Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I join other Members in strong support of this resolution and acknowledge the special bond that exists between the passengers from Flight 93 and not only the personnel who work in the Capitol but also the citizens of the District, those who were harmed and who died at the Pentagon and, of course, those who were victims in New York at the Twin Towers. Although we will never know the final destination for Flight 93, we are all profoundly grateful to those heroic passengers for their collective acts of courage that may have saved the Capitol or the White House from severe damage. Senate Concurrent Resolution 26 memorializes them and their valiant efforts as well. A site will be selected here in the Capitol. The purpose of the memorial as well as the names of the crew and passengers will, of course, be inscribed on the memorial. We strongly support the resolution and urge its passage. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 3649, the Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Amendments Act of 2005, and to thank all concerned for clearing this matter up. Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is, of course, very simple, as you have heard. When Congress passed H.R. 3, SAFETEA-LU, in July, there was a small disconnect between that bill and the short-term highway funding extension that was passed separately. The short-term extension extended the highway program and the funding of the recreational boat safety program until August 15th. However, SAFETEA-LU provided for long-term reauthorization and funding of the recreational boating safety program beginning October 1, the new fiscal year. As a result, the gas taxes that are collected between August 15 and October 1 from recreational boaters cannot be given to the State boating law administrators to fund their recreational boating programs. H.R. 3649 corrects this problem by extending the old Recreational Boat Safety and Sportfish Programs until October 1, 2005, when the new funding formulas take effect. Madam Speaker, the Recreational Boat Safety and Grant Program provides a 50/50 matching fund to the States for their recreational boating safety and educational programs. These programs save lives. It is our responsibility to see to it that there is no interruption of this program, and we are fulfilling this responsibility today. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3649 to ensure that our States receive the necessary matching funds for their recreational boating safety programs between August 15, 2005, and October 1, 2005. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Orleans, Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). I am sure perhaps no Member has suffered more greatly than the Member I am about to yield the floor to now.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just have a few closing remarks. We all agree that the first obligation of any government is to protect its citizens. The majority often say that, and we have seen no contradiction from this side on that score. And I think there has been agreement that we have not fully honored that responsibility. It was with a great deal of thought that I became a cosponsor of the bill today, H.R. 3659, to reestablish FEMA as an independent agency outside the control of the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security. I did not do that easily. Frankly, I strongly supported and still support the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security. So I had to think about this matter. Is this a contradiction from what I generally believe, that these agencies must be brought together? I have resolved that conflict in my mind because it is clear that FEMA is not about preventing anything. FEMA is about going in quickly and nimbly after there has been either an actual natural attack or a national attack; and there is telling evidence about how we have diverted funds from FEMA's natural disaster responsibilities to our legitimate concern with preparation for terrorism. I believe, therefore, that we do no harm to the notion of one cohesive unit, the Homeland Security Department, to prevent attacks if we have FEMA outside. I think that FEMA simply has not done well inside the Department of Homeland Security. I cannot guarantee that taking it out will make it whole again. I do know this: that we did not have complaints about FEMA during the 1990s, and I remember FEMA's being held to great glory for how they handled and how they were reorganized during the 1990s. I, therefore, want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana for coming forward and to say that I know I speak for every Member on my side when I say he will have our full cooperation, more than our empathy, our full cooperation when it comes to Louisiana and the entire gulf coast. I thank him for his initiative. I am pleased to be a part of it.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that I appreciate what the gentleman has just said about how much of this was unpredictable. There is no question that that is the case. But, for the record, it must be said that the levee was built to withstand a Category 3 storm. So the Corps of Engineers has been saying, yelling for decades that no one can say we will not ever surpass a Category 3 storm. People will tell you in Louisiana that they have been talking about dodging the bullet for decades because they did not go above Category 3. I hope that when we repair the damage, and it will take billions more than we can imagine now, that we will do what we say we are going to do for the possibility of terrorism, that is to say, prepare for the worst-case scenario, not the case scenario that we wish for. And the worst-case scenario is finally what Louisiana got. