Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. The gentleman does point out that crime is falling, and still we are way beyond other countries. Of course, the statistics the gentleman gave us from New Jersey very frankly could probably have been given from every State in the Union. No State I think would be excluded. As the gentleman says, it is because we now have pervasive gun violence. None of us is safe. Some thought they were safe if they did not live in big cities. The million moms, most of whom are going to be suburban moms, are leading the country to understand that these guns are everywhere. I very much thank the gentleman from New Jersey, unless he has some more remarks to make.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt, for his salient remarks. I must say to the gentleman, when he spoke about the moms and the nuclear ban treaty and said he was old enough to remember it, he might have said, ``When I was a child, the mothers insisted on such a ban.'' I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), if I may say so, I found what the gentleman had to say about shootings in the gentleman's own State, New Jersey, comparing them to shootings in nations, huge nations across the world, that there were more shootings in this single State than in what looked like more than a half dozen nations, I found that to be itself profoundly informative.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the gentleman from New York City for coming down to offer those important remarks and remind us of our own obligations there is much we can do right now in this House to respond to the mothers. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, the need for national gun legislation is brought home by the virtual futility that many of us who have succeeded in getting strong gun legislation in our own jurisdictions now see to that effort. Many large cities in the United States, including the District of Columbia, have gun bans. There are those with the audacity, some of them on this floor occasionally to say words to the effect the District of Columbia has a gun ban, so what good are gun control laws? Well, that is a virtual concession to the proposition that we need national gun safety legislation in order to have truly effective local gun safety legislation, and that is all we are asking. That is all we are asking. We are not asking for uniformity, but we do think there should be a minimum standard that any decent civil society should have with respect to the most dangerous weapons in that society, guns. That is what these moms, I take it, are coming to say. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to identify myself, though, with those who have become so obsessed with the national obsession with guns that when it comes to gun violence, they focus solely on guns. I do not believe that guns are the central source for the violence in American society. I think that their role is overwhelmingly clear, the role of guns in that violence is overwhelmingly clear. Mr. Speaker, I am a student of history, I have a Master's in history, I read history, I love my country and I love its history, and I am profoundly impressed with the degree to which violence is simply a part of our national character. It was there before guns became the pervasive weapons of choice in the streets of the cities and in the homes of the suburbs. Violence in the American character has expressed itself throughout American history. We continue to carry forward that sense of violence as simply a part of who we are. It may have to do with the fact that we came, at least those of us who were not African Americans, or American Indians, simply came as immigrants and fought our way, one way or the other, some violently, some nonviolently, into the fabric of this country, from the time that the first settlers fought the native Americans for territory until the time that the Wild West was settled. Whatever it is, we have to face who we are and who we are are folks who have had violence as a part of who we are from the time the country came into being. It is deep within us and guns is but one expression of it. Indeed, most of the expressions are at least overtly non-lethal, but in my judgment, they probably are as primary in causing the violence as guns are. I am talking about our movies and our videos and our cable, and I am talking about Hollywood and the networks, and I am talking about computer games. I see this as one huge stew. Guns are a part of that stew, but it is a very dangerous mixture of things that we kind of take for granted because everybody has them, as we see the increasing violence in all of the portrayals from our literature to our video portrayals. It is there, it is all around us. It cannot be avoided. We have a love affair with violence and always have had one. We have had a long, deep romance with violence. Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is not that guns are the source of the problems in our city, even the problems of guns; I am saying that guns are a part of a phalanx of sources and this if we are going at the sources, if we are going at Hollywood, if we are going where the guns begin, with the parents and the communities, if we are going at the networks, then who would leave out the guns? This is a big picture. All of the actors in this picture need to sit around the same table and come to some agreement about how to deal with all the causes of violence. All I ask my colleagues to remember, or indeed, to ask themselves, is should guns be left out of this picture. Should we take them off the table, while saying to Hollywood and the networks and computer games and cable and literature, you come and see what should be done. As a virtual first amendment absolutist, I certainly am not calling for censorship, but I do believe if we all sat around the table and frankly admitted that when a child of 5 gets acculturated to who he is in American society through gun and violent-impacted portrayals everywhere he looks, that one should not be surprised if he picks up a gun and tries it out one day himself. Therefore, if we understand how almost as if by osmosis the violence is picked up, then it seems to me putting all of the causes on the table, we can stop the finger pointing and begin where we must begin. All I am asking is that with a million mothers coming in on mothers day, we at least begin with modest gun control legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to sit with those who over and over again tell me that there is not enough enforcement. Right, let us have more enforcement; that we have to do something about the parents, I would begin there; that the communities are racked with violence, we have to draw the churches in, absolutely. Let us sit down and figure out a strategy for that, but let us not take guns off the table. Let us not have more than a year pass since Columbine and sit on our thumbs doing nothing about it. Let us start with guns. Let us start with that youngster with a bullet in his brain in Children's Hospital. Then, let us come to work next week and put everything on the table and sit down and figure out what to do. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Ms. NORTON. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), my good friend, for those very moving remarks. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to another distinguished friend, the gentleman from Manhattan, New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman from California for her very good intervention and for her work in this Congress on behalf of children and her work in promoting the use of Mother's Day in a particularly meaningful way this year. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it should not take a million moms to do anything, but that is what we are going to get this coming Sunday, Mother's Day. Actually, it should not have taken the moms whose children died at the Columbine High School youth massacre. It should not take the moms who are still feeling the reverberations of the Jonesboro, Arkansas, shooting. And it should not have taken what the moms at the Granada Hills Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles went through just last August. But what has happened with the killing of youth over the past year, and it has been more than a year since Columbine, has caused the mothers of America to take the matter into their own hands, and well they might because this Congress has not taken it into its hands, to do something about it. These mothers are coming. I do not know if there will be a million, but I know there will be a lot. And this is what they say to us, ``We are putting our elected officials on notice that we, the mothers, will not tolerate them putting the gun lobby before the safety of our children any longer. We expect results, and we will hold our elected officials accountable if they do not deliver.'' Mr. Speaker, these are some serious women and their families. These are some moms who wanted to test us to see whether if they come they can get the attention that the killings of children throughout the United States have failed to attract. The moms do not doubt that every Member of this body and of the other body are seriously concerned about the deaths of these and the 80,000 children who have died from gunfire, accidental, suicidal, and homicidal since 1979. They know we care. They do not know that we have the political will to do what is necessary to stop these killings. I am grateful that two Members of this body, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), have introduced a Congressional resolution praising the Million Mom March. They know that this body is full of Members who support gun safety legislation and certainly the gun legislation that is pending before the House at the moment in conference committee. Because that is, by any standards, very modest legislation. The million moms, of course, are way out in front of us on legislation. Their crusade, and it has taken on the appearance of a mother's crusade, began with a single mother, not with any special interest organization, not with any group of lobbyists sitting around trying to get our attention, but with a single mother who, following the North Valley Jewish Community Center shooting last August, simply could not take it anymore. One mom started. And if ever there is a meaning to grassroots movement, that is what has happened ever since. It has been 9 months. There must be some symbolic importance of that time since she started this crusade. And it has grown like wildfire in every State of the Union. It started with suburban, middle class moms. And that is very interesting as far as this Member, who represents a large city, is concerned. Because until the Columbine youth massacre, the real focus had been on the one-on-one shootings, and that is what they mostly were and mostly are, that occur in large cities because kids so easily get ahold of guns. What has made this a national priority is that mothers and families now see that these guns know no borders and that suburban children are at least as fascinated with guns as anywhere. So we are going to see hundreds of buses come into this town from Texas and California, to Maine and Michigan. In April they said Pennsylvania was leading in buses. By now I do not know if some other State has overtaken Maine. Rosie O'Donnell, the television celebrity, who everybody knows is a big opponent of the proliferation of guns, is going to be the MC. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we will not find many Members of this body speaking because the moms want to speak for themselves. There will be an occasional public official speaking. But, apparently, to qualify to speak, if they happen to be a public official, they have to have been a public official who has suffered gun violence in her own family. I love it that the march will be open not, as is the usual case, by our mayor, after all, he is not a mom, but by the woman we call Nana Williams, the mother of the mayor. And then the moms will step forward to tell their stories and to let us know what they want. Look, everybody else has tried. We begin in quite civil debates on the subject. The media delight in airing the subject. None of that talk has gotten us anywhere on the most modest legislation, the bill pending before us, where we literally are almost at the point of absolute agreement literally with about an inch to go and cannot get that inch accomplished. That inch, of course, has largely to do with closing the gun show loophole, with most of us agreeing that instant checks would do it but not wanting to let the most dangerous potential owners get through because they will require at least 24 hours. We hear about the dozen children every day who die from gunshot wounds. These do not always occur in the way, of course, that the terrible tragedy occurred at Columbine. These happen with accidents. They happen with kids playing with guns. These happen with suicides. What they all have in common is the easy availability of guns to kid. Well, the moms, in all of their literature, insist upon speaking for themselves. Here again is what they say. ``Now we moms are mad, and we mean business. We want Congress to create a meaningful gun policy in this country that treats guns like cars.'' I have to tell my colleagues that I would save some time if I did not have to get my car checked or the registration renewed. But most of us understand that a car is seen as a dangerous weapon. If that is true about a car that is used normally in a quite benign fashion, I guess the moms have a point when they say they do not understand why guns cannot be treated like cars. As I contemplated Columbine, which has weighed on my mind for the full year since it took place, I was jolted when a big-city version of the suburban tragedy in Colorado came right here to the Nation's capital at the National Zoo that the House and the Senate established long ago essentially for children. Seven children were wounded when gunfire broke out on Easter Monday. Thank God none of them were killed. But, Mr. Speaker, one of them lies still gravely wounded in Children's Hospital here. I, of course, have visited that family. It is a very brave family. They have stayed away from the press. They are very dignified. The family has devoted its energy to prayer and to this 11-year-old child who is fighting for his life. They call him Pappy because when he was born he looked like a papoose. They delight in talking about him. Because this 11-year-old is no man-child. He is still a child and is still acting like a child, jumping up in his mama's bed, playing with his video games, loving his mom and his dad, and is part of a big, extended family. So they feel a real hole in their hearts with this youngster lying in the bed. It is interesting. His mother, in talking to me, brought up the Million Mom March. She said, you know Congresswoman, I go to all these marches. So I intended to go to the Million Mom March, but I am certainly going to go this time. And so, she will be with me. Mrs. Bates, the mother of Harris Pappy Bates, will be marching with me and with mothers from Maryland, Virginia, and the District on Sunday. On Sunday, we are going to start out from Freedom Plaza at 11 o'clock and we are going to march together as a region to drive home the point that we know that these borders are porous. The moms in Virginia and Maryland say they know that the guns come from their States and from other States. We in the District have done our job in banning guns altogether. We are not asking for other jurisdictions to do exactly as we are doing, but we do think that our Government has an obligation to protect us all in the national union of which we are a part by enacting legislation to protect our kids. So there is going to be a Metro Moms March from Freedom Plaza to the march simply to show solidarity in the region for our kids, to put aside all the rhetoric, to put aside all of the jingoism about where we are from and to stand together with our kids on Sunday and to make our own regional statement. And just as we will be making our own regional statement, we know that mothers from every State in the Union will be carrying the flag of their State to talk about their experience and to speak directly to us, mom to Congress, about our job, our part of the job in eliminating these guns. I see, Mr. Speaker, that one of our distinguished Members, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), has come to the floor. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness in yielding to me. I have an appointment off campus, and I appreciate his interrupting his opening remarks to yield to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Scarborough) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member, because we have been working on this bill for 3 years, but this chairman and ranking member have brought this to fruition. There will be millions of Americans not only who work for the Federal workforce, but who see this leadership by example who will benefit by their leadership here. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for coming together. This is a true bipartisan effort because the administration has been struggling for this, as well. What happened was that the three parties got together, the administration, the majority and minority, and we have an important break-through bill here. Mr. Speaker, there has been lots of concern on both sides of the aisle about prescription drugs. And while there might be, long-term care is the real sleeper. It is the nuclear bomb of health care because of the baby boom generation and what they are going to bring to the health care system. To be sure, 40 million Americans are without health care at all. And if that many do not have basic health care, imagine where the average American stands on long-term health care. People are living longer. The need for long-term health care is as plain as the nose on our faces. This bill is, therefore, major for its implications for the entire country. In providing no Federal contribution, this bill breaks with precedent. And I do regret that, because the Federal workforce has indeed always made some contribution. But given the cost and what it would mean to get that contribution and the importance of this bill, I believe we have done the right thing in coming forward, particularly since the group coverage means that employees will get a 15- to 20- percent discount and, therefore, will be able very often to afford this health care. Mr. Speaker, we have a huge workforce. What this bill does is to use the size of that workforce to advantage in the marketplace to bring long-term health care to the largest workforce in the United States. The effect on the largest population in the United States, the baby boomers, is going to be especially dramatic because their health care presents the greatest challenge to us all. What this bill does, very simply, is to prevent the spend-down of resources so that people then go on Medicaid. That is what happens now to middle-class Americans, they spend down everything they have; and then we end up picking up the cost. That is not what the average American wants to do. Affordable access to long-term health care will keep that from happening. Mr. Speaker, finally, I point to a series in The Washington Post this week. Every Member should read that series, because what it talks about is the depletion of the workforce with no replacements of any numbers coming in. The glamor of the private sector today, it used to be the public sector that was glamorous, but it is the private sector now, not to mention the high-tech sector, means that they are going everywhere, but the Federal sector, this is the kind of benefit that can help us draw badly needed workers to the Federal workforce. I am particularly grateful to the chairman and the ranking member for their work together that brought this moment to the House.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House to join me in honoring Mike Causey, the venerable Washington Post columnist who wrote his last Federal Diary column for the Washington Post today. Most Members of the House have been unable to get through a year, and certainly an appropriations period, without consulting Causey. Federal Diary provided an always reliable place where anyone could be knowledgeably and quickly informed of all one often needed to know about federal sector matters. Especially for those of us ``inside the beltway,'' a phrase coined by Mike Causey, his column was an indispensable resource. We welcome Mike's successor, Stephen Barr, and trust he will continue to make the Federal Diary a congressional habit as it has been for many others as well. I ask the House to join me in honoring Mike Causey's 36 years of giving the Congress and the region the ``real deal'' on the federal sector ``inside the beltway,'' and I submit for the Record his final column and Bob Levey's tribute, Hat's Off to a Top Colleague: Mike Causey. [From the Washington Post, May 8, 2000] Hats Off to a Top Colleague: Mike Causey (By Bob Levey) Today, his column appears in the Metro section. There won't be another. Mike Causey, longtime perpetrator of The Post's Federal Diary, is done. My pal, my fellow scribe, my listening post, my wailing wall, is leaving a perch I thought he'd occupy forever. He is going to try columnizing in the high-tech world. The geeks had better get ready for a whirlwind. You don't produce six careful, newsy columns a week for more than three decades without knowing how to hammer. This fellow may be a grandfather, but he can get