Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. At the same time I thank him for very hard work on this appropriation. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) began his chairmanship by seeking a smooth and fair appropriation process as the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), always have. This year we have not had to pull our Appropriation Committee chairman and our full ranking committee into this little appropriation just to help us get it through because of the work of our chairman and ranking member of our subcommittee. Even when the chairman and I have disagreed as we have occasionally, he has been a pleasure to work with, not only because of his well-known pleasant disposition, there have been lots of folks with pleasant dispositions where when it came to the District appropriation, that did not much matter. It has a lot to do with the way in which the chairman has approached his job. He said to himself, ``What am I? I am an appropriator. My job is to get this appropriation out. Let me see if I can do that the best way I can.'' With that workmanlike approach to his job, whenever he and I have had some points of disagreement, we have simply agreed to disagree and try to work it out. I hope that the way in which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and I have worked sets a precedent for how the D.C. appropriation will be handled in the future. The chairman said early on, for example, as he took over the chairmanship, that attachments to the D.C. appropriation were not welcome or appropriate. The ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) is the first big- city leader of the D.C. subcommittee since the death of the legendary Julian Dixon. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has brought very unusual, special skill and insight to this subcommittee. How lucky we are that as we emerge from a control board, we have gotten a ranking member who helped bring his own big city out of precisely the situation the District of Columbia found itself, so that I have turned to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for special advice given his long history and his extraordinary unique background so relevant to our own city. Mr. Chairman, especially at a time when Congress has made a successful effort, at least thus far, to put aside the usual quarrels, I hope that the bipartisanship we have shown on other matters will be especially evident on the D.C. appropriation. After all, it is the smallest. It is really tiny. It is a tiny fraction of every other appropriation. It consists almost entirely of local funds, raised from local taxpayers. It is a local budget that does not belong here at all. I apologize that you are distracted by having to get into the business of a local jurisdiction. You should be embarrassed at a time like this to have to do so. Finding ourselves distracted from the most serious business, the business of war and peace following a vicious attack on American soil, I can only hope that this body will not allow the local budget of a city to detain us long or headlines to read after this matter is done here, Congress of the United States Overturns the Laws in Its Own Capital, even as it is asking, telling us, that the country is fighting in behalf of democracy. At a time when our country's message to the world is that we are defending democracy and freedom, I ask that no attempt be made to nullify the democratically expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia by attachments that overturn local law. D.C. is in sterling shape. That is an amazing thing to say to this body, who saw just the opposite just a few years ago. The city should be rewarded, not burdened with intervention, from this body. Imagine, this city has a larger surplus than our neighboring State of Maryland, a rich State, with all kinds of industry. Virginia has no surplus at all. The District has outdistanced its rich local States through its own prudence. This Congress needs to say to the District, ``Well done. We're going to step back when you do as well as you have done.'' The control board goes out at the end of this appropriation period. We have investment grade bonds. Our cup does not run over. Our cup has been filled by the people of the District of Columbia and the prudence of its public officials. This bill is moving forward with flaws, budget deletions that should not have been touched, but progress made by the relationship that I have formed with the ranking member and with the chairman. Thirty-five redundant and duplicative provisions removed. We are going to go after the rest of them next time. But I appreciate the progress we have made. Fewer attachments compared to prior years, when attachments had become a chronic disease on the D.C. appropriation. Make the D.C. bill a bill worth supporting by clearing attachments from the bill. Do not mar this bill. Let us keep us moving forward in the way that the chairman and the ranking member have said.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has been very helpful in assisting us on this bill because of his own interest in the children of this country; and I want to especially thank a member of his staff, Mark Agrast, who was also very helpful to all of us.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), co-chair of the Children's Caucus.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2657, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. However, I want first to thank the current Chair of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and the former chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for their contributions to the bill; also, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) who assisted with this bill, even though he is not a member of our subcommittee; our full committee chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for their leadership and for expediting this bill, which needed the permission of the chair and the ranking member to come to the House floor without a full committee markup after it passed our subcommittee unanimously. Mr. Speaker, this truncated action was necessary in order to assure that the bill was ready for the floor in time for the fiscal 2002 appropriation process. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, Cassie Bevan and Jon Bouker, Cassie Bevan of the staff of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and Jon Bouker of my staff, did much of the heavy lifting to get this bill to the point that we find it today. We very much appreciate their hard work. I would particularly like to thank the majority whip of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), whose interest, energy, and commitment has been an indispensable force behind the Family Court Act. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and I are not of the same party, but he and I share an overriding concern for the children of this country and for children caught in the District's foster care system. The concern and involvement of the gentleman from Texas did not end with this bill, or with seeking to have it reach the floor expeditiously. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is chiefly responsible for the millions of dollars that are now part of the D.C. appropriation that will fund the reforms that this bill mandates. I also appreciate the support of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for the return of the agency responsible for foster care in the District, the Child and Family Services Agency, to the D.C. government from a failed Federal court receivership. The need to update the Family Division became a priority as a result of the tragic death of Brianna Blackmond, an infant who was allowed to return 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 all certified that the child should be returned. Several important investigations followed the child's death, especially concerning the agency chiefly responsible, the Child and Family Services Agency, then under a Federal court receivership. Because a Federal court had jurisdiction, we held hearings in the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia on the District's child welfare system. My staff and I commenced a detailed investigation of best practices of family courts and family divisions here and around the country, and began writing a bill, because D.C. local courts are Federal courts not under the jurisdiction of the D.C. government. Meanwhile, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and his staff also were working on a bill, and we soon began working together to produce a single product, with support and assistance from our Chair, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and other interested Members. The Family Court Act is the result of this joint effort, the culmination of a collegial process spanning several months. The subcommittee held a hearing on the Family Court Act on June 26, 2001, prior to reporting it unanimously to the full committee. It must be noted that the D.C. City Council is far more familiar with the children and families of the city than we in the Congress, and are best qualified to write such a bill. However, when the Home Rule Act was passed in 1973, Congress withheld jurisdiction over Federal courts from the city. The District of Columbia needs to have the same control of its courts as other cities. In the meantime, at my request, the council passed a resolution in support of the reforms in this bill, after scrutinizing it and offering their own 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 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. The old Family Court, then called Juvenile Court, was a stand-alone court that had become a place apart, in effect a ghetto court, to which the city's most troubled children and families were sent, away from the real judicial system and out of sight, which left children and families out of mind until the Juvenile Court was abolished as hopelessly ineffective and poorly funded. All agree that the Family Division has proved to be a vast improvement over the Juvenile Court, despite the increasing number of abused and neglected children, troubled juveniles, and families in crisis typical of big cities and of foster care systems in rural areas, suburbs, and cities alike today. However, no court or other institution should go a full 30 years without a close examination of its strengths and weaknesses. The Family Division increasingly has been taxed by intractable societal problems, and, in addition, must depend on an outside agency, the Child and Family Services Agency, which only recently had been adjudged so dysfunctional that it had been taken over by the Federal courts and placed in receivership. Our bill incorporates what we found in our investigation to be the best practices from successful independent family courts and family divisions as a part of family courts across the country. These courts have in common several basic reforms: creating an independent family court or division; providing ample family court judges to handle family matters; mandating terms for judges in family court; requiring family court judge magistrate judges and other court personnel to have training or expertise in family law; requiring ongoing training of family court judges and other personnel; employing alternative dispute resolution and mediation in family cases; adhering to the standard of ``one family one judge'' in family cases; retaining family cases in the Family Court and the Family Court alone; using magistrate judges to assist family court judges with their caseloads; and dedicating special magistrate judges to assist judges with current pending cases. The D.C. Family Court Act incorporates all of these best practices. As important as our bill is, the major problem for children and families in the District is not the court but the Child and Family Services Agency. The court needs more resources and it needs modernization. CFSA needs a complete makeover. Yet, after 6 years in a family court receivership, CFSA is returning to the District largely because the receivership failed, not because that agency has been revitalized. No matter what we achieve in our Family Division bill, children and families are unlikely to notice much difference in their lives unless CFSA is fundamentally changed. Courts are the back end of the process when all else has failed, the last resort when people must be compelled to do what they are required to do. Our bill assures that the city has a full-time staff liaison onsite at the court, but inevitably the court will be handicapped by the condition of CFSA in the first years of the agency's return to the District. Assuring that CFSA and the new Family Court of the Superior Court are seamless in their response to our children and families is a formidable challenge for both the city and the court. Because the court has been generally well run and responsive to children and families, I believe that with new resources and additional and updated functions, the court can do the job. The city's challenge to both reform the CFSA and realign the agency with the court is more serious. However, Mayor Williams' careful work in management reform and accountability and the council's diligent oversight encourages optimism. The mayor's own background as a foster child will surely encourage dedication. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that although I strongly support this bill, the speed with which we have had to bring the bill to the floor precluded me from offering several amendments to sharpen various provisions of the act. These amendments are important to ensure, for example, that 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 court while it meets timetables mandated in the bill. In addition, my amendments will ensure that the jurisdiction of the court's successful domestic violence unit is not undermined by the bill. It is also critical to strengthen language in the bill calling on Maryland and Virginia to enter foster care agreements with the District to ensure rapid placement of our children, without undue expense to our State partners or harmful delay to our children. We have all agreed that these and other matters should be discussed with our Senate partners as we move forward in our negotiation to produce a consensus bill. The Senate has been wonderfully cooperative and collaborative with us in all aspects of this bill. I want to once again thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for his tireless work and partnership with me on this bill, and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their special efforts on this important piece of legislation. I urge all of our colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2779.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2061, legislation I introduced on June 5, 2001, to remove the provision of Southeastern University charter requiring that one-third of the board of trustees be Southeastern alumni. Southeastern University President Charlene Drew Jarvis and the board of trustees asked me to introduce this corrective measure. The bill unanimously passed in both the subcommittee of the District of Columbia and the full Committee on Government Reform. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the Chair of the subcommittee for the District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for her support of H.R. 2061 and for her continuing support of all we do in the District of Columbia. Southeastern University was incorporated in the District of Columbia by an act of Congress on October 19, 1937. Its charter contains a provision requiring that one-third of the University's board of trustees be alumni. On September 9, 1997, I received letters from Southeastern University President Charlene Drew Jarvis and board of trustees Chair Elizabeth Lisboa-Farrow asking that I introduce legislation to remove this provision. President Jarvis and the board of trustees would like this provision removed in order to let the university draw from a wider pool of potential board nominees. Because the university was incorporated by an act of Congress, only the Congress can effectuate this change. Southeastern University is an important and productive institution which contributes to higher education and the economy of the District of Columbia by offering undergraduate and graduate degrees geared specifically to the needs of working professionals such as accounting, banking, business management, computer science, information systems management, health services administration, government management, marketing and taxation. Under the able leadership of Southeastern's president, Dr. Charlene Drew Jarvis, who formerly served with distinction as a member of our city council for 17 years, the university has emerged from past difficulties and reached many milestones. For example, in 1997, the Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area admitted Southeastern to its membership. Since Ms. Jarvis has been president, Southeastern's enrollment has doubled. Southeastern has developed productive partnerships with local businesses that foster community involvement, while at the same time promoting educational achievement. One such partnership is D.C. Link and Learn, a technological training center founded with Southeastern's help near Southeastern's main campus. In addition, Southeastern has obtained cooperative agreements with the Washington Teachers' Union and the Greater Washington Society of Certified Public Accountants to create partnerships in support of professional development programs. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2061 will allow Southeastern to complement these and other efforts under way to strengthen the university's role in the life of the District of Columbia. I urge my colleagues to support this corrective measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, America's airport, National Airport, remains closed as a lasting symbol of the attack of September 11. Until it is opened, the terrorists have a temporary victory. I would be the last to want us to be reckless. Not only do I live here, 600,000 people whom I represent live here. But they want this airport opened with security, and so does America. Part of the problem may be that there are so many issues with which our country must cope that National Airport may not be getting the attention it deserves. The Congress and the administration must focus on National Airport because of what it means, not to the capital of the United States, but to our country. As immediate steps, the recommendation that the shuttles be opened is most important, because it would unite Washington with New York and Boston, the two cities that were the objects of attack. We must make National Airport a pilot for airport security for the Nation. To be sure, many jobs and the economy of this city and region are at stake. More important, opening the airport would be a giant symbol of our willingness to fight back.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have always opposed the wholesale use of our mighty military power except with a scalpel. However, I have always assumed that my country would never be attacked where we live and that my constituents and neighbors would never be innocent victims. Mr. Speaker, the language before us is limited only by the slim anchor of its September 11 reference, but allows war against any and all prospective persons and entities. This resolution shows that the challenges presented by terrorism as war have already begun with language before there is any action. The point is to give the President the authority to do what he has to do, not whatever he wants to do. But the truth is that under our Constitution and existing law, when the country is attacked, the President's power is almost limitless. In supporting his constitutional authority to protect our great country, Congress must remain vigilant to ensure that his power is always sufficient but never unchecked.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding time to me. As we pray for the September 11 victims and their families, let us remember not only what it means to work in Washington, D.C., but to live in Washington, D.C., like the 600,000 people who call the Nation's capital home. Many of us who serve in this House live here, too, and the rest of us spend as much time in the District as they do in their own districts. The enemy knew well that the way to attack our country was to try to attack this city. If we shift course enough to learn how to safeguard the Nation's capital from the new terrorism, New York and the rest of the country will not be far behind. Understand that this will require a radical reevaluation of security as we have known it. Just as important, it will require that we reconcile our security with our core identity as an open, democratic society.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor not to take the whole hour, but for a few minutes because the D.C. appropriation today passed in full committee under the chair of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). This was a noteworthy subcommittee markup. Mr. Speaker, the controversy often associated with the D.C. appropriation was not there today. The bill passed unanimously. One important reason for this, indeed the most important reason for the smooth way in which the bill transacted its way through the committee today was its chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). Like a laser beam, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has been focused on the clear obligation of the chair of an appropriation subcommittee, and that is to get his bill to the floor as clean as he can get it so that it can get the necessary votes on the floor from both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the way this bill was handled in subcommittee today, especially in contrast to when the District of Columbia appropriation finally got out of the House last year. It was in December, remember. The appropriation year ends September 30. My colleagues can imagine the hardship on our local jurisdiction that does not get its budget until almost Christmas. It was so late even when we got the bill itself out, that was sometime in November, it was held over in order to be the vehicle to carry other appropriations that had had difficulty getting out of committee. So here we had the spectre of a local jurisdiction not being able to spend its own money while the bill was held hostage for Federal appropriations. It seems to me there is something in reverse order about that, that the smallest appropriation was being held to carry gigantic appropriations like HHS over. I am deeply grateful that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) helped me get this bill out. I went to his office and described the hardship. I asked Mayor Tony Williams to help me describe it. With the help of the Speaker, we finally got our bill out in December. What the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has done is to take a first step toward avoiding any kind of train wreck of that kind for the District of Columbia. Perhaps it will not happen because, if there are riders on our appropriation, get yourself ready for a fight. But if there are, they certainly will not be there because the chairman has been an enabler of such extraneous, irrelevant, undemocratic riders. True to his word, the chairman himself respected local decision- making, and the way he did so was by announcing in advance shortly after he assumed the chairmanship that he did not want any riders in his appropriation. I do not think I have heard that for a very long time; but when a chairman says that, I think you will get a lot