Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Lindy Boggs makes us use the words eloquence, intelligence and excellence in the same sentence. I think that is why 11 years after she left this House she continues to draw people to this floor when we speak her name. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes of the lasting contributions and the significance of the contributions Lindy Boggs has made. If I may be so presumptuous as to speak on behalf of the women who serve in the Congress, we are especially grateful to today honor a woman whom we regard as one of the seers, one of the great mentors of the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I appreciate that the gentleman never forgets that he spends more time in Washington than he does in his home district because the House meets here and not in California. I know that Lindy Boggs would especially appreciate the words of the gentleman who served with Lindy Boggs and who serves in such a bipartisan fashion to this day with us all. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from Florida emphasized that the Women's Caucus is a bipartisan caucus. I would like, myself, to reiterate that emphasis. It is, I think, not unusual that the name of Lindy Boggs would be associated with a bipartisan caucus in this House. The Women's Caucus for all of its accomplishments pursues those accomplishments in a bipartisan fashion. That is not always easy, but the fact is that we have found in the caucus that the great majority of the issues that come naturally to us are issues that are of their very nature bipartisan. It was my great privilege to chair the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues during one Congress. I must say that I think that Lindy Boggs would be especially proud that the caucus that she helped found has maintained its strong bipartisan focus and because of that focus has become one of the strongest caucuses in the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment. It is language identical to the language included in six previous appropriations bills. It makes sure that Pennsylvania Avenue, for 200 years America's Main Street, does not become a park without Congress having some say in it, that it would not be an administrative matter that the Park Service should simply be allowed to go ahead and do. It has been offered every year in the past by the distinguished former chair of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). I understand it has been cleared with the present chair, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and with ranking members of the full committee and of the subcommittee on our side. I want to make clear that it has no security impact. All during the time this amendment has been in force, all 6 years, the White House has proceeded to on Pennsylvania Avenue put up the appropriate security. If you go there now, they have the same contraption that goes up and down that we have to come into the Senate and House side of the House. While I am on the floor, I want to explain why I did not offer an amendment on the payment of rent by Wilson Center at the Ronald Reagan Building to the Federal building fund. I have been assured of discussions going on now to accomplish what my amendment seeks, so I will hold it in abeyance for the time being. This is a noncontroversial amendment. I simply ask that we reinsert the amendment that has previously been in the appropriation for the last 6 years.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I certainly want to thank our own ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and I very much want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, because they have worked very well together to get a bill that was much improved. I regret that I must, nevertheless, oppose the underlying bill. I think I am in good company. I would say it is top-down company. It begins with the President of the United States and goes to the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Mineta, the Secretary of the Transportation Security Agency, Mr. Magaw, and then to the flight attendants, and on and on it goes. What do these experts know that we do not know? Or should we not be asking ourselves this morning, What is it that we do not want to know? We are rushing to the security blanket of guns in the cockpit that could do more harm than good, and that is the test. As transparent as it seems, will guns in the cockpit do more harm than good? Which is worse, guns or no guns? Why is it that every European nation, every nation in the world has decided to disarm its pilots? For me, the ultimate example is El Al, which disarms its pilots, but faces risks I hope we shall never look in the face. Now, I could support this bill if it followed the El Al example. El Al, in fact, armed its pilots until it had put every single safeguard in place: locked cockpits, and everything on the ground that they needed to have done. And then what did El Al do? It disarmed its pilots. Now, if this bill had a provision in it that said, our pilots will be disarmed when A, B, C, D and E go into effect, I could support this bill. They disarmed their pilots, and everybody but us does so, because of the cost-benefit equation, and that is how policy should be made. Gun turmoil in the cockpit while keeping the plane flying, every nation in the world has concluded does more harm than good. One could prevail with the gun, but shoot the computer and still take the plane down. The armed pilot, we are being told, is the last resort. According to everybody who knows, every nation who has had experience, every expert in our own government, the armed pilot is a very dangerous resort that risks passengers and planes. We asked for a study of nonlethal weapons. That is not even in yet. We are hopping over that study to arm pilots. I appreciate the work that has been done. I respectfully disagree.