Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the action of the chairman of the full committee in moving this bill forward. Had it not moved, there would have been a cascading effect on a referendum that is required in order to settle the matter of the school board in the District of Columbia, the central issue facing the City at this time. The School Governance Charter Amendment Act of 2000 waives the congressionally mandated 35-day layover period for a D.C. referendum that will be considered by the voters in the special election of June 27. The referendum restructures the D.C. School Board to have five elected and four appointed members. This local legislation is a result of an agreement between D.C. Mayor Tony Williams and the City Council. If the referendum passes, H.R. 4387 would waive the layover period so that candidates can seek signatures and run for the new board without legal challenge. This waiver is necessary because petitions for signature will be available on July 7 and the expiration of the 35-legislative-day congressional layover period may not come until early October. The waiver of the layover period will allow elections of the new school board to proceed without legal challenge on November 7. H.R. 4387 is also noncontroversial and was unanimously passed in subcommittee and full committee. It has the full support of the mayor and the City Council of the District of Columbia. I strongly urge passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their support of H.R. 3995 the District of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 2000 and for the attention they have consistently shown to moving bills that affect the Nation's capital. With so much of the District's vital affairs dependent upon actions by the Congress, I particularly appreciate the attention that the chairman and ranking member have given to the City's bills and concerns. I particularly want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for his consistently strong leadership on District of Columbia matters and for his support in moving this bill, in particular, forward. H.R. 3995 was passed unanimously by the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia on May 5, 2000 and the full Committee on Government Reform on May 18, 2000. I appreciate the quick action and serious attention the subcommittee chairman has afforded problems in receiverships that control three D.C. functions. When the chair learned of these problems, he asked me to join him in initiating a GAO study of the District's receiverships, beginning with the receivership for the Child and Family Services agency. We began there because of the tragic and clearly preventable death of the infant Brianna Blackmond; the confusion and uncertainty in assessing responsibility for the child's death; and evidence of disarray the tragedy brought to public view that could mean other children under the care of the receivership may not be safe. I appreciate as well the concern of the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who came personally to testify before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia in the first of our three public hearings on the outstanding D.C. receivership, the foster care receivership. In addition, the D.C. jail receivership appears to have excessive costs and irregular procurement practices. And the mental health receivership had problems that were so severe that the receiver had to be replaced. The public housing receivership will end this year and the agency will be returned to District of Columbia control. That receiver, David Gilmore, stands out for the success of his tenure, which took a very complicated agency with the longest history of failure and dysfunction and reformed all of its functions; operations, social services, physical infrastructure, and public safety. Action by the Congress on the receiverships is necessary because the courts and not the District of Columbia Government have control over the functions. H.R. 3995 responds to the early evidence we have received regarding basic deficiencies in D.C. receiverships by placing best practice requirements on agencies in receivership in the District of Columbia in seven areas: One. Financial stability and management efficiency. Receivers must carry out the administration of the agency under receivership through practices which promote the financial stability and management efficiency of the District of Columbia. Two. Cost controls. Receivers must ensure that costs incurred in the administration of the agency are consistent with applicable regional and national standards. Three. Best practices. Receivers must carry out the administration of the agency through the application of generally-accepted accounting principles and generally-accepted fiscal and management practices. Four. Budget preparation. Receivers must consult with the District of Columbia mayor, chief financial officer, and city council prior to submitting the agency budget. Five. Annual audit. Receivers must submit to an annual fiscal and management audit by an independent auditor selected jointly by the receiver and the city. Six. Procurement. Receivers must use best procurement practices that foster full and open competition. Seven. Anti-Deficiency Act. This provision clarifies that the Anti- Deficiency Act applies to District agencies in receivership. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is noncontroversial and strongly supported by the mayor and the city council of the District of Columbia. I urge passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, on April 12, 2000, I testified in the subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) with a group representing the bipartisan Congressional Women's Caucus about a problem that affects women slightly more than men but has become a major national health problem across the entire population for children and for men and women of every age group and background. Alarming increases in overweight and obesity increasingly have become a major American health problem. More than 50 percent of Americans are overweight or obese. Surgeon General David Satcher says that overweight and obesity are major contributors to many preventable diseases and causes of death, including cardiovascular diseases, stroke, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, Type II diabetes, arthritis, gallbladder disease, asthma, and some cancers, including breast, endometrial, prostate, and colon cancers. The incidence of overweight and obesity is the worst in our history. Obesity trends are particularly serious among the youngest Americans. Almost 25 percent of young people ages 6 to 17 are overweight, and the percentage who are seriously overweight has doubled in the last 30 years. The responsibility of lifestyle for this troubling trend, especially fast food and lack of exercise, is very clear. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) for including $125 million in this Labor, HHS appropriations bill that will allow the Centers for Disease Control to begin a more aggressive national effort against overweight and obesity. I want to especially thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) for his support of the bill I introduced, the Lifelong Improvements in Food and Exercise Act, building on the work his subcommittee has already done in making grants to the CDC. I am also pleased that the CDC supports my bill. As the gentleman knows, Mr. Chairman, the LIFE bill authorizes the CDC to address overweight, obesity, and sedentary lifestyles in three ways: by training health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity and to recommend prevention activities and several other ways. Would the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) agree that some of the $125 million in this Labor HHS bill be spent on the activities specified in the LIFE legislation?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) for his support and for the leadership on this vital health issue he has shown throughout his career here in the House.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, toward that end, will the gentleman join me in requesting the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, the House Committee on Commerce, to support inclusion of the LIFE bill in the conference agreement on this bill?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) if he would yield to me for the purpose of engaging in a brief colloquy.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, each year, the President, in his State of the Union address, exhorts the Congress to honor families with equal pay for women. Each year, the Congress, as if on cue, rises in agreement and applauds itself. It's time not only to rise to the President's words, but to rise to the occasion. Two bills provide the opportunity. My Fair Pay Act directly attacks the major pay problem women face in today's workplace--the often discriminatory pay reserved for the traditional sex-segregated jobs that most women perform. If not my bill, surely it's time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which I strongly support. That bill is not a new departure, but it does strengthen existing enforcement. The best evidence that stronger Equal Pay Act enforcement is needed is right here under our congressional noses. The women custodial workers who serve the U.S. Congress have waged a three-year battle alleging that they are paid a dollar less hourly than men who do the same or similar work. The women's lawsuit has been validated by a federal court as a certified class action. As a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I know a solid Equal Pay Act case when I see one. As a Member of the Congress, I now know what it means to be an embarrassed defendant who may lose an Equal Pay Act case any day. Today, to get some movement on equal pay for American women, to get more than a rise out of the Congress, to call the question, I am introducing as a separate bill the non-retaliation section common to both the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Fair Pay Act. Both bills make it a violation to intimidate employees who inquire of their fellow workers or others about the pay these employees receive or the pay practices of the employer. In the absence of more comprehensive legislation, this non-retaliation provision at least would allow women to engage in self- help where necessary by seeking pay increases based on what they, themselves, learn about the pay practices where they work. Our message is simple: Start with the Fair Pay Act, or start with the Paycheck Fairness Act, or start with the provision that allows women, themselves, to start with self-enforcement. Start where you like--but Congress must not go home for the July 4th recess without making a start on fair pay for American women and their families. We've had it with standing up for the right words. It's time to stand up and be counted for an equal pay bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the 20th anniversary of the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which has brought happiness and joy to thousands of children around the world. On April 29, a seven-year-old boy in Arizona had one wish: he wanted to become a police officer. Friends and neighbors granted his wish. The boy became an honorary state trooper and received his own uniform. From this boy's experience arose the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Twenty years later, the organization has fulfilled the wishes of more than 500 District of Columbia children and more than 80,000 worldwide. In the last year alone, the Foundation has granted the wishes of 70 District children who are fighting life-threatening illnesses. This year, the Make-A-Wish Foundation will grant the wishes of approximately 8,000 children. Some of the popular wishes, of course, include a trip Walt Disney World, computers, shopping sprees and visits with celebrities. But each year, about 25 children ask for trips to our nation's capital, where they witness what District residents have always known--that Washington, D.C., is a beautiful city with kind and generous citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in this 20th anniversary salute to the Make-A-Wish Foundation for a job well done.