than one million Americans with HIV/AIDS, and over 16,000 in the District of Columbia, and its impact among people of color, these health providers need greater attention. We are proud of the overworked and under-funded services that are available in the District of Columbia. The Howard School of Dentistry has a long history of providing dental services to the poor here, and the HU CARES program provides care for nearly 1,200 patients a year. The vital Whitman- Walker Clinic, the largest provider of comprehensive HIV/AIDS services in the District and the region serves over 1,500 dental patients a year. I urge my colleagues to join with me in establishing this dental loan repayment program that will meet an immediate and pressing need in communities across the country, as we have for other professions.

Mr. NORTON

Mr. NORTON. Madam Speaker, Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman and I re-introduce the ``Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2007''. This bill today was virtually summoned by the District's lead water crisis in 2004. The national attention our crisis generated for the likely presence of lead in the water supply drew many jurisdictions to do their own investigations, uncovering similar problems. When former Senator James Jeffords, Representative Waxman, and I looked at the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Lead and Copper Rule, it was clear that even the revision of the Rule in 1991 did not meet standards that should have been adopted at that time. Our bill incorporates what we learned from hearings on the D.C. water crisis and from the state of the current science. This bill is necessary because at a recent hearing for the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Benjamin H Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water in the EPA, promised that new rules on lead and copper in water would be promulgated at the level mandated in this legislation. However, details of the rule have not been shared with the subcommittee, and the rule is not scheduled to be released until the fall of this year. We have heard this same excuse since 2004, illustrating the continuing need for Congress to act. In 2006, as confidence was slowly being restored in our drinking water, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority was cited for violations of SDWA consent order due to a failure in testing procedures. Most especially, recent reports have documented elevated levels of lead in drinking water in five District of Columbia public school water fountains, even though the children are most vulnerable to lead, thus the important reasons for this legislation remain strong after three years. This bill directly addresses the concerns that also vulnerable are pregnant and nursing women and District of Columbia parents have with lead in the water at schools and would lay to rest well-placed anxiety about lead in the drinking water here and nationwide. The District of Columbia provided us with a virtual case study in why SWDA must be revised again in 2007. Here are some of the most important provisions taken from the D.C. experience: (1) Valid Testing. This bill eliminates the giant loophole that allowed the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) to continue testing once it exceeded the 15 parts per billion (Ppb) action level, in order to dilute its findings, reduce the percentage of homes to less than 10%, and thus relieve WASA of the requirement to replace lead service lines. Instead, 10% of lead pipes must be replaced until all are eliminated. (2) Total Lead Service Line Replacement. Instead of replacing only publicly owned lead service lines, this bill requires total replacement, including the portion owned by the homeowner. Our hearings showed that partial replacement can actually increase the amount of lead in drinking water, because the new metal, such as brass or copper, can interact with the remaining lead pipe and accelerate lead leaching into the drinking water. (3) Individual Notice From Detection to Correction. Instead of allowing public notices to be delayed or buried, using generic language deep in a brochure or water bill, as WASA did, our bill requires notice to all customers, individually within 30 days of lead exceedence, stating the scope of testing, results and corrective actions. (4) Alternative Water Supply. Where excessive lead is found, the bill requires that certified water filters be provided to each residence, school and day care facility, a measure that was delayed in the District despite the danger to pregnant women and children under six. (5) Testing Water Treatment Chemicals. The Army Corp of Engineers switched chemicals at the Washington Aqueduct from chlorine to chloramines without conducting a corrosion control test. The evidence is that the new chemical was the likely cause of the spike in lead levels here, but only now are phosphates being tested to counter lead corrosion in the water supply. This bill requires water systems to have corrosion control plans within one year of switching chemical treatment or a finding of excessive lead in the water. (6) Lead Free Plumbing. ``Lead free'' in this bill is defined as 0.2%, the standard already used in Los Angeles, down from the current 8%. We heard testimony at our hearings that most brass and copper plumbing contains 8% lead. (7) Lead Testing In Schools. This bill requires the repair or replacement of school water coolers found to have excessive lead. Annual testing of water coolers in schools is also required. The District of Columbia experience has opened the nation's eyes to lead in the water that millions of Americans may be drinking. Our bill will reduce the well-earned fears of residents here and across the country.