Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, it is especially appropriate during this Women's History Month that we have welcomed for prayer a distinguished young woman, an ordained minister of the Church of God, the Reverend Dr. Cheryl Sanders. Not only is Reverend Sanders the senior minister of one of the District's oldest and most distinguished churches, the Third Street Church of God, she is professor of Christian Ethics at Howard University. Not only does Dr. Sanders minister to the poor as a gifted preacher, she is a woman of extraordinary intellectual range. She has written and taught broadly on subjects ranging from biomedical ethics to the Holiness Pentecostal experience and African American religion and culture. I am proud to note that she has a special interest in feminist ethics. Madam Speaker, I am particularly proud and pleased to celebrate Women's History Month by having the prayer offered this morning by a woman who, like me, is a native Washingtonian, who attended D.C. public schools, where she was well prepared to achieve her BA at Swarthmore and her masters and doctorate at Howard University Divinity School, where she now teaches. Dr. Sanders' life as a Christian minister includes her husband and two children. The Church is blessed when such an able and dedicated woman is called to teach and preach in the Nation's Capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, recently drug companies announced that they would sell anti-AIDS drugs in southern Africa at a considerable discount. This would still entail hundreds of dollars per person. The recent experience of Bristol-Myers Squibb gives me caution. A $100 million, 5-year initiative that was meant to donate money for AIDS drugs in Africa has boiled down to almost nothing. The reasons are not entirely clear. Although this was to be a charitable gift, the money has come down to $1.3 million per year to five participating countries. I recall that when Prime Minister Mbeki of South Africa was here for a visit last year, we all wondered why Mbeki was embroiled in a torturous notion about the cause of AIDS. I wish he had been more forthright about what his real problem was, and when he met with the Congressional Black Caucus I believe I was able to extract from him what his real problem was. South Africa offers free medical care, and on cross-examination it became clear that if South Africa were to even use the rather inexpensive drugs to combat mother-to-infant transmission it would use up its entire medical budget. We must not forget that with the great importance we attach to drugs and especially the agreement of some of these companies to offer drugs at discount rates in southern Africa, that in developing countries nothing can replace prevention. In this country, Medicaid is overwhelmed with the costs of AIDS, but it is an entitlement, so people are going to get it. In developing countries, where there is TB and malaria and hundreds of other diseases, to superimpose our notion of how to combat the disease is not going to work. I hate to consider it, but it is true. It seems to me that it is time to face the importance of continuing to stress prevention as the most important strategy not only in this country but especially in developing countries. Developing countries are being set back decades because of the AIDS crisis. To the great credit of some of the companies and others around the world, we want drugs to be made available to developing countries as well. It will be important to prioritize which drugs to which people. Mother-to- children drugs that are especially effective in keeping children from getting AIDS at all would be very, very important. But, beyond that, we have got to tailor strategies for combating AIDS to the environment in which those strategies are expected to work. In Africa, we greet the decision of the drug companies to offer drugs at discount rates. At the same time, we must remind ourselves that most of our effort must go into preventing AIDS, which has already become a catastrophe of epidemic proportions in southern Africa.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 809, the Antitrust Technical Corrections Act of 2001. I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their leadership in bringing this important corrective measure to the floor so early in the session. Because of the bill's beneficial impact on the District of Columbia and the territories, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor. Section 2(c) of the Antitrust Technical Corrections Act would close a potentially dangerous loophole in the nation's antitrust laws with respect to the District of Columbia and the territories. Two of the most important provisions of the Sherman Act are 15 U.S.C. sections 1 and 2. Section 1 prevents conspiracy in restraint of trade and section 2 prevents monopoly, attempts to create a monopoly and conspiracy to create a monopoly. These provisions form the bedrock of our antitrust laws. However, section 3 of the Sherman Act, which was intended to apply these vital provisions to the District of Columbia and the territories, is ambiguous with respect to whether section 2, prohibiting monopolies, applies to these jurisdictions. Despite the ambiguous language in section 3 of the Sherman Act, we believe that Congress clearly intended the nation's antitrust laws to apply not only to the states, but to the territories and the District of Columbia as well. This bill would clarify that intent. The committee has found at least one instance in which the Department of Justice decided not to bring a potentially meritorious monopoly claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act because of the ambiguous language in section 3. Although this case occurred in the Virgin Islands and not the District, the Antitrust Technical Corrections Act is necessary to safeguard against a similar occurrence in the District and to ensure the seamless application of our antitrust laws not only throughout the nation but also in the territories and the nation's capital. I thank the chairman and ranking member once again for their attention to this important matter and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day. Women of the world have very little to celebrate. Tragically, the new President withdrew family planning counseling across the developing world, where family planning had begun to have a structural effect on life for men, women and children. The average family size where people have had access to family planning assistance has been reduced in a very short period of time from six to four. Now, we see the closing of clinics. Mr. Speaker, what troubles me most this evening is the effect on the spread of AIDS. Just this week, we learned that India is about to experience the same tragedy that has overtaken Africa, as AIDS spreads like wildfire across the Indian continent. When we in this country think of AIDS, we think of it as a male disease, but worldwide, 50 percent of those or almost 50 percent of those with AIDS are women. Seven percent of the people with AIDS are in sub-Saharan Africa. Ninty-five percent of the AIDS worldwide are orphans. Eighty percent of women with AIDS worldwide are in sub-Saharan Africa. If this epidemic moves, as it now seems to be, to India, what we will be seeing is the engulfing of continents where most of the world's people live with AIDS. How do we stop that? We know that the drugs, the expensive drugs, are simply not going to millions upon millions of poor people. Family planning is a preventive low cost way, not only of planning family size with all of the effects that has on development, but it is a way to stop the spread of this deadly disease. Integration of AIDS treatment and detection and prevention with family planning is a critical way to go at this epidemic. In the same place, counseling for family planning, counseling about AIDS prevention can be the most essential one-stop health service in the world today. It eases significant costs. And perhaps most poignantly, we can begin to prevent mother-to-child transmission of AIDS, the most tragic consequence of this epidemic. Did we know that girls, little girls, are far more likely to become infected than little boys? It is probably because it is far easier to take advantage of little girls. Preventing AIDS and controlling childbirth must take place in the same orbit and in the same place. We, of course, have made that much more difficult at a time when we should be embracing ways to conquer the AIDS epidemic. On this International Women's Day, I call upon the administration to look for ways to increase both AIDS funding and family counseling. Family planning counseling, and certainly the availability of contraceptives, the way we have thought necessary in this country, the double standard that we have used to make contraceptives available here but deny it in developing countries is having tragic effects well beyond anything we imagined. This evening I cannot stand here and say that there is an answer to the world spread of AIDS. I can say that this country has within its grasp the tools to keep this epidemic from completely overwhelming developing countries. Mr. Speaker, if we do nothing else this International Women's Day, I ask that we think about women in the Third World who have been abandoned by our contraceptive counseling policy, and I think we, at best, have an obligation to think seriously about how to make our way back to the inroads we were beginning to make.