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with the gentleman that we are not in an atmosphere where we can properly evaluate and investigate what has happened here. I do think it important to note that the only way to avoid making mistakes is to look at the mistakes we have made. I do want to say this for the record. It took us a very long time to get bipartisan support for a 9/11 Commission. Is anybody in this body sorry? What would have happened if history had looked back and said there was no independent commission that looked into 9/11? In this same way, this natural disaster is the functional equivalent of 9/11 for natural disasters. We need an independent commission to do the kind of job that the 9/11 Commission did, and I think a fair reading of that report is not that it pointed fingers at anybody, but that it did advise what it is we should do. We should quickly get about the business of appointing a commission equal to the task of doing a credible, unbiased, independent investigation in the name of the people of the gulf coast who have suffered and in the name of the people of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) in coming forward with this bipartisan resolution. I am going to offer some formal remarks, and then I am going to say a word further about the irony of my managing this bill this morning. Mr. Speaker, 10 days ago Hurricane Katrina slammed into America's gulf coast. The aftermath of the hurricane has prompted one of the largest response mobilizations in United States history. At the very core of all the relief effort is the overwhelming concern we all have for our fellow Americans, ordinary citizens who have become victims of this vast, unprecedented devastation. Thousands of local State and Federal workers and volunteers are engaged in life-saving activities. Life-sustaining activities, supported by virtually all national charities, are spreading across all parts of the United States. Sheltering and housing initiatives so vital to the well-being of the victims have been activated all across the country. These efforts are aimed at providing some measure of efforts and relief to the tens of thousands of displaced Americans, many who survived with merely the clothes on their backs. It is with a heavy heart, but with a deep sense of hope for a better future that I join all of my colleagues today in expressing my deep sense of sorrow and the condolences of the Nation to all the victims of Hurricane Katrina. I commend the resilience of all who have survived and all who are helping them to survive and am awed by their enduring vision for a better future. For the present, I will work to fulfill our Nation's commitment to each victim that all the necessary resources and the might of the country will be used to relieve their suffering and to provide the resources they need for the brighter future characteristic of our country. Mr. Speaker, I say the irony is, I was at an opening of an employment and training center for SOME, So Others Might Eat, and commenting there on the irony of the opening of that employment and training center at a time when just yesterday I had gone to Dulles Airport to retrieve 300 evacuees from a plane, who now reside in the Armory just a few blocks from here. And I said the symbolism of this center opening now is not lost on me, and the first moment I have to tell my colleagues about the symmetry between the opening of this center and the evacuees here, I am going to do it. Then I got a phone call saying we need someone to manage the bill expressing our condolences as a Nation and our resolve for the victims on the gulf coast. Mr. Speaker, as I left this center, this new center where I had indicated that here in D.C. is doing very well, but certainly the poorest part of the region, surrounded by very rich counties, I was proud of my city because we had seen the need and said, Come here even though there are many unemployed here. The man who runs this new SOME center said, We are quickly filling the 60 slots; we have 20 slots left. I am on the other side of the Anacostia in Ward 7, and Wards 7 and 8 are the high unemployment wards. So if there are only 60 slots, there are 60 times 60 people in Ward 7 alone that need it. And so he said, I think we ought to give the slots to the people who got off the plane yesterday. And I said, What a wonderful contribution that would be. We all have to find a contribution to make, and for you to contribute 20 of 60 slots from the highest unemployment pool in the city is to make the kind of sacrifice our country needs to be prepared to make now. And that is the kind of sacrifice we are seeing all over the country. I want to say that in this House we have got to ask ourselves, what sacrifice are we prepared to make? We have assumed the best of all possible worlds, but what we cannot control is always possible and what we cannot control has happened. I hope that in the coming weeks, as we finish the session, we will remember that it is time for us to make sacrifices. Already the Senate appears to say it is not going to bring forward the permanent repeal of the estate tax. If it took a