Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to join me in honoring WAMU 88.5 FM's regional public affairs program, Metro Connection, which recently won not one but two Achievement in Radio Awards in the 13th annual competition sponsored by the March of Dimes to recognize excellence in Washington area radio. Washington area residents are especially proud that this is the fourth consecutive year that Metro Connection is being honored as the best locally produced public affairs long-form program. Washingtonians have long admired the professionalism and wonderfully interesting programming of those sharing in the honors, including News Director Kathy Merritt, line producer David Furst, and reporters Annie Wu, Lakshmi Singh, Julianne Welby, and Lex Gillespie. Metro Connection also won the best news series award for its ``20th Century Washington'' series, a review of the city of Washington as it has evolved during this century. Kathy Merritt, David Furst, Annie Wu, Lex Gillespie and Andrew Pergam, who received this award, take us on a fascinating journey in a 10 part series, one story for each decade of the century, with special features each month. This is radio at its substantive and interesting best. Those of us fortunate enough to live within listening range of WAMU's Metro Connection value its focus on us, on where we live, and on what we do. Metro Connection is an especially welcome visitor in Washington area homes on Saturday mornings at 11 a.m. Mr. Speaker, many Members of the House and Senate count themselves among WAMU's 454,000 avid listeners in the Washington area. Congressional Members of every political stripe listen with appreciation to WAMU's variety of news and public affairs programming, to its celebrated and elegant talk show host Diane Rehm, to Public Interest with Kojo Nnamdi, and to its bluegrass and other music. Now Metro Connection and its creators have brought honor to their medium and their hometown station. WAMU is a beacon of broadcasting excellence. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the people who have made WAMU an award winning resource for the residents of the Washington area.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as we approach yet another CR, with all of the terrible problems that the ranking member has described, I think it fair to say that none has been more harmed by the procedures of the House this year than the people I represent. Shall I paraphrase Elizabeth Barrett Browning? How shall I dislike it? Let me count the ways. What is this bill? The Commerce, Justice, State, Foreign Ops, Interior, Labor, HHS, DC bill, plus? All of our appropriations that remain have been packed on to the tiny D.C. appropriation. Five hundred thousand people are being used to take 300 million, or bills for 300 million, across the finish line, and the Nation's capital be damned; we just have to wait to spend our own money, understand, because almost all of the money in the D.C. appropriation is money raised in the District of Columbia. Obviously I have to be for it. What kind of position does that put me in? The disgrace as affects the Nation's capital is outflanked only by what the procedures of the House this year have done for democracy itself and how we have displayed ourselves before the people of the United States. We have become, in and of ourselves, a threat to democracy. We have made democratic procedures a living joke on C-SPAN. We are going to have before us a bill brimming with controversy. There is the international family planning gag rule that is certain to take the lives of countless of the poorest women in the world, with no chance to debate it up and down. There is the dairy controversy we have heard so much about today. In a democracy, we vote our differences up and down. In a democracy we even vote our compromises up and down. This House has become an embarrassment to itself. However, I am very glad the Nation has been able to see it because maybe when we go home there will be a backlash that will keep us from ever doing this again. The delay, with another CR, has needlessly harmed the people of the District of Columbia right at a time when we have gotten a new reform mayor and a reform city council. This has not made an ounce of difference to this body. The reputation of the House has been permanently damaged as an institution. We can reclaim it only by returning to regular order and democratic procedures.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Covenant House Candlelight Vigil, where I will speak on Tuesday, December 4, 1999. The Vigil is a national event held every year in early December in some 20 cities across the country. The Candlelight Vigil symbolizes community hope for the well being of all our children and highlights the plight of homeless, runaway, and at-risk children. The Vigil in Washington alone has 3,000 concerned adults and youth marching, bearing candles and flashlights in support of youth. They will march shoulder to shoulder for a quarter of a mile to the Covenant House Washington Community Service Center, setting a tone of joy, solidarity, commitment, and hope. Similar rallies are held simultaneously at Covenant House sites across the country. Since its inception in 1995, Covenant House Washington has invested over $13 million of private funding in our youth. They have given hundreds of youth a hand up by providing food, shelter, tutoring, life skills, job training, legal representation, and positive recreational opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring Covenant House Washington and their commitment to our most vulnerable young people and in recognizing the 1999 Covenant House Washington Candlelight Vigil.