Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, let this body recognize, in its own Congressional Record, where Congress draws the attention of the world to the important issues of the day, the actions of a representative group of citizens of the District of Columbia. On April 15, faced with the denial of rights by this House and by the Senate, these citizens will burn copies of their United States government tax forms for the same reason their ancestors started the Revolutionary War 227 years ago. April 15 is but one of the many days that mark the insistence of this government on 100 percent of the obligations of citizenship from D.C. residents while the same government fails in its obligation to reciprocate with the basic rights every government owes to taxpaying citizens. September 11, which so recently called D.C. citizens to war, is another such memorable date. December 7, when D.C.'s young men and women responded to Pearl Harbor, is yet another. Even more than our taxes, our contributions in sacrifices by the men and women of the District, who have fought and died for their country tell a unique story: In World War I, more D.C. casualties than 3 states; in World War II, more D.C. casualties than 4 states; in Vietnam, more D.C. casualties than 10 states. These lives given for our country are trivialized when the Congress remains unmoved by our just demand to remove taxation with representation. The same Congress has no hesitation in taking our money, more per capita than from any residents except the residents of the state of Connecticut, while at the same time denying us a vote in the Congress that votes to impose these taxes on us. The government of the United States enriches itself with funds from the fruits of our labor. In return, the government owes us the vote in the Congress of the United States. We pay. We want to be paid with voting representation. Expect to hear from us and other Americans often, the next occasion, a month from now on May 15, on D.C. Citizens Lobby Day for Congressional Voting Rights, focusing first on the Senate. We say to the Congress: Don't expect us to allow you to claim for yourself the title of guardian of democracy in the world while denying full democracy to your own citizens here at the very seat of our government. Nor should you take satisfaction from the fact that most D.C. citizens will pay or have paid their taxes this year. They pay under protest, but they will not pay with their silence, their dignity, or their rights. There is no quid pro quo for full representation in the Congress that votes to tell us what to do and how much to pay while denying our right to vote on what to do and how much to pay. There is only one coin of the realm we will accept. We must have our vote in the House and the Senate. We put you on notice in your own official record that we are coming straight at you for our vote. Look for us on May 15.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to permit statues honoring citizens of the District of Columbia in the same manner as statues honoring citizens of the States are placed in Statuary Hall in the Capitol. This legislation would amend two acts of Congress governing the submission and placement of statues in Statuary Hall to allow the District of Columbia to offer two statues to the Congress on behalf of D.C. residents. The District of Columbia was born with the nation itself after the War for Independence. The city has more than two centuries of its very own rich and uniquely American history. It goes without saying that the almost 600,000 American citizens who live in the nation's capital deserve the honor of having two of its history makers represented in the halls of the nation's Capitol just as citizens who live in the 50 states have long enjoyed. This bill would allow the Mayor and the Council of the District of Columbia to devise the method for determining the identity of the honorees. Mayor Anthony Williams has already agreed to find funds in the District's budget for these statues upon the passage of this legislation. While D.C. residents have not yet obtained full political equality with the states, they have all the responsibilities of the states, including paying all federal taxes and serving in all wars. D.C. residents are second per capita in federal income taxes. They have served in every war since the Revolutionary War. In World War I, the district suffered more casualties than three states, in World War II, more casualties than four states, in Korea, more casualties than eight states, and in Vietnam, more casualties than in 10 states. These responsibilities and sacrifices speak best to some of the important reasons for this bill. After more than 200 years, this bill offers District residents the opportunity to enjoy the same pride that all other citizens experience when they come to their Capitol--the opportunity to view memorials that commemorate the efforts of deceased local residents who have made significant contributions to American history. I ask for prompt passage of this mark of simple dignity and respect to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act of 2002, to eliminate the congressional review period of 30 days and 60 days respectively, for civil and criminal acts passed by the D.C. City Council. This bill is the fraternal twin of H.R. 2995, the District of Columbia Fiscal Integrity Act of 2001, which would allow the District's budget to become law upon enactment by the District government. Under the current system, all acts of the Council are subjected to this Congressional layover period, and the District's budget cannot become law without congressional approval. Experience demonstrates that these are unnecessary and undemocratic requirements that add nothing except an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to an already overburdened city government and to Congress and its processes. Since the adoption of the Home Rule Act in 1973, over 2000 acts have been passed by the council and signed into law by the Mayor. Only 43 acts have been challenged by a congressional disapproval resolution. Only three of those resolutions ever passed the Congress and two involved a distinct federal interest. Bills to correct for any federal interest, rather than placing a hold on 2000 bills, would have saved considerable time and money for the District and the Congress. It is important to emphasize that this bill does not prevent review of District laws by Congress. The D.C. Subcommittee could continue to scrutinize every piece of legislation passed by the City Council if it desired, and to change or strike legislation under the plenary authority over the District that the Constitution affords to the Congress. My bill merely eliminates the automatic hold placed on local legislation and the need to pass emergency and temporary legislation to keep the District functioning. The hold on legislation forces the City Council to pass most legislation using a cumbersome and complicated process in which bills are passed concurrently on an emergency, temporary, and permanent basis to ensure that the large, rapidly changing city remains running. The Legislative Autonomy bill would eliminate the need for the District to engage in the byzantine process of enacting emergency and temporary legislation concurrently with permanent legislation. The Home Rule Charter contemplates that if the District needs to pass legislation while Congress is out of session, it may do so if two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergency exists, a majority of the Council approves the law and the Mayor signs it. Emergency legislation, however, lasts for only 90 days, which would (in theory) force the Council to the pass permanent legislation by undergoing the usual congressional review process when Congress returns. Similarly, the Home Rule Charter contemplates that the Council may pass temporary legislation lasting 120 days without being subjected to the congressional review process, but must endure the congressional layover period for that legislation to become law. I ask my colleagues, who are urging the District government to pursue greater efficiency and savings, to do their part in giving the city the tools to cut through the bureaucratic maze the Congress itself has imposed upon the District. Congress has been clear that it wants to see the D.C. government taken apart and put back together again in an effort to eliminate redundancy and inefficiency. Much of that work is in progress or has been accomplished, and Congress has taken note of improvements which eliminate such inefficiency in the D.C. government. Congress should therefore eliminate that part of the bureaucracy that for which Congress is solely responsible by granting the city budgetary and legislative autonomy. Eliminating the hold on D.C.'s budget and legislation would save scarce D.C. taxpayer revenue and simultaneously eliminate the advance congressional review that helps depress the city's bond rating. At the same time, Congress would give up none of its plenary power because under Article III, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress can intervene into any District matter at any time. The limited legislative autonomy granted in this bill would allow the District to realize a greater measure of meaningful self-government and Home Rule. This goal can be achieved without prejudice to congressional authority. I urge my colleagues to pass this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of anger on the floor today, and to me this is such a sad day. It is total reversal of all our former self-congratulation. The last administration took credit for beginning our deficit reduction course to save Social Security and Medicare. The majority said oh, no, we are doing it, and the country gave us both the credit. There will be no question where the blame lies for dynamiting the lockbox. The Social Security and Medicare lockbox will be remembered as the most fraudulent metaphor the majority has ever used on this floor. The majority has taken us back to the dark budget ages of using budget estimates by political appointees rather than by the professionals of the Congressional Budget Office. The American people are always willing to take domestic cuts in time of war. Members will never convince them. They are too smart to be convinced by a budget that tells them we can do tax cuts, fight a war, and defeat a recession at the same time. The seniors and the baby boomers deserve a lot better.