it done like no youngster I've ever seen. And he can get it done with surpassing accuracy and touch. When your constituency is federal employees, someone always knows more than you about every topic. If you fumble the provisions of the latest federal retirement bill, thousands will point it out. Fumble often enough, and the gang will stop reading you. But Mike fumbled less than most, and he built a constituency better than any. I say that because the sincerest form of flattery has been visited upon me for nearly 20 years. People mistake me for Causey (even though he isn't very gray, and he underweighs me by 50 pounds). They've accused Mike of being Levey, too. I'm sure he grinned and bore it, with his usual wry comment about how immortal newspapering makes you. How hard is it to be such a prolific columnist for so many years? Mike said it best many years ago, as I waltzed into the office at the spry hour of 7 a.m., only to discover him already hard at it. ``If being a columnist is such an easy job,'' said Mike, ``why are we the only ones here?'' The Big Boss, executive editor Leonard Downie Jr., had this to say about Causey--and his output--when I asked him for comment: ``Mike Causey, of course, does not exist. Mike Causey is a pseudonym for a composite group of Washington Post reporters and researchers--1,342 at last count--with several dozen working together at any one time to produce all those columns.'' Len said that ``a marketing research firm'' had been engaged to develop ``the many male models we use to represent Mike Causey at interviews, press conferences, lunches, dinners and other appearances. Each is tan, fit and speaks with a subtle nasal accent.'' Editorial writer Bob Asher and Metro editor Walter Douglas, who began as copy boys with Mike back near the Civil War, remember him as being very efficient, and a bit of a scamp. Walter remembers the way Mike would answer the newsroom phone. Most copy boys did it formally and decorously. Causey would flip a toggle switch and announce, ``Newsroom, Mike.'' ``A bit unorthodox, but it got the job done,'' Walter said. Bob Asher said Causey was a legend for running every copy boy errand route through the cafeteria. As for Causey's current office--a notorious six-foot-high collection of junk--``there's wildlife in there,'' Bob said. Having sat in the next office for all this time, I can deny that rumor. Wildlife wouldn't survive--not Of course, Mike always claimed that he knew where everything was. Since he never missed a deadline, it must have been true. Of course, the Disastrous Causey Office led to moments of great merriment. When Ben Bradlee was executive editor, he would wheel a huge trash can up to the lip of Causey's office door once a year. ``In two days,'' he'd bark. And it would be done. Although it would need to be done again in less than a week. How bad was the crud? For years, Causey and I used computers that were linked somehow. If one broke, the other would have to be disconnected so the ``bad'' one could be worked on. When mine broke one day, technicians tried to reach Causey's terminal to disable it. Like a bunch of disappointed explorers on the Amazon, they gave up after a few minutes. Mike Causey invented the phrase ``Inside the Beltway.'' He and a Post photographer were the first civilians to circumnavigate the Capital Beltway. He covered the first Beatles concert in Washington--as a bodyguard to ``a more experienced (and fragile) reporter,'' as he put it in his official Post biography. What Mike didn't say, there or anywhere else, was that he became an institution. ``In the mornings, federal employees have their coffee and Causey at their desks,'' said Bob Asher. Indeed they did--thousands of them, across thousands of days. The guy is the Cal Ripken Jr. of journalism--even if he failed a tryout with the Cleveland Indians as a young man. Mike even contributed to my wardrobe. One year, my wife stole a favorite Causey expression and turned it into a birthday T-shirt. The front says: ANYONE CAN BE A DAILY COLUMNIST. The back says: FOR THREE WEEKS. Whenever Mike and I would pass in the halls all these years, he'd say to me, in his joking, conspiratorial way: ``I'll cover for you.'' From now on, I'll return the favor, Mr. C. Well done! You'll be missed in a big way.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the plane of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) is late, and I am pleased to manage on my side and in his absence. Mr. Speaker, I want to express some concerns regarding this resolution. H. Con. Res. 296 is offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Watts), which attempts to express the sense of this Congress regarding their urgency to expedite the settlement process for the Pigford Black Farmer class action suit that has been filed against the Federal government. No one can disagree with the essential concept of this resolution when more than 9,000 claims remain unresolved. In any event, Mr. Speaker, when all the claims are settled in accordance with the Pigford consent decree, an estimated $2 billion will be expended to redress past discrimination in agricultural lending and program benefits. But outreach and technical assistance funding for future needs will remain inadequate. I do want to indicate that this consent decree is the result of a bill that was introduced by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), who also cannot be here; and that were it not for the Congressional Black Caucus, this consent decree could not have gotten through. It was the energy and the determination of the Congressional Black Caucus that made that consent decree possible. It was the Congressional Black Caucus that got the time extended so that these farmers could, indeed, file for these claims, if there is any dispute about what members of the Caucus have done. Regardless of what we do or say in this resolution, it is questionable whether USDA, Justice or the monitor can legally expedite the settlement process where denials can be overturned due to rushed or inadequate decisions. Although I do have some appreciation for the concept between H. Con. Res. 296, we question the sincerity of the efforts to help keep African American farmers on their land as well as to help them remain competitive in production agriculture. Mr. Speaker, all of us who are familiar with production agriculture under the current economic conditions of low commodity prices recognize that farmers need to modernize operations in order to make a profit. Most of our farmers cannot afford to modernize without having an extension of credit. The extension of credit was a major issue in the Pigford class action suit. Under the factual background section of the Pigford's court's opinion, Judge Freidman said, ``It is of utmost importance that credit and benefit applications be processed quickly, or the farmers will lose all or most of the anticipated income for the entire year.'' Further, Judge Friedman said that ``it does a farmer no good to receive a loan to buy seeds after the planting season is past.'' In the Pigford class action, there was sufficient facts to support a finding that Federal employees discriminated against African American farmers when they denied, delayed, or otherwise frustrated the loan applications of those farmers. Therefore, it is clear that the even-handed extension of agricultural credit is the main issue that this resolution should address. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, none of the language in H. Con. Res. 296 makes a specific reference to discrimination in the agricultural lending process; therefore, it cannot express the sense of Congress regarding the expedited settlement of this class action suit. The Commodity Credit Corporation and disaster assistance program language of paragraph two of this resolution should not be linked to credit in a meaningful way to adequately express Congress' resolve to alleviate lending discrimination that affects farmers. Mr. Speaker, if this Congress really wants to help African American farmers stay on their land and be productive, we should fully fund section 2501, the outreach and technical assistance program for minority and limited resource farmers and ranchers. This program provides assistance with loan applications and farm implementation plans so that these African American farmers can effectively demonstrate their ability to handle cash flow if they receive a loan from USDA's Farm Service Agency. My colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), is a sponsor of this resolution. The gentleman from Arkansas is a member of the House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations that funds the section 2501 program. It would be interesting to know whether the gentleman from Arkansas would support the full funding of this program in an effort to provide some real meaning to this resolution. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time remaining and to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his kind words and for his generous support. I want to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, for their hard work in bringing H.R. 3069, the Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Redevelopment Act of 2000, to the floor today. I also want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise), the subcommittee ranking member, for his strong support. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), the subcommittee chairman, because, were it not for his leadership and attention to the Southeast Federal Center, we would not finally be on the path toward making this valuable Federal asset productive and beneficial to American taxpayers. The Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Redevelopment Act of 2000 reflects the best and strongest bipartisan intents of the Congress. It arose out of a hearing in May 1999, where I was engaged in perennial questioning concerning the failure of the Federal Government since 1962 to develop its largest tract of land in the city while leasing massive amounts of office space here and throughout the region. Over many years, consistent criticism from our subcommittee concerning the magnitude of the waste never brought results until the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) at that hearing took a deep interest, suggested a tour and then worked with me in developing H.R. 3069, the Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Redevelopment Act of 2000 that is before us now. H.R. 3069 would allow the GSA wide latitude to contract for arrangements to bring any appropriate development to the site, private, Federal, local or some combination. Our bill specifies that any agreement entered into between the GSA and the developing entity must: One, have as its primary purpose enhancing the value of the Southeast Federal Center; two, be negotiated pursuant to procedures that protect the Federal Government's interest and promote a competitive bidding process; three, provide an option for the Federal Government to lease and occupy any office space in the developed facilities; four, not require unless otherwise determined by the GSA Federal ownership of any developed facilities; and, five, describe the duties and consideration for which the government and the public and private entities involved are responsible. The bill also authorizes GSA to accept non-monetary, in-kind consideration such as the provision of goods and services at the site. A site centrally and strategically located just 5 minutes from the Capitol, the SEFC is considered one of the most valuable undeveloped parcels on the East Coast. Yet it has become a wasteland that also has triggered decay in the surrounding neighborhoods. The SEFC represents an astonishing denial of productive use to the Federal Government and of revenue to the taxpayers, particularly considering that the location is so close to the Mall and the Capitol. Efforts by the Federal Government to develop the land exclusively for Federal uses have consistently failed. Most recently the Reagan and Bush administrations in a thoughtful innovation proposed a mall infrastructure to be built by the Federal Government with amenities to be provided by the private sector to attract Federal agencies, but regrettably this proposal had no effect on agency decisions and no relocation of Federal agencies to the SEFC occurred as a result. The Clinton administration also has encouraged Federal agencies to locate at the site, to no avail. The Washington Navy yard located next to the SEFC is being redeveloped successfully with civilian Navy personnel, but its very visible innovation has not reversed the fortunes of the SEFC. Nor has the Metro station which was located there in December 1991. The subcommittee's analysis of the site and of the real estate industry makes clear that the reason that so attractive a site has not been developed after decades of trying by the Federal Government is that it is not developable as a traditional government-owned site today. Moreover, the limited set of tools available to the GSA do not enable the government to make productive use of the SEFC. The subcommittee's work demonstrates that without new tools, the Federal Government will not be able to capitalize on this valuable asset or to offer an economic incentive for private developers to develop the land. H.R. 3069 is applicable to this single parcel alone and its value to the government and to this city makes it important to proceed without further costly delay. What are the government's realistic options? The land certainly is too valuable to sell in light of the scarcity of land in the District and the sale of federally owned land in any case would never be tolerated by Congress when the Federal Government is leasing space throughout the District and the region at a cost of billions of dollars to the taxpayers. Yet an OMB bureaucrat recently threw up his hands and was so anxious to get this embarrassment of unused land off the government's books that he did a pass-through to the District of Columbia until it was called back by higher authorities at the OMB. For years, the Congress has not allowed cost-free transfers of Federal land. Alternatively Congress, which has not appropriated funds for its own development of the SEFC, would clearly not fund a pass-through to another jurisdiction. Another alternative, leasing the land, is also unworkable and has at least two major drawbacks that would undercut the concept and purposes of the bill. First, the GSA is limited to supplying general purpose special office space and lacks mixed use authority through leasing. Second, leasing a government-owned site requires the sale of the site under the existing scoring rules. If leasing were the answer, GSA would have pursued it long ago, Mr. Speaker. The smart way to develop this property in today's climate is to combine the government's value in ownership with the private sector's ability to develop land. H.R. 3069 not only represents the subcommittee's thinking, this bill is entirely in keeping with the reinventing government public-private partnership ideas and practices fostered by the present administration. Moreover, the Congress itself has long sanctioned the use of Federal land value in exchange for private development. The Veterans' Administration, the Department of Interior and the Department of Defense have this general authority not on a one-time basis as provided by H.R. 3069. The extensive experience from these agencies demonstrates conclusively that public-private partnerships involving the Federal Government not only are cost effective, these arrangements protect the government from risk because the scoring rules ensure that every GSA expenditure is accounted and appropriated for in a manner that insulates the Federal Government from financial risk. This bill allows the private sector to do the kind of development it does every day. At the same time, H.R. 3069 provides an option of locating Federal facilities as part of the mix and, therefore, of meeting Federal agency needs for which the SEFC has been unavailable for decades. The Federal Government has been unable to commit financial resources for the development of the SEFC. Considering the competition with other resources, it is fair to say that the Federal Government is unwilling to develop the site notwithstanding the continuing loss in productivity and in revenue to the taxpayers. H.R. 3069, establishing a public- private partnership to develop the site, represents an important breakthrough in achieving the highest and best use of a wasted Federal asset, securing revenue for the Federal Government and providing enhanced opportunities for Federal agency occupancy while at the same time contributing to the local D.C. economy and revival of the surrounding neighborhood whose deterioration traces significantly to this large brownfield site. The approach is mutually beneficial. It is win-win. The Federal Government makes its property available for Federal and private development, including revenue-producing occupancy for the government, and the developer, selected competitively, receives a valuable opportunity to add value. Democrats, Republicans and the President, who have all said they will come together when government and private responsibilities are appropriately apportioned, have found a meeting place in H.R. 3069. I appreciate the bipartisan partnership we have achieved here in the House for the public-private partnership H.R. 3069 represents. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate two young District of Columbia students who have achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in their communities. Milton Boyd and Lakeshia Wallace have just been named honorees in the 2000 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on only one high school and one middle school student in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Milton Boyd, a junior at Grant School Without Walls, developed a theatrical presentation to educate teenagers in the District about the importance of making healthy life decisions. As a result of his work, Milton was recruited to join Planned Parenthood's youth outreach campaign, which promotes non-violence, sexual awareness and abstinence, and self control. Lakeshia Wallace, a junior at Hugh Browne Junior High School, initiated a project to deliver home cooked meals to the homeless in her community during the cold fall and winter months. As president of her local Boys and Girls Club, Lakeshia helped establish ``Project GRATE,'' which delivers food to homeless people who live and sleep on subway grates. I ask my colleagues to join me today and applaud Milton Boyd and Lakeshia Wallace for their initiative in seeking to make their communities better places to live and for the positive impact they have had on the lives of others. Congratulations to both for their commitment and dedication to the people of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, hearings on the White House e-mails being conducted by the Committee on Government Reform have provoked serious questions as officials and former officials with impeccable reputations have had their integrity questioned without evidence of wrongdoing traceable to them. Cheryl Mills, the young White House lawyer who spoke so memorably during the Senate Impeachment hearings, did it again during the Committee's hearings today. Her words concerning what inquisitional hearings do to young people and others considering public service deserve consideration by Members of the House who, after all, serve here because of the value they themselves attach to serving the public and their country. I submit her full statement for inclusion in the Record. Opening Statement by Cheryl Mills, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, May 4, 2000 Mr. Chairman, Representative Waxman, Members of the Committee on Government Reform: My name is Cheryl Mills. For almost seven years, I served in the White House Counsel's Office under President Clinton. During my tenure, I served first as Associate Counsel and later as Deputy Counsel. When I arrived on January 20, 1993, I was 27 years old; I was 34 when I left last October. I came into government because I believed that the opportunity to serve this country was a valuable one. I believed that giving of my time, my energy, and even my soul, to try to make a difference was important. I believed that the gift of one's labor and one's love for this country was one of the purer things I, like other young people, had to give. When I left, it had become hard for me to believe anymore. I left increasingly cynical about Congress' commitment to improving the lives of Americans. I left deeply troubled by the culture of partisanship in Washington that with each passing day was threatening the very essence of what is good, and what is right, and what is joyful about public service. When I left, it was no longer obvious to me that serving in government, with a Congress committed to oversight by investigation, was worth the high toll it exacted. And the greatness of that injustice, is not in its harm to me. I am but one person. Rather, it is the damage that it does to the ideals of all the young people who decide never to serve. The young people who decide that no one should have to love their country enough, to have their integrity, their service and their commitment to doing the best they can, impugned by some who sit in this body. The young people who decide that their desire to serve their country and a President, is not outweighed by the risks to their reputation, their livelihood and their family. The young people who decide that too many