of respect from Members of the House because he is announcing how he wants his own appropriation to be handled. He went further. In the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) looked at a project we in the District and I here in the House and with Members of the Senate for a couple years now have been working on. Since home rule, there have been riders willy-nilly put on the District of Columbia's appropriation that went to operations and went to finances. Many of these are redundant of Federal law. They are redundant of District law. They are so out of date some of them that if they were, in fact, to be acted on they could cause a catastrophe. What happens is they kind of stay on. The White House, seeing them on, carries them over from year to year; and so there are attachments to the District's appropriation that I think will embarrass this House because they have nothing to do with today. They are ancient. It is as if they were written in the last century. We thought that such riders could do real harm. Because they are there and until they are gone, you are supposed to do what they say. The fact that they are redundant or out of date does not mean that you are not supposed to do what they say, and they really cause great confusion in the local community that tries to abide by what indeed the Congress has said. We worked hard last year while Mr. Clinton was in office and this year as well to see whether we could get the White House to agree with us that certain riders were operational and financial riders were no longer applicable and then to work with the District to see they were no longer applicable. We did, and to his credit a great many of these riders, 35 of them, have been removed by Chairman Knollenberg. I regret to say that there are controversial riders that, of course, remain on our appropriation. They have been there for eternity, through Democratic and Republican Houses and Presidents. They are the kind of riders that hundreds of jurisdictions in the United States of America do not regard as riders at all because they have decided that those are the kinds of things they do not want to do. Then there are hundreds of jurisdictions that have decided they want to do precisely what the Congress has forbidden us to do, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), could not do anything about those; and we do not hold him accountable to those. Those, of course, are riders of the most controversial kind in this House. Riders, for example, under domestic partners that allow domestic partners in the District no matter what their sexual orientation. I guess most of them in the District would not be gay, but would allow a domestic partner to pay for the health benefits of his partner if the person worked for the District government with no cost to the District government. Hundreds of jurisdictions allow that all across the United States. Many more private corporations allow it. It is a matter of when you consider the cost of health care, seems to me that anybody would want to help somebody get health insurance who wanted to pay for it and get on a group plan, particularly at a time when there are very serious consequences to not doing so. There is one that this House rebels against that, again, all across the United States can be found. Members, I am sure, will vote against it. Live in places where this is done and, that is, riders allowing the local jurisdiction to pay for abortions for poor women out of its own funds. Respecting the fact that this body has said you cannot pay for abortions out of Federal funds, you will not find a big city in the United States and many small towns which do not decide to pay for abortions out of their own local funds. Only with your Nation's capital does the Congress say no Federal and no local funds can be used, and they say so for these two items; and they have said so for other matters in the past. Everybody who votes for it knows it is wrong. They know it flies in the face of Federalism, not to mention devolution. We will continue to fight those. We know that the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), was in no position to do anything about them; and the burden is on us to convince this body. We accept that burden and we must find a way out of that dilemma so that we are treated in exactly the same way as every other jurisdiction in the United States. I am a fourth generation Washingtonian. I can trace my American ancestry back to virtually the beginning of the 19th century. The fact that before slavery some of them believed they would find a better life in the District of Columbia and walked off the plantation should not mean that today the District of Columbia has fewer rights than any other local jurisdiction and that nobody in my family for four generations has had the same rights as every other Member of this body. I take it personally. And, of course, I take it as my obligation to do something about it for 600,000 people who live in the District of Columbia. I want to also pay tribute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chair of the Committee on Appropriations. Every year the gentleman from Florida tries to help the District of Columbia get its appropriation out. Again he is simply doing his duty as chairman. He wants to get his appropriations through. He has a well-known desire not to have riders cloud up his various subcommittee appropriations, and he does whatever he can to ward them off and to try to facilitate Members in getting their bills through. I appreciate that the gentleman from Florida has met every year with our new Mayor, actually he is in his third year now, who has done so well in our city, Tony Williams, and tried to help us to design a way to get our appropriation in and out. It ought to be the fastest and the easiest of all 13 appropriations. It is not your money; it is ours. When it comes to the hard work the Members do here, and they do work very hard, you would think that coming to the D.C. appropriation would be a rest period for the Members of this body. Instead, it has tended to be among the most controversial when it affects nobody in this body. I want to say not only that Speaker Hastert has been very helpful to this city in trying to move the appropriation but the gentleman from Florida has been very helpful as well. Finally, I must say a word about the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. This is the first time that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has been on the Committee on Appropriations at all. He is so clever that he managed to get himself a chairmanship straight off because of the way the bidding is done. But what marvelous good fortune it is for the District of Columbia because the gentleman from Pennsylvania comes from a jurisdiction much like our own. He is the first big-city Member to serve in such a position on our committee since Julian Dixon, the much revered chair of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia for 14 years who died last year. The gentleman from Pennsylvania not only comes from a similar jurisdiction just a few hundred miles up the East Coast, but he comes from a jurisdiction that has been through exactly what the District of Columbia went through about 5 years ago when it had to get a control board. So what we have is a ranking member who was the prime mover in getting a control board for the city of Philadelphia which sprang back as a result of it. Now the District of Columbia has sprung back as a result of both the work of the control board and of our Mayor and city council. We have a ranking member who has a deep understanding of big cities, their finances and their educational systems in particular. What the gentleman from Pennsylvania brings to the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia is almost instinctive understanding of what should pertain here for this city, an instinctive empathy with residents who live and have to watch as the Congress of the United States doubles back over what its own Mayor and city council have approved in their budget and sometimes in their laws. And so, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the chairman and the ranking member and the cooperation of the full committee, I might add, the D.C. bill is on its way to full committee. I come to the floor this evening to ask that the full committee show this kind of respect for the independent jurisdiction that is your Nation's capital, the District of Columbia, that the chairman has shown; that we follow his lead and that out of committee come a bill that is at least as clean as the bill was when it was passed off today to the full committee. Mr. Speaker, we have many miles to go before this session is over. I hope and pray we are not here as long as we were last year. But if we spend a lot of time ruminating about the District of Columbia, we may well be here. You have got yourself a Republican President now. I think he wants to sign bills and not veto them, although I must say unless you get this surplus matter figured out, you are likely to have a Republican President vetoing bills that came from a Republican House. In any case, I want us all to focus on getting out of here and getting these bills, which are already very late, done. I think that the last thing that should make us tarry is a local jurisdiction unrelated to your own business and your own district. I ask that you respect the work of our chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), allow a clean bill to come out of the full committee and then out of this House. And, of course, I ask you to respect the 600,000 people who live in the Nation's capital, who are second per capita in Federal income taxes and ask of you only that you let them spend their own money as they see fit.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I too come to the floor this evening to discuss a serious women's issue at a time when the women in the House are focused, as we approach the end of the session, on health issues. I want to remind the House that it is time to get serious about HIV and AIDS in women in the United States. I have come to the floor with shocking statistics about AIDS worldwide where 50 percent of those with AIDS are women and, in Africa and Asia, whole continents are being engulfed with the disease. But we have not done our work here, and so with this emphasis this evening on health, I want to focus on preventing a preventable disease in women. What began as a so-called homosexual disease, we have quickly found out was a universal disease. But we have not targeted information and education about AIDS in women as a women's disease, and that is what this is. There are two groups of women we need to focus on especially, very young women and women of color, because that is where the epidemic is. Among very young women between 13 and 24, half of the reported cases are women, 49 percent. And women of color, black and Hispanic women, are only a quarter of the population, but they are three-quarters of the AIDS cases. This is a wake-up call, I say to my colleagues. What to do? First, we have not reached many women once. We have had better luck reaching men, because we have targeted them. After we reach them once, we had better reach them every 3 or 4 years, because as a whole new group of young women and young men, they never got reached in the first place, because they were too young. That is the way this sexually transmitted disease works. If they only knew. It is what they do not know that will hurt them. Forty percent of women are infected through a partner. They do not know that what the partner does with bring home the disease. Twenty- seven percent are infected through needles. If they only knew. If they only knew that if they press their communities to have programs that are explicit about this disease in shelters for runaways, in youth detention