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, on Monday I introduced the Fair Federal Compensation Act. The mayor of the city and the City Council chair stood with me as I put this act forward. Madam Speaker, the act is aimed at dealing with an impending crisis that I think the Congress would want to take hold of before it happens, particularly since the District has just come out of a financial crisis, the worst in 100 years, and this one is not of the District's own making. This is a crisis the District cannot tax its way out of, cannot grow its way out of, because of restrictions placed on the city by the Federal Government. I speak of a structural financial imbalance that comes from the requirement of the Federal Government that the taxpayers of the District of Columbia pay for services rendered to the Federal Government and to Federal employees without any reimbursement for those services. Because almost 1 million people come in every day, and only 600,000 people live here, it has become impossible to do that, and over time, a new crisis will break out unless we get hold of it now. I think I have a win-win way to deal with that crisis through an infrastructure fund that would benefit the entire region, not only the residents of the District of Columbia. It would reduce this dangerous financial burden imposed on the city without imposing taxes on the American people or on commuters. It would simply involve a transfer of 2 percent of the taxes that commuters, almost all of them Federal employees, already pay to the Federal Government. As a way to calculate the cost of the services, there has to be a limit on how much money the Federal Government is going to transfer, we say this money is for the cost of the services provided Federal employees, so you take 2 percent of the taxes they already pay. There is no cost to the commuters. I have never introduced a commuter tax. There is no cost to the American people, because there is no increase in taxes. The amount is infinitesimal. It is $400 million a year, about that amount, going up only gradually as commuters' salaries go up. That does not even register in the Federal budget because it is so small. And it is about a third of the money that we think the taxpayers of the District of Columbia put out in order to deal with Federal employees, Federal services, and the Federal presence. No city in the United States has to carry this built-in, mandatory financial imbalance. If we were in another city, there is some State aid that helps the city to handle it; or sometimes there is a commuter tax or a wage tax of some kind to help the city. The District does not have any of that and cannot have any of that. Sometimes people build high because if you keep building up, you can make up for the taxes that are lost. The District cannot do that. There is a height limit on how high we can build. The Federal Government takes 42 percent of the land for its own purposes. So we are trying to find a way to deal with this crisis before it gets out of control and without imposing any additional burdens. This method, this simple transfer, based on the taxes commuters already pay, gives us a reasonably accurate calculation of the services used by Federal employees. It is a predictable amount, which allows the District to do the necessary budget forecasting. It costs commuters nothing, it costs the American people nothing extra, and it is tied to commuters' salaries, so it goes up very modestly, and you do not have to come to the Congress every year to get it appropriated, because it takes place simply as a part of a simple transaction, tax transaction. We think that when we have done what the District has done, which is to pull itself out of the worst financial crisis in 100 years; when we are in the middle of a recession and yet the District still has a surplus because it has been so prudent; in other words, we have our operating budget under control, we think it is fair to come to the Federal Government and say we have another kind of deficit; it is a structural deficit. It has nothing to do with our operating deficit. Trust us, we are never going to let the operating problems get out of control. It has nothing to do with the operating budget. But we do have this problem which is entirely of your making, you the Federal Government, because the Federal Government has not thought about this problem and certainly the Congress has not. We introduced this bill, the Mayor and the city council Chair stood with me, indicating the importance of the bill to the city. I appreciate that regional members have seemed open. They have not embraced the bill yet, but they say that it certainly does not hurt their own constituents in the region and it will not hurt the American people. I ask for my colleagues' study of this bill and ultimate approval.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as we move toward welfare reform, I want to report an extraordinary standing-room-only hearing by our Commission on Black Men and Boys here in the District last night. I established this 12-man commission after noting serious challenges facing black men about a year ago; just as by focusing on women and children, we made good progress. The problems of black men are deep: 6 percent of the population, 50 percent of inmates in jail, half of all HIV cases. The devastating effect has been on the African American family. This began with a flight of jobs, manufacturing jobs, from the African American community, replaced by an underground economy and an underground culture. We have to do something about those jobs. The lead witness last night was Darrell Green, the legendary football star who started his own foundation to assist youth and who spoke about manhood and about his own policy work. The commission is drawing its own action plan that the city has said it will carry out. I am grateful to the minority staff of the Committee on Government Reform, which is working with me to translate the commission's work nationally to benefit other districts.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 364, the College Access Improvement Act, as amended by the Senate and as further amended by the bill we offer in the House today. H. Res. 364 would allow more D.C. residents to receive the valuable benefits of the College Access Act passed by Congress in 1999. I want to thank the Chair of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and the past Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), who are original cosponsors of this bill; the gentlewoman from Maryland for her consistent work and strong support of the House version, and the gentleman from Virginia, who, with me, sponsored and worked diligently for passage of the original College Access Act. The Senate amendments before us today are the result of collegial negotiations to produce a consensus bill with our Senate sponsors, particularly the ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, George Voinovich, the chief sponsor of the Senate bill, with the strong support of Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, and Ranking Member Senator Fred Thompson, and chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Dick Durbin. I appreciate the willingness of the House leadership, particularly the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), along with conference chair, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. J.C. Watts), as well as the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), to work with us on the amended version of the bill before us today which ensures that the College Access Act, as amended by H. Res. 364, does not exceed its annual appropriation. We are pleased and appreciative that the College Access Act, including the amendments made by H. Res. 364, have been fully funded by President Bush in his 2003 budget. H. Res. 364, as amended, has the enthusiastic support of Mayor Williams, the Council of the District of Columbia, and especially of D.C. residents. I want once again to thank Congress for its strong support of the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999, and to indicate that the benefits to education Congress sought are being realized. The act is now responsible for nearly 2,500 D.C. students who are attending public colleges and universities nationwide at in-state rates, or receiving a $2,500 stipend to attend private colleges and universities in the District of Columbia and the region. It is impossible to overestimate the value and importance of the act to the District which has only an open admissions university and no State university system. A college degree is critical in the District of Columbia because ours is a white collar and technology city and region with few factories and other opportunities for jobs that provide good wages without a college education. The College Access Act provides opportunities for D.C. residents to afford a college education here, in the region and around the country that would be routinely available throughout the Nation with the exception of the District. Now D.C. residents have choices for college education similar to those available to Americans in the 50 States. In no small part because of the success of the College Access Act, the high school class in the District of Columbia of 2001 had 64 percent college attendance compared with the national average of 43 percent. H. Res. 364 will expand the original College Access Act of 1999 in several significant ways. The bill allows D.C. residents to receive a $2,500 stipend to attend any historically black college and university in the country rather than only in the region as in the original act. Over 600 D.C. residents are expected to take advantage of this important provision in the first year after enactment. Second, students who are somewhat older because they graduated prior to 1998 were not included in the original College Access Act because of the Senate's fear that funding would be insufficient. Actually, funding was sufficient; and I appreciate that we have been able to get agreement with the Senate to expand tuition benefits to at least two groups of older students. The first group is D.C. residents currently enrolled in college, regardless of when these students graduated and regardless of the amount of time it took those students to enroll in college. This change will enable approximately 1,000 students previously denied in-state tuition, including many older students, to qualify this year. A second group of older students will benefit as a result of language that removes a requirement that a student enroll in college no longer than 3 years after high school graduation. The Senate has agreed to remove the 3-year constraint prospectively. Consequently, the first group of students who took longer than 3 years to enroll in college can take advantage of the College Access Act benefits this year. There are many such students in the District because many cannot afford to go to college right out of high school, and more and more older students are expected to receive tuition assistance in the years to come. Also included in both the Senate and the House bill is an amendment that closes a loophole that allowed foreign nationals who live in the District to benefit, a result never intended by the sponsors or by either House. These amendments to the College Access Act will allow thousands of additional D.C. residents who were not included in the original act to receive tuition assistance. Although the Senate did not include all the changes I sought, the agreement on the addition of HBCUs