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Frances L. Murphy II, publisher emeritus of the Washington AFRO-American Newspaper, and a great lady who has had major responsibility for this great asset to the city of Washington and the communities surrounding it. Her hard-hitting editorials and well written stories provide the local African American community with news and information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. She has trained and nurtured many young journalistic talents, who have taken what they learned at the AFRO to institutions as diverse as the NAACP, the Washington Post, and African Americans on Wheels magazine. Ms. Murphy's grandfather, John H. Murphy, Sr., founded the AFRO in 1892. Her father, Dr. Carl Murphy, was editor and publisher of the AFRO-American Newspapers from 1918 until his death in 1967. But, Ms. Murphy did not start at the top. She learned her business inside out, starting as a library assistant, and moved up the ladder to reporter, then editor, magazine editor, and managing editor before becoming publisher. In addition to her work as publisher of the AFRO, Ms. Murphy has spent much of her time as an educator. She started in the Baltimore schools in 1958, where she stayed until 1964, when she took her first position in higher education at Morgan State College. Until She retired from teaching in 1991, she held various teaching positions at University of Maryland Baltimore County, Buffalo State College, and Howard University. Her students rated her a top professor, and said, as others have said about her journalism, ``She is tough but fair.'' Ms. Murphy is well known for her contributions to her community, having served as a member of the National Board of Directors of the NAACP and of the Board of Trustees of both the State Colleges of Maryland and the University of the District of Columbia. She is on the board and serves as treasurer of the African American Civil War Memorial Freedom Foundation. She also is an active member of St. Luke's Episcopal Church, where she is a member of the flower guild, a lector, a member of the Search Committee and president of the Episcopal Church Women. All this from a woman who has been a distinguished journalist and publisher and managed, as well, to raise three children, and now to be grandmother to fourteen grandchildren, and great-grandmother to two. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Murphy and her accomplished family are a quintessential family of service and a source of great and enduring pride to the entire Washington region. Like thousands of Washingtonians, I count Frances Murphy as a friend whom I greatly admire. I ask my colleagues to join me in a well deserved honor for the model life and career of Frances L. Murphy II.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for explaining fully what is at issue here. I want to leave this body with a very important fact that could be overlooked. This bill says that no public funds of any kind may be used for needle exchange. Please understand. This bill says that no Federal funds and no local funds may be used for needle exchange, making the District of Columbia the only jurisdiction in the United States that may not use its own local money for needle exchange. It is important to understand, therefore, that we are voting no differently from what this body has voted five times previously. When we say no public funds, we mean no public funds. I regret that. But it is important to understand what we are voting on.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time and for his endless and excellent work in trying to get the D.C. appropriations through. I want to assure my colleagues what yet another D.C. bill on the floor is all about. One has got to have followed the machinations of the majority. This is about a bill number to hang other appropriations on. There are a number of appropriations that this appropriation becomes the vehicle for. It is going to be used in the Senate to hang the other appropriations on. Above all, my colleagues know that this appropriation is not about needles. I have to come to the floor to concede that I lost that one. I wanted to use local funds for needle exchange, as is done in almost 115 jurisdictions. But each and every bill, including the one before us now, has said no local or Federal funds may be used for needle exchange. I have lost that one. It is a tragedy for the District of Columbia. But I have to concede that I lost that one before, and I have lost that one now. This bill says no local or Federal funds may be used for needle exchange. I apologize that this is the fifth time that my colleagues have had to come to the floor to vote on the smallest appropriation, when it has the least to do with them and with the Nation. But I believe that I deserve the apology. I believe that the people I represent deserve the apology because of the money at issue here. It is not the small change that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) just spoke about. Most of the money in this bill does not come from him or from the taxpayers of the Nation. It comes from the taxpayers of the District of Columbia. This is cruel and unusual manipulation. We are here for one reason and one reason only. The majority needs another Christmas tree to hang other appropriations on. Watch what happens in the Senate. That is what the D.C. bill will be used for when it goes back over swiftly to the Senate before the last one even has been vetoed. Stop holding the D.C. appropriation hostage to get other appropriations through. Let my people go.

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site Study Act of 1999. The legislation would honor the great American historian, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, by authorizing the Department of the Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of designating his home at 1538 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC, as a national historic site within the National Park Service. Carter G. Woodson was born on December 19, 1875, in New Canton, VA. Public education was not available to blacks in New Canton, and the young Woodson did not begin his formal education until 1895, after he had relocated to Huntington, West Virginia. Dr. Woodson obtained his high school diploma in 1895 and then entered Berea College in Kentucky, where he received his B.L. degree in 1897. Woodson continued his education at the University of Chicago, where he earned his A.B. and M.A. degrees. In 1912, Woodson earned a Ph.D. degree from Harvard University, following W.E.B. Du Bois as the second black American to receive a doctorate from that institution. During the period between entering Berea College and his Harvard graduation in 1912, Woodson also held several teaching positions in the United States and abroad. Woodson took a special interest in the widespread ignorance and scanty information concerning African American life and