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor because a bill has just been introduced to impose vouchers on the District of Columbia. The Congress had the opportunity to impose vouchers on itself when H.R. 1 was here, the President's Leave No Child Behind bill. Instead, it defeated a voucher proposal 273 to 155; 68 Republicans joined 204 Democrats. It was not even close. Further, there have been 20 referenda on vouchers, all of them defeated, most recently in California and Michigan. Not only were they defeated overwhelmingly by almost three-quarters of the population in each State but the people of color, minorities, voted even more overwhelmingly against vouchers. In D.C. we had our own voucher vote in the 1980s: 89 percent against, 11 percent for. What we are asking for in the Nation's capital is the same choices in educating our children that each and every Member of this body has insisted upon already for her own district and in her own State; and do not get me wrong, I do not believe a child can be in the first grade but once. So I strongly believe in choices and alternatives to public schools. The District deserves applause for its efforts on choice because our own efforts far outdo the efforts of any Member of this body. Applause, not punishment, for the choices we have made. What are our alternatives? First, we have more charter schools in the District of Columbia per capita than any other district. Fourteen percent of our children go to public charter schools. No other Member's district even approaches this percentage of its children in charter schools. Second, a D.C. child can go out of her own ward to any public school in the District of Columbia. We had children every day going from the poorest wards in 7th and 8th across to more wealthy wards, Ward 3, for example. Third, I have strongly supported the work of the Washington scholarship fund, a private organization that provides scholarships, mostly to Catholic schools, using private money. I mean that that effort using private money is precisely the way to support our children. Fourth, D.C. closes schools where it is not up to standard and then reopens them under new leadership. We have done that with nine schools this year with remarkable results. It is ironic that this bill would come up at this time. Today's Washington Times has an editorial: ``D.C. Schools Make Headway.'' It is an editorial from a newspaper that has been fiercely critical of the D.C. public schools. It opens by saying: ``Preliminary test data show that D.C. teachers appear to be teaching and students appear to be learning,'' and it cites statistics. Fifty percent of the children improved in math and reading. Did they do as well in my colleagues' districts? Children in the most economically deprived neighborhoods improved 20 percent. Did my colleagues' economically deprived children do as well? All of our charter schools are accountable. We can close charter schools, and have closed three this year, when they are not doing as well with our children. We can close public schools, and we closed nine this year, reopened them and they have done much better under new leadership. We can impose the same requirements on charter public schools as we do on other schools, and those requirements are very stiff. We cannot do that particularly to religious schools because they must not be accountable to the government in the practice of their religion. I want to be clear about where I stand on the D.C. public schools. I am a proud graduate of the D.C. public schools, but I am not an apologist for them. I am proud of how they are improving. They are not nearly good enough; but by voting against the bill that has been introduced, my colleagues will be voting against choices others have made for their districts, not voting against choice. We already have multiple choices in the District of Columbia, sufficient choices, so that I invite other Members to look at how to provide choices when their own people have voted against vouchers. There are other ways to acquire and to get choices. We would very much appreciate being allowed to make our own choices the way my colleagues' districts have insisted upon making their own choices. Read today's Washington Times: ``D.C. Schools Make Headway.'' Add to what my colleagues read. Respect the democratic choices of the citizens of the District of Columbia who are American citizens, entitled to their free choices, in the same way that my colleagues' own constituents are.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to make benefits received by the beneficiaries (who are not a spouse or child) of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty tax-free. My bill amends the Officer Brian Gibson Tax Free Pension Equity Act that I introduced in 1997 after a District of Columbia police officer was killed in Ward 4, to relieve the spouses and children of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty from taxation on death benefits. The law now applies to all law enforcement officers in the United States. I wrote the bill after I discovered that officers received disability benefits tax-free while the death benefits of survivors were taxed. I decided to amend my bill after the Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act of 2002, allowing domestic partners to receive Federal death benefits, was enacted and signed by the President last month. That bill was stimulated by September 11th and the discovery that the domestic partners of police and fire officers killed in the Twin Towers tragedy were being denied death benefits. The bill I introduce today is the logical companion bill to the 9-11 public