Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in dismay at the self-inflicted isolation of our country and wonder if it is too late to recover from the most catastrophic failure in diplomacy in American history. We are left with no alternative to war, gradually each day even, though we have not been attacked and even though there is no claim of imminent attack. War is the most serious effect of this failure but it is not all we have lost. Enough of the finger pointing and ally bashing. Us against the world is a completely unnecessary result when we have been dealing with a totalitarian tyrant like Saddam. We have been seized by the hubris of our own power, losing everything that matters to us in foreign affairs, especially at a time of global terrorism when we need each and every ally we can get. We are losing each and every one of our major allies. You can cite the small countries all you want to, but when you lose the permanent members of the Security Council, you cannot blink that, no matter who you are. We have endangered our closest allies, beginning with England. Poor Tony Blair. He is permanently politically damaged now. He will be weakened in all he does. Pervez Musharraf, the most critical in our anti-terrorism allies, faces wholesale opposition at home. What in the world are we going to do if he falls? We have thrown to the wind the spontaneous coalition that gathered around us after 9/11, and yet it seems that we believe it is all the administration's fault. Actually, the President's approach sowed the seeds of its own destruction because he began by announcing an invasion strategy. Had he started with meetings and consultation with our allies, of putting proposals on the table, beginning with inspections, graduating with tougher and tougher action, he would have his coalition by now. In fact, he had to be convinced to consult at all. I remember his making fun of the notion of going to the United Nations until members of his own party, former officials of former administrations, advised that it was important to seek a coalition. Mr. Speaker, the lesson of this wholesale failure of the greatest power left, with everybody running from it, amounts to you cannot be a world leader if you cannot convince others to follow. And the second lesson is that if you have the power, you do not have to flaunt it. Used skillfully, you can bring people to you simply because you are the greatest power in the world. God bless our country. May we still be saved from this catastrophe.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, quickly, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her sustained leadership on this issue. I want to focus on one issue and that is the failure to use multilateralism when it comes to AIDS policy. The unilateral approach we see here that we do not have a global approach to AIDS any more than we have the kind of global approach we need to war and to terrorism. In both, lives are at stake. The Global AIDS Fund is applauded all over the world because it is a low cost administered fund with great accountability, philanthropists serve on it. And what have we done? It is not clear whether we are setting up a new fund, a new entity. What is clear is we are giving only a billion dollars rather than the more than $2 billion that should go to that fund, so where is the rest of our money going to? Why are not we using this multilateral approach which would get the most bang for our dollar? I think the reason is we do not want to play by the same rules that the rest of the world is playing by. We want the global gag rule and the way to make sure we get a global gag rule is to pull our money out and deal with our money ourselves. That is a tragedy to take the gag rule and apply it to AIDS treatment. Imagine in Africa what AIDS means. It means a terrible stigma that you cannot get treatment in the same place that you get family planning is going to mean that many people will not get treatment at all. We want unilateralism here to do what we tried to do with the Asian countries when we were recently discussing HIV prevention. We tried to delete the mention even of condoms there. We are trying to unilaterally impose our approach, an approach that we have imposed in our country, but democratically you can do that here, we are trying to impose that on the world. That is why we were seeing unilateralism here even as we have even unilateralism in much foreign policy since this President came into office. Lives are at risk. I ask that we go global when it comes to AIDS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of Black History Month, I rise today to introduce the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2003, a bill directing the National Park Service (NPS) to take ownership, restore and manage the historic Shaw home of Carter G. Woodson, ``the father of Black History.'' The bill would authorize the NPS to ``preserve, protect and interpret for the benefit, education and inspiration of present and future generations,'' the home where Woodson lived from 1915 to 1950. This legislation also authorizes the NPS to rehabilitate adjacent properties on either side of the home to facilitate tourism. The Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH), which Woodson founded, also would be housed on the site, as it was originally. My good friend Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) will be the sponsor of this legislation in the Senate. Congress passed my bill, H.R. 3201, the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site Study Act, in 2000, to begin the process of making the property at 1538 Ninth Street, NW a national historic site within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. A NPS study, as mandated by the legislation, is required before the NPS can take control of property. The study determined that the Woodson Home is suitable and feasible for designation as a unit of the park system following the transfer of title from its current owner, the ASALH. The bill I introduce today is necessary in order for the NPS to receive the appropriation for extensive renovation of the site. I am particularly pleased by the proposed rehabilitation of the entire block that is linked to the legislation I introduce today to rehabilitate the Woodson home. The NPS would work with Shiloh Community Development Corporation, established by Shiloh Baptist Church, which owns almost all of the property on the block of the Woodson home. The Shiloh Corporation would convert the block of homes to senior independent living housing, maintaining the historic facade of the row houses. As Black History Month comes to a close, we open a new chapter in the story of an educator who is most responsible for the annual recognition of the contributions of black Americans in the nation's history and culture. I have introduced this legislation to honor Dr. Carter G. Woodson, a distinguished black American and founder of the Association of Negro Life and History, by authorizing the NPS to maintain in perpetuity his home at 1538 Ninth Street, N.W., here in the District of Columbia, as a National Historic Site under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The significance of this home was recognized in 1976, when it was designated as a National Historic Landmark. I introduce this bill today to assure that the nation's pride and purpose in celebrating Black History Month are not marred by neglect of the home of the founder of the commemoration and of the study of black history itself. Dr. Woodson was a distinguished American historian who established African-American history as a discipline and spent a lifetime uncovering the contributions of African-Americans to our nation's history. He founded and performed his work through the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (ASNLH), which has since been renamed the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History (ASALH). Among its enduring accomplishments, ASNLH, under Dr. Woodson's leadership, instituted Negro History Week in 1926, to be observed in February during the week of the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Today, of course, Negro History Week, which was mostly celebrated in segregated schools, like my own here in the District when I was a child, and in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, has gained support and participation throughout the country among people of all backgrounds as Black History Month. Dr. Woodson, the son of former slaves, earned a Ph.D. degree from Harvard University in 1912, becoming only the second African-American to receive a doctorate from Harvard after the great W.E.B. DuBois. Woodson's personal educational achievement was extraordinary in itself, especially for a man who had been denied access to public education in Canton, Virginia, where Woodson was born in 1875. As a result, Dr. Woodson did not begin his formal education until he was 20 years old, after he moved to Huntington, West Virginia, where he received his high school diploma two years later. He then entered Berea College in Kentucky, where he received his bachelor's degree in 1897. Woodson continued his education at the University of Chicago, where he earned his A.B. and M.A. degrees, and then he got his Ph.D. from Harvard University. During much of Dr. Woodson's life, there was widespread ignorance and very little information concerning African-American life and history. With his extensive studies, Woodson almost single-handedly established African-American historiography. Dr. Woodson's research, literally uncovering black history, helped to educate the American public about the contributions of African-Americans to the nation's history and culture. Through painstaking scholarship and historical research, his work helped reduce the stereotypes captured in pervasively negative portrayals of black people that have marred our history as a nation, To remedy these stereotypes, Dr. Woodson in 1915 founded ASNLH. Through ASNLH, Dr. Woodson dedicated his life to educating the American public about the contributions of black Americans to the nation's history and culture. This work in bringing history to bear where prejudice and racism had held sway has played an indispensable role in reducing prejudice and making the need for civil rights remedies clear. To assure publication, under Dr. Woodson's leadership, ASNLH in 1920 also founded the Associated Publishers, Inc. for the publication of research on African-American history. Dr. Woodson published his seminal work, The Negro in Our History (1922), and many others under Associated Publishers, and the publishing company provided an outlet for scholarly works by numerous other black scholars. ASNLH also circulated two periodicals: the Negro History Bulletin, designed for mass consumption, and the Journal of Negro History, which was primarily directed to the academic community. Dr. Woodson directed ASNLH's operations out of his home at 1538 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC in the historic Shaw neighborhood. From there, he trained researchers and staff and managed the organization's budget and fundraising efforts, while at the same time pursuing his own extraordinary discoveries in African-American history. The three-story Victorian style house, built in 1890, served as the headquarters of ASNLH into the early 70's, well after Dr. Woodson's death in 1950. In 1976, the house was designated as a National Historic Landmark. However, it has been unoccupied since the early 80's, and today, it stands boarded up and sorely in need of renovation. The walls inside the house are crumbling, there is termite infestation, water seeps through the roof during heavy rainstorms, and the house also constitutes a fire hazard jeopardizing adjacent buildings. This house that is a priceless American treasure must not be lost. Mr. Speaker, passage of the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2003, represents a concrete way for the House to commemorate Black History Month, by preserving the home and legacy of its founder, Dr. Carter G. Woodson. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I associate myself with his opening remarks. Mr. Chairman, I rise to try to inject a heavy dose of economic reality into what has been a morning of self-congratulation. TANF was not a success because of our brilliance, Mr. Chairman. The economy more than any other factor made TANF a success, yet this bill ignores the economic cycles and is on automatic pilot going in precisely the wrong direction. This is the worst economy in 15 years. Yet we are increasing the hours of work for those who receive TANF and increasing the percentage of families in work-related activities. We have got 6 percent unemployment for those who are already in the workforce with skills. What worries me most, Mr. Chairman, is that TANF has already creamed off the most ready to work, yet we are raising requirements for the hardest to place. This is nuts. This bill is a recipe for failure, not the success we have enjoyed. Look at the racial composition. We are told, hey, we have reduced the rolls. Are the rolls really down? For whites, they are down 5.8 percent; for blacks, they are up 2.1 percent. This is since 1996. And for Hispanics they are up 5.2 percent. In the third quarter, 39 States had increased welfare rolls. In the face of these difficulties, we need more flexibility, not less. Less prescriptiveness, this is the opposite of what this bill is giving us. We know how to respond to economic cycles when it comes to business and when it comes to those who have been in the workforce. We must respond in the same rational way to those left on TANF, particularly considering that they are the hardest to place.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, of course the CR before us is not supposed to have items that raise the cost of government, nor agreement on what the cost should be. There is a sleeper item in this CR that Members need to know about because it certainly raises the cost of government a great deal and a great deal more than was necessary. We are treated in this CR to a lease. That is I must say an unprecedented circumvention of the committee process. Perhaps that could be justified under some circumstances. There are three hugely negative consequences for doing so today. We have raised the price of the interim headquarters for the Homeland Security Department. We have disrespected the committee which was in a position to help mitigate the price and the length of the lease, and we have undermined the economy of the Nation's capital. Let me say a word about each of those. First, raise the price. What we have here is something that gives every appearance of a sweetheart lease. It was supposed to be 5 years, it is 10 years, which is more than is necessary because this is an interim headquarters. This is not the headquarters. It cannot be cancelled. It is for $250 million, a quarter of a billion dollars for a 10-year lease. After 10 years, we could have bought a building. Why would we lease a building for 10 years at a time when we are cutting appropriations to smithereens. We disrespected the committee to the detriment of this lease because the committee had ideas about how to meet the deadline without signing such a long lease that in effect bought the building, but at the end of 10 years taxpayers will have nothing to show for a 10-year lease. A quarter of a billion dollars is the least of it. We are going to have to add millions more to enhance the security of this leased building, this building we do not own. We could have built this building. Finally, we have undermined the economy of the Nation's capital. What has been done is the Federal Government has taken all of the most valuable land in the District of Columbia off for yourself. Having done that, all we get in return are Federal jobs. We cannot tax the people who come in here for their Federal jobs, but at least they can leave their disposable income here. Now we will not even have that. Mr. Speaker, according to a survey that we had done, a study that we had done, the cost to the District of Columbia over 10 years is a loss of $342 million. We cannot replace that money. Under the Constitution, there are only two sectors in the Nation's capital, government and tourism. We are leaving the Nation's capital without an economy. We had no fair chance to compete for the interim headquarters. Mr. Speaker, sadly the District of Columbia had no fair chance to even compete for the interim headquarters. That is clear if we review the language of the request for proposal. They preselected the suburbs from the beginning. The language gave it away. They might as well have said, ``We want to locate this in Northern Virginia.'' What they said instead is we want an office park setting. Give me a break. We do not have office parks in big cities. They took out what is standard in all RFPs for Federal sites, and that is that there be access to a Metro. That means that the residents of the District of Columbia, those particularly in the lower levels, do not have any way to get there from here. This is a heartless thing to do to the Nation's capital, but that is what has been done. Let me put Members on notice, all the District of Columbia asks is not that we get a site, but that we have a fair chance to get a site. This administration did not give us a fair chance to get the interim headquarters. We will not allow the Homeland Security Department to be the only department other than the Pentagon whose headquarters are located outside of the District of Columbia. The Pentagon had to be located out of the District of Columbia because there was not enough room for it. There is enough room for the Department of Homeland Security in the Nation's capital. We insist that the permanent headquarters be located here, and I ask Members of this body to assist us in making sure that happens.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a very special tribute to one of this city's most distinguished churches, New Bethel Baptist Church; and to its pastor, a leading citizen, former House colleague, and my predecessor as District of Columbia Delegate, Reverend Walter Fauntroy. The church is celebrating the 100th anniversary of New Bethel. New Bethel Baptist Church is revered in this city for its leadership on many levels. The church is not only a spiritual center. This historic church, located centrally in the historic Shaw district, also is a leader of social innovation and programs that serve its community in diverse and essential ways. New Bethel's wide ranging service to its community and our city is not surprising. The church's spiritual leader, Reverend Walter Fauntroy, is not only a talented and dedicated minister of the gospel. He has long been a major figure in the civil rights movement even before being elected to Congress. Reverend Fauntroy served for 19 years as a distinguished Member of the House and has been a leader of many activities for social and economic justice here and in the nation since resigning his House seat. Pastor Fauntroy's life and work have added to the unique place New Bethel occupies in the life of his church community and of the District of Columbia. New Bethel is among the oldest and most distinguished churches in the city. In its hundredth year, it is almost half as old as the city itself. The group that formed the church met first in the home of Brother Benjamin Graves under the guidance of Dr. W. Bishop Johnson, Pastor of the Second Baptist Church. The membership grew and purchased a building on 15th Street, NW. Under the leadership of the Revs. Alfred A. Agerton, Samuel Washington and Richard L. Holmes, the congregation experienced steady growth. In 1903, the Rev. William D. Jarvis accepted the call to the pastorate, and the church embarked on a 37-year journey of spiritual growth and prosperity. In February 1915, the first worship service was held in the building at 9th and S Streets, NW., which had been purchased from the Grace M.E. Church. Before Dr. Jarvis' retirement on October 1, 1940, the church had grown to 600 worshipers and had become a welcome fixture in the community. In May 1941, the Rev. C. David Foster, of Philadelphia, PA, was unanimously called to the pastorate. Under this leadership, the church grew spiritually, numerically and financially, and the building underwent extensive renovation. On January 19, 1959, the Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, a son of the church who had served as supply pastor, received a unanimous call from the members to serve as pastor. For forty-three years, he has responded to the spiritually needs of the congregation and the rapidly-changing dynamics of the community. Existing organizations have been revitalized and new ones have been created. The position of full-time Assistant Pastor was established, and a ministerial staff was implemented. A tithing program was launched and, in 1973, New Bethel constructed the C. David Foster House, an eight-story building with 75 units for low and moderate-income families of the Shaw area and other displaced persons. In 1977, the old structure at 9th and S Streets was razed, and a striking new building was constructed on the site and dedicated and entered in 1982. Today, guided by the pastor's five-year plan, the church continues its mission of service to church members and to the Shaw community. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to offer this tribute to my predecessor and to his distinguished congregation. I ask that this body join me in saluting our former colleague, the pastor, and the members of the New Bethel Baptist Church on the occasion of their 100th Anniversary.