centers, in schools, we could begin to reach girls. This is where the young women are. This is where the women of color are. What can we do in this House? Let us hasten the science on the female condom. It is time women took control of preventing this disease, and the female condom, with NIH working much more aggressively on it, would be one way. Microbicides that a woman can use quickly to destroy the virus before it takes hold, and combination antiretroviral therapies that can reduce the risk to newborns. Only 5 percent of newborns get the disease by transmission from the mother if women have access to these therapies. Mr. Speaker, it costs $10,000 to $12,000 a year to take those pills after one gets the disease. We are talking about a disease that women do not have to get in the first place. We have not targeted them. First, we targeted homosexuals. That was wrong. We should have targeted the whole population, but we had some success targeting homosexuals, although that group is beginning to get the disease again. Then we targeted men generally. We have targeted people of color without being very specific about who they are. The fact is that nobody has targeted women of color, nobody is targeting very young women where the disease is spreading like wildfire and where the very young are quickly becoming half, half of all of those with the AIDS/HIV virus. We come to the floor talking about diseases that we want more science about. We want more science about this. But most of the diseases we talk about, we cannot prevent. What makes this so heartbreaking is that we can prevent it. What makes it especially heartbreaking as to women is that they pass the disease on to their children. We have not begun to work to prevent AIDS in women as we have in men. We have not begun to tell them the whole story. We who talk about sex all the time do not talk about the kind of sex that can kill people. It is time that we took a hold of this disease, as we can, especially as it now begins to spread and become a disease among the young where half of those getting it are women.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman for his excellent bipartisan work with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) on this important bill which sailed through the Committee on Government Reform, on its merits, for good reason. Madam Speaker, I am indebted to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for taking a good idea and nationalizing it. This bill deals with alcohol abuse, drug abuse, tobacco abuse, and researchers know, perhaps it is in the biology of young people, to get a person hooked, get them hooked when they are young. So it is impossible to overemphasize the importance of reaching people early. This is an extraordinary bill for the way it leverages almost nothing. It essentially goes into communities and says, here is a little bit of money, let the community do it. What we are doing here with these grants is to say that communities can do far more cheaply and devotedly what it takes a lot more professionals to do if we do not get in there early. I want to mention a grant that we have in the District of Columbia. We have only one; it is a $100,000 grant. The grants are very competitive. The grant in the District of Columbia is an example of what the faith-based community can do. We have an enormously controversial faith-based bill here, full of constitutional traps, discriminatory patterns. But look at what the D.C. Community Prevention Partnership is doing with none of that controversy. It increases awareness of faith-based institutions and effective prevention principles. So take the churches and the faith-based organizations and teach them about the principles, and the churches will do the rest. It also links community-based youth-serving organizations with neighborhood faith- based institutions. Again, none of the controversy, but leveraging faith-based institutions. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Members on their authorship of this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of members an article from Washingtonian Magazine, December 2001, entitled ``Ground Zero.'' Harry Jaffe deserves credit for his early focus on the burial of munitions and toxic chemicals in the District of Columbia's Spring Valley community and on the government's non-disclosure of information to the D.C. government and its residents. As a result of Mr. Jaffe's work, other media reports and our own investigation, the D.C. Subcomittee held hearings on July 27, and asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a full-scale investigation of the Spring Valley site as well as others in the city, where munitions or chemicals might have been discarded. [From the Washingtonian Magazine, Dec. 2001] Ground Zero (By Harry Jaffe) Rick Feeney was cutting the grass one day in 1992 when he heard his black retriever, Kerry, yelping and whining in the construction site next to his home on Glenbrook Road in DC's Spring Valley. He looked over to see the dog in the freshly dug earth, shaking her head, liquid coming from her eyes and mouth. When Feeney went to help, his own eyes started to water, the skin on his arms started to sting, and a bitter taste filled his mouth. ``Feels a lot like I've been gassed,'' Feeney thought, recalling his training in the Navy, when he had walked through clouds of tear gas. He went home and hosed off himself and his dog. But every time he mowed his lawn, his eyes watered and his nose ran. Finally the hole was covered over and the house completed--now the home of American University president Benjamin Ladner. A few months later, on January 5, 1993, construction workers digging trenches for new houses in Spring Valley a half mile northwest of Feeney's home unearthed what looked like rusted bombs. In a matter of hours, Army bomb-removal units arrived by helicopter from Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. With gas masks on their hips, they determined that the canisters were World War I-era chemical mortar rounds and 75-millimeter shells. Some were live and might contain mustard gas, a lethal chemical that caused blindness, skin blisters, and internal and external bleeding in 400,000 World War I soldiers. Nan Whalen, who lives near the trench, was at home when an acquaintance phoned. ``My God, Nan, what's going on in your neighborhood?'' asked the caller from her car. She had been invited to a dinner party at Vice President Dan Quayle's home on the Naval Observatory grounds and had just heard that it might be canceled. The Army was worried that a live shell might detonate and send a gas cloud drifting over the vice president's house. The first night the Army held a meeting for the community at a church on Westmoreland Circle. Officers told worried residents that the bombs had been left by soldiers who had used the area to produce and test chemical weapons in 1918. They assured residents that everything would be taken care of. Rick Feeney stopped an Army officer on the way out and told him about his reaction to the fumes from the property on Glenbrook Road. `I assumed it was tear gas,' he told the officer, ``or something that made you feel that you had been gassed.'' The officer turned to an aide. ``Make sure we take a look at this,'' Through the rest of 1993 and into 1994, the Army recovered 141 munitions, including 42 poison-gas shells. In stages, officials evacuated 72 homes in the zone around the bomb pit while soldiers searched for buried munitions; in 1994, 130 families were asked to move out, mostly during weekdays, while bomb specialists searched for more ordnance. In 1995 the Army Corps of Engineers issued a report describing its explorations and excavations. In sum, it said it had completed its work; Spring Valley was safe. The situation there required ``no further action.'' Five years later, that seems far from true. Scientist and engineers have determined that the Army missed a number of pits containing buried munitions and toxic chemicals. The search for bomb pits and contaminated soil and water is under way once again. Prodded by DC environmental scientists, the Army Corps of Engineers launched a fresh operation to find and remove hazardous materials from the area. So far it has unearthed twice as many munitions as were found in 1993. Evidence of more toxic chemicals is mounting. Documents reviewed under the freedom of Information Act and interviews with investigators and scientists reveal that: --The Army plans to evacuate two buildings at American University and five houses early next year while it excavates what is believed to be a disposal site for laboratories that produced lethal munitions. --The Army has found high levels of arsenic in a part of Spring Valley once called ``Arsenic Valley'' because of its proximity to a lab that used arsenic in making chemical munitions. Rick Feeney's home lies in its center. Within its borders are a childcare center on AU campus and multimillion- dollar mansions on Indian Lane. The federal government lists arsenic, a poisonous heavy metal, as the most hazardous on its toxic-substance list. Health officials have warned people in Spring Valley against eating food grown in their gardens. --Theodore J. Gordon, chief operating officer for DC's Department of Health, has asked the Corps to ensure that the groundwater in Spring Valley is clear of toxic chemicals, especially arsenic. Some of Spring Valley's groundwater drains towards Dalecarlia Reservoir, which supplies water to DC. Is there arsenic on the bottom of the reservoir? ``That's a possibility'', Gordon says. --Two people who lived in houses built over a 1918 training trench used to test chemical weapons contracted aplastic anemia, a blood disorder that occurs when the bone marrow stops making enough healthy blood cells. The cause of the disease is unknown, but environmental toxins are suspected. --According to internal documents and interviews with investigators, five federal agencies, led by the EPA and including the FBI, are investigating whether ``criminal false statements'' contributed to the Corps' determination in 1995 that ``no further action'' was necessary. While Spring Valley residents learned in 1993 that their neighborhood was built on top of a chemical-weapons proving ground, documents show that American University and the Army knew at least in 1986 that there were ``possible burial sites,'' according to documents filed in lawsuits and reports obtained through FOIA. American University knew as early as 1921, when a campus publication referred to buried weapons on campus. Lawsuits have been filed in the case. Former district judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in 1997 that the Army had a ``duty to warn'' people about the buried bombs: ``The Army in this case created the hazard and literally `coverd it up,' '' Sporkin wrote in ruling on a lawsuit filed against the Army by a developer in 1996. The Spring Valley investigation is more than a story about buried munitions; it's also about buried intentions and hidden agendas. At critical junctures a community's health and welfare appear to have been sacrificed for bureaucratic infighting and concerns about public image. And the people of Spring Valley have been in conflict over whether to protect their property values or to actively investigate potential risks. There is now no hard evidence of cancer clusters in Spring Valley, but there's's no question that the health risks deserved scientific scrutiny years ago. Says Kenneth Schuster, a US Environmental Protection Agency scientist investigating Spring Valley: There is an indication of high incidence of cancer and rare blood diseases. Are they related to the buried munitions? We don't know, but I'm pushing for an epidemiological study. ``There a lot of unfinished business in Spring Valley.''

