Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the last 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time; and I hasten to add, he did not mean that I was 87 years old, but he is right that I regard myself as a good friend of Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee, and if I may say so, Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee are the most remarkable couple in the history of arts and letters in the United States, ever; and now we have lost one half of that couple, and America across this land mourns the passing of a great artist. Mr. Speaker, Ossie Davis was a renaissance man. A renaissance man is not a Jack of All Trades. One definition says: a man who has broad intellectual interests and is accomplished in areas of both the arts and the sciences. The notion of the renaissance man comes from the great Renaissance era, the Italian Renaissance, the English Renaissance. Out of the English Renaissance came such new talents as William Shakespeare. Ossie Davis merits the title Renaissance man. There is no area of the arts in which he did not excel, and he did not start with the arts. He insisted upon being a man of his time and a man of his race. To have been a renaissance man in your time, no matter who you were, whatever your advantages, is to live up to an impossible standard, but to have been born in the worst years of segregation and lynching and mob violence in our country, in the South of the United States and to have risen to be a man of letters and of the arts who, of course, most recently was honored with the greatest honors of our country at the Kennedy Center is to give new meaning to the very words Renaissance man. Who are the men who are understood to be Renaissance men? To give my colleagues a cross-section of them, Leonardo Da Vinci, Paul Robeson, Thomas Jefferson. We use that word when we think of men whose talents are so broad and so wide, as evidenced in the works they have produced, that there is no other word for them. We cannot simply call them an artist. We cannot simply call them a producer. We cannot simply call them a playwright. We cannot simply call them a stage actor. Because they are all those things. And then, of course, to have been the kind of artist who understood that without compromising his art he could become a leader in the greatest revolution of our time, the civil rights revolution, is to have set a standard that all of us must admire. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this resolution has come from the whole House, and I ask the whole House to join me and the country in celebrating the fact that Ossie Davis proves that if you let a man's talent shine, he will overcome whatever you have to throw up and whatever you have to throw out. We are blessed, we are honored that a renaissance man of his immense talent lived among us and gave so much of his talent to his country and to his world.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for always standing first and foremost for human rights here and around the world. I am not surprised that he would come forward with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) with this well- deserved and important resolution. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more gratifying to the American people than seeing people vote, and especially people vote for the first time. I feel what is happening in Iraq with great and moving nostalgia because it reminds me of the first African Americans who voted after the Civil War. It reminds me that this is the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and what it meant for people in Alabama and Georgia to come to the polls for the first time. There is unanimous applause for the people of Iraq who risked their lives to come to the polls. They did not just vote. Many of them knew they were risking life and limb to vote. They know, however, and we know where the risk was greatest, and that risk was greatest on the Armed Forces of the United States and their allies who made this right possible. Mr. Speaker, I come forward to say that no people in our country more appreciate that vote on January 30 than the people in the District of Columbia. In the District of Columbia, lives were lost for the vote in Iraq. But these residents are the progeny of 2 centuries of District residents who have gone to war without a vote. Three of these young men who were on the frontlines in Iraq came to the House as the House opened and asked for the same vote for their families and for the residents of the District of Columbia as their service has given to the people of Iraq. They asked to start with the Committee of the Whole where we had the right to vote but the right was taken from us when the majority changed. Listen to one of the young men: ``Two of my friends and I earlier this month asked for the return of the House vote of the Committee of the Whole our city won during the 103rd Congress . . . Think of what American leaders and citizens would say if one party were to nullify the legitimate vote of another party after the elections in Iraq.'' They asked to see the Speaker; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), leader of the Democrats. She saw him. The Speaker and a member of his staff were unable to see him. Senator Lieberman and I have reintroduced the No Taxation Without Representation Act. Let me leave you with the words, finally, of one of these young men. ``I was prepared in Iraq for whatever came, including service in a border breach squad charged with clearing mines and anything else that got in the way to prepare the first troops to cross the border. That was my duty and I would do it again. However, our country also has an important obligation to those who serve and to other citizens. One of the most important obligations is to ensure every citizen that his representative will have a chance to vote before that citizen goes to war for his country.'' The third young man: ``My father served in the 101st Airborne in Vietnam and I am proud to follow him by serving my country in the same manner. I want equal treatment at home. I want the same voting representation in the House and Senate as other soldiers and as the Iraqi people have in their elections this month.'' Out of the mouths of young residents of the District of Columbia who are on the frontline. I will insert their statements and a statement concerning their service from the Washington Post in the Record. Statement of Emory Kosh First, my thanks to Congresswoman Norton and Senator Lieberman for re-introducing the No Taxation Without Representation Act. I also want to thank Mr. Shallal for his moving words addressed to men and women like me who served in Iraq and to D.C. residents. During the year I spent in Iraq, I met and spoke with many Iraqi citizens, but Mr. Shallal is the first Iraqi American I have met. His words have special meaning to me and I thank him. When I watch television and see people in Iraq and here in the United States preparing to vote in the Iraq elections for voting representation, I think of my time in their country. I am proud that I had some role in the voting rights Iraqis will get there on Sunday. For that reason, I deeply appreciate that Mr. Shallal has come not only to thank us, but to join us in the fight for the same voting representation here in the Nation's capital. Two of my friends and I earlier this month asked for the return of the House vote in the Committee of the Whole our city won during the 103rd Congress that was taken from us when control of the Congress changed hands. Think of what American leaders and citizens would say if one party were to nullify the legitimate vote of another party after the elections in Iraq. Our vote in the Committee of the Whole represented the first step toward the goal of D.C. residents as expressed in the No Taxation Without Representation Act. We didn't intend to stop there when we asked that this first step be taken, and we won't stop now. We will work with the Congresswoman, the Senator, Mr. Shallal and our fellow citizens until the full voting rights we fought for in Iraq are also available here in our hometown.