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, may I say that the chairman of the committee introduced the last speaker as an opera buff; the gentleman is better known in this House as a baseball buff, but we are pleased to rank the gentleman to the rank of opera lovers. In any case, Madam Speaker, great capitals normally have great cultural institutions. I regret to say that for a very long time, the Nation's capital did not have great cultural institutions. As a fourth generation Washingtonian, I must say that growing up in the Nation's capital was like growing up in a cultural desert. The only great company was the National Symphony Orchestra, and I am pleased that now the Congress would name the Washington Opera the National Opera. I think this is most appropriate, particularly when we consider that this is not a Nation that subsidizes the arts very greatly; and the very least, it seems to me that we can do is recognize the arts in this way. Twenty-five million visitors come to the Nation's capital every year, many of them the constituents of Members of the House and Senate. As the Washington Opera becomes the National Opera, I believe that the national Opera will set an example for the country and will welcome millions who would otherwise not be inclined to attend the opera. Throughout the world, the reputation of this company, particularly since Placido Domingo became the artistic director, is generally regarded as a world-class company. It plays to standing-room-only audiences. It raises its own money. Now it asks very little of us. It asks that we give it a name that will help it raise more of its own money. I would like to bring to the attention of Members something of what the Washington Opera Company does in its immediate area because it has very energetic education and community programs that serve public, private, and home-schooled students throughout the region, 31 percent Anglo, 27 percent African American, 33 percent Latino, 8 percent Asian, roughly reflecting the population of the region. 70 percent of those served by these education and community programs are between the ages of 5 and 18. Of the remaining 30 percent who are adults, 40 percent are senior citizens. Here is an opera company which has reached to every age group, every ethnic group, and every section of the region. Now as the National Opera Company, it will welcome people to come from all over the country. Its education and community programs target adults and students throughout the grades K through 12 and particularly underserved populations. 40 percent are from the District, 35 percent are from Maryland, 25 percent are from Virginia. It is particularly appropriate that the chairman would rise to support this bill, because this is in many ways a quintessential educational enterprise. We now know increasingly as we learn more about the brain and its functions that music can be important in the intellectual as well as the social development of students. When the Washington Opera Company comes to the Congress of the United States not with its hands out for money but to ask that it be given a name that will help it raise money, I strongly urge that the Congress give it the public recognition that will help the Washington Opera Company grow as a national opera company and will help it bring opera to increasing millions of citizens of the United States.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for their hard work on this bill. My colleagues may wonder why this feminist Member is coming to the floor on this bill to strongly support it. I note that my name was not read off as a cosponsor. I have to ask my staff, in light of a bill I introduced, H.R. 2354, how they missed this one. After the heavyweight match between Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield in Las Vegas, I was so stunned and shamed by the incident that I decided to learn a little bit about this sport, which, I confess, I do not favor but accept as a reality will be with us for some time, and discovered the loophole that is closed by this bill today. I introduced the State Reciprocity and Professional Boxing Act of 1997 since I saw I had no assurance that Mike Tyson could not, when suspended in Nevada, go off and fight in some other State. That seemed to me to be unprofessional and not what either the Congress intended in the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 or, for that matter, anybody who watched that disgraceful performance would have wanted. Now this bill has come forward to do precisely what my bill would have done and to go somewhat further in adopting the Senate amendments to ensure that no boxer is permitted to box while under suspension by any other State. Wherever one stands on whether or not grown men should get in a ring and go at one another, we certainly know that they ought to do so governed by sportsman-like conduct. I think it is most appropriate that this bill is named for Muhammad Ali. I am sure that if he were inclined to speak, as he often spoke out as a young man, he would find that this bill does the sport proud and helps elevate the sport once again. I believe that the House, in making sure that it is vigilant whenever it sees amendments that should be made to the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, does a great service to the sport, to reclaiming its good name, and especially to those honorable men and women, the great majority of them who continue to exercise this sport. In light of my own concern and my own bill right after the Tyson- Holyfield fight, I wanted to be sure to come forward to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their diligence in seeing to it that this loophole is closed.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the ranking member of the subcommittee, I am pleased to offer these remarks in support of H. Con. Res. 302, calling on the people of the United States to observe a national moment of remembrance to honor the men and women of the United States who died in pursuit of freedom and peace. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, No Greater Love, a nonprofit organization providing annual programs for those who lost loved ones in service to our country, initiated the national moment of remembrance. No Greater Love is committed to freedom, human dignity, and the idea that the beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance. It is because of this commitment that No Greater Love sought to remind Americans of the true meaning of Memorial Day, which began in 1865 in Waterloo, New York. Henry C. Wells, a druggist in the village of Waterloo, mentioned at a social gathering that honor should be shown to the patriotic dead of the Civil War by decorating their graves. In the spring of 1866, the townspeople adopted the idea and placed wreaths, crosses, and bouquets on each Union veteran's grave. The village is decorated with flags at half mast and draped with greenery and black streamers. In May 1968, General John A. Logan, First Commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, issued General Order Number 11, establishing Decoration Day, now commonly referred to as Memorial Day. Waterloo joined other communities in celebrating the first official recognition of Memorial Day on May 30. On the second of this month, President Clinton adopted No Greater Love's cause and issued a memorandum to all heads of executive departments and agencies directing them to promote and provide resources to support a national moment of remembrance on Memorial Day. This great institution can act by supporting H. Con. Res. 302. This resolution introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) calls on the people of the United States to observe a national moment of remembrance to honor the men and women of the United States who died in pursuit of freedom and peace. The moment of remembrance would take place at 3 p.m. each Memorial Day to provide Americans with an opportunity to participate in a symbolic act of American unity. Let us reclaim the vision of Henry Wells and the townspeople of Waterloo by passing this resolution and recommitting ourselves to truly honor the men and women who died for the freedom and peace we enjoy. Today, I congratulate the sponsor and cosponsors of this resolution. 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 ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

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

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of this resolution in honor of Sonny Montgomery. I am very pleased to note that the gentleman is present in the House today. It seems like old times, and it is where so many of us believe he belongs. Chairman Montgomery, elected to the House in 1966 to represent the Third District of Mississippi, ably served the people of his district for 30 years. He is best known as the most formidable champion of veterans and veterans' rights and benefits. During budget negotiations at the beginning of the 104th Congress, he was able to resist major budget cuts which would have negatively affected veterans and their families. He could always be relied upon to be on the case for those who had been on the case for the Nation in fighting its wars. Montgomery was known as a caring but stern, an artful watchdog for the men and women of the armed forces, unwilling to compromise on issues that he believed would weaken programs and benefits for veterans. Those veterans remain grateful for his service and so does this House. In light of that service, we believe it is fitting to name H-130 in honor of Sonny Montgomery. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Government Reform, I join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) in the consideration of H.R. 1377, legislation naming a post office located at 9308 South Chicago Avenue as the John J. Buchanan Post Office Building. This measure, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) on April 13, 1999, passed the House by a voice vote on May 24, 1999. On November 3, 1999 the Senate Government Affairs Committee ordered H.R. 1377 to be reported favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. On November 4, 1999, the bill was reported to the Senate with an amendment to H.R. 1377; subsequently passed the Senate unanimously with an amendment on November 19, 1999. It is my understanding that the amendment involved the selection of a post office nearer to Mr. Buchanan's home. H.R. 1377, as originally passed by the Committee on Government Reform and the House, designated the John J. Buchanan Post Office at 13234 South Baltimore Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. As amended in the Senate, the John J. Buchanan Post Office will now be located at 9308 South Chicago Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Buchanan, a City of Chicago alderman, recently retired as a life- long resident and public servant of Chicago's 10th Ward. He has lived and served Chicago his entire life. He serves on the board of directors of several community organizations, including the Hedgewisch Chamber of Commerce, South Chicago YMCA and Trinity Hospital Governing Council. I am pleased to join my colleague in the passage of H.R. 1377, as amended in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time and for his work on this bill. I especially appreciate the work of the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) who worked so productively, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for whom this has been a priority issue for a long time. H.R. 3519 has important breakthrough potential to level substantial funding from those who have it to those who do not. The spectrum of urgent needs in Africa from prevention to treatment and research is exhausting to even contemplate. This is why the President has indicated that AIDS worldwide is a national security issue. History, I think, will reveal him to be prescient in his understanding of the implications of the developed Nations in failing to move more rapidly. The Vice President has said the same thing when he made a historic appearance before the UN Security Council. In this country, we have our own AIDS epidemic of major and tragic proportions in the minority communities. But this epidemic pales beside the plague in Africa that sees 11 million men women and children exposed and become HIV positive every single day. It is decimating an entire generation right at the time when Africa is in the throes of Nation building with democracy finally taking hold in many countries when one needs young educated people most. This funding hastens the time when urgently needed fundings can go directly to where they are most needed. I congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for moving us ahead on this urgent issue.