tragedy to do it, then it has been done. The mega-rich will not get richer this time around. I just think in the spirit of trying to figure out how we can go home and say this is something we did that we would not otherwise have done but for Katrina is what we need to say. Of course, we will go home and talk about the $20 billion and now the $40 billion. That, of course, is mandatory. That is what we are here for. The real issue for me is, what is it that we wanted to do, talking to both sides of the aisle, that we now forswear, that we now say, in the name of the greatest natural tragedy in memory, we decide that we will not do that that we most wanted to do. Some of us wanted to do spending on some things. Some of us may want to do a little more tax cutting, but it is time for us to become introspective about being visited with the most massive natural tragedy of our time. My heart is with the people of Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and the entire gulf coast. That is true of America generally. But as people take in people in their own homes, as people send money, we have to ask ourselves, what will we do, what will we say is the sacrifice we as Members of Congress have made as a body when we go home next week? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Washington Animal Rescue League's, WARL, efforts to provide care and compassion for homeless and abused animals in our Nation's Capital and beyond, and to bring to the U.S. Congress's attention that Saturday, August 20th is National Homeless Animals' Day. For over 90 years, WARL has worked tirelessly to promote humane treatment and eliminate the plight of homeless animals. Founded in 1914, WARL was the District's first animal shelter. Since its creation, this private, not-far-profit organization has expanded its mission from housing dogs, cats and horses to being a leader in implementing programs that promote animal welfare. WARL's policies and procedures were progressive from the organization's inception. From mandating home visits far potential adopters to providing low-cost or free veterinary care for animals in need, WARL is in a league all its own. WARL's doors are always open to welcome an adoptable animal in need of care and compassion. Dedicated staff and volunteers work in many ways to promote animal welfare and find loving homes for these wayward animals. Throughout the week, WARL counsels potential adopters to match their cats and dogs in appropriate, loving, caring homes. WARL's medical clinic provides the highest quality care to the dogs and cats in residence and to companion animals of the District's low-income families. On weekends, while the shelter operates business as usual, WARL staff and volunteers hold off-site adoption events at animal- friendly businesses throughout the D.C. area. Overpopulated animal shelters are a problem for too many communities. To help elevate the stress of overcrowding in shelters as far as Florida and Arkansas, WARL created the Shelter Animal Relief Effort, ShARE, program. Shelters participating in ShARE use WARL as their resource when in crisis, eliminating the need to euthanize adoptable animals. Additionally, WARL provides humane education to District school children using a curriculum. that includes in-class lectures, activities, and trips to visit the shelter and medical center. This program strives to ensure the future of animal welfare in our society by teaching children to treat animals responsibly and with care and compassion. Through these many efforts, WARL hopes to achieve its goal to eliminate the need to observe future National Homeless Animals' Day. But for now, WARL will join others across the country to raise awareness of the world's companion animal overpopulation crisis by participating in National Homeless Animals' Day on August 20th and spearheading the first event of its kind in our Nation's Capital. Every day, WARL works to end the plight of homeless dogs and cats. We can all make a difference by promoting responsible guardianship and by adopting our pets from a local animal shelter, instead of a breeder or pet store, and by preventing the exponential increase of homeless animals by spaying and neutering our pets.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his work in bringing this bill and this rule to the floor. The reason that my colleagues are hearing such kudos for the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) will be understood, I think, if you understand that it has taken us 11 years to get here. So only great tenacity and skill could have brought us this far. I have been in Congress for 15 years. It seems to me that this has been before us forever, but never on the floor before, and there is a good reason for it. It is not because there were special interests or cantankerous Members; it is we are trying to do almost the impossible. We are trying to make an agency meant to be only partially competitive stand alongside one of the most competitive parts of our economy. So what was necessary was to somehow bring the likes of UPS and FedEx on board at the same time that all of the unions could be brought with us, UPS and the entire industry. That is why it has taken so long and why in reverence we have to be thankful for those who have accomplished this mission. Understand we are dealing with an industry that is 9 percent of our GDP, nothing to be taken lightly. Yet what you have before you is something of a miracle. It is a