Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3124 is a bill to designate the facility of the United States Geological Survey and the United States Bureau of Reclamation located at 230 Collins Road, Boise, Idaho, as the ``F.H. Newell Building.'' F.H. Newell was the first hydrographic engineer for the U.S. Geological Survey and a person who contributed significantly to the water development in Idaho and throughout the West. He appreciated the need for saving the forest and the soil as well as the need for irrigation. Mr. Newell was single-mindedly devoted to the task of reclamation and protection of natural resources. He is described as having a constructive imagination, a forceful drive and dedication. President Roosevelt viewed him as the model public servant. It is very appropriate to acknowledge the significant career contributions of F.H. Newell with this designation. I urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his help and support and work on this bill. And I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the full committee, for his help on this bill and his help on so many other bills that enabled the District to function more efficiently. H.R. 4657 is a significant management efficiency win for the District of Columbia because the bill streamlines the administration of what has been a very complicated pension benefit system for D.C. teachers, police, and firefighters. I want to thank the chairman and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Democratic whip, both for their leadership in bringing this important piece of legislation forward. The legislation promotes more efficient investment, accounting, and financial reporting of two pension funds, the D.C. Federal Pension Liability Trust Fund and the Federal Supplemental D.C. Pension Fund, simply by combining the two funds into a newly created D.C. Teachers, Police, and Firefighters Pension Fund. The bill also puts into law the appeal rights of those covered by the judges' retirement plan. Employees covered by this plan already have by regulation the same appeal rights as police officers, firefighters, and teachers. This legislation simply codifies those regulations. In 1997 the Department of Treasury assumed responsibility for the D.C. Teachers' Retirement Plan and the Police Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement Plan. These plans, combined, cover over 11,000 people who retired as of June 30, 1997. Since 1997 about 2,000 additional people have retired and approximately 9,000 teachers, police officers, and firefighters are still working. These individuals are covered by the D.C. Retirement Fund. Currently the District of Columbia Retirement Board has oversight of the investment of the fund while the D.C. Office of Pay and Retirement Services, which is under the Chief Financial Officer, and the D.C. Office of Personnel share oversight of the noninvestment benefit administration functions, including pension benefit determinations and calculations and informing the employees about the retirement fund and counseling them on their benefits and sending out the checks. What I just said shows you how this issue has simply grown topsy without anybody thinking through how to bring it together and make it more efficient, because that was almost indecipherable. Imagine if you had to administer this fund trying to figure that out. Thanks to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and your willingness to amend this act, the bill now includes a critical provision that will create significant management efficiency for the D.C.-administered retirement plan by giving the D.C. Retirement Board oversight authority over both the investment and the non-investment activities. This change in law brings the District in line with most State and local retirement plans. This change in local benefits administration was enacted into law by the Mayor and D.C. City Council. Because it amends the Home Rule Charter, congressional action was also required. I thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleagues for their work and support on this bill, and urge them to support and vote for H.R. 4657.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute accomplished journalist and author Ms. Robin D. Stone for her courageous and thoughtful efforts to bring light to darkness by educating and raising public awareness about the heinous crime of child sexual abuse. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work of my constituent Safe Shores--the D.C. Children's Advocacy Center in its front line work to support physically and sexually abused children and thank the Center for bringing Ms. Stone to the District of Columbia to give the plenary address at its second annual multidisciplinary conference: ``Safe Childhoods: Strengthening D.C.'s Clinical Response to Childhood Trauma.'' Safe Shores is the coordinating agency for the District of Columbia's multidisciplinary team for child abuse investigation and prosecution, which is known as the MDT. As a not-for-profit organization Safe Shores works in a unique public-private partnership with the agencies that comprise the District's MDT, which are the Metropolitan Police Department, Child and Family Services Agency, the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, and Children's National Medical Center. Safe Shores--The D.C. Children's Advocacy Center was founded for the express purpose of reducing the trauma of child victims of abuse during the investigative and prosecutorial processes. Safe Shores operates pursuant to the children's advocacy center developed back in the late 1980's by our esteemed colleague Representative Robert ``Bud'' Cramer of Alabama when he was a prosecutor. As part of its work, Safe Shores provides training and education on child abuse prevention and treatment for local professionals. It is in this context that Robin Stone has brought her vital message to my hometown, Washington DC, to shine light on what some would like to keep hidden in the shadows, child sexual abuse. Bravely using her own personal history of abuse as a catalyst for her journalistic treatment of this issue, Ms. Stone is the author of No Secrets, No Lies: How Black Families Can Heal from Sexual Abuse, published by Doubleday/ Broadway Books earlier this year. Ms. Stone brings an illustrious professional history to this important cause. She is a 2004 Casey Fellow, one of 30 journalists sponsored by the Casey Journalism Center on Children and Families to attend its five-day seminar ``Condition Critical: Covering Children's Health.'' A 2002-03 Kaiser Media Fellow, she was one of six journalists selected by the Kaiser Family Foundation to research and report on health issues. Her fellowship project was sexual abuse in Black families. Ms. Stone was founding editor in chief of essence.com, the interactive version of the premiere African-American women's magazine, Essence. She joined the magazine in September 1997 as a senior editor and ultimately was appointed executive editor. Before joining Essence, Ms. Stone was deputy editor of The Living Section at The New York Times. She came to The Times from The Boston Globe, where she was an editor in the living/arts department. I commend Ms. Stone for the courage and eloquence she has shown in bringing this issue before the American people. We know she has performed an invaluable public service in so doing. Indeed, Dr. Alvin F. Poussaint, preeminent child psychiatrist and professor at Harvard Medical School, has commented that ``No Secrets, No Lies breaks the silence about sexual abuse within the Black community . . . [and] Robin Stone makes a major contribution to the well-being of Black children and families.'' Robin Stone's professional success and her personal fulfillment as a wife and mother exemplify that child sexual abuse does not have to determine the life course of those who are victims of this vile crime. Indeed, there is tremendous power, triumph and inspiration to be found in the survivor's story. So, it behooves those of us who make and shape the laws and who care about building a safer and saner society to listen, learn and heed the lessons from these survivors and the professionals who seek to help them heal and move beyond the pain. Paying attention to the issues raised in No Secrets, No Lies is our challenge and responsibility if we are to keep our promises to children, that is, to protect every child from abuse and ensure that all children--regardless of what family they are born to--have a safe, healthy and happy childhood.