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that, given his own wit, the Senator will appreciate the comments of the chairman and the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, if I might, I would like to offer some personal comments about the Senator, because, though I am a native Washingtonian, I spent some of the best years of my career as Human Rights Commissioner of New York City and executive assistant to Mayor John Lindsay, where I first came to know the Senator. I got to know him before I ever thought of joining him in the Congress of the United States. Indeed, the District did not even have home rule at the time. As one who maintains her tenure by continuing to teach at Georgetown Law Center, I have a very special appreciation for Senator Moynihan's dual and unequalled feat as an eminently practical politician and reigning intellectual of the Congress of the United States, a legislator so effective, his work product would be hard to match, all the while producing very deep works on social policy. What the Senator has managed to do is to bring the deep thinking from his natural bent as an intellectual to the legislative process. This is, perhaps, why he has chosen to concentrate so often on tough legislative issues, on Social Security, on welfare, yes, and on the black family. And as an African American woman, I think I ought to say right here this afternoon that the Senator was prescient in his work on the black family. As controversial as it was, all that he has said and more has come true. And he was prescient, as well, on the white family, or the American family, since a third of all children in our country are born to female headed households, with all of the disadvantages that implies. Perhaps because the Moynihan report came just as Civil Rights legislation was kicking in, many African Americans did not want to face the notion that many of the problems of the black family were internal and had to be concentrated on by African Americans themselves. But whatever was the reason, it took a man of the most accomplished intellect, the deepest understanding of social policy to understand so early in the process what problems would attend the growth of the female-headed household. The Senator appears to have chosen as his only monuments, words. That is why he has written so many. He, of course, has left other monuments; and I want to say a word about those other monuments. But first, let me say that, in choosing words, he is in the tradition of the great intellectuals of the century in choosing to leave on paper what he really thinks so that it can be evaluated now and in the future. He has been true to his first profession as professor all the while he has been a senator. What has been so important to that work, however, is that it has risen up off the pages. The Senator has continued to be at the cutting edge of social policy, and his deep thinking has obviously guided what he has brought to the legislative table. I am told he has a hideaway that when the rest of us are running around the halls, he goes to and writes and thinks. What is truly amazing is that Moynihan is known to have one of the most pragmatic and problem-solving minds in the House and the Senate in his time. He is, basically, a new deal, economics, jobs-first Democrat. When he came here, he rose to be the chair of the Committee on Finance. He always served on the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Always. He never got off that committee. Mr. Speaker, this city and surely the Nation will remember Senator Moynihan for a monument he never sought but is his. He is the architect of the new Pennsylvania Avenue. Almost single-handedly, Senator Moynihan re-made Pennsylvania Avenue. On November 21, 1963, he spoke of his plan to take what had become a slum, our major avenue leading between the Capitol and the White House, and redo it. President Kennedy, and he was then in the administration and not in the Congress, said he would meet with Mr. Moynihan when he got back from Dallas. President Kennedy never got back from Dallas. But Senator Moynihan, in fact, got President Johnson to agree to the Moynihan plan for the rededication of Pennsylvania Avenue as an avenue worthy of the Nation. It has become one of the most beautiful avenues in the world. What it signifies is the ability of Senator Moynihan to simply stick to an issue until it gets done. Very few legislators who, after all, are forced to jump from issue to issue have that determination and stick-to-it-iveness. He followed Pennsylvania Avenue from the administration, where he served into the Senate and stuck with it and kept with it until it is what we see today. This redesign, remaking of the major thoroughfare of the Nation's capital, of course, benefitted people of the District of Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker, it benefited far more, the Nation. Imagine what our constituents would think of us if they found Pennsylvania Avenue today the way Senator Moynihan found it. Unwillingly perhaps, Pennsylvania Avenue is one of the monuments to his career. Mr. Speaker, most courthouses this body names are named simply for the honor of the person. The person never had anything to do with the courthouse, but we honor him by putting his name on the courthouse. Well, that is not true of the Foley Square Courthouse. How could any important building like this be built in New York without Senator Moynihan's hand on the throttle throughout? This is a courthouse that he fought very hard for. It replaces one of the great historic courthouses perhaps next to the Supreme Court, the most historic courthouse that was tumbling down; and Senator Moynihan was determined that there would be a new Foley Square Courthouse. How appropriate it is, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the new Foley Square Courthouse would bear the name of a man who sought no monuments, only tried to replace those that had deteriorated, to bear the name of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It does this House a great honor to honor this great Senator. We honor his career, and we are pleased that this courthouse will be one of the monuments to that multifacetted career.