nationwide is especially welcome. This bill deserves our support because it brings higher-education opportunities for the District's young people much closer to those regularly enjoyed routinely in the districts of other Members of Congress. I thank Members for the support they have given the College Access Act and ask for their support for its expansion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, when I introduce a bill to benefit the city, it generally is unnecessary for city officials to take the time to be present. However, Mayor Williams, Council Chair Cropp, joined me at a press conference today to emphasize the importance of the District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act to the city's economic viability. The bill I am introducing today is as serious as the control board bill was when it was introduced seven years ago. The difference is that the Financial Authority bill was necessary to cure a crisis. The Fair Compensation bill must be enacted to forestall a crisis. As in the 1990s, this also is a crisis of expenditures rising faster than revenues. However, this problem has nothing to do with the overspending that led to D.C.'s recent insolvency. This time, no matter what the city does, it cannot cut its way out. However, D.C. cannot grow its way out either. The Federal Government has the city fenced in on all sides. It is uniquely harmful to keep a local jurisdiction from raising revenue and then to turn around and foist federal costs on local taxpayers. The Federal Government does both. First, it requires D.C. taxpayers to foot the bill for services used chiefly by federal workers and visitors: roads tortured by cars, 8 out of 10 originating from the suburbs, other shared infrastructure costs, public safety, and other services. Then the government catches the city at the revenue end--no commuter tax from the two-thirds of workers who earn their living here; no payment from the government for the 42 percent of real property it uses for federal office space and facilities and land; and no ability to make up for it by building above a height limit on all city structures. No city in the United States lives with this built-in mandatory financial imbalance. We cannot continue to carry the resulting federally imposed structural deficit and remain stable. The 1997 Revitalization Act removal of some state functions reduced operating costs enough to allow the city to recover from insolvency but made no pretense at relieving the city of all state costs or even of addressing the structural deficit. The District, for example, continues to carry at least $500 million in state costs annually, according to the city's Chief Financial Officer. Today, I am releasing a letter requesting that the General Accounting Office (GAO) elaborate, document, and verify the federally imposed expenditures and restrictions on the District. The Fair Federal Compensation Act allows the federal government to pay for part (but certainly not all) of the cost of services rendered to federal employees, without taxing commuters or raising taxes on other Americans. A simple transfer of 2 percent of the federal taxes commuters already pay would be transferred to a designated D.C. infrastructure account. Commuters would experience no change in either their taxes or their tax filings because the credit would be administered by the Federal Government. Commuter salaries simply assure an amount that is calculable, limited and related to infrastructure and other services rendered to federal employees. There are four important reasons for the credit. It affords a reasonably accurate calculation of services used by federal workers; it assures a sustainable and predictable amount that allows the District to do the necessary budgetary forecasting; it costs commuters nothing; and it increases automatically at a modest rate tied to increases in commuter salaries. The chief strengths of the Fair Federal Compensation Act--its predictability, its gradual increase each year with inflation; and the disbursement of funds without an annual appropriation--were the principle weaknesses of the old federal payment. A particularly important feature to the bill reinforces its purpose to compensate for the costs of services to federal employees. The funds transferred from the Federal Government will be deposited in a specifically dedicated and earmarked Infrastructure Fund. The use of this money is limited to infrastructure that benefits the region and the Federal Government as well as the city. Specifically, these funds may be used only to pay for transportation (including roads and Metro); technology; school construction and maintenance (because it is second only to roads in D.C.'s debt service costs); and debt service, because most of the city's debt service is for infrastructure debt. Directing infrastructure funds to payment of debt service has the additional, critical value of helping the District to more rapidly improve its relatively low investment bond rating that costs taxpayers millions annually in excessive interest. The bill would generate $413 million in FY 2003, according to the CFO. Particularly considering that infrastructure debt service alone accounts for nearly $500 million and that public safety and public works amount to $240 million, our bill is more than fair to the Federal Government. Mayor Williams, Council Chair Cropp and the Council should take great pride in the extraordinary turnaround they each have helped engineer for their city--from a half billion dollar deficit to a half billion cash surplus. It is fair to ask them to continue to reduce the cost of government, to improve services, to rationalize the tradeoff between tax cuts and budget cuts, and to produce a balanced budget. Of course, it is not fair to ask city leaders, and particularly D.C.'s fragile base of taxpayers, to subsidize federal workers and services. The landmark Revitalization Act of 1997 was an emergency measure that always contemplated that there would need to be a second and final step. After five balanced budgets and surpluses by a local government that has shown itself willing to make tough decisions, it is time for the Federal Government to work with us to make the necessary tough decisions of its own.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for those kind remarks and for reminding this body of that outstanding debt in democracy owed to the 600,000 people I represent. I was pleased to be in the gentlewoman's district during the most recent recess and saw how well she represents her district. I also want to thank our caucus chair, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), for her work in gathering us once again, as we do every year, to speak about African Americans during Black History Month. The theme chosen is well chosen, I must say: Is racism dead? I have to confess that for me the short answer is no. It is kind of a truism. I feel that I should not have to put forward the evidence, if you happen to live in this country of whatever background; but I do believe that my colleagues have more than demonstrated that proposition and that, by now, for those of us who want to open their minds, it is a self-evident matter. I thought that I would devote my few minutes, knowing that others would speak eloquently to answer the question of the day, that I would devote my 2 minutes to speaking about racial pride and the pride that our country should take in black heritage in this city. I feel constrained to do so because many people know that this is a great monumental city, but I would bet that many do not know that this is a great hub of African American history. I do not think I should let the Congress come here every year, sail through here without understanding the kind of black heritage that this city represents. The reason, of course, is that when this city was formed out of Maryland and Virginia, half of the blacks in the United States lived in those two States. So from the beginning it had a large African American population. A quarter of the population was African American. Interestingly, it did not become a majority African American city, it is now 60 percent black, until the 1950s. This city is always a major tourist destination site. Increasingly, it is becoming a black heritage destination site as well; and I would like to devote my few minutes to saying why. At a time when we want people to come to their capital city as an act of patriotism, I want to say that I want them also to come to learn more about their country. And this is a great city to learn more about our country because so much black history was made in this country. Indeed, as I speak, the Congress has allowed the home of Carter G. Woodson here, the father of black history, to become a historic site. We are about to get a bill I will soon be introducing in April that will take the home on 9th Street so that it is converted into the kind of home that Mt. Vernon is and that Frederick Douglass's home is. And we ought to do that because we are here talking about black history and this is the man that started black history, started the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, who was the second black after W.E.B. DuBois to get a PhD from Harvard, the man to whom we owe the very idea of black history because he uncovered it for the first time. I mentioned the Frederick Douglass home. This is the city where Frederick Douglass did most of his work. He was the Recorder of Deeds in this city. It was from this city that he went to be ambassador to Haiti. It was in this city that he walked the halls of Congress. To its credit, the Congress has approved a Presidential commission for an African American museum on the Mall, thanks to a bill whose chief sponsors were the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). This Presidential commission brings us for the first time close to the idea that African Americans ought to be commemorated in this city. This is the city where, of course, Howard University is found, the flagship university of black America, founded in 1867 as the first university that was open to blacks. It was open also to people of every race and color. Sterling Brown, the distinguished poet who taught at Howard, has said that after the Civil War the most distinguished and brilliant assemblage of negroes in the world, to quote him, came to this city. And that was in no small part because of Howard University. Howard University and the assemblage of so many black intellectuals made this a center for civil rights ferment and for the study and appreciation of African American history. On U Street now we have 209,145 United States Colored Troops who served in the Civil War commemorated in the first Civil War monument to the black troops who served their country in the Civil War. The descendants of these troops can trace their lineage through a registry located there. There is a 12th Street Y that was built by one of the Nation's first African American architects, and the son-in-law of Booker T. Washington. It was built by African American artisans in 1912, known not only as a historic structure but known for the many notable young men who passed through that Y: Dr. Charles Drew, the man who discovered blood plasma; former Georgetown University Coach John Thompson. The writer Langston Hughes, to name a few. There is a home near McPherson Square of Mary McLeod Bethune, the woman who managed to advise four Presidents before blacks got their rights anywhere in the United States. There is the Sumner school. This was the first public school for African Americans in the country. It later became the old M Street High School and the forerunner of Dunbar High School, the famous African American high school here where I was privileged to attend. The tourist season is starting. Many of us who live here, who work here, are unaware that this is one of the great cities for black heritage. It is a great American story here in the lives of black people. Much that is history in this city other than its Federal buildings is in fact black history. The building where we now stand, the Capitol of the United States of America, was built with the help of slave labor and the labor of free blacks. As we commemorate Black History Month and learn more about our history, as we seek to answer the question is racism dead, we ought also to seek to appreciate what African Americans have done for our country. One way to do so is to see the marvels of African American history laid out in the great Nation's capitol.