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment, I think, could be a win/win for both sides. It protects the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan while allowing health savings accounts to proceed. My amendment is necessary to preserve the FEHBP. Surely Members have heard from millions of retirees from across the country who are terrified of health savings accounts, and let me tell Members why. My bill would allow the health service accounts to proceed putting only enough restrictions on them to keep people from gaming the system, and the way it is set up now, that is what people are encouraged to do. What will happen if health service accounts go into effect the way they are now proposed is that people are encouraged to stay in a health savings account so long as they can anticipate low health care costs. If that is how you anticipate it, you are in. But the moment you know, you anticipate a more major procedure, you are going to get out and get back into the FEHBP, leaving those who must be in the plan, like retirees throughout the United States, paying more. So what would I do, put a 3-year time limit on it. This is in keeping with how the FEHBP works now. You cannot get out of your plan any time you want to; you have to wait until open season which comes every year. When we are putting the entire system at risk, as this would do, it says you have to be in 3 years so you do not game the system and cost those who must be in the system more money. The FEHBP is touted as the best plan in the country for a good reason. It has a huge pool of the healthy and not-so-healthy. We spread the burden, we share the rewards. Break up the pool, we destroy the system. Now who is likely to leave? Members can figure it out for themselves: the young and the healthy. That is why the Federal retirees are wiring Members saying: Do not do this to us. Remember the 17 percent increase in Medicare they just had. It is bad enough the increased health care costs we are getting. We know that the young and healthy are going to leave us, not to mention many others who will just take the chance, many of them families, because health care costs are rising so much they will take the chance and may be left in a terrible position when, in fact, they need a traditional response from their insurer. This is not speculation. I am citing the largest county in Idaho. It is unusual because it is one of the few public employers which allowed health service accounts. Immediately, within the year, premiums rose. So they were in it not a year and got out of it. Their broker said, you have to use health service accounts for everybody or no health service accounts. The hybrid does not work. The mixed system leaves those left holding the bag while others get out of the system when they think it is to their advantage, jumping out when it is to their advantage, jumping right back in when it is not. I am concerned about healthy young families because they are going to get out because they are trying to save money anywhere they can. We have testimony from people in Idaho who say, if they knew then what they know now. A young person who broke his ankle had been in the health savings account, was left with that huge deductible, he ended up paying the whole thing because you never know. If you never know and you are young, you take the chance. If you are middle-aged or a retiree and in the FEHBP, you will not take the chance, but you will end up paying more in premiums, destroying the very basis for the FEHBP. I am saying we defeated the notion there should be no health services accounts. My amendment is not going to protect what we have now in the FEHBP. There is going to be an adverse effect. At the very least, the responsible thing to do is to use the Idaho experience, limit the adverse effect by saying fair is fair. You win here and save money, and you are in here for 3 years so you do not leave our families with higher premiums because you can afford to game the system, jumping in when you think it helps you and jumping out when it does not help them. Mr. Chairman, who can blame them. This is the kind of calculation people make when they want to save money. But the FEHBP should not be destroyed because we have blindly walked into health service accounts ignoring the existing experience. The way to have both, to do a win/ win, is to support my amendment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his amendment because what he is trying to do is to save the FEHBP from a catastrophic illness of its own. This plan is trumpeted as the model for the country. It will not be that way much longer. I buy the gentleman's notion, my friend on the other side, that sicker and older people and even poorer people are sometimes trying to use these health savings accounts. The reason they are trying to do so is they are trying to reduce the rising cost of health care. What they do not know, of course, is what we already know, and that is that what occurs in the existing health care plan where people have comprehensive coverage is adverse selection that drives up premiums. I do not know if we have to go through the catastrophe ourselves. We have already had the most populous county in Idaho to go through it. They withdrew from the very same kind of plan that we have here in our system because of a huge rise in health care premiums as some employees got out, leaving those employees who were in the system in Idaho with a greatly elevated health care premium. I do not know how many Idahos you have to have before it gets to the FEHBP. I do know this. Idaho pulled out, this county in Idaho, the largest county in Idaho, with the most people, and one of the few public employers who in fact has used health savings accounts, they pulled out before the year was out because the escalation was immediate. We have had a 7 percent rise in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan this year. This is the first time we have not been in double digits. It had nothing to do with health savings accounts. As we all know, it has had to do with the wild fluctuations in these accounts. What the gentleman offers is so important that if in our wisdom we do not in fact act now to prevent what I will call the Idaho catastrophe, where this public employer came out after less than a year of experience, that I put the House on notice that I will have an amendment that will keep people from gaming the system, because what Idaho found was that people will come into the system and when they recognize that their health services will go up in the next year they get out in time to go back into the comprehensive system, leaving, of course, people who are in that system all the time with the problem of continuing escalated coverage. I will have a fallback amendment if the House does not approve the Moran amendment. I very much thank him for offering his amendment because his amendment is the right answer.