Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for yielding me this time, and I thank and congratulate the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for sponsoring this bill. Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to mark a Nation's milestones. Naming a public building for Dr. Aaron Henry is one such way for me. I first met Aaron Henry in 1963 when, as a law student and member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, I went into the delta in Mississippi to work in the civil rights movement one summer. The civil rights movement had circled the South, but had not penetrated the ``Black Belt'' deep in the Mississippi Delta. I met the President of the NAACP at the time, Aaron Henry. To be President of the NAACP in Mississippi was itself an act of conspicuous courage. It marked a man, both as a marked man and a brave man. The next year I graduated from law school and became one of the lawyers that summer for the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, of which Aaron Henry was the chairman. I went to my files and discovered the brief I filed before the Credentials Committee on behalf of Aaron Henry and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to be admitted into my party, the Democratic Party, on behalf of these Mississippi citizens. What Aaron Henry and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party did is itself a milestone in the Nation's history, because it assured that both parties would now be open to delegates of all races. Aaron Henry lived such a life to go from the very outside as the head of the NAACP, all the while a working pharmacist in his own drugstore in Clarksdale, to becoming a member of the Mississippi House of Representatives. From the NAACP and civil rights leader, fighting words, in Mississippi, to representative of the people of Clarksdale, Mississippi. When I went back to Mississippi a number of years later as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Aaron Henry had become a true insider. Aaron Henry arranged for a reception for me sponsored by the Governor in the Governor's mansion. Mr. Speaker, when I first met Aaron Henry, the closest he and I could get to the Governor's mansion was to picket it. Aaron Henry had gone from challenger to change-maker and had himself created much of the change in the State of Mississippi. He lived to see a peaceful revolution occur in his State, including his own election to the State legislature. All of this was simply unthinkable in the Mississippi in which Aaron Henry was born in 1922. So was naming a building for Aaron Henry. But naming a Federal building by this body is normally an estimate of the man. However, the Aaron E. Henry Federal Building and Post Office is likely to be regarded as far more than that. The naming of a building for Dr. Henry evokes a milestone in the history of Mississippi and of our country. The triumph of racial struggle and harmony over racial segregation and division. There is no better way, no better person to symbolize this progress than Aaron Henry.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia Police Retirement Equality Act of 2000, a bill to provide equity in retirement benefits for Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers. This bill would correct an inequity by granting MPD officers and increase in retirement benefits based on the value of longevity bonus pay comparable to those received by D.C. firefighters. Longevity pay, adopted by the District in 1972, is a bonus granted to both police officers and firefighters, in addition to base salary, as a retention incentive after officers reach milestones in service of fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, and thirty years. A D.C. firefighter, whose retirement benefits are identical in every other aspect to those of a MPD officer, receives a retirement annuity based on the combined value of base salary and longevity bonus pay. An MPD officer's retirement annuity is based only on base salary, not the longevity bonus, and is therefore lower than that of a D.C. firefighter. This benefit was negotiated by D.C. firefighters as part of a 1993 collective bargaining agreement. By 1995, MPD officials were not able to negotiate the same benefit because the District had entered into financial crisis and was essentially insolvent. The District has recovered and has had balanced budgets and surpluses for three years. MPD officers attempted to gain equal retirement benefits with D.C. firefighters through the 1997 Revitalization Act, in which the federal government assumed full responsibility for the District's unfunded pension liability for teacher's, firefighters and police officers. At that time, Representative Connie Morella, who is an original cosponsor of this bill and has constituents affected by this inequity, introduced legislation similar to the bill I introduced today. That bill was not adopted at that time. Since then, the Council, the Mayor, and the control board have agreed to pay for this increased annuity benefit if the federal government agrees to pay for the portion of the program that would have been incurred prior to the 1997 Revitalization Act and therefore assumed by the federal government as is the case with firefighters. This bill amends the 1997 Revitalization Act by authorizing the federal government to pay for the additional pension liability accrued prior to 1997 for police officers. The city will pay for the increased benefits accrued since the 1997 Revitalization Act. All officers retiring before enactment of the Police Retirement Act will receive the retirement benefits at the current level. Only officers retiring after this legislation is passed would be eligible for the increased annuity. There was no intention to leave police officers worse off than firefighters in this city. Police officers should not have lower retirement pay because their collective bargaining agreement was negotiated at a low point in the city's financial picture, while the firefighters got in just under the wire. At a time when Chief Charles Ramsey is upgrading the quality of police officers, and even bringing in experienced officers on a lateral basis, we need true equity if we want a first-class police department. The retirement pay differential may be an anomaly, but its resulting unfairness hurts not only individual officers but public safety in the city. The city is willing to pay its share to correct this inequity. The Congress must do the same. I would like to thank Representative Tom Davis, Chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee, Representatives Steny Hoyer, Connie Morella, and Al Wynn for being original cosponsors of this bill to restore basic parity to the retirements of District police officers and firefighters, and urge swift passage.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as District of Columbia residents struggle in two lawsuits to reclaim their full rights as American citizens, it is appropriate today to remember Josephine ``Jo'' Butler, who died a year ago this week. Jo Butler was not a public official or even a public person. She did not count herself among the self-important in the city. Instead, she worked tirelessly for the District's most important causes. Chief among these was statehood for the District of Columbia. Jo Butler and I became fast friends in the fight for statehood. She was there in 1993, when this body granted my bill, the New Columbia Admission Act, a two-day debate and vote. Many of the city's elected officials and citizens were on hand. What makes Jo so memorable to me, however, is that she was always here. Jo was here when there were few residents to speak up or stand up for statehood or even the more ordinary elements of the city's control over its own affairs. Nor did Jo ever give up on any of her issues, from peace to the environment. Whether for great causes like statehood for this capital city, or her precious Friends of Meridian Hill, Jo believed that struggle brings victory. She was a radical activist with a rare gift for bringing people together. The people I represent abhor undemocratic intervention by the Congress. Yet perhaps, as in most great long-standing struggles, few have had the steadfast devotion of Jo Butler. Jo Butler's spirit lives on today in a reinvigorated movement for self-government pressed, in part, by two court cases for equality and democracy for our citizens, now on their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. May Jo's lifelong devotion to her causes infect and influence many more to reach for the level of dedicated struggle Jo Butler achieved.