Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are we at general provisions where an amendment can be at the desk and now be pursued?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that there has been a time agreement for 20 minutes divided equally. If I may have unanimous agreement on that time?

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to begin as we embark upon the D.C. appropriation by thanking the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his hard work on this bill. The gentleman and I have had disagreements on this bill, but I appreciate his efforts to work out some of those disagreements with me. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his strong advocacy and work for the District as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose a rule shot through with financial, operational, and social intrusions that should concern no one unless you happen to be a resident of the District of Columbia. D.C. is once again bringing up the rear of the appropriations. Here is hoping that the number 13 in the appropriations cycle has nothing to do with bad luck. This should be the easiest of the 13 appropriation bills. Few Members have or should bother to acquire familiarity with the complicated, necessarily parochial operations of a big American city that is not their own. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule because the bill before us is full of avoidable problems any city would have to find objectionable. First, movement of available funds from D.C. priorities to others chosen by the subcommittee without any consultation with the District. Second, movement of riders, and not only social riders, but riders that are so old that they are laughably out of date or redundant because the provisions are already in the D.C. code or Federal law. Anyone scrutinizing the D.C. appropriation would find attachments so dated or irrelevant as to cast doubt on the committee's work product. With a lot of hard work and sacrifices, the District has emerged from insolvency, but the city has no State to fall back on and has urgent needs it cannot possibly fund. City officials requested funding from the President for some urgent priorities. The White House chose to fund just a few of them. The city understands, of course, that the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation was cut, and, therefore, all the District's priorities could not be fully funded. The city fully understands that the shortfall was beyond the subcommittee's control. Those funds must, in our judgment, be restored. However, at the very least, the District cannot be expected to endorse transfer of whatever funds are left over after the cuts to items not in the first tier of the city's own urgent priorities. The White House funded the state functions that are now Federal responsibilities and added $66.2 million for priorities negotiated and ratified by city officials. A cut of $31 million from the 302(b) allocation left only $34.8 million. Instead of redistributing the scarce remaining funds to the District's stated priorities, $13.85 million for new matters was actually added to the D.C. appropriation. How can items be added to an appropriation that has been cut? The only way to do this, of course, is to cut funding for the priorities the city has stated it must have. Yet, new items were added, for example, funding for the Arboretum, a Federal facility funded by the Agriculture Department that never before has appeared in a D.C. appropriation. Adding new items guaranteed that the District's priorities would be downgraded and defunded. What was left after a combination of cuts and new additions was predictable: $7 million instead of $25 million for D.C.'s top economic priority, a New York Avenue subway station, now in great jeopardy; $14 million instead of $17 million for the D.C. College Access Act, despite a letter from Mayor Williams requesting funding for juniors and seniors previously excluded only because it was erroneously thought there would be insufficient funding. The subcommittee says to the District, pay for critical items like the New York Avenue Metro station, not from Federal funds, but from interest on D.C. funds held by the Control Board. This requirement remains in the bill, despite a letter from the Control Board Chair, Alice Rivlin, that says that such funds no longer exist, but, to quote her words, ``have already been included by the District as a source of funds to support governmental operations.'' The requirement to pay for the subway from interest remains in the bill, despite the fact that D.C. could never pay for the great majority of a subway station's cost itself and was able to make a commitment to use its own funds for a station only because the OMB and the private sector had each committed to pick up one-third of the cost. Mayor Williams wrote to Chairman Istook: ``In the case of the New York Avenue Metro, the reduction in Federal funds has sent a chilling message to the business community who have expressed interested in bringing business to the District. The $22 million cut greatly imperils the District's ability to secure the private funds that were to be leveraged by the public allocation. Local businesses have made investments in the city based on this project. Without full funding, the success of this effort is jeopardized. I urge you to restore full funding.'' It is one thing for the subcommittee to make cuts; it is quite another for the subcommittee to nullify the District's carefully thought-out