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time, and I recognize that there is a lot of hard work that the chairman and the ranking member have done on this bill and we are grateful for the bill despite its horrific shortcomings. The subcommittee has worked hard. Secretary Ridge was before the Select Committee on Homeland Security today, and an issue came forward that I think simply must be discussed during this debate. I said to the Secretary, whose hard work I very much appreciate, how much it looked like we were fighting the last war. The private sector, the business sector does not even have up on the website of the Department of Homeland Security some guidance as to what they should do, except that is where all the people are and that is where all the revenue is raised in our country. And where the people are in transportation, on rail, on public transportation, it is not even on the radar when it comes to homeland security. I have got an act that has a lot of cosponsors called the Safe Transportation Act, and I have to tell my colleagues that terrorists really do have an open field. Not in aviation anymore. We have shored up some of that. But they have an open field in public transportation and in rail. That is where the people of the United States spend their time going to and from one part of the country and the other and one city and the other. We have allocated about $14 billion for aviation security, and we are sure we are doing the right thing there. I am on the Subcommittee on Aviation. That was the right thing to do. There is more still to be done there. But even after Madrid, there is something approximating $300 million for all of rail and public security. People go down into subways. People get on buses. And there is almost a blank slate there. There are 9 billion passenger trips annually on public transportation. I first learned of this problem when Amtrak security here in the Nation's capital came to see me, and I tell my colleagues that my hair stood on end because Union Station is here, and he told me what his work had been with transportation security, and he told me that virtually nothing had been done here or in Penn Station or in Philadelphia's 30th Street Station. Do not even let us get to the tracks and the tunnels. Amtrak accounts for only 22,000 of U.S. rail routes. There are 140,000, and sometimes they are a big company like Amtrak. Most of the time they are much smaller. We are living in the post-Madrid era, not the post-9/11 era. There were 200 innocent civilians killed there, 1,500 injured. One-third of terrorist attacks in the world target public transportation systems because they are the easiest to get at. I sat in on a Subcommittee on Railroads hearing a couple of months ago, and I was horrified. There were two agencies there who are supposed to be responsible, the Federal Railways Administration and the Department of Homeland Security official. Nobody is in charge. There is no national security plan for rail security, for subways, for buses. There is no assessment of our rail security, of our public transportation security. And here we have a transportation bill before us. Hey, not a word about it. It simply has to be inserted into this debate. It is no way to run a railway, no way to run a public transportation system. And we are in mortal danger when we leave the major form of transportation used by Americans hanging out there with $300 million while we have fought the last $14 billion war in the air. Let us begin to fight this war.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his very good and hard work on this bill. I thank the chairman of the committee, as well, for working against tremendous odds. There was a previous question that focused on the Obey amendment that could not be offered. I will call it the millionaires amendment that would have helped restore some balance in paying for programs which the American people place particular priority on. I just want to use one of those programs to vivify my concern, and the concern, of course, comes because, unlike the Obey amendment, we are growing the deficit. The deficit is like a child you do not see grow, and then one day you say, oh, my, how you have grown. By that time, of course, the deficit could bring down our economy. So it is important to do what the Obey amendment would have done. What the committee has done is to barely save, and I have come to thank you for saving the so-called VERB program, a program that deals with the most serious public health problem in the United States today, obesity and overweight. All this Congress has done for this problem is the so-called cheeseburger bill, the absurdity of suing somebody because you are too fat. But we are leaving people to their own devices. The experts say that by 2005 obesity and overweight will have overtaken smoking as the leading cause of death. At least for our children, you have left in the bill, instead of allowing the administration to kill the so-called VERB bill, and all VERB stands for is action. There has been a 42 percent increase in obesity among children in the last 25 years. It takes $85 million to keep this program going. You have put $65 million in this rigorously evaluated program that is only now in year 3 of its 5-year period. But the rigorous evaluation shows an increase in physical activity of at least 35 percent among children. So I thank you for saving this program and hope that adults will be saved sometime in the future.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thought I ought to come to the House floor this evening to explain my understanding of why the capital looks like a bewildered city under attack. The Members have not seen the worst of it yet because we have not all come to the House during rush hour or left the House during rush hour. The District was put under an orange alert while Members were away. I am fully appreciative of the reasons for the orange alert after the IMF and World Bank were seen as targeted places. I am a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. I believe strong action was necessary. What we see around the House and the Senate are the primitive protections, if we can call them that. Checkpoints, a street closure of the only street for all intents and purposes leaving from this part of the city to the transportation hub of the region, Union Station, rail, light rail, buses, Metro, this is what you would expect if we were under attack. If you get a red alert, there is nothing more to do. So we have to ask ourselves, was this necessary, was there an alternative? Let me be clear, New York has been under an orange alert since 9/11. While very special precautions were taken during the Republican convention, and I would hope so, no major street in New York City has been closed to traffic. During the recess I had meetings with all the security officials, Mr. Livingood, Mr. Pickle, Chief Gainer, to ask what was going on and to see whether or not we could offer some alternatives. With me also was the administrator of the District of Columbia representing the Mayor of the District of Columbia. The first thing I asked was, do we have a citywide plan, a coordinated, citywide security plan to protect the Nation's Capital. Astonishingly, we do not. Each sector operates on its own. The Capitol Police here in the House and the Senate, that is one sector. The White House sector, through the Secret Service, the Federal agencies, that is another sector. Finally, the Metropolitan Police Department, on whom all are dependent, no coordinated plan. So on 15th Street, right by Treasury and the White House, no security checkpoints, no street closures, because the Secret Service made a calculated, analytical decision that you did not need it, that the risk was not such that you needed to close whole streets or even use checkpoints. Why are we having checkpoints here? I believe that Mr. Livingood and the Capitol Police will shortly be forced to do the sensible thing, not to abolish the necessary checkpoints, but to look at what they say are the vehicles that concern them, larger vehicles like limousines, like SUVs, but they are peering into each and every car so that there is going to be traffic, as the Mayor says, all the way to Delaware. It is all the way, all the way to Maryland. Mind you, the entire region is going to be affected. Many people are avoiding the area so they are clogging up 395 and downtown. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and I have spoken. He believed on his own motion that there needed to be a citywide coordinated plan. He has said he wishes to have a task force with all of the players at the table. That is the only way we are really going to be secure. We have submitted alternatives that came out of these meetings, checkpoints of the kind I just described where you, in fact, let most cars go by, but you do, in fact, stop those of a particular size. Open First Street. We have an alternative. Use checkpoints on First Street. Then narrow First Street with barricades so that cars can only go to and fro after being checkpointed. There is no way in which that does not provide the kind of protection that is needed for Dirksen and Russell, which are on each side. Above all, let us get down to technology. They used some low technology for the first time, tested some low technology for the first time after the orange alert that had to do with manipulation of traffic lights. I am asking Members to call my office, to let me know what their experience has been with the checkpoints and with the closure of First Street. Some of you are going to be absolutely exasperated. There are over 20,000 employees, 440 Members of the House, 100 Members of the Senate, but I need your feedback as we try to find new ways. At the moment we are dealing with 19th century ways to protect the Nation's Capital. They would have used checkpoints and barricades 100 years ago. I think we can do better than that. We do not want the people's House and the Senate to look like an armed camp. We must protect this place not only symbolically, but because this is where the greatest government in the world is, and this is where 600,000 people live. We have all of the resources that come with innovation because we are Americans. That spirit of innovation is not being shown around this Capitol. I need Members to come forward. Let me know what is happening so that we can compel improvements and make this House and the Senate look like the people's Congress again.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I know what it means to be excluded from your own Constitution, and after the experience of African Americans in this country and a Civil War, I never thought I would see a civil war in law where we would try to exclude any other group of Americans from the Constitution of the United States, and that is exactly what we are trying to do here today. We are trying to change the constitutional system that the framers put in place over one constitutional issue. Now, every time there is an issue like this which raises the hackles of the country, people rush forward to try to do exactly this, to strip the courts. They did it during the era of desegregation. They have done it with school prayer. The fact is that the issue has been settled for 200 years in Marbury v. Madison, and the issue is quite simply this: That the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional matters. Now, if that were not the case, if that is wrong, then the framers were wrong, because the framers were still sitting, some of them in the court itself, some of them in the Congress when Marbury was passed, and under accepted principles of constitutional interpretation somebody could have come to the floor and said the court has got it wrong and we are going to assert ourselves. Instead they accepted Marbury v. Madison and we must accept it. The Supreme Court has constitutional standing in our system, and the words are ``The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.'' Otherwise, we would have chaos in our system without any separations of powers. Congress would never have to account for unconstitutional laws. All it would have to do is to put court- stripping language in every bill and we would be a Constitution unto ourselves because there would be no review of our unconstitutional laws. That is unconstitutional. I think it is certainly un-American.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3884 is a bill to designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 615 East Houston Street, San Antonio, Texas, as the Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building and United States Courthouse. The bill was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez). Judge Garcia was born on December 14, 1925, in San Antonio. He recently died in January, 2002. He was educated at public schools, and in 1951 received his law degree from St. Mary's University School of Law. During World War II, he served in the United States Army. His professional career included being Deputy District Clerk for Bexar County, Assistant Criminal Attorney, and Judge for the County- Court-at-Law. In 1979, President Carter nominated him for the Federal bench, and he was confirmed by the Senate in 1980. Judge Garcia was an inspiration and role model. He broke barriers and earned a place in history as the first Mexican American to serve as a United States District Court Judge in the Western District of Texas. Despite his status, he remained humble and was known for treating everyone with dignity and respect. He was an outstanding public servant who mentored young lawyers, providing sage advice and counsel. Judge Garcia was an exemplary public servant, and this dedication honors his contributions to the citizens of San Antonio and Texas. I support H.R. 3884 and strongly urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), the author of the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I should begin by thanking the leadership of the House and my own leadership for the way they have accommodated me in bringing this bill forward quickly. I especially thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), for so readily agreeing to manage this bill and bring it forward, because it comes forward under rather special and unusual circumstances. The judge for whom this courthouse is to be named would by any standard be regarded as a historic figure in the Federal judiciary and in the judiciary of this city. H.R. 4294, a bill to name the annex of the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building, which houses the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for William B. Bryant, is what is before us. Judge Bryant is a former chief judge of the District Court, the first African American to hold the post, a longtime D.C. resident and graduate of the D.C. public schools with a distinguished legal career, who currently serves as a senior judge. The annex is under construction at Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues Northwest and when completed early next year will provide much-needed state-of-the-art courtrooms and judges' chambers. H.R. 4294 has an unusual origin. The chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for himself and the members of the trial court, visited my office to request that the annex under construction for the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building be named for senior U.S. District Court judge William B. Bryant. Judge Bryant was unaware of the desires and actions of his colleagues who unanimously agreed to request that the annex be named for the judge. It is rare that Congress names a courthouse or an annex for a judge who has served in that court and even more rare for a judge who is still sitting. Judge Bryant's colleagues, who know his work and his temperament best, have found a particularly appropriate way for our city and our country to celebrate the life and accomplishments of a great judge who has had an historic impact on the law and on his court. I know Judge Bryant personally. I know his reputation in this city and in the law. And I know that the request to name the annex for Judge Bryant reflects deep respect for his unusually distinguished life at the bar. Judge Bryant began his career in private practice in the segregated Washington of the 1940s and 1950s when African American lawyers were barred from membership in the District of Columbia Bar Association and from using the bar law library. He established his legal reputation as a partner in the legendary African American law firm of Houston, Bryant & Gardner and taught at Howard University law school. His reputation as an extraordinary trial lawyer led to his appointment as the first African American assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He rose