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his hard work this year in trying to get these appropriations out. Many of my colleagues have been local elected officials, and surely they recognize what fix they would be in if their city or county had to run on a day-to-day CR. We cannot pick up garbage on a day-to-day CR. The Federal Government might be able to run HHS or the Department of Labor that way, but I am talking about the Nation's capital, a living, breathing city of 600,000 people which also serves 200,000 Federal workers. What we are doing with these interminable CRs that puts D.C. right in there, even though there is mostly local money here, what we are doing is crippling good management in the city, which is exactly what the Congress has admonished the District to try to improve. Major Williams and our City Council deserve a lot better. They have done a spectacular job in renewing city operations. These folks had a balanced budget, and then they had to do a 10 percent cut of the budget raised by local taxes, and they did it in 10 days. Now they are told for an entire quarter they are going to have to live on last year's budget. Let me give Members two reasons why that is difficult for a city. First, they cannot implement new programs which are necessary. Second, despite the cuts, the District of Columbia has increased its school budget, but since under the CR the city must run at last year's levels, it cannot increase its school budget, and yet that is the budget that Congress has been most concerned about. Much of that local money would go to special education problems, which are particularly crippling us because we do not have any State to contribute to special education. Indeed, Congress is so concerned about special education that we got $14 million in extra Federal money for special education in this budget, but I am not even asking for that, I am just asking for D.C. to be able to spend her own money on her own special education children. Yesterday I spoke with the President about it, the Mayor spoke with him about it, and subsequently I called his top staff at the White House. Guess what, neither the President nor his top staff seemed to have any objections. The top staff said they would put it before the OMB. The reason that I think the President and his staff did not have particular objection is that apparently what the President and those who are holding the appropriations want is no Federal spending above a certain level. Voila. The money I am talking about is all money raised in the District of Columbia, $3 billion of it. No Federal spending above a certain level, fits the rule, this money should not even be here in the first place. If it is here, I would think that there would be some sensitivity to the fact that the city should not be treated as if it were the Department of Labor or some other agency. I had a one-sentence amendment that would have allowed D.C. to spend local taxpayer funds only, leaving all of the Federal money over here. There are special circumstances in this CR. It is not a clean CR. There are TANF grants and payments, and I thank the leadership. There is an allowance for transfer of $500 million from other agencies to homeland security. Mr. Speaker, surely keeping the Nation's capital afloat and well-run is just such a special circumstance. I ask that we take all the action we can after this CR expires to see that this never happens to the city again, and pray for the city during this period.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and for coming forward to offer this resolution. I recognize that a number of Members are not here today because we do not have votes, but I am very pleased that the gentleman was able to get the time so some of us who felt so deeply about losing Paul Wellstone would have an opportunity to express those views publicly. We always on the floor from time to time are admonished not to refer to the other body. Well, this afternoon we are referring to an unforgettable Member of the other body. He was not a Member of this body, but Paul Wellstone's presence was felt even in this body. In fact, this is the kind of man whose presence could not help but be felt. The loss of Paul, Sheila, his wife, and his daughter Marcia is deeply felt here. In no small part, these three were doing public business. They were all trying to get Paul back to the Senate so he could engage in the business of the public. Why is Paul Wellstone so admired by Republicans and Democrats alike in the Senate? We have heard about Republicans who cried when they heard that Paul had been killed. In no small part I think it is because Paul believed in something, and he believed in being more than a Senator. Beyond that, if I try to focus on what made him so beloved to so many, particularly to those who worked with him, I come time and again to the fact that he took risks for what he believed in. Members of the House and the Senate always admire that. Regardless of where we stand on the issues, the notion that somebody is willing to step forward and take political risks is something to be admired; and, of course, Paul Wellstone was willing even to risk his political life. That is another way of saying that Paul Wellstone came to the Senate in order to stand for principle. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) spoke of character. That is what character is all about. When the rubber meets the road and a Member needs to decide whether to take a risk on an issue, I think first of the principle that I stood for. That is not what the political business is all about. Sure, those of us from safe districts get to do that all the time. I hope we are not patting ourselves on the back. We are doing it for principle, but many are doing it also because the people who live in our district want us to do it. Paul Wellstone had to think about whether what he was doing was what his constituents wanted him to do, and whether it was the right thing to do according to his own sense of principle. So standing for principle in a real sense was a kind of trademark of Paul Wellstone and indicia of character. I do not mean to say if a Member does not always stand for principle, they do not have any character. But politicians particularly admire Members who are willing to take risks, ignoring the political consequences. Now, let us not forget that Paul Wellstone was a most unlikely candidate. It was unlikely that he would get to the Senate at all. Let us be clear; he was a Ph.D. college professor; and, indeed, a tenured college professor. I can tell Members this is not a place where one expects academics to come. I am myself an academic who never expected and never intended to come to the House. I am a tenured academic who still teaches at Georgetown Law Center. And I can tell Members, those of us who spend our lives trying to get tenure do not think of another career. It is harder to get tenure than it is to get elected. Tenured professors do not go around trying to get another job. One needs to think what in the world got into Paul Wellstone, tenure at a very good liberal arts college. Again, I go back to principle. At the bottom he was an organizer, and he had done all he could do organizing, and so he thought I guess I will go to the Senate and see if I can organize there. I am sure that is the way he thought. If he was an unlikely candidate when he got here, he took on unlikely issues. He stuck with health care when everybody else backed off because the Democrats tried very hard in the early 1990s and got pressed back. And again I can go down a lexicon of issues. Here is another unlikely one, mental health coverage as a part of ordinary health coverage, and he got that very far along. Those issues speak to two abilities: One is the ability as an organizer. He never lost that passion, never lost that understanding that is the way to operate. Senator Lieberman tells a funny story that one day Paul was discussing an amendment on the floor. Paul walks into the Senate, Paul is pressing his amendment. He does not even think he has members on his side, much less Republicans, so he held up a piece a paper for Senator Lieberman to see that said ``DLC votes yes,'' meaning Democratic Leadership Conference votes yes because Senator Lieberman was in a conference that was in another spectrum of the Democratic Party. Senator Lieberman just laughed. Paul was so funny and laughed all the time. Paul was so collegial. Even those who could not possibly vote the way Paul voted had to love him. I think of our former colleague Sam Brownback, who made common cause with Paul on a bill to prevent international sex trafficking of women and girls. Together, this conservative Republican and this liberal Democrat pressed that bill through the floor. If you look at Paul's record, this one-man progressive force was always looking for allies, especially people who were more conservative than he. He was not content to stand on principle alone. He wanted to stand on principle and then get it enacted into law and so he reached out to see how he could do that. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will tell the quintessential Paul story about a principle. At the height of the wonderful economy of the late 1990s, when everybody was doing well, I mean, I was going around bragging that more African Americans own homes, highest median income in history, more rising out of poverty, at the height of this economy when all boats were being lifted, Paul called me up and said he wanted me to cosponsor a bill, then he wanted to go to a church here in the District to have a press conference about it. The bill was called the Strategic Transitional Employment Program. We should understand that unemployment was down to something like 3 percent, way down from where I regret to say it is now. This bill was about the millions who had been left behind. Paul was tired of hearing how all of us were doing so well, even the poor. Paul knew that there was a horrific gap between the larger number of people who were doing better and the millions who were not benefitting from that wonderful economy. I do not think Paul particularly believed this bill had a ghost of a chance, but he did believe that if you were one of those millions still unemployed, still living in a community that did not have investment, still living in rural or urban America where jobs were not being made out of the dot-coms and all of the wonderful work that the economy was doing, if you were in a manufacturing job still waiting to be called back, Paul knew that nobody was talking to you and had acted as if you had floated off the planet. Paul did not believe you should stand up for those who did not have only when the economy was the way it is now, down and not doing well at all. Paul believed you should stand up when you had not brought the great American dream to all, especially when there were millions upon millions upon millions who thought nobody even spoke to their issues or spoke to them any longer because so many people were doing so well. That to me is the quintessential Paul. Mr. Speaker, Senators, not to mention House Members, come and go, but some rise to a special level. That is the level of being simply irreplaceable. That is the level to which Paul Wellstone has risen to Members across the line in both parties. I again thank the gentleman for not only yielding to me but for bringing Paul Wellstone to this body.