unanimous and bipartisan bill where Members have put aside their selfish concerns, and we do have them, for the greater good of the Postal Service, because one thing we have to come to grips with is not a single Member that can go home and say, well, it was not good enough for me, so I put your Postal Service in jeopardy. Just try that out on your constituents. At the same time, the Postal Service had to wake up to the 21st century, had to modernize in ways that 9/11 had nothing to do with, had to modernize because the world has come forward with technology that challenges them, the way UPS and FedEx will never challenge them. How do you do that? They are still trying to do that. But one of the things you do is give the Postal Service some of the flexibility that is associated with the private sector, as much of it as you can, consistent with the fact that this is a controlled section of the economy, because there are some things that the Postal Service must do and nobody else can do; that is, go to some of the far reaches of your rural districts where they better get their mail on time the way I do mine nine blocks from the Capitol. Even those who had serious problems with this bill, the mail handlers, for example, have a real problem and one that has to be taken seriously with the way in which the bill deals with single pieces of parcels, single parcels, where we have allowed the Postal Service to transfer revenue in order to keep this part of the service lower, and we are getting rid of that to make them more competitive with the private sector. They say, watch out because you are going to raise the costs, and that is not good. But you know what they have said and agreed to? Perhaps we can resolve it in conference. So they say, pass the bill. I say as well, because we need to modernize the Postal Service. And we have even gotten around for ourselves the part that says that we might contribute to the deficit by giving back to the Treasury what they put on to the Postal Service, which is the cost of military pensions. We say you have held billions of dollars from the Postal Service. Tell you one thing, if we did not do that, what it means is that the Postal Service, which has already filed for a rate increase, would be forced to go ahead. I, for one, do not want to go home in 2006 and say, I voted for a mail increase. That is what you will vote for if you vote against this bill. My thanks to the sponsors once again for this historic work.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff came before our Committee on Homeland Security with his second review of the agency. It was an impressive review. Of course, the promise lies in the implementation, but he has done a competent job there. Astonishingly, though, Madam Speaker, he mentioned not one word about London or about the vulnerability of rail and public transportation in the United States, even though we are barely 10 days out of London. There was, as we stood here this morning, a moment in solidarity with those who died in London. Madam Speaker, WMATA, our own Metro system here, is considerably ahead of most of the country. In fact, WMATA is designated as the lead agency for emergency coordination for the entire region's transit and commuter rail. We are ahead of most of the country, after Oklahoma City began to take real action that most still have not begun to take. In June, 19 million people rode WMATA. That breaks all of its records. Many of those were constituents of the Members of this House and the Senate, because 20 million visitors come annually to the District of Columbia. WMATA indicates that its most pressing needs are current WMD detection equipment, decontamination equipment and testing, surveillance systems, antiterror equipment for transit police, video cameras for buses. Remember, this is one of the best prepared systems in the country. Yet, Madam Speaker, yesterday, Democratic Leader Pelosi, Ranking Member Thompson of the Committee on Homeland Security, and other Democratic leaders stood with me as I reintroduced the Secure Trains Act, an act I first introduced more than a year ago, simply to bring the country somewhere approaching where we have now, for some time, been in aviation, having gotten there for aviation after the fact. We are breaking the post-9/11 promise that we would never be caught flat-footed again. In fact, the President's 2006 budget eliminated dedicated mass transportation funding all together. I trust that we will put it back, or something back, before we go on August recess. Ninety percent of the funds that we have allocated have been for aviation security. Yet 9 billion passenger trips are made annually on rail and on public transportation. What are we thinking? This bill, a modest $3.8 billion for the basics: cameras, communications systems, explosive detection, security upgrades on tracks and tunnels. Is this too much to ask? More than 4 years after 9/ 11, is this too much to ask, following more than 50 dead in London, almost 200 dead in Madrid, hundreds injured when you tally them both together? Mr. Chertoff allowed as how $8.6 billion was ``available for transit operators'' under one of the homeland security programs. What he was talking about, Madam Speaker, is that a local jurisdiction can use transit for transit security money, money that we have allocated for first responders. I do not believe we mean transit security to be the stepchild of homeland security when that is where the people