who toil in this body have forgotten that their exalted positions are but loaned to them by the young--on the understanding that they will seek what is best for our country, not what is least. I left because I knew that only distance and time would allow me to see again the many Members who serve honorably in Congress every day. Members who choose to work hard for their constituents on the issues that will enrich their lives. Men and women who get up each morning not thinking about how they can bring someone down, but about how they can lift us all up. Mr. Chairman, I left because I was tired of playing a role in dramas like today, when so many issues that mattered to me that were not being addressed. You have held four days of hearings, and spent countless more dollars on depositions and document productions, but yet you have not chosen to use your oversight authority to hold one day's worth of hearings about: a man who was shot dead by an undercover New York police officer while he was getting into a cab, after refusing to buy drugs from that officer; any of the 67 cases and counting that have been overturned because officers in Los Angeles Police Department planted guns and drugs to frame people, shot an unarmed man, and quite possibly shot another man, with no criminal record, 10 times--killing him; why African American youths charged with drug offenses are 48 times more likely than white youths to be sentenced to prison. Not to mention all the other ways in which you could spend your time making the lives of the individuals you serve better, as opposed to tearing down the staff of a President with whose vision and policies you disagree. You could choose from a myriad of issues--health care, prescription drug benefits, family medical leave, education reform, social security, judicial reform. Nothing you discover here today, will feed one person, give shelter to someone who is homeless, educate one child, provide health care for one family, or offer justice to one African American or Hispanic juvenile. You could do so much to transform our country--but instead you are compelled to use your great authority and resources to address . . . e-mails. The energy your staff will spend poring over hearing transcripts to create a perjury referral for you to send to the Justice Department could be spent poring over the latest statistics in the Justice Department's report on the unequal treatment African American and Hispanic juveniles receive before the law. And the resources that the Justice Department will expend reviewing your allegations--causing those public servants and their families considerable pain--could instead be spent investigating why America's justice system unfortunately is still not blind. I know I say all this at some personal peril, as my words here today will no doubt make me an even greater target of your ire. But when I got your letter last week about attending this hearing--despite having advised you of my long scheduled commitments--a letter in which you simply dismissed my prior engagement, stating that you would not ``indulge my schedule,`` I got tired and mad all over again. And if I had not had the chance to attend a dinner that night in honor of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Foundation, I probably would still be mad. Because, I would not have had the chance to have my faith renewed by the example of what other men with your power have chosen to do throughout history to enhance the lives of others. I would not have been reminded of how Robert Kennedy's work on behalf of issues like race, and justice, and poverty, embodied the true spirit of his greatest words: ``It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others,or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope; and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current, which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.'' Had I not gone to that dinner, I would not have been reminded that the smallness of any person, can never overshadow the greatness of those whose acts are bigger than life. I would not have been reminded that today, too, will pass. And, that we who love our government are strong enough, and not too weary. We can outlast a culture of investigation and intimidation and idleness on behalf of issues that can truly improve the lives of Americans. Mr. Chairman, I believe in your humanity, and in that of those who serve on your staff. That each of you has good and bad days; make good and bad judgments, render good and bad decisions. Won't you believe in the humanity of others with whom you disagree? Won't you believe that as with your mistakes, they too can make mistakes that are not conspiratorial? That they too can make a bad judgment, without that judgment being pernicious? That they too can do their best each day and expect more than a biased shake or a perjury referral from this Committee? That they too can be human, without this body using its awesome power to exploit their humanity for political gain? Can Tony Barry, a man who has served his government since 1992, expect that? I give my last quotation to Robert Kennedy because to me, it is particularly fitting today. He said: ``The Constitution protects wisdom and ignorance, compassion and selfishness alike. But that dissent which consists simply of sporadic and dramatic acts sustained by neither continuing labor or research--that dissent which seeks to demolish while lacking both the desire and direction for rebuilding, that dissent which, contemptuously or out of laziness, casts aside the practical weapons and instruments of change and progress-- that kind of dissent is merely self-indulgence. It is satisfying, perhaps, only those who make it.'' I decided that smallness government cannot win. And that it will note the weapon to defeat my ideals. That it is not powerful enough to alter my belief in the good that so many Members who serve in this body do. I decided, that in the final analysis, I am not too tired to stand up for all of those who believe, even through the drama, that public service is worth the price.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome Members back and inform Members, in case someone was off the planet last week, that Columbine came to the Nation's capital last week here where the Congress sits. At a traditional kids' fun day at the National Zoo, created by the Congress for kids, seven children were shot. One, an 11-year-old boy, lies at Children's Hospital with a bullet in his head. He was the quintessential innocent victim. Harris ``Pappy'' Bates is a big baby of a boy, the kind one would expect to find at the zoo on Easter Monday. Very much still a child, a rotund kid who was named Pappy because he looked like a papoose when he was born. His family had their first access to the press on Sunday. They thanked people for their prayers and they thanked the President for calling. They said they were praying for the 16-year-old suspect who was being held for the shooting. This family, I must say, gives real meaning to Christianity at a time when so many profess Christianity and speak only of vengeance. Pappy's mother said to me that she had always intended to be at the Million Moms March coming up on Mother's Day. She also said she supported gun safety legislation and always has. Pappy Bates is one of 700 children killed by gunfire in the Nation's capital, children under 19, during the 1990s. But there have been 80,000 children killed by gunfire since 1978. The gun safety bill pending before us is only part of a very complex puzzle. The networks are in the puzzle, cable is in the puzzle, sports is in the puzzle, violent computer games is in the puzzle, and above all parents, who have the primary responsibility for children, are in the puzzle. We have to work to get all pieces on the table, and I want to work with Members on all pieces of the puzzle. But would we leave guns out of this puzzle? We are so very close, my colleagues. Who would, after seeing what happened right here under the nose of the Capitol on Easter Monday, even think of leaving a loophole in the gun bill now stalled before us? For all Americans, the average Americans, indeed 90 percent of Americans, the instant check will work. But according to the data, the 10 percent that we need 24 hours to look at are 20 times more likely to be criminals or people with a mental defect or people who otherwise should not have a gun. It has been more than a year since the Columbine youth massacre. Not one more week, Mr. Speaker, not one more week after this week should pass, and certainly not after an 11-year-old lies with a bullet in his brain at Children's Hospital right here in the Nation's capital. Not after Columbine, which itself should have been all we needed, if we needed even that. Not after what had happened at the zoo. I ask Members to come back with a new resolve to do what we almost have done. We are almost there. It has been difficult. Let us go the rest of the way. Do it for Pappy. But, above all, do it for the children in our districts.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Omnibus District of Columbia Tax Incentive Recovery Act. Congress was out of session on the day of the deadline for filing federal taxes, when I had wanted to introduce the D.C. Tax Package. Therefore, on the first day the House returns, I introduce the Omnibus District of Columbia Tax Incentive Recovery Act. The legislation builds on federal tax incentives Congress has already passed here to produce market-induced residential and business stability and growth. This bill is necessary to assure even the sustained stability, let alone real economic growth, that still eludes the District economy and the city government. This federal tax package gives the city the tools it needs to produce a self-sufficient economy. After the financial collapse of the 1990s, and as the control board passes from the scene, the Congress has an obligation to help the city do what is necessary to increase its own economic output on its own. The city does not have that capacity today. Ominously, the District lacks the essential safety valve of other large cities--a state to fall back on in times of economic downturn. The economic forecasters agree that D.C. has reached the height of its economic output for this period and will experience four straight years of declining economic output after 2001, largely because its economic boost has come primarily from temporary construction jobs and from jobs held primarily by commuters. The surpluses that brightened the city's hopes have already declined: 1997, $185 million; 1998, $445 million, an artificial increase resulting from one-time federal contributions; 1999, $105 million. The District's top two private sectors--hotels and health care--actually lost jobs, and retail continues to shrink. The city's