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, every Member here owes appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for today's bill. What we are doing with this bill is to try to do with AIR 21 what we are trying to do with TEA 21. It is time to do for air what we are trying to do for surface transportation. Our committee has guaranteed the integrity of the Aviation Trust Fund and, therefore, the improvements in our airports that the American people have long awaited. If you see large increases in this bill, such as the 50 percent increase for the FAA, it will seem less large when we consider the antiquated and obsolete nature of our traffic control system. This bill is wonderfully comprehensive. There is not a Member here who will not be affected, because the reach is to small and large jurisdictions alike. There has been increasing pressure on large hubs and airports. Members are aware of the pressure at National, Dulles, and Baltimore because they use these airports themselves and feel that pressure. Two measures directly affect these airports. I do regret that the slots at National, an already overburdened airport, were raised to 24. I am pleased and very grateful that our committee tried to keep them to six, because this is a greatly overtaxed airport, surrounded by residences and businesses. I want to thank our conferees for resisting the proposal of the Senate, the other body, for 48 slots. So, it is now only 24 slots. As much as I regret that number, I know the kind of fight our conferees had to make in order to get only 24. I certainly want to say how grateful I am that the committee has eliminated the requirement that Federal appointees to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority here in this region, be confirmed before receiving any Federal money or proceeding with new facilities. The Members have seen what that has meant in delays to reviving these airports, particularly National and Dulles. It has been very painful for all concerned. We have made it easier for millions of Americans who use these airports and for Members themselves, by allowing this airport region to operate as other airports do. I very much appreciate the work of the committee and of the conferees in particular.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 2000. This legislation became necessary because of information I have gathered that indicates that receiverships in the District of Columbia have been run largely unfettered by systematic supervision; guidelines for performance; monitoring to assure that promised actions are taken, and improvements achieved; cost and efficiency accountability; and other measures to assure that the agency is returned to the District promptly and in good condition. The only District of Columbia agency to go promptly through receivership and emerge in good condition has been the D.C. Housing Authority. Its receiver, David Gilmore, demonstrated rare management and human relations talent. A Superior Court decision appointing a receiver for special education services for the District's juvenile detention center has been overturned by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Information concerning the other agencies in receivership have raised such serious questions that D.C. Subcommittee Chairman Tom Davis and I have requested GAO reports on all of the outstanding receiverships: Child and Family Services, the Commission on Mental Health Services, and the Corrections Medical Receiver for the D.C. Jail. However, information that we now have has led Chairman Davis and I to conclude that immediate legislation to assure adequate supervision of the agencies involved cannot await the completion of the GAO reports on these three agencies. Additional legislation may be necessary after completion of the GAO reports, but the bill we propose today is clearly necessary now to assure the safety and well-being of D.C. residents and cost effective reform of the receivership agencies. Most of the outstanding receiverships appear to have similar problems, but the Child and Family Services receivership, appointed in 1995 by the U.S. District Court, caused special concern by D.C. officials and congressional members after the death of the infant, Brianna Blackmond. Brianna who was returned to her mother, after a judgment found that she neglected Brianna and her seven siblings, with apparent signoff from the court, lawyers, the child's advocate, and the social workers involved. Since the baby's death, no fair assessment of what went wrong, or fact-finding hearing by a court, and no effective remedial action to correct the problem, or assurance that more deaths of children might not occur, has been forthcoming. Instead, there have been reports of chaos and further deterioration in the agency. Chairman Davis has set a hearing on the Child and Family Services Agency receivership for April 14, 2000. The Commission on Mental Health, charged with providing community- based and institutional mental health care to indigent residents of the District, was placed in receivership in 1997. The receiver has resigned and not only have the services not improved, but the plaintiffs agreed in a negotiated settlement to terminate the receivership because the agency appears to be in worse condition than when it was placed in receivership. Consequently, the court and all of the parties have agreed to a transition plan, and an interim receiver has been appointed by the court to return control of the agency to the city by April 1, 2001. Medical services in the D.C. Jail were placed in receivership by the U.S. District Court in 1995 for a period of five years. Recently, the receiver let a contract at a cost three times the national average without comparing program and cost estimates regionally or nationally, and over the objections of the Corrections Trustee appointed pursuant to the 1997 Revitalization Act. The contract was given to an entity consisting of employees of the present receiver who have never had a contract before and whose only contract and only revenue would come from this D.C.-financed contract. In response to concerns I expressed, the court-appointed monitor detailed services provided without indicating if other jurisdictions provide similar services and asserted that medical conditions in the District were worse than other jurisdictions. However, she made no mention of the nearest comparable jurisdiction, the Baltimore Jail medical services, which also are operated by a private contractor pursuant to District Court supervision. The court monitor cited diseases at the D.C. Jail, which undoubtedly are found in big city jail populations throughout the country, and did not indicate why the District should have the same elevated costs and staffing levels now with presumably revitalized systems as it had under emergency conditions in the first years of receivership. The court monitor did not indicate why comparative costs assessments were never undertaken or what standards should guide a cost effective system and what completion of the receivership and return of control to the District should entail. No comprehensive outside professional audit was undertaken before the receiver approved large, ongoing costs for jail medical services. Thus, three out of four of the existing receiverships present such substantial problems that Chairman Tom Davis and I have agreed that action to ensure higher standards and cost accountability cannot wait. The District of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act places affirmative duties on all receivers who are appointed by either Federal or D.C. courts to administer any department, agency, or office of the government of the District of the District of Columbia. These duties are: First, best practices: The bill places an affirmative duty on each receiver to conduct all operations consistent with the best practices and financial stability and management efficiency of the District of Columbia. Second, annual audit by the District's Inspector General: Each receiver must submit to an annual financial and program audit conducted by the Inspector General of the District of Columbia. Third, controlling costs: Each receiver must ensure that costs are consistent with applicable regional and national standards (including personnel costs), except that this requirement may be waived during any initial two-year emergency period of the receivership. Fourth, consultation with city officials on the budget: In preparing the annual budget for the entity in receivership, the receiver must consult with the Mayor and Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia. After this consultation, the receiver must prepare and submit her budget to the Mayor for inclusion in the city's annual budget. The Council may comment and make recommendations on the receiver's budget estimates. Fifth, procurement practices: When entering into contracts, each receiver must fully comply with the procurement procedures of the District of Columbia and work through the District's procurement officials. The bill applies to all receivers appointed beginning with 1995. Existing receivers must comply with the requirements of this bill beginning with fiscal year 2001. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the generosity of our local federal workers, who participated in the 1999 Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). Federal employees in the national capital area contributed a record setting $44.3 million in 1999, far exceeding campaign goals by 8.5 percent. Thanks to their generosity, these funds will be used to help needy people in the District of Columbia, across the nation and around the globe. As we know, the CFC provides more than money, it builds stronger, healthier lives and communities. My sincere congratulations to Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala, who chaired the 1999 CFC and promoted it through more than 40 visits to federal agencies. A special salute as well to the thousands of committed CFC volunteers and federal workers who made this year's campaign a resounding success.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 25th Annual Capital Pride Festival, a celebration of and for the National Capital Area's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities and their friends. Since its beginning in 1975, the Capital Pride Festival has grown from a small block party into a nine-day series of events. On Sunday, June 11, 2000, the Festival will culminate in a large downtown parade and a magnificent Pennsylvania Avenue street fair attended by people of all backgrounds from the District and the region. In 1999, more than 200 contingents marched in the parade; more than 200,000 people attended the street fair in the shadow of the Capitol; and hundreds of vendors and organizations set up stalls, booths and pavilions. The street fair featured more than five hours of local entertainers and national headline performers. Last year, when I recognized this celebration in the House, it had been 35 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet another year has passed, and despite evidence of pervasive prejudice in employment, Congress has not yet protected sexual orientation from discrimination. Far worse, in the fact of many reports of violence and physical abuse, Congress has not yet enacted protection against abuse solely because of a person's sexual orientation. Congress must pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Congress must pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and, now, Congress must pass the Permenant Partners Immigration Act of 2000. In this new millennium, let us achieve the American goal of eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation, unite loved ones, celebrate the accomplishments of the Gay and Lesbian Community, and remember those who we have lost. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in saluting the 25th Annual Capital Pride Festival, its organizers, the Whitman-Walker Clinic and One-in-Ten, its sponsors, and the volunteers, whose dedicated and creative energy make the Pride Festival possible. May we truly have ``Pride 25.''

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a Member of the Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my committee colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), in the consideration of two postal naming bills. Both bills honor a number of fine individuals who have contributed much to the improvement of their communities and States. H.R. 2952 and H.R. 3018 have met the committee's sponsorship requirement and are supported by the entire South Carolina congressional delegation. In addition to and on behalf of the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for their support and assistance in the accommodation and timely consideration of these postal-naming bills. As a member of the Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to bring to my colleagues' attention H.R. 2952, legislation introduced by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint). H.R. 2952 would designate a post office located at 100 Orchard Park Drive in Greenville, South Carolina, as the Keith D. Oglesby Station. Mr. Oglesby was a tireless worker and community activist. As the Greenville postmaster, he took his position in the community seriously. He hosted the First-Day Issue ceremonies for the Organ & Tissue Donation Stamp, coordinated blood drives, and participated in the March of Dimes Walk America and the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life. He was honored posthumously with a second Benjamin Award, the Postal Service's top public relations award, given in recognition of community outreach accomplishments. I urge my colleagues to join in honoring Mr. Oglesby and to pass H.R. 2952. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3018, as amended, names certain facilities of the U.S. Postal Service in South Carolina: The United States Post Office, located at 557 East Bay Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the Marybelle H. Howe Post Office; the United States Post Office, located at 301 Main Street in Eastover, South Carolina, as the Layford R. Johnson Post Office; the United States Post Office, located at 78 Sycamore Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the Richard E. Fields Post Office; and the United States Post Office, located at 4026 Lamar Street in the Eau Claire community of Columbia, South Carolina, as the Mamie G. Floyd Post Office. These individuals, thoughtfully selected by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the sponsor of H.R. 3018, have made enormous contributions to their communities and states and deserve to be recognized by having a postal facility named in their honor. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important postal-naming measure. H.R. 3018, as amended would make the following designations: The United States Post Office located at 301 Main Street in Eastover, South Carolina, as the ``Layford R. Johnson Post Office.'' Reverend Johnson is a pillar of his community who has served his church as the associate pastor and has been a steward for over 20 years. He is currently a volunteer for Meals-On-Wheels, where he has served for almost two decades. He is the epitome of a community worker. The United States Post Office located at 78 Sycamore Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ``Richard E. Fields Post Office.'' Judge Fields is a retired judge of the 9th Judicial Circuit in South Carolina. Hailing from Charleston, South Carolina, Judge Fields is widely known for his outstanding, fair, and judicious service to the Palmetto State. The United States Post Office located at 557 East Bay Street in Charleston South Carolina, as the ``Marybelle Howe Post Office.'' Marybelle Higgins Howe is most well known for her pioneering efforts on behalf of migrant laborers. Under her guidance, the South Carolina Commission for Farm Workers was established. She worked tirelessly on behalf of the Charleston County Library, serving as a board member for over two decades and as Chair of the Board of Trustees. She has a remarkable history of service to the University of South Carolina. The United States Post Office located at 4026 Lamar Street in (the Eau Claire community of) Columbia, South Carolina, as the ``Mamie G. Floyd Post Office.'' Mamie Goodwin Floyd served almost 40 years as a school administrator and then a teacher. She touched the lives of hundreds of students during her teaching career that spanned three decades in the public schools of Richland County. Although teaching was her profession, politics were, and are, her passion. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to report to my colleagues something that I am certain is as much of a piece of embarrassment to them as it is to me, and that is that on February 29 a Federal Court declared a class in a lawsuit against the Architect of the Capitol, our agent, that is to say the Congress of the United States, alleging that there has been a violation of the equal pay act; that we have been paying women less for doing the same work as men. The women I am talking about are the women who clean the offices of Members, who keep this Capitol clean, and who, in fact, are responsible for the maintenance and cleanliness of the place where we work. This was the first class action under the Congressional Accountability Act, the new act we passed, in order to hold Members and Congress itself accountable in the same way that we hold others. May I say that it should not have been necessary for this case to go this far. I am a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and I have to tell my colleagues that when a case that looks like this is filed before the commission today, and for years now, they simply get settled out before they get this far. This case not only did not get settled out when it was in our own administrative process, in the Office of Contract Compliance, but it has now had to be filed in Federal Court against our own Architect of the Capitol. Now they are about to embark on costly interrogatories, which of course comes out of our budget, or the funds that we allocate to the Architect of the Capitol. This body needs greater oversight of the Architect of the Capitol and of the new Office of Compliance when a suit can get this far. Apparently these people were willing to settle. And when a party is willing to settle, it is usually on the basis that they may not get everything that they want, but what they certainly are entitled to is to have their work reclassified so that they are paid for doing the work they are performing. And, of course, in any such case there would be back pay. What we are talking about here, to make myself clear, is that laborers who are men make more money for doing the same work as custodians, formerly called charwomen, who are women in the House. When the President of the United States in his State of the Union message for the last several years has gotten to the part where he talked about equal pay for equal work, all Members rise as if to salute in majesty the women of America. And yet right here, in the House where we work, the first class action certified has been a simple equal-pay case of the kind rarely found in civilian society today. If this case goes much further, it will become an open embarrassment to this body. As my colleagues are aware, there is no disagreement among us when it comes to the Equal Pay Act, passed in 1963. We all agree that if women are doing the same work as men, they should not be paid less, and in this case perhaps as much as a dollar or more less, by classifying them by some other name. Whether we call her a laborer or a custodian, we must pay her under the act for the work she is doing. I regret that the case has gone this far. I feel it is my obligation, as a former chair of the EEOC, to bring this matter to the attention of Members. Because I am certain that Members on neither side of the aisle understand or know or have reason to know this case has gone this far, and that when we go home into our districts women are likely to ask us how in the world have we allowed ourselves to be sued by our own employees for not paying them the same wage as men for doing the same work. It is time that we rectified this situation. If not, I can assure my colleagues, I have spoken with the plaintiffs, I have spoken with their lawyers. There is no turning back now. They are not afraid that it is the Congress of the United States that is involved. After all, we said in passing the Congressional Accountability Act that we wanted to be treated the way civilian employers are treated. Please treat the women who clean our offices the way we would want always to have people treated under our jurisdiction.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, periodically, I come before this body simply to inform it about the state of the District of Columbia. Mayor Tony Williams gave his State of the District address this week. Only one year after taking office, he was able to show significant improvements in every area of life in the District of Columbia. This was a city down on its knees only a few years ago. Now, it is about to go into the fourth year of a balanced budget and a surplus. The Mayor and the City Council have shown, definitively, that they know what they are doing. Anybody who looks around this city can see the difference. I hope that this body will leave the micromanagement of the District to the District. What the Mayor and the Council deserve after the improvements we have seen, is a clean appropriation, which after all, consists mostly of money from the District, and respect from this body so that elected officials in the city can, in fact, run the city.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as crime has increased, police have been given freer and freer rein. It is time to reign them in. That is the lesson of the New York City Diallo case. It is difficult to fault a racially integrated jury, but they have written only the first chapter. There are at least three more chapters to be written before we know who is at fault. Mr. Speaker, Chapter Number 2 must be written by the Justice Department. This is a classic case for Federal intervention, a horrendous police response resulting in the death of an innocent resident. There are, of course, no appeals in the criminal process. This case calls for a rapid response from the Justice Department. A civil rights investigation, as provided by law, is a vital check in a Federal system. Chapter 3 in this case must be written with a civil court suit. Even if a police attack is deemed not criminal, no civil society would condone such a response. Finally, there is a fourth chapter; and we must write that chapter. It should be entitled ``Do not send poorly trained police into our communities to protect us. They are a menace.''

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and applaud D.C. United as ``America's Soccer Team,'' which won its third Major League Soccer (MLS) championship while Congress was in recess. It is a well-deserved title, not only because the team is located in the nation's capital, but especially because D.C. United has won three of the four MLS championships offered by the league. Rarely, if ever, has an American team so dominated its sport or displayed greater skill and sportsmanship. Both were in full view last November, when United snared its latest championship in a two-to-nothing victory over Los Angeles. We, who live in the District of Columbia, are proud that D.C. United took our hometown name. Our hometown soccer team has become the District's version of a triple crown champion that does not know how to lose. D.C. United's victories over the past several years have paralleled the continuing revitalization of the team's hometown. After what our city went through in the 1990s, the team's championship means much more to D.C. than it would to Baltimore or New York, or Atlanta or Los Angeles. D.C. United has taught this town that we, too, can be winners. Now, when Americans and people from around the world visit the nation's capital, they come not only to see our monuments. They want also to see our monumental team. Our team reflects the nations of the world in a sport that is played by virtually every country in the world. Across the nation and throughout the soccer world, D.C. United fans applaud the team's determination to fight and to win. Today, we salute D.C. United for a job well done and send best wishes to ``America's Soccer Team.''