are. Far more people than ever consider getting on an airplane, and we are borrowing from first responders who are screaming that they do not have enough funds in order to skim off money for rail transportation, after Madrid, after London, and after a terrible accident involving HAZMAT in South Carolina, which could just as easily have been a terrorist event. I beg the House, before we go on August recess, to do our duty, keep our post-9/11 promise to do what is necessary for passenger rail, light rail, ferries, buses, the vehicles, the public transportation that our people get on every day to go to and from work. There is still time to do it. I do not think we would want to go home when every single Member will have a question like this: What have you done for our subways? What have you done for our buses? We do not need to go home and say ``nothing,'' Madam Speaker.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I thank her for her very hard and thoughtful work on this bill. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, (Chairman Duncan) as well. I appreciated the hearings you had trying to press us really to new plateaus on water projects. I am grateful for the inclusion in the manager's amendment of an amendment that would require the Secretary to coordinate with the governor, the mayors, for a 10-year plan for restoration of the Anacostia River which flows within sight of the Congress. In many ways, it is the Congressional River, not only because it is so near, but because if you will forgive me, when Congressional toilets flush on a rainy day, the waste from the Anacostia, the waste goes into the Anacostia River and finds its way all of the way down to the Chesapeake Bay, one of the great wonders of the United States. This is about more than beauty, however; it is about health and the ecologically integrity of the waterways of this entire region. The Federal Government is a major offender. One-third of the sewer system here serves the Federal presence. The Federal Government is a rate payer; it would not be a rate payer, of course, if it was not strongly and significantly involved. The Federal Government built the sewer system here 100 years ago. The Corps of Engineers still runs it. But the Federal Government is not a major contributor to the billion dollar combined sewer overflow problem, much of it of its own Federal making. There are many projects in this bill. We do have $55 million in this bill, for which I am very grateful, but historically, if you look over the last 20 years, there have been projects, large amounts of money to jurisdictions and projects which have absolutely no relationship to the Federal sector. Here we have the Federal sector deeply involved, a billion-dollar problem, and we have yet to really get to the bottom of it. I want to particularly thank you for the way in which the Chairman and the ranking member have understood this problem, and for the ways they have made us understand that part of the problem is a larger one, our approach to water rehabilitation, which is starkly different from the way we understand we have to rehabilitate roads. We cannot see what is happening in our water structures. We can see what is happening on our roads. It is time we saw what is happening to our health when we do not deal with our waterways in the same way.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the Secure TRAINS, Secure Transit and Railroads Across America and Investment in National Security, Act of 2005 for the second time in 2 years, and pleading the urgency of passage before Congress goes on its August break. I am pleased to have as co-sponsors, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, and Senior Transportation Committee Member and Chair of the Democratic Caucus Bob Menendez. London should be too close for congressional comfort while the country's subways, buses, rail, light rail and ferries go unprotected. London's tally thus far of 52 dead and 700 injured and the Madrid totals of more than 190 killed and 1,800 injured could be far worse here, considering the abysmal state of passenger and freight preparedness across the United States today. Instead of direct passage, I tried to get the Homeland Security Committee, on which I serve, to include Secure TRAINS in the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, authorization bill, passed by the House in May, but my bill was defeated on a party line vote. I managed to get two amendments requiring DHS to develop passenger security best practices for mass transportation operators, and to develop a national plan for public outreach and awareness for employees and I passengers. However, the key provisions of the bill and of another I cosponsored for freight hazmat security protection were defeated because the President's budget did not fund them. President Bush's 2006 budget eliminated dedicated funding for mass transportation altogether, instead forcing mass transit into the Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program, TIPP, to compete with other transportation sectors, such as ports, which already receive at least some dedicated funding. Last year, Congress provided only $150 million for mass transportation security grants, but this year the Senate Appropriations Committee already has reduced these grants by $100 million. I can only ask, rhetorically, whether the administration and Congress know what the people ride each day. Approximately 16 times as many passengers use