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House to join me in recognizing the 30th anniversary of Rev. Willie F. Wilson, Pastor of Union Temple Baptist Church, a leading minister of an eminent church he has built in the Nation's capital through deep and dedicated service. Under the leadership of Reverend Wilson, Union Temple Baptist Church has become not only a spiritual leader in our city, but also a unique force for services to the Anacostia community. Rev. Wilson and his wife, the Rev. Mary L. Wilson, Assistant Pastor of Union Temple, have interpreted their religious calling to bring hope and pride to the people and the neighborhoods of Anacostia and especially to African Americans in the city and the Nation. Rev. Wilson has led where other ministers have not dared, including his prison ministry and his work to care for and conquer discrimination against people with AIDS. Rev. Wilson has built Union Temple in the tradition of the disciples of Jesus Christ who carried his ministry where it was most needed. For a life of special service to his church, his community and his city, I ask the House to join me in recognizing the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of Rev. Willie F. Wilson.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the extraordinary talent and uniquely effective activism of Sweet Honey in the Rock, the Grammy Award-winning African American female a cappella ensemble with deep roots in gospel, jazz, blues, and the civil rights movement. I am particularly pleased to honor the outstanding contributions that this ensemble has made in increasing national awareness and support for the struggle of the residents of the District of Columbia against taxation without representation. We are fortunate that Sweet Honey calls the District of Columbia home. What better home for a group that specializes in songs about democracy and freedom? What better home than the only city in the United States still without full civil and political rights? What better home than the home of taxation without representation? Sweet Honey gave its 29th Anniversary Concert to a packed house at the Warner Theatre on October 18, 2002. They sang and the audience sang. Among the songs was one that particularly delighted the hometown audience--Give the People Their Right To Vote! It is a tour de force of lyrics and song that tell the entire history of the denial of democracy and representation in the District. Sweet Honey manages this virtuoso mission with a song that educates as it makes you tap your feet. In response to Congressional insistence that D.C. residents fulfill 100 percent of their obligations while denying these American citizens the vote in Congress, Sweet Honey in the Rock composed and regularly sings two songs about the distinctive denial of congressional representation in the nation's capital: Give the People Their Right To Vote! and We Want the Vote! Like Sweet Honey's other music, these songs educate, inspire, enlighten, and entertain all at once. Both songs speak to the injustice and exploitation of D.C. residents, who are second per capita in federal income taxes and who have fought in every American war since the Revolutionary War, incurring disproportionate casualties. Yet, the songs Sweet Honey has written and the songs they sing tell the story of the struggles of people everywhere for freedom. Sweet Honey's range of music and style is unique in the musical world and appreciated throughout the world. Sweet Honey was born in the civil rights movement out of the original Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) Freedom Singers. Just as America's great African American jazz musicians and singers spring from the black church, Sweet Honey's roots are in African American church music, spirituals, movement songs, and folk music. Sweet Honey is the brainchild of the group's founder, Bernice Johnson Reagon, who created Sweet Honey in the Rock in 1973. Ms. Reagon has used her unique talent, keen intellect, and deep commitment to create a group that is revered and loved both for its music and for its dedication to the struggles of oppressed people everywhere. Sweet Honey uses the experience of African Americans with racial discrimination to inspire others to struggle against all forms of oppression. The group continually reminds us all that the black civil rights movement of the 1960s was not about parochial issues but about universal principles of human rights. And, as Sweet Honey reminds us in songs about the denial of the vote here, human rights must always begin at home. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in honoring the unwavering activism and award-winning talent of this great ensemble, whose dedicated and creative approach to encouraging freedom around the world should serve as an inspiration to all who work for full democracy and complete congressional representation for the people of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the gentleman from Florida for yielding this time to me because of the urgency of what this CR, yes, even this CR, does to your Nation's Capital. While we have broken one impasse, the CR week-to-week impasse that allows Congress to go home, but I cannot believe that Congress understands what it is doing to the great American city called the District of Columbia. They are simply leaving this city hanging by a thread. First, let me personally thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for doing their job. It was the smoothest D.C. appropriation in many years, they got it done, but there is not a sufficient realization of the Congress that the District of Columbia is not a Federal agency. It is an anomaly that it is here, anyway. This money is the money of the taxpayers of the District of Columbia, but we cannot spend any of it until we bring it over here. We have brought it over here. There have been no changes made in our budget, but D.C. cannot now go about allocating its money and spending the money of its own taxpayers. The urgency of the matter is revealed in a letter that I would like to insert in the Congressional Record from the Mayor and the City Council chair. They have done an extraordinary job in making needed cuts because the national economy has caused that to be necessary for local jurisdictions and States throughout the United States. But now they cannot make the cuts, they cannot move the money around the way Maryland and Virginia and every other State is doing, because we are on some kind of continuing resolution that works well for HHS. Well, it does not work well, but at least does not bring HHS down, does not bring the Department of Labor down, but leaves your Nation's capital really on the ground. The District has done a magnificent job of balancing its budget in difficult times. It had the same problem that your jurisdictions have had, where the problem with the national economy has not just trickled down, it has dumped on the States and localities. In 10 days' time the Mayor and the Council did not whine about it. When they discovered this problem, they cut their budget by $323 million. They are ready to go now. But the Congress is not ready to go so they are holding us back for completely unrelated reasons. There is vital new Federal money in there, the kind of Federal money that helps the Congress more than it helps us. We had to go to the Treasury in order to ask the President, and I am pleased that the President did in fact forward some money to us when we could not get the 2002 supplemental out, so that we could protect this city when the IMF demonstrations were just held here. But we cannot get public safety reimbursement money for, in fact, demonstrations that are likely to be held here, for example, against the war before you get back. This city is torn up, however, because we have to spend on a day-to-day basis. Everybody will wonder: Why did the city not get protected? You have no dispute with the District of Columbia. This is a dispute between the Congress and the President and, for that matter, among quarreling factions within the Congress of the United States. Nobody in this Congress means to hurt this city. Wherever you stand on the District, I think everybody wants this city to thrive. But to leave us even in a month-long CR is to leave us not only in pain, it is to leave the good people of the District of Columbia with pain and suffering. I am asking you to help us free D.C. from this CR. District of Columbia, October 15, 2002. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: We thank you for your past assistance to the city and for the special sensitivity you have shown toward matters affecting the District of Columbia since becoming Speaker. We write to ask that you allow the District's budget to be disconnected from the current congressional appropriations stalemate out of respect for the nearly 600,000 taxpaying residents of the nation's capital who fund city services contained in that budget. The District, of course, is a major city, not a federal agency, and residents experience unique hardships when the D.C. appropriation is delayed with agency appropriations. We appreciate the expeditious consideration and close cooperation the city received in this year's appropriation process from the Chairs Bill Young and Joe Knollenberg and Ranking Members David Obey and Chaka Fattah. The continuing delay of passage of the District's budget, however, poses a special threat this year when the city has had to make last minute calls and must reallocate funds accordingly. As you are aware, nearly all of the District's appropriation is derived from local, not federal funds, and Congress has traditionally approved the District's local budget without revision. This year, both the House and Senate appropriations committees passed the D.C. appropriation bill with unanimous bipartisan votes. The city is both grateful and proud of this achievement because just weeks before the start of the fiscal year, the city's Chief Financial Officer released revenue estimates projecting a $323 million operating deficit in Fiscal Year 2003 due to the twin shocks of 9/11 attacks and the faltering national economy. Of course, the District's decline in revenue mirrors similar declines in cities and states across the country, but the District quickly corrected the imbalance with cuts to city programs and achieved a balanced budget within the record time of approximately ten days. We appreciate that after inspecting the city's figures to assure the budget was balanced, the House appropriations committee was able simply to insert the District's new numbers into the bill. The District has shown that it can act quickly to avert potential fiscal crisis. We hope that the Congress will respond. In December 2000, you generously worked with us to free the District's appropriation from a similar national budget impasse. We are asking for your intervention again because further delay in the passage of the city's budget threatens our administration of many city services that must be adjusted because of extensive cuts. We appreciate your consideration of our request and look forward to working with you and your staff on this matter. Sincerely, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congresswoman. Anthony A. Williams, Mayor. Linda W. Cropp, Chairman.