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for her initiative. Millions of Americans want to know what the truth is. Because of the gentlewoman's leadership, we are trying to get those facts out here today. Yes, I was chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Carter. The gentlewoman from New York and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) have been talking about the issue of race and gender. Let us be clear, this argument is a nullity. Under the Constitution of the United States, government benefits may not be distributed taking race and sex into account. The courts have spoken on that. So if there are racial disparities or gender disparities, they are off the table constitutionally. Race is a suspect classification, and I do not want to get technical, which means you can only use race if there is no other way to accomplish the purpose. What is the purpose we are trying to accomplish here? Does the other side want to make sure that black men who have lower incomes than others get what? Privatize what little income they have, take it out of their meager earnings for private accounts? Are you going to give them more money because they die early? Come on. Let me hear what you are going to do to make up for the fact that black men die early, and leave aside health, because that is very clear. You cannot do it in any way, and maybe if you are on the Committee on Ways and Means you have not looked at the Constitution, but some of us have. We cannot put race and sex on the table under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under the equal protection clause of the United States. I do want to say how we got into this crisis. Do we forget that the Republicans inherited a Social Security Trust Fund that was in surplus? Why are we here? Do you forget the days of the lockbox when Clinton- Gore said do not touch Social Security, we have a surplus, put the money in the lockbox and we will never have to worry about Social Security? We had enough to pay for Social Security and then a surplus. What happened to it, my friends? George Bush and the Republicans came to power and they decided they had a use for the funds in the lockbox and they unlocked it, and they distributed it in disproportionate amounts to the very rich who do not need to even think about Social Security. They distributed it in a war, a controversial war from which they cannot extricate themselves. And to have had the nerve to quote President Clinton talking about the crisis. Indeed he was. He said, over and over again, we are going to have a crisis if you get into this lockbox, and he had hardly gotten out of Washington then George Bush was picking the lock. They got us into this crisis, and they want to make it worse because they want to privatize Social Security. The only way to do that is take more money, this time not from the surplus because they have used that up, but from deficit spending. This is not even ancient history. It is history that many Members of this House have lived. Finally, let me say a word on race and gender. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said he was only putting it on the table. Thank goodness the 14th amendment keeps us from putting certain kinds of things on the table. You cannot say to somebody, because you are black, I think you are going to live a little less long and so, I am not sure what the remedy is, by the way, but I am going to do something to you for that reason. And women, wait a minute, you live too long, so I am not sure what I am going to do to you. Let us hear what their proposal is. Are you going to take back their Social Security? Reduce their Social Security? Any of those things, my friends, is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. They should be taken off the table. You threw it out there, and you expect us not to respond. Finally, let me say this. One of the reasons why women and people of color embrace Social Security so much is because, in fact, they get disproportionately from Social Security. Because their wages are lower and because the Social Security system is progressive, they pull from Social Security disproportionate amounts given what they, in fact, contributed to Social Security, because this is not a one-on-one system, what you give to the system, you get back. This is a progressive tax system, so you get back disproportionately. I do think it is important to get into some of these details so that, in fact, people can understand why we must oppose the privatization of Social Security. You can bank on this, Democrats who gave us Social Security are not going to be present at the funeral of Social Security. We are here this year to save it for the American people. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this very important issue.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, we honor all who serve our country in the military. However, the men and women of the District of Columbia who volunteer for military service are entitled to special honors. D.C. residents who serve today are the most recent in a long line of citizens of the District who have fought and died for our country, although they did not have the same democratic rights as their fellow citizens and fellow soldiers. I ask the House of Representatives to honor the residents of the District of Columbia who have served in every war since the Revolutionary War of 1775, by recognizing three young men today who served in the Iraqi War, Marcus Gray, Emory Kosh, and Isaac Lewis. We also honor members of the military from the District, including the D.C. National Guard, who have served or are serving in Afghanistan and throughout the world, especially those who have lost their lives. Specialists Gray, Kosh and Lewis were members of the U.S. Army Reserves, 299th Engineer Company and part of the first wave of soldiers who entered Iraq in March 2003. The three graduates of Ballou, Eastern, and Dunbar High Schools in the District were working or in college when they were called to serve. They spent nearly a year in Iraq exposed to great danger. Two of the three may be redeployed this year. Just as these three soldiers stepped forward without hesitation to go overseas in time of war, they step forward now to speak for the cause of democracy at home. These three men welcome the enthusiasm of many Iraqis as they prepare to elect voting representatives to their national legislature on January 30. All three know that the coming elections in Iraq and the successful elections held in Afghanistan in October were made possible by the service and sacrifices of the members of their company, and other coalition troops, the great majority of whom were American citizen soldiers, and members of today's volunteer military. Today these three young men ask that their hometown be afforded the same voting representation that their service will help bring to Iraq. They do not expect to have the same voting representation tomorrow that they will see in Iraq on January 30th. However, the people of the nation's capital could get a vote as the 109th Congress convenes on January 4th for its new session. By rule of the House, the Congress could put the District on the path to full voting rights. During the 103rd Congress, the District of Columbia had a vote on most House business by rule of the House and by vote of the House, as affirmed by the federal courts. With the change of controlling parties in the 104th Congress, this vote was withdrawn. Our country and most democracies would find the withdrawal of voting rights intolerable anywhere in the world. Eliminating a vote fairly won is also unacceptable here. As we are reminded time and again, all countries must meet the same standard--Iraq, Afghanistan and the United States, as well. Specialists Gray, Kosh, and Lewis and their families are tax paying citizens of the United States and of the capital of our nation, but they have given more than most of us. They are soldiers who have gone to war for our country. I ask the House to honor their service and to heed their call for voting representation in this House. I also ask unanimous consent to place in the record their own words petitioning their government for voting representation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. If we are the democracy we say we are, we must show it today by taking on the astonishing problems in our national system of elections that can no longer be blinked away. Ohio's often brazen irregularities bring forward this debate, but the Buckeye State is only the poster child for the