to become the first African American to serve as chief judge of the U.S. District Court whose members now ask that the annex be named for Judge Bryant. For his representation of criminal defendants in private practice, Judge Bryant was admired as one of the city's best and most respected litigators. Among his many notable cases is the landmark Mallory v. United States where the Supreme Court ruled that an arrested person must be promptly brought before a judicial officer. Judge Bryant graduated from the D.C. public schools, Howard University, and the Howard University School of Law where he was first in his class. After graduation, Judge Bryant served as chief research assistant to Dr. Ralph Bunche when Dr. Bunche worked with Gunnar Myrdal, the famous Swedish economist, in his studies of American racial issues. Judge Bryant served in the United States Army during World War II and was honorably discharged as a lieutenant colonel in 1947. Judge Bryant, who is 92, took senior status in 1982. He raised a family, but as Chief Judge Thomas Hogan wrote, ``lost his beloved wife, Astaire, and now lives alone, with this court and the law as the center of his life.'' I am grateful to our judges of the United States District Court here for the thoughtful proposal that the annex to their court be named for Judge William B. Bryant. The residents of this city that Judge Bryant has served so well, the judges of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the members of the bar here would be particularly pleased. I am delighted that Senator Patrick Leahy, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has sponsored the bill in the Senate; and I urge quick approval to give honor to one of the great judges of our court.

Ms. NORTON. 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 from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for their work in the Committee on Rules on this bill. Everything is relative in the Congress and, I appreciate the bill that has been brought forward this year, particularly when I compare the time that this body has had to take up on the smallest appropriations in prior years, and so I thank both of the gentlemen for their work. I want to thank and congratulate the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the full committee ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for the way in which they urge and guide our appropriations bill through, because of their concern for the process and their respect for self- government in the District of Columbia. And their guidance has been, I think, heard and felt this year. I am particularly grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who did all the heavy lifting on this work. I am grateful for their bipartisan efficiencies and cooperation in handling this appropriations. They have been mindful of the fact that Members are here appropriating funds for a city, not a Federal agency; and that makes all the difference in the world. First, most of the money comes from the taxpayers of the District of Columbia. This is one of the great anomalies that the Congress has thrust on itself to force taxpayer funds from the District of Columbia to come here and be blessed. And by the way, I thank the committee that from time immemorial the committee does not, in fact, go into the body of the District of Columbia budget. Everybody understands that that would be treacherous. So mostly it comes here for oversight and for attachments that the ranking member spoke of, attachments that would never be abided in Members' own districts. But I am very pleased to simply have this money get out of here with the kind of rule that the Committee on Rules has come forward with this year. There are huge hardships in any delay in the District of Columbia appropriations, hardships, chaos in city operations, hardships on District of Columbia residents. When our appropriations do not go smoothly and it has to go back and forth, the biggest hit is taken by school children and the schools of the District of Columbia. All manner of problem breaks out with ordering school books, with having to send supplies back because the appropriations is not out yet. I will not regale you with those problems this year, particularly since the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Appropriations have worked so hard to bring this forward. I do note for Members, particularly those Members who have not had to go through this ordeal before, who are scratching their heads saying, what am I doing here considering the appropriations of a city, that this appropriations has had the oversight of the authorizing committee, the Committee on Government Reform, whose chairman is the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the ranking member is the gentleman from California (Henry Waxman). It has had the oversight of, of course, the Committee on Rules, and I thank them for the way they have done the rule this year. And, of course, it has gone through the subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations. Let us look and see what these three committees have come forward to recommend to this body. I will call it a clean bill because everything is relative, and this is a clean dirty bill; but it is the kind of bill, perhaps the best bill, that one could get from this House. Now, all the old attachments are there, and the ranking member has spelled out some of them. I cannot say enough about how much those attachments are resented in the District of Columbia. I cannot say enough about the price residents pay for them. Perhaps the worst price is paid for the needle exchange attachment where none of our own money, there is some private money, but none of our own money can be used to save the lives of men, women, and children with AIDS now being spread in the District of Columbia faster than in any other jurisdiction in the United States, most of it intravenously; and we cannot do what I must tell you dozens and dozens of jurisdictions do and have done with great effect in halting AIDS, and that is to professionally use needle exchange programs now recommended by literally all the great scientific authorities. The attachment forbidding abortions for poor women when hundreds of jurisdictions all over the United States, in fact, fund abortions for poor women speaks for itself. Why should one jurisdiction be the exception in the United States of America? Of course, I suppose the House should really think about how to hang its head in shame, that there is an attachment that bars the District of Columbia from using its own money to lobby for its own rights. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, try not to turn over in your graves. In the year 2004, we have the Congress saying that American citizens cannot use their own tax money to lobby their own Congress where they have no vote for their own rights. My colleagues heard me. I hope they will not hear me have to say this again. I do not think that anyone in this House has anything to fear from hearing from elected officials and from the residents of the District of Columbia using their own money to petition their government for their basic rights. It is one of the great shames of this bill, and one that I cannot believe today enjoys majority support of Members of this House. So I am asking, in short, the House to respect the work of the Committee on Rules, the work of the Committee on Appropriations, and yes, by direction the work of the Committee on Government Reform, and in doing so, I am going to lead by example. I am asking Members not to come forward with amendments. I am going to lead by example because there is an amendment that I feel strongly about. Again, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) spoke of that amendment as well, and that is an amendment I fought in this House with a lot of Republican support last year, when I sought to keep the House from imposing vouchers against the will of a supermajority of the elected officials, the great majority of the people of the District of Columbia, and yet, this was done to the