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, a Presidential spokesman has just said good things about Shays-Meehan and Ney-Wynn. After Enron I suspect the President to ultimately choose Shays-Meehan, and so should we. Opponents have now put forward a substitute they have always argued was unconstitutional because it bans all soft money. Shays-Meehan skillfully threads its way through the constitutional thicket to conform with the Buckley Supreme Court decision. The President sees no way around Enron and campaign finance reform. I think he will shortly see that all roads to reform lead to Shays- Meehan.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have just come from a fair I am sponsoring, along with the D.C. Chamber of Congress, called ``Ask Me About Washington.'' It is a service we are providing to Members and staff, along with a free lunch, that we think may be especially needed this year. The Galleries are empty, my colleagues. There is a reason. This is an election year. They should be full. But our constituents need information and need reassurance that the barricades and the ugly security do not send a message that we are trying to tell them something: stay away; your Member of Congress does not want to see you this year. I do not think so, but that will be the effect unless we reach out and become more proactive. The fact is elected officials never want people to stay away. We cannot help it that the security is not as it was. It is being fixed. We sympathize with the Architect of the Capitol and the police board, but we have to do something in the meantime. I have distributed a fact sheet that I hope Members will send to their own constituents in their constituent mail simply telling them what are absolutely unknown facts for most of them: that Reagan National Airport will be 77 percent up by March 1; telling them everything is open, and all the rest. I think my colleagues will find it informational; and more than that, I think Members will find their constituents will find that they are getting word from Washington that they have not gotten in a long time, not since September 11. The fact is we have been winging it because we have never had anything like September 11: ad hoc decisions; this open, this closed, this barricade up, this one comes down, a new one comes up. West front steps get closed down. Now that is something we need to hear more about. That is part of the great wonderful axis of Washington created by L'Enfant himself. We need to know more about that, because there ought to be ways to open that up if we just think a little harder. Do not think I give short shrift to security. I live here 7 days a week, my colleagues; and 600,000 of my constituents live here. We want this place safe, and in fact we do believe it is the safest city in America because this is the Nation's capitol. We know that AWACs and those F-16s are up 24-7. Our constituents do not know. My colleagues' constituents do not know, that is. They need to be told that their Members of Congress want to see them this year, the way we want to see them every year. Honestly, I do not believe that it is beyond American ingenuity to find ways to be safe and secure and open and democratic at the same time. We have to try harder. Some of the things we need to do are absolutely simple. I have been having conversations with the White House and have suggested that if people left their Social Security numbers, the way they have to anyway if they want to visit someone in the White House, that the White House tours could be open. And I am grateful the White House has decided to open tours to student groups. So that means we are getting somewhere just because they have begun to think harder. The White House, after a great protest from the press and others when the Christmas tree lighting ceremony closed down, decided to open it up simply by putting the same glass around the President they use during the inauguration. Some of this is not rocket science, but it does require us to think a little harder than we did before September 11. I will have a bill that I will ask Members to cosponsor called The Open Society With Security bill, because I think we need a Presidential commission to step back and look at how we run an open society when there is global terrorism all around us. I think such a commission would help us get our bearings so that we would not be under the pressure we are under today to make decisions as we go along. We are doing quite well. We can do much better. The White House is doing much better. The capitol tours are open. Washington is open. Only the monument, which was closed for renovations, is not open. A tour of the Pentagon can be arranged ahead of time. But our constituents do not know that. I want Members' constituents to come visit Washington because, obviously, that helps my economy; but my colleagues want them to come for a reason which is equally important to them. We do not want a full year in which people think that this is an uninviting place and that this is not the year to come to see their Member of Congress. It is not only an election year; it is the year after September 11. It is a year when we want to make the point that terrorists cannot close us down. We set the example in the Nation's capitol by opening ourselves up and sending the message that the whole country should be open.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, the House and the Senate are poised this evening to receive the State of the Union Message. Unavoidably and justifiably it will be about war. I certainly hope it will also be about the continuing faltering economy. But there is an issue that probably will not be on the Presidential and congressional agenda and needs to be. It is in our face. It is very visible, but it is beneath the radar. I will soon be introducing a bill called the Open Society With Security Act that would establish a 21-member commission. I will be inviting members in a Dear Colleague soon to co-sponsor the bill. The commission would simply look at how we can make the unprecedented accommodation between security against dangerous global terrorism on the one hand and the maintenance of an open and free society on the other. This is a truly difficult problem. We are doing it on an ad hoc basis because we have had to. It is too serious to be left to ad hoc nonplanning, however, and we clearly do not know how to do it. Nobody knows how to do it because nobody has ever had to do it. The Presidential commission would provide a vehicle to put the best minds in this society to work on a problem that free societies have never had to confront before. We see some of the evidence before us every time we go outside this building, barricades and shut-downs; and, of course, there are on-again off-again alerts. There are all kinds of invasion of privacy that also are occurring. We need to systematically think through these difficult and troubling problems. They were first visible here. But now they are in every part of the country because the country has been attacked and the country has responded. The country deserves some guidance from a Presidential commission. The commission, of course, would have security experts and law enforcement experts and military experts. But this is about security and democracy and freedom. So we would also have on the commission architects and city planners and historians and sociologists and engineers and artists, etc. Put them all at the table. Let them thrash it out and advise us. Security is too important in an open, free society to be left to security people. In the aftermath of September 11 and the anthrax scares, we can surely see that we are in danger of waking up one morning and finding that the society has closed in around us, and that we never even noticed until they closed us down. Some of this is difficult, some of it just takes common sense, and we have already seen that when we raised our voices some of those common sense measures have been taken. I am grateful that the White House announced just last week that it was opening White House tours to children if they left their Social Security number. Soon I hope families who leave their Social Security numbers will follow. We have seen the reopening of tours here in the Capitol, simply by having people go in the trailer to be screened first. We saw the White House lighting of the Christmas tree open simply because they moved the glass that they put around the President at the inauguration to the Christmas tree site. It is not rocket science, but it does mean somebody does have to sit down and not have a knee-jerk reaction to security without considering all the options. In 1968, when our country faced an unprecedented racial crisis, the President had the good sense to say we do not already know it all, and so he called together the Kerner Commission. I believe that the problem posed to our free and open institutions is just as serious in 2002 as the racial crisis was in 1968. A presidential commission would bring to bear the Nation's best thinking on this unique issue and give it the thorough and rigorous investigation it deserves, with the result of advice we could take or not take. But at least we would have the satisfaction of knowing that there are people in our society who have thought about the most difficult problems in our society and given us some food for thought.