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the American people and government officials consider entry of our country into a war, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a letter to the President of the United States from one of my constituents, James N. Rimensnyder, a cadet at the United States Military Academy. I nominated Cadet Rimensnyder, a graduate of Woodrow Wilson High School in the District of Columbia in 2000, and he is now in his 2nd year there. Recently, Cadet Rimensnyder's letter to the President was brought to my attention by his father, Nelson Rimensnyder. Entirely on his own, Cadet Rimensnyder, who identified himself in his letter as a Republican, had written President Bush, as his Commander-in-Chief, to express his desire for full representation in the Congress. The simple eloquence of Mr. Rimensnyder's plea for the benefits of full citizenship as he serves his country speaks for itself. Cadet Rimensnyder speaks as well for all District residents. I ask the House to recognize Cadet Rimensnyder, who is serving in the U.S. Army in time of war and asks only that his service be honored with full citizenship rights. West Point, NY, April 2, 2002. Hon. George W. Bush, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: As a native-born resident of the District of Columbia, you know, of course, that I have no voting representative in Congress. This situation has persisted for 200 years. District residents first brought this to the attention of Congress in 1801. Today, we are the only citizens of the United States, excluding felons, who pay federal taxes and serve in the Armed Forces, but are denied representation in Congress. Two years ago, when I reached my 18th birthday, I registered as a Republican and voted in the 2000 presidential election as provided in the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution. Now I am a Cadet at the United States Military Academy, and appeal to you to uphold the longstanding tradition of our party to advocate voting representation in Congress for the residents of the District of Columbia. Sir, I wish that one day soon I might have the opportunity to meet you, salute you as my Commander-in-Chief, and thank you personally for addressing this grievance. Sincerely, James N. Rimensnyder, Cadet PFC USCC.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his great leadership on matters of international affairs. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to the majority resolution. I still get dizzy trying to figure out which of President Bush's multiple and often contradictory rationales for preemptive war to credit. First, he belittles Members of Congress who wanted him to go to the U.N. to assure an international coalition; then he goes there, but only after American and world opinion compelled him to go there, and even to come here. We must go further. We must repudiate the improvident and dangerous doctrine of preemption. Others will speak on the floor of Iraq. Iraq is the least of it. It is no accident that the President chose this same period to announce a brand-new American doctrine of preemption. Iraq is only the first case in point. Bush has already announced Iraq will not be the last. It is bad enough that if we vote for the majority resolution we are for the first time in 226 years of American history voting to allow an American President to go to war, and I am quoting, ``as he determines to be necessary and appropriate,'' not as Congress determines to be necessary and appropriate. As clear as it gets, this vote would be an unconstitutional delegation of the exclusive power of Congress to declare war. It is simply shocking to give away the unique life and death power to declare war bestowed on the Congress by the framers. The majority resolution is an equally perilous violation of the rule of law itself and of the law of nations. There is no rule of law unless it applies equally to all. And there is no law at all if not determined by precedent. Thus, a vote for the majority resolution is a vote not only for a preemptive war on Iraq, but for the new Bush doctrine of preemption that would then be available to all nations. There is no way to get away from what precedent means in our law and in the law of nations. Because preemption is unlawful under international law, passage of this resolution would make our country an instant international outlaw. Worse, the Iraq precedent means that all bets are off for all nations to do the same. This resolution gives over the power the people have given to us to the sole discretion of one man, the President of the United States. And who will fight Mr. Bush's preemptive wars? Today, we have a volunteer army whose race and class composition speaks to the absence of equal opportunity in civilian society. The middle- and upper-middle classes, for the most part, no longer serve and will not be on the front lines. African Americans are 25 percent of the U.S. Army today, Hispanics are 9 percent, an Army more than one-third made of people of color. Already the American people have pulled Bush back. They would surely pull harder if the average son or the average daughter were subject to service today. Preemptive war is a doctrine that could only survive, if it does, when those who would be the ground troops have had other opportunities preempted. Let the Congress do its own preemption. Let us preempt this President by reclaiming our constitutional right to declare war and reclaiming two centuries of American principles. Let Congress speak up so that none may be sent to war without Congress sending them there, whether those who fight look like you or look like me. Let Congress take hold of this man-made crisis that has already introduced instability into a world that can least afford it now. Let Congress guide our Nation back to its own most precious principles.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me the time and for working on this bill and certainly the gentleman from New Jersey for his continuous work on this bill. I come to the floor to support the bill but with the deepest of reservations. My reservations, of course, flow from the fact that the engine that drove the bill that passed overwhelmingly in this House has simply been removed, and that, of course, was denial of access to capital markets in order to get at the very oil that drives the economy of Sudan. I regret that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) could not be here. It is a Monday when he usually would not be in town. He and I in April, 2000, came to the floor in a special order at a time when the only record of concern in the House was a joint resolution, passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate, condemning the various atrocities in Sudan, and I am very pleased to see how this House has embraced the notion that resolutions are not enough. Action is all that counts when people live under the kind of oppression that is pervasive in Sudan, and the kind of oppression we are talking about is almost unspeakable. It is a litany, a compendium of violations of human rights that is unknown in most parts of the world today, slavery, genocidal war, bombings of humanitarian workers, forced conversion of Christians and animists to Islam. It would be pretty difficult to find a compendium of worse violations in any single country. In this House, a new caucus has been formed under chairmanship of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). All I can say for this bill is that it is better than nothing. That is just how disappointed I am. It at least puts the United States Congress in the picture for the first time. The original Act, of course, tried to do something that had not been done before. If ever it was to be, then surely it was to be now when, in fact, already our corporations cannot do business in Sudan, and yet they can come here and get the capital to do business in Sudan, and to the credit of this House, this House had the strong bill. It is in the Senate where this bill was so injured, and the bill does have provisions worth noting. Our government is strongly on record that if these efforts now finally under way toward negotiations for peace do not succeed that the United States Government would break our diplomatic ties, and we would attempt to cut off IMF, World Bank money. There is a little bit of irony in that. We cannot cut off the capital markets, but we can cut off the money that goes presumably to the people at the bottom. They do not get any of that money I do not think, but, obviously, the bill is trying to do something to indicate just how displeased the United States Government is with all of this, $100 million over 3 years, the State Department investigation of war crimes in Sudan. The more we are on the record, the more this Congress and the administration is clear where we stand, the closer we will get to some meaningful action. I am very concerned about all I hear about the continuing suffering of people in Sudan, the notion that so many of these southern Sudanese have now come to the north just because they cannot live in the south anymore. I want to quote from one southerner, ``We either live in the south where there is fighting or starvation or we live in the north where there is discrimination and displacement camps. There is no good choice.'' That is no choice at all, of course, and yet 40 percent of Khartoum consists now of southerners, southern Sudanese who, of course, work in the jobs that are at the bottom. That is not the worst of it, by any means. Working in a job at all, I am sure, given what these people have gone through, is all to the good. The relief camps to which the southern Sudanese have been forced do not get any services from the government. I do not know what we would do without the nongovernmental organizations. I am very pleased that the President did send an envoy, former Senator Danforth, a good friend of mine, a former law school classmate, an Episcopal priest, a man who means it. Of course, these talks are under way. They get under way and they get un-under way. We have had 19 years of civil war. I think Senator Danforth's efforts should be credited with having had something to do with these new talks that are under way. We have a so-called cessation of hostilities that comes on and then goes off. That is because it is not a cease-fire. A permanent cease-fire is what is on the agenda now. A permanent cease-fire is when you have some verification when one side or the other breaks the cease-fire. This bill is not what those of us, including those who voted for this bill, the great majority of the Members, wished. It is all we can get. I can with great disappointment support this bill only if with all of the partners, with the new Sudanese Caucus, we pledge to keep pressing to find a real way to have a real effect in Sudan. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I thank all of those on my side who have worked so hard on this bill for keeping it alive and for continuing to press forward.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support giving long overdue honor to a man who will be remembered as a great chair of the Committee on Education and Labor. ``Gus'' Hawkins, as he was affectionately called, will be remembered for many significant federal laws that he authored. His name has become synonymous with the Humphrey-Hawkins Act to set our country on the course in pursuit of the often-elusive balance between full employment, balanced growth, and minimal inflation. However, I want speak especially to Chairman Hawkins' work as the author of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I had the good fortune to chair the EEOC during a period when Gus Hawkins was chair of the House Education and Labor Committee. I came to the agency when it was only ten years old and had had a rocky management tenure. Faced with no experience in handling large numbers of complicated cases, the Commission had developed a crippling backlog. The EEOC was fortunate during that period, and later during my own tenure, to have in chairman. Hawkins a dedicated, no nonsense taskmaster who insisted that the agency reform itself so that it could deliver the equal job opportunity the statute envisioned. It fell to me to institute the restructuring and the reform of the EEOC beginning in 1977, but that process had the advantage of the determine and very knowledgeable oversight of a chairman who knew what needed to be done and made sure that all of us did our best to do it. Chairman Hawkins' name is synonymous with hard work and an encyclopedic understanding of the most important domestic agencies and statutes affecting health, welfare, education, and equal opportunity in our society. His work in the California Assembly and here in the Congress is replete with examples of his leadership and education to the needs of working people, the unemployed, children, and minorities. He was the author of such land mark legislation as the School Improvement Act, which made the federal government an important factor in elementary and secondary education for the first time. He was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. However, when a man has been the author of more than seventeen federal laws, it is difficult to overestimate his importance in American legislative history. Mr. Hawkins was an understated man but his legislative achievements are legendary. He is not a man who would have sought to have a building named after him. Instead many bills bear his name, as he would prefer. Never the less, let this House add the name of Augustus Hawkins to a post office allowing many more to know his work and become aware of the significance of Gus Hawkins in our history.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but to appreciate the remark of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) about the requirement that it be understood that this bill not confer statehood. All I can say to the gentleman is that I have heard of back-door legislation, but I am sure this House knows how to keep the district from becoming a State through the back door. Nevertheless, I certainly appreciate all of the consideration that has been given to the District for a coin, a bill that matters a great deal to the people I represent. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 4005, the District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act, a bill that would give the District of Columbia and the territories a privilege the 50 States already have, namely the ability to choose a design for the reverse side of the quarter coin in order to commemorate our history as part of the United States. Mr. Speaker, we have traveled a long road to get to this moment today with the generous assistance of each chair and ranking member of the committee and the subcommittee. The absence of the District of Columbia and the territories drew our attention when the original 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act came to the House floor in the 105th Congress. I am grateful to the initiative of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has come to manage the bill and was then Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) immediately agreed to cosponsor a bill with the other delegates and with me to allow the District and the four insular areas to participate in the program. With the gentleman's support, I then introduced a bill to include the District and the territories. During the 106th Congress, I again introduced the bill; and the new chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), agreed to lend his support, sponsored the bill and took it to the House floor, where it passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 377-6 on September 18, 2000. Unfortunately, because the bill was passed late in the session, the Senate did not act on the bill. That brings us to the current Congress and a new chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King). I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), as I thank his predecessors, for introducing the bill and for his leadership in bringing the bill to the floor today. Also, I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), for cosponsoring the bill and for her diligent work; and I thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), for their great cooperation in helping us with this effort today. Without their leadership, this day would not have been possible. Mr. Speaker, I want to reserve my particular gratitude for my colleagues, the delegates from the insular areas, who are all cosponsors of this bill and who have remained committed to this effort from the beginning. I must also say a special word of thanks to the excellent staff who have worked so diligently on this bill, Joe Pinder of the majority staff and Jaime Lizarraga of the minority staff. Although the residents of the District of Columbia and the insular areas are American citizens, there are some differences between us and the States. Qualification to be part of a program to redesign quarters to commemorate Members' home districts is not among them. There is no legal or constitutional reason why the District and the territories cannot be part of a popular commemorative coin program created to celebrate the components of our Federal republic to spark interest both in the history of this great Nation and in numismatics and to raise funds for the Treasury. We recognize that Congress always desires to avoid any appearance of unfairness, and it is clear that the initial exclusion from the program was an oversight. With the passage of this bill, we will correct that oversight today. H.R. 4005 would extend the 10-year commemorative coin program for an additional year to include the District of Columbia and the four insular areas, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, as well as the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, in the program. In the District, I have suggested that we hold a competition to choose the design for our quarter. Of course, the bill requires that ``the Secretary shall not select any frivolous or inappropriate design for any quarter dollar minted.'' Although to some American citizens the Commemorative Coin Program may seem like a minor activity, the ability to participate in this program is important recognition to our constituents. Despite the fact that in the normal process, it has taken 5 years to get to this point today, no damage has been done because the original Commemorative Coin Program mandates a 10-year period from minting commemorative quarters, according to the date of admission to the Union, and, therefore, the Treasury would not have reached the districts recognized in this bill at this point in any case. We are very pleased by the success of the program. Nineteen States already have quarters, all of whom I am certain feel pride in having a coin to commemorate their particular characteristics, achievements or history as a part of our Nation. We also are pleased that this program costs the Treasury nothing, but, instead, because of the popularity of the coins, actually brings in new money for the government, totaling billions of dollars. Our participation will mean even more funds will come to our government. D.C. residents carry the flag and wave the flag. We are second per capita in Federal income taxes, and we serve in the Armed Forces in numbers disproportionately higher than the States. The District, for example, had more residents who served in the Gulf War than 47 States and more casualties in Vietnam than each of 10 States. This coin bill, therefore, may not mean much to the average citizen, but it means a great deal to those of us who live in the District of Columbia. The commemorative quarter will be a matter of particular pride to the residents of the District. We are sensitive to find ways to indicate our unity with the 50 States. I know I speak for all of the delegates when I say that, as American citizens, we would appreciate being acknowledged with a coin of our own. We seek only the maximum recognition permissible under law. H.R. 4005 will afford our residents a sense of particular pride as we join other Americans in commemorating our unique contributions to our shared history. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) who initiated this effort, for their leadership on this bill and urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) proved prescient in his understanding of how this bill would not only benefit this country's Treasury but individual States. In fact, he may well go down in history as the Member who almost effortlessly raised billions of dollars for the United States Treasury. All he had to do was, with the stroke of his pen, bring this bill to the floor, and money began to flow into the Treasury. As for the people of the District of Columbia, and for the insular areas as well, I can say with deep sincerity never has a coin meant so much to so few, but that is what it means to us. We are very appreciative of the opportunity to be included in this bill. Mr. Speaker, and with thanks to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and to those who worked so hard, the chairman and past chairman and ranking members of this committee and subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. At the time that we began work on this bill, the markets had not imploded. This bill has assumed far greater importance since, and I just want to spell out something of what it means. We are now living in a country where people over 50 years of age have lost their shirts. The catastrophic effects of the market on baby boomers and older people is pouring out now in stories, in the newspapers about people going back to work, about people selling their homes, and the rest of it. Do not think that this does not apply as well to Federal employees. Allowing us, those of us who work in the Federal Government, to catch up, as it were, with what is already the case in the private sector could not come at a more opportune time. In the first place, one does not have to put their money into the traditional stock market. The TSP is very conservative. They could put all of their money into bonds. They could in fact decide that this might be an important way to make up for some of the losses almost all of us have incurred in the market over the past year, 18 months. And what this means is very important. In the first year, in addition to what someone already contributes, they can put in an additional $1,000. The next year they can put in an additional $2,000, until of course they reach $5,000 and then they will be able to contribute, as private employees do, an additional $5,000 a year to the TSP. The reason that this is important, it seems to me, for everybody but especially for the employees to whom this is directed, employees 50 or older, is that there is almost no way to even begin to make up for the kinds of losses people have had, and people have got to begin thinking through how do we do that. We do not want to say to what has become an investment public, stop investing in anything, they could have happen to them what has now happened to people in all ages and backgrounds. They could lose it all. There are safe investments. We are very fortunate that the TSP allows us to spread our investments, encourages us to do so, and I believe that for those who are very numerous, and I am sure are included among them are many government employees who want to begin to reinvest, this opportunity to reinvest in more conservative investments will be a very welcome opportunity. At the very least, it would be unconscionable to leave those in the public sector, the Federal sector behind what we ourselves have already granted to those in the private sector. So I appreciate that the gentlewoman has brought this bill forward, a bill we worked very hard on and, fortuitously, a bill which I think will be appreciated more than when the bill was originally in committee.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Res. 567, as amended, that recognizes the significance of the surface transportation infrastructure to interstate and international commerce and the traveling public and recognizes the contributions of the trucking, rail, intercity bus and passenger transit industries to the economic well-being of the United States. As the Nation moves toward a more competitive global economy, the state of our surface transportation infrastructure increases in importance. The investments made in the Nation's transportation infrastructure also provide good family wage-paying jobs and contributes significantly to the Nation's health. Throughout the 107th Congress, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has worked diligently to advocate adequate funding for transportation programs. Mr. Speaker, I cannot stand here in praise of surface transportation without drawing to the attention of the House a genuine surface transportation emergency. As we praise surface transportation, we are aiding and abetting the decline and worsening of a major indispensable component of that system. We saw this emergency arise just weeks ago, and we abetted it then. It was clear that Amtrak could not continue to go forward without first emergency funding and then an appropriation that would guarantee the rail service in the United States of America would continue. In fact, the administration came forward with $100 million in loan-guarantee funding, pending congressional consideration of the Amtrak appropriation. Mr. Speaker, the emergency is now upon us, and it is upon us hot and heavy. The Committee on Appropriations has just denied Amtrak's request for $1.2 billion that is necessary to keep the full system running. Instead, they appropriated $762 million. Now, this amount, and here I am bringing to the floor what the Department of Transportation Inspector General says, is not enough to continue current operations, which he sets at $1.2 billion. This appropriation went down on a straight party line vote. Now, understand what we have done. These folks say they must have $1.2 billion to continue the intercity railway transportation of the United States, which criss-crosses this country. We have cut it by one- third. I am going to take my time to indicate what that one-third means and what districts in this House are going to wake up without railway transportation if we leave it that way. This amount is less than one-half of the funding for the entire national network of passenger rail transportation that is now in place. What it means, I say to my colleagues, is this: that in order to get down to this $150 million, which is all that would be allowed to be spent in 2003, 13 of the 18 long-distance train routes would have to go. That is 2.3 million riders. Let me be more specific, because I want to find out, well, how does that break out when we get down to brass tacks. How it breaks out is this, listen for our cities, because these are the cities that are going to be without national intercity passenger rail travel: Dallas, Denver, New Orleans, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Tucson, Atlanta, Little Rock, Pittsburgh, and Houston. They would lose all passenger service. I am here to sound the alarm. I have not named Washington, D.C., but I believe I must bring to the attention of my colleagues the rollcall I just went through who is in fact in danger. The administration, despite its study after study, has come forward with absolutely no Federal plan. Instead, it sends the railroad to two sources, one is the private sector. Are we kidding? Do we know why there is an Amtrak? Because the private sector went broke and said to the Federal Government, if you do not take over passenger service, there is not going to be any. There would not be any Amtrak if the private sector could do it unsubsidized. Okay, said the administration, then go to the States. That is even more outrageous, more distressing. Every State in the Union is facing a horrific deficit, every State in the Union. They are running the worst deficits in a generation, and that is because of the sad state of the national economy, not because of anything the States have done. So we are sending them to the States? The Dow Jones was at a 5-year low today, I say to my colleagues. Check it out. Today it was at a 5-year low. What does that tell us about the national economy? What does that tell us about going to the States to save Amtrak? The States will tell us, at the very least, I gave at the office, because the States have already contributed $1 billion. Where is our contribution of $1 billion? The administration came forward with something called the Amtrak Reform Council. Oh, how misnamed can an entity be. They have indeed studied the issue, and then they studied it again and they are still studying it. No plan, still. That is a bankrupt strategy; and, I say to my colleagues, if we go home with a third of the amount Amtrak needs cut, we will have a bankrupt railroad system when we return. I do not even want to get into what this means to the economies of certain sections of the country, like the Mid-Atlantic States, the Northeast, and certainly the Midwest States that are going to lose all service. We subsidize every major form of transportation. I sit on the Subcommittee on Aviation. We just came forward with another subcommittee bill to help aviation out just last week. Thank goodness we give millions to buses and Metro, to roads. That is in our tradition, and I am glad of it. Do we really expect to provide passenger service in the 21st century in our country completely unsubsidized? If so, we would be the only self-supporting rail system in the world. We are not nearly that good, nor is any other society. Mr. Speaker, we may be the only world economic power in the world today, but if we do not take action before the 107th Congress closes, we will be a second-class transportation power without a fully operating rail system. It would do irreparable harm to our transportation system and to our country to let Amtrak sink. We must do more than pass cosmetic resolutions such as the one we pass today. I ask my colleagues to help me and to help ourselves to save the Nation's passenger railroad system.