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Congress was awake today when there was another shooting, making two shootings in a week, yesterday California at a public school, two dead, 13 injured; today a Catholic school. It appears that there is one injury. I am not sure if it takes these shootings to get congressional attention. I do give considerable credit to Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman who have been trying to close the gun gap since this Congress began, that is the gap that we left open at the end of the 106th Congress in spite of Colombine. The Million Moms are still organizing at the grass roots. Members should be wary of letting another year go by of shootings and no action. I will have a Mother's Day resolution on the floor and I challenge the Congress to close the loophole before that resolution and before Mother's Day. We have come so very close and we must ask ourselves what advantage is it to us and our constituents to give an advantage to gun shows over licensed dealers in our district? Why should licensed dealers not get the respect, they who pay taxes, over gun shows who go without the same regulations; and why oppose closing the loophole when 90 percent would pass instantly. This is a question of congressional will. I do not pretend that this is any panacea any more than the Brady Bill was, but everybody now knows what a considerable difference the Brady Bill made. It is some important difference that closing the loophole would make, and surely today we would recognize that with all of the rhetoric about protecting our children. This much we can do. We can close that loophole. Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay the second amendment argument to rest once and more all. The Constitution does not bar reasonable regulation of gun ownership. How do I know that? In the District of Columbia and all over the United States, there are laws that forbid handguns altogether. Those laws were challenged decades ago and found constitutional. Why in the face of the fact that cities and localities regularly regulate guns do we hear constitutional arguments against closing the loophole. We need a national law. It is not good enough to have a law in New York and Atlanta and the District of Columbia because guns travel by interstate commerce like people, they travel on people and they travel in cars. We must not wait for the next shooting because we know it will come, and it may even come if we close the loophole. But to the extent that we save the life of one child, and there are two dead tonight, by a law that closes the gun show loophole, we shall have done what was necessary for Members of Congress to do. Mr. Speaker, I ask this body to act now, act before Mother's Day.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for the news junkies of the world. Bernard Shaw, one of the industry's most respected journalists, is stepping down from the CNN anchor desk after 20 years on the job. Shaw was there when the fledgling cable network first turned on the lights and rolled tape in 1980. And he has remained with CNN, reporting some of the century's most exciting national and international events. How many of us recall the Persian Gulf War and Shaw's reports of bombs falling over Baghdad. And who can forget his pointed questioning of politicians, who often found it difficult to be as pointed in their response. For many of us, the really difficult part begins as Bernard Shaw takes his leave and ``stands down,'' as he says, from CNN. But how do we say goodbye to someone who, after so many years, has become a fixture in our homes and offices? Bernie Shaw will be missed because of his special brand of professionalism and nononsense reporting. He will be missed because we have enjoyed sharing his love of politics and world events. And, for many of us, Bernard Shaw will be missed because over the years, he has been the lone African American, who has anchored national broadcasts and major events. He has moderated presidential debates, anchored coverage of primaries and national elections, and traveled the world reporting breaking international news. It is unlikely that Bernard Shaw's job description included the term, ``role model,'' but it is certain that his skill and tenacity have inspired many and engendered considerable respect and pride among us all.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Dynamic, committed, engaging, steadfast. These are only some of the many words that come to mind to describe Dr. Dorothy Height, a tireless champion of women, children, civil rights, peace and justice. For nearly half a century, Dr. Height has been a leader in the struggle for equality and human rights. In 1935 as a caseworker for the New York City welfare department, Dr. Dorothy Height became the first black person named to deal with Harlem rights and thus emerged, as a very young woman, into public life. She quickly became one of the young leaders of the national youth movement of the New Deal era. When Dr. Height was serving as assistant director of the Harlem YWCA in 1937, Mary McLeod Bethune, founder and president of the National Council of Negro women, asked Dr. Height to join her in her quest for women's rights for full equality and employment, that is to say, equal employment, pay and education. That was the beginning of Dr. Height's dual role as YWCA staff and NCNW volunteer, integrating her training as a social worker and her commitment to rise above the limitations of both race and sex. Dr. Height was elected national president of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority in 1947 and ushered in a new era of organizational development. During the 1960s, she worked closely with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Roy Wilkins and others to prevent lynching, desegregating the Armed Forces, reform the criminal justice system and secure the landmark civil rights legislation. In 1957, she assumed the presidency of the National Council of Negro Women. As president, she has brilliantly led a crusade for justice for African American women and has both conceived and organized the Black Family Reunion Celebration which has been held here in Washington and in cities throughout the country since 1986. Dr. Height is now chair and president emerita of NCNW. She has worked tirelessly in the international arena with UNESCO, USAID and as a representative of numerous world meetings, conferences and missions. As a recipient of more than 25 honorary doctoral degrees and countless awards, Dr. Height continues more than six decades as a public servant in every sense of the word as a dream giver, as an earth shaker, and as a crusader for human rights. Mr. Speaker, that is my official statement. If I may, I would like to offer a personal statement, because Dorothy Height reminds me every time I see her that she has moved from New York City; and she is now my constituent. And what a constituent she is to have. This resolution marks half a century of unique work for human rights, for all the people of the world, from an extraordinary woman. February is Black History Month, so it is appropriate to celebrate the life and work of Dorothy Height. March is Women's History Month; and we could equally have celebrated Dr. Height's work next month, for this is a woman who has managed to make history in two identities at once, as an American woman and as an African American. You will hear her extraordinary accomplishments in detail momentarily. I want simply to pay tribute to her on a specific score, a leadership role that has made a very special difference. When the feminist movement thrust forward in the 1960s, there was extraordinary confusion in the African American community about how to greet this enormous onslaught of white women calling themselves a movement. The confusion was among black women, black men, minority people around the country. It was as if they had forgotten that half of the black people are black women. Dorothy Height had the courage to step forward in the midst of that confusion and declare proudly that she was not only a civil rights leader, a leader of African Americans, but she was a feminist leader. Few others had the courage in the late sixties and early seventies to step right up in front, put her hands on her hips and say, ``Look at me, I'm both. I'm black and I'm a woman, and I'm going to get out here and fight for both.'' When you try to divide her identity that way, you divide the great movement for human rights. Representative Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman to serve in this body, was another of those courageous women that stepped forward. Black men and women as a result, both in this body and in the country, have been among the foremost feminists and among the foremost advocates of women's rights precisely because there were a very few leaders who exercised the preeminent role of leadership and clarified what the right thing to do was and is. Thus, I simply want to take special note of Dorothy Height's active leadership in this regard to add to her many, many medals of leadership, her unwillingness to bifurcate human rights in any form. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) whose foresight is responsible for this resolution.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Earnhardt family has a passion for race car driving. Dale Earnhardt's father Ralph was a pioneer of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing. Ralph Earnhardt died at age 45 of a heart attack while working on a race car. Dale's son, Dale Earnhardt, Jr., is also a race car driver. It sure runs in the family. It is regrettable that Dale, Sr. died while pursuing his passion, racing his familiar No. 3 black Chevrolet in a pack of cars in the Daytona 500. Earnhardt, known as the Intimidator for his blunt demeanor, his push- broom mustache, and his steely, unrelenting driving style left behind an extraordinary record of achievement: 76 career wins over 26 years, 7 Winston Cup championships, more than $40 million in career earnings. Dale Earnhardt was one of the best known stock car drivers our country has ever seen. He may become even better known as the catalyst that made NASCAR driving a safer sport. Earnhardt's death, which may have been attributed to a broken lap belt, has led some drivers to question how NASCAR investigates fatalities and addresses safety concerns. With NASCAR's fourth fatality in 10 months, drivers seem eager to take an active role in making sure stock car racing is as safe as it is enjoyable to millions of Americans. When hearing of Dale Earnhardt's death Bill France, Jr., Chairman of NASCAR's Board of Directors, declared NASCAR has lost its greatest driver in the history of the sport. NASCAR and stock car racing fans have lost a legendary race car driver, and they may gain inspiration to ensure that it never happens again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the author of the resolution.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to express the sorrow and condolences of this side of the aisle, and I know that Dale Earnhardt's family has the condolences of this entire House. I want to express that sentiment especially to Dale's family and to his millions of fans. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 26th Annual Capital Pride Festival, a celebration of the National Capital Area's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered communities, their families and their friends and their many contributions to the District of Columbia. Since its beginning in 1975, the Capital Pride Festival has grown from a small block party into a seven-day series of events. On Sunday, June 10, 2001, the Festival will culminate in a large downtown parade and a magnificent Pennsylvania Avenue street fair attended by people of all backgrounds from the District and the region. In 2000, over 125 contingents marched in the parade; more than 150,000 people attended the street fair in the shadow of the Capitol; and hundreds of vendors and organizations had stalls, booths, and pavilions. The street fair featured over five hours of local entertainers and national headline performers. The citizens of the District of Columbia and I feel a special affinity for any Americans who do not share all the rights and privileges enjoyed by most citizens of the United States. I note that it has been seven years since the District of Columbia had any vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, and I remind this body that ``Taxation Demands Representation'' is deeply resented by the entire city. My Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered constituents feel this lack more acutely. Every April 15th they know they bear the burdens of our democracy, yet they neither have complete access to its power to redress the injustices that befall Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered Americans, nor do they have full power to redress those special injustices which we suffer in the District of Columbia. Congress has not yet protected sexual orientation from discrimination. Despite increasing reports of violence and physical abuse against Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered Americans, Congress has not enacted protections against hate crimes. Congress must pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Congress must pass the Hate Crime Prevention Act. Congress must pass Permanent Partners Immigration Act. Congress must return full voting rights to the District of Columbia. In June, we will celebrate the accomplishments of the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered Community and remember others who live on only in our hearts and prayers. As we celebrate and reflect, we must be ``Proud and Strong Together'' in the fight for full democracy for the District of Columbia and full civil rights for the Lesbian, Gay, Bi- Sexual, and Transgendered persons of this Great Nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in saluting the 26th Annual Capital Pride Festival; its organizers, The Whitman-Walker Clinic and One-in-Ten; its sponsors; and the volunteers whose dedicated and creative energy make the Pride Festival possible.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding to me, and particularly do I thank her for her initiative and leadership in organizing this Black Caucus commemorative on and during Black History Month. I want to congratulate the good gentlewoman from Ohio for the way in which she has hit the ground running. No grass grows under her feet. Her predecessor, the esteemed gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, left. We did not know whose feet would be big enough to fill his shoes. I am looking at her feet right now. They may not be big enough, but they certainly are filling them. They are not big enough because she is a lady, and that is not how a lady's feet operate. But this is only one indication of how the gentlewoman from Ohio operates. Mr. Speaker, it is an important occasion this year, because each year we, of course, come forward, we who are African Americans, and others, to commemorate Black History Month. It may be that we were in danger of having Black History Month become like George Washington's birthday. You do it every year, you know you are doing it because something great and important is being commemorated. But I must say, this year, all of us I believe have looked at Black History Month as a giant wake-up call for what it truly can mean and must mean in these times. This is no commemoration for African Americans or for America; this is a time for reflection and for action. I could go down a list of reasons why the country does not need to be in repose on its oldest issue, born as a matter of original sin, race and racism in our country. That ought to be clear, although I fear it is not. Rather, in the limited time I necessarily have, I would like to focus on three reasons why a wake-up call comes this Black History Month: one has to do with how long it has taken us to honor the Father of Black History; second has to do with Florida and its aftermath; third has to do with the most pressing voting rights challenge in our time. Dr. Carter G. Woodson, only the second black to get a Ph.D. from Harvard, a self-educated man until he went to the University of Chicago and got his masters, started the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History. This man, this brilliant and great American historian, almost single- handedly uncovered suppressed African American history and started the process of challenging racist stereotypes throughout American historiography. Yet his house on 9th Street, the house where the association that he started and where he lived, has been boarded up for decades. I come to the House today to thank the House for passing my bill during Black History Month last year, finally passed by the Senate, which allows the Park Service to do a feasibility study, now under way, to determine whether or not Dr. Carter G. Woodson's house will become a national historic site. Carter G. Woodson started Negro History Week, which I always celebrated as a child in the segregated schools of the District of Columbia. It has evolved into Black History Month, now commemorated through the history and the world. It is time that we focused in on the man who began it all, began the process of correcting the history that we celebrate this month, the history, through its correction, that led finally to the historic civil rights acts themselves. Second, the wake-up call comes in no small part because of Florida and its aftermath. We, especially those of us who come out of the civil rights movement, thought that, at least with respect to the great civil rights bills, our work could be said to be, if not done, well on its way. We certainly did not think there were major voting rights problems remaining in this country. We knew there were pockets; we knew of problems. What we now know is that nationwide there have been systematic violations of people's voting rights forever in this country, and if there had not been a close election, we never would have known it. The results in Florida were