history during his extensive studies. He saw the great need to educate the American public about the contributions of black Americans in the formation of the nation's history and culture, and he especially perceived that a concerted effort was needed to counter the extensive influence of Jim Crow and the pervasively negative portrayals of African Americans prevalent at the time. To correct this situation, on September 9, 1915, Dr. Woodson founded the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (ASNLH), since renamed the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History. Through ASNLH, Dr. Woodson would dedicate his life to educating the American public about the contributions of black Americans in the formation of the nation's history and culture. Among its enduring accomplishments, ASNLH instituted Negro History Week in 1926 to enlighten all levels of the general populace regarding the contributions of black Americans to society. Celebrated annually during the second week of February, this weeklong observance gradually gained national support and participation of schools, colleges, and other organizations across the country. Eventually, Negro History Week evolved into Black History Month and is widely celebrated and used to educate Americans about African American life, history, and achievement. Under Dr. Woodson's stewardship, ASNLH in 1920 also founded the Associated Publishers, Inc. to handle the publication of research on African American history. Dr. Woodson published his seminal work The Negro in Our History (1922) and many others under Associated Publishers, and the publishing company provided an outlet for scholarly works by numerous other black scholars. ASNLH also circulated two periodicals: the Negro History Bulletin, designed for mass consumption, and the Journal of Negro History, which was primarily directed to the academic community. Dr. Woodson directed ASNLH's operations out of his home at 1538 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC. From there, he trained researchers and staff and managed the organization's budget and fundraising efforts, while at the same time pursuing his own study of African American history. This Victorian style house, built in 1890, is already listed as a National Historic Landmark. I am now introducing a bill which I hope will lead to the Woodson home achieving national historic site designation so that the resources of the National Park Service will be available to preserve and maintain this national treasure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, forgive me. Is the gentleman confused? I am. I feel like saying, where are we? Why are we here? Why is there another D.C. bill on the floor? How could there be another D.C. bill on the floor? One was just voted in the Senate yesterday. I did not realize that this body loved D.C. so much that it wanted to keep voting D.C. bills. One is on its way to the President's desk. Remember last Thursday we just voted for a D.C. bill. It was called the Labor-HHS-D.C. bill. That must be a new agency. We passed the D.C. bill they wanted. That one is about to be vetoed. Let me try to get this straight. One veto is not enough? They want two vetoes? Do they want them simultaneously or do they want them sequentially? The last bill, we were told, was the one the majority wanted. That is why they put Labor-HHS on the D.C. bill. All of them voted for that in conference. Now they are back again with another D.C. bill. What could be the reason for a stand-alone bill? What we are seeing is the majority manipulating the smallest, most defenseless appropriation. They do not want yet another D.C. bill before the last D.C. bill is vetoed. They want another vehicle for the majority. The District is no longer a city. It is a vehicle. They want to send this vehicle over to the Senate in order to tie on yet some more bills to send to the White House to be vetoed. What kind of way is that to treat a city of half a million people whose own money and virtually alone their own money is in this bill? Free up the D.C. bill. Three D.C. bills are enough. Let D.C. go.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, this will be remembered as less than a do- nothing Congress. It is the do-harm Congress, because we are squandering a unique opportunity to begin fixing Social Security and Medicare. When my colleagues cannot even get out 13 appropriations, the minimum work that Congress does, they simply ought to retire and go home. Last week we flattened the smallest appropriation, D.C., by loading the Labor-HHS on its back just to get it to the White House because the majority could not pass it. The unfairness of the maneuver is matched only by the incompetence of the majority it exposes. Shame on the Congress. But greater shame is the long-term damage the Republicans are doing to Social Security. They are locking it in a box; and inside, they are letting Social Security wither and die. The Republicans are selling out the largest generation in this century as their old age approaches. May the baby boomers have their revenge before it is too late.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 974, the D.C. College Access Act, facing its final House consideration today, is a splendid and near typical example of the bipartisan way in which the gentleman from Virginia and I have worked together since he became chair of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia 4 years ago. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his unflagging and indispensable leadership and for the energetic work of his staff, especially Peter Sirh and Howie Denis, who worked hand in hand with my own able legislative director, Jon Bouker, every step of the way until we have gotten to final passage today. H.R. 974 marks a turning point in our approach to lifting the Nation's capital from fiscal crisis and in affording its citizens a way to overcome the handicap of being without a State to assist it in offering higher education. Because of the importance of higher education today and its links to full and equal citizenship, the D.C. College Access Act is a bill of historic proportions and ranks as one of the most important pieces of legislation for District of Columbia residents in our history. I am especially pleased that final passage of H.R. 974 today will allow Mayor Tony Williams and the city, working together with the Department of Education, to have the program up and running next fall. Both the House and Senate and the administration have worked closely and collegially on H.R. 974. All deserve credit and praise today. I want to thank Senator George Voinovich, Government Affairs Subcommittee Chair; Senate ranking member, Richard Durbin; and Senator Jim Jeffords for their vital work in helping to craft an acceptable compromise between the Senate and House versions of the bill and for securing unanimous passage in the Senate on October 20,1999. I also thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who has consistently supported and pressed forward bills benefiting the District; the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), whose valuable assistance has been unfailing; and appropriation chairs, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and Kay Bailey Hutchinson for their critical support in assuring necessary funding for the program; and, of course, Secretary of Education Dick Riley for indispensable work on this bill in both houses. I want particularly to recognize the President who included funds for this bill in his fiscal year 2000 budget, not only opening the way for the bill to pass today, but also assuring that there would be sufficient funds to do the job. H.R. 974 offers District residents State public higher education alternatives similar to those available to other Americans as a matter of right. The central feature of H.R. 974 is an authorization for the Federal Government to pay the difference between the cost of in-state and out-of-state tuition fees for D.C. residents permitting students, once admitted, to attend public colleges and universities outside of the District and at in-state rates. The mayor will administer the in-state tuition program in consultation with the Department of Education. In addition to full in- state tuition, the bill authorizes $2,500 per student for D.C. residents to attend private colleges and universities in the District and in certain counties surrounding the District. The bill also contains an authorization granting the District's own State university, the University of the District of Columbia funded historical black college and university status in recognition of the fact that many D.C. students prefer to attend their own State university or for a variety of reasons cannot attend college outside of the District. UDC has already received HBCU funds beginning in fiscal year 1999. Young people graduating from D.C. high schools now will be treated as are students in the 50 States. To qualify, a student must live in the District for 12 months before beginning college, must have graduated from high school after January 1, 1998, must begin college within 3 years of graduation, must be pursuing her first undergraduate degree and must be enrolled at least half time. The college must also sign a formal agreement with the mayor's office. The bill we consider today contains three important protections negotiated with the Senate. First, the mayor will have the latitude to expend the in-state tuition program to the 50 States subject to cost instead of a blanket confinement to scarce slots in Maryland and Virginia. Second, students who will be freshmen, sophomores, and juniors when the program begins next year will qualify for in-state tuition rates. I appreciate that Senators Voinovich and Durbin worked with us on this provision inasmuch as the Senate version of the bill originally applied only to freshmen. District residents are particularly enthusiastic about the expansion of this particular provision because typically many go to college with just enough money for 1 year, yielding a high college dropout rate because of inability to meet college expenses. Third, institutions in counties close to the District including HBCUs in Maryland and Virginia where many D.C. residents often attend will be eligible. It is important to note that our work on H.R. 974 is bolstered by an extraordinary private sector effort which is raising an even larger amount to help District students prepare to attend college and to supplement the costs beyond the tuition costs offered in this bill. Business leaders led by Don Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, and Lucio Noto, CEO of Mobil Oil, have already gotten commitments of $17 million and plan to raise $20 million in private funds to supplement the funds authorized by H.R. 974. This bill is a true public-private effort with the private sector more than equaling what we do here today. The final passage of H.R. 974 today is a milestone in the effort to provide equal rights and citizenship for D.C. residents. This bill fills a unique and large educational gap that has had a particularly harmful effect on families here. Inequality in higher education opportunity hampers the continuing revitalization of the Nation's capital because, without the array of State offerings for higher education, residents have an incentive to move out of the District to neighboring jurisdictions. As college costs have escalated, higher education opportunities have significantly affected, indeed caused, flight from the District. Consequently, the city has been left with many residents unable to meet their needs or talents to access to appropriate institutions from junior and specialized colleges to 4- year institutions. Thus, many have been left without the education necessary to contribute to the city's tax base. With the passage of H.R. 974, District residents will no longer be the only Americans among the States without access to the necessary choices for higher education today. I want to express my personal thanks once again to the leaders of my committee and subcommittee and appropriation committees, as well as their counterparts in the Senate and the administration. I want to also express the gratitude of the parents and the children of the District who have let me and my office know in no uncertain terms that they enthusiastically and overwhelmingly support H.R. 974 and that they look forward to the historic opportunities provided by the District of Columbia College Access Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to once again thank my good partner in the District in this House, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for the way he has worked steadfastly on this bill. When we met small problems along the way, and they were almost always small, we simply gathered our forces and with his staff and mine and he and me, we kept charging forward. The way in which we worked on this bill should be noted as well, because when we got to the Senate and found that there were differences, instead of squaring off, we simply closed in and Senate and House worked together until we got a bill that both of us could in fact support. Mr. Speaker, I want to place this bill in its historic context. I believe it fair to say that this bill belongs in the category of bills that have made an historic difference to the District of Columbia, bills like the Home Rule Act, the Revitalization Act, and my tax benefits such as the $5,000 home buyer credit. This bill brings the kind of benefits to the District that will have the same kind of broad effect on individuals, as well as the city itself. It keeps the city's demographics intact, and yet it aids individuals. It is a win-win in all of the ways that matter. This bill, as the chairman has indicated, did not overlook the residents of the District of Columbia who cannot leave this town. Many of them have family obligations, many of them do not want to leave the District, so UDC receives historically black college and university funded status, something the university has sought for decades, and receives in this bill only because this bill opened opportunities in other ways and the chairman was willing to work with me to make sure that in this particular way we filled this gap for students who remain in the District. It is a win-win for youngsters who have friends in other states across the United States and see them having a choice of institutions, from junior college, to all kinds of specialized schools, to 4-year colleges, and see themselves with a struggling state university, one that many of them love, but simply does not provide them the array of choices that youngsters in the 50 states have. It is a win-win for the region because all of us understand that our region has no borders and that when we work together and open opportunities for District residents, the entire region benefits. It is a win-win for private business, which has stepped in with its own version of the D.C. College Access Act, a private version which inspired in many ways the public version which we pass today. Mr. Speaker, everywhere I go in the city I meet the same response to this bill. I go in the poorest sections of the city all the time, and I go into the sections of our city where people have many opportunities, and the only way you would know the difference is by the color of their skin, because you certainly will not know it by the way in which they have received this bill. This bill is of the very first priority to District residents, the District residents who would have no other opportunity to go to institutions of the kind that will be available to them except through this bill, and residents who have other opportunities, but would as soon move out of the District than be left to pay the difference, to pay the fine, as it were, of remaining a District resident once their children get ready for college. Like my tax bills, this bill draws a big circle around the city and all gathered to join it. This bill is not one that we might have thought would pass even a couple of years ago, but with the city returning to full health, it is just the kind of response from the Congress that will encourage the city to do what it needs to do, because the sine qua non of this bill is that there is no free ride and no free lunch. You cannot get access to this bill unless you graduate from high school. What this bill will do will be to encourage youngsters who did not see any reason to go through all the work to graduate from high school because there was nothing there afterwards for them. Now there is the same thing that there would be if they lived in any of the 50 states. I speak, I know, for the residents of the District of Columbia and every ward of the city when I express my gratitude to the chairman and to all who have worked on this bill and to the Congress of the United States for what I hope will be final passage unanimously today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge unanimous passage of H.R. 974.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is not only a cosponsor of the bill but is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia whose leadership was important in assuring funding for this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding this time to me. This debate opened with the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), indicating that we would not hear much about the District of Columbia during this debate on the District of Columbia bill. That is what is wrong with this bill. But I am not going to let my colleagues forget what they are doing to the people of the District of Columbia. It is hard to regard what we have before us as a bill at all. The District of Columbia, of course, had a bill number before us, but that is what we have been degraded to because we are serving other purposes, we are serving other masters. The Labor-HHS appropriation has been slopped together, bypassed committee, bypassing debate on this floor, thrown over the transom on to the backs of the people of the District of Columbia. Makes the D.C. appropriation, our smallest, a beast of burden for the largest appropriation. What kind of way is this to treat a city pulling itself up by its bootstraps in the full throes of recovery with a new mayor, a reformed City Council meeting the expectations of its own residents, meeting the expectations of the Congress? Early meetings with the Mayor, a promise to try to get out our appropriation first out? We are the last out, Mr. Speaker. At early hearings, our subcommittee chair worked with us on problems that we ironed out throughout; and yet, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate response was more riders on the D.C. appropriation than in 25 years of home rule. Today, we see further delay on our bill even after Senate and House appropriations have worked mightily to try to deal with our differences. This is a minimally signable bill. I can only accept it if I have to. The worst part of this process today is that it is all for naught, that a veto is assured. It is cynical; it is irregular. If at least the bill would be signed, something might be said for it. Instead the District of Columbia is caught in the middle. We are being stepped on, then walked over. This body often gets up on the other side of the aisle to rant about its constitutional claim to work in the best interests of the Nation's Capital. By this process today, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have forfeited any claim by throwing the people of the Nation's Capital to the winds.