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, the 1963 Equal Pay Act (EPA), the first of the great civil rights statutes of the 1960s, was highly successful for close to 20 years, but it is too creaky with age to be useful today. It is long past the time to amend the EPA to meet the changed economy, where women work almost as much as men. Every year, my House colleague Rosa DeLauro and I, and scores of other Members, introduce the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill to amend the EPA to make its basic procedures equal to those used in other antidiscrimination statutes. However, the Fair Pay Act (FPA), which Senator Tom Harkin and I have also introduced, not only amends the EPA, but it picks up where the EPA leaves off to bring the EPA into the 21st century by taking on sex segregated jobs where gender influenced wages leaves average women workers without any remedy too long. Congresswoman DeLauro and I have long pressed for the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act and both of us will testify at its first hearing today before the Committee on Education and Labor about what is at bottom a procedural update that should have occurred 25 years ago. I will be testifying from my own experience as the first woman chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), when President Jimmy Carter moved the EPA and other civil rights statutes to the EEOC as parts of a historic organization when I became chair. Along with my indispensable Senate partner, Tom Harkin, I again introduce the Fair Pay Act to reach the average woman worker, who is often first steered to and then locked into jobs with wages that are deeply influenced by the gender of those who have traditionally held those jobs. Women are greatly underused today because of employer steering, and because of deeply rooted wage stereotypes that result in pay according to gender and not according to the skills, efforts, responsibilities and working conditions necessary to do the job. I introduce the Fair Pay Act because the pay problems of most women today stem mainly from this sex segregation between the jobs that women and men traditionally do. Two-thirds of white women, and three quarters of African American women, work in just three areas: sales and clerical, service, and factory jobs. Only a combination of more aggressive strategies can break through the ancient societal habits present throughout human time the world over, as well as the employer steering of women into women's jobs that is as old as paid employment itself. The FPA recognizes that if men and women are doing comparable work, they should be paid a comparable wage. If a woman is an emergency services operator, a female-dominated profession, for example, she should be paid no less than a fire dispatcher, a male-dominated profession, simply because each of these jobs has been dominated by one sex. If a woman is a social worker, a traditionally female occupation, she should earn no less than a probation officer, a traditionally male job, simply because of the gender associated with each of these jobs. The FPA, like the EPA, will not tamper with the market system. As with the EPA, the burden will be on the plaintiff to prove discrimination. She must show that the reason for the disparity is sex discrimination, not legitimate market factors. Corrections to achieve comparable pay for men and women are not radical or unprecedented. State employees in almost half the State governments, in red and blue States alike, have already demonstrated that you can eliminate the part of the pay gap tht is due to discrimination. Twenty States have adjusted wages for women State employees, raising pay for teachers, nurses, clerical workers, librarians, and other female-dominated jobs that paid less than men with comparable jobs. Minnesota, for example, implemented a pay equity plan when they found that similarly skilled female jobs paid 20 percent less than male jobs. There often will be some portion of the gap that is traceable to market conditions, but 20 States have shown that you can tackle the discrimination gap without interfering with the free market system. The States generally have closed the discrimination gap over a period of 4 or 5 years at a one- time cost no more than 3 to 4 percent of payroll. In addition, routinely, many women workers achieve pay equity through collective bargaining, and countless employers on their own, as they see women shifting out of vital female-dominated occupations, the resulting effects of the shortage of workers, and the unfairness to women, and are raising women's wages with pay equity adjustments. Unequal pay has been built into the way women have been treated since Adam and Eve. To dislodge such deep seated and pervasive treatment, we must go to the source, the female occupations where pay now identifies with gender and always has. Recently, I thought we were seeing progress when the census reported last year that Black, college-educated women actually earned more than white, college-educated women, although the overall wage gap for Black women, at 65 percent, remains considerably larger than the gap for white women. No explanation was offered for the progress for Black women, but other data and information suggest that even when women seem to catch up it may not be what we had in mind. I suspect that African American women are represented disproportionately among the 50 percent of all multiple job holders who are women. I am certain that this progress for African American women also tells a tragic story. The decline in marriageable Black men, eaten alive by ghetto life, also means that many college-educated Black women are likely to be single with no need for even the short time-out for children that many white women often take that may affect their wages as compared with Black women. The best case for a strong and updated EPA with at least the Paycheck Fairness Act occurred here in the Congress in 2003, when women custodians in the House and Senate won an EPA case after showing that women workers were paid a dollar less for doing the same and similar work as men. Had they not been represented by their union, they would have had an almost impossible task using the rules for bringing and sustaining an EPA class action suit. The FPA simply modernizes the EPA to bring it in line with later passed civil rights statutes. From my tenure as EEOC chair, I know all too well the several ways that this historic legislation needs a 21st century make-over. We cosponsored both these two bills every year to say let's at least start with the Paycheck Fairness Act so we can be prepared to go further with the Fair Pay Act. Start where you like, but Congress should be ashamed to let another year go by while working families lose more than $200 billion annually--more than $4,000 per family--because even considering education, age, hours works and location, women are paid less than they are worth. Let's start this year to make pay worthy of the American women we have asked to go to work.