safety officers bill that is now law because it simply allows the same exemption from taxation that other beneficiaries will now receive. Without this new bill, the very inequity Congress clearly intended to eliminate between the spouses and relatives of slain officers on the one hand and other beneficiaries on the other would be reintroduced. If the death benefits of these beneficiaries of slain officers are tax exempt, it follows that the same benefits to other congressionally recognized beneficiaries should be similarly exempt. I believe that this remaining difference was not deliberate, but resulted from the fact that my earlier bill amended the tax code and was not immediately apparent to the authors of the recent bill. I ask all of my colleagues to support this corrective measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the President's homeland security bill was delivered today. I am on two committees that have been considering homeland security, so I particularly welcome the President's work. Some of us have been there for over a year now, even a year before September 11. All or parts of some agencies are, of course, to go together in a new department. When I say ``all or parts,'' I am indicating simply one of the details to be decided. The devil may be in the details, but so are the angels. I would like to tease out three issues that I think can be dealt with if we look them squarely in the face and understand they should not be barriers. First, there is the unfortunate issue of silence or delay on Civil Service protection for the thousands of workers that would be coming. We could begin by, it seems to me, conceding that wholesale denial of Civil Service status would create an unnecessary issue and would be very unfortunate. We are talking about people who do many different kinds of things, most of them not related to anything that could remotely be considered the Nation's security. The mantra will be, ``Hey, let's decide all of that later.'' That creates needless uncertainty and opposition to this bill. Most of these employees will be doing what they have always been doing. The few who will be handling truly confidential information should be treated accordingly. We must not let homeland security become like the use of other overbroad terms, like ``executive privilege'' or ``national security.'' There ought to be a presumption in favor of Civil Service status for these employees. If you can overcome it, that is one thing. Let us not begin by saying let us strip these workers of their Civil Service status. Let me raise two other concerns, District of Columbia concerns. Wisely, the District and the President have understood the District of Columbia is the first responder for the entire Federal presence, the White House, the Congress, many Federal employees, 200,000 of them, all of those facilities. In one of the bills I was able to place the District at the table so that the District can coordinate all that is necessary in order to be a first responder. In fact, the Justice Department Terrorism Task Force has been working just that closely with the District. In the President's bill I will seek to insert such an understanding. The President, I think, already understands this. The President has asked our own Mayor, Tony Williams, to be a part of his Homeland Commission that he just formed this week, so I think he understands that the first responder has to be in on the details from the beginning. Finally, there is the issue of where to locate the Department. The troubling word in the Washington Post today is about the possible location outside the District of Columbia. It was said this was only in the discussion phase. Let it stop there. I bring to the floor not only my own parochial concerns, that this is the Nation's Capital, and this is where important Cabinet agencies should be. There have executive orders for decades now indicating that. But I have a more important reason to offer. The United States Government owns and controls 180 acres 3 miles from the Capitol with all the possibility for the setbacks. We probably only need 20 or 30 of those acres. It is the old Saint Elizabeth's Hospital campus, with some of the best views in Washington. FEMA is already looking at this land for its new headquarters. It is close in. It would not cost us any money. If you try to go somewhere outside of Washington, you will get wholesale opposition from those communities because they do not want their land off the tax rolls. Ours is already off. The Federal Government already owns it. The District is making use of the east campus for a new public safety communications facility. It makes sense for us to look very closely at the Saint Elizabeth's campus, this huge campus, if we are talking about placing another huge agency under the aegis of our own government. These are matters that should not become issues. They will require study. They will mean that we have to take our time to get at the details, put them on the table and consider all the options, instead of jumping to conclusions about where to locate the agency or who to strip of his job protection. Let us not put unnecessary issues on the table. There will be many hard issues on the table. The issues I have named, these three issues, where to locate, to make sure that the District is included in the bill, and to make sure that people are not stripped of their Civil Service protection, these should be easy issues if we mean to get this bill out by September 11, or certainly by the time we leave to go home at the end of this session.