public transportation as use airlines--9 billion passenger trips annually on public transportation--but 90 percent of transportation security funding has gone to air travel, after the fact, after the catastrophe. We are breaking our post-9/l1 promise not to be caught flat footed again because we have let the record stand at $21 billion for air travel security and $550 million for public transportation security all told. Secure TRAINS at a little over $3.8 billion modestly increases investment in public transportation and freight security. Unlike much of the wasteful, open-ended funding for homeland security in the period following 9/11, most of the funding in Secure TRAINS would be available through grants. Thus, the Homeland Security Committee's formula based on threat, vulnerability and consequences would be applied with far greater financial efficiency and efficacy. The bill provides for first-line commonsense security, including cameras, communication systems, explosive detection, and security upgrades on tracks and in tunnels. The bill also includes whistleblower provisions I have been unable to get in prior bills. If stockbrokers and accountants can be protected by Sarbanes-Oxley, it's time we gave the same whistleblower protection to employees charged with keeping trains and buses secure. We must not go on August vacation leaving subways, busses and rail as they were last week when London was attacked for the first time since World War II. This is the third time I have tried to get this bill passed. We must let it become three strikes and you're out.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, because of my personal admiration and friendship, I am particularly pleased to rise today to introduce a resolution that gives me personal pleasure even beyond the pleasure I would normally have in commemorating the service of District of Columbia Court of Appeals Chief Judge Annice Wagner. Judge Wagner's distinguished service for almost 30 years to the courts and to the people of the District of Columbia is documented in this resolution, also introduced in the Senate by Governmental Affairs Chair, Susan Collins, I am pleased to ask the House as well to express its gratitude to Chief Judge Wagner. Judge Wagner was first nominated as an Associate Judge by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, re-nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, and appointed Chief Judge in 1994 By President Bill Clinton. Under Judge Wagner's leadership, the Court has benefited in many ways while growing in respect by the profession, the bar and the Congress. Recently, along with other officials, I helped Judge Wagner break ground on the renovation of the historic Old District of Columbia Courthouse (Old City Hall), a project she has long championed as the new home of our highest court, which Chief Judge Wagner has so successfully led. The Chief Judge led the court through a historic transition after the federal government for the first time assumed financial responsibility for the D.C. courts. Although the President always has appointed the judges of the D.C. courts, the District of Columbia alone was responsible for the costs until passage of the District of Columbia Revitalization Act of 1997. Joining the financial responsibility with the appointing power helped the District emerge from its worst financial crisis in a century. However, the transition required changes in many details of operations, and the leadership of Chief Judge Wagner was critical to the success of this important transition. When Judge Wagner was Annice Robinson and I was Eleanor Holmes, we were close friends and classmates at Dunbar High School. Annice was known then for her top academic achievements, her leadership skills, and her ability to bring people together. No one who knew Annice Robinson would be surprised that she would become Chief Judge of the highest court in her hometown or that she would leave her signature on the Court and on our city. We are fortunate indeed that Chief Judge Wagner will assume senior status enabling the courts to continue to tap her years of experience and dedication. The Bar of the city, our elected officials, and our residents have been the direct beneficiaries of Judge Wagner's extraordinary service. Because of the role of the federal government in our local government, Congress shares in the pride and gratitude of the city and the profession for Chief Judge Wagner's service. I ask the House to join me in endorsing this resolution of appreciation and commendation for the service of Chief Judge Annice Wagner.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced today has been summoned by the District's lead water crisis. 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 Senator James Jeffords, Representative Henry Waxman, and I looked at the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SFDA) 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 have learned from hearings on the D.C. water crisis this year and from the state of the current science. This bill would lay to rest well-placed anxiety about lead in the drinking water here and nationwide. The District of Columbia has provided us with a virtual case study in why the Act must be revised. 