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the only Member who never has to leave Washington, I want to welcome my colleagues back to Washington, my hometown and your second home. I was very gratified to note that the White House reopened White House tours to children just a few days ago. This follows a meeting I arranged between White House officials and D.C. leaders where I suggested that D.C. schoolchildren be allowed to view the White House Christmas tree decorations. Now the White House has seen to it that all children will be able to go into the White House. I suggested at that time that the public could come in if they only left their Social Security numbers the way people have to anyway before they go into the White House. Now the children will leave their Social Security numbers. Let us hope the White House follows with the general public. I am very gratified for what they have already done for children. These may seem small matters, but, my colleagues, what it does is to signal to the country that if the Capitol is open the country is open as well. The President has made an important ad to visit America, that Americans should do their business. It is important for people to travel, particularly now during a recession, and the more the District of Columbia seems open, the most visible city in the country, the more people will follow the President's advice and go out to their own places and help us get out of this recession by getting on planes. Members and staff will soon receive a ``Dear Colleague'' from me about an event I am hosting on Tuesday, February 12, called ``Ask Me About Washington,'' to acquaint them with tourist attractions and amenities in D.C. so they can advise their own constituents who come here. Mr. Speaker, this is an election year. It is time to welcome our constituents back to Washington. Members need to transmit that the District is the safest city in the United States, precisely because it is the Nation's Capital. The war is winding down. The President has said, absolutely correctly, terrorist threats will be with us for many years to come. It is time to get constituents used to traveling, particularly now, and coming back to Washington. Members and staff will learn how to advise constituents of where to go at my Ask Me About Washington event on Tuesday, February 12. The economy is down. The way to get it up is for people to do what President Bush has indicated, go out and see the sites, but above all come and see Members of Congress. Look at the gallery. The galleries have been empty because Americans are not traveling. They are not traveling to Members' home States or the Capital. That is bad news for people running for office, and it is bad news for our country when people are not flooding into the Capital to find out what to do about the issues that concern them most, especially during an election year. When constituents come, they need to know what to see in Washington. When they come, they need to know that everything is still open to the public, notwithstanding the barricades. This is an open city because this is an open country.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, if many of us had our way, Dave Bonior would never leave this House. No one can or would begrudge a man of Dave's multiple talents another high office, as Governor of Michigan, or deny the people of Michigan the extraordinary leadership he will bring. Yet, the place Dave has carved out here in public service to his district, his state, and his country is an unique as it is lasting and unforgettable. Dave is a modest man who possesses large personal gifts. You can bet, therefore, that he is embarrassed by the spontaneous, maximum praise usually reserved for eulogies that is coming forward for him today. But, Dave is going to have to grin, or blush, and bear it. Dave Bonior has managed to lead the Democrats on issues when he agreed and when he did not by using his good head without ever losing his own heart and soul on issues of principle to him and his own constituents. Where Dave got his bewildering combination of great calm and fierce determination I cannot say. Perhaps that kind of versatility is honed in the success Dave has had in two very different games, basketball, and football. The hallmark of the game Dave played in the House was fairness, strategic skill, and devotion to principle. I am personally grateful for Dave's strong support and action when the Democratic House voted to allow a vote in the Committee of the Whole for the people of the District of Columbia, the first time District residents who are second per capita in Federal income taxes have ever had a vote on the House floor since the Nation was founded. Members of every variety can quote countless examples of thoughtful, critical support for their districts or their issues Dave has gathered. However, the affection and respect for Dave is not centered in mere individual gratitude but fundamentally in the way he brought the best of this institution to bear. Dave Bonior's tenure as a member of Congress from Michigan and as whip has prepared him well to be Michigan's next Governor. Between these two roles, Dave has shown a mastery of both executive and legislative skills. Add this unique bonus to Dave's extraordinary personal qualities, and the people of Michigan are guaranteed to continue to get from Dave what they certainly deserve but much more than they bargained for.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the John Thompson Foundation Challenge Basketball Classic on Thursday, December 20, 2001, at the MCI Center in Washington, DC In noting this significant occasion, I am particularly pleased to honor the outstanding contributions of Coach John Thompson, my colleague at Georgetown University, where I continue as a tenured professor of law, and I ask this House to honor Mr. Thompson as well today. John Thompson is a lifelong resident of Washington, DC, a nationally recognized and much honored coach and teacher, and the founder of the John Thompson Foundation. I would especially like to express my deepest appreciation for his leadership in providing scholarships to African American youth living in the District of Columbia to pursue higher education. Mr. Thompson has made many important contributions to lives of inner city youth residing in the nation's capital. Since the beginning of his career, John Thompson has used athletics to teach and promote the importance of discipline and education to young people who underachieve. This country needs many more sports heroes and teachers to follow John Thompson's extraordinary example. If our youth are to survive in this globally and technologically advanced society, it will require organizations and individuals to provide an array of educational opportunities that prepare them for success. Coach Thompson has proved his commitment to young people for many years. We particularly applaud Coach Thompson and the John Thompson Foundation for their emphasis on the educational success of inner city youth. The Basketball Classic serves as an inspiration for those interested in expanding educational opportunities for the District's African American youth. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in saluting Coach John Thompson, the John Thompson Foundation, and all those associated with the John Thompson Foundation, whose dedicated and creative energy make a significant impact on the progress and the lives of African American youth.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as Congress prepares to end this session, unique in our history, I ask the House to recognize the work of nine Washingtonians who have just completed a uniquely important public service for our nation's capital, and therefore for our nation. The nine served the District of Columbia on the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. They are the two chairs, Andrew Brimmer and Alice Rivlin, the vice chairs, Stephen Harlan and Constance Berry Newman, and the members, Eugene Kinlow, Darius Mans, Joyce Ladner, Edward Singletary, and Robert Watkins. They are very distinguished Americans and among the most distinguished and most accomplished residents of the District of Columbia. This year, the Authority completed six years that have brought the District of Columbia out of the worst financial crisis in a century. To cope with this crisis, Congress passed the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Act in 1995. The city had followed several others--Philadelphia, New York, and Cleveland among them--to junk bond status indicating an inability to borrow, or insolvency. As with the cities that preceded them, the District required a ``control board'' or Authority in order to continue to borrow the necessary money to function. Unlike other cities, however, the nation's capital reached this point not only because of local mismanagement, but also because it is a city without a state and a city that carried the full complement of state functions and costs. To the credit of the prior administration of President Bill Clinton, which designed a package relieving the city of the most costly state functions and of the Congress, which approved it, the District has had a remarkable recovery. Working countless hours with the Mayor and the City Council, the Authority helped the District achieve investment grade bond status by the third year of the control period, rather than in four years; create a budget reserve of $150 million and left the city well on its way to creating a 7-percent cash reserve three years ahead of schedule; repay all borrowings from the U.S. Treasury; eliminate the accumulated deficit; and post four years of balanced budgets with surpluses, two years ahead of the congressional mandate to do so. Elected officials, who continued to run the city throughout, deserve credit for this improvement. However, they would doubtlessly agree that more than any single group or individuals, the Financial Authority deserves the credit for the four-year rapid recovery of the District. It was the credibility of the individuals on the Authority and the extraordinary job they did that enabled the District to borrow in its own name. The city never had to have the Authority borrow for the District. It was the Authority that worked hand in glove with D.C. elected officials to assure that the finances and the management of the D.C. government would proceed apace to improve. And it was the Authority that gave Congress the confidence that the city would be ready for the sunset of the Authority on September 30, 2001. It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of these Washingtonians to the recovery of the city or the difficulty of the work they were called upon to do--and did. The District could never have purchased from experts of their special competence what each gave to the city as a contribution of unique expertise, endless hours, extraordinary effort, and plain, priceless wisdom. The city the Authority found had been wracked with many years of overspending and an accumulated deficit as well as a dysfunctional government of city agencies. The city they have left has had four straight years of balanced budgets plus