beneath the standards of American democracy. The great shame is the court to which we move to the side on political matters decided an election for the first time in American history. That alone must never happen again. Florida shows us that what African Americans struggled for in the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no longer simply a black problem. There were many more people than blacks who were disenfranchised in Florida. We cannot go back to Florida, but what we can do is not make this year go by without putting in motion the apparatus and the funds to correct the voting rights mechanisms or the election mechanisms in the United States of America. We do need a commission, we do need to study some of the long-range effects, but we need to begin the process of correction before the next election is held. Finally, let me address what I said was the third great wake-up call, and that is the most pressing voting rights challenge in America today. That, of course, is the absence of congressional voting rights for almost 600,000 American citizens who live in the District of Columbia who have no voting representation on the floor of the House or the floor of the Senate, but on April 15th are expected to pay their Federal income taxes like everybody else. This is a situation that cannot go on much longer, as we hold our heads high as we preach democracy around the world. Residents of the District of Columbia are not going to let it go on much longer. It has gotten to the point of civil disobedience. I myself testified at a trial yesterday regarding some civil disobedience that occurred here during the last appropriations period. D.C. residents have been very patient. They do not seek to correct this by civil disobedience, the way we did in the civil rights movement. They seek to use the processes of this House in order to get the voting rights to which they are entitled as American citizens who pay their Federal income taxes every year. So, for those for whom this month of commemoration has become just that, a commemoration, let me leave you with a notion that the way to commemorate this month is to think of what is still outstanding on the American agenda that most affects African Americans. I believe that a small but important matter is making sure that Carter G. Woodson's home becomes a National Historic Site, and I believe that is under way. I come this afternoon to thank the House for what the House has done and what the Senate has done to make that possible. There is Florida and its aftermath, which I think is only beginning. We will know if we have gotten anywhere by whether or not this year's budget and specific legislation has moved this issue forward this year, not this session but this year. Finally, on that agenda must be the outstanding issue of taxpaying residents being left without voting rights in the Congress of the United States, and those taxpaying residents do not live in some far- off corner of our country. Those taxpaying residents live right under the nose of the Congress. In their name, in this month of black history, particularly since the majority of them are African-Americans, I ask that the Congress move forward to grant voting rights in the Congress of the United States to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House to report periodically when significant events occur in the District of Columbia. I know for new Members, the first impression might be well, that is not none of my business, Congresswoman. It really should not be, but it turns out to be because matters affecting the District of Columbia which, for every other district, would not be seen on this floor do come here. Today's Washington Times has a headline of interest to the Members of the House, Control Board Prepares to Reinstate Local Fiscal Authority. This matter is of interest to the House, because the control board was formed pursuant to a statute passed by this House when the District of Columbia encountered fiscal problems in the mid-'90s. It encountered those problems, because it is the only city in the United States that had to bear State, city and municipal functions. I am pleased that this House offered some relief when it took over the most costly State functions, the rest of it was hard work from the District of Columbia, and, of course, the good economy. The Times reports that on tomorrow, the control board will certify that the District has had its last of four clean audits, meaning that the control board period is over, and the control board itself will go out of existence on September the 30th. It is in a phase-out mode. The District has had nothing short of a spectacular turnaround. It had to dig itself out of the worst kind of fiscal crisis. Any city in the United States that had to pay for State functions would have been in that kind of crisis long ago. Philadelphia had a control board. New York had a control board. Cleveland had a control board long before the District did, and they have a State to back them up. The District is an orphan city all by itself carrying those functions with the kind of diminishing tax base that every large city in the United States has. What the control board now finds is that the District has had 4 years of balanced budget with a surplus and a large reserve, and this has occurred 2 years ahead of time. At the same time, the District is in the throes of a complete overhaul of its city government, including every form of service delivery. We have surpassed the wildest expectations of this body. The same page of the Washington Times reports, Hill Chairman To Keep Riders Off of City Budget. This will be very good news to most Members of the House who have had to consider the D.C. appropriation year after year. I appreciate that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) does not want the smallest budget in the House to take virtually the most time. This year I had to get unanimous consent. I really thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who helped me get unanimous consent to get the District's budget out 6 weeks late, even after it was balanced and had a surplus, but the fact is that it caused a tremendous hardship to have our budget out 6 weeks ago ahead of time. This should not have come here in the first place. This is the District's money raised by the District's taxpayers. This is a terrible anomaly that that the budget comes here. The hard work that both sides of the aisle put in still makes the Congress look bad because it takes so long to get the matter out. The District of Columbia has shown that it is prepared to uphold its end of the bargain with balanced budgets, with surpluses. We recognize that the work is not done. This is a city that has had to put itself together again like Humpty Dumpty. I appreciate very much what the Mayor of this city and the revitalized city council has done to make this happen. Nevertheless, this is a city without a State. I will have not some revenue, but bills on the floor for Members, but rather some notions that allow the District to build back its own tax base. Among the payment solutions I will put forward will be a tax credit that will allow the District to pay for the services that commuters use. Eight out of 10 cars in the District of Columbia come from Maryland and Virginia and outside the District. They tear up our roads and leave a diminished tax base to pay for them. They call our fire. They call our police. They use our water and do not leave anything here. A tax credit based on the services commuters use which cost commuters nothing is the way to approach this. My colleagues do not want the District to go back down the drain, even given all the streamlining and hard work it has done to pull itself out simply because, unlike your cities and counties, we have no State to back us out. We are not out of the woods yet, but we are way out of the hole. I come to the floor this evening to thank the Congress for what they have done to help the District get out of the hole. I think that the Congress would want to thank Mayor Anthony Williams and would want to thank the counsel of the District of Columbia for pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me and I want to thank her for her leadership in bringing this special order to the floor on this special day when Mr. Ashcroft is indeed before the Senate and in the nomination that the President has put. I want to speak to the standard that should be used in deciding whether a nominee for Attorney General should be approved. I think it is only fair to use the same standard that Mr. Ashcroft used, because I believe if we use that standard, then it would be necessary to follow him in voting against a presidential choice. This is what Mr. Ashcroft himself said. I am quoting from the transcript of proceedings in the nomination of Bill Lan Lee for Assistant Attorney General of the United States, and here is what Mr. Ashcroft himself said: ``He has, obviously, the incredibly strong capacities to be an advocate, but I think his pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him limit his capacity to have the balanced view of making the judgments that will be necessary for the person who runs that division.'' If