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for yielding to me. Even more so, I thank her for the leadership she is showing in making sure that the month of February does not go by without yet another black history celebration in the name of her predecessor, I must say who was always in charge of this particular feature on the House floor when he was here. And you follow in his footsteps in many ways, I say to the gentlewoman from Ohio, and this is a wonderful one which both honors him and to make sure that the Congressional Black Caucus is once again heard on this floor for Black History Month and all that it stands for. If I may say to the gentlewoman, I would like to discuss two subjects this afternoon related to black history. One is some finished business that this House finished only this month, and the other is tragically unfinished. The finished business has to do with a bill that was passed on the floor on February 16 that will allow the home of Carter G. Woodson to become a national historic site under the National Park Service. The reason that this was so important is that Carter G. Woodson is the father of black history, the man who discovered black historiography, the second black person to receive a Ph.D. from Harvard in the early part of this century, and yet his house, which is a gorgeous Victorian house, stands closed, virtually boarded up. So here we are celebrating Black History Month every year and right there in the Shaw district, a historic part of the district which was the virtual seat of black America, is the home of the man who is responsible for what was, when I was a child called Negro History Week and has developed into Black History Month, closed. With the bill that the House passed just before we recessed, Carter G. Woodson's home will be open to the public the way Frederick Douglass' home is open to the public in this city and the way that Mary McLeod Bethune's home is open to the public, and will be kept open under the National Park Service, as it deserves. This man was of immense importance. Without uncovering black history we could never have gotten to the civil rights remedies, because the portrayals of African Americans were so pervasively stereotyped and negative after slavery, with Jim Crow and all that it stood for, that Carter G. Woodson's work looms much larger than life. He started the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, which continues his work today. They would like to occupy this house when it is fully renovated. He used his house not only to live but to train researchers. It is a glorious history in and of itself. May I say to the gentlewoman, I would like to remark on some unfinished business having to do with African Americans. This is a majority black city. Historically it was the capital of black intellectual life because of Howard University and because freed and runaway slaves often found their way here. The Capitol where we now debate was built with the help of slave labor. A glorious kind of intellectual leadership emanated from this city. It always had a large black population, probably because it was so close to the South and, therefore, there was a large segment of freed slaves and a large segment of runaway slaves, one of whom was my great grandfather. This city has been the home of Benjamin Banneker, who of course helped design the city, and of many great African Americans; Charles Drew, who is responsible for the discovery of the blood bank and the use of stored blood; Duke Ellington, whose 100th birthday we celebrated last year; Frederick Douglass; Mary McLeod Bethune; Senator Edward Brooke, who graduated from the same high school I graduated from, Dunbar High School; and yet, Madam Speaker, this is the only part of the United States where black and white people do not enjoy the full privileges of citizenship. This used to be the place where people from the South came escaping the harshness of segregation and terrible discrimination. We who live in the District, particularly we who are native Washingtonians, have seen the whole of the South come into its own, with people able to vote, as models for self-government throughout the South, and yet in this town, where the majority of the population is African American, there is still not the same basic rights that blacks throughout the South have finally been able to win. I am the only representative of the District of Columbia. Although I won the right to vote on the House floor, that vote was taken from me when the majority assumed power. We do not have a full voting representative in this House. We have no voting representative in this House. Does this not sound like the Old South? This is the new capital. This is the capital of the United States I am talking about. There is rage in this town, particularly because more than 60 percent of the people are African Americans and have seen their folks down home come into full citizenship, while in this town we still exist without the basic rights that everybody else takes for granted. We saw the Congressional Black Caucus expanded by 50 percent, largely from people from the old Confederate States, sent here by whites and African Americans; and yet we cannot send a full voting Member to this House, even though we pay full Federal income tax. What we have done is to sue in court. And I say to my colleagues, every time an attempt is made to attach a rider to the appropriation of the District of Columbia, consisting of our money not these other Members, democracy is defamed in the United States. And that is why my colleagues will see me on this floor and will always see me on this floor as long as I am a Member of this House reminding my fellow colleagues of that defamation of democracy. The court suit we have brought intends to rectify this situation, since we have not been able to get it rectified in this body. Some have said that the reason the District has never had its full rights is because of its large African American population. I am not so sure of that. Until the 1970s, this city was majority white. The city, the Jim Crow-segregated city in which I grew up, the segregated schools that I went to, was in a majority white city, and this body was willing to deny those whites their full rights in the House, the Senate, and their full home rule as much as they are willing to deny it to blacks. And yet there may well be something to the notion that the city always had a large black population. If we look at the history books, that seems to have influenced the way the Congress looked at the District of Columbia. Well, the Congress needs to take that taint off of it. It needs to grant my white constituents and my black constituents the same rights that their white constituents, their Hispanic constituents, and their black constituents have. Until that happens, until that happens I will not, I will not let an appropriate opportunity go by to remind this body that we have not lived up to our stated ideals. One appropriate time to inject that reminder into the record is during Black History Month, in a largely black city where black citizens and white citizens and citizens of every background wait, no longer patiently, but wait for the same rights that many other Americans have. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and his staff for their very expeditious attention to this bill and for the way in which they have strongly supported it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, may I begin by thanking the leadership, and especially the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Armey and Mr. Delay, for their great cooperation and courtesy to me in delaying this bill until the end of the day. I had to attend a funeral this morning of a particularly tragic variety. Two model teenagers were killed, and the funeral was being held at precisely the time that this bill was due on the floor. I very much appreciate the courtesy of the leaders in postponing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I want also to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for working closely with me to quickly bring to the floor H.R. 3201, the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site Study Act of 1999. I also want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) of the full committee for his strong support. I appreciate that I have been able to work closely and collegially with both the full committee and subcommittee not only on H.R. 3201, but on several issues affecting the Nation's capital. I am grateful also for the great assistance to me of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the ranking member of the full committee, and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the ranking member of the subcommittee. I especially appreciate that the committee has expedited my bill to assure the possibility of bipartisan passage on the House floor this month as a concrete way for the Congress to commemorate Black History Month. The man we honor today, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, and the organization that he founded, the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History, were responsible for establishing the annual black history celebration. Dr. Woodson was a distinguished American historian who began the process of uncovering African American history and the contributions of African Americans to our Nation's history. The time is