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this legislation, which designates the United States Courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street in New York City in honor of the public career of one of America's most renowned and prolific political figures, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the senior Senator from New York. Senator Moynihan can take enormous and justifiable pride in the understatement of the words ``a job well done.'' Although he has served as an elected official for over 25 years, his other job descriptions include Ambassador to India, cabinet level officer for four successive administrations, a Smithsonian Regent, educator and author, and in all these positions he served with brilliance and dedication and devotion to the very highest standards of excellence. Senator Moynihan has written or edited 18 books and he has received 62 honorary degrees. His educational experiences include Professor of Government at Harvard University, Assistant Professor of Government at Syracuse University, Fulbright Fellow at the London School of Economics and Fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies at Wesleyan University. Senator Moynihan has long held a passion for social issues and reform. During his distinguished career he has received the International League of Human Rights Award, the John LaFarge Award for Interracial Justice, and was the first recipient of the American Political Science Association's Hubert Humphrey Award for notable public service by a political scientist. He has been honored with national awards from Notre Dame University, the American Institute of Architects, the American Philosophical Society, the National Institute of Social Sciences and Columbia University, to name but a few. Senator Moynihan has been, and I am sure will continue to be, a distinctive voice in American politics, policy and society. His brilliant intellect fuels his convictions, and his beliefs are grounded in thoroughly independent thinking. His voice of reason and compassion will be sorely missed by both the House and the Senate. I strongly support S. 2370 and join my colleagues in honoring one of our greatest legislators. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, there have been lots of marches in Washington, but some marches do not fade away. Indeed, they do not go away at all. A movement was born yesterday, Mr. Speaker. In this city there occurred the largest anti-violence march in the Nation's history. It is estimated that there were 750,000 people. There might be some controversy, there always is, about numbers, half a million, 750,000. What we do know is they covered the Mall, and they had thousands upon thousands in five dozen cities as well. So, if you consider all those who marched throughout the United States and those who marched here, the moms easily made their million. What this House ought to consider is whether or not 750,000 people could morph into 7 million voters geared to vote to do something about guns and their kids in the next election. More impressive than their numbers, Mr. Speaker, was who they were. These were not pros. These were amateurs organized essentially from the suburbs of America. These were the proverbial soccer moms. These folks were from the voter-rich suburbs, and their call spread like spontaneous combustion. But, I come to the floor this afternoon to say that if we thought yesterday's demonstration took this city by storm, watch out for the afterquake. Some of these moms are here today; some of them will be here every day. Mr. Speaker, the NRA has met its match in hundreds of thousands more people than they ever realized would be organized to keep guns away from their kids. We should not ask why did they come to Washington; I want to ask what took them so long? The parents of America got a terrible, not wake-up call, but alarm bell from the Columbine High School massacre and all that has followed since. It became clear that no matter where you live, this is one country, there is freedom of travel, and the guns have the same freedom of travel. Of course, there were people from my own district, countless people from my own district: Laura Wallace, Renae Marsh Williams, the mothers of the high school sweethearts from Wilson high school who were killed by guns; Gillian Bates, who also marched with us, whose son is still in Children's Hospital with a bullet in his brain following the zoo shooting on Easter Monday. But, Mr. Speaker, these mothers and fathers and families are way ahead of us. They want registration and licensing. We are still stuck on ``stupid.'' We are still stuck on mandatory locks and closing the gun show loopholes. They are way ahead of the game, and we are going to have to meet them one day on registration and licensing. Over and over again, they talked about not minding the inconvenience of registering their cars, and they could not understand why people would be against the registering of their guns, which can do harm to their children. If in fact there is any respect for the families of America, at the very least we will free this legislation that has been held in bondage in conference, that is, by any measure, modest, too modest, to do the whole job, but a start and the kind of start that these families deserve. If we have any respect for the people who came here on Sunday, for the people who marched in five dozen cities, surely we will free up that legislation that has been locked down for so long, disgracefully, considering what happened at Columbine and what has happened since. We should never underestimate the determination of mothers. If I have any criticism to be made for them, it is that they should have been here when children were going down one by one. It should not have taken 15 in Colorado. Well, it did, and they now get it. They wonder if we get it, and, if we do not get it, Mr. Speaker, they are going to get us, because they are not going away. They are going to turn their march into votes. These are very diverse people, poor people, black and white and Hispanic people, but they include many well-educated people who know how to do their homework and know how to get the job done. I come to the floor this afternoon with a warning on their behalf: Get the minimum bill we have before us out of conference and passed before we go home for Memorial Day.