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for leading this debate. Truly, you are the man to lead this debate on this great civil rights bill that the House is about to give after 206 years. I thank you for coming forward to do so. I want to praise and offer my gratitude to Democratic leaders for reconciling the important principle of fiscal responsibility, PAYGO as we call it, with the basic principle of voting rights, forsaking neither. H.R. 1906 is particularly appropriate, especially when you consider that D.C. residents have always paid taxes, notwithstanding that the 16th amendment says that only States shall pay taxes. Mayor Adrian Fenty and Council Chair Vincent Gray yesterday led a march in the wind and the rain on Emancipation Day because 145 years ago Lincoln freed the slaves in the District of Columbia 9 months ahead of the slaves elsewhere. My grandfather, Richard Holmes, was one of those slaves. His son, Richard, entered the D.C. Fire Department in 1902. And his son, Coleman, my father, like his forefathers and like me, have never had a vote in this city. I am particularly grateful, and I wanted this time especially to thank the 22 Republicans who voted for the bill today, preserving the great tradition of the party of Lincoln for equal rights. The Constitution was written by men who risked everything for the principle of representation. We should be especially mindful today, perhaps, to dedicate this bill to other men who have risked everything in times of war. 80-year-old retired Wesley Brown, the first black graduate of the Naval Academy and a resident of the District of Columbia, who went to the same high school that I attended, served in three wars, and retired from the Navy as lieutenant commander, but never has had the right to vote. His remarkable life story is chronicled in the book ``Breaking the Color Barrier: The U.S. Naval Academy's First Black Midshipman and the Struggle for Racial Equality.'' Bringing the matter forward, some young men in the District of Columbia are returning from Iraq, and I leave you with a few of their words. I quote Marcus Gray, who spent a year in Iraq in the 299th Engineering Company, who said, ``My father served in the 104th Airborne in Vietnam, and I am proud to follow him by serving my country in the same manner. I could be called again this year, but being called to active duty is what every soldier in the Reserves should expect to happen. ``We also expect equal treatment, and the Army tries hard to see that all soldiers are treated equally. However, I want equal treatment at home as well. I want the same voting representation as other soldiers, and as the Iraqi people have now because of our service.'' Emory Kosh, who works in my office in the House: ``I was proud to serve my country as a volunteer soldier. However, I am not prepared to sit as an employee of the House of Representatives while every Member answers the bell except my Congresswoman.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to give D.C. residents on the battlefield and in the city itself the vote they have earned over and over again. Most of those who have paid the dearest price will never see the benefit. Those in the Vietnam War, the District had more casualties than 10 States; in the Korean War, more casualties than eight States; in World War II, more casualties than four States; and in World War I, more casualties than three States. In their name, and in good conscience, I ask that the House today finally give the residents of the District of Columbia the vote they have fought for now for 206 years.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and for his ceaseless fight for the District's rights. During the rule, I thanked the many others who are responsible for this historic day. Today's vote will allow the House to erase many deep historic wrongs from the Nation's conscience. As the House votes, District's residents are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in a shooting war, as they have in every war, including the war that established our Republic. Andy Shallal, a District resident, said it best: ``People like me of Iraqi ancestry and even my son, who was born in the United States, are entitled to vote in Iraq elections due in large part to the service of the citizens of the District of Columbia and other Americans who have fought and died in Iraq.'' And today's vote will erase the slander that the Founders of our country who staged the revolution for representation would then deny it to the residents of their own capital. Professor Viet Dinh, President Bush's former point man on constitutional matters, has wiped away the major argument that because the District is not a State its American citizens cannot vote in the people's House, by detailing the many ways in which ``since 1805 the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority to treat the District as a State, and Congress has repeatedly exercised that authority.'' My favorite is the sixteenth amendment, which requires only that citizens of States pay Federal income taxes. Why then have District residents continuously been taxed without representation? And today's vote will relieve the House of the shameful racial burden that has been at the core of the denial of the rights of D.C. citizens. Congress required the same racial segregation here as in the Southern States, in schools and in public accommodations, until the 1954 Brown decision. As one Southern Senator put it: ``The Negroes flocked in, and there was only one way out, and that was to deny suffrage entirely to every human being in the district.'' Former Republican Senator Edward Brooke, a native Washingtonian and the Nation's first popularly elected black Senator, wrote: ``The experience of living in a segregated city and of serving in our segregated Army perhaps explains why my party's work on the Voting Rights Act reauthorization last year and on the pending D.C. House Voting Rights Act has been so important to me personally. The irony, of course, is that I had to leave my hometown to get representation in Congress and to become a Member.'' Today, I ask the House to abolish that irony and the tragedy for the many who have come to the Nation's Capital seeking freedom for 206 years, among them my great grandfather, Richard Holmes, a slave who ran away from a Virginia plantation in the 1850s and settled our family here. I appeal to your conscience and ask for your vote so that finally there also will be a vote for your fellow Americans here who have paid for this precious right many times over in blood and in treasure. I thank the gentleman for yielding.