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, may I thank our Chair, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for her work on this bill and for striving successfully to get it to the floor so quickly. I appreciate the work she has done and the work of her staff. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1499, the College Access Technical Corrections Act of 2001, a bill that would close a gap by allowing all D.C. residents who qualify to receive the valuable benefits of the College Access Act passed by the 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. Tom Davis), who are original cosponsors of this bill and particularly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who was the sponsor of the original College Access Act and worked diligently in both Houses for its passage. H.R. 1499 was passed unanimously in both the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and the full Committee on Government Reform prior to coming to the floor today. It has the enthusiastic support of Mayor Williams and the council of the District of Columbia as well as, of course, of D.C. residents. Indeed, I want to thank the Congress for its strong support of the District of Columbia College Access Act in 1999. Residents have enthusiastically moved to take advantage of this opportunity. The act is now responsible for nearly 2,000 D.C. students who are attending public colleges and universities nationwide at in-state rates or receiving a $2,500 stipend to private colleges and universities in the District and the region. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this 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 today, because this is a white collar and technology city and region with few factories or other opportunities for jobs that provide good wages. The College Access Act has provided opportunities for D.C. residents to afford a public college education both here in the region and around the country. For the first time since the city was established 200 years ago this year, District residents have choices for a public college education routinely available to Americans in the 50 States. H.R. 1499 would improve the College Access Act by removing two restrictions that have prevented some D.C. residents from qualifying for the in-state tuition and other benefits of the act. The first restriction is a requirement that only students who graduated from high school after January 1, 1998, qualify. The second restriction is language that provides that students who graduated from high school more than 3 years ago do not qualify. These two provisions were originally placed in the act because with no prior experience with this approach, Congress was not certain that the annual appropriation would be sufficient. Today, the District has demonstrated that the funds allocated are indeed sufficient to accommodate the current college seniors and some juniors as well as older students who are adversely affected by these restrictions. H.R. 1499 also closes a loophole that allows foreign nationals who live in the District to receive the benefits of the act, a result not intended by the sponsors of the original legislation. We need to pass this bill now and get it to the Senate, because this year's college graduating class is among the residents who are affected. The D.C. tuition assistance grant office, which administers the college access program, is prepared to deliver funds to these seniors and also to the juniors who previously did not qualify. In addition, older students who did not qualify are eager to take advantage of the program in time for the next college year in September. I urge my colleagues to support this bill that would go far toward affording to the residents of the Nation's capital opportunities that are equal to those provided throughout the United States. Again, I would like to thank our Chair, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and also the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the full Committee on Government Reform, who enabled this legislation to go before the full committee without hesitation and quickly to arrive on the floor today and the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who has been supportive throughout, for their work on the bill and for bringing this bill to the floor so quickly. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of a valued and long-time resource for the residents of the District of Columbia, WAMU, one of the nation's leading public radio stations. In addition to its nationwide audience, WAMU has served nearly half a million listeners in the District of Columbia and surrounding areas for forty years, with award-winning news and public affairs programming by its celebrated talk show hosts Diane Rehm, Kojo Nnamdi of Public Interest, local hosts David Furst of Metro Connection and Lakshmi Singh of All Things Considered, and our own indispensable local D.C. political pundit Mark Plotkin. In response to the overwhelming views of its listeners and subscribers, WAMU 88.5 FM recently altered its weekday format to include more public affairs programming. To the station's credit, WAMU nevertheless found a way to preserve the bluegrass programming for which the station is also known. Members of the House and Senate and the station's listeners nationwide, who depend on WAMU for the best public affairs programming on the air will be happy about the expanded public affairs programs. At the same time, we commend WAMU for its sensitivity in finding a way to continue a healthy dose of bluegrass music. WAMU is an important part of community life here, and prides itself on being the ``voice of the community'' to those of us who live and work in the greater Washington area. Increased news coverage in the nation's capital, especially with a local focus during national broadcasts is especially needed and welcomed by those of us who call this area home--where we educate our children, volunteer to help, pay taxes, attend church services, take part in the arts, and do all the things that make the Washington area vibrant and vital. This is radio at its most substantive, thoughtful and interesting best. WAMU recently added even more news programming to serve the needs of this diverse and unique Washington audience, because it has a special responsibility to inform, educate and raise the level of conversation on the issues of our day. WAMU takes its shows into the community, with Public Interest and The DC Politics Hour broadcasting live from every ward in the city to hear the opinions of city residents on issues of critical importance to them and their neighborhoods. The station also participates in hosting and sponsoring myriad non-profit arts, education, ethnic and cultural events in the city every year. I applaud the news and information programming additions, and commend WAMU for its extensive and long standing service to our area. As WAMU celebrates 40 years of broadcasting, we look forward to its continued presence for many years to come. WAMU remains an award winning resource for the residents of the Washington area.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, for the world, it may be enough to remember that Katharine Graham was a great publisher, humanitarian and path breaker for women, but no summary of her life is complete unless it includes the contributions that made her a great Washingtonian. Notwithstanding her world class accomplishments and worldwide fame, Kay Graham always lavished love and attention on her hometown. She stood for full equality when this was a segregated southern town, and she stood for full democracy and congressional representation until the day she died. The Washington Post was only the most visible instrument of her support for the District and its people. Those who live here will especially cherish the countless ways that Kay Graham was devoted to this city as a public advocate and private citizen. In short, Katharine Graham was one of us.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act every year since 1993, and I will continue to introduce this bill until the threat posed by the world's nuclear arsenals is eliminated. This issue was brought to my attention by constituents who have been vigilant to the continuing need to focus on nuclear proliferation. Moreover, today missile defense is being pressed by the Bush Administration, which has refused to acknowledge urgent domestic needs from health care to affordable housing. Long after the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union, the threat of nuclear weapons remains. Today, the United States continues to hold approximately 7,295 operational nuclear warheads while Russia controls 6,094, and the other declared nuclear powers of Great Britain, France, and China are estimated to possess approximately 10,000 operational warheads. Furthermore, proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in countries in unstable regions, is now one of the leading military threats to the national security of the United States, its allies, and the world. The United States, as the sole remaining superpower and the leading nuclear power in the world, has an obligation to move first and take bold steps to encourage other nuclear powers to eliminate their arsenals and to prevent the proliferation of these weapons. That is why I have chosen today, the 56th anniversary of the first test of a nuclear explosive in Alamogordo, New Mexico, to reintroduce the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act of 2001. The bill would require the United States to disable and dismantle its nuclear weapons and to refrain from replacing them with weapons of mass destruction once foreign countries possessing nuclear weapons enact and execute similar requirements. My bill has an important complementary provision that the resources used to sustain our nuclear weapons program be used to address human and infrastructure needs such as housing, health care, education, agriculture, and the environment. By eliminating our nuclear weapons arsenal, the United States can realize an additional ``peace dividend'' from which critical domestic initiatives can be funded, including new programs proposed in the Administration's FY 2002 budget. Many courageous leaders in the United States and around the world have spoken out about the obsolescence of nuclear weapons and the need for their elimination. These leaders include retired Air Force General Lee Butler and more than 60 other retired generals and admirals from 17 nations, who, on December 5, 1996, issued a statement that ``the continuing existence of nuclear weapons in the armories of nuclear powers, and the ever-present threat of acquisition of these weapons by others, constitute a peril to global peace and security and to the safety and survival of the people we are dedicated to protect'' and that the ``creation of a nuclear-weapons-free world [is] necessary [and] possible.'' The United States and the world community must redouble their efforts to obtain commitments from the nations developing nuclear technology to refrain from actual deployment of nuclear weapons, as well as to help contain other countries that aspire to become nuclear powers, such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, from moving forward with their programs. The United States will be far more credible and persuasive in these efforts if we are willing to take the initiative in dismantling our own nuclear weapons program and helping arms industries to convert plants and employees to providing products and services that enhance the wealth and quality of life of citizens. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act of 2001 and the committees with jurisdiction over the bill to mark it up quickly so that it can be considered and passed.