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me time. Homeownership Month should be a time to study and take note of both the successes and the problems our country faces in homeownership. The President is in Atlanta speaking today about homeownership for minority Americans, and I applaud him for doing so. The reason one focuses on minority Americans, people of color, is because of a success story. During the New Deal, one of Roosevelt's aims was for every American to own her own home. Today, we can say that almost every American does own her own home. The average American has obtained homeownership; and if we look at who has not, who has not are, of course, those who have had other disadvantages in society, and particularly people of color. In the 1990s we had an extraordinary housing boom and people of color forged ahead in homebuying as never before. But with the housing boom came economic boom that has very much subsided. Indeed, unemployment continues to go up every month, even given all of the prognostications about the recession being over. Even so, the housing boom brought a housing bust for many families. If you live in the District of Columbia or any suburb of any great city in the United States, finding affordable housing is like looking for a needle in a haystack. It has gone to the top of the list of American problems, receiving, however, almost no attention in our country and certainly no attention from this body. It is a great problem of our time. I do want to focus on a great success story here in the Nation's Capital, however. I was able in 1997 to get a $5,000 homebuyer credit for people who buy homes in the District of Columbia if you have not owned a house previously in the District and if you have an income of up to $90,000 for single people and up to $130,000 for married people. It goes up to that degree because the need in the District was for middle-income people. We have got more poor people than most other parts of the region. A $5,000 homebuyer credit, of course, can be the down payment on a $100,000 House; and Fannie Mae has monetized the homebuying credit, meaning it is in fact the down payment for many people. An independent study has looked at the $5,000 homebuyer credit and what it has done for this city and what a similar credit given by States could do for other large cities. The Greater Washington Research Center in one study found that over half of those who bought homes said the credit caused them to buy at this time. In 2000, 50 percent of those who bought homes in the District of Columbia bought homes because of the credit. I have a provision before the House that would make the $5,000 homebuyer credit, perhaps the most successful economic stimulus in the city's history, permanent. It is chiefly responsible for stemming the flight that almost destroyed the city's tax base during the 1980s and during the financial crisis of the 1990s. The credit offers significant evidence that a tightly targeted tax incentive can have a major turnaround effect on a central problem confronting a city. The credit has been so successful that we have recommended that States do the same for many large cities that are rapidly losing taxpayers. 70 percent of the D.C. homeowners who purchased homes the year after the credit was passed did so because of the credit. The $5,000 homebuyer credit has proved itself so quickly and well that I have been able to get it repeatedly extended by Congress. It is minimally necessary if the city is to have any chance of increasing its still small and depleted tax base, which is an urgent necessity in this city at this time. I am grateful that the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) has been working with me to extend the credit. Most such credits go up to 9 years. I have had to go every 3 years to get this credit extended. It expires at the end of the next fiscal year, the end of 2003. The city, your Nation's Capital, needs 100,000 more residents for the capital city to be stable. This credit has proved its worth, using market forces and a tiny tax base, this tax credit provided by the Federal Government. States can do that for cities like Boston and Chicago. Only the Federal Government can do this for the capital of the United States. It has been an extraordinary success. It has helped us to get a diverse tax base once again.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, approximately 3,000 cases of meningitis occur each year in the United States. Ten to thirteen percent of patients die, despite receiving antibiotics early in the illness. Of those who survive, an additional 10 percent have severe after-effects of the disease, including mental retardation, hearing loss, and loss of limbs. On September 30, 1997, the American College Health Association, which represents about half of the colleges with student health services in the United States, released a statement recommending that ``college health services take a more proactive role in alerting students and their parents about the dangers of meningococcal disease.'' Studies undertaken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that freshman college students, particularly those who live in dormitories, constitute a group that are at a modestly increased rate for meningococcal disease. Meningitis is an infection of the fluid of a person's spinal cord and the fluid that surrounds the brain. The disease is usually caused by a viral or bacterial infection. The bacteria are very common and live naturally in the back of the nose and throat. They normally spread between people in close and prolonged contact by coughing, sneezing and intimate kissing. Children under 5, teenagers, young adults, and the elderly are most at risk of contracting the disease. However, college students are a key at-risk group because of their lifestyle, which includes the close togetherness of student accommodations. This resolution supporting Meningitis Awareness Month will alert college students and those most