overdue to begin a feasibility study on designating his home at 1538 Ninth Street, Northwest, in the Nation's capital, as a national historic site within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. Today it stands boarded up in the historic Shaw District. In giving Dr. Woodson's home its rightful place, the bill begins the process of uncovering the living black history right here in the Nation's capital, where Dr. Woodson lived and worked as the founder and director of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History. Dr. Woodson, the son of former slaves, earned his Ph.D. degree from Harvard University in 1912, becoming only the second black American to receive a doctorate from Harvard after the great W.E.B. DuBois. Woodson's personal educational achievement was extraordinary in itself, especially for a man who had been denied access to public education in Canton, Virginia, where Woodson was born in 1875. As a result, Dr. Woodson did not begin his formal education until he was 20 years old, after he moved to Huntington, West Virginia, and received his high school diploma 2 years later. He then entered Berea College in Kentucky, where he received his bachelor's degree in 1897. Woodson continued his education at the University of Chicago where he earned his A.B. and M.A. degrees. During much of Dr. Woodson's life, there was widespread ignorance and very little information concerning African American life and history. With his extensive studies, Woodson almost single handedly established African American historiography. Dr. Woodson's research in literally uncovering black history helped to educate the American public about the contributions of African Americans to the Nation's history and culture. Through scholarship and painstaking historical research, his work has helped reduce the stereotypes captured in basically negative portrayals of black people that have marred our history as a Nation. To remedy these stereotypes, Dr. Woodson in 1915 founded the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, since renamed the Association for the Study of African American Life and History. Through the Association, Dr. Woodson dedicated his life to educating the American public about the contributions of black Americans to the Nation's history and culture. This work in bringing history to bear where prejudice and racism had held sway has played an indispensable role in reducing prejudice and making the need for civil rights remedies clear. Among its enduring accomplishments, the Association, under Dr. Woodson's leadership, instituted Negro History Week in 1926 to be observed during the week in February of the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas. Today, of course, Negro History Week that was mostly celebrated in segregated schools, like my own here in the District when I was a child, and historically black colleges and universities, has gained support and participation throughout the country among people of all backgrounds as Black History Month. To assure publication under Dr. Woodson's leadership, the Association in 1920 also founded the Associated Publishers, for the publication of research on African American history. Dr. Woodson published his seminal work, The Negro in Our History, in 1922 and many others under Associated Publishers and the publishing company provided an outlet for scholarly works by numerous other black scholars. The Association also circulated two periodicals, the Negro History Bulletin, designed for mass consumption and the Journal of Negro History that was primarily directed to the academic community. Dr. Woodson directed the association's operations from his home on Ninth Street here in Washington, D.C. From there, he trained researchers and staff and managed the association's budget and fund- raising efforts while at the same time pursuing his own study of African American history. This Victorian-style house built in 1890, where African American history was both made and uncovered, already listed as a national historic landmark, needs to be opened to the public. With today's bill, this landmark can become a national historic site with care lodged with the National Park Service. I ask my colleagues to pass H.R. 3201, to commemorate the work of Dr. Carter G. Woodson and the association he founded as a particularly appropriate way for the House of Representatives to celebrate Black History Month. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a member of the subcommittee.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and applaud D.C. United as ``America's Soccer Team,'' which won its third Major League Soccer (MLS) championship while Congress was in recess. It is a well-deserved title, not only because the team is located in the Nation's Capital, but especially because D.C. United has won three of the four MLS championships offered by the league. Rarely, if ever, has an American team so dominated its sport or displayed greater skill and sportsmanship. Both were in full view last November, when United snared its latest championship in a two-to-nothing victory over Los Angeles. We, who live in the District of Columbia, are proud that D.C. United took our hometown name. Our hometown soccer team has become the District's version of a triple crown champion that does not know how to lose. D.C. United's victories over the past several years have paralleled the continuing revitalization of the team's hometown. After what our city went through in the 1990's, the team's championship means much more to D.C. than it would to Baltimore or New York, or Atlanta or Los Angeles. D.C. United has taught this town that we, too, can be winner. Now, when Americans and people from around the world visit the Nation's Capital, they come not only to see our monuments. They want to see our monumental team. Our team reflects the nations of the world in a sport that is played by virtually ever country in the world. Across the nation and throughout the soccer world, D.C. United fans applaud the team's determination to fight and to win. Today, we salute D.C. United for a job well done and send best wishes to ``America's Soccer Team.''

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when Republicans and Democrats support basically the same idea, the people expect us to come together and get together. Instead, the Republicans have drafted their bill in secret, as if this were a one-party state. If we look at their bill, it immediately becomes clear why. Half the benefit in their bill goes to couples who pay no marriage penalty. Are we fixing the marriage penalty or giving a marriage bonus to rich couples who have no children? The stock market is already doing quite fine by them. Even the rich would not object if we bring in millions of low- and moderate-income Americans who do pay the marriage penalty but get nothing under the Republican bill. These are the lost couples. They are the ones who where they both work, they have kids, they cannot get the earned income tax credit and now they will not qualify for the Republicans' marriage penalty relief. When the Republicans finish trooping to the floor, slice by slice, with their tax cuts, they are going to find out that the American people can add and it still adds up to $700 billion plus, most of it going to the rich. We are not here to support Donald Trump and whoever the next Ivana may be. Americans rich enough to need a prenuptial agreement are not demanding marriage penalty relief. Give the relief to struggling working families with kids who need it and get nothing under the Republican bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Public Safety Reimbursement Act of 2000. The bill provides an annual federal contribution to reimburse the District for the considerable services the Metropolitan Police Department provides every year to cover the many national events and activities that occur here because the District is the national seat of government. Examples of these services are too numerous to detail. Some of the most familiar are the many events and demonstrations, from the Million Man March to the federal Millennium event at the Lincoln Memorial last month. Events, large and small, of every variety occur with great frequency and cannot proceed without the work of our police force. The MPD is at the center, from the extensive logistical preparations to the on duty time protective services. The bill is strongly supported by D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey, who joined me at a press conference on the bill here in the Capitol earlier today. The annual amount provided in the bill would reimburse the District for the considerable services the Metropolitan Police Department provides every year to cover the many national events and activities that occur here because the District is the national seat of government. Examples of these services are too numerous to detail. Some of the most familiar are the many events and demonstrations, from the Million Man March to the federal Millennium event at the Lincoln Memorial last month. Events, large and small, of every variety occur with great frequency and cannot proceed without the work of our police force. The MPD is at the center, from the extensive logistical preparations to the on duty time guarding and facilitating the event itself. Further, residents see our police every time the President moves outside the White House complex because all