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening because of a shocking story that appeared on the front page of the Washington Post this morning about a secret deal between, of all people, of all organizations, the Salvation Army, to support charitable choice in exchange for the issuance of a White House regulation, OMB Circular No. A-102, that would deny assistance to States or localities that require religious charities to adhere to their nondiscrimination laws as they apply to gay men and women. Now, of course, these nondiscrimination laws have to do with the activities of these religious charities that do not relate to their religions. A political deal should be beneath the dignity of the Salvation Army, given its long Christian heritage, not to mention the President of the United States. It is a deal to discriminate under the table. According to the lead document, this cannot be done in the legislative process very easily, so they had to do it by regulation. Charitable choice already contains a fatal flaw, because, as put forward by the administration, it would allow a religious organization to discriminate using government money by requiring people it hires to do a government task to be of their religion. That is a direct violation of Title VI and of the Constitution of the United States. I am a former Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I strongly support an exemption in the law that I administered, Title VII, which allows a religious denomination an exemption to the antidiscrimination law in hiring people of their own religion with their own money. But we cannot give the Baptists and the Lutherans and the Catholics and the Jews our money and say you can discriminate when you perform services in our name. That is already a problem with the bill. But in order to make it perfectly clear, in case that does not survive, that at least people who are gay and lesbian should not be discriminated against, this would be done by regulation. Mr. Speaker, why the Salvation Army would engage in this deal is really perplexing. The Salvation Army already gets $300 million in funds from the Federal Government to do their wonderful work. They get it because they abide by government regulations that say when you use government money, you cannot proselytize, you cannot engage in religion, because this is America, and this is what we have stood for, for everybody. So they already get money, just like Catholic charities and just like Lutheran charities and just like Jewish charities all get money, and they have accepted it, and I hope they will continue to get it on the basis that everybody else who does the government's work accepts it, and that is as long as we are doing the government's work, then your money is the public money, and we cannot discriminate against anybody when giving those services. This body has already a long history of discriminating against gays and lesbians in the District of Columbia, because whenever there is anything in our law that allows equal protection for people of a different sexual orientation, then somebody hops up here and tries, and often succeeds, in overturning the law. Now we are trying to do to do what you do to the District of Columbia to hundreds of localities and States in the United States. I hope everybody understands what it feels like to intrude in the affairs of local jurisdictions in a federalist society, a society where we say, look, different strokes for different folks. Some of us behave one way with respect to our laws, others another way. Some people have chosen to protect gay men and lesbians against discrimination, and I say God bless them. In the 21st century we should not be discriminating against any Americans based on a characteristic that has nothing to do with performance. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with performance, and the last people, the last organizations who should be engaged in such discrimination are organizations that go by the name ``Christian,'' and the Salvation Army should be ashamed of itself that it has been caught red-handed on the front page of the Washington Post in the column where you put war and peace. Thank God that they were exposed.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J. leaves Georgetown University on June 30th after twelve splendid and productive years as the president of the oldest Catholic university in the United States. I know I am joined by the Members of the House in recognizing Father O'Donovan's very distinguished service to Georgetown, to higher education, to this city, and to his Catholic faith. Father O'Donovan, a summa cum laude graduate of Georgetown College, a Jesuit institution, returned to his renowned alma mater, himself a distinguished Jesuit. He has led the University in the tradition of scholarship, faith, and service, as if it were second nature to him. I have had the opportunity to observe Father O'Donovan at work because I was a tenured member of the faculty of the Law Center when he became president in 1989 and have continued as a faculty member, teaching a course every year. I watched first hand as Father O'Donovan strengthened a university that was already acknowledged to be one of the best in the country, and at the same time, deepened its strong commitment to its religious mission and to this city. Father O'Donovan managed simultaneously to raise the university's academic standing and enrich the religious mission of one of the world's foremost Catholic universities. He leaves the University significantly expanded both academically and physically, with 37% more full time faculty, a 25% increase in library holdings, and a doubling of endowed chairs. Among the most significant capital improvements during Father O'Donovan's tenure are an $82 million renovation of all undergraduate housing and his initiation of a $169 million Southwest Quadrangle, which will contain new residences for undergraduates and for the Jesuit community. His signature especially is on the religious identity of the institution to which he has brought fresh and innovative emphasis. I am particularly grateful to Father O'Donovan for his leadership in making Georgetown an especially good D.C. citizen. These contributions have been plentiful and varied, from the University's D.C. Reads literacy tutors and faculty and student support for our catholic elementary schools, to the university's $1 million investment that helped launch a community bank, the City First Bank. Mr. Speaker, I cannot pretend to summarize Father O'Donovan's magnificent accomplishments in a terse statement before the House or even in the longer statement of his accomplishments that I am submitting for the record. The achievements of the O'Donovan presidency will continue to roll out for years to come. Suffice it to say that in 1989, the challenge for a top university was to find a top president and that after a dozen years, no one can doubt that Georgetown was fortunate to meet that high standard in the man who became its 47th president. Father Leo J. O'Donovan will always be remembered at the university, in this city, and in our country for his gallant and loving spirit and for his unique contributions to education and to the District of Columbia, while reinforcing the values of his religious faith in the institution he has superbly lead into the 21st century. Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J.--Leadership for Georgetown The Reverend Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J., became Georgetown University's 47th president in 1989, 33 years after he graduated summa cum laude from Georgetown College. A member of the Society of Jesus since 1957, Fr. O'Donovan is a specialist in systematic theology and holds advanced degrees in theology and philosophy from Fordham University, Woodstock College, and the University of Munster, Germany. At the time of his election to serve as president of Georgetown, he was a professor of systematic theology at Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a visiting fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center on Georgetown's campus, and a member of Georgetown's Board of Directors. Under his leadership in the past twelve years, Georgetown University has continued to flourish and grow as a world- class university with a vibrant Catholic and Jesuit identity. As president, Fr. O'Donovan has sustained and enhanced Georgetown University's traditions of scholarship, faith, and service--advancing teaching and research, strengthening the University's commitment to educating ``men and women for others,'' and ensuring that Georgetown serves as a strong non-profit citizen in Washington, D.C. Academic Excellence Ranked among the top 25 universities in the nation every year in the 1990s, as well as in 2000-2001, Georgetown has continued to strengthen academic excellence and deepen its longstanding commitment to teaching and research. Georgetown's outstanding students continue to achieve distinction nationally, earning some of the most prestigious awards in higher education, including 11 Rhodes Scholarships, 7 Marshall Scholarships, and 8 Luce Foundation Scholarships since 1990. Georgetown's Law Center ranks first in the nation in the number of graduates who go into public interest and public service law. And 64 judicial clerkships have recently been awarded to Law Center graduates. At the School of Medicine, students continue to perform exceptionally well in residency assignments they receive through the National Residency Matching Program. In 2000, more than half of graduating seniors received their first choice for residency, and 80 percent received one of their top two choices. These figures are higher than the national average. Support for Faculty Fr. O'Donovan has funded faculty-development grants for interdisciplinary research and course development and made a priority the creation of new endowed faculty positions. The number of Georgetown's endowed professorships and endowed chairs has doubled in the past twelve years. Among the new chairs were the University's first in computer science, music, and Japanese language and culture, as well as the John Carroll Distinguished Professorship in Ethics, the Ryan Chair in Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy, and a chair to support the scholarship and teaching of a visiting Jesuit scholar. From Fall 1988 through Fall 2000 the number of Main Campus full-time faculty (both tenure track and non-tenure track) increased 37%. From Fall 1990 through Fall 2000, the number of full-time faculty at the Georgetown University Law Center increased 38%. Georgetown Law Center has the largest faculty in the United States. Research and Scholarship Georgetown's faculty include some of the nation's leading scholars in a wide array of fields--from linguistics to constitutional law to cancer research to health care policy. Georgetown was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a Research I institution in 1994 and a Doctoral/Research-extensive university in 2000. From FY90 to FY99, research and development funding support has increased by 119 percent. Georgetown's library holdings have increased by more than 25% in the past ten years. Academic Developments and Innovations In the past 12 years, Georgetown has steadily expanded its academic programs. Currently, there are more than 90 undergraduate and graduate degree programs, including 20 doctoral programs. In recent years, numerous new interdisciplinary graduate programs have been instituted, including programs in the neurosciences and molecular and cell biology. The undergraduate curriculum has been augmented by new minors in areas such as Catholic studies and environmental studies, a new major in political economy, and a joint program in Communication, Culture, and Technology. New graduate and professional initiatives include the Asian Law and Policy Studies Program at the Law Center, and an International Executive MBA Program at the McDonough School of Business. In 1995, the Main Campus also completed