susceptible to the disease to vaccines and immunization efforts that help combat the disease. I urge all Members to give this bill their support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent of this sense of the House resolution on obesity and health. It is time to do more than pass this resolution, to do more than talk about this issue. Until 2001, this Congress had never taken any substantial action to combat the most widespread health problem in the United States today: obesity and overweight. I worked with then chairman John Porter, now retired, chairman of the Committee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. He had an abiding interest in this issue. Chairman Porter, before whom I testified on my own bill on this issue, put the first substantial funding to combat overweight and obesity, $125 million. It is pathetic that I am calling $125 million substantial funding. That is only when measured by what we had done before, a couple or $3 million every year. But, Mr. Speaker, there was no money. After Chairman Porter put $125 million, there was no money in the President's budget last year. I came to the floor, worked with the Committee on Appropriations, and we got something above $68 million in. That is a little over half of what Chairman Porter left as his legacy: $125 million. Now we are in 2003, Mr. Speaker. Once again, there is no money in the administration's budget for overweight and obesity, our most widespread health problem. We have to do it again, Mr. Speaker, unless we are going to be satisfied with this resolution. I do not think even those who offered it would be satisfied with this alone. The $125 million is meant chiefly for combatting overweight and obesity among children. That is where the epidemic is the worst. Of course, that is where it is most preventable. Chairman Porter agreed on the floor to incorporate sections of my own bill called LIFE, Lifetime Improvement in Health and Exercise. It had three sections, three rather commonsense sections: First was training health professionals to recognize overweight before it becomes obesity. When people get to be obese, it is too late. It is very hard to come down, even from being overweight, much less obese. The health professions do not get in there early enough; Secondly, strategies so people in their own workplaces and communities could begin on a mass schedule to incorporate exercise that people can do, that elderly people can do, that children can do, that harried middle-class working people can do; Third, there is mass education. I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that the first section of our bill is about to be under way this year. CDC, which was charged with this first $125 million, is about to launch a 15-city tour where it will roll out this new mass education, which means ads we will see on television trying to get children and their parents off of the fast food that is among what is making them obese. Our response this year, remember, is zero funding. I implore everybody who votes for this resolution to help us get money in the appropriation bill to prevent at least a dozen diseases we could all name ourselves. This epidemic involves every race, every economic background, and every age group. It is amazing the young people, young people in their teens and early twenties, that are deeply involved in this overweight and obesity problem. Computers and cable made us all couch potatoes. We have an obligation, we and only we can do it, to assume leadership of the American people and try to get rid of this terrible epidemic. Only Congress can send a wake-up call to the American people to get out and exercise and get off the fast food.

Mr. NORTON

Mr. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 65th Anniversary of Wake Robin Golf Club, Inc. In noting this milestone, I am particularly pleased to honor the outstanding contributions that the Wake Robin Golf Club, Inc. has made to increase the involvement of African Americans in golf. Since its beginning in 1937, the Wake Robin Golf Club, Inc. has made many important contributions to expand opportunities for African Americans, particularly for women, in the District of Columbia and our nation. In 1938, members of the Wake Robin Golf Club, Inc. drafted a petition to the Secretary of the Interior requesting the desegregation of public golf courses in Washington, D.C. Three years later, because of their great persistence and energy, the Secretary issued an order honoring this courageous and groundbreaking request. Members of the Wake Robin Golf Club, Inc. worked alongside other minority clubs to encourage the Professional Golf Association to abandon its ``Caucasian-only'' rule for eligibility, until the PGA finally integrated. The club also helped to organize and support the United Golfers Association, which hosted tournaments throughout the country for stellar African American golf professionals, including Ted Rhodes, Charlie Sifford and Lee Elder. This country needs many more cutting edge organizations to follow the extraordinary example of Wake Robin Golf Club. The Wake Robin Golf Club, Inc. endured and prospered while its members fought to end the exclusionary practices in golf. Today, there is still no fancy clubhouse, no driving range, no practice putting green, and no home golf course for members. But the club membership continues to grow with over 50 active members who play weekly in the Washington area. There are weekend matches, monthly tournaments, a five year incremental anniversary tournament and a club championship. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in honoring Wake Robin Golf, Inc, whose dedicated and unwavering leadership has made and continues to make a significant impact on African American golf players.

