Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have initiated this Special Order on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia who are second per capita in the Federal taxes they pay to support our Federal Government; yes, including this House and Senate and all the Armed Forces and our exquisite government throughout the United States, and who have fought and died in every war since the establishment of the Republic. In their name, I come forward. I came forward Tuesday in a 5-minute Special Order simply to inform the House that I had just filed my vote, my bill, that is to say, refiled the bill that Representative Tom Davis and I had filed and hoped to pass in the 109th Congress, the Fair and Equal D.C. House Voting Rights Act. I came in gratitude to my own party. I came also in some frustration. It is impossible to hide that frustration. I represent people who have been frustrated for 200 years and don't want one single moment more of frustration by having a second-class Member of the House of Representatives while paying first-class taxes and dying and fighting in every war that our country has ever fought, including this war where lives continue to be lost in such large numbers and for what cause. They do not ask, they simply fight like other Americans. I had hoped to be able to vote on the very bills that have been in discussion here this week, particularly the bills on which Democrats ran and perhaps were responsible for our capture of the House. And my deepest regret was that my Committee of the Whole vote that was taken from me when the Democrats came to power was not automatically put back into the rules. To his great credit, the majority leader indicates that he intends to introduce a provision to that effect. And I know I speak for myself and all of the delegates when I thank him about thinking about us and about how deeply we feel about that vote. For myself, I have come to the floor to say that I have had to pass that vote. I won't get to vote on the six items. I have been pleased to be able to speak on them as usual. I am at this point moving forward to where I have been instructed by the people of the United States. They don't even want the Committee of the Whole vote confused with what they are entitled to, and that is the full House vote. Mr. Speaker, before I go further, I have a number of people I must thank. The bill I introduced today was not a bill that I authored. It was originated by my good friend who also lives in the region, Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, who has grown up in the region and has seen the District of Columbia without a vote and believed that at least a vote on the House floor was virtually mandated by any Congress controlled by either party. He was in the majority and he initiated this idea because it came to his attention that the most Republican State in the Union had missed getting full voting rights, were chafing at that because they believed they were entitled and they had gone all the way to the Supreme Court to get them, and believed that this provided out what turns out to be the case, probably the only opportunity the District of Columbia will have to get its full voting rights in a very long time. I want to thank the majority leader who lives in the region who has been one of the most steadfast proponents of D.C. voting rights and never gives up and who always stands with us and to whom we will be eternally grateful. I have special thanks to Henry Waxman, the Chair of the Government Reform Committee, who has been the Democratic leader of the bill that I bring forward today for all 4 years which we have worked on it. He is always a strong supporter of District home rule and for District of Columbia voting rights. He was here years before I came to Congress, and I am second only to him in supporting these issues. He is one of the great problem-solvers of the Congress, and he has been instrumental in bringing this bill forward. It is impossible to believe it could have happened without Henry Waxman. I want to thank the Democratic and Republican members of the Government Reform Committee, who in the 109th Congress literally gave us virtually a tie vote of Republicans and Democrats favoring this bill: 15 Democrats, 14 Republicans. I want to thank Representative John Conyers, a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, the dean of the caucus, who has carried this idea again long before I ever thought of coming to Congress. At the same time, I want to thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus who since the founding days of the caucus have given D.C. voting rights a priority, who believe with me that it is an issue of discrimination based on race, and for that matter on location. I say that and will explain it later because of the origins of our voteless condition. I want to thank Senator Joe Lieberman, who with many other Democratic Senators in the Congress have carried my bill for full voting rights for the residents of the District of Columbia, the No Taxation Without Representation Act. We have reluctantly but with great realism embraced the House-only act because we understand the spirit of the Congress, that it has virtually never acted all at once to do what it is supposed to do. So we know that we have to proceed in an incremental fashion. I must thank my good colleagues from the State of Utah who have worked hand in glove with me every step of the way: Jim Matheson, the only Democrat in that delegation; Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon who have thrown aside party lines and thrust themselves into this bill from the beginning. I want to thank the two Senators from Utah, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, who sent word to their leadership that they were prepared to have this bill come to the floor at the end of the 109th Congress for unanimous passage. That would have happened, in my view, because the traditions of the Senate are that if a bill affects only one State, as a matter of Senatorial courtesy, the Senate defers to those Senators. It is heartbreaking that the 109th Congress punted the bill and robbed us of the opportunity to have that Senate vote in December. I have to thank the Governor of Utah, who came here to testify for the bill and has worked valiantly with the Democratic minority in Utah as well as with his own party. I do want to read from the letter that the Senators sent asking for the bill to be considered right away because, you see, the bipartisanship we must preserve in this bill. They said in their letter to their leaders, Leader Frist and Leader Reid, a letter signed by Senator Bennett, Senator Hatch and Senator Lieberman: ``It is urgent that Congress fulfill its obligation to provide the voting representation that Utah is entitled to as a result of changes to its population. Likewise, we recognize that the 600,000-plus Americans who live in the District of Columbia are without a voting Member of Congress. No doubt the citizens of Utah and the District face different challenges in greatly differing parts of the country and with greatly differing lifestyles, but they share a commonality: the right to be represented in our country's legislature.'' If ever there was a win/win piece of legislation, I think most Members would agree this is it. Certainly the American people agree: 82 percent of Americans support equal voting rights for the District of Columbia in Congress. That is 82 percent, up 10 percentage points in just 5 years. This professional poll shows some astounding results because then you want to look and see, is this piled up all on one side of the country or one grouping or one race, and you see the same thing throughout. Once people realize you pay Federal income taxes, and if you go to war the way we do, if the blood of the United States runs in your veins, you give up on the question of whether there should be voting representation in the Congress of the United States. All of the figures are in the high seventies or eighties. Northeast, Midwest. The South is the highest, 84 percent. Or if you look, at have a member of the military, they are 82 percent. These are people who believe in voting rights for the District of Columbia. Regularly attend religious services, 82 percent. Ages 55-plus, 82 percent; 18 to 34, 87 percent ages. We can find no variation in these figures, and I don't think you will find any variation anywhere in the world. This is the only country in the world where the residents of the capital do not have the right to vote in their national legislature. You can imagine why there is such great impatience in the District of Columbia. Imagine not having voting rights. Putting