a major reorganization of academic programs, incorporating the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics into the Georgetown College. Under Fr. O'Donovan's leadership, innovative academic and philanthropic planning has allowed Georgetown to create a number of new teaching and research initiatives, including: Law Casa, a center for research on Latin American law and policy issues, and the Supreme Court Institute in the Law Center; The Center for Clinical Bioethics in the Medical Center; The Center for German and European Studies, the Center for Australian and New Zealand Studies, and the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in the Walsh School of Foreign Service; and The Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching and Service on the Main Campus. Achievements in Admissions & Financial Aid As Georgetown's academic programs and faculty have advanced in stature, the admissions process has become increasingly more competitive. Georgetown accepts between 20 and 25 percent of its approximately 15,000 undergraduate applicants each year and thus ranks among the nation's most selective institutions. At the same time, Fr. O'Donovan has worked to ensure the accessibility and affordability of a Georgetown education, sustaining its need-blind/full-need admissions policy and increasing significantly the amount of University funding appropriated annually for undergraduate aid. Institutional scholarship aid for undergraduates increased from $14 million in 1989 to more than $34.5 million in 2000-01. Each year more than 55% of the undergraduate students at Georgetown receive some form of financial assistance. Including federal and private, grant, loan, and work-study programs, Georgetown awarded a total of $67.5 million in undergraduate financial aid in 2000-01. Among the recent additions to financial aid resources are the Pedro Arrupe, S.J., Scholarship for Peace fund, established by a generous anonymous gift to enable students from war-torn regions of the world to attend Georgetown, and a special scholarship fund financed by the Office of the President for graduates of District of Columbia schools. In 2000-01, the Law Center again received more applications than any law school in the nation, and more than 8,000 students applied for 171 seats in the School of Medicine. One of every four medical school applicants in the country applies to Georgetown. In addition, applicants' GPAs and MCAT scores continue to be well above average. Average LSAT scores of entering law students are in the 95th percentile nationally. Diversity at Georgetown In 2001, in an independent survey published in Black Enterprise, Georgetown was ranked second among non- historically black colleges and universities as a place where African American students feel that their aspirations are supported. In 1999, the publication Hispanic Business ranked MBA programs and law schools in terms of places where Hispanics were most likely to succeed. Approximately 22% of Georgetown's undergraduate class of 2004 are international students and students from minority and ethnic backgrounds. Each year Georgetown ranks either first or second among highly selective private institutions in the number of applications by African Americans. Georgetown's Law Center has become one of the most diverse in the nation, second only to Howard University in the number of African American attorneys graduated in the U.S. During Fall 2000, minorities made up 29.3 percent of the students in the J.D. program. The percentage of minority students in the School of Medicine has increased from 20 percent in 1994 to more than 28 percent in 2000. Of the undergraduate students enrolled during Fall 2000 who indicated a religious preference, more than half (55.3 percent) indicated that they are Roman Catholic. About 23 percent reported another Christian denomination, while about five percent indicated they are of the Jewish faith. About three percent of the undergraduates stated that they are Muslim, two percent are Hindu and one percent reported that they are Buddhist. About seven percent indicated no religion and about four percent indicated some other religious preference. About eight percent of all undergraduates did not specify a religious preference and about 2.5% indicated some other religious preference. Georgetown also has made significant strides promoting diversity within the faculty and administration. Among Fr. O'Donovan's administrative appointments have been the first women to serve as Provost, Dean of Georgetown College, Dean of the School of Medicine, Vice President and Treasurer, and Vice President and General Counsel. Georgetown's Catholic and Jesuit Identity Fr. O'Donovan has led Georgetown's efforts to develop further the spiritual dimension of Georgetown's campus and intellectual life. During the past 12 years, in addition to the new academic centers listed above, the University has launched innovative initiatives in Catholic Studies and Jewish Studies. Georgetown's nationally recognized retreat programs have grown significantly, offering a broad range of retreat options to all members of the University community, with specific retreats for those of the Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Orthodox Christian, and Jewish faiths. The University has hosted a wide range of conferences, symposia, and lectures devoted to religious issues and topics. Georgetown's Third Century Campaign has set a target of $45 million for initiatives related to Georgetown's Catholic and Jesuit identity, including five endowed chairs in the Catholic intellectual tradition. In 1995, Fr. O'Donovan initiated a University-wide dialogue about ways in which the University might further deepen its Catholic and Jesuit identity. As a part of that process, in 1997, he charged a faculty-led task force to make specific recommendations about steps Georgetown could take to enhance its identity for the future. That task force filed its report in 1998. Fr. O'Donovan then invited the entire University community to respond to this report and in May 1999 appointed four faculty committees to begin developing implementation strategies for some of the recommendations. Following the work of the faculty committees, in September 2000, Fr. O'Donovan launched a series of initiatives aimed at enhancing Georgetown's Catholic and Jesuit identity. These included: Inaugurating a second chair in Catholic Social Thought using a new endowment obtained by the University--the first chair, inaugurated last academic year, is currently held by the Rev. John P. Langan, S.J.; Promoting dialogue among faculty about Jesuit pedagogy through the work of the Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (CNDLS), a new center that will make these discussions a part of its overall mission; Supporting Jesuit recruitment through the establishment of a standing committee of Jesuits and other faculty members; Enhancing faculty diversity with increased funding for recruitment--Georgetown has already successfully recruited three new minority faculty members; and Establishing a Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching and Service to focus on expanding the ways that Georgetown integrates research and service into academic life. To articulate the strong Catholic and Jesuit foundation of the University, Fr. O'Donovan also charged a faculty committee led by the Provost Dorothy Brown to draft a University mission statement. In September 2000, Georgetown's Board approved the mission statement submitted by the committee and previously reviewed by the University community. New Investments in Space and Facilities Throughout his tenure, Fr. O'Donovan has been dedicated to developing strategies for effective long-term campus development. More than $82 million dollars has been invested in the renovation of all undergraduate student housing. In Fall 2000, the University broke ground for the Southwest Quadrangle, which includes a 780-bed residence hall, a dining hall, an underground parking garage, and a new Jesuit community residence. The $168.5 million construction project is on schedule for completion in the fall of 2003. On November 8, 2000 the District of Columbia's Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) approved Georgetown University's 2000 Campus Plan. The approval allows the University to proceed with construction and renovation plans for all buildings proposed in the plan, including modifications to hospital facilities proposed by MedStar Health. New facilities for the sciences, performing arts, and the McDonough School of Business are also a part of the Master Plan, and major gifts for these have been raised through Georgetown's Third Century Campaign. Recent campus development at the Law Center includes the completion of the Gewirz Student Center, which provides the campus' first on-site housing for law students, and the opening of a new wing of the campus' central building, which includes technologically advanced classrooms and seminar rooms and expanded student activity space. Current projects include construction of a new academic facility and health fitness center on the Law Center property Georgetown purchased two years ago. Important new strategic investments include the acquisitions of the Wormley School building on Prospect Street and the National Academy of Sciences buildings on Wisconsin Avenue. At the Medical Center a new wing was completed at the Hospital in 1993, and a new research building was dedicated in 1995. Growth and Achievements in Athletics During Fr. O'Donovan's tenure as president, Georgetown's Athletic Program has regularly undergone reviews, has been found in compliance with Title IX, and has received NCAA certification. Georgetown instituted women's soccer as a varsity sport and elevated women's lacrosse to a national level sport. The University also expanded the number of scholarships for women athletes. Men's lacrosse has grown in stature to become a Final Four program, and, in 2001, the football team began competing in the Patriot League. In the 1990s, fourteen different teams ranked in the top ten in the nation, and graduation rates for athletes continue to be outstanding. During the past 12 years, philanthropic support has also increased significantly. Annual Fund contributions to the Athletic Program have more than doubled, and two endowed coaching positions and an endowed chair, the Francis X. Rienzo Athletic Director Chair, were established. Major Administrative Projects With the rise of managed care, the decline of government funding for health care, and other factors, Georgetown faced serious financial challenges at the Medical Center throughout the 90s. To address the Medical Center's increasing budget deficits, Fr. O'Donovan established a strong focus on cost cutting, revenue enhancement, and other management strategies. In March 1999, he signed a letter of The partnership allows Georgetown to realize major strategic goals: It preserves and supports the University's mission of first-class medical education and research, as well as the Hospital's Catholic identity. It transfers the clinical operations to MedStar, thereby protecting Georgetown from future clinically-related losses in an increasingly competitive health care economy while providing the opportunity for future earnings if MedStar's Washington, D.C., system meets certain financial targets. It saved 3,800 jobs in the clinical enterprise, and it strengthens our relationship with the District of Columbia by continuing to provide opportunities for employment and medical care. In the past 12 years, Georgetown has made major investments in improving the technological infrastructure of the University and expanding the ways in which technology can enhance teaching and research. Georgetown is among the first universities in the nation to use the latest fiber optic technology in its residence halls, all of