nationwide system of voting that has been discredited in the eyes of millions of voters. I watched the long lines nationwide and here in the District with both exhilaration and pain, exhilaration that finally we were getting what we asked for, with so much enthusiasm for voting that people were standing in line the way they do for million dollar lottery tickets; pain that long lines would surely discourage many voters, particularly first-time voters, people of color, young people, and many others who wanted to believe that voting could matter in their lives. The long lines in the District were especially poignant because citizens were waiting for hours to vote for a Member of Congress who herself could not cast a vote for them in this House. Ohio's close and contentious vote speaks for the country about virtually all the problems of the last election, from voting machine access to voting intimidation and the absence of national standards for the basics. It will take time and bipartisan determination to make us proud of our elections. Until then, one reform could begin the process of restoring confidence in our elections. If all else fails, voting machines, polling place controversy, confused or partisan election officials, a provisional ballot that, if valid, will count, can help heal voting flaws until we enact a real cure. We have got a failsafe for almost everything else, from bullet proof vests to backups for computers. Let us fix our system this year, including with failsafes for voting to save our democracy.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my remarks to the glowing ones we have heard regarding the untimely passing of our dear colleague, Bob Matsui. To have known Bob Matsui is to be heartbroken by his death. I believe that our Republican colleagues would agree. Especially for Democrats, however, the loss is profoundly felt three times over. First, there was the man whose human dimensions of kindness, consideration, and friendly persuasion made him instantly likeable and one of the most admired and respected members across the political spectrum. Second, there was the successful party leader, who had just completed his term as a hugely successful chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. And third, there was the Democratic seer of social security whom we were depending upon to lead us through the coming crucial social security debate, one of the several subjects whose byzantine complexities Bob had mastered as third ranking on the Ways and Means Committee. Congress and the country could not afford to lose even one of these three Bob Matsuis. Now, sadly we have lost all three. As we mourn the loss of one of the country's most effective public servants, we celebrate our good fortune that Bob Matsui gave his life to public service.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I represent the people of the Nation's capital, perhaps the most conspicuous target for global terrorism in the world. I support S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. 1 could not afford to do otherwise. Nor can other Members, whatever their opinions of the considerable shortcomings of this bill. The controversy over S. 2845 and its many flaws have obscured the overriding reason for the bill in the first place. After an impressive, exhaustive investigation, the 9/11 Commission, which deserves the credit for the seminal document from which the bill derives, said that prevention of the 9/11 tragedy had been possible. ``There were specific points of vulnerability in the plot and opportunities to disrupt it,'' according to the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 8). Various intelligence agencies each had parts of vital information about the imminence of an attack, but they rarely communicated and never collaborated. S. 2845 goes directly at this tragic flaw through personnel and structural reform in two ways. First, the bill creates one overarching and fully accountable official, the director of national intelligence, with the budgetary and oversight authority to compel the communication and cooperation that was missing before 9/11. Second, the bill requires all information and intelligence to be funneled ultimately to a newly established national counterterrorism center instead of remaining scattered in 15 different intelligence agencies, as before 9/11. There are many other important provisions in the bill less expansive in scope but vital in content that recommend its passage. However, regrettably S. 2845 contains some provisions that do not belong in a bill with this mission, were not recommended by the 9/11 commission, and could not have passed independently. Of particular concern to me, however, are related problems that had nothing to do with 9/11, but also deeply involve intelligence and the judgment of public officials. Our country and our troops are virtually trapped in Iraq today because of an unprecedented invasion. The invasion of Iraq teaches the necessity of assuring that competing information not only reaches but influences the President and that cooperation, consolidation, and coordination do not result in dreaded ``groupthink'' or in disproportionate influence by the new director of national intelligence or any other official. I am not entirely convinced that S. 2845 builds in the necessary checks and balances to assure against reinforcing a President's predispositions. Time and experience inform the Congress. We must be prepared to make changes as they become necessary. Most disappointing was the weak civil liberties panel that is not in keeping with the concerns in the 9/11 Commission Report about the privacy issues raised by the new centralized intelligence network recommended by the 9/11 Commission. The panel has become a wolf watching the hen house. It has no subpoena power. The members will be totally beholden to the President, at whose pleasure they will serve. I have been in the Congress long enough to know that allowing an opportunity to pass while we wait for a more perfect bill often means no bill, no bill for years, or no bill until another crisis comes. This bill is already late, delayed by the Bush administration at every turn, but finally delivered at the hands of the 9/11 families and the Commission their energy brought into being. We must seize this opportunity and pass this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the District's own Ballou Senior High School Marching Band for its recent extraordinary achievement at the Home Depot National Battle of the Bands Competition. The band, numbering 86 members, placed second among eight bands in a competition which included 110 entrants in the initial field. Ballou deserves recognition from the House of Representatives not only because of this notable accomplishment. I ask the Congress to recognize the Ballou Marching Band also because these students, led by their able and devoted band director, Darrell Watson, overcame nearly impossible odds. The high school is located in one of the city's most disadvantaged and besieged communities. The students have lived with unusual human tragedy, including the fatal shooting of two fellow students this year. Also in 2003, the school was closed for more than a month because of an accidental mercury spill. At the end of the school year, many of the problems of the school were blamed on allegations of poor leadership and the principal was dismissed. This is not an atmosphere conducive to producing award winning bands. Yet, the Ballou Marching Band's band director and the new principal, Daniel Hudson, persevered. However, talent, intelligence, diligence and dedication could not cover the $70,000 needed to travel to California to compete. The often struggling families of the students, and their inner-city community certainly did not have such funds. Still, the band and their school did not give up. They sought help from the business community, alumni and others. Many were moved by the determination of the students. Among the many contributors who made the trip possible were Federal Express--inspired by a Ballou alumna who was a vice president--Lockheed Martin, Embassy Suites Hotels, and William C. Smith and Company. The outpouring of love and support that the Ballou band received was inspired not only by the need, but by the students' own determination and efforts in doing car washes and