Mr. NORTON

Mr. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Washington, DC's 12th Annual Black Pride Festival, May 24 through May 27, 2002, and its organizer Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc. (BLGPD). BLGPD's mission is to build awareness of and pride in the diversity of the Black lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community, as well as to create a funding source and support for organizations that are addressing HIV/AIDS and other health issues adversely affecting the AfricanAmerican community. In keeping with this mission, this year's Black Pride theme is: ``A time to heal.'' Since its inception in 1991, Black Pride has grown from a single gathering on the Banneker High School Field to the largest Black Gay and Lesbian Festival in the world. Black Pride attracts attendees from every major urban area in the United States as well as participants from Canada, England, Germany and the Netherlands. This year more than 10,000 people will participate in a four-day celebration, which includes over thirty different events including a Youth Party, a Wellness Expo and the first Black LGBT Film Festival to become part of the official schedule of events. Black Pride culminates Sunday with the DC Black Pride Expo at the Washington Convention Center. The citizens of the District of Columbia and I feel a special affinity for any Americans who do not share all the rights and privileges enjoyed by most citizens of the United States. On Thursday, May 23rd at 2:30 PM, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee will hold an historic hearing on the ``No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2001.'' My Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered constituents feel the lack of a vote in the House most acutely. They bear the burdens of our democracy, yet they neither have complete access to its power to redress the injustices that befall Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Americans, nor do they have full power to redress those special injustices, which we suffer in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, Congress has not yet protected sexual orientation from discrimination. Despite increasing reports of violence and physical abuse against Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered Americans, Congress has not enacted protections against hate crimes. Congress must pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Congress must pass the Hate Crime Prevention Act. Congress must pass the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. Congress must return full voting rights to the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in saluting the 12th Annual Black Pride Festival; its organizers, Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc.; its sponsors; and the volunteers whose dedicated and creative energy make Black Pride possible.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge, with praise and admiration, Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, president of the Skinner Leadership Institute (SLI). Dr. Williams-Skinner has just earned her Doctor of Divinity degree at Howard University while continuing to make generous contributions to the residents of the District of Columbia and to our country. Dr. Skinner was a very effective former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus, and continues to play an important role in coordinating the Caucus Foundation's Prayer Breakfast, which annually brings together more than 3000 African American leaders in government, business, and entertainment from across the country. Most recently, under Barbara Skinner's leadership, SLI has helped to prepare hundreds of District youth to become leaders by emphasizing to teenagers the importance of equipping themselves with tools necessary to make important contributions in a new global community. She chairs the Community Equity Empowerment Partnership and Urban Leadership Academy, a program designed to mobilize young citizens to rebuild urban communities through a comprehensive educational-based leadership development initiative. This training program assists youngsters in maximizing their career potential by offering them long-term employment and economic opportunities. Since Fall 2000, the Urban Leadership Academy has trained approximately 500 youth from grades 9 through 12 at Ballou and Anacostia High Schools in the District of Columbia. SLI has also provided financial and technical support to four learning centers throughout the District, serving over 250 students. Barbara Williams-Skinner's service to the youth of the District of Columbia builds upon the vision she shared with her late husband, Tom Skinner, a renowned evangelist and champion in the struggle against racism, who dedicated his life to promoting morality and understanding among young people. Just as Tom Skinner attempted to bridge the gap between black and white faith communities, Barbara Williams-Skinner continues their joint legacy, finding new and innovative ways to minister to a diverse array of cultures. Most notable among Dr. Skinner's other significant contributions to the District is her service to Howard University. Dr. Skinner has been intimately involved with the campus ministry at Howard, helping students organize prayer groups and community service activities. She continues to encourage Howard University students to volunteer as mentors to young people in the city's poorest wards. After years of such efforts at Howard, it is most appropriate that she has recently received her Doctorate of Ministry degree from its School of Divinity last Sunday. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in honoring Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, whose dedication and energy continue to make a significant impact on the youth of the District of Columbia and on our Nation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), as well as our subcommittee chair and ranking members, for working so well and so closely together to bring this bill to the floor today. One thing we have enough money for in this time of war-time priorities, this time of recession is to continue to builds our roads and bridges. Thank goodness for the trust fund. Have trust in the trust fund. It would be absurd to let the technicality of a flawed formula keep us from doing what we always do in times of recession: we build and we make jobs. We are told, of course, that we are coming out of a recession. Well, I want someone to tell that to the 8.6 million Americans who are jobless. I want you to look at our unemployment rates: February, 5.5 percent; March, 5.7 percent; April, 6 percent. Surely Congress can do more with rising unemployment than make it worse. We have heard about stimulus all last year. This is the stimulus bill. That is what this bill is, and it would destimulate the economy if we were to pull it. Remember, we are not restoring what we had hoped to achieve, but only what we guaranteed to achieve. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the job loss by State if there were an $8.6 billion cut in the Highway trust fund, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Members are coming to the floor as we approach Mother's Day. I am coming as well. Many mark Mother's Day in their own ways, very diverse ways. But if we ask the mothers of the Nation what would they most want for Mother's Day, the choice of many would be gun safety legislation to protect their children. The proof, of course, is that 2 years ago on Mother's Day, almost a million mothers and their families used Mother's Day to come to their Nation's capital to work productively for just such legislation. We do not yet have the gun safety legislation for our children these mothers so desperately wanted, but in recognition of Mother's Day this year, I thought that it would behoove me to introduce a realistic piece of gun safety legislation, recognizing that in many ways this issue has been off the radar screen, to find a way to put it back on the national agenda. And so I have introduced the Nationwide Gun Back Act of 2002. Mr. Speaker, hopefully this is the kind of gun safety legislation everyone can join in, whether pro or anti so-called gun control, because this is simply about how to help people voluntarily get illegal guns out of their own homes, and jurisdictions would, of course, participate only voluntarily. My bill would provide $100 million in Federal funds, a real pittance in our budget, to allow cities across the United States, small towns, counties, to do gun buy-backs of the kind that were done so successfully just a few years ago in the District of Columbia and in other parts of the country. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms would evaluate the proposals and distribute the funds. A jurisdiction would have to certify that it was capable of destroying the guns within 30 days of running an amnesty program, and of being fully capable of conducting such a buy-back program. Let me tell Members why I think all Members would want to be for this. There are throughout this Nation millions of people who know there are illegal guns in their homes who cannot come forward to get rid of them without implicating a relative. They fear if they came forward and said take this gun out of my house before some relative uses it on another relative, or somebody commits suicide, they cannot come forward without implicating a son, a daughter, a grandson, and so they sit there knowing that gun is in the house and unable to get rid of it. I want to say to those folks who want to get that gun out of the home, a gun illegally there, a gun for which there is no license, we will buy back the gun, usually for $50 or $100 to encourage people to come out. We did this in the District of Columbia; enormous success. Long lines. More than 6,000 firearms were turned in in three buy-backs. Not only did we do this in the District of Columbia, a number of other cities across the United States did the same thing. We did a kind of pilot program that showed that it could work. The notion that there would be hundreds of people standing in line waiting to give a gun to the cops is, I think, what all of America would like to see when it comes to gun safety for our children. It is children, as we see, who get hold of these guns, who want these guns, who use these guns because that is a child-like thing to do. We need to get these guns out of our homes. After using almost $400,000 in forfeiture money, some HUD money, we had to stop collecting the guns because we no longer had funds to buy back the guns, for goodness sake, on Mother's Day. If we want to do something to keep youngsters from getting hold of guns, going into the classroom and shooting at teachers and students, doing God knows what with guns, let us find a noncontroversial way of reducing gun violence. This, it seems to me, is just that way. It simply says wherever Members stand on guns, they are for guns being only in the hands of those people authorized to carry them. If a mother or father sees a gun brought into their home by a kid, allow that family member to get rid of that gun. This is the way that I would celebrate Mother's Day.