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I come to the floor this afternoon in the name of the people of the District of Columbia to protest being used by this rule. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to be abused. It is just as bad to be used. It is one thing to be treated like a dog. It is another thing to be treated like a mule. That is what is happening here. The District of Columbia, the tiniest appropriation, is being used as a mule to carry across the largest appropriation, the Labor-HHS appropriation. This appropriation is the only one that involves a breathing, living city. We should have been the first out of this place. It is the simplest. It is our money, not my colleagues', virtually all of it. It does not belong here. It makes devolution a joke, for me to have to come before my colleagues who have virtually nothing to do with raising the money in this bill to ask for my own money. Mr. Speaker, it is hung up here extraneous matters that are none of my colleagues' business. It makes the whole idea of devolution as it comes out of their mouths a joke because it involves them in tiny matters that in their jurisdictions would never go anywhere outside their borders. It makes a lot of hard work go up in smoke. There is the work of the District of Columbia which presented a marvelously balanced budget with tax cuts and a surplus. There is the work of the Senate and House appropriators, and I appreciate that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) have worked to get a bill that might be signed. I wondered after the veto of this bill why would there be no negotiations. Talk about irregular order. Nobody sat down and tried to work out our disagreements. Now I know why, because my colleagues needed a bill number. That bill number, the first thing running, happened to be the District of Columbia appropriations containing the money of the people of the District of Columbia raised in the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues did not have the nerve and the guts to take their HHS bill to full committee and then to this floor so that it could be debated openly. They tried something so underhanded that it needs to be exposed to the American people. What has resulted is a double delay. We had to delay while our colleagues negotiated this jerry-built HHS bill. Then we had the delay, of course, while we negotiated our differences in the D.C. bill. What we have is a potentially signable bill, one not to my liking, and I do not know if it would be signed, that is going over with a bill my colleagues know will not be signed to further delay the people of the District of Columbia getting their own money. This rule is unworthy of any serious legislative body. It is an unconscionable way to treat the people of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct by Correctional Staff Act, a bill to protect female inmates from sexual misconduct while incarcerated in our nation's prisons. This bill follows a GAO investigation that I requested of the three largest prison systems--the federal Bureau of Prisons, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and, in addition, the District of Columbia, (1995-1998). I asked GAO to investigate these jurisdictions because they house one-third of the nation's 80,000 female inmates, and, therefore, are likely to reflect the range of problems women in prison face. The treatment of women incarcerated cries out for remedies. Let me summarize some of the most important findings in the GAO report: 1. The full range of civil and criminal sexual misconduct and abuse was found: rape, improper touching, inappropriate visual surveillance, verbal harassment, and consensual sex, which is a crime when correctional personnel are involved. 2. None of the four jurisdictions had readily available or comprehensive information that would allow them to effectively prevent and address sexual misconduct. Since jurisdictions do not collect and examine even basic information, such as the number, nature, and outcomes of sexual misconduct allegations, it is no wonder that they do little to prevent them. When attempts to track the abuse have been made, they often have been useless or dangerously incompetent. For example, the federal Bureau of Prison's (BOP) tracking system does not break down allegations of non-criminal sexual misconduct, such as indecent language from other allegations BOP classifies as ``unprofessional conduct.'' The District of Columbia had no information on allegations. 3. Only 41 states specifically punish criminal sexual misconduct by corrections personnel, and eight states treat sexual abuse by corrections officials as only a misdemeanor. Although the four jurisdictions studied have criminal laws against sexual misconduct by corrections personnel, only BOP reported prosecutions with convictions (14 prosecutions: rape, consensual sex with an inmate, and sex for money). 4. The GAO reports that, ``Many correctional experts believe that the full extent of staff-on-inmate misconduct is likely underreported nationally due to the fear of retaliation and the vulnerability felt by female inmates.'' Nevertheless, 506 reported allegations of sexual misconduct were made in the past three years in the four jurisdictions. Only 18% were sustained. Most of the sustained allegations resulted in resignations or terminations. What ordinary citizens go to jail for, corrections personnel often can walk away from if they are willing to leave the job. 5. Civil liability can be expected to mount if states do not substantially and immediately improve their efforts to illuminate sexual abuse. A $500,000 settlement paid by the BOP to three women in a suit alleging rape, being sold by guards for sex, and beatings are the tip of the iceberg. 