this is the standard, Mr. Speaker, if the standard set by Mr. Ashcroft is to be followed, incredibly strong capacities to be an advocate, this is the man with the strongest capacity to be an advocate on the issues he espouses, the issues that are at issue in the United States Senate, then you need somebody, he says, with a more balanced view. Or again, reading from Mr. Ashcroft's own words again in the Bill Lan Lee proceedings: ``I don't think that this is an issue that really is an issue about the appointments of the President. I think this is an issue about the job that should be filled.'' So Mr. Ashcroft wants us to look at the job that should be filled. So I want to look at the job that should be filled. The job that would be filled is Attorney General of the United States. To fill that job, one has, it seems to me, to meet not only substantive standards such as qualifications, but the appearance to be able to do fairness. After all, they are the chief prosecutor and they have got to somehow create the appearance that, in choosing who to prosecute, in choosing what to pursue, they have done so on a fair basis. In other words, all of the talk about Mr. Ashcroft's qualifications as a lawyer I concede. Because being Attorney General of the United States is not only about whether they can do it, but whether they give the apparent appearance of fairness in doing it. Or, as Mr. Ashcroft said, this is an issue about the job to be filled. The job to be filled here is not simply just the kind of job that my students at Georgetown University Law School, when they go to a law firm, have to fill. That is how they qualify to go to a job when they are among the best and brightest students, as they are, in the country. To be Attorney General of the United States, there is another very important ingredient, and that is, can they be fair in doing it and have they led their life so that people will believe that they are being fair in doing it. I believe it is not appropriate to oppose a nominee because one disagrees with him. If that were the case, then I would have to oppose any senator probably in the United States Senate who was up for Attorney General. The reason that I think it fair to oppose Mr. Ashcroft is that he is on the fringes of advocacy on issues that are central to his jurisdiction as Attorney General of the United States, he is on the fringes of advocacy of civil rights, he is on the fringes of advocacy of the rights of gays, he is on the fringes of advocacy of the rights of women to reproductive freedom. It is not that we oppose him. It is that he has set himself so far on the edge of advocacy that he has created doubts and serious doubts about his ability to fill the position for which he has been nominated, and that is the standard he has set and that is the standard that the Senate itself says should be set. It is that standard that Mr. Ashcroft has not met. He has not met that standard when it came to the way he opposed a voluntary plan for integration in a State that had a long history of segregation. He has not followed that standard when it came to the way he opposed reproductive freedom for women, going well beyond the standard that we use even in this House when wanting to bar, outlaw the procedure altogether under any and all circumstances. What woman can be for that? Well, I tell you this much. Most women in the United States oppose that. He has not met that standard when it comes to his fairness in judging the qualifications of others, such as Judge Ronnie White. Having not met that standard, the standard he himself set, I do not see how others should be called upon to hold him to a lesser standard. I think this is an issue about the job, as Senator Ashcroft said when judging whether Bill Lan Lee should become Assistant Attorney General for civil rights. I think this is about the job even more so because this is about the job of Attorney General of the United States. On that score, I can say, having looked to the standard he set, the standard that I believe is being used in the Senate of the United States as I speak, that John Ashcroft does not meet the qualifications to be Attorney General of the United States. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, because I represent the home jurisdiction of the United States Congress, I want to personally welcome new Members of the House and my friends and colleagues from past years. Many of them will spend more of their time here than they will in their own home district. They should know something about the city, and there is a Dear Colleague coming to them which they may find useful. The city has rapidly revitalized. After a period of financial crisis, it was the only city that had to carry State, county, and municipal functions. Ultimately, it had to have a control board like the boards they had in New York and Philadelphia and Cleveland and other cities, but on Monday after 4 years of balanced budgets and surpluses, indeed the end of the control period was announced 2 years ahead of time. We have been witnessing not only financial revival but the complete overhaul of services, enormous progress. The front page of the Washington Post talks about some of that progress today. If Members have service problems in their own home or in their own neighborhood, I hope they will be in touch with my office.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we should look upon the day of remembrance in the very same way that we look upon Martin Luther King's birthday. We need to remember, because if we forget, we cannot be sure that sacrifices that were made will not have to be made again. I went to school in segregated schools of the District of Columbia. It was not until I had the opportunity to go away to college that I actually learned that 6 million Jews had been murdered in World War II. I knew all about World War II, why did I not know about this sacrifice? That is what segregation and isolation from one another will do to you. Mr. Speaker, I remember the day there in the dormitory when sitting around in an integrated group that I first learned, and it stuck me like a bolt of lightning. I could not believe it, well, believe it. Believe that anti-Semitism is still alive. Believe that it exists in all communities and in all races and in this country, and that there are still incidences every year reported in the North and the South and the East and the West, believe it. So as we go to the day of remembrance in this great building, let us understand that we are not only remembering. We remember so that we will not forget for a reason, because these issues of racial and religious hatred do not die forever, and they need, each generation, to vivify what they can mean. So what we do on the day of remembrance and what we do here in this House is most appropriate, and if we think about our country and the world today, we will understand as well that it is most necessary.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, former Senator Charles Percy, who lives in Georgetown here in the District of Columbia, is well remembered in the country, and especially here in the District and in Illinois, for very distinguished service in the U.S. Senate during three terms. Senator Percy has resided in Washington, DC, since leaving the Senate. He has served this city as a resident in ways that have made an important difference to his Georgetown community and to the city itself. Senator Percy has also supported the city as an advocate of congressional voting rights and local self government. He has given outstanding personal service and countless hours of energy and wisdom to his community and has secured funding for his community from Congress. Some of the details of his service are cited in an the op ed article by Senator Percy that appeared in the Washington Times on Sunday, January 7, 2001. The occasion for this Washington Times article arose at a time when I was seeking the return of the vote of D.C. residents in the Committee of the Whole. Senator Percy called my office and offered to write an op ed article in support of D.C. voting rights. We are pleased and honored to have the support of a distinguished former Senator of the United States. It give me great pleasure to submit Senator Percy's op ed article as it appeared in the Washington Times to the Congressional Record. [From the Washington Times, Jan. 7, 2001] D.C. Residents Deserve a Whole Committee Hearing On January 20th, I will be proud to see an outstanding man and leader of the Republican party occupy the White House as President of the United States. On January 20th, my party will begin the first year, since 1965, almost half a century, with a Republican majority in both houses and a Republican President, but with the pledge from our leadership that issues will be dealt with in a Bipartisan way. This is an opportunity for the new Republican government to pay its respects to hometown Washington, D.C. The House is now writing its rules for the 107th Congress. One of those rules should restore the vote in the Committee of the Whole on the House floor to the taxpaying residents of the District of Columbia. As of 1998, the District population was 523,000 which is larger than the population of Wyoming (481,000) and close to that of Alaska (614,000), North Dakota (638,000), and Vermont (591,000), each of whom have votes in the House of Representatives and two votes in the Senate. We're asking for a vote in the house not the Senate. Why should a man who served Illinois in the U.S. Senate for 18 years care deeply about Congressional voting rights for D.C. residents? Living here for 33 years and loving it has a lot to do with it. My wife Loraine and I have lived in Georgetown since January 1967 and pay our federal and D.C. taxes like our neighbors and fellow citizens. Nine of our ten grandchildren and one great grandchild live in the D.C. area. While in the U.S. Senate I was elected The Founding Vice Chairman of The Kennedy Center with my across the street neighbor in Georgetown, the gifted Roger L. Stevens serving as Founding Chairman. We stared with a vacant lot overlooking the Potomac river and created, with wonderful help, one of the greatest centers for performing arts in the world. Now I am proud to serve in a volunteer capacity as Founding Chairman of The Georgetown Waterfront Park Commission. This is what General Colin Powell, now designated as our new Secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration said in a letter to me: Dear Chuck: Congratulations to you for accepting the chairmanship of the Georgetown Waterfront Park Commission. I am confident that under your leadership and with the help of your colleagues and partners, you will bring about a restoration of the Georgetown Waterfront that removes an eyesore and adds a place of beauty to the nation's capitol. Best of luck, Sincerely, Colin. I have shared the problems and successes of this great city, and I have shared the anguish of the Americans who live here, who cannot accept disenfranchisement in the Congress simply because they happened to live in the capitol of their country. I was among the two-thirds of the Senate who voted for the Voting Rights Amendment to give the District full congressional voting rights in 1978. Unfortunately, the amendment did not receive the required three quarters of the state legislatures. However, when the district's delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, submitted a legal memorandum in 1993, the House In 1994, some Republicans disagreed when the Democratic House voted to allow all five delegates to vote. However, the District was not considered separately, and many Republicans believed then and believe now that D.C. residents are in a unique position, as District residents are the only Americans who pay federal income taxes but have no congressional voting representation to give them a say in how their taxes are used. Today, only the District is seeking the return of its vote in the 107th Congress and future congresses. Immense credit is due to Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), Chair of the D.C. Subcommittee, and its Vice-Chair, Rep. Connie Morella (R-Md.), who have both testified before the House Rules Committee in favor of D.C.'s vote in the Committee of the Whole. At the House Rules Committee hearing in September 2000, Rep. Davis said: ``The District of Columbia's citizens pay federal taxes . . . it is the capitol of democracy. They operate in every other way like recognized that it could grant the District voting rights in the Committee of the Whole, where most business on the House floor is conducted, and the courts later agreed. The District had long voted in committees, and the logic for the vote in the Committee of the Whole is compelling. Notwithstanding some limitation, the vote was almost always the equivalent of every House member's vote. Most important, it gave D.C. residents the opportunity to have an elected member of Congress register their views on the House floor, or if the representative voted contrary to their views, to respond as well. After 200 years, at least in the House, D.C. residents were on their way. They now have a vote in committees most of the time in exchange for the taxes they pay every other citizen in any district, and they ought to have the vote on the floor of the House. We have the opportunity as Republicans to step up and do the right thing . . .'' Rep. Morella agreed and testified ``why I feel very strongly that as we put together the . . . rules . . . that we do give . . . voting right in the Committee of the Whole to the delegate from our Nation's Capitol.'' I join Representatives Davis, Morella and other Republicans in asking the Congressional leadership and members, to ``do the right thing'' for taxpaying D.C. residents. And I join Mayor Williams, the City Council, religious leaders and D.C. residents who are actively seeking the return of the vote in the Committee of the Whole on the House floor when the House returns in January 2001, and also complete its financial assistance that is greatly needed by the Georgetown Waterfront Park Commission, and National Park Foundation and I also hope will have the support of our Washington, D.C. area media including D.C. voting rights.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Members back as the Member who represents the jurisdiction where the House sits. Members may know that I sought return of my vote in the Committee of the Whole this Congress. I appreciate that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) offered an amendment in the majority rules that was rejected that would have granted the tax-paying residents I represent a vote in the Committee of the Whole. I appreciate that there were other Members of the majority that supported this amendment. I had hoped, after 10 years in the Congress, to get the return of the vote I won in 1993. The Members know me very well. They know the city I represent very well. So much of its business comes before this body. They have seen the city through tough times, a city that is doing very well. They know me to be a cheerleader for its rights and no apologist for my city when it is not doing its best. When a vote is won for the first time in 200 years and then it is lost, it hurts. May I say that I feel no personal injury. I am always treated with respect in this body. I have almost all of the rights of this body. I feel I belong to this club, but the people I represent do not. They have paid the price of admission, however. They are third per capita in Federal income taxes. I have the full vote in committee which I cast in their name. I had thought that the limited vote would be forthcoming, particularly since there is a revote if my vote decides an issue. Yet even this limited vote meant everything to D.C. residents because it is the first time they have ever had a vote on the House floor since the city was established. The limited vote, the revote provision, meant that the majority had nothing to lose by granting these taxpayers a vote in the Committee of the Whole. The people I represent, however, lost everything when they lost the vote because they lost the only vote they had ever had. What entitles each Member to cast their vote more than anything else are the taxes their constituents pay. The limited vote I sought, with a remote provision, would have meant some modicum of that respect to the taxpaying Americans I represent. I hope in the years to come, while I am still a Member of this House, that it will be found within the hearts of the Members and within their understanding of our country's principles first to grant District residents the limited vote I sought in the 107th Congress and then to see to it that no Americans who pay taxes to their government are left without full representation in the Congress of the United States.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for his work in the Congress and for his work on this special order. If any Member would be on the floor in memory of Julian Dixon, this is the Member. I want to begin by offering my profound sympathy to Bettye and to Julian's family. I was in an airport when I was paged and told by my staff that Julian had died suddenly. I can only say to you that the shock of that revelation left me personally heartbroken and that personal heartbreak is repeated throughout the District of Columbia. I want to say a few words this evening about three aspects of Julian's life: his institutional relationship to this House; his relationship to his own district as a quintessential legislator; and his unique relationship to the place where he was born, the Nation's Capital. Julian was once honored as one of 12 unsung congressional heroes. Is it not such a fitting way to remember Julian? For this very able Member of this body was at once collegial and courageous but he shone so bright that he did not even tell anybody. And when you have what Julian had, others will sing your praises. This was a complicated man. Julian Dixon was a man of deep convictions, for example on race and justice issues. And yet, if you walk the halls of this body, I think you would find that Representative Julian Dixon was regarded as the ultimate bipartisan Member. How can you be a man of such deep conviction without being neutered? Julian showed us how; collegial, courageous, able. In a very real sense, Julian was a member's Member. And nothing indicates that more than his