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in closing I cannot stand simply as a member of the subcommittee and offer the subcommittee's views on Paul Simon, because anyone who had the great pleasure and honor of knowing Senator Paul Simon, as I did, would have to inform this House that this was a man of the House and of the Senate who not only deserves this honor but who still resides in the hearts of many of us who remain here. I was not in the House when Senator Simon served in the House. I got to know him when he came to the House and he was a Senator living in Southwest Washington. Here was a Senator who managed to be, of course, deeply involved in matters pertaining to his own State, but because he lived in Southwest Washington felt he had to become a citizen of Southwest as well. And he and his wife engaged in activities to help improve the District of Columbia. It was not only through the District of Columbia's affairs that I got to admire Senator Simon. I have particular admiration for his extraordinary intellect, for his gifts as a writer and as a journalist. There are any number of different institutions that can be named for Paul Simon because his talents are spread so evenly across so many different fields. I want to particularly thank this Senator for the generosity he showed the people of the District of Columbia. He supported statehood. He supported full voting rights and full citizenship for the residents of the District. So it is not only a member of the committee, and I think speaking for all of us in the House and Senate that I stand to honor him today, speaking also with special warmth and meaning on behalf of residents of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the Senate bill, S. 378, a bill to designate the Job Corps center located at 334 South Kedzie Avenue in Chicago as the Paul Simon Chicago Job Corps Center. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, introduced the House companion bill, H.R. 2015, to honor the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Paul Simon. He was born in 1928 in Eugene, Oregon. He attended the University of Oregon and Dana College in Blair, Nebraska. As a 19-year-old teenager, he became the Nation's youngest editor-publisher when he accepted a local Lions Club challenge to save the Troy Tribune in Troy, Illinois. Needless to say, he met and exceeded the challenge, and proceeded to establish a chain of 13 newspapers in southern and central Illinois. In 1954, he was elected to the Illinois House, and in 1962, he was elected to the Illinois Senate. During his State legislative career, he earned a reputation for political integrity and courage. In 1968, Senator Simon was elected lieutenant governor, and was the first person in State history to hold that post with the governor of another party. In 1974, Senator Simon was elected to the House of Representatives, and served for 10 years. His legislative skills were put to use on issue areas including education, disability policy, and foreign affairs. He played a crucial role in establishing the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. In 1984, he upset the three-term incumbent, Senator Charles Percy, to win election to the U.S. Senate. Senator Simon was a prodigious worker, known for exceptional constituent service. His even-handed and balanced approach to topics and controversial issues earned him friends on both sides of the aisle. His colleagues appreciated his personal warmth and sense of humor. Paul Simon currently teaches political science and journalism at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale campus, and heads up the public policy institute that he founded. Those of us who know Paul and his many talents are particularly delighted at this very fitting honor. It is just that, a fitting and proper tribute to an outstanding public career. I support S. 378, and urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation, named for Senator Paul Simon. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, known as the Crusading Chemist and the father of the Federal Food and Drug Act, was born in a log farm house in 1844 near Kent, Indiana. After receiving his education in local schools, he attended Hanover College. And in 1841 he received his medical degree from Indiana Medical College. Following a brief assignment at Harvard University, Wiley returned to Indiana in 1874 to accept a faculty position in chemistry at the newly opened Purdue University. In 1833 he was appointed as chief chemist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. After 29 years at the Bureau of Chemistry, Wiley resigned to accept a position at Good Housekeeping Institute's Bureau of Food Sanitation and Health. In this position Wiley established the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Dr. Wiley was a visionary and pioneer for the necessity of safe food and drug supplies and was vigilant in protecting the consumer. His public career was dedicated to establishing and improving government regulations regarding safe food and drug processing. It is fitting that Dr. Wiley be honored with this designation at the new FDA headquarters in College Park, Maryland. I commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for introducing this bill and for his leadership in moving this bill through the legislative process. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the author of this bill.