unemployment rate is 5.7% compared with 3.0% in Maryland and 2.7% in Virginia. This picture resembles other large cities in the United States. However, none survives on city-generated revenues alone, nor could it do so. State assistance is necessary not only to meet current expenses, but also to make up for sharply diminished tax bases in every major American city. The District is not requesting similar subsidies or federal financial assistance. We believe that the federal tax credit incentive approach already approved by Congress that is already having substantial success here is the key to permanent stability. Tax credits leverage the private sector rather than the government to do the job of growing the economy and return many times the revenue foregone by the federal government. The Omnibus Tax Package I am introducing today has four parts. They are: (1) the District of Columbia Non-Resident Tax Credit Act that would cost commuters nothing but would fairly spread the cost of the services used by federal and other employees, who return to the suburbs untaxed the overwhelming majority of the income earned here; (2) the District of Columbia City-Wide Enterprise Zone Act, to spread to all neighborhoods and businesses tax incentives that have brought substantial benefits to communities but with the unintended effect of affording an unfair and arbitrary advantage to some neighborhoods and businesses over their competitors; (3) the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act, affording a progressive 15% flat tax to residents in order to draw and maintain taxpayers; and (4) the District of Columbia $5,000 Homebuyer Credit Act, to make permanent the tax incentive that is largely responsible for new homebuyers and for maintaining and attracting taxpayers to the city. Title I: The District of Columbia Non-Resident Tax Credit Act Not only do suburbanites carry home two-thirds of all the income generated in the District. They leave behind most of the damage that occurs to many services, especially roads and other infrastructure, while making free use of many of the same services that D.C. taxpayers can obtain only by paying for them. Large cities generally recoup at lease some of these service costs in order to avoid overwhelming the tax base of cities, which are far less prosperous than the regional areas where suburban service users reside. For years, the District has sought some reimbursement for the heavy toll in services commuters use. Neither the obvious unfairness, nor even the city's insolvency and increasing need for reimbursement for the services provided, has produced any change. The District's future economic prospects necessitate a fresh look at how to assure that the city gets its fair share of revenue in a region experiencing large and sustained growth while its core city does not generate sufficient revenue to assure its economic viability. The matter is no longer only a home rule issue or a services issue. Today, it is a fundamental needs issue to assure a viable capital. The city gave up the federal payment in return for a takeover of state functions as the only way out of its insolvency. The old federal payment was almost never increased and, therefore, declined in value each year. A flat payment was a seriously antiquated and obsolete way for the federal government to meet its financial responsibility to help maintain a capital city. The 1997 Revitalization Act provides an automatic increase by assuming at least some of the most costly and fastest rising state costs. In spite of the splendid national economy, without the Revitalization Act takeover of some state costs, D.C. would still be insolvent, the city would not have an investment grade bond rating, and the control board would not be on its way out. The tax credit is necessary because even the substantial relief afforded by the Revitalization Act has not left the District able to support itself in the long run. The cold reality is that neither the present robust economy nor the District's own exemplary efforts are doing enough, or can do enough, to assure a permanent recovery. Three reasons account for this dilemma: (1) There simply are not enough taxpaying residents and businesses here now; it will take many years to make up for the shortfall, and the sufficient business and residential growth may not occur at all if incentives to make the city more competitive with the suburbs are not enacted; (2) expenditures are inexorably rising faster than revenues; and (3) years of disinvestment in the services provided to residents and especially children, in infrastructure and in basic neighborhood amenities require immediate and substantial funds to hold and attract businesses and residents. The new tax credit approach we offer today has the twin advantage of greater efficiency and greater reliance on approaches already sanctioned by Congress: (1) Congress has already approved tax credits for the District and increasingly uses tax credits nationally as a tool; (2) a federal tax credit is the fairest way to recoup the cost of services because most of the commuters are federal employees, most of the services rendered to non-residents are due to the federal presence, and most of the land taken off the tax rolls is federal land; (3) a tax credit would spread the obligations of securing a viable economy in the nation's capital to the entire country; (4) the tax credit is set at 2%, the average of non-resident taxes in the country; and (5) a standard commuter tax, other taxes, or other subsidies, are all politically impossible today, while the region has always supported the federal payment, a federal solution. The tax credit would net the District $400 million the first year, and, unlike the flat federal payment would automatically rise every year because incomes increase every year. The take-home pay of commuters would not change because the 2% of their salary that would otherwise go to the federal government would instead transfer to the D.C. government (thereby also eliminating any new administrative burden). Title II: District of Columbia City-Wide Enterprise Zone Several extraordinarily valuable enterprise zone tax benefits constitute the major financial tools that have been used for business revival and new commercial and office construction in the city. Among the most successful have been the wage tax credit allowing an employer a 20% credit for the first $15,000 of an employee's income if that employee is a D.C. resident. This credit not only helps attract and retain businesses, it also helps to correct the severe imbalance that allows two-thirds of the jobs in the city to go to commuters. Another new benefit, the elimination of capital gains altogether, is expanding and creating businesses in many city neighborhoods and downtown. The success of zero capital gains has already led the Senate to make this provision city-wide. A third tax incentive, tax exemption for up to $15 million in bonds, is fueling much of the construction boom the city is experiencing, and construction alone accounts for the major portion of the increased economic output of the District today. However, because the District is small and compact, multiple enterprise zones have had unintended effects. High income university students with little personal income have brought Georgetown and Foggy Bottom businesses within the zone, but businesses in struggling areas of Ward 5 do not qualify. This title would eliminate an unearned advantage that forces competition among our already depleted pool of businesses instead of between those in and outside of the District. The solution is to designate the District of Columbia itself an enterprise zone. Only this solution will erase indefensible distinctions that tear neighborhoods apart and help some D.C. businesses, neighborhoods and residents over others that are similarly situated. The citywide zone solution also draws upon the criterion of poverty already in the law because the present law requires a 20% residential zone poverty rate for businesses to receive the tax benefits, and a 10% poverty rate to qualify for capital gains tax elimination. Since the poverty rate for the District is 22%, it makes sense to use the city-wide poverty rate to designate the entire city an enterprise zone. The $5,000 Homebuyer Tax Credit was always citywide and has proved so successful that the Senate has tried to raise the income limit (see below). The citywide success of the Homebuyer Credit shows highly effective tax breaks can and should be used to encourage the economy throughout the city. Title III: D.C. Economic Recovery Act (DCERA) As valuable as the tax credits the District has achieved are, it is the one that the city has not yet achieved that has consistently provoked the greatest excitement and would have the greatest effect. There is general agreement that the 15% Progressive Flat Tax (PFT) would promote a dramatic increase in residents and would stop taxpayer flight altogether. A residential increase in indispensable to the survival of this city. The control board conservatively estimates the need for an increase of 100,000 residents to support city government services unattainable under present conditions. The 15% progressive flat tax works this way: After affording sharp increases in the traditional standard deduction and personal exemption, a uniform rate of 15% would be applied progressively up the income scale to reduce a resident's tax liability--from approximately 80% reduction to a one-third reduction in taxes owed, depending on income. The lower the income, the greater the tax reduction. The DCERA would take 50% of D.C. residents off of the tax rolls altogether. The uniform rate also would rescue the remaining taxpayers from bracket creep, and assure that income increases resulting from the tax cut are not then significantly taxed away. I first introduced the Progressive Flat Tax in the 104th Congress. I remain persistent not only because of the city's continuing and serious taxpayer deficit, but particularly because of the strong support I have received for the PFT from congressional leadership. They include Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), who sponsored the first-ever D.C. town meeting in the Senate and Senator Connie Mack (R-FL), Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, and other members, who remain strong supporters of the PFT. Title IV: The District of Columbia $5000 Homebuyer Credit Act This title would make permanent the $5,000 Homebuyer Credit, perhaps the most successful economic stimulus in the city's history. It is chiefly responsible for stemming the flight that almost destroyed the city's tax base during the 1980s and during the financial crisis and insolvency of the 1990s. The credit offers significant evidence that a tightly targeted tax incentive can have a major turn around effect on a specific problem confronting a city. The credit has been so successful that we have recommended that states do the same for the many large cities that are rapidly losing taxpayers. In its first year, despite the city's financial problems and damaged reputation, the credit made the District first in home sales increases in the United States. According to an independent study by the Greater Washington Research Center, 70% of D.C. homebuyers have used the credit, and 51% purchased homes because of the credit. Last Year, the Senate was so impressed with the Homebuyer Credit results that it increased the income limits for joint filers from $130,000 to $180,000. The limit for individual filers is $90,000. This increase was passed by the House and Senate, but no omnibus tax bill was enacted last year. Nevertheless, the Senate action demonstrates congressional acknowledgment of the effectiveness of tax credits in general and of the $5,000 homebuyer credit in particular. Fannie Mae has converted the credit into up-front money towards the purchase of a home, affording the credit significantly greater value to the individual. The $5,000 homebuyer credit proved itself so quickly and so well that I have been able to get it repeatedly extended by Congress. The credit is similar to the PFT in its magnet effect. Until the PFT is enacted, the $5,000 credit is minimally necessary if the city is to have any chance of increasing its still small and depleted tax base. The credit has proved itself so definitively that to get the full effect, it should be enacted permanently.