aside the taxes for a moment, when in the Vietnam War you had more casualties than 10 States, when in World War II you had more casualties than four States, and in World War I you had more casualties than three States, and in the Korean War you had more casualties than eight States. Let me finally say a word about the bill, and I am so pleased to see other Members of Congress come to join me in this Special Order. My thanks again to the originator, the author of this bill. As it turns out, he has given us the only chance we will ever have. The Congress of the United States in House and Senate has never increased its number except on a nonpartisan basis. Democrats have never got it by themselves, Republicans have never gotten it by themselves. Everybody remembers Alaska and Hawaii. You want to know how deep this goes, slave States couldn't get in unless a free State could. That is the history of our country. I regret that there has to be that kind of equivalence, but I want everybody to know: Utah somehow disjoined from this bill kills it. So I thank Utah for giving us the only chance we will ever have, particularly since I am not sure that we will have another State ever that missed it by the skin of their teeth and would be willing to take this risk with us. This bill was 4 years in the making after Mr. Davis introduced it. My thanks to him will be eternal because he was gracious in working with me when I wanted matters added to the bill. For example, I said to him, I could not even sponsor the bill unless it also went to the Committee on the Judiciary because that is the committee of jurisdiction. And it was Mr. Davis who convinced Mr. Sensenbrenner to allow us a markup. I said that there had to be an increase of two seats so no Member would think that they would lose a seat because we were gaining a seat. And I asked for something that was purely symbolic but important to the residents of the District of Columbia: I asked Mr. Davis who was then chairman of the committee if there could be a vote on my bill, the No Taxation Without Representation Act, so my people will know that I will never give up until they have full citizenship even if Congress requires us to do it step by step. But that is how we got home rule. Indeed, now we have the atrocious situation where my budget and laws have to sit here before we can spend our own money. So everything happens in this House incrementally. Mr. Speaker, Members on the floor who have been particularly gracious to me, always with me when I needed help, and I have needed help a lot as a Member from the District of Columbia with no delegation and no Senators, and some of them have come down in order to indicate their concern about our denial of voting rights and to say their piece. I could not be more grateful to them. I am told that the first to arrive was the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, who is in perhaps not a comparable position because I am sure that the people of the Virgin Islands are glad not to have to pay taxes to the Government of the United States, but who indeed represents American citizens as free and full as any others in the House; and I am pleased she has come down this evening, Mrs. Christensen of the Virgin Islands.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for coming forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) who represents the district where my own mother was born and raised.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Butterfield, the gentleman from North Carolina, in memory of my mother, Vela Lynch Holmes, who came to the District of Columbia and died at 90 here, while her daughter was still trying, in the name of my father's side of the family, the native Washingtonians, to make us all first class citizens, the way finally you are in North Carolina. Thank you, sir. I would like to yield now to my good friend who came in my class with me, the gentlelady from California, who 16 years ago came. I think we tripled or quadrupled the number of African American women in the Congress then. I know that the gentlewoman from California won't let this House have any peace until there is justice for the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this was classic Maxine Waters. The gentlelady is as gracious as she has always been militant in the pursuit of justice. Ms. Waters one session was on the floor with me for 10 hours on the DC Appropriations as people came forward to try to attach things to our appropriation. So she has been a stalwart friend that has been by my side when I most needed her. I particularly appreciate those remarks from a classmate who came with me to the Congress. The next to arrive was my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Davis, a very good friend who serves with me on the Government Reform Committee, who I believe is going to chair the subcommittee on which I serve. He certainly has been a leader on issues on that committee and one of the greatly admired Members of the House, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis. (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. I just want to thank the gentleman for the kindness and graciousness of his remarks. This is his signature in this House. Every time he opens his mouth, he takes command of an issue and captures our attention. That he has given his attention to us in the District of Columbia is a matter for which we are deeply grateful. I would like to yield now to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, whose energy and intelligence and zeal for justice is known by every Member of this House. I am pleased now to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank the gentlewoman. The selfless spirit of her remarks, the intelligence of her remarks is nothing new in this body. Indeed, it reminds me of the same spirit she has shown when our own citizens from New Orleans came in huge numbers to her great city and they took them in, because they were Americans. I also want to thank her for citing and reminding us that Martin Luther King's birthday is coming up and we are all going to be somewhere celebrating. Well, Martin Luther King would be here saying to this House, particularly to the Democratic majority who has spearheaded this issue for decades now, that now is the moment. Do it now. That is what he said when he was on the Mall. Do it now. Freedom now. Indeed, the new Mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian Fenty, who has been particularly active on voting rights, has indicated to me that he will be dedicating January 15 here in the District to DC voting rights and kicking off a campaign on January 15 that he calls Give DC The Vote Now Day in memory of Martin Luther King, who would not want his day used in such trivialities as simple ceremonies. I also want to thank the gentlewoman for her reference to Mr. McMillan. Because the fact is the reason the District hadn't gotten home rule had to do with race and only with race. Mr. McMillan was a Southern Democrat who stood in the way, because beginning in the late 1950s the majority population of the District of Columbia was African Americans. So race has always stood in the way of our full empowerment. Today, it is as likely to be party. That is why we are grateful to the State of Utah for stepping forward. I don't mean to say that race is gone from this issue. Residents of the District of Columbia, two-thirds of them African American, see this issue as an up-and-down civil rights issue. They are the only African Americans in the United States that don't have their full civic rights, and they know it, and they treat this issue this way. I treat race as a simple proxy for party, because we are a big city, recognizing as I do that I know full well what second-class citizenship means. And you have to understand that the reason this is important for the District is not only was it a majority black city beginning in the late 1950s, but it was a segregated city for most of its existence. The schools were segregated. Even when I went to the schools in the District of Columbia. Downtown was segregated. And that was all at a time when Democrats in particular ran this House. That is why this issue knows no party and why it has huge racial connotations in our country and in the District, and that is why this is a major issue and has been for decades for the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and civil rights organizations across the United States. They indicate that voting rights for the District of Columbia is second only on their agenda to what this House and Senate achieved on a bipartisan basis last year, and that is the reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I