selling dinners to earn funds for the trip. The concrete show of confidence in these children enabled the band's participation and its prize-winning finish. In fact, the competition was razor close, and Ballou almost came away with the top prize. Its reward was a trip to Disneyland and the opportunity to play in the holiday parade. The larger and lasting reward is the sense of accomplishment the students received and the opportunity to broaden their horizons and expectations concerning where hard work and high aspirations can lead. On a visit to the school, I was moved to see the effect of the band's achievements on the entire student body, which gathered to celebrate the band with principal, teachers and staff all present. The band director, Darrell Watson, spoke of the numerous compliments he received, including words of praise concerning the exemplary behavior of the members of the band. Principal Hudson is leading the students to transfer the band's achievement to academic achievement as well for the student body. I am proud that the band represented the city so well and proud to represent the band, the school, and the community in the Congress of the United States. Last week I wrote to President Bush to ask that the Ballou Band march in the upcoming Inaugural Parade. Considering what the band has achieved and the obstacles the students have overcome, I believe that the band and the school deserve this national recognition. Mr. Speaker, the Ballou Senior High School Marching Band deserves the accolades the band is receiving since returning from California. I ask the House of Representatives to add its own congratulations as well.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate D.C. United on winning the Major League Soccer Championship Cup on November 14, 2004. D.C. United beat the Kansas City Wizards 3-2 to win its fourth MLS championship in the league's nine-year existence. Alecko Eskandarian scored United's first two goals, leading D.C. to the MLS title. D.C. United has been the District's most successful sports franchise in recent history and has been called the most successful club in MLS history. The team is a metaphor for the extraordinary progress our city itself has made--balanced budgets and surpluses, retaining and attracting homeowners, and a renaissance in economic development throughout the District of Columbia. The mighty Black and Red recently celebrated their triumph with a victory rally at RFK Stadium, giving more than 1,000 fans an opportunity to get up close and personal with players, pose for pictures and get autographs. During the rally, Mayor Anthony Williams hailed the ``dedication, teamwork and vision'' of the champs, declaring November 17 ``D.C. United Day'' in the nation's capital. Team captain Ryan Nelsen thanked ``the 12th man'', the great fans of D.C. United. In a season dominated by news about the signing of our big catch, 15 year old soccer phenom Freddy Adu, first-year coach Peter Nowak moved the focus off the media hype and with his team-oriented philosophy steered United to capture its first Cup since 1999. Nowak said, ``They have real attitude and a winning mentality, they're always going to come first and they're always going to be the winners. They shared my vision and they got the cup at the end.'' Giving Adu his ``props,'' however, Freddy became the youngest player ever to win a championship in a major U.S. professional team sport. The unassuming teenager, though, preferred to focus on the team's accomplishments rather than his own. D.C. United also won championships in 1996 and 1997. Unfortunately, after its 1999 MLS Cup, the team missed the playoffs in 2000, 2001 and 2002. But the road back to the top of the league became painted with hard work, patience and a determined eye toward winning the Cup back. The team is currently conducting its annual United Holiday Toy Drive benefiting Children's National Medical Center. They invite the public to bring donated toys to RFK Stadium and receive a free set of signed player cards. The toy drive is just one of the United's four community outreach programs. Kicks for Kids provides 10,000 disadvantaged youth with free game tickets, meal vouchers and promotional items; United donates much-needed items such as youth soccer equipment and school supplies to area non-profit organizations; and team coaches and players run six free children's soccer clinics each year. Mr. Speaker, I ask Congress to recognize D.C. United for its spirit and excellence on and off the field, as the nation's capital celebrates the Major League Soccer Champions.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I want to say that the two gentlemen from which we just heard on the bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who just spoke, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) who has led the bill, are both from this region. This may be the most white-collar region in the United States. When District of Columbia residents did not have access to its State university system, it hurt the entire economy of the region because it meant the critical core of the region could not provide the same State university systems that are very beautifully provided in Maryland and Virginia. So one part of the region could not contribute to the economic viability of the region. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate particularly their work in understanding how vital the District's contribution was and is, and that it cannot be made except through higher education of the kind that is expected through this region. Finally, a word about the Chair. This bill was finally passed in the Senate only in the lame duck session. It has been passed here because the chairman had smoothly led its passage in the House. It did not have a bit of controversy here. There were some changes made after some consultation with the House with the Senate, and all was well; and at the last minute a very small problem arose in the Senate. But when one person raises a problem in the Senate, that can mean the end of an entire bill. So I do want to say right here on this floor that the work of the chairman when we brought this to his attention that all efforts in the Senate to solve this one problem with one Member had failed for reasons no one could put their finger on, that his own creative sense of compromise is what rescued the bill in the Senate. I want to express my deep appreciation for his work in the midst of the lame duck session, to think of what might be done, and then to speak with the Member in the Senate who raised an issue, and then to come forward with a compromise that has proved acceptable to all. We are very grateful for that, because without that work on the part of Chairman Davis, we would not be here. This bill would not be authorized, and we would not be able to get the full amount which has already been passed by the appropriation committees on both sides into the President's budget when it comes here in January. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words and acknowledgement of the chairman. I particularly appreciate the strong leadership he has given this bill from its inception and the continuing strong leadership he has afforded this absolutely vital bill to the residents of the District of Columbia. Led by my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 has always passed with bipartisan sponsors in the House and Senate and consistently strong support from Members of both bodies. We are particularly indebted to the chairman, who, because of the importance of higher education to those who live and work in this white-collar region, has always made this bill a priority of the committee. This year he performed an additional critical act of leadership. When a problem arose in the Senate after the bill was approved in committee, he forged an acceptable compromise. The champions of the bill in the Senate have been a chairman, Senator George Voinovich and his ranking member, Senator Dick Durbin of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, as well as the Chair of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Senator Susan Collins and the ranking member, Senator Joe Lieberman. Mr. Speaker, I want to express special gratitude to President Bush, who came to office several years after the law was in effect, saw the evidence of its exceptional