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize two Washington, D.C. institutions that have been in the forefront of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered civil rights movement, and that I have the distinct honor and pleasure of representing in this body: the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. (GLAA), the oldest continuously active gay and lesbian rights organization in the United States and its charter member, Dr. Franklin E. Kameny. Since its founding in April 1971, GLAA has been a respected and persistent advocate in District politics tirelessly asserting equal rights and social equality for lesbians and gay men living in the city. In the last two years, its advocacy with the city government helped reestablish an independent Office of Human Rights and the Citizen Complaint Review Board; implementation of a unique identifier system for reporting cases of HIV/AIDS to help to protect the privacy of people who test positive for HIV; and the establishment of an antiharassment policy by the District of Columbia Public Schools. On April 27, GLAA held its 29th Anniversary Reception honoring the year 2000 recipients of its Distinguished Service Awards: Steve Block of the American Civil Liberties Union/National Capital Area; Jeffrey Berman of the Public Defender Service; local and international gay activist Barrett L. Brick; Food and Friends; Dr. Patricia Hawkins, Associate Director of the Whitman Walker Clinic; and Jessica Xavier, a local and national transgendered activist. GLAA also celebrated Frank Kameny's 75th Birthday. Dr. Kameny's resume reflects the history of the gay and lesbian movement in the District of Columbia. He remains an indefatigable and outspoken gay activist. Dr. Kameny holds a BS in Physics from Queens College and an M.A. and a Ph.D. in Astronomy from Harvard University. In 1957, Dr. Kameny began an 18-year struggle to end the civil service ban on the federal employment of gay men and lesbians that achieved success in 1975 and was recently formalized by President Clinton with Executive Order 13087. In 1961, Dr. Kameny founded the Mattachine Society of Washington, the first local gay and lesbian organization in the District. The following year, he initiated the ongoing effort to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians in the military. By 1962, Dr. Kameny had become the nationally recognized authority on security clearances for lesbians and gay men. His efforts resulted in lifting of the absolute ban on gay and lesbian security clearances in 1980, which President Clinton made formal with Executive Order 12968. In 1965, Dr. Kameny organized the first lesbian and gay demonstration at the White House; and a year before the ``Stonewall Rebellion'' in New York City in 1968, he coned the slogan ``Gay Is Good.'' In 1971, Dr. Kameny ran for Congress in the District of Columbia, the first openly gay person to seek such an office in the country. His campaign committee became the nucleus of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. He subsequently helped draft the D.C. Human Rights Law, one of the strongest civil rights laws in the country, which codified gay and lesbian civil rights in the District. Dr. Kameny's 10 year fight to have homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's classification as a mental illness succeeded in 1973. He was a founding member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (1973), the Gay Rights National Lobby (1975), which ultimately became the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club (1976). Dr. Kameny became D.C.'s first openly gay municipal appointee when Mayor Washington appointed him to the Human Rights Commission (1975). He drafted the legislation which repealed the D.C. Sodomy Law in 1993. Dr. Kameny continues to be a revered and effective activist. He lectures, writes, and testifies on behalf of gay and lesbian issues. He has become the institutional memory of D.C.'s gay and lesbian rights movement. I ask the House to join me in congratulating the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance and Dr. Franklin E. Kameny.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, Representative Don Manzullo, for joining me in our annual observance of Emancipation Day, and for his generous and continued attention to the District of Columbia. One hundred thirty-eight years ago, President Lincoln ended slavery in the District, nine months before the Emancipation Proclamation was signed. In 1862, the existence of slavery and denial of human rights in the Nation's Capital was a contradiction in terms. Today, we use this occasion to draw attention to a continuing contradiction. District of Columbia citizens are still denied basic rights in the Capital of the free world. The District is the only jurisdiction in America whose citizens pay taxes, but are denied full representation in Congress. D.C. residents are the only Americans whose laws can be overturned by Congress, in violation of American principles of local self-government. I am pleased to note that this year the D.C. Council has passed a bill designating April 16th as District of Columbia Emancipation Day. How much more would District residents rejoice if they had the full representation and freedom enjoyed by other Americans. How much more joyously would they celebrate if the right to vote in this House and in the Senate were their basic right. Because of a historic court case, we believe this right is within our reach. Two lawsuits on their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Adams v. Clinton and Alexander v. Daley, have been consolidated to challenge the denial of basic democratic rights. We are indebted to the attorneys, John Ferren, former D.C. Corporation Counsel; Charles Miller and Thomas Williamson, of Covington & Burling; Jamin Raskin, Professor of Law, American University; and George LaRoche, who handled this case before a three-judge court. And we are indebted to the 75 citizens who are the plaintiffs in these suits and who, therefore, represent all the citizens of the District of Columbia. Judge Oberdorfer, the distinguished, dissenting jurist in the case, wrote, ``Under established constitutional principles, neither the . . . people of the District nor their posterity forfeited [their] constitutional right when the District became the seat of government.'' In the District, we have a history of recognizing April 16th as a day of celebration. We do so this year with special determination to gain and enjoy all the benefits that American citizenship provides--full representation in Congress. I salute D.C. Reading is Fundamental for its continued efforts to promote Emancipation Day in the District. Its work inspires our children to read, to learn the history of this city, and to insist, as Americans, upon their full rights.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to let the House know that a decision has been handed down in a consolidated case, the Adams case and the Alexander case, challenging the denial of full voting rights in the House and the Senate to the residents of the Nation's Capital and full self-government here. In a 2-to-1 decision, the court ruled that because the District is not a State it does not have the privilege that every other American citizen has of having a voting representative. Mr. Speaker, this decision is on its way to the Supreme Court. I would like to note for the record the courageous lawyers who are appealing this decision, John Ferren, former corporation counsel who was in the case at that time; Charles Miller and Thomas Williamson of Covington and Burling who handled one of the cases pro bono; professor Jamin Raskin, who is responsible for much of the thinking that went into these cases, professor of the American University School of Law; and George LaRoche, who brought a separate case. Judge Louis Oberdorfer will be remembered by history for his ruling that, indeed, the District of Columbia residents are entitled to voting representation in this House and that the rights involved are not rights of States but of the people who live in the States, that the reference in the Constitution to the States is a term of convenience not meant to deny any American citizen the right to voting representation on this floor. In going to the courts, District residents signal that there has been a failure of the political process. I remember a failure of the political process when I was a school child in this town. The political process failed and that is why the District of Columbia was among five jurisdictions that went to the Supreme Court and finally got that court to declare that separate but equal was in violation of the Constitution of the United States. I trust that the failure of the political process here, the failure of the Congress to grant full voting rights to the residents of the District of Columbia, will produce a similarly favorable decision in the Supreme Court of the United States for the residents of the capital city. Judge Louis Oberdorfer's wise and scholarly opinion raises our hopes that there will not be five justices of the Supreme Court in the 21st century that are willing to sign their names to an opinion that would deny voting rights in the