want to say that, just by point of clarity, I introduced the same bill, essentially, that I had introduced before. That bill had a map in it that had been approved by Democrats and Republicans because Mr. Sensenbrenner, then the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, at the last minute said that he would not accept a compromise that we had all fashioned, that Utah, that our leadership, on both sides agreed to, and that was that there be an at-large seat so there would be no redistricting. The redistricting issue had been a very thorny issue because there is only one Democrat in Utah. He has been the target of gerrymandering. Nobody wanted that on the table any longer. And therefore, we came forward with a compromise of an at-large seat. Mr. Sensenbrenner insisted upon redistricting. Let me say, the people of the District of Columbia don't care one way or the other, whether it is at-large or redistricting the at-large. The redistricted seat there apparently is perfectly satisfactory to both sides. Whatever is easy, whatever gets me to sit in this seat as something other than the way I sit today, as a second class citizen, is acceptable to us. What we want is the vote, and we want our voting rights in the 110th Congress. I do want to say that we haven't given up on full citizenship, and we never intend to. But we recognize the way in which the House has always operated, and that is incrementally. It was not until 1967 that we incrementally began to give this, move this District toward having self government, would you believe. It had no mayor. It had no city council because it had been governed since the 19th century by three commissioners appointed by the President of the United States; 800,000 people then living as a straight out colony in their own Nation's Capital. Lyndon Johnson abolished the commission and appointed a council. Then, in 1968, they gave the District the right to vote for their own board of education. Then, in 1970, the District got the right to vote for a delegate. And my good predecessor, a man who fought valiantly for our full rights, Walter Fauntroy, became the first Delegate. And then, finally, in 1973, the Home Rule Act itself was enacted, and the District got the right to elect its own city council and its own mayor. And notice, that is 32 years ago only that your Capital has even had the right to self government. All of this is a real scar on our democracy. The scar has to be taken off of this House and can be this year; and we ask that that be exactly what the House does. We remind the House that change for the District of Columbia only came at the Civil War, a true indication of the way race has decided matters in the District of Columbia. My own people came to this city through my great grandfather, a runaway slave. He was in Washington in 1862 when Congress abolished slavery here. But it is very interesting to note, when you see where the parties stand, that in 1848, when this House was controlled by the Democrats, the Democrats did give the District some home rule. But it gave it the right to have its own Board of Assessors, this is like a council, and voting rights to all white male voters. It took the radical Republicans, the abolitionist Republicans, to grant black males the right to vote, and that was in 1867. That was the proud history of the Republican Party. And we will never forget the roots of that party, Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, the President that abolished slavery, first in the District of Columbia, then of course, led our country to the abolition of slavery nationwide. It was in 1878 that this notion of government, not by this self government that had been set up for white males by the Democrats, that the Republicans had converted so that everybody who could vote in the United States could then vote. By the way, you notice women were not given the right to vote then, but they didn't have the right to vote anywhere. But what happened in 1878, when Reconstruction came forward, when the reaction to the Civil War came forward, then we had the Congress, obviously, in the hands of Democrats again, providing that the District of Columbia be governed, not by a self government, as had been allowed, but by these Presidentially appointed commissioners who were, in fact, the government of the District of Columbia until 1974. Mr. Speaker, occasionally you will hear some opposition to our bill based on the Constitution. Every other day somebody raises a constitutional issue about some bill that comes to the floor. And we concede that there is some division of opinion on whether or not Congress can give the District the right to vote through the Constitution, or whether it would take a constitutional amendment, as has been tried in the past, but the requisite number of States did not also ratify. On the basis of very respectable constitutional opinion, and we are certain that the bill is constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has full plenary power over all matters relating to the District of Columbia. We are certain that Congress can have the right because we are certain that that is what the framers intended. When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, it clearly contemplated that the vote would, in fact, be enjoyed by the people of the District of Columbia. Everybody lived in a state then, including the people of the District of Columbia. But notably, the citizens living on the land designated by the Constitution, in the Constitution itself, as the District, continued to have voting rights until 1801, because that land had been given to the Federal Government by Maryland and Virginia. When 1801 occurred, and the land came under the total control of the Congress, only Congress could step forward and say, now that you are under our jurisdiction, we just want to assure that you still, you have not lost your voting rights by becoming the Nation's Capital. And the people of the District of Columbia so petitioned, and Congress failed to act. Therein lies the fatal flaw. Congress did not act. But you certainly can't blame that on the Framers. Imagine, would Maryland and Virginia have conceded the land to create the District of Columbia if they thought they were disenfranchising their own citizens? Impossible. And the Framers themselves indicated that everybody in the United States would have their rights. So we are quite confident that the bill is constitutional, although you will hear words to the contrary from time to time. We are also confident that if we were to decide to use the at-large seat, as opposed to the map that is agreeable now, that that would be constitutional because every voter in the State of Utah, only for a very short time, because it then could revert, as the State desires, to the present system from an at-large system; but every voter in Utah would have the same equal right with no dilution of that right to elect this at-large member for such period as the State chose to have it. These issues have been thoroughly vetted, and we have constitutional authority that I think the House would find persuasive. And I ask to be able to enter into the Record the testimony of Kenneth Starr, who testified to the constitutionality of the bill. This constitutional lawyer, respected by all for his constitutional background, even as he is regarded as controversial, perhaps that controversial side of his career helps to explain that this bill must be constitutional. And I thank Mr. Starr, and will submit that for the Record. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 17, 2006] Congress Has the Authority to Do Right by D.C. (By Kenneth Starr and Patricia M. Wald) More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that ``no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.'' And yet, for more than 200 years the citizens of the District have been denied this right because they have no voting representation in Congress. To its credit, Congress is taking steps to begin correcting this longstanding injustice. Specifically, the House Government Reform Committee has approved, and the House Judiciary Committee is considering, a bill that would give D.C. residents the right to full voting representation in the House. While conferring this right is surely the right thing to do, a legitimate question has been raised concerning Congress's authority to confer the right by simple legislation, rather than through constitutional amendment. We have carefully considered this question and believe for three reasons the bill is within Congress's authority: It is consistent with fundamental constitutional principles; it is consistent with the language of Congress's constitutional power; and it is consistent with the governing legal precedents. First, interpretation of Congress's Article I legislative authority should always be guided by the fundamental principles upon which the nation and the Constitution were founded. Those principles include a commitment to a republican form of government and to the proposition that the laws enacted by the legislature should be based on the consent of the governed. There is nothing in our Constitution's history or its fundamental principles suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious right to vote to those who live in the capital of the great democracy they founded. Second, Congress's specific power over the District of Columbia is one of the broadest of all its powers. In the words of the Constitution, ``Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District. In a 1984 case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on which we both sat, Judge Abner Mikva noted that through this constitutional provision, the Framers gave Congress ``a unique and sovereign power'' over the District. In that same case, Judge (now Justice) Antonin Scalia wrote that the broad language of the power gave Congress ``extraordinary and plenary'' power over our nation's capital. And in another case, that same court held that this broad power gave Congress authority to ``provide for the general welfare of citizens within the District of Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may deem conducive to that end.'' It is hard to imagine a broader, more comprehensive congressional power than this; and it is also hard to imagine that the power could not be used to advance a fundamental principle of our Constitution-- that the right to vote should be extended to all citizens. Finally, and equally important, the most analogous legal precedent addressing Congress's authority over the District confirms that Congress can act now to give the vote to D.C. residents. That precedent concerned the fact that Article III of the Constitution confers on federal courts jurisdiction to hear suits brought by citizens of different states against each other. But the Constitution did not give any such express jurisdiction over suits brought by or against citizens of the District of Columbia. As a result, Congress, relying on its broad Article I power over the District of Columbia, remedied that unfairness through legislation that extended the right to District residents. In a 1949 case called National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater, the Supreme Court upheld that extension and also said that Congress was entitled to great deference in its determination that it had power to address this inequity. The logic of this case applies here, and supports Congress's determination to give the right to vote for a representative to citizens of the District of Columbia, even though the Constitution itself gives that right only to citizens of states. It is not a surprise that our Constitution, ratified in 1789, contemplated that the right to vote would be enjoyed only by ``the people of the several states.'' After all, in 1789, all U.S. citizens lived in a state. It was not until 1801, when the process Congress authorized by statute in 1791 to create the District out of lands ceded by Virginia and Maryland was completed, that District residents lost their federal voting rights. There is no reason to believe the Framers intended for this to happen. And in any case they gave Congress power to address the problem. Congress has initiated a process to do so, and we urge it to quickly complete the task. As George Washington said in his first inaugural address, the American people are entrusted with ``the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government.'' It is time to extend that model to the citizens of the nation's capital.

Ms. NORTON. There might be some opposition based on the notion that Utah gets one more electoral vote if they get a vote. Now, mind you, Utah is going to get that at some point anyway, probably in the near future. But there is some concern that Utah might get that vote now. And we have the kind of situation that people most fear ever since the 2000 election, that there would be some kind of tie or some kind of dispute; we would have no longer a tied number of electors from Democratic and Republican States; and then you would have Utah with one more vote. Well, this is an issue that we asked a nonpartisan group about that doesn't think, that has a different view of how the present system operates in any case. The nonpartisan group is called Fair Vote, the Center For Voting and Democracy. It is not affiliated with the District of Columbia or with any party. Apparently, it believes that the national popular vote plan for President is how we should proceed. So they certainly are not making a case for us in any particular way. But it is important to note what they say about our bill and whether our bill could, in fact, result in a crisis based on the fact that Utah got one new electoral vote. And I am quoting: ``Our estimation of the odds of the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act directly contributing to a Republican victory in the 2008 Presidential race is,'' they say the odds are, ``approximately 400-1,'' or, in other words, one chance in 1,600 presidential elections. I want the Member to stand up who would, on this scintilla of a chance, prefer to see us go without the only chance we have to get a vote now or in the foreseeable future. I want to thank the House for affording me this time, and the time of the Members who have been gracious enough to come and speak on this issue this evening. It is time that, for us, has been invaluable, simply to let the Members of the House know how deeply we feel that the time is on overtime to grant the people of the District of Columbia their House vote now, in this Congress, the 110th Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order today.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, for the fourth time, the House has passed a bill to afford five insular areas and the District of Columbia a quarter bearing a design of their choice on the reverse side. Inadvertently, these Americans were excluded from the 50-State bill affording this same right to the States in 1998. We owe very special thanks to the successive committee and subcommittee chairs and ranking members on the Financial Services Committee. We especially appreciate the new Chairman Barney Frank who reached out to us to put this bill for consideration by the House on the suspension calendar. Forty States have had their State design on the reverse side of the quarter with four more States to be added before this year is ended. All the coins are minted according to the year each State ratified the Constitution of the United States or were admitted into the Union. Although States have appropriate latitude, there are limitations as to what can be used as a design. According to Public Law 105-124, the Secretary of the Treasury has the final approval of each design. The law gives clear guidance as to what is an acceptable design concept. Suitable design concepts include State landmarks, landscapes, historically significant buildings, symbols of State resources or industries, official State flora and fauna, State icons, and outlines of States. Among the examples of suitable coins already in circulation are, New York's Statue of Liberty, Missouri's depiction of Lewis and Clark as they paddled down the Missouri River with the Gateway Arch in the background and North Carolina's design depicting the first successful airplane flight. We look forward to the day when the residents of the District of Columbia and of the insular areas can see similar symbols of their jurisdictions and of their American citizenship appear on coins as well. This bill points out the importance of including all Americans in the symbols of American citizenship. The residents of the District and of the insular areas are full and equal American citizens. To leave them out of mere exercises of citizenship is to seem to deny the citizenship they revere and share with other Americans. The Americans who live in these districts have fought and died in our country's wars and have extraordinary records of service in the Armed Forces in considerably larger numbers than many States. District citizens, in addition, pay Federal income taxes. We in the Congress all represent proud Americans. There are, of course, significant differences between the States and the jurisdictions covered by this bill. However, qualification to be part of a program of quarter coins to commemorate congressional districts is not one of them. Under the Constitution, all Americans are equal, notwithstanding important differences in form, structure and other significant distinctions. Today, by including all Americans, Congress avoids any appearance of differential or discriminatory treatment and any implication that these areas are colonies, never the intention when the five jurisdictions were not included in the original bill in 1998, as the House has made clear by repeatedly bringing this bill to the floor. Today, when our country is at war and faces unparalleled dangers, this bill is yet another example of our unity as Americans and our indivisibility in honoring all of our country's citizens. By repeatedly passing this measure, the House has made it abundantly clear that we are one country and that our hope is that the Senate will join us.