surpluses and a much improved fully functioning city government. At the end of the last fiscal year, the District had a larger surplus than Maryland and larger than Virginia, which had no surplus. The bottom line that is expected of every jurisdiction of living within its budget, credit to assure borrowing and clean audits has been achieved. The huge task of restructuring and reforming each city agency is proceeding with many notable improvements. The Authority, working with elected officials has improved the most critical agencies, including public safety and education, where resident concern was pronounced. These financial and management improvements are among the many rich features of the Authority's legacy, However, the Authority also left an important warning not only for the city but for Congress about the future of the city. Despite remarkable city improvements and the Revitalization Act's assumption of $5 billion in pension liability and some state functions, the Authority warned of a structural deficit not of the city's making that urgently needs congressional attention. Next session, I will introduce a bill to meet the structural problem the Authority has left Congress to remedy. Today, however, let us be grateful that the most difficult part of the job of revitalizing the nation's capital has not been left to Congress. It has been done by nine extraordinary citizens who asked nothing from Congress, not pay, and not even praise. Yet, considerable praise is the least they are due from the Congress of the United States. It is praise and honor that I ask this House to give to these nine Washingtonians today from a grateful Congress and a grateful nation. The District of Columbia Financial Management and Assistance Authority First Authority Andrew Brimmer (Chair) Dr. Andrew Brimmer served as the first chair of the Authority. Mr. Brimmer, the first African American to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, has long been recognized as a distinguished economist. Among his many posts and achievements is service as an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and posts teaching economics at Michigan State University, the Wharton School, the University of Pennsylvania, and other colleges and universities. Dr. Brimmer is the President of Brimmer and Company. Dr. Brimmer became the chair of the Authority when the city was at its lowest point of financial and management disrepair. He led the Authority as it took on very large and intractable fiscal and operational problems and managed them with skill and determination. Stephen Harlan (Vice Chair) Stephen Harlan served as vice chair for the first term of the Authority. He was the chair of H.G. Smithy Company, a specialized real estate firm providing mortgage banking, finance and investment, and multi-family property management services. He previously served as vice chairman of KPMG Peat Marwick. Mr. Harlan successfully led the Authority's public safety revitalization at a time when crime was the primary concern of District residents and officials. Joyce Ladner Dr. Joyce Ladner has served as Interim President of Howard University, Vice President for Academic Affairs, and professor of sociology at the Howard University School of Social Work. She is currently a Senior Fellow of Government Studies at the Brookings Institution. Dr. Ladner successfully concentrated on improving public schools when education was the primary concern of the Authority. Constance Berry Newman Constance Berry Newman, one of the most versatile officials in the public life of the country, served as vice chair during the second term of the Authority and is the only member that served both terms. She has been appointed by Presidents of the United States four times to major federal posts and has been a Woodrow Wilson Visiting Fellow, and a member of the adjunct faculty at the Kennedy School at Harvard University and a trustee of the Brookings Institution. Ms. Newman has served as Undersecretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and consultant to foreign governments and international organizations, among other posts. Ms. Newman is currently the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Africa for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Ms. Newman successfully led a number of areas for the Authority, ranging from public schools to procurement. Edward Singletary Edward Singletary is a retired business executive with experience in accounting, budgeting, financial planning, finance operations and telecommunication. He worked in the telecommunications industry for nearly 30 years. During his business career, he served the city as chair of the Washington Convention Center, a member of the D.C. Retirement Board, and President of the Washington Convention and Visitors Association. While on the Authority, Mr. Singletary successfully worked on government-wide administrative issues for the city, including technology and procurement. Second Authority Alice Rivlin (Chair) Dr. Alice Rivlin, one of the country's most respected economists, served as chair of the Financial Authority for its second term. She has had one of the most distinguished public service careers in the nation as Vice Chair of the Board of Governors to the Federal Reserve, Deputy Director, then Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and as the first director of the Congressional Budget Office, among others. Dr. Rivlin is currently a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution. Dr. Rivlin was the chair of a landmark commission on the District government and its finances that bears her name and that predicted the problems of the city years considerably before they resulted in the crisis that brought on the need for the Authority she led. When Dr. Rivlin became chair of the Authority in September 1998, she led the detailed financial work on government operations necessary to manage a careful transition of control of the District to the Mayor and City Council. Constance Berry Newman (Vice Chair--see above) Eugene Kinlow Eugene Kinlow is a native Washingtonian with exceptionally strong community ties, including service as a former chair of the D.C. Board of Education. He is a retired Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources in the Department of Health and Human Services and a recipient of the highest award for federal executives, the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award. He previously served as a staff statistician at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and worked as the Housing Research Director. Mr. Kinlow's 30 years of community service in the Anacostia area led to his determined work as the Authority's lead member on revising health care for the District. Darius Mans Dr. Darius Mans was a manager for compensation policy and administration at the World Bank. Prior to his work at the World Bank, Dr. Mans was an economist for the Federal Reserve System Board of Governors. He is currently Country Director at the World Bank for several large African nations. Dr. Mans' strong institutional and academic financial background was very useful to the Authority's work on D.C.'s finances. Robert Watkins, III Robert Watkins, a distinguished lawyer, has been a partner at Williams and Connolly since 1977. His background includes leadership posts in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia when he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney and work in the Civil Rights Division of Justice Department. Mr. Watkins successfully worked on justice issues and the Metropolitan Police Department during a period when the Department underwent substantial reform and crime was reduced.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call attention to the efforts of ``Camp Unity,'' the group of business people and other residents from the District of Columbia, who provided on-site support for relief and rescue workers at the Pentagon crash site following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Led by Advisory Board Commission 8D Chair, Robin Denise Ijames, the volunteers of Camp Unity offered a variety of services, including meals, chiropractic therapy, and haircuts to hundreds of workers who came from all over the country to assist in rescue and recovery efforts at the Pentagon. Through September 28th, Camp Unity maintained a tent at what came to be known as ``Comfort City,'' a collection of tents organized to aid emergency medical staff, federal law enforcement officials, police and fire officials, Red Cross volunteers, and countless others assigned to the crash site. Indeed, the District residents at Camp Unity extended great comfort to these workers, many of whom were separated from their families for many days. The services of Camp Unity volunteers proved so essential that they were officially deemed part of the D.C. Fire and Rescue team for the two weeks they spent at the Pentagon. Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia takes particular pride in the work of the volunteers of Camp Unity. I ask the House also to join me in recognizing the charitable and patriotic response of these District residents to the tragedy of September 11th.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2199, the District of Columbia Police Coordination Amendment Act, as amended by the Senate, which will strengthen PL 105-33, legislation that has done much to cure uncoordinated efforts of Federal and local law enforcement officials in the Nation's capital. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the chair of our subcommittee, my good friend, for her leadership on this bill in the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and in bringing this matter to the floor today. H.R. 2199 amends the Police Coordination Act I introduced in 1997 by allowing agencies not named in the original legislation to assist the Metropolitan Police Department with local law enforcement in the District. Inadvertently, PL 105-33 failed to make the language sufficiently open-ended to include agencies not mentioned in the original bill. Prior to the Police Coordination Act, Federal agencies often were confined to agency premises and were unable to enforce local laws on or near their premises. Therefore, although they were police officers, they could not adequately protect their agencies. Instead, for example, Federal officers often called 911, losing time in preventing crime and apprehending criminals, while taking hard-pressed D.C. police officers from urgent work in the city experiencing serious crimes. Federal officers were trained and willing to do the job but lacked the authority to do so before the passage of the Police Coordination Act.N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer Five agencies have already signed agreements with the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia enabling them to assist the MPD, including the Federal Protective Service, the largest police force in the Federal service and the largest to participate. Now, over 400 officers are assisting D.C. police in protecting the District, as well as the Federal presence. Federal agencies understand that the extension of their jurisdiction enhances safety and security within and around their agencies, while offering needed assistance as well to District residents, visitors and tourists. The Capitol Police and Amtrak Police, who have the longest experience with expanded jurisdiction, report that the morale of their officers has been affected positively because of the satisfaction that comes from being integrated into efforts to reduce and prevent crime in and around agencies and in the Nation's capital. The only reason the House must again consider this bill, already passed once in the House and passed in the Senate last week, is because of a minor technical amendment included by the Senate that updates the bill language to reflect a recent recodification of the D.C. Code. This noncontroversial technical amendment to the Police Coordination Act is another step toward achieving my goal of assuring the most efficient use of all the available police resources to protect Federal agency staff, visitors and D.C. residents. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2199. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2657, and to ask the support of this House for the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001, a bill written as a bipartisan effort by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and me. The bill contains the few amendments I informed the House on September 20 I could not add at that time because of the rush to get this bill to the floor in time to secure the necessary appropriation. I want to thank the Senate for assuring that these changes were included as Senate amendments to the bill. I especially want to thank the current chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and the former chair, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for their leadership on this bill, but particular thanks are due to my friend and partner on this bill, the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). The gentleman from Texas worked long and hard with me on this bill, and kept at it through tough negotiations when we had differences for more than a year until we both could agree on a final version. I appreciate the collegial way in which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) worked with me throughout. He has my special gratitude for the extra $24 million that has been appropriated to fund the reforms that this bill mandates. The Mayor and the City Council appreciate and support the work of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) on the bill, as well, and the respect he has shown for home rule throughout his negotiations with me on this bill. The need to update the family division became a priority after the tragic death of Brianna Blackmond, an infant who was returned to her troubled mother without a hearing after it was alleged that lawyers representing all the parties, the social workers and the guardians ad litem, had certified that the child should be returned. I must continue to emphasize that the D.C. City Council is far more familiar with the children and families of the city than we in Congress, and of course was best qualified to write this bill. However, when the Home Rule Act was passed in 1973, Congress withheld jurisdiction over D.C. courts. Therefore, I asked the Council to pass a resolution in support of the reforms in this bill, after scrutinizing it and offering recommendations for changes. We have also worked closely with Mayor Anthony Williams and Chief Judge Rufus King and the judges of the Superior Court in writing the bill. We respected the concerns of the District in negotiating this bill. The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 is the first overhaul of our family division since 1970, when it was upgraded to be part of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. No court or other institutions should go a full 30 years without a close examination of its strengths and weaknesses. I know that the subcommittee will assure that there is appropriate oversight to the implementation of the bill by our subcommittee. The Family Division has not been able to meet adequately intractable societal problems and additionally has had to depend on an outside agency, the Child Family Services Agency, which until recently had been in a Federal court receivership. Our bill incorporates what we found in our investigation to be the best practices from successful independent family courts and family courts that are integrated into general jurisdiction courts all across the country. These courts have in common these basic reforms: An independent family court or division; ample family court judges to handle family matters; terms for judges in the family court; family court judges, magistrate judges, and other court personnel trained or expert in family law; ongoing training of family court judges; alternative dispute resolution or mediation in family cases; only one judge for each family; family cases only in the Family Court; magistrate judges to assist family court judges with their caseloads; and special magistrate judges to assist judges with current pending cases. The D.C. Family Court Act incorporates all these best practices. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that I am particularly pleased that in the amendments to the bill we were able to address several problems with the House bill that I first raised on this floor. These Senate amendments are important to ensure that, for example, the necessary work of disposing of a large volume of pending cases and continuing intake of new cases coming into the new Family Court does not overwhelm the new court, while it meets timetables mandated in the bill. In addition, the Senate amendments will ensure that the jurisdiction of the court's successful domestic violence unit is not undermined. We have all agreed that the successful disposition of these and other matters resolved with our Senate partners have produced a strong bipartisan consensus bill. I want to, once again, thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for his tireless efforts and partnership with me on this bill, and for his great concern for the children and families of the District of Columbia; a concern that was always there, always evident, and that energized his hard work with me throughout; and, of course, the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), as well as my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for their special efforts on this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support this bill, and thank all who assisted us on it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I would like to thank two staff members by name, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), staff member Cassie Bevan, and my own staff member, John Bouker, because in a very real sense, when Members are as deeply involved as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and I have been in this bill, the services of very high qualified, very smart staff people need to be involved, particularly given the many technical areas that were involved in this bill and the points of disagreement we had. I want to, once again, say that I do not need to tell this House that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is a tough negotiator. And yet, throughout these negotiations, they were over a year, we never came to a point where we did not think there would be a bill. And this was largely because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), although the District is not his district, felt so deeply about the children that he was willing to put personal time into this bill. That is difficult to do if you are a leader of the House. And I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman again for his personal involvement in this bill, and for never letting go of this bill. Although, I will say on this floor that there were times I wish he would have let go of this bill. But that is what a bipartisan bill is about. It is about working together, instead of turning over the tables, until we can get a bill we can agree upon. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and I probably have parts of this bill that we would like to have seen done just a little differently. But in the name of the children who will profit, who will benefit from what this bill provides, in the name of the many families in the District of Columbia for whom this bill will mean something very real in their lives, he and I reached a resolution of any differences we had. We are both very proud of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak about a subject which may seem abstract, except that in wartime it is very real. We had a meeting with top White House officials, the Mayor, several city officials, business and labor officials and yes, some officials from here in the House to discuss maintaining an open society in a time of war. Mr. Speaker, we have got to make sure that the words ``open society'' do not become cliches. We have been tested recently. The test goes on. Are we able to fight a war even in the homeland and maintain the normalcy that the President admonishes us to maintain? Or will we, little by little, close down the society so that we resemble somebody else's society, a society we try not to be? Let us recall that this House was on the steps of this House on the evening of September 11 sending a brave message to the country and the world that we were going to keep this House open, that we could not be chased from the House and that they could not shut down democracy. It was one of the proudest moments probably in the 200 years that we have had a Congress. The importance, of course, there, was that it occurred in Washington and it occurred from the Nation's leaders. Then, of course, there was the anthrax scare, and we are still suffering from that. The House and the Senate took different paths. The House paid a price. But I think people still recognize that the leadership by example is coming from this House and the Senate and will continue to come from the Congress. The Christmas tree lighting which took place last week was the largest I have ever seen, and I am a native Washingtonian, occur from the Congress. I thank Speaker Hastert for his leadership in making it a bigger and better lighting and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his work in recognizing that this year, above all, we must make little events like lighting of the Christmas tree into big deals, because everybody is looking to Washington to see whether the war has canceled Christmas and to see whether normalcy really obtains. I want to thank the Sergeant at Arms of the House and the Senate and the Architect of the Capitol, who are called the Capitol Police Board for reopening tours of the Capitol. People stood in pouring rain on a Saturday morning when they heard by word of mouth that the tours were reopened. What