national legislature to any citizen of the United States. One would think that no citizen on the planet would be so denied today. At the very least, what this body should prepare itself to do now, pending a favorable decision of the Supreme Court or other action, is to restore the vote I won in 1993 for residents of the District of Columbia on the House floor in the Committee of the Whole. It would appear that at the very least, the residents of the District of Columbia, who pay full Federal income taxes the way the residents of other Members do, would be entitled to that respect. I know that there are Members on the other side, because they have gone with me through the Committee on Rules, who also believe that the taxpaying residents of the District of Columbia should be recognized on this House floor to the maximum extent possible, and certainly that would mean a vote in the Committee of the Whole. Meanwhile, there is an organization which has been energized to start energizing the country by these decisions. It is called D.C. Vote, and my hat is off to D.C. Vote which is raising consciousness first in the District of Columbia and then intends to raise the consciousness of our country to what we know would not be condoned by the American people and that is that any people that pay taxes in this country would be left without their full representation in the Congress of the United States. The ball now comes to the floor of this House. The ball comes to those with a political and a moral conscience, to those who serve in this House to make sure that the residents who pay taxes equal to the taxes their residents pay get from this House, from the people's House, the maximum in representation that the people's House can offer.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to reinforce what the gentleman is saying about protesters coming here with respect to the WTO. I would hope that in the city of Washington we do not have a repeat of what happened in the State of Washington. The gentleman is perfectly right, the gentleman is entirely right, we can disagree without tearing up our city, especially the Nation's capitol.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to speak specifically on the rule, because it is the rule that shows that this body is not serious about achieving consensus on this very serious and troublesome question. Because there is, after all, an alternative which has a very good chance of getting that consensus, the Hoyer-Greenwood alternative. Many like me would be reluctant to support that alternative because it compromises the health language; but in the name of getting a consensus on so troublesome, and deservedly so, an issue, we could get there this time. We are told this time it is constitutional. And the reason the other side has to talk to us about constitutionality this time is that the courts have handed them their heads. Not the Congress, not the President. It is the courts that have told you you are in violation of the Constitution. The reason Hoyer-Greenwood is obviously a much preferable alternative boils down to two. The Republicans come forward with a bill that uses inflammatory lay language. Basically, it is a gotcha 30- second ad. Of course it does not speak to the gestational period, so the, quote, ``living fetus'' could be when it is, I do not know, 3 weeks old, and you could be prosecuted under this language. Would you think this has a moment's chance of standing up in court? Hoyer-Greenwood, on the other hand, makes it clear that it is after viability. You ask the average American, you talk about after viability, they know what you are talking about. Hoyer-Greenwood says seventh, eighth and ninth month, unless it is very serious, you are not going to get an abortion. I do not know why that is not good enough for you. I am sure it is good enough for the American people. Serious health consequences? That means that people on my side who believe this should be between a woman and her doctor are indeed accepting a real compromise. It is you who are unwilling to accept a compromise, because Hoyer-Greenwood by limiting late-term abortions to the serious adverse health consequences of the woman virtually guarantees that there will be few seventh, eighth, and ninth month abortions.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New York has devoted tireless energy well beyond the call of duty to this extraordinarily important issue, and every American is indebted to her. Mr. Speaker, I want to devote the few minutes I have to clarifying some issues. April 1 has caused some confusion. It was not the deadline for getting people's form in, of course, it was the target date. The Census Bureau is still receiving mail. It costs twice as much to send people out to get the forms, and that is about to happen on April 15. I had a Census job fair that drew thousands of people here last week, just so we could get a fair count. The way to save the government money, however, is, of course, to send it in so it will not cost us the tremendously extra money it does to send people out. Irresponsible comments from the Republican majority or members of that majority may already have cost taxpayers more because it undermines millions of dollars that have been spent in advertisements and staff work to get people, to raise the count. I include for the Record from the Washington Post the chart which informs people of why the questions are asked and why answering those questions is so important. The chart referred to is as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Questions on Federal uses Local impact ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Income: Regarding wages and any Provides a measure Identifies local other forms of income, of general economic areas eligible for including through health.. grants for job public assistance training and other programs.. employment programs. Used to determine Guides funding for poverty status.. social services distributed to local agencies. Used to assess the need for various types of public assistance. Mortgage costs: Regarding mortgage Used by the Needed to evaluate costs, taxes and other Department of an area's expenses covered (fire, Health and Human qualification for hazard and flood Services to assess federal housing insurance), and amount housing assistance assistance. of monthly payments.. for elderly, disabled and low- income homeowners.. Needed by Department Used as one of the of Energy to help selection criteria study energy supply for local urban and use.. development grants. Plumbing facilities: Regarding plumbing Needed by federal Used to allocate facilities, including agencies to Section 8 and other hot and cold piped identify areas federal housing water, flush toilets eligible for public subsidies to local and a bathtub or assistance governments. shower.. programs.. Used by public Used by state and health officials to local agencies to locate areas in identify poor- danger of ground quality housing. water contamination, waterborne diseases.. Disabilities: Regarding long-lasting Used to distribute Required under conditions such as funds and develop Housing and Urban blindness or a hearing programs for people Development Act to impairment; with disabilities distribute funds difficulties with and the elderly.. for people with routine activities such disabilities. as dressing or bathing; memory loss.. Needed under the Used by state and Americans With county agencies to Disabilities Act to determine eligible ensure comparable recipients under public Medicare and transportation Medicaid programs. services.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Speaker, public officials must perform as public officials, not as right-wing talk show hosts engaging in disinformation and conspiracy theories. Our job is to get an accurate Census. That is our constitutional duty. I am pleased that Senator Lott seemed to back off from his spokesman, who appeared to indicate that people should not have to answer the forms. He was a responsible thing for a leader for the majority in the Senate to do. Where is Governor Bush, who said he is not sure people should fill out their forms? Does he know what side his bread is buttered on? Is he saying the residents are not entitled to all the services and funds entitled to them? What about the large Hispanic population, the highest undercount? What about his talk about children? Is that just talk, or does he not recognize that the greatest undercount was among children? We should be advising the people that it is a violation of law. We have made it a felony, $5,000 or 5 years, or both. It has never been used, but it should be reserved for people who knowingly use their high positions to advocate violation of the law through selective response. It should be used for people who themselves have confused the American public, as some public officials have done. It should be used for those who sabotage the constitutional requirement of an accurate Census. Our job is to help people understand why there is a long form; that they are not being asked these questions as individuals. It does not matter whether you yourself have indoor plumbing. It is being asked of you as a representative sample. Nobody can attach that answer to your name. If you are worried about people divulging information, do not worry about the census. Worry about the private sector. Worry about people on the Internet. It is no felony for them to give your name and address to everybody. Nobody has ever heard of anybody giving your name, address or anything else from the census form. It is cruel, it is cruel, to advise people not to fill in every answer in the long form. Sure, the government should not know your business, but your business is not by your name. It allows us to find essentially what the statistical basis is for the answers you provide. These answers are worth approximately $700 per person. That is not to be sneezed at. A lot of folks have spent a lot of time and more than $6 billion trying to get an accurate census. It ill behooves Members of this body to undercut that very important constitutional effort.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Census forms are due. The Census form, the short form, is impressively short. It takes less than 10 minutes to fill out. I urge Members to help raise consciousness and raise the heat to get these forms back. I am having a job fair in my district today at the Convention Center from 4 to 10 p.m. to recruit Census enumerators at a rate of $15 to $17 per hour. It may sound like a lot, but actually, the cost to send live bodies out to count live bodies is about twice that. To save the government money, Members need to be visible in urging constituents to return their forms, and at least have a job fair for good jobs for people to help us correct the undercount.