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Everybody gets a pay raise, Mr. Speaker, except those who need it most, those who work for thousands of dollars below the poverty level. Small business has gotten the benefit of tax cuts and incentives for years, but the least-paid workers have gotten zero increase. The middle class is screaming about health care costs. Most of these workers don't have any health care. Don't get sick on the minimum wage. And not only the 10 percent of the workforce on the minimum wage will benefit. Other low-wage workers will also get a bump-up as a result. This should be a matter of conscience. How could we look past these workers for almost 10 years? They serve us at the worst jobs with the lowest pay. Let me remind us welfare is term limited. These mothers go straight on to minimum wage jobs. Do the family values people really want single mothers to continue to work two jobs just to get food on the table? Believe me, these mothers won't hit the jackpot with this small increase.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House to inform the House that I have today filed a bill to give full voting rights in this House to the people of the District of Columbia, who are second per capita in the Federal income tax they pay to support this government, this House and this Senate, and who have fought and died in every war since the creation of a Republic, including the outrageous war where we now serve. I come in gratitude that the House is now governed by my own party, which for decades has supported not only what my bill today would afford, a vote in the House, but a vote in both Houses, and I come to thank my own caucus for that support. But I also come in some frustration and with some impatience. I come in frustration that I am still a second-class citizen in my own House. Until I can represent the people of the District of Columbia as a full American citizen, this frustration and impatience will continue. I had hoped to be able to vote on the bills we all ran on that are now before the House. I came to speak today, but once again, when the vote came, I could not vote. I couldn't vote because I was not even allowed the vote in the Committee of the Whole that I won when the Democrats were last in power. My people in the District have chastised me for even trying to get the Committee of the Whole vote. They perhaps recognize that it is a hubris that I wished at least to vote in this House as we convened, and they are perhaps right. They tell me, we are not in any way interested in another second-class vote, Eleanor. It is time for first-class rights for the people of the District of Columbia. So I accept their chastisement and pledge to them that I will not rest, now that Democrats are in power, until Democrats do as they have always said, that they sought power to do, to give votes to the people of the District of Columbia. I have tried everything, I have tried statehood, I have tried Committee of the Whole. It is time to try the real thing, Mr. Speaker, when there are 650,000 people who pay their taxes and have met every obligation, and are not recognized as citizens in their own House and send somebody to the House that is not even recognized to vote on this House, not even in the Committee of the Whole. I come to express their frustration, to say I am leaving all that behind. I have introduced the bill they want. I accept their chastisement. We want our votes. We want it in the 110th Congress, and we want it now. I speak for them as a woman who knows what it means to be a second-class citizen, and who, once she left the District went to law school, said, I shall never again be a second-class citizen. Yes, I grew up in segregated schools in this town, in segregated Washington. That is what it meant to be a second-class citizen. Now to be a second- class civics citizen, after 200 years, has become too much to bear. So I have introduced a bill to make it absolutely clear, as my people have said I must do today, that there is boiling determination among the people of the District of Columbia to get this vote. Not in January. We have respected the right of the Congress to come forward with the bills that are of great importance to the country, but those of us who believe that the vote is basic, is basic to Democrats, is basic to America, I believe we should move on after January and finally keep the promise that at least Democrats have made to the House and that I commend Republicans for getting us very close to in the 109th Congress. This is the 110th, Mr. Speaker. This is the moment of truth. This is the moment when the Democrats have not only the opportunity, but the obligation to give a vote in the 110th Congress to the people of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) and I keep our promise to reintroduce the Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act as our first bill of the 110th Congress. Republican Davis was the chair of the Committee when we worked together for 4 years to get Republican and Democratic agreement on this bill to give one voting representative to the mainly Democratic District of Columbia and another to the largely Republican State of Utah. The idea arose after Utah narrowly missed getting a seat following the last census and later failed to get the Supreme Court to rule in the State's favor. The bill also would permanently increase the size of the House of Representatives from 435 to 437 members. I want to thank my colleague Tom Davis, the original author of the bill, for his indispensable persistence, and for his bipartisan spirit that afforded me every opportunity to significantly contribute to the bill during the 109th Congress, when he was in the Republican majority and I was a minority member. Democrats have long been outspoken in their commitment to D.C. voting rights, and I appreciate their unwavering support. The bill we introduce today reflects the political history of our country that inalterably demonstrates that additional representation has been granted only on the basis of exact political equivalence, assuring neither benefit nor disadvantage to either party. This bill meets the necessary standard. Party, of course, should not matter when it comes to a democratic right as basic as representation in the legislature that taxes citizens and sends them to war. However, it is the undeniable reality that party equivalence in one form or another has driven decisions for adding voting representation. Many remember the most recent additions of Alaska and Hawaii, when these States entered the union because their voting records eliminated party advantage. However, this pattern was set throughout the nineteenth century as each State entered the union, most dramatically, of course, when no slave State could be admitted unless a free State came in at the same time. Preserving all their rights as American citizens to voting rights in each house, the people of the District of Columbia and our civil rights and civic allies have nevertheless concluded that there can be no serious attempt to achieve the vote for our citizens that ignores precedents woven so tightly into our history. The linchpin of this legislation is its bipartisan balance, and we are grateful for the rare opportunity we believe will not come again soon, but that the Utah-D.C. bill offers District citizens now, to follow the unerring path to the vote laid out by American history. A similar bill approved by the Committee on Government Reform last May called for the additional seat in Utah to be at-large until the 2010 census, but when the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, then-chairman James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) insisted that Utah adopt a redistricting plan that allowed for four seats before he would approve the bill. The Utah's legislature met in early December and