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 percent, and thus relieve WASA of the requirement to replace lead service lines. Instead, 10 percent 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 Corps 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 is 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 percent, the standard already used in Los Angeles, down from the current 8 percent. We heard testimony at our hearings that most brass and copper plumbing contains 8 percent 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. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman that they have represented to me, and I believe that they are sincere, that they meant no discrimination between the disabled out of state and the disabled here. Therefore, citing the precedent the gentleman himself has indicated, I will represent to him that there will be no disabled out-of-state tickets given during the time that this matter is being straightened out. Let me also represent to the gentleman, because Members are accustomed to coming to me about tickets that should not have been issued, Members under certain circumstances may not get tickets in the District of Columbia. They sure know how to find me. I want my colleagues to know if they have any constituent who is ticketed during this interim period, they should find the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia so she can see that those tickets are not outstanding, and I represent that to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. No Member of Congress has the right to encourage guns in homes where the overwhelming evidence is that they are mostly used for suicides and in domestic quarrels, and please do not do that here in the District of Columbia because that is the most likely use of such guns in homes. The most bankrupt rationale offered for this outrageous interference in a local jurisdiction is that we already have gun violence in the District of Columbia. Let me hear the cosponsors argue with a straight face that allowing guns in people's homes will reduce rather than increase the gun violence in the District of Columbia. The most deeply held principle of the Founders was local control. First local from England, and then because they were so deeply principled, they denied to the national government that they themselves created any control of the local jurisdiction. The Congress gave us this control in the Home Rule Act. I ask the Congress of the United States to respect the mayor, the council and the residents of the District of Columbia by in fact defeating this amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman talked about somebody breaking into your house. What his amendment does is to legalize shotguns, rifles. Already it seems to us insane that you would have a handgun at the ready when somebody broke in. And, remember, handguns grandfathered before 1976 would be legal. But imagine somebody breaks in and you go get a long rifle or a shotgun. This isn't about self-defense. This is about pressing forward the gentleman's preferences on the District of Columbia where unanimously every mayor of the city of D.C., every city council member overwhelmingly, all the residents have voted ``no.''

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has pulled back from total repeal of our gun safety laws. I wish I could thank him, but I do not think Mayor Williams or Chief Ramsey would yet be ready to do so. Our moderate, even-tempered Mayor, who has worked so well with this Congress and the administration, is much praised in this Congress, is really beside himself when at a time crime is at a 20-year low, here comes the Congress to do what he and the police chief say will surely increase crime. Disassembled weapons, yes, citizens may have them in their house. Look what this does: loaded shotguns, loaded handguns, as long as citizens had them before 1976, in your home or in your place of business. Let me say that the Board of Trade does not want them in our places of business. They came to testify in total support of the laws as they are. The businesses of the District of Columbia have petitioned the Congress to keep our laws exactly as they are. Businesses say the last thing they want is the kind of liability and responsibility they would have for keeping a gun in the place of business, so they do not do it. Post-9/11, do Members really want to legalize shotguns, handguns grandfathered in the District of Columbia at a time when we are still stopping people at checkpoints to see whether they are terrorists? Do Members know what can happen here? Someone can take one of these rifles or shotguns to the roof of an apartment or office building, aim it at foreign visitors, tourists, Members of Congress or their families, not to mention residents of the District of Columbia. I am particularly worried about children, teens. Imagine big long guns, now loaded. Some people would call that an attractive nuisance. That is a term of art in the law. Parents, I think, would call it an unattractive, deadly, very lethal weapon. That is who is most likely to be attracted by this new set of gear that you can have loaded in your home. There must be countless handguns that have been disassembled that were held before 1976. Now just load them up. So the same kids who knew they were unloaded before, do not know perhaps that now the guns are loaded, and here we have kids among the thousands who die every year in play from guns. Mr. Chairman, no Member of Congress has the right to usurp our right to protect ourselves and our kids as we see fit. That is a basic right of self-defense of every jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.