priorities. Adding funding controversy to the attachments disputes that always surround this appropriation has not helped this bill, for we also will waste a lot of time discussing riders today. It is wasted time because, in the end, the riders have caused a veto of the bill; and to get the bill signed at all, they are removed or substantially changed. The chairman indicated these riders simply reflected those transmitted by the President from prior years. OMB has worked with the District to remove riders from prior years that are outdated, no longer relevant or are already included in D.C. or Federal law; and the city has moved to make other riders permanent that should be permanent a part of D.C. law. The Chair must prefer long and wasteful debates, because he has reinserted into the bill not only the very few that were social riders, but all the redundant, outdated, and irrelevant riders as well. What is the point, if we ever were striving to get a bill that could be signed? When even steps to remove patently irrelevant material provokes disagreement, we seem well on our way to a veto of the D.C. bill. I had hoped for better this year. Please oppose this rule.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I ask Members to stand back for a moment from the gag rule. Seldom have so many violations of cardinal American principles, which enjoy overwhelming support and respect in our own country, been embodied in one law. Look at what is at stake here: free speech, female and family sexual autonomy, baseline protection of pregnant women and the most vulnerable children, reduction of abortions around the world. It is impossible to believe that any American would force on foreigners what no Member could or would do in our own country. The direct effect between suppression of speech and its effects is not always apparent. We must not allow this cut-off-your-nose-to-spite- your-face gag rule to reap what it will sow in maternal and infant deaths, high-risk and unintentional pregnancies, escalated and unnecessary rates of abortion. Support American principles, vote for the Greenwood-Lowey amendment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. The Republican majority touts their plan for offering people choices. Why do they not begin by giving us a choice of bills? It is unthinkable that seniors would buy into a plan that thrusts them further into the managed care and HMO market that today routinely is dumping them. It is unthinkable that we would commit scarce health care dollars to the costly, countless administrative structures of HMOs instead of relying on low costs, administrative efficiency built into Medicare. It is unthinkable that we would send our seniors to a private sector HMO party that private insurers say they will boycott. It is unthinkable that we would send seniors shopping among the chaos of premiums and deductibles and copayments, out there to snare even the most sophisticated. This rule gives seniors choices they cannot take and cannot afford. It gives them every choice, except the choice they must have, a choice between a cosmetic bill and one that works.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4608 is a bill to designate the Federal Courthouse in Greeneville, Tennessee, as the James H. Quillen United States Courthouse. Jim Quillen served with distinction his constituents of the first district of Tennessee for 35 years and holds the record for having the longest continuous service of any Tennessee Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Jim was a member of the Committee on Rules and served as ranking minority member for many years. He was also chairman of the TVA Caucus and a member of the Republican Policy Committee. Jim was also conscious of needs of his constituents and worked very hard to secure funding for medical facilities in northeast Tennessee and was diligent in his work for farmers and veterans. Jim Quillen has received numerous awards and honors, including having a medical facility named in his honor, Route 181 from Virginia to North Carolina is named in his honor, and a Chair of Excellence in Education was named for him at East Tennessee State University. It is with great pleasure that I support H.R. 4608 that designates the new Federal Courthouse in Greeneville, Tennessee, in Jim's honor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1959, a bill to designate the Judicial Training Center in San Antonio, Texas, in honor of Judge Adrian A. Spears. President John Kennedy appointed Judge Spears to the Federal bench in 1961. Judge Spears distinguished himself for 22 years as the United States District Judge in the Western District of Texas; and for 17 of those years Judge Spears served as the Chief Judge. He was also a member of the Emergency Court of Appeals, the Judicial Conference of the United States Commission on Administration Justice, president of the 5th Circuit District Judges Association, and president of the San Antonio Bar Association. Judge Spears was born in South Carolina and attended undergraduate school and law school at the University of North Carolina. In 1937 he moved to San Antonio and became an integral part of the community. He was respected by his colleagues and admired for his dedication and diligence in attending to the needs of the Federal courts in the 5th circuit. In 1998 the San Antonio Bar Association passed a resolution to petition the local elected Federal officials to sponsor suitable legislation to name a facility in his honor. It is most fitting and proper to honor Judge Spears with this designation, and I strongly urge support for H.R. 1959. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is with special and personal pleasure that I rise in support of this legislation. H.R. 3323 would designate the new FDA laboratory located in Jamaica, Queens, New York, in honor of our former colleague and Member, Floyd Flake. This facility is the product of many years of hard work by our former colleague. He worked with the General Services Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, the city of New York, the State of New York, the New York City University system, and countless local officials to finally bring this idea to fruition. Reverend Flake is well known for his tenacity. Floyd Flake is a firm and dedicated believer in the power of community and the benefits of community development. His legislative accomplishments, built on the principle of a positive Federal role in urban revitalization, include the Bank Enterprise Act of the Community Development Financial Institutions Act of 1993. This act provides incentives for financial institutions to make market-oriented investments in destabilized urban and rural communities. Reverend Flake truly lives what he preaches, and has devoted himself to the Allen A.M.E. Church in New York. His works have made the church one of the most productive religious and social service organizations in the country. It is most fitting and proper to honor his work on the FDA lab by designating the facility as the Floyd H. Flake Federal Building. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it gives me special pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the primary sponsor of the bill before us.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong cosponsor of H.R. 809, a bill to provide a higher level of law enforcement professionalism in the Federal Protective Service, or FPS. The FPS is responsible for providing security not only in Federal buildings but also for the public who visit those buildings and the employees who work in them. For over a year, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Transportation has reviewed and considered a bill to make the Federal Protective Service an independent entity within the General Services Administration. Through several Congresses, the subcommittee held hearings on the status of security in government-owned buildings. However, the nature of threats to Federal property changed forever with the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In general, the subcommittee was concerned about the quality of Federal protection, including the use of contract guard services. The Members focused on the overall management of the FPS and received testimony from the General Accounting Office reporting how well the public building services was managing the protective function. We became convinced that separating the Federal Protective Service from the real estate function in GSA would help achieve a higher level of professionalism we thought essential in Federal buildings today. We received numerous letters in support from local law enforcement entities from across the country that supported strengthening the management of FPS by making it an independent entity within GSA. After reviewing testimony, the subcommittee determined that making the Federal Protective Service a separate entity within GSA makes sense. It makes good management sense. This move makes operational sense as well. The commissioner of the FPS will now have command and control over his own employees. The commissioner will be able to make immediate decisions and deploy police officers without having to check with the real estate arm of GSA. It is not a decision the subcommittee made quickly or without extensive discussion and deliberations. The staff has had numerous discussions with GSA, managers from the Federal Protective Service, officials from the Department of Justice, and finally the officials of the United States Secret Service. The time has come to move forward with legislation that will professionalize the Federal protective workforce. It is time to update and upgrade the quality of protection offered to the public who visits our public buildings and the employees who work in these buildings. The bill will create a separate entity within GSA. The commissioner will have control over his own employees; and as important, he will have the authority to set the standards for hiring the contract guards who are so ubiquitous in Federal buildings today. The bill accomplishes a great deal, but a great deal remains to be done to ensure higher level of security in Federal buildings and for Federal property. Architectural design needs to incorporate security features, sufficient funding for technology needs to be identified, and our cop on the beat needs to be the best trained and knowledgeable employee. Mr. Speaker, I very much support H.R. 809, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the chief sponsor of the bill. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I want only to note that at a time when it was not clear that the mayor and the City Council would come together, the chairman stepped back and let them see if they could reach an accommodation. They did reach an accommodation that is now before the people of the District of Columbia and they will decide. I thank the gentleman very much for his work on this bill and on so many other bills for the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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.)