quickly adopted a four-seat plan, which is provided for in today's bill. However, House leadership declined to address the issue in the closing days of the 109th Congress. We now seek our seat to vote in the 110th Congress. Although we came close to securing passage in the 109th Congress, the District's vote was already long past due. We're in overtime in the 110th. We will proceed based on the same win-win approach that carried us through last Congress. In the spirit of the partnership promised by the new Democratic House majority, I am optimistic that Democrats will see the bill as a historic opportunity to make good on promises for voting rights and equality for the people of the District of Columbia. Finally, I ask to be forgiven a personal allusion. Throughout this process, I have never referred to the District's vote as my vote or to what the vote would mean to me personally because the vote will not belong to me. I have never mentioned the special reason I personally wanted to be the first to cast the vote because the Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act is for D.C. residents now and in the future, not for me. However, my 16 years in Congress has been defined by the search for a way to achieve full representation for the city where my family has lived since before the Civil War. That search has included the two-day debate followed by a vote on statehood more than 10 years ago that Speaker Tom Foley afforded me, and the vote I subsequently won in the Committee of the Whole because of the long commitment of the Democratic majority to D.C. voting rights and the commitment of my party to maximize the rights of the citizens who live in the Nation's capital until voting rights could be achieved. The struggle has been driven by its own terms, by the here and now, by the residents of the District of Columbia for over 200 years. Yet, I cannot deny the personal side of this quest, epitomized by my family of native Washingtonians, my father Coleman Holmes, my grandfather, Richard Holmes, who entered the D.C. Fire Department in 1902 and whose picture hangs in my office, a gift from the D.C. Fire Department, and especially my great-grandfather, Richard Holmes, a slave who walked off a Virginia plantation in the 1850s, made it to Washington, and began our family here. I cannot help but think today of this man I never knew, a slave in the District until Lincoln freed the slaves here 9 months before the Emancipation Proclamation. I am mindful of my great grandfather, who came here in a furtive search for freedom itself, not the vote in Congress. I wonder what a man who lived as a slave in the District, and others like him would think if he could know that his great-granddaughter might be the first to cast the first full vote for the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives. I hope to have the special honor of casting the vote I have sought for 16 years. I want to cast that vote for the citizens of this city, whom I have had the great privilege of representing, who have fought with me every step of the way, and who have waited interminably for justice. Yes, and I want to cast that vote in memory of my great-grandfather, Richard Holmes.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Colbert (Colby) I. King, the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and Deputy Editorial Page Editor. In a recent column, Mr. King informed his readers that he soon will cease writing editorials. However, Colby King's informal and spontaneous Saturday morning reading club takes some comfort in knowing that Colby King will continue to write his weekly column. For 16 years, the Post, our city, and the region have benefited from reading a man who learned to write by doing it, not by going to journalism school. Colby went to school right here in the District, native born and native educated in the D.C. Public Schools and at Howard University. Colby King's preparation for the career for which he will be best remembered came from the life he has lived--a childhood bereft of privilege, even equality, but rich in family love and upbringing. His pre-Post eclectic career ranged from the U.S. Army and VISTA to Treasury Department official and international banker. Colby wrote about any and everything, but he was in his special element when he wrote about his hometown. Most of what the Post editorial page has had to say about this city came from Colby King-- sometimes sizzling with pride or indignation at shabby treatment by Congress and the like, even more often, hot with criticism of local officials and citizens alike, whose actions he thought unworthy of the city on a hill Colby wanted his hometown to become. Colbert King's role in writing the Home Rule Act, his special feel for the city of his birth, his wit and ability to laugh and to cry about this city, all contributed to the authority with which his views were received throughout the District and the region. Colbert King has a way with words, a mark of pure talent, but talent alone won't win you a Pulitzer in his tough and competitive business. Colby's Pulitzer was his alone, the fruit of his columns. He used them to speak his mind on an unpredictable variety of subjects-too much crime and too little punishment; forgotten children and star-crossed residents, often remembered only in his Saturday columns; national and local politics and politicians scored without fear, favor or mercy; and the beloved family that reared him and the family that he and his wife, Gwendolyn, raised. Colby King will be remembered also for his remarkable range. His contributions to the editorial page covered the page's territory, as Members know well from watching him on foreign and domestic affairs as a television opinion show panelist. His unusual set of talents and his judgment took him to editorial leadership on one of the world's most important papers. His contributions came during troubling times in our country and in this city. A failing war at home and an insolvent hometown, for example, badly needed unadulterated self-criticism and tough love. Colby King had the credibility, the talent, and the wisdom to offer both, to make us shake our heads up and down in agreement, and then to try again to reach his high expectations. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I note a personal regret as well that Colby is ending one part of his career. His 16 years on the editorial page and my 16 years in Congress overlap. I will miss not only reading Colby. I will miss having someone at the Post with whom I personally identify in so many ways--a friend who remembers the District as it was when we both were born in a segregated city and when we went to Dunbar High School, and a city that is both the same and very different today. I wish the Post good luck in finding such invaluable, institutional and personal experience for its editorial page. Colbert King has decided to no longer write editorials, but he has certainly left his signature in indelible ink on the Washington Post. I ask my colleagues to join me in both honoring and thanking Colbert King for using his craft in service to the public.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the service of a highly effective and respected 24-year Member of Congress, on the occasion of his departure. I am grateful that I have been able to serve with Congressman Lane Evans, who has long been a champion of working people and will always be remembered as a special champion of our Nation's veterans. The American people and our veterans are particularly fortunate indeed that Congressman Evans served as ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, beginning in 1995. I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues, who have spoken of Lane's many accomplishments during his tenure here. He has adroitly used his legislative skills and concern to the benefit and well-being of the American people during his entire service, but his single-minded concentration on veterans' issues made that in many ways his very own issue. Lane's experience in the Marine Corps, his service in Vietnam, and the affects of military service on the families of enlisted men and women never left Lane Evans. Over the course of his career, Congressman Evans led a successful effort to pass legislation compensating Vietnam veterans for diseases linked to Agent Orange exposure, secured passage of legislation that provides health and compensation benefits for children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange, and cosponsored legislation to ban the use of antipersonnel landmines which kill and maim people worldwide. It is no wonder that Congressman Evans was named the recipient of the Vietnam Veterans of America's first annual Presidents Award for Outstanding Achievement, as well as the prestigious AMVET Silver Helmet Award. I am pleased and proud to have served with Congressman Lane Evans. I am certain that constituents and family are especially proud of his many accomplishments. Lane goes home with the best wishes and gratitude of Republicans and Democrats alike in this House.