traffic stops while our police line the streets to assure the President's safe passage. The Congress itself frequently uses our police department--from the annual State of the Union address, when officials and citizens converge on the Hill, to unusual events, such as the funeral following the tragic killing of the two Capitol Police officers almost two years ago. Cabinet officials, the President, and Members of the House and Senate, not to mention other federal officials and agencies all use the MPD as if it were a hometown police force they had A prominent example from last year dramatically points up how the cost of federal events has been transferred to the taxpayers of the District of Columbia. A ragtag gang of racists and anti-Semites calling themselves the American Nationalist Party came to Washington in August to petition their federal government for redress of their grievances, such as they were. However, it was the District government that picked up the tab to the tune of a half million dollars for police protection. At the same time, pro-human rights groups held a large, peaceful rally at the Lincoln Memorial to counter the Nazis. Whether marginal and extreme, like the Nazis, or mainstream and pro-democracy like the counter-rally last summer, D.C. police participation is indispensable to every demonstration and national event that occurs in this city. The right to assemble is a precious constitutional right available to all and must be protected for all. However, those who come here seek the attention of the national government, not the D.C. government, and the cost should be borne by American taxpayers, not D.C. taxpayers. The bill I introduced today places financial responsibility where it belongs. There are two important grounds for this bill, one statutory and the other historical precedent. The statutory basis is the 1997 Revitalization Act, where we traded the federal payment for a much larger federal assumption of state costs. However, we nevertheless preserved the right of the District to receive a federal contribution. We wrote language into the Act providing: ``The unique status of the District of Columbia as the seat of the government . . . imposes unusual costs and requirements which are not imposed on other jurisdictions and many of which are not reimbursed by the federal government.'' The Revitalization Act (Section 11601) therefore allows ``for each subsequent fiscal year [after FY 1998], such amount as may be necessary for such contribution.'' The second basis for a designated public safety contribution is historical precedent. Separate from the annual federal payment, the Congress has traditionally appropriated additional funds for public safety purposes. Amounts have ranged from five million dollars to 30 million dollars, depending on the need and public safety issues arising in the particular year. Such funds have been appropriated for national events in other jurisdictions as well. Just last year, Congress included five million dollars to help cover police costs during the WTO meeting in Seattle. Here in the District, there has always been a consistent congressional understanding that police work in the nation's capital necessarily involves the federal and national interest and deserves special and unique support. Thus, I am asking the Congress to return to its original understanding of its responsibility for a share of public safety in this city, specifically for police protection for national and federal events. I will be conferring with other Members of Congress and with Police Chief Ramsey concerning a specific amount for FY 2001. However, I want to emphasize that I do not introduce the bill simply to get extra money from the federal government, as desirable as that would be. This is the first in a series of bills I will be sponsoring to try to get ahead of revenue problems beyond the District's control that are on the way. We are proud that with a large assist from the $5,000 Homebuyer Credit, the District has begun stabilizing its population. However, it will be years before the District has a tax base of residents and businesses adequate to support the city through good, moderate, and bad economic times. This important financial issue has been masked by today's excellent economy. However, our surplus is not largely a product of that economy, but of the state costs the Revitalization Act removed from the city. The D.C. Police Safety Reimbursement Act I introduced today is among several bills that will be necessary to make up for a decline in the economic output expected by next year, according to regional analysts, including Professor Stephen Fuller of George Mason University. It would be foolish to await another crisis. The time to prepare is now. This and other bills designed to ward off forecasted trouble is the only way to keep the District's finances on an upward trajectory. The D.C. Public Reimbursement Act builds on cost justification the Congress itself has long accepted. The annual amounts would not be a gift from the federal government. They would be payment for services rendered to the President, Congress and the federal government by the Metropolitan Police Department. I urge my colleagues to support this bill vital to the continuing recovery of the nation's capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to welcome back Members. Welcome back to the city that is still on the rise, about to report another surplus. Welcome back to the city that has been substantially helped by this Congress. Welcome back to a city whose improvements could be seen as one comes to the House this morning because the streets were, of course, cleared. The city now has the funds and the wherewithal to act like a city and do what cities do well. I am very pleased that the Congress passed my $5,000 home-buyer credit because that has helped us to get more people in this city. We still need a couple hundred thousand more. And I am going to be coming to talk about that with bills this term, but I want to say for the people who live in this city that we are very pleased that Congress is back. I want Members to know that if they have a problem, and inevitably even with a government in good working order there will be problems, I hope they will come to their Congresswoman while they are away from their districts, because that turns out to be me. I will be sending a letter to Members about how to do that and how they can maneuver their way through problems with the District government. Again, welcome home.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Deaconess Rosa Jennings, affectionately referred to as ``Rosie'', was born in Freedman's Hospital, Washington, DC. She resided in the District of Columbia until her husband's death, in 1994. Rosa Jennings was the daughter of the late Wallace and Mary Toles. She committed her life to Christ in her early teens and she had been a member of the 12th Street Christian Church for her entire adult life. She loved her church and was willing to lend a helping hand. She was very active in the flower club, and the nursing unit. She also found time to sing in the Senior Choir, and ultimately became a faithful Deaconess. Ms. Jennings was educated in the Washington, DC public school system, graduating from M Street High (Dunbar High School). She completed two years of higher education at Minor Teacher's College. She was a Federal service employee for over 36 years, retiring as a military personnel supervisor at the Pentagon. She received several letters and certificates of commendation and appreciation, during her Federal service. Rosie was actively involved in volunteer community organizations, within the Washington, DC area, following her retirement from the Federal Government. As a longstanding resident of Washington, DC, she served as a volunteer worker at various voting poll locations, during every city-wide election. She loved caramel popcorn and looked forward to attending the Circus each year. She was a very quiet person in nature, but her presence was felt by all that knew her. Peacefully, on Wednesday, January 26, 2000 (her birthday), she quietly obeyed God's call to enter his holy gates. She fought the battle, keeping the faith, and now is resting in peace. She was preceded in death by her husband William Jennings, her three siblings, Arthur Toles, Gladys King, Lois Akins, and a loving daughter, Theresa Curtis and her husband, Everett Curtis. She leaves behind to mourn her loving daughter Sylvia B. Miller, and her husband, Vandy L. Miller; eight grandchildren--Kerwin Miller, Karen Saunders, Karmen Miller, William Jennings, Lois Williams, Joyce Middleton, Michelle Curtis and Everett Curtis, Jr.; five great grandchildren--Robyn Williams, Markia Burch, LaShawn White, Phillip Brooks and Vandy Brooks; a loving niece and nephew, Rosa Lee and Monty Denny; three grandsons-in-law--Russell Saunders, Gregory White and Bobby Williams; five sisters-in-law-Carrie Toles, Belle Jennings, Margaret Hargrove, Hazel Williams, Gwen Anderson; and a host of other relatives and friends.