which are now wired for advanced computer and Internet use. In addition, 100% of Georgetown faculty have access to the world wide web. Library services include web-accessible catalogues and databases, as well as a broad array of research assistance online. While advancing its technological resources, Georgetown is also moving ahead as a higher education leader on such innovative projects as Internet 2. Building Support for the Next Century In October 1998, Georgetown formally launched its $750 million Third Century Campaign, to support faculty, enhance facilities and financial aid resources and strengthen every area of the University. Based on its strong record of success, the Board approved the increase of the campaign goal to $1 billion in September 2000. As of December 31st, 2000, the campaign already had secured more than $640 million in gifts and pledges, including a gift of $30 million to name the Robert E. McDonough School of Business. Established in 1996, Georgetown's Blue and Gray Society, which comprises donors who give $10,000 or more annually to the University, increased its membership from more than 780 in 1997 to nearly 1500 in 2000. The campaign effort will further bolster Georgetown's endowment, which has already grown from $232 million in 1989 to more than $772 million in October 2000. Contributions to the D.C. Community Georgetown's fulfillment of its commitment to the Jesuit educational principle of educating ``men and women for others'' has also grown in breadth and depth. Of the more than 180 programs dedicated to community service, several have been launched in the past decade, including: The Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching and Service, and the Center for Urban Research and Teaching on the Main Campus; The Law Center's Office of Public Interest and Community Service; and Collaborative ventures such as the Georgetown Public Policy Institute's D.C. Community Policy Forum, a research partnership between the University and District of Columbia agencies. Fr. O'Donovan created a series of grants to support faculty in their efforts to create new and enhance existing service- learning courses and to undertake research projects that directly benefit the District and its residents. Two of those grants expanded the work done by Georgetown faculty and students in the Archdiocese's Catholic elementary schools, which are also served by Georgetown's large corps of DC Fr. O'Donovan led the development of a comprehensive strategy to build stronger relationships between the University community and its surrounding neighbors. He created the position of Assistant Vice President for External Relations to promote improved communication and collaboration between the University and the local D.C. community. In recent years, Georgetown has decreased the number of undergraduate students living off campus, instituted special bulk trash pick-ups at the beginning and close of each academic year, and advanced its plans to build a new 780 bed residence hall complex. Finally, to serve the children of faculty, students, and staff, the Hoya Kids Learning Center, a child development and pre-school facility, was established in 1997 on the Main Campus. Scholarships for families in need are funded by the Office of the President.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for yielding me this time and for her very hard work, along with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the Chair, in bringing this bill forward at such a timely moment. I bring, I must say, particular congratulations, however, to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for what he has done and the way he has done it. If I may say so, I will be very sorry to see the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) leave at the end of the 107th Congress so that we might not have more enlightened ideas of this kind from him. What he has done is define a great American family, one of the most distinguished in our history, who has simply been overlooked among all the memorials that stand out there all over Washington, D.C., our first and sixth President, and one of the most important First Ladies, Abigail Adams, an extraordinary writer in her own right and a strong abolitionist. There is no need for us, really, to lay out the reasons for a memorial for this family in the Congressional Record. The reasons have already been laid out in the texts of American history and in the vindication of history itself. Let me say a word about how the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) went about doing what he is doing because it is a case study, it seems to me, in how to approach a delicate area like the Mall. He, from the beginning, in writing his bill, consulted with the relevant agencies, especially the National Capital Planning Commission, the agencies which Congress has given the authority over matters dealing with the mall. He is proceeding in full compliance with the Commemorative Works Act. He does not name a site for where the memorial shall be found. That we have given to the NCPC. He specifically states what should already be taken for granted, that his bill must be done in keeping with the Commemorative Works Act. It is important to come forward and say what this Member has done because recently there has been a lot of controversy surrounding memorials on the Mall. Our generation is in danger of using all the available space on this small piece of land meant to serve Americans in perpetuity. I commend the three commissions who are submitting a plan to fairly apportion space on the Mall. They have found for us areas contiguous to the Mall, areas near the Mall, areas centrally located where tourists may go. One thing we know is that the Adams family belongs here on the Mall. The only question is how and where to put it. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) wants to make sure that this is done right and done through the commissions who are expert at doing this. Madam Speaker, one generation does not have the right to fill the Mall as if there will be no great men or women who come after us, none among our children or grandchildren or great grandchildren, but the Roemer bill says it even better. There must be space for those who, in our lack of wisdom, we have overlooked on the Mall. The Roemer bill has found a great American family, which had no contemporaries to speak for them, no interest groups to speak for them. Instead, the Roemer bill let their contributions speak for themselves as a family worthy of recognition prominently in the Nation's Capital. I thank the gentleman for the work he has done and for the work that will surely enhance the Mall area.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today we introduce a bill to make permanent an 80-20 match for the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), which serves jurisdictions in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia through its facility at Blue Plains. In fiscal years 1998 and 2000, the 80-20 match was included in appropriations bills. Because the Fiscal Year 2000 provision expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2001, this legislation to make the 80-20 match permanent is necessary. The Blue Plains facility operated by WASA is the largest advanced waste water treatment plant in the world, serving two million users in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs as well as the District of Columbia. The financial and operational health of this facility is vital to the efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay as well as waters that serve the City of Vienna, and the counties of Fairfax, Loudoun, Montgomery, and Prince Georges. Blue Plains is responsible for the largest reductions of nitrogen into the Bay of any facility in the entire Bay Watershed. WASA has only been able to undertake major facility improvements-- including biosolids digestion and handling facilities, major renovations to preliminary treatment facilities, new chemical feed operations, and additional electrical system enhancements--because of the 80-20 formula. We also seek this change as a matter of fairness. In enacting the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Act), Congress recognized that the District, a city without a state, shoulders an unfair financial obligation in programs in which municipalities normally have state financial assistance. The Act provided for federal support for the state share of several such programs. The region has been unable to take advantage of the usual combination of state and city matches only because this facility, which serves regional partners, happens to be located in the District of Columbia. A permanent 80-20 federal-local match would place the District on a par with other municipalities and states in the United States. The 20% that the District would continue to assume is equivalent to the burden borne by many other cities in the country. Of course, local rate payers in the region would continue to bear their share. We urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this important provision that would provide tangible benefits to regional residents and to the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, as well as the Chesapeake Bay, a national treasure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today we introduce a bill to make permanent an 80-20 match for the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), which serves jurisdictions in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia through its facility at Blue Plains. In fiscal years 1998 and 2000, the 80-20 match was included in appropriations bills. Because the Fiscal Year 2000 provision expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2001, this legislation to make the 80-20 match permanent is necessary. The Blue Plains facility operated by WASA is the largest advanced waste water treatment plant in the world, serving two million users in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs was well as the District of Columbia. The financial and operational health of this facility is vital to the efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay as well as water that serve the City of Vienna, and the counties of Fairfax, Loudoun, Montgomery, and Prince George's. Blue Plains is responsible for the largest reductions of nitrogen into the Bay of any facility in the entire Bay Watershed. WASA has only been able to undertake major facility improvements-- including biosolids digestion and handling facilities, major renovations to preliminary treatment facilities, new chemical feed operations, and additional electrical system enhancements--because of the 80-20 formula. We also seek this change as a matter of fairness. In enacting the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Act), Congress recognized that the District, a city without a state, shoulders an unfair financial obligation in programs in which municipalities normally have state financial assistance. The Act provided for federal support for the state share of several such programs. The region has been unable to take advantage of the usual combination of state and city matches only because this facility, which serves regional partners, happens to be located in the District of Columbia. A permanent 80-20 federal-local match would place the District on a par with other municipalities and states in the United States. The 20 percent that the District would continue to assume is equivalent to the burden borne by many other cities in the country. Of course, local rate payers in the region would continue to bear their share. We urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this important provision that would provide tangible benefits to regional residents and to the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, as well as the Chesapeake Bay, a national treasure.