District what has not been done to any other district. I intended to come forward with an amendment, even if I had to withdraw it, and I would have had to withdraw it because it would have been out of order, to take the $4 million that is lying on the table, that cannot be used for vouchers because not enough residents came forward in the grades that the bill calls for in order to take up the vouchers. All along we had said that what District residents want is charter schools if there is to be an alternative. They have our D.C. public schools. We have the largest number of charter schools per capita in the United States, and I think that is shown by the fact that the waiting lists continue to grow in charter schools. Yet there is $4 million left on the table that has not been used for school vouchers. So I intended to come forward and say, Pick that money up off of the table, and let it be used by the children of the District of Columbia; but I am going to respect the work of the Committee on Rules, I am going to respect the work of the Committee on Appropriations because they have come forward with a bill without additional attachments, and I am not going to offer that amendment. It particularly would have been subject to a point of order or would have drawn people down here to talk about it. But if the point is to compliment the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Appropriations for the efficiency with which they have handled this committee, then I think I ought to get in line with what they have done, and I will, therefore, not come forward with such an amendment during the debate. The matter never passed in the Senate. It passed here by one vote. This was the test vote for the prescription drug vote. This was the vote that was kept open over 40 minutes while they flipped somebody in order to let vouchers go through. It never did get through in the Senate. It was simply attached to an omnibus bill. This is the great hall of democracy, great Congress of democracy. So I feel strongly about it, but I also feel strongly about the way in which the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Rules have accommodated the District of Columbia during this appropriations process, and I am not going to waste the time of this body, and I ask other Members not to waste the time of this body. I understand a letter went around concerned that a Council member had put a bill in to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. I do want Members to know that that was put in on the last day of the Council. Everybody went home, taking no action on it, and this is an election year. One of the things we ought not to do is rise to every bait. Obviously, this is not a bill that was considered serious, certainly not at the moment, because it would have been introduced earlier and there would have been some action on it. If we really feel so moved to come to the floor, it seems to me we ought to wait and see if the District of Columbia, in fact, is going to act on the matter or if there, in their own Council, they can dispose of the matter. At least give us that respect. Just like there were Members who were concerned about slots. Boy, they could not have been more concerned about slots, as I am. I am with my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), when it comes to gambling. I am kind of an extremist on the question of gambling. I consider the kind of gambling that goes on, in slots especially, a kind of tax on the poor. They tell people it is going to be used for their schools. Fine, well, let people who can afford in a progressive fashion to pay for schools do it. It is a real game played on the poor. I could not hate it more. The people who bring it forward in this city are playing a game on the city, particularly on the poor people of the city. This is basically a class matter. Better-educated people look at the odds and tend not to play these slots. Poor people who, after all, do not have the same opportunities, who cannot see any other way for their ship to come in, are most vulnerable to certain kinds of gambling measures. So this matter has come forward in the District. Guess what, the majority of the City Council has already said they are going to overturn it. Suppose we had jumped up here and run to the Committee on Rules and run to the Committee on Appropriations without giving the sensible Council of the District of Columbia the right to say, Slots is not economic development, and we do not want that sleazy stuff in the District of Columbia. We do not want it even if we were not the capital of the United States, but we certainly do not want it, not in the capital of the United States. We understand who we are, and I am saying to other Members, who would be inclined to come down and offer amendments, to give us the opportunity to consider these matters. My colleagues can always have their opportunity because there is always another appropriation, so they can always come forward with the very same matter. At least give us the respect of dealing with the matter ourselves, particularly if it is a bill that has only been introduced at the end of the session, then everybody went home. Note that all of the committees I have cited have come to the same conclusions, have come forward with a cleaner bill than I have seen in some time. These are only the committees that spend any time on the District of Columbia, and I apologize to all Members that we are having to spend any time whatsoever on an appropriation that, if it means anything to them, they are in trouble because when the people back home find out they are spending any but the time that they are committed to spend by law on somebody else's money, and almost all of this is our money, I do not think they would be very pleased. Anything that would be, shall we say, ``untoward'' had opportunity to come to the attention of the Committee on Appropriations, the authorization committee, and the Committee on Rules, and they have put forward the bill that we see before us; and I ask my colleagues to pass the bill we see before us. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have to certainly say that while I have apologized that Members are having to consider this matter at all, and I do apologize for it, at the same time I want to say this is a burden that they could relieve themselves of. This entire process violates the most basic American idea, that is, the idea of Federalism. It is the idea of local control on local matters. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) have worked very hard to make this process no worse than it already is by doing it as the law requires. I ask my colleagues to respect their work. I ask them to respect the people of the District of Columbia. I ask my colleagues to pass this rule so that we can get the District's own taxpayer-raised money to the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for yielding me this time. We are not going to tarry long this time, and that is itself an extraordinary victory and feat of leadership. Members should know that I have seen this. The smallest appropriation often take the longest period of time to get through this House, much to the consternation of Members. I spoke during the Committee on Rules about the extraordinary leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who have always been wonderful captains of the ship, pressing to get this appropriation out, understanding what a waste of time it would be for Members to involve themselves deeply in this matter, often going to extraordinary lengths to clear this bill. They have been just where they always were. The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) deserves a lot of credit for his invaluable assistance to the Committee on Appropriations and to me with this bill, and I have already given my thanks to the Committee on Rules, who gave us the cleanest bill under the circumstances. But the real applause belongs to the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). I can say to both of them that I do not believe we have gotten this