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman. I want to say a word about one other issue. Of course, as a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I am always pleased to see something on the agenda that relates to civil rights enforcement. A few weeks ago I was at the White House with a 101-year-old woman from the District of Columbia who had lived through reconstruction, through Jim Crow, all here in this city, which had legal segregation. The President announced that he would be submitting money for civil rights enforcement, at $695 million for civil rights enforcement. This of course is an issue that by now should bring us all together. This is not about affirmative action, which is an issue where we are in some substantial disagreement with some on the other side. This is about sheer enforcement, as more and more people come forward not only to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but to many of the civil rights agencies. I have been able to find common cause with Members from the other side on these issues. In fact, I can recall amendments in the appropriation process where we worked together. I certainly hope this money to increase civil rights enforcement will in fact be forthcoming. The President announced just this week a special appropriation to bolster the Equal Pay Act and equal pay enforcement and opportunity. The gentleman may remember that in this very Chamber, not a very bipartisan Chamber, at this time last year when the President mentioned equal pay for equal work, somehow everybody in the Chamber got off her and his bottom to applaud, and that is because this issue has now become an American issue, it is no longer a woman's issue, because men have seen that their wives, who have the same education that they have, somehow bring home less money. It is time we stopped talking about it, stopped sloganizing it, and do something about it. So the President has put in $27 million for an equal pay initiative for enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and for other purposes related to enforcement. I like and I hope all of us will like the part that says, to teach business how to meet the legal requirements. We think that one of the reasons that there continues to be unequal pay is that business has not been well educated on this important section that has been in the law since 1963. It was passed before the laws barring discrimination on the basis of race were passed. If in fact we use the traditional apparatus, we can come together on the widely-hailed notion of equal pay. I believe that the President's proposal will help us. There are other things in his equal pay proposal that go to helping, for example, the Labor Department to improve its own work on training women for nontraditional posts, because once women are in nontraditional posts the pay begins to come up automatically. We have huge equal pay problems in this country still, stemming largely from the fact that women are pouring into the work force. They still continue to go disproportionately into traditional jobs. We still see women seriously undervalued, even in those jobs. If we look at women in my profession at all, we will see women earning less money than men who enter the profession. There is lots of work to be done there. When the President takes initiative on civil rights enforcement, on equal pay, then we are putting our money where our mouth has been for a long time. I want to thank the gentleman for his work on this special order and for allowing me to highlight some of the issues of special importance to me.

Ms. NORTON. I would like to welcome the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) back personally and to welcome all of my colleagues back. We have missed the gentleman, and we are ready for a very productive year. I would especially like to commend and thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his initiative. He has been so much on the case for these issues for a number of years now, so I am not surprised that he would come to the floor and offer others of us an opportunity to come to the floor before the State of the Union speech this evening. I want to thank him for all of his hard work on the issues that face this House. There is no one more indefatigable in forcing us to face the issues than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). I think it is a very good idea for us to look, pick out, among the many issues that the President will raise this evening, some which deserve to be highlighted. I must say that as I look down the subjects that are likely to be covered I see a very bipartisan agenda that the President will offer. This may be his last year in office, but it is a year that the Congress will be under the microscope as well to see if we can do better than we did last year by coming up with some substance to take home to the American people. The President of the United States in this very Chamber last year put on the table what became the mantra for the entire country: Save Social Security, reduce the deficit. That now, as I hear both sides of the aisle, is no longer the mantra of the President, or maybe our side, but everybody, the whole country, is saying save Social Security first; pay down the debt. We don't hear other issues rising to the level that we hear those issues, and I think that the President deserves credit because that is what a President is supposed to do. That is what the State of Union speech is for. He did that last year, and this year I am sure that will be a major part of his theme. As I look down this extraordinary list, I will choose only two issues to comment upon. I must say that I see so many items on this list that I think can rally the support of Members on both sides: Doing more, as our country and only our country can do, to prevent the global spread of AIDS and to prevent the spread of AIDS in our country which is increasingly becoming a disease of the poor, the black and the brown; expanding the EITC, one of the great bipartisan programs, especially now when so many people are reaching the limits in their own States of their ability to stay on welfare. There is creating smaller schools, so that there is less of a critical mass of large numbers of students anonymous enough so that we have other Columbines. And of course there are the rising issues that were raised last year that I do not think we can go home without. I do not think anybody can face their seniors without prescription drugs this year. And of course, HMO reform or the Patients' Bill of Rights is so much overdue that I see the two sides coming together on those. There are many other new issues that the President has put on his agenda such as the smart gun technology initiative, but I would like to focus on two issues that the President has raised. One is investing in modernization of schools. The other is increasing support for civil rights enforcement. Let me say a word about investing in new and modernized schools. This issue has been on the agenda 3 to 4 years now. It is dangerously overripe. The President wants a tax credit to modernize over 6,000 schools, and $1.3 billion in funding for 8,300 renovation projects in high-poverty, high-need school districts that do not have any capacity to make these repairs themselves over the next 5 years. We have children in trailers. We have children going to school in slums. But I say to the gentleman from New Jersey that I want to draw to the attention of the body how our government, this Congress, has dealt with urgent matters like this affecting how we house students. In the sixties and seventies we poured, what amounts to ``poured'', billions of dollars into public and private colleges and universities to allow them to borrow from banks to obtain funds to construct classrooms and dorms. That is what we did for people going on to higher education. So Members of this body went to school, slept in dormitories, took classes in classrooms that essentially were funded out of a Federal program, an old loan program, that subsidized interest payments during the lifetime of payments so that the effective interest rate of those who borrowed to build classrooms and dormitories was 3 percent less than the actual rate. Something close to that notion is what has been on the agenda for the last several years. The President has now switched to a tax credit instead, because we were not able to get a subsidy for the interest payments. What this would mean, for example, to colleges and universities, where they were mostly middle class folks, is that if the colleges, for example, borrowed at 10 percent, then the effective interest rate was 7 percent. What that meant was that a lot of us were able to go to school and classrooms and dormitories that were decent, and decent only because of this. In other words, the Congress saw that there was a real need, and they did not say, look, go to your State legislature do that. They knew that enough money to do it was not going to come from the States. We in fact found a way to subsidize this. I ask Members, I ask the gentleman from New Jersey, does he not think if we could do this in the sixties and seventies for college students, then in the nineties, and as we are now in a new century, we can do something similar for kids in school who go to school with leaky roofs, who go to school where there are rats, who go to school in trailers? This is essentially the kind of moderate proposal that the President has offered, recognizing that he is dealing with a Congress which has people of many different points of view, so he does not come in and say, give them the money. He says, allow a tax credit to modernize up to 6,000 schools. Can we possibly go home again without a proposal similar to this, I ask the gentleman from New Jersey?