service on two of our committees, the Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Intelligence. Those are very difficult committees and only Members who are first among their peers are assigned to such committees. Imagine, any of us imagine, what it would mean to have to preside at the Committee on Ethics when your own speaker, your very good friend, was brought up and ultimately sent away. Could we handle that assignment and be left with the respect of our peers on both sides of the aisle? I submit that there are few Members who could have done so and that Julian Dixon became an especially towering figure in this body when he managed to do so with great dignity and fairness. Let me say a word about Julian's relationship to his own district. What he has done for his district in 11 terms reads like an encyclopedia of great benefits. How is he able to do this? He is a man who knew why he was sent here. Here was a man who was first and foremost a legislator. Now, Julian would appear to speak when he had something to say and when it was important to speak. That is why everybody listened when Julian opened his mouth. So he did not take to the floor to spread his extraordinary wisdom, much as I wish he had. He decided who he was in this body and he decided to legislate, to legislate on the Committee on Appropriations and to legislate bills. Now, I respect Members for whoever they decide they are. There are legislators that decide they want to be an expert in a particular work of a committee, and Members look to them for the expertise they build up over the years. There are Members who specialize in just talking, and sometimes they have a lot to say and we listen to them. But if you think about it, the work of this body is legislation. And Julian decided that, even given his multifaceted set of talents, he was going to be a legislator. And what he did for his district means that it will be many years before his or any other district can attract such a legislator. You have got to be real focused. You have got to do more than just put the bill in. You have got to do more than get up on the floor and wave the flags. You have got to do the grunt work that gets it done. And his district had the enormous benefit from his service in this body. This was a senior Member who knew how to especially get funds for his district. When you think about what this man did for the institution, particularly on the two committees which have I named, the Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Intelligence, his institutional service to this body is far and wide. But when you think of what he did for the institution and then you move to what he did for his district, he is already way into overtime. Somehow or the other, Julian Dixon, when he came to Washington, decided that he was going to serve the District of Columbia. My friends, they do not pass out rewards for that except in the District of Columbia. And we do not have the vote in the Congress, and there is not a lot of money to be collected here. Besides, Julian was an automatic vote in his district. So why in the world would he serve the District of Columbia? From the beginning, he got on our committee and for almost 15 years chaired the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. This is a sacrifice. With his seniority, chairing some other committees definitely brings rewards. It is hard for me to think of a single reward for chairing the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. Here was a Member who took the orphaned District of Columbia, the city without a State, the smallest guy on the block, and decided early on that he was going to represent two districts. That is exactly what he did. He represented my district, which did not have a vote, and gave it all that any Member could. When I came to the Congress, I was naive enough to try to get to serve on the Committee on Appropriations. After all, my appropriations is the only one that ever comes over here. I finally figured out that, without a vote on the House floor, I would never be able to serve on the Committee on Appropriations. Not to worry. The District had far better than I shall ever be on the Committee on Appropriations. Now we see the problems that the District has on the Committee on Appropriations. Now, do not think that when the Democrats were in power it did not also have similar problems. It was always a struggle. And all I can tell you is that if Julian Dixon is on the field for you in such a struggle, that battle is going to be won. And year after year, he won the battle for the District of Columbia. He had an extraordinary relationship to the District and to me. It is interesting, as close as I was to Julian, I never saw him give the District a pass. He knew just how much oversight to give. You give enough oversight so that you are dealing with the money. You never give oversight to the business of the city, which is, after all, the business of the city. You always respect home rule. You hold the city accountable for the money that the Congress gives the District. But you are always deferential to the people who must govern the District. Balance perfect. Julian was born here. I learned that he went to the same elementary school that I went to. He and I never knew one another. He left very early. He became a Californian when he was a very young child. But the loyalty, the sense of being drawn to the needy, which is what a city without the vote is, of being drawn to his hometown overwhelmed any avarice or any sense that we should be left out there with a Member less committed to this city. Here was a man finally of immense ability, total command of budget and legislative matters, a perfect sense of balance and judgment, yet a man whose life was devoted to justice and full of compassion, a quiet force in this body. Julian Dixon's death has created a vacuum in this House. The space will be filled with ever-lasting memories of this Member.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, only the residents of Julian Dixon's own district can feel as deeply about his loss as the citizens of the District of Columbia, the city where he was born and received his early education. Julian managed to serve two districts at once with his extraordinary wisdom, excellence and diligence: his own in California, where he owed his first allegiance, and this city. Julian became a Californian when his parents took him there as a child, but he never ceased to be a Washingtonian. I personally owe much to his wise counsel, particularly during my first years in Congress when Julian almost singlehandedly guided our appropriations smoothly through tough terrain. I am eternally grateful that he continued to serve on the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee although it is a post with headaches, but no rewards. Yet all the provincial service to his own district and ours must not obscure Julian's singular service to the institution in posts assigned only to members whose balance of justice, compassion and integrity is perfect. Julian's service on the Intelligence Committee and the Ethics Committee came because he was regarded as a member's member, the best that we had and the best that there was. We should be so fortunate to ever attract again a member so wise and intelligent, so collegial and so perfect for this House.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to make an urgent request of this body. This body may be about to go out until December 5. If it does so without passing the D.C. appropriation, we are putting the capital of the United States in mortal danger. The District appropriation was passed 3 weeks ago. It is being held up now as a vehicle for the Commerce-Justice bill. I appreciate the conversations I have had with Members and their staffs and the way in which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the way in which apparently the Senate is willing to release the D.C. appropriation. We found a way for the D.C. appropriation to be freed, while leaving the status quo in place as if it continued to be a vehicle to carry over the Commerce-Justice bill. That is the only reason it is being held. Mr. Speaker, the crisis we face now is not only that this is a living, breathing city that cannot start any new programs; there is a special crisis. We face the possible closing of our city hospital, D.C. General, and its public clinics. The reason is that although the District can move around money to form a new, smaller hospital, the money for the transition costs, including the costs of severance pursuant to layoffs mandated in the appropriation bill, cannot, in fact, take place until the appropriation bill is passed. If we wait until December 5, we will be approaching the date when the hospital must close because it has run out of money. Mr. Speaker, I am asking this House, before we go home, to release the D.C. appropriation. Nothing would be lost in freeing the D.C. appropriation, because the D.C. appropriation could be passed as a CR by reference, and that would leave the D.C. appropriation as it is now, except, in effect, it would slide from under its present vehicle and be passed as a bill, while the present situation of a vetoable D.C.