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the House has taken little note of what is happening to the economy. Millions of Americans, however, are clamoring for our attention, and our increasing economic distress, I am not surprised that the House takes little interest in the unemployed. Poor people must live on another planet, not in the United States. But there has been a recent wake-up call that spreads deep into the middle class, and that is recently released figures on a 2-year decline in the number of uninsured after what had been some steadiness. Recent figures show a decline in health care coverage among many working Americans. I think the Washington Post says it best: There is new evidence that a weakened economy is having adverse ripple effects on ordinary people. What we see is a drop in the proportion of people who have health benefits. That is usually working Americans who have gotten them as a result of their employment. At the same time, we are seeing a mediocre rise in health insurance costs, up 12.7 percent this year, and then, of course, there is the completely unsustainable increase in prescription drug prices at twice the rate of inflation. All of these health care indicators at the same time show the kind of distress that urgently needs our attention. Much of the drop in health insurance costs comes from small businesses, 10 percent of it in the last 2 years, but that is where the jobs are. That is where people with health insurance are, and if we want some indication that we are now striking at the heart of our economy, we need only look at the fact that most of those who have lost their health insurance are working men. Of course, the population that is most without health insurance in our country today are Latinos. A third of Latinos have no health insurance benefits. What the statistics do not show, Mr. Speaker, however, is where the greatest effect is, I believe, being held, and that is the shift in health care costs from the employer to the employee. When an employer cannot sustain the cost of health benefits anymore, and he shifts to his employee, then we have what in effect is a cost in pay and a lowering of the standard of living, and we know that is what has occurred because 2 weeks ago the Census Bureau reported that the household incomes fell 2.2 percent. We have not paid any attention in this House to the very rapid increase in unemployment because it started so low, from 3.9 percent 2 years ago to 5.7 percent today. We cannot let it continue to rise that fast. Now we see really the fatal indicator, the health insurance indicator. This House is about to go home with token health to seniors on prescription drugs, which leaves most of them exactly where they were before that pittance of a bill passed. We have an equally dangerous indicator left on the table, left to fester, and that one is one we should have learned in the past to take note of, and that is the urgent loss of health care benefits to millions of Americans who had them this time last year, who had them this time 6 months ago, who are afraid more of the loss of health care benefits than they are of the loss of employment. We ought to be very, very careful about going home and leaving people without health insurance.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and classmate the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for yielding me the time, and I remember that Patsy was here a few months ahead of us in the special election. She got the jump on us in seniority. Actually she had been here 25 years ahead of us. Patsy had a second coming, and the House is all the better for it, but the heart of the House is broken today. Historic woman, first woman of color, came here 4 years before even the great Shirley Chisholm, the first African American, came to the House. She is known for two signature issues among the many issues that are around her name, education and equality. Patsy, of course, is the mother and the godmother and the protector and the fighter for Title IX. I think she would want this memorial to serve a purpose, especially today when Title IX is under attack. I remember 2 months ago when she came to this floor to commemorate Title IX, and she said this: We have heard much about the many successes of Title IX, particularly in athletics. Most do not know of the long, arduous course we took before the enactment of Title IX and the battles that we have fought to keep it intact. And as we remember her tonight, remember, we are fighting a battle to keep it intact tonight. She recounted some of those battles. She talked about 1975 when there was an amendment to keep then HEW from promulgating regulations under Title IX. That is how deep it got. Even after Title IX was passed, she had a way of piercing to the truth, when they said there is no Title IX. It took four men to summarize what she said on the floor, 2 months ago, that reductions in men's sports are due to choices made by college administrators in favor of the big-budget, revenue-generating programs such as football and basketball. She told it like it was. She could not help it. Let us remember as we commemorate and celebrate Title IX and celebrate Patsy's life what we are going through today. There is an administration task force. With all her being, Patsy opposed to fix what is not broken, Title IX, 30 years later when we go from 32,000 female athletes to 150,000. Instead of commemorating, the administration is fixing. Leave Title IX alone. Let it stand. Let it be. Do it for women, and do it for Patsy Mink.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in the prior exchange, the failure of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) to indicate what an abortion is was an important concession because in effect it says an abortion is anything that a provider says it is. It makes this legislation completely untenable. What we are witnessing is the umpteenth attempt of the Republicans to invade Roe v. Wade. I have to give the majority credit, though; the majority is determined to deny a woman the right to control her own body by any means necessary. That is why they keep coming to the floor with these provisions. Yes, this bill is about discrimination, discrimination against women and discrimination against the States. They wrap themselves in a conscience clause cloak. We could never have gotten this far if we did not have ironclad conscience clause protection in our law. I have got two great Catholic universities in my district, Georgetown University, with which I am personally associated as a tenured law professor, and Catholic University. Georgetown University Provident Hospital does not have the slightest doubt that they and their health care services already are strenuously covered by the existing conscience clause. This is not a conscience clause. This is a cop-out clause. What it does essentially is to open the floodgates. The first to take advantage of this clause are going to be the health care plans and the HMOs. These are the guys who are already saying to physicians, we're timing you on how much time you can spend with patients urgently in need of health care. Do you think they are going to continue to give informed consent by providing the kind of counseling that Federal law provides? They know a loophole when they see one. We have already closed every Federal door to a woman's right to choose with a Hyde amendment and with a plethora of other provisions. Now we have gone to the next level. We are invading States rights and the rights of the States to provide health care by changing Federal law to invade State territory. Ever since Roe, we have said not with Federal dollars. Now we are telling the States what to do with their dollars and what to do with their laws. Let the States' rights Republicans take a page out of their own prayer book. Stand down. Let the States run their own State health care systems.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying about whether people are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We are chewing on a lot of war, but we certainly are not walking with our economy. I have come to the floor, in case one does not know it, to announce that the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached its lowest level in 4 years, down 189 points today. Let us pay attention. Even more serious, the Fed's Open Market Committee had two dissenters, something that rarely happens, two dissenters from the decision to hold the Fed funds rate steady. The Fed repeated its concerns about the slow pace of the recovery of the economy, and it went so far as to indicate that there was a concern about war in Iraq. I am going to quote from that concern: ``Considered uncertainty persists about the extent and time of the expected pickup in production and employment owing in part to the emergence of heightened geopolitical risks. You stand forewarned,'' we stand forewarned. At the middle and lower end of the income spectrum, the Annual Report of the Census Bureau came out today, and the Census Bureau reported that 1.3 million people slipped below the government's official poverty line. We know that that official poverty line is 20 years old and all the analysts say it is outdated, so there are obviously more than 1.3 million. Perhaps of greatest importance to the Members of this body, because most of our constituents are middle income, the Census Bureau reported that the median household income, median, fell 2.2 percent last year, and that that was the first decline in median income in our country since 1991. Everybody lost, my friends. All but the top 5 to 10 percent of households by income lost. The only Americans to gain last year were those with incomes above $150,000. Why are we not paying any attention to the American economy? Why is the only attention of this body and of this administration on Iraq, thousands of miles away? Can we not talk about Iraq and talk about what the American people talk about every day as well, how their own household income is plunging and going down? Watch your constituents; watch your district. If you are from the Midwest, your median income fell 3.7 percent. If you are from the West, it fell 2.3 percent. Are my colleagues paying attention to what is happening in their face, in their districts, to their own constituents? Is there not something we can do for them before this House recesses? I am as worried about war as the next person. I am in a city that has every reason to worry about war. But there are a lot of worries on my mind. Another worry needs the attention of this body at least as much, and that is the economy of our country and the living standards of our constituents. That, my friends, is getting no attention from this body. That, my friends, is getting all the attention at home after they turn off all of the war talk. I hope that the pressure that I feel, the pressure of the economy, the decline of the Dow Jones today, the rise in the number of Americans falling below the poverty line, the reduction, the worst reduction in more than a decade, in the median income of American families, I hope that is enough to get our attention before it is too late. One has to be able to walk and chew gum if one is a Member of Congress. If all we can do is talk about one subject, if all we are worried about is Iraq and not around the corner from where we live, then when we go home, those of us who insist upon a single focus will be punished and should be punished. Let us listen to what most worries the American people. Let us listen to household incomes.