bill through in as short a period of time since I have been in Congress. This is my seventh term. I want to thank them for the exceptionally smooth and efficient way they have handled the D.C. appropriation now for 2 years. It has affected the operations of the District of Columbia, not only the efficiency of this House. I want to thank them for their regard for self-government in the District of Columbia. I want to thank them for their respect for the efficiency of the House of Representatives itself and the processes. There are very few Members that care beans about this. That is no insult to you, Members. I don't care beans about your districts either. That is your job. And finally, I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their keen understanding of the need to move the bill to get the city's own money to the bill, and that has been what has been most important about the way in which they have handled this bill. We cannot spend a red cent of our own money until the House says so, and almost all of this bill consists of our own money. The District has always deserved self-respect for running its own affairs. That is the way we believe in this country, but I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the city today, and most of the Members of the House agree, has really earned congressional respect. I think a real tribute is due to Mayor Tony Williams, Chair of the Council Linda Cropp and the entire D.C. Council for the way they have improved the city, I mean in every important way, from the city operations, the day-to-day operations, to its bond rating. They have taken this city from fiscal crisis, now to more than a balanced budget, to a better financial position than our far-richer surrounding States, not because they have managed to raise significant revenue, but because of the very conservative prudence with which they have run the D.C. government. I mean, they still have a structural deficit, which means that we have high taxes and high debt because of the structural relationship with the Federal Government, and I appreciate that this entire region and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) have gone on to a bill to help us correct the structural deficit. So to be prudent, even though you are carrying a federally imposed structural deficit is to deserve high praise. In Virginia, they have just gone through a terribly long period, and they finally had to raise taxes in order to assure their financial standing and keep their bond rating. Maryland, they are still struggling with gambling, something we are not going to have in the District of Columbia in order to pull it out of crisis. The D.C. economy is run so well that people are moving in, not moving out. The city has become so attractive, that you cannot find a scrap of land on which to build any longer. We are building all through the inner city, the poorest wards of the city, because of the way in which the city is now being run. Finally, to let me give you a sense of the District's financial prudence, I appreciate that the committee is going to allow the District to save for its emergency and contingency fund not 7 percent of it budget but 6 percent. Now, that is interesting, because going down from 7 percent to 6 percent is not going to affect its bond rating, because it is still the strictest conditions for an emergency and contingency fund in the United States, or pretty close to it. The District is going to have 2 years instead of 1 year to repay any funds it happens to withdraw, does not withdraw from this bond, 2 years instead of 1 year to repay the fund, and that still makes these conditions among the strictest in the country. Forty-five States with similar emergency contingency funds have no replenishment requirement; and yet, the District must pay it back if it uses it within 2 years. And among the six States which do require you to replenish any money you take out of the contingency fund, no State requires you to pay back as readily as our fund does. But, Mr. Chairman, perhaps what I am most proud of is that the District has the highest rating. You have alluded to that in its history, an A rating. This is a city that 8 years ago was in virtual bankruptcy, and I would like to read what Moody's, one of the three investment houses that has given the District an A rating, has said. ``The upgrade reflects the sustained improvement in the District's economy and property tax base, as well as the District's multiyear record of improved financial management, controls and results. In addition, the District's elected leadership has demonstrated a commitment to maintaining this balance,'' that enviable language from investment houses. The District has done this with the assistance of Congress. It has done it with the structural deficit. It is not because it struck it rich. It is because of conservative budgeting and financial management. We have taken the lead as a city, but we have done it with a partnership, with a Congress, that is now paying off. I am proud to represent the city. I believe that the city has made us proud of our Capital, and I am particularly grateful to the Chair and to the ranking member for their contribution to what the District has achieved.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise with words of strong praise for Sandra Feldman, a woman who has spent her life in service to others, as she retires from the presidency of the American Federation of Teachers. Sandy Feldman's educational journey took her first to children as a teacher in the New York City Public Schools, continued with her service to teachers, children and working people, and culminated in her seven outstanding years as President of the AFT. Equal rights has been an overarching theme of Sandy Feldman's life. I met Sandy when we both were kids in the civil rights movement. The movement was nascent, but Sandy already was deeply engaged. It was no surprise to me that Sandy Feldman would become the leader of a great union or that she would fight so effectively and productively for the rights of its members. However, for Sandy and the American Federation of Teachers, the value added has been the union's leadership on education itself. In many circles, Sandra Feldman is equally well-known as an educational innovator. She has regarded her work for the advancement of teachers as part and parcel of the advancement of education for children. She has understood that it is impossible for children to get what they need and deserve if teachers are underpaid and without a say in the working conditions under which they teach. One example of her forward thinking is her handling of charter schools. Recognizing how they were embraced by many families seeking public school alternatives, Sandy Feldman has been able to reconcile charter school popularity with the maintenance of strong public schools and the rights of teachers in districts willing to work in the same spirit of respect for all concerned. Sandy's energy, ability to move people and fertile mind for unique educational innovation will be missed, but she has set such a high mark that unions and school districts alike will long be following the path she has so ably laid out.