6. States have primary responsibility for the conduct of their own correctional staff, but the federal government is deeply implicated or complicit in two ways: (a) sexual abuse by guards, who have complete authority over inmates and are charged with their incarceration, often rises to the level of constitutional violations; and (b) the federal government gives financial assistance to state prison systems and therefore must be seen to condone constitutional violations in the face of this report unless appropriate requirements are attached to federal assistance. The Prevention of Sexual Misconduct by Correctional Staff Act I introduce today responds to the specific issues uncovered by the GAO report. It provides mandatory sexual harassment and abuse awareness training for prison officials and staff, establishes a system for women inmates to report abuses by correctional staff, creates a reporting system for submission to the states' attorneys general so that they can detect patterns of abuse, establishes a mechanism by which allegations of sexual misconduct can be investigated, and requires that each state have criminal penalties that explicitly prohibit custodial sexual misconduct by correctional staff. This bill provides that each state submit reports on the compliance of the state to the U.S. Attorney General. Women inmates should not be made to feel that sexual abuse and harassment is part of their sentence. I ask for your support to put an end to this violence against women.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 1652, a bill to designate the Executive Office Building at 17th and Pennsylvania Avenue here in Washington, D.C. as the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building. President Eisenhower was born October 14, 1890 in Denison, Texas. He graduated from West Point in June 1915 and shortly after graduation married Marie Doud in Denver, Colorado, a marriage that lasted 52 years. After a series of assignments, including service in the Panama Canal Zone, Washington, D.C., and the Philippine Islands, in 1942 he was promoted to first chief of operations division, War Department general staff. On December 24, 1943, President Roosevelt designated him as Supreme Commander, Allied expeditionary forces, from which he led the D-Day invasion of Europe. In 1950, President Truman appointed him as Supreme Commander of the NATO forces, thus making him the first man to command a large peacetime multinational force. Eisenhower was elected President in November 1952 with the support of the moderate, eastern wing of the Republican Party and again in 1956. Eisenhower had a sharp, orderly mind, could analyze problems, develop alternatives, and choose from among them. He reflected mainstream beliefs and his personality was that of an outgoing, affable American. The American people loved him. President Eisenhower served his country with great distinction, diligence, and devotion for over 60 years. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1652 and posthumously may I extend my gratitude to Senator Chafee for introducing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, a gentleman of many talents, so those of us who saw him in full bike regalia this morning found.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, we owe a debt of thanks to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for their work in helping us as we strive to save the Women's Educational Equity Act this evening. Madam Chairman, it will be unbelievable to most Americans that there is a message going out from this body that women and girls have arrived. That will be news to the American people, especially to women and girls themselves. I ask this body, please do not make girls a victim of their own success, for things are not as bad as they were when we last rose to speak about this bill, but who can but admit that they are not as good as they should be; and we should not extinguish prematurely one of the programs that is finally yielding results for girls and women. It is a truism that special targeted programs are not permanent. The challenge is to allow them to get a sufficient foothold, or the advances we have achieved because of these programs may well all be lost. The work that remains for girls is across the board, is across the classes, is across the races, and is across geographical boundaries. Look at the high pregnancy rates, for example, in Title I schools. We know that this is directly related to what happens at home; but, my colleagues, these high pregnancy rates are directly related to what happens at school before pregnancy occurs, and what happens at school after pregnancy occurs when these girls drop out of school wholesalely. Every American, to take girls at the other end of the scale, should be greatly concerned about the gap of girls between girls and boys on standardized tests, again across racial lines and across class lines, precisely in those areas where proficiency is going to be required in the next century. We have to solve these mysteries before getting rid of programs like WEAA. Why do males increase their advantage over girls in grades 8 to 12 in math concepts and geopolitical subjects and in natural sciences? If we continue to let that happen, the whole country is at risk. Why is it that at the fourth grade girls and boys are about the same but the more they stay in school the more girls fall behind in standardized tests but not in the grades they yield in school? We have got to solve those mysteries or we will leave our country in the lurch, because increasingly we depend upon the skills of these girls. Just ask the Armed Forces where they are drawing their most proficient members from. Girls make better grades in all the subjects but do not do as well on scientific tests. We have got to find out why if we want to get the most productivity out of our young people. Why are girls almost 40 percent behind boys in SAT scores? Are my colleagues satisfied with that? If they are, get rid of WEEA tonight. Vote against this bill. Are my colleagues satisfied with the digital gap? If they think this is a minority gap, I ask them to look more closely. The digital gap is a female gap more than it is a minority gap. Being a girl continues to put a person at