is the importance of this event after event? I can tell you one thing, I do not intend to become the event planner for Washington or any other city, but the world is looking at us to see whether or not we know how to keep on keeping on. They cannot tell. They cannot get inside our heads. They can only tell by whether or not we continue to remain normal. The White House at first closed the Christmas tree lighting. When I called the White House and said, do you really have to do this, I appreciate that they rethought it and decided that all they had to do was bring the same glass that they used around the President at the inauguration and put that same glass out there and they could have the public come to the Christmas tree lighting. I want to make sure that this city is not closed down. If we close down this city, we close down every city in America. The Nation will look to see whether we run to our bunkers to see whether they should run to theirs. At the meeting last week with White House officials, I want to share with Members some of the suggestions we made that would help send a message that the Nation's capital is open and, therefore, America is open: Allowing people who were screened through their Social Security numbers to tour the White House; opening E Street which was closed down again after September 11 even though the Secret Service had agreed that E Street could be reopened once it was widened; allowing a circulator or secured bus for tourists to go right across Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. If that does not send a message to those who think we are afraid. And funding the National Capital Planning Commission so that we have a citywide plan to do security compatible with our national monuments. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the White House allows District schoolchildren to be the first to see the White House Christmas tree decorations as a sign that this does remain an open and free society.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman, and I very much appreciate his yielding me this time and his work on this bill, bringing it forward. I also appreciate the diligent work of the chairman of our Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. I especially want to thank the sponsors of this resolution, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), for moving us forward for the first time with substantial action on a national museum of African American history on the Mall. This bill has been introduced for each of the 11 years I have been in Congress; and it was introduced for years before that, initially by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). If I may say a word about the persistence of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) in introducing this bill. It is one thing to introduce a bill like this, a kind of showcase bill as a freshman Congressman, as he did. It is quite another thing to fight for a bill like this each and every year as he has. The gentleman moved on into the leadership of the Democrats and continued to make this bill a priority, so it is a special tribute to him to have this bill move forward; and I am very pleased that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) has joined him to make this a truly bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been regularly before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I remember that almost one year I thought we were going to get there. We got a bill actually out of the House to renovate the tower at the Smithsonian to make it the African American museum on the Mall; but the Congress found out that even when we renovate it costs money, and the lack of money is what stopped this bill. I want to report to the House that there are African Americans ready and willing to contribute funds to build this museum. I have had a very interesting conversation with one such potential contributor; and he said that unless the House took some action that showed there was some hope that this would happen, he would be reluctant to step forward. I think today's action is the kind of action that will encourage contributors to step forward, because the Presidential commission moves the idea forward in two ways. First, it is the first concrete action ever; and in this bill is all of the planning, all of the logistics. It contains all of the elements that our subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, requires for monumental buildings. It is all here. All we have to do is do it once the commission finishes its work. Second, this commission raises the importance of the idea, and I say to my colleagues, important it is. African Americans have been at the very center of the development of our country itself, let alone its history, from our music and all that is unique about American culture, all that is derivative to our most historic structures, including this Capitol building built with the labor of freed blacks and slaves. Mr. Speaker, there are all manner of museums and monuments in this Capital, all manner of commemorations to events and to people of every kind, and to be kind, I will say many of them obscure. It is astonishing to me that we have entered the 21st century, the third century of our existence as a Nation, with precious few monuments or structures of any kind to commemorate African Americans or African American history. This bill, perhaps, assures that we will not go much longer if we value the history of our country. I thank the sponsors once again.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member who sponsored this bill, and I appreciate the way in which they are meeting the challenges that security poses within the Congress as well. I rise in strong support of this resolution. It was passed in the Senate on October 9. It is especially appropriate for the House to consider it today, December 11, 3 months after the attack, particularly given the service that the Capitol Police have rendered to the Nation and to the Congress since then. The House certainly must not adjourn without honoring the Capitol Police for dedication and professionalism above what any of us could have asked. Indeed, the Capitol Police give ``rising to the occasion'' new meaning. It would be difficult for the Capitol Police to improve upon the reputation that they have earned over the years, but somehow they have managed to do just that since September 11. I know them perhaps as well as any Member because I live with them 7 days a week. I see them when I do my race walk on the weekends when the Senate and the House are deserted, and I see them on the streets of Capitol Hill, which they patrol. I sponsored Public Law 102-397, the Capitol Police Jurisdiction Reform Act, which expanded their jurisdiction for the first time. We have a long relationship and friendship with the Capitol Police and their union. I am pleased that D.C.'s own National Guard has relieved the Capitol Police of the back-breaking, 12-hour days they have had to put in. I regret that the National Guard has had to do this, but I am pleased that the funding for additional personnel and police is now assured the Capitol Police. I do want to set the record straight on an erroneous impression in a December 7 Washington Times column that indicated that I had criticized the Capitol Police for closing tours of the Capitol; also, that I had been pleased to have 24-hour protection of the Capitol Police. I am pleased to say I have never had and never have needed 24-hour protection; but if so, I know who would have been pleased to give it: the fine Capitol Police. The tours are controlled not by the Capitol Police, but by the Capitol Police Board. I wrote a letter to the three members of the board, by name the Architect of the Capitol, and the two Sergeants at Arms. My letter was directed to them and to them alone. Indeed, I am grateful to the board that they have decided that there is a way to open this Capitol to tours and to keep it safe at the same time. I always knew the cops knew how to do that. For the record, I want to submit my letter to the three board members into the Record and my letter to the Washington Times correcting them for the Record. I have nothing but praise and the highest regard for the Capitol Police. The Nation will know that is how the entire House and Senate regard them when this resolution justifiably passes today. I thank my colleagues for their work on this bill. Norton Asks Reversal of Capitol Police Board by Elected Officials if Tours Remain Closed Washington, DC.--Following the closing of tours of the Capitol as D.C. school children were about to be the first in line, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton today released a letter to the three-man Capitol Police Board that made the decision. She asked the two Sergeants-at-Arms of the Congress and the Architect of the Capitol to reconsider their decision and put them on notice that otherwise, she would appeal to House leaders and, if necessary, introduce a resolution. The Norton letter follows: December 5, 2001. Hon. Alfonso Lehardt, Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Wilson Livingood, House Sergeant-at-Arms, Capitol, Washington, DC. Mr. Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Sirs: I am deeply disappointed that you have decided once again to close tours of the Capitol, this time precipitously just before tours were to begin again after many weeks. I write now to ask you to reconsider this decision within the next week by finding ways to keep the Capitol safe while normal activities proceed and to inform you that if you are unable to do so, I intend to appeal your decision to the leadership of the Senate and the House, and, if necessary, to introduce an appropriate resolution. Letters to the Editor The Washington Times, Washington, DC. To the Editor: John McCaslin's December 7, Cops Can't Win column had to be trying hard to get the entire Capitol Police issue as wrong as he did on both of the points he made. (1) I never criticized the Capitol Police for closing Capitol tours. My letter of December 5, attached to a release from my office, was addressed to only the three officials who made the decision, the Capitol Police Board consisting of the Sergeants-At-Arms of the House and Senate and the Architect of the Capitol. (2) I have never requested, never had, and hope never to need the excellent services of the Capitol Police for 24-hour security. I have taken a special interest in the work of the Capitol Police ever since coming to Congress and have a very special affection for these men and women. With the strong support of the Capitol Police and their union, I wrote PL 102-397, the Capitol Police Jurisdiction Reform Act, which expanded their jurisdiction for the first time to include more than a few blocks around the Capitol. These officers not only protect me as a member of Congress; they protect city neighborhoods. The Capitol Police deserve the nation's highest respect. They certainly have mine. Sincerely, Eleanor Holmes Norton