- Commerce-Justice bill would remain. I know that sounds like gobbledegook; but in fact that is the way it would occur. The status quo would remain; but in fact, the appropriation would pass, because the CR would remain there as if our appropriation had not passed. I appreciate that there has been considerable movement by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and by Senator Stevens to be helpful; and I have spoken with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and he appears to believe that the Commerce-Justice-D.C. bill could be passed or, indeed, signed by the President. I have spoken with Jack Lew. Jack Lew informs me that surely the House must know that that bill will be vetoed. I do not know what it is that makes the Speaker believe that this is a nonvetoable bill, because that is what he has told me, that it contains at least some of what the President wants; but I am informed by the White House that most of the reason that this bill was vetoed remains, and it will continue to be vetoed. Mr. Speaker, I am asking that the District be extracted from this mess. I recognize that if, in extracting us, some change that the House wanted not to make would be a sacrifice; but in fact, no such change is required on our part, because we found a technical way out for the District of Columbia, while leaving the situation as if the same vetoable bill was there. There is lots to lose here for the District. Not only do we have all new programs, but also imagine trying to run a city 6 weeks into the appropriation year without being able to do urgent things like hire 175 new police officers, 88 new fire officers, without being able to hire social workers necessary for children in foster care. We have had a child killed this year in foster care because there were not enough social workers. Imagine not being able to give money to five new charter schools, charter schools that the Congress has asked us to pass; and finally, imagine what will happen if the hospital closes and we have no way to move money around to keep it open or to pay even for the transport of sick people so that they can be cared for in another hospital. Mr. Speaker, a way has to be found; and I ask that this House not go home tomorrow before that way is found.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for yielding to me for a few minutes of remarks about the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), our good friend. What a career: Labor leader, civil rights leader, author, Member of Congress, founder of the Congressional Black Caucus. However, no bio of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) is likely to contain one of his best qualities and one that will be especially missed in this body, and that is his wit, one of the sterling and best wits ever to hit the floor of the House. I know about what happens when it hits the floor. One day, when people were coming to vote on the D.C. Appropriation, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) greeted people as they were going out, most of the Democrats having voted automatically for D.C., and said ``You just voted for D.C. statehood.'' Even among the Democrats, there were some people who lost the blood in their face. That is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for us. A man who somehow knew how to be serious and knew how to make fun. I tell my colleagues, in a body like this, we need that kind of Member. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) is a Member who has always had the ability to laugh at himself, make us laugh at ourselves, and, yes, make himself laugh at himself. My greatest regret that he is going is that he is going before his virtual inevitable chairmanship of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, a chairmanship that would have been mighty well earned. I guess one has to understand the special quality of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) to understand how a man can walk away when that may be so very close. Indeed, I believe it is so very close. If one had had the kind of career that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has had, one does not have to hang around waiting for more. To be sure, there is a lot the gentleman from Missouri could have done as chair, given what he has already done. But the fact is that his roster of accomplishments would make anything he did as chair of a full committee icing on the cake: his work on notice for plant closings, if we can remember when those plants were closing precipitously all around the country; of course his work that has been cited in the Family Medical and Leave Act; the way he has blocked repeal of measures for affirmative action; his work on Hatch Act reform, his work on IRS reform. This is all very serious legislation. What is important to remember about the gentleman from Missouri, for me at least, is that the man brought his career into the House. In the streets, he was a civil rights demonstrator and activist and a labor man. In this House, he became a labor Democrat and a civil rights Democrat. Few Members have been able to make that seamless a transition so that their entire life reflects what they have stood for. He did not have to change up when he came into the House. He simply brought his great principles, his great causes, and found a way to achieve what he had worked for outside on the inside. The gentleman from Missouri was one of the first critical mass of African Americans to serve in this House. They got to have a small number, but large enough to form their first caucus and then to become a model for many others groups who then formed their own caucuses to press in a cohesive and unified way for their constituents. Bill fought his way into Congress by fighting on the front lines of the labor movement struggle and the civil rights struggle. I must say there are probably few Members who can look back at their career and say they spent their first term as an alderman, the first 4 months of a 9-month term, actually in jail for his constituents. Talk about fibrous transitions. If that does not show it, I do not know what does. But it is one of those actions that cemented Bill Clay in the hearts and minds of his constituents, and no one could have gotten him out of here unless he walked away from here if they had wanted to. Bill brought that willingness to fight here, because that is part of who the man is, and it is quite amazing to see that a man with that kind of street smarts and street activity would have a side of him that most Members do not know. It is reflected in one of perhaps the longest of his writings, ``Just Permanent Interests,'' his book about black Americans in Congress from 1970 to 1991. It is an extraordinary compendium and reference and eye opener. That is Bill Clay the scholar. That is this multifaceted man. Well, I can only say to my good friend that we are told that a younger, more handsome Clay is about to grace this floor. We will be mindful, however, that Representative William L. Clay was an original.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the House today not only adds insult to the injury that the District's budget has to go to someone else to be passed. The House today penalizes the District in the bond market and adds costs of incalculable dollars in delay and duplication. From the start of the fiscal year, this bill is now four weeks overdue. More than two weeks ago, we finished a very difficult process. The Mayor and the City Council members had been asking me, ``Is it over? How soon?'' And I replied, ``soon.'' Ernest Istook and I then negotiated our way through the last stages of the process and shook hands on an agreement. Both of us felt a sense of accomplishment. Then there was only silence. I want to thank Chairman Ernest Istook for his service, for always working hard and for working with me. I want to thank Ranking Member Jim Moran for his hard work on this bill. Both deserve better than this. District residents certainly deserve better. I understand that the D.C. conference report was held for a purpose, to carry another bill. Today we see that the conference report was held for no good purpose, because the bill it will carry will be vetoed. I am told that the Senate has problems with the Commerce, Justice, State bill on tobacco and gun control. Other controversial provisions include a census privacy violation and an objectionable immigration provision. However, this body needs to understand what damage the delay in passing the D.C. appropriation does to the District. New money for public schools, including new textbooks and teacher pay raises--cannot begin. New money for in-home care for seniors and the disabled--cannot begin. Funding increases for Foster Care and Child and Family Services, which will reduce caseloads by hiring more social workers--cannot begin. In addition, 175 new police officers in this high-crime city cannot be hired; 88 new firefighters cannot be hired; five new charter schools, what the Congress most wanted, cannot be funded; and $4.5 million for school recreation centers, to get our kids off the streets during the high crime hours between 3 and 6, is on hold. Thhis is what this House is doing to the District of Columbia today.