success, and has continued to fund it in his budget at authorized levels. The act, which partially funds college tuition through tuition access grants, or TAG, gives D.C. residents opportunities for college attendance that other Americans already enjoy through their State university systems. Because the District has no State university system, TAG substitutes for such a system by allowing D.C. residents to attend the public colleges in the States at instate tuition rates, subsidized up to $10,000. In the alternative, our students may receive $2,500 to attend private colleges at historically black colleges or universities in the city or region or other private colleges, provisions that also imitate what some States allow. Already some 6,000 D.C. students have attended more than 150 colleges nationwide because of funds provided by the act. There are two particularly gratifying results from the first years of the Act. First, college attendance in the District has increased by 28 percent compared with only 11 percent nationally. Second, the act has been important to keeping tax-paying residents in the city and stemming the large and disastrous taxpayers' losses of the past three decades, particularly of parents who often left for the suburbs when their children were in reach of college age, rather than deny their children the benefits of a lower-cost, high-quality State university system. The high cost of tuition is a significant reason many residents left the District and others refuse to settle here. The evidence of the success of the program and the return on the dollar to residents, to the city itself and to the Federal Government is not in dispute. Close monitoring by the GAO, by the committee and by our office have shown that TAG has been well run. TAG is universally popular among D.C. residents and businesses because of the act's simultaneous and immediate benefits to higher education in the District and, therefore, to the economic stability and viability of the city itself. The program is an unqualified success and continues to exceed all expectations. The program has proved itself in becoming a valuable catalyst to where it is most needed. TAG deserves reauthorization, and I strongly urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I might ask the gentleman how he himself voted. Mr. Speaker, the full faith and credit of the United States is not seriously at issue here. What is at issue is what we do not hear a lot about anymore. We do not hear the other side saying we can grow our way out of this debt. We do see the danger signs, the decline of the dollar, the rise in debt purchased by foreigners. How can we plunge ourselves back into debt so quickly? As President Clinton dedicates his library, I cannot help remember the halcyon days of surplus where the President imposed pay-as-you-go discipline. We can do this ourselves. Postponing a vote on the debt limit to get through an election is pathetically transparent. The moral bankruptcy of that postponement is deepened by the failure to even make a promise on PAYGO during this debate. Unless we move, this generation will be remembered as the generation that had a party at the expense of their grandchildren, so selfish that they gave themselves a tax cut, robbed their children's Social Security, and then charged it straight away to them. Let us do better than that. That is the very definition of a national moral issue.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for this amendment. I have an amendment pending in a package we have not gotten to. My pending amendment would in fact have relevant regions across the United States, whether within the same State or not, engage functionally in what I think this amendment would do. I would have a coordinator and the coordinator could be chosen by whoever were the various officials, whether across State lines or within a State. Yes, it is true that the national capital region is the model for how it should be done. Here we have three States: Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The portions of those States closest to where the security is of greatest need and where the Federal presence is, because the Federal presence is as much in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, and in some cases more so, witness the Pentagon. This region has a long history of cooperating. But after 9/11, even that long history of cooperation was not enough. Because of the uniqueness of the national capital region, Congress has said there has to be a paid coordinator for this region. Other regions, of course, would almost surely not have the Federal Government paying for the coordinator. The reason that the coordinator is paid for here is because virtually the entire Federal presence is located here. But I have worried that what a coordinator would do is not being done in these regions. I appreciate what these Members have done. They have leaped over the title and essentially said do it, or at least do some of it, such as information-sharing. Other areas of their amendment make it clear that what Congress wants is coordination across State lines if necessary and certainly across regional lines. I think minimally what this amendment wants is what the country needs, and I hope because this is a bipartisan amendment that it will pass; it will pave the way for the next step which would be of course coordinators for the various regions. Again, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for their amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment with regret. I believe every Member of the national capital region and everyone who cares about the security of the national capital region should oppose this amendment as well. Normally, I would have absolutely no problem with a study. This study and this amendment, both the original bill and the amendment are called study of an expansion of area of jurisdiction of Office of National Capital Region Coordination. That is the special coordinator I just spoke about in the last amendment. The amendment itself suggests the conclusion: expansion. This is not the time to even think about diluting the area defined by law as the national capital region. It has not happened haphazardly. I did offer to work with my colleagues from the greater region. I think an objective study that was done by the region, the agencies that have the expertise, and the gentleman has indicated that he knows that the GSA has it, yes homeland security might be useful. I am a member of both committees. The last thing I want to do is give the Committee on Homeland Security, which has existing mandates to report back to Congress, something else to do, something which I think is absolutely unnecessary. The expertise exists within the government, and this is something that does not require legislation at all. The resources that protect the national capital region we need to expand, not think about diluting. When we talk about this region, understand what we are talking about. We are talking about the Pentagon, the CIA, NIH, Arlington Cemetery, Andrews, Fort Belvoir, the FBI Academy, Goddard Space Center, the FDA. We are not talking about the District of Columbia. It goes without saying that is going to be protected. The greater Federal presence is found in nearby Maryland, Northern Virginia, and Montgomery and Prince George's counties. What expense we have to go through just to protect this region I do not want to even talk about, but it includes the flyover, the guards we have to send out. We have to send them out if there were an agency somewhere out in the region. The GSA and the National Capital Planning Commission have consistently been against sprawl of government agencies. It is already 6,000 square miles. We are talking way out into Maryland and Virginia, Loudoun, Prince William, Fairfax. They have opposed it because of security, commuting, taxpayer cost-saving reasons. They have consistently said we have to keep as many agencies as possible within this region. It is much harder to protect Federal facilities; and therefore they say, whether you are talking about embassies or Federal agencies, they ought to be within this region. When there is an alert, they have to send them wherever the facility is. For economies of scale, we want to in fact keep agencies concentrated. If Members want a study, I am willing to study; but