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the cosponsor of this resolution with me.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution that recognizes the achievements and the life of famed basketball coach, Arnold ``Red'' Auerbach. Auerbach was both a player and a coach during his career in collegiate and professional basketball, but we all best remember Red as the cigar-chewing coach of the Boston Celtics. As coach of the Celtics, Auerbach led his team to ten Eastern Division titles in 16 years and nine National Basketball Association titles overall. His most astonishing achievement of his 17-year career as coach of the Celtics was winning eight straight NBA titles, a feat unmatched before or since. Red coached the Celtics from 1959 to 1966, but he did not stray far from the team when his coaching days ended. He moved from the court to the front office and was an executive with the franchise until 1980. Auerbach will always be remembered as the coach of one of the most famous basketball dynasties in history. He will always be regarded by many as the best NBA coach of all time. The picture of Red Auerbach that most of us carry in our minds is the image of him lighting up a cigar on the sidelines after his Celtics had won another game, but there are a few lesser known facts about Auerbach that mean a great deal to me and to all African Americans. Red's great vision led him to draft the first African American basketball player in NBA history, he was the first coach to start an all African American lineup in the NBA, and Auerbach was the first executive to hire an African American to coach a professional basketball team. Red changed the way professionals play the game of basketball, and these achievements helped to change the face of basketball as well. On October 28, the basketball world lost a great coach, and the rest of us lost a great American citizen. Although we mourn his loss and will miss his presence at NBA events, we cannot help but see his influence on the game of basketball, wherever it is played. I ask for the adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for those comments. That is a very appropriate prop to use this time. I have just an additional word about Red Auerbach. Mr. Speaker, when you have won two-thirds of the games you ever coached over a 20-year period, there is hardly anybody in America who is not going to claim you. Brooklyn has every right to claim Red Auerbach for growing up there. Boston certainly claims him. Actually, Russia could claim him. The man was born in Russia, and we remember the time when Russia used to claim to invent everything whether it happened there. Well, this did happen there. I am here to claim Red Auerbach, too, because he actually began his coaching career right here in the District of Columbia, coaching on two high school teams, one, a private high school team, St. Albans; the other, a public high school team, Roosevelt High School. Wouldn't you know it? The great characteristics of sportsmanship should be remembered as much as the more than thousand games that Red Auerbach won, the notion of respect and loyalty, the culture he brought to the game, which, if I may say so, often today seems absent from the game and from sports. As we remember Red Auerbach, I hope we will remember his standards and the culture that he insisted upon by the example he set in the sport where he excelled above all others. He never stopped working for basketball in countless ways, as an ambassador of the game, his television series, Red on Round Ball. The man wrote seven books about basketball. Finally, of course, today it may seem unbelievable that as recently as 1950 Auerbach distinguished himself by drafting the first African American player in the NBA, Chuck Cooper. Goodness sakes, very late in the history of our country, particularly if we consider that the game is, if anything, inordinately dependent today on African American players. Then, of course, about 16 years later, it would seem he hired the first African American head coach in professional sports. That is a real breakthrough because you have to have the courage to move with someone whom you believe can do exactly what you are doing and what those who are leaders of the game did, and of course he found the right man and the right time in Bill Russell. As recently as 1964, Red started the first all African American lineup of players. I think there was some reluctance to do that by some. Regardless of what it might have done for the game before that, Red Auerbach simply did it. There are many ways, Mr. Speaker, for a man or a woman to show courage on race. There are many ways to be a civil rights leader. For America and especially for those who needed him most, we in the House today say thanks, Red.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank my good friends on both sides for bringing this resolution forward before the 109th Congress ends. Mr. Speaker, Ed Bradley was much honored by his peers, the best honor always to receive, from those who judge harshest and judge best. It is very appropriate that Ed Bradley would be honored here in the halls of the Congress of the United States. Perhaps he was destined to be honored in any case, because he was a pioneer, a first of his kind. We are still in an era when the first blacks are coming forward and we honor them simply for piercing the iron veil of race, but we honor Ed Bradley in this Chamber today as a leader of his profession. Indeed, we honor Ed Bradley because he became, in his profession, an admired American figure. That is very hard to do in the field of journalism today. Journalism is almost down there with Members of Congress, but there are journalists who are universally admired, and Ed Bradley was one of those journalists. He was in, perhaps, the most difficult aspect of journalism, at least that for which he became best known, investigative journalism, and, indeed, he was part of the premier investigative journalism program, 60 Minutes. What Ed Bradley did is really difficult to do. You have got to be fair, but you have got to ask very hard, uncomfortable questions. Somehow he was able to do that without having people dislike him, and without having the television audience believe he had overreached. Here is a man who began as an elementary school teacher and went to the top of the journalism profession at a time when blacks were not supposed to be in the journalism profession at all. Bradley excelled in his profession in ways that you have just heard from the sponsor of this resolution, 20 Emmys and all the rest. I also want to say that here is a man who had many friends who loved him despite his fame and fortune. Would that Members of Congress could be loved in spite of their profession, not because of it. Two of those who loved him most, are also dear friends of mine, Charlayne and Ron Gault. Charlayne Gault is the functional equivalent of Ed Bradley in journalism as a woman who entered this field at a time when there were very few blacks at the New York Times and in television. Some of us may have seen the memorial service to Ed Bradley that was televised. It was a real testament to the fact that Ed Bradley loved life. All of us workaholics here in the Congress who are about to go home need to have looked at that memorial service, because Ed was remembered as much for his love of jazz, a jazz aficionado, as he was for his extraordinary reputation as a journalist. Now, most of us are likely not to be remembered for being in Congress at all, but the notion of being remembered for loving life and living life and yet going to the top of your profession, there is no better life than that. Thus, it is with great pride that I rise to thank the sponsors of this resolution for honoring a man who did honor to his profession. We give honor to his family by reminding them that he is still remembered and will not be forgotten in his profession and in the life of our country.