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for coming to the floor this evening. The gentleman from Illinois will be speaking at the march because of his own tragic loss, and I honor the moms for understanding that what public officials should speak are those public officials who indeed have a tragedy that bespeaks why the moms are here. I honor the gentleman for his participation and our prayers continue to be with him in his loss. It is my great pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. NORTON. Indeed so, because when children are acculturated to violence, they get it off the television, off the same CDs, off the same networks, they get it out of the same Hollywood, we really are one Nation. Nothing, ironically, proves that more than the way in which these guns have touched every part of our Nation. I very much thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for his very cogent intervention. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put into the Record what the million moms want. They are way beyond our modest gun legislation where we are trying to close a gun loophole, and where we are trying to get gun safety locks. They think that any rational human being should be doing that and should do it quickly. They are asking for licensing and registration. They say each would work very simply and without a new bureaucracy. They say that the licensing would mean that before one got a gun, one would complete a basic safety course. Would anybody want a gun without in fact making sure that she understood everything that was associated with that gun? There would be a check to ensure that the person was not a criminal who committed a violent crime, or a mentally ill person. There would be a photo and a thumbprint, and of course, that like any license, it would have to be renewed periodically. Then they say they also want gun registration. The nerve of them. We have to register for almost everything. I have to make sure my car is registered because the time for that is due this year. They said what would be involved there, if you fill out a form with the gun serial number, the government would make sure, the local government would make sure that the gun buyer is in fact licensed. A copy of the registration would go to law enforcement authorities. Of course, there would be renewal of the registration periodically. That way, of course, the tracing of guns would be a snap, and we would make sure that the only people who got guns in the first place were like the 90 percent of the people who pass the instant gun check, those who of course are like you and me and are buying guns not to kill other people. I want to thank the President of the United States for going with me to our academy, our police academy, where he announced that there would be some funds available for the District to do another gun buyback on June 14. I have national legislation that would allow localities to receive small amounts from the Federal government in order to do gun buy-backs. They have been enormously successful in the District, where we set something of a precedent, and we would hope that would be repeated and that our national government would take up this notion. I do want to stress that the million moms stress that they do not advocate the banning of guns. They want particularly their Second Amendment sisters to know that, because they cannot see any part of what they want to do that any mothers would be truly in disagreement with. As a lawyer, I do want to answer those who are concerned about the Second Amendment. My friends, if the Second Amendment kept the modest legislation we are advocating here from going through, then how could the gun bans, total gun bans, handgun bans that we have here in the District and in every large city, have passed constitutional muster? We can in fact regulate guns the way we regulate cars. The Second Amendment does not say that there should be no regulation. We can even regulate the time and manner of speech, and that is a more salient constitutional right than the Second Amendment. Let us not keep throwing the Second Amendment up and confusing the matter. In the recent gun violence, in 1997, of the children killed, 191 were under the age of 10 and 84 were under the age of 5. Most of these children are not shot in shoot-em-ups, in gang wars. Most of these are suicides. Imagine if a gun had not been available. The presence of the gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. If a gun is not handy, then a suicide is less likely to occur, whether by a child or an adult. Mr. Speaker, the gun safety legislation that we have here is the least that the mothers who are coming on Sunday are entitled to a year after the Columbine youth massacre. They want much more. I think it would be an insult and a show of disrespect if, at the very least, the modest gun legislation pending before us were not forthcoming after their visit here to Washington, where the national government sits. I know that every Member of this body has the deepest respect for the mothers. The mothers do not represent themselves as a lobby or representative of every mother. They do say they are moms, and they ask as moms for their Congress, their House, and their Senate to hear them and to respond accordingly.