a permanent disadvantage unless we do something to rescue her whether that girl is a so-called at-risk girl or whether that girl is a privileged girl. And yet, this is very different for boys. Because when a boy is a privileged boy or an at-risk boy makes a profound difference. We have got to understand why simply being a girl puts a person at a disadvantage. There will come a time, my colleagues, if we keep programs like WEEA going long enough to get the job done, when this Member will come to the floor and say, well done. My colleagues may ask me this evening how long? I will say not long, but I will also say very much not yet. Keep this program. America wants it. America needs it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rea Carey, founding Executive Director of the National Youth Advocacy Coalition (NYAC). NYAC is the only National organization solely focused on advocacy, education, and information addressing the broad range of issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth. Since the founding of the organization in 1993, Carey has worked with the board and staff to develop NYAC as an organization committed to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth leadership, national vision driven by community-based needs, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth activism without a broader social justice context. Rea's list of accomplishments in her six-year tenure is as extensive as it is impressive. Through her leadership, the NYAC's budget has grown from $80,000 per year to $900,000 per year, the staff has grown from one to eleven, an the breadth and depth of its work increased as well. Among other things, the NYAC convenes a ``National Summit'' every year focused entirely on the political, social, and mental/physical health issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth. It provides skills building and leadership training for youth, technical assistance to community organizations, fundraising, referral networks, and other many other services. Rea's large contribution to this success was recognized this year, when she was given an ``Award of Excellence'' by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Adolescent and School Health for her ``imaginative and creative efforts'' in helping to educate America's young people about preventing HIV infection. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all my colleagues to join me in honoring Rea Carey. While her good work at NYAC is done, I am sure that her career of good works is only beginning.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. No, I am not going to yield. I have yielded too much. I let this bill go on this floor to conference, when many on my side said it should not. I yielded then, and the gentleman promised me that he would move on the matter that has been brought up here by several Members on voting rights for the people of my city, to have their corporation counsel look at the papers that had been prepared by a private law firm to see whether or not they were in order. I yielded. I am not going to yield this time. For me, this is a new low in this House to proceed after a veto, stonewalling the President who comes forward and says I think we can work this out, let us have a discussion. That is all this is about. I was so concerned that I marched over, just a couple of hours ago, to see the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) because I believe he is a fair man. I must say he saw me right on the spot. I marched over because I could not believe that he was part and parcel of not even having a word of discussion before we unilaterally brought a bill to the floor, inviting a veto. I am supposed to get up here and say to Democrats, vote no. You are supposed to get up here and say to Republicans, vote yes. Big exercise. Big ritual for you. Serious business for the more than half million people I represent. I was trying to break through it. I am pleased the Speaker saw me. He said, ``Eleanor, we do intend to have negotiations after this vote.'' I said, ``Fine. Let us have it before so that there is no posturing on the floor about drugs, so that I do not have to get up and talk about home rule.'' Do it the way it is always done. Let us sit back and talk about it now. The administration is ready. I have talked with them.'' The Speaker listened. His staff listened. He said that he would take it under advisement. There was a postponement. I thought maybe we were getting somewhere. Obviously people have been talking back and forth, but then we were told that the bill was in order. All that is left, since the President of the United States must agree on this bill, all that is left is for me to ask for a no vote on this rule in order to begin discussions. And, my friends, I want you to hear my words, ``begin.'' Discussions did not collapse. They have never begun. When there is a veto, the only way to settle the matter is indeed to sit down with the adversary to see whether things can be straightened out. That is the way I have done business for my city ever since the first day I walked into this House in 1991. That is the way I intend always to do business for my city, and I ask for the respect that I think that I am due, to have you sit down with the agents of the President of the United States, so that Members of the House and the Senate can talk with them about whether we can get somewhere and, if we cannot then let us come back, have this vote and go the next step. That courtesy has not been given to me. I think I am entitled at least to that.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I recognize this is unusual. I appreciate how much people are trying to find some common ground and agreement here. There has been so much movement on the floor, so much more, I must say, than has taken place in any discussions, that I would ask that instead of going forward with the bill now that we go off this floor now and see if we can reach some kind of agreement on this bill. I think everybody who has spoken has moved this forward. I cannot say what we have agreed to, but I can say that I think that the very process of talking back and forth for the first time has been a good process, and we ought to continue it rather than march down the line so we have hardened lines again and have to start all over again.