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999, which funds the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant, or TAG program, was passed with bipartisan sponsors in the House and Senate, led in this House by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). It included a number of cosponsors, as many, if not more, from the other side of the aisle as from this side. The champions of the bill in the Senate were equally bipartisan. I am particularly grateful to the current House and Senate sponsors of H.R. 4012 who were on the original bill for their continuing leadership efforts in sustaining TAG and to President Bush who came to office several years after the bill was in effect, saw the evidence of its success, and has continued to fund it in his budget at authorized levels. I want to specifically thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who has offered indispensable leadership on this bill and on a number of other very important D.C. initiatives over the years. The Act gives D.C. residents the options for college attendance routinely enjoyed by other Americans through their State college systems. This is the one jurisdiction in the United States that does not have a university system. D.C. has only one public university, the University of the District of Columbia, or UDC, an open-admission institution. And as part of DC TAG, Congress allowed UDC to be funneled on an annual basis as a Historically Black College or University for the first time in our history. The bill allows DC residents to attend any public college or university anywhere in the United States at in-state tuition rates up to $10,000 annually and to receive $2,500 to attend any private college or HBCU in the city or region. Already over 6,000 DC students have attended more than 150 colleges nationwide because of supplementary funds provided by the act. The best indication of the success of the act is that in the 5 years since it was passed, college attendance in the district has increased by 28 percent, compared with only 5 percent nationally. DC TAG recipients range from residents for whom college was more a dream than a possibility, to residents who might otherwise have moved out of the district and along with them more of the district's already depleted tax base. The cost of tuition is a significant reason many residents left and others refused to settle here rather than in Maryland or Virginia, each of which has more than 30 different colleges and universities to fit the specific needs and interests of residents. The evidence of the success of the program and return on the dollar to residents, to the city, and to the Federal Government is not in dispute. Close monitoring by the GAO and by our office has shown that TAG has been well run. TAG is universally popular among DC residents and businesses because of the act's simultaneous and immediate benefits to both District residents and to the city itself. This program is an unqualified success story. It continues to exceed all expectations. It deserves the 5-year extension the committee recommends today, and I strongly urge passage.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses a crisis that affects Members of Congress and all who live and work here resulting from a public health advisory regarding lead in the drinking water in the Nation's Capitol. I am seeking to increase general project construction money in the amount of $20 million by increasing the amount of savings in slippage. The $20 million will help to address a federally created drinking water crisis caused by leaching from lead pipes installed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers more than 100 years ago amidst controversy that lead pipes were not safe even then. EPA standards for lead in the drinking water is 15 parts per billion, yet thousands of homes in this city have tested above this standard, hundreds above 300 parts per billion. The water crisis I am asking Congress to address, however, not only affects people who live here but 200,000 Federal employees in the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the White House and Federal office buildings and millions of tourists from throughout the country and world who come here. Public health officials testified at a May 21 Committee on Government Reform hearing that lead contaminated drinking water is dangerous for everyone, but can be especially dangerous to fetuses and young children under the age of 6, hindering their brain development and lowering their IQs. Yet, pregnant women and young children drank the water here not knowing about dangerous levels of lead. At the hearing a mother, Katherine Funk, testified that she unknowingly drank lead contaminated water throughout her entire pregnancy. I support what we are spending to provide safe drinking water for the innocent people of Iraq. Today I am requesting a mere $20 million to begin the process here in the Nation's Capital. The $20 million will help replace lead lines. The lion's share is being borne locally, but some contribution from the Federal Government to reduce this crisis is particularly appropriate. The lead water crisis emanates from the decision of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build the District's water infrastructure system using lead pipes more than 100 years ago. And that was so controversial then. I will insert into the Record two articles from the Washington Post of 1893 and 1895 discussing the controversy. Also discussed there is the role that the Army Corps of Engineers played in constructing these pipes. The articles point out that the Army Corps knew of the health dangers of lead pipes that carried the District's drinking water but chose to use them anyway. The Federal Government's role in providing water here goes beyond the pipes to the treatment of water itself. The Army Corps also built and still runs the Washington aqueduct which treats the water supply for the district and parts of northern Virginia. The Committee on Government Reform hearing heard testimony from scientific experts that the switch in chemical treatment of the drinking water in 2000 at the aqueduct without adequate testing is the likely cause of leaching of lead pipes into the drinking water. With the Corps embedded in the crisis through lead lines and faulty chemical treatment, the government should assume at least some share of the responsibility. The amount being requested here will not and is not intended to cover anything close to the cost of replacing these lines, but it will hasten the current replacement efforts being undertaken by the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority. I certainly ask that the Federal Government step up to its responsibility. The residents of the District of Columbia have more than stepped up to their responsibility. This was done well before there was any home rule when the residents could have and did have no affect upon it. The water I am talking about is the water that is on our rostrums every time we go to committee hearing. We should do something to protect ourselves, to protect Federal employees, and to protect the residents of the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I will insert the two articles I previously referred to. [From the Washington Post, June 9, 1893] Lead Pipes Unsatisfactory Capt. Powell, the Engineer Commissioner, has determined that a substitute must be found for lead pipes which, according to the present plumbing regulations, must be used in providing a water service for residences. The general fear that such pipes might cause lead poisoning under certain conditions makes their general adoption in the District a menace to the health of the people. It has been shown that the chemical character of Potomac water causes such pipes to become coated on the inside with an insulation of carbonate of lime, soda, and clay, held in solution in the water. This coating, it has been argued, is a sure protection from danger of lead poisoning, but the engineer department has decided that it is too slight a safeguard. It is probable that the city's supply of water will be filtered at some future day, as sand filtration of drinking water has been adopted in many large cities abroad and is rapidly becoming popular. Just what effect the filtered water may have in the coating of lead pipes has not been determined. The fact that iron pipes become thickly rusted on the inside, which causes a material loss of water pressure, makes their use unsatisfactory. Yesterday Capt. Derby, in charge of the division of water and sewers, examined the first substitute for lead pipe that has been presented since the investigation began. It was what is known as the improved Bower-Barff process, being a steel pipe coated inside and out with black oxide of iron. Capt. Derby reported it was ``worth experimenting with,'' and tests of the pipe will be commenced at once. Several other styles of pipe are to be examined.