they do not need to come before this Congress and ask for an expensive study to be done, distracting the Department of Homeland Security from what it has already on its plate. I am willing to work with the gentleman, but I think we do not need a new study at taxpayers' expense beyond what we already have the ability to do. The agencies that are within the national capital area, the coordination that we do now needs far greater focus and far greater resources. It is clear what the gentleman wants. I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I sat in a committee that I must say tries and often is bipartisan. I kept looking for gravitas of the 9/11 recommendations. One that is not here actually stunned me and that is the recommendation to strengthen our counternuclear proliferation efforts. During the first Presidential debate there was a moment of rare agreement between Kerry and Bush. They both said that nuclear proliferation was the single most serious threat facing the United States. The commission agreed. It says that al Qaeda has tried to acquire or make nuclear weapons for the last 10 years and that the maximum effort should be made. H.R. 10 relegates this issue to a study. A study is a way not to do anything. The Senate knew exactly what to do. You do not study it any more. You expand the proliferation security initiative and the proliferation programs literally on the books now. I represent this city. What a small nuclear device would do to the Nation's capital I do not want to contemplate. The commission understands what nuclear weapons would do nation-wide. No serious effort can exclude nuclear nonproliferation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for yielding me this time. I begin with special thanks to the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, if they will allow me to call them the engineers who have wrought this miracle. For those of us in the District of Columbia, it seems nothing short of that. I call them the engineers because they drove the train straight to the station with no unnecessary stops along the way. For the residents of the District of Columbia whose appropriation is now out, that has very special meaning. I am also grateful to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who I believe is term-limited and to the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), because throughout their tenure on the committee, leading the committee, they have always understood that if the D.C. appropriation had to be here at all, it ought to be up and out. I appreciate their leadership throughout. I cannot say enough about the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). Their leadership shines on the face of this conference report. They must be exceedingly proud that there are only two conference reports out, ready for the President's signature, and that, except for Defense, D.C. is the only one. We are very grateful that D.C. is one of those two. We are particularly grateful because these two leaders have understood that these are Federal funds that are very different from other Federal funds, that these are Federal funds for a city and not a Federal agency, and, therefore, when the funds of a city are held up, untold damage is done to the management of that city. The Congress has been critical of the management of the District of Columbia over the years without understanding the role the Congress has played in those management difficulties. Try running a big city when their appropriation is here 3, 4, 5 months later than in their own State or city and perhaps they will get an understanding of why, for the District, this has meant management disarray, in part its fault, no doubt, but certainly with the degree of responsibility in the Congress itself, with disarray from bills for school books that could not be paid so books would not come, or could not be delivered, to vital programs that could not be started. This year something very important happened, and it is the second year that it has happened. The appropriators were able to allow D.C. to spend its own money on time. This is the rest of the money. This is the Federal money. This is the nontaxpayer-raised money. That D.C. was able to begin October 1 spending its own money is virtually unheard of, at least since the majority took control, and it is profoundly appreciated by the residents of the District of Columbia. Spending our own money, not at last year's levels, but at the approved levels of the Committee on Appropriations has made a world of difference already. I must say that I think that the District deserves this treatment and respect. It deserves it with seven balanced budgets and surpluses. It deserves it because the city that 8 years ago had an investment bond rating that was below investment grade now has an A rating by all three agencies. One of the reasons that it has not been able to get above A, as it strives to do, is because of the congressional process. The investment agencies have been very clear that the District's budget having to come here at all imports uncertainty, and that uncertainty has to be reflected in the interest that the District of Columbia taxpayers pay. Therefore, anything of the kind we have seen this year, where our appropriation gets out on time, first and foremost comes to the attention of the investment agencies. And that means that taxpayer- raised money in the District of Columbia can go for the real necessities of the District of Columbia instead of for increased interest. We have the highest debt service. All of this is wound up in the unique structural difference between the District and other States and localities. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) have recognized that to the extent that they could mitigate the burden that the congressional process brings to the District budget both in time and in extra cost, that it was their choice to try to do so. And I appreciate that they have done exactly that. Few States can say that they ran 7 straight years of surpluses and balanced budgets. These were years of some hardship for States. The District of Columbia was in the same economy and in some sense worse, because of 9/11, because our largest industry, the tourist industry, was seriously affected, and yet those surpluses have come. The reason for that is, of course, extraordinary prudence. For that prudence it seems to me we all would want to commend the Council of the District of Columbia and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. They have had the highest reserve fund, and I appreciate and they appreciate that there have been small reductions that I think take into account the prudence with which they have run the city. This appropriation process, rounding it out, completing it, was necessary because the Federal funds for State functions particularly are in this bill. And these are State functions, prisons, courts that no city carries. The Revitalization Act, therefore, takes up the cost of those State functions, and those State functions are there, and we are very grateful for that. Other non-D.C. funds, Federal funds, are here. I am grateful that the Public Safety Reimbursement Act, the act I introduced some years ago, is now regularly funded in the President's budget. It is fully funded here. It reimburses the District for national events, everything from President Reagan's funeral to the huge Choice March here. All that expense used to fall to the residents of the District of Columbia, making it very difficult for the city to get toward the balance and the surpluses that it now insists upon. I am grateful for the increase in the Tuition Access Act. Not every Member understands why the Federal Government should be funding this bill. I can understand their confusion. But the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) worked so closely with us. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who was the lead sponsor of this bill with me, worked on this bill 5 years ago because the District of Columbia has no State university system the way every other Member here does. All this bill does is put the District in the same position that other Members are in by allowing our residents to go to State colleges, State university systems, and elsewhere. And look what it has done. In a region where one needs a college education to get any kind of decent job, we now have a 30 percent increase in young people going to college. Most critical and what we have tried to do, the authorizers and the appropriators, is to put the District in the same position that any other city would be in. For us it means that taxpayers do not move out of the District when the children get to be 15, 16, and 17, because they can walk across the line into a region and get a low in-State tuition. So this bill, besides its equity function, has been critical to keeping taxpayers in the District of Columbia. The large return to the Federal dollar is unspoken, but it cannot be denied. I am grateful to the chairman. I am grateful to the ranking member, and I am grateful to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) that there were no riders on this bill. That is one of the reasons this bill was always last out, because we have to fight those riders, and that simply elongates, stretches out the time that this bill is on the floor. I have seen this bill on the floor 8 and 10 hours. This is the smallest bill. This bill is irrelevant to every Member except me. With their eye focused on the prize, our appropriation, let us get it up and out; the appropriators have done their job to a fare-thee-well. I regret that there are still riders on this bill that will not be on the bills in the Members' States, the rider that forbids us to pay using our local funds for abortions for poor women. That rider is perhaps always going to be controversial. But the Senate removed two riders: the needle exchange rider, which would allow us to fund the exchange of dirty for clean needles and reduce the HIV/AIDS rate; and the rider, the shameless rider, that keeps us from lobbying for our own rights. Those, the Senate said, also should be eliminated from this bill. The House was not able to do so. Finally, if I could once again thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for the extraordinary job that they have done on this bill. Let me say that in a real sense, what they have done on this bill forecasts, is a prologue of what would happen if the budget autonomy bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and I have pending before this House passes. We think that there is a very decent chance of its passing in the session when we come back. It would automatically release our Federal funds, as my colleagues have had to do by act of the Committee on Appropriations. So they have, I think, demonstrated, by the way in which they have run the District of Columbia Subcommittee, something far larger; and that is how the House should move, to generally smooth the operation of the D.C. budget out of this House and into the hands of the people who raise the money, the people of the District of Columbia. They have my gratitude. I know I expressed the gratitude of our elected officials in the District of Columbia and also of our residents, who have watched this bill this time pass through this House with what for us seems like lightning speed. It is the speed on the wings of the two leaders of our appropriation, and they have our thanks once again.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his words of encouragement on H. Con. Res. 131, and I begin by thanking, as well, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, respectively, for working with me to introduce and schedule this resolution in a timely manner. I rise this evening to speak to an issue that we all care deeply about, the education of the Nation's children not only from the perspective of the classroom, but about activities outside the classroom that also enrich a student's educational experience, including field trips and traveling to the Nation's historic sites, many of which are located here in the Nation's capital. This resolution acknowledges that student travel is an integral component of the educational process today. H. Con. Res. 131 has application to districts in every State of the Union. However, the attacks of September 11 and subsequent security alerts have made us all more watchful, particularly here in the District of Columbia where so many of the symbols of democracy are located. For the months following the 9/11 attacks, visits to our Nation's monuments were down more than 30 percent. The Smithsonian Museums reported a similar decline in attendance. I am pleased that these numbers appear to have since reversed and tourism to the District has been rebounding since 2003. According to the Washington, D.C., Convention and Tourism Corporation, close to 1 million students have traveled to the Nation's capital since 9/11. The District of Columbia showcases symbols of freedom that are recognized worldwide. Students can come to see the Declaration of Independence, see the flag that flew over the Pentagon on September 11, view exhibitions that trace the history of our country from its inception to the present, and learn how this country, the great experiment, has grown and fared over the past 228 years. The educational experience that students receive in visiting this city, above even others in our country, enhances what they are learning in our Nation's classrooms and inspires the next generation of leaders. Therefore, I urge Members to join with me in encouraging student travel to the Nation's capital and to other tourist sites throughout the United States, realizing the educational value and inspirational impact that such visits have on the lives of the Nation's youth. I thank them again for their support and urge agreement to H. Con. Res. 131. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time to manage the bill, and I especially thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, for introducing this bill with me. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The District of Columbia Mental Health Civil Commitment Modernization Act would significantly help modernize the way mental health services in the District of Columbia are delivered. Under the Home Rule Charter, these changes require affirmative action by the Congress. The amendments are intended to reinvigorate the rights of people with mental illness in the District of Columbia and encourage community- based treatment alternatives to costly and restrictive hospital confinement. The amendments are designed to ensure that people with mental illness are treated in the least restrictive setting, consistent with the individual's needs and public safety. The amendments also are designed to promote the use of private or community hospitals by people who are in need of acute psychiatric care, thus reducing the burden on Saint Elizabeth's Hospital. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4302 would adopt verbatim the changes to the Commission on Mental Health proposed in the District's law. In passing this bill, the Congress will play an important role in aiding the District to reform its mental health services and to treat its mental health patients with dignity and respect. Last year, the District government approved sweeping changes to its 40-year old civil commitment statute, commonly referred to as the ``Ervin Act'' after its principal author, Sam Ervin. Some provisions required no more than the 30-day congressional review period, while others required affirmative congressional approval. The amendments were intended to reinvigorate the rights of people with mental illness and encourage community-based treatment alternatives to costly and restrictive hospital confinement. The amendments are designed to ensure that people with mental illness are treated in the least restrictive setting consistent with the individual's needs and public safety. The amendments also are designed to promote the use of private or community hospitals by people who are in need of acute psychiatric care, thus reducing the burden on St. Elizabeth's Hospital, and increasing the amount of acute care that can be paid for by Medicaid instead of local tax dollars. Among its significant improvements, the District's new law sets a limit on the length of commitment and limits how long a person can be confined to a hospital while waiting for a hearing. Specifically, this bill: (1) changes the duration of civil commitment from an indeterminate period to a year period; (2) permits the Commission on Mental Health to determine the least restrictive setting for a patient's care; (3) sets new limits on the postponement of the Commission's hearing; and (4) permits qualified psychologists to join the panel of doctors who preside over hearings on a rotating basis. H.R. 4302 would adopt verbatim the changes to the Commission on Mental Health proposed in the District's law. In passing this bill, the Congress will play an important role in aiding the District to reform its mental health services and to treat its mental health patients with the dignity and respect. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman for his graciousness in respecting the independence of the people of the District of Columbia, citizens of the United States entitled to the same rights that all other Americans have. I appreciate that the Committee on Rules, its chairman, its ranking member, Members who come forward today with this bill, have brought forward a conference report and a rule that enables the District of Columbia to get its own money out, and the money that is due it from the Federal Government, on time. I think that we should be apologizing to the American people that, at a time when all but two of our appropriations are not out, as we get ready to go home, we are having to spend time on the budget of a local jurisdiction. It must be hard to make people back home understand what we are doing, working on the taxpayer-raised budget of the District of Columbia and its Federal funds, rather than on the large Federal appropriations that await conference reports and the President's signature. At the same time, I am grateful for the timeliness of this conference report. Of the 13 appropriations bills, only two, Defense and D.C., will be signed by the President when we leave to go home at the end of this week. In a real sense, this turns on its head the practice in recent years and, certainly, since the Republican majority has been in control. D.C., irrelevant, literally irrelevant, to Members of the House and Senate, because almost all of the money is raised by our own local residents and taxpayers, D.C., the smallest, has traditionally been the most troublesome of the appropriations; the last out, the appropriation that caused more Members to come to the floor with amendments. Amendments that had to do with the District of Columbia? Absolutely not. Amendments that were of special interest to that Member but of no relevance to the District of Columbia. The opposite has been the case this year, and it is because of the leadership of the appropriators and of the authorizers. There are no new riders. Three were threatened, but the appropriators and the authorizers worked together so that those riders did not come forward to be voted on on this floor. It is not that these Members are omnipotent, it is that, when leaders exercise leadership and discourage extraneous material, particularly on the appropriation of a local jurisdiction, an independent jurisdiction, their leadership can and this year has proved to be critical. At the same time, I must take strong exception to the riders that remain; not new riders, but riders that remain. They are particularly inexcusable. First, the needle-exchange rider, which makes D.C. alone in the United States of America. Hundreds of jurisdictions use their own money to pay for the exchange of dirty needles for clean needles, in accordance with all of the scientific evidence, and, I may say, all of the great scientific organizations, official and private, that say you save lives when you do not allow dirty needles to be passed around so that you spread HIV-AIDS. So I should thank the Congress of the United States in the name of the people of the District of Columbia that, because of the needle- exchange admonition and bar in our appropriation, we have the highest HIV-AIDS rate in the country. The interference with needle exchange, of course, is very different from other interference, because it costs lives. It is why we have so many men, women and children who otherwise would not be anywhere close to the AIDS epidemic with AIDS today. That calamity is laid at the feet of this Congress and essentially at the feet of this House, because the Senate asked that the District be able to spend its own local money for needle exchange. It was the House that refused to let the conference report come forward if, in fact, that was included. There are, of course, other old riders in this bill. The old rider that says all the rest of you in the United States of America can spend your money for abortions for poor women, but not the residents of the District of Columbia. They are American citizens, but we are not about to treat them as first-class citizens. Remember, they are second-class citizens. So they can't spend their own money for abortions for their own poor women. Perhaps as a matter of ordinary democracy, the most shameful rider says that the District can't spend its own money to lobby for its own rights. This House, not the Senate, the Senate has said, we are not on that boat, let them spend their own money if they want to spend their own money to get full and equal rights in the House and in the Senate, and we think that is their right and prerogative as Americans, but the House said, ``Oh, no, that is not for the District. In my district, we better be able to spend our own money to lobby for anything we want to. Not in the Nation's Capital.'' This is a time of war, this is a time of great and urgent matters in our country. This is not the time when we ought to be considering this appropriation at all. At the same time, I am grateful that, if it had to be here, that before we went home this appropriation was out of Congress; that I am not here in November, that I am not here in December, trying to get my own money out of this Congress. In past years, the House has been critical of the management of the District of Columbia without conceding that not allowing the District to spend its own money on time has wrapped the District in knots as it tries to balance on last year's budget while waiting for the Congress to release its own money. The appropriators, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), our authorizer, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), have gone very far in helping us to meet this burden. I appreciate that the Committee on Rules has taken taking us to the next step and making us one of two appropriations to clear the Congress before we clear out of here.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all, I want to say nothing but kudos to the leadership of this committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the subcommittee leadership. This committee has worked together as well as any committee in Congress, particularly during these hard times, on a bill that was entirely responsive to other Members and entirely responsive to the needs of the country. We can keep extending bills. The problem is we cannot extend the need. The need just gets worse. Many of us are close to desperation now. We have done our work. Our leadership has tried desperately to get this bill out, and we are left with what looks like the sixth extension. The highway bill is about extensions, not bills. This is the first time that I have ever seen a White House that did not want a highway bill, that wanted to go into an election without a highway bill. Members recognize we had some concerns here and we tried to work them out. I was a conferee, and I understand what those concerns were. My problem with the extension is we are extending with funding from 6 years ago. The problem with that is the need has grown larger and people want this bill because they want whatever new amounts the committees and the Congress can give them. I will be frank; most of the money that comes to the District of Columbia does not have anything to do with the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia. My desperation comes because the highway money for my district could just as well be put in the homeland security budget because it is going to go for tunnels and bridges which will get people out of here in the case of an event, and for well-traveled Federal roads which are used by literally millions of commuters and visitors every year. So operating at levels from 6 years ago puts us in a real trick bag. I ask that we finally get this bill out before the end of the year.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)