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Res. 1087 to designate room H-139 in the Capitol as the Henry J. Hyde Room. Congressman Hyde is widely respected and regarded on both sides of the aisle as an effective leader and able legislator. He has served with distinction for more than three decades, working to improve the lives of senior citizens, veterans and families of all sizes. He has focused on job creation and better education for all, better housing for senior citizens, and the needs of special education students. During his tenure as the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, he focused his work on terrorism and, in particular, biological and chemical weapons threats. Congressman Hyde also served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2001. It is fitting and proper to honor the distinguished career of Henry Hyde with this designation. I support the resolution and urge my colleagues to also support this resolution today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lola Beaver, a longtime Capitol Hill resident who owned and operated The Costume Shop for 34 years after an equally long and successful career as a dancer, choreographer and dance instructor. She died at home in her sleep on Tuesday, November 28. When she died at 96, Lola's sharp wit, sparkling intelligence and high-spirited spunk had not deserted the woman whose loyalty and love were treasured by countless friends, customers and neighbors. Born Luola (Lola) Murchison Hurkamp in Fredricksburg, Virginia, on July 5, 1910, she moved to the Washington area after her mother committed suicide when Lola was four years old. After five long years as a boarding student at the National Cathedral School, she graduated in 1929, came into her inheritance and promptly hopped on a Holland American liner headed for Europe. At summer's end, she returned to the States and arrived in New York City in a Chevrolet roadster that boasted a rumble seat and an item she had picked up in a Paris flea market and screwed onto the outside of her car: a French horn. The 1929 stock market crash forced Lola, a student at NYC's Grand Central Art School, to earn a living as a dime-a-dance girl. She met and married a struggling actor, Andy Beaver, who was sharing an apartment with Henry Fonda and Burgess Meredith. When her husband joined the Marine Corps, the couple moved to Washington, DC. After twin boys died within two months of their birth, Lola opened the Lola Beaver Dance School in downtown Washington. While her husband was fighting overseas, she performed for the troops at Washington's Stage Door Canteen and with the USO, traveling from the Caribbean to the Arctic with dancers from her school. A White House request that Lola create handmade bow ties to match President Lyndon Johnson's navy blue tuxedo marked her career move into costume design and rental. She moved to Capitol Hill in 1972 and converted a dry cleaning shop at the corner of 8th and A streets NE into The Costume Shop. ``I liked Capitol Hill,'' she told an oral historian. ``It had a nice small-town atmosphere. The people on the Hill are people you wouldn't mind knowing.'' Donna Brazile, my former chief of staff, moved across the street from Lola about 10 years ago. They became fast friends, and Lola knew that Donna was a friend to have. Donna virtually adopted Lola, cooking for her and nurturing Lola with friendship until the end. Along with the city's most prestigious live theaters and Halloween revelers of all ages, members of Congress and burlesque queens, Lola's customers included every president from Johnson to Bill Clinton. During the height of the Watergate scandal, the lifelong Democrat took particular glee in outfitting then Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh as a burglar and his wife as a bug for Halloween. The ever-slim beauty with a thick mane of white hair never hesitated to render her opinion on a customer's choice of costume or actual weight. ``You're too fat for that dress'' or ``You should be a pirate/princess/clown--you look like one'' were the price of rental at The Costume Shop. Regarding the elegant turn-of-the century cutaway Bill Clinton rented, Lola recalled, ``He was bigger than I thought he was. He must've worn a corset when he had his picture taken.'' It was considered a high honor to be invited to join Lola, a grandmother figure for countless Hill residents, children and adults alike, for a bourbon-soaked ``teatime'' that lasted until the wee hours of the morning. Many a glass of Jim Beam will be raised in her honor at a luncheon that will immediately follow a memorial service to be held December 9 at Christ Church, noon, 620 G St., SE. In lieu of flowers, Lola, a lifelong animal lover, asked that contributions be made in her name to the Washington Humane Society (washhumane.org) and The Elephant Sanctuary (elephants.com).

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the international war chest of AIDS is black Africa, and in our country it is black America. How did half the cases become African American? Even worse, new cases are overwhelmingly black. We have seen this disease stereotyped as homosexual and now as black. The one constant is its spread. Yet, unlike many diseases today, AIDS is preventable and can be contained and defeated. The answers are not complicated, beginning with far more visible and substantive leadership, leadership on testing--I will be tested on the Capitol complex grounds in a D.C. health van this afternoon to set an example to help prevent the epidemic spread of this disease among African Americans--leadership on safe sex and condoms; leadership on overcoming homophobia, which is in league with this disease in the black community; and above all, leadership from the Congress of the United States, which must not go home without reauthorizing the Ryan White Act.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act, a major bill to assist the District of Columbia in carrying out timely and critical operational responsibilities, received final approval as a result of House passage this evening and is on its way to the President for his signature. The DC Omnibus Authorization Act, sponsored by Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis and me, includes permanent midyear budget autonomy in a collection of crucial provisions that have been approved or passed by the District, but must come to Congress before becoming law. The most important omnibus authorization provision, long sought by the District since home rule was granted, allows the city to spend local funds without coming back to Congress for approval through the congressional mid-year supplemental appropriations process. We worked hard to convince appropriators to implement this critical change for the first time beginning this year, but the provision in today's bill is needed to authorize mid-year budget autonomy permanently. This is the first structural change in the original Horne Rule Act since it was enacted over 30 years ago and brings the city close to obtaining full budget autonomy. It is impossible to overestimate the hardship to this or any city of being unable to carry on normal business and engage in fiscal transactions--from spending local revenue already in the bank for vital city needs to floating baseball stadium bonds--without coming to Congress. Budget autonomy from the congressional supplemental process essentially enacts part of the DC Budget Autonomy Act that Chairman Davis and I have introduced to give the District greater freedom from the annual congressional appropriations process that redundantly requires the District's balanced budget to come to the Congress before it becomes effective. The Omnibus Authorization Act includes many other vital provisions, including one that gives greater city control and use of reserve funds--up to 50 percent--with specific procedures for reimbursement. The District's sound fiscal practices, along with limitations required by Congress, have led to an impressive reserve fund. However, residents watched the neglect of basic services and continued to send their children to dilapidated public school buildings while the District grew an ever larger reserve fund that could not be tapped. As a result of work with appropriators last year, DC already is spending part of its reserves that had been piling up. Both the House and the Senate approved an omnibus authorization bill earlier this session. However, the House needs to approve the Senate version that added provisions not in the House bill. The new provisions include: a change in the fiscal year that the District of Columbia Public Schools requested; permission for the DC libraries to accept gifts--currently only the Mayor's office can receive them; enhanced dental and vision benefits for court employees; and a requirement that within 1 year of congressional passage, the District must start using a metered system for taxicabs, unless the Mayor signs an executive order opting out. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.