Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, there is a veto SAP over here. The only reason there is a veto SAP over here is that instead of sitting down in a room with the administration, you have insisted upon unilaterally coming to the floor and you know good and well that the administration, Jack Lew himself called you personally and said to you that he was willing to negotiate any time; that you give one story, the Senate people give another story. Instead of doing what you have done on every bill, which is everybody get in the room or get on a conference call and see what you can agree to, instead you get one person saying something that is exactly the opposite of another person, no agreement; and you do not get everybody sitting together trying to work out the bill the way you did on HUD/VA, the way you did on every bill; and that is the kind of respect that I think we are entitled to and you have not given us and you have not given the President of the United States.

Ms. NORTON. I certainly will not yield. I certainly will not yield, sir. I will not yield a single moment, sir. Not only am I not going to yield, I may ask for some more time to discuss what is happening to my city.

Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Ms. NORTON. My own position on the legalization of marijuana is well known. I oppose the legalization of drugs. What I would like to move us ahead on is what we can do with the particular provisions in the bill. We have recognized all along that some of these provisions are going to be changed; that we have differences here but we have never been able to get down in a room and see what, in fact, can be done. All I am saying is I am willing to do that right now and believe that the way to move this bill forward is to, in fact, take hold of the discussions that have begun here and try to come to agreement.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, for Members, this may be a typical appropriation exercise. That is not what it is for me. It is my city Members are talking about. I have come forward on this rule not for the usual reasons. For me, I want to be clear that this is well beyond any particular provision of this bill. The demagoguing that is done on the other side about drugs falls like a lead balloon. There is nobody in the United States, even those who detest Bill Clinton, that believes he wants to legalize drugs in the District of Columbia. I am going to let that one fall. The problem identified by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) is entirely correct. That is why I had indicated that the way to address that is to send the matter to the city council, which has the power to change it or obliterate the whole matter. Nobody thinks in the United States of America that drugs are at issue here. For me, this matter is well beyond any particular provision of this bill. For me, this matter is about something that has never happened in this House since I have been here, and I have asked all the old-timers if they have ever seen it happen. For me, this is about bringing a bill to the floor for a vote after a veto without a single word of discussion with the man who must sign the bill or his agent, the President of the United States. It has never been done so long as anybody knows in the history of this House. Thus, I do not oppose this rule for the usual reason, that it is a closed rule. I oppose this rule because we have before us a unilateral document where no discussions have occurred with the White House, in spite of the fact that the White House on several occasions has come forward and asked for a discussion.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I appreciate that there has been some disposition on this floor to try to rescue this bill from its stalemate. I cannot speak to the riders because this matter, for me, no longer is about the riders. I do believe that the riders can be settled; that there is, and one can see it from at least some of the Members here, some disposition to try to deal realistically with the riders. However, as I look at what is happening on this floor, it is like looking at a play where everyone is playing her part. I am unable to play the part of the Republican who is for the riders and the Democrat who opposes the riders, because this is serious business for me. I want to focus on the process so that we can find our way out. This bill was vetoed on September 28. That was 16 days ago. Since that time, there has not been a single meeting among all of those concerned. There have been discussions with individuals, discussions that none of them had the power to consummate into a bill. I had amicable discussions, for example, with the chair of the subcommittee. We even agreed to the kind of thing we certainly would not agree to see in the bill, something that had been proposed that we certainly did not want to see happen, and he said he would be back to me after he looked at the veto message. I have not heard from him, but I cannot much blame him, because he knows that Eleanor Holmes Norton is not empowered to make an agreement on this bill. For those new to the House, there is no Member in the Chamber now who is empowered to solve this matter. That is not what happens after a veto. After a veto, one has to get the House and the Senate Members together, have an exchange, and see what we can come up with. Mr. Speaker, that is what has not occurred on this bill. I want the Members to know that this Member believes that an accommodation can be made on this bill, and I ask only that we get in a room to seek that accommodation. The administration has tried; it has been unable to do so, and that may be because getting everybody together has been the problem. If there is goodwill on both sides, let us seek to do that now. The District of Columbia is used to being treated uniquely; the District of Columbia is used to being treated unfairly, but it is a new low to isolate the city, to have no communication about its appropriation with the Members of the House and Senate who are in a position to resolve the matter. When I went to speak with the Speaker, and I want to say that I appreciate that the Speaker spoke with me when I asked to speak with him, even though I had no meeting, and I appreciate the wonderful tone that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the Speaker set when I took the Mayor of the District of Columbia to meet them both. And we agreed that we were going to try to move forward this year in a fashion that was satisfactory to all and did not involve confrontation, and I appreciate that we had very serious discussions when we met. I have been assured by the Speaker and his staff that there would indeed be discussions following this vote. The problem I have with that procedure is that even though there have been some virtual negotiations here, what happens after we have a vote, instead of hardening sides, I want to put the position of the District of Columbia on the table. Here I speak for the Mayor. Here I speak for the entire City Council, and here I speak from the only Member of Congress that represents them. The District of Columbia does not want a confrontation. The District of Columbia does not want a vote on this matter at this time. The District of Columbia does not want ``no'' votes for the Democrats and ``yes'' votes for the Republicans. The District of Columbia does not want a House ritual. The District of Columbia wants the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans to get in a room with the administration and solve this matter this very day. And we say that, despite the fact that there are more anti-home rule riders in this bill than ever in 25 years of home rule. Yet, we are willing to engage in realistic discussions. From the beginning I have said that I knew we would not have a perfect bill. I have been prepared to iron out our concerns. I have found nobody who would get me in a room, and I do not even have to be in there. All that has to be in there is the agent of the person that has to sign the bill, we have nothing unless he signs it, and whoever is empowered in the House and the Senate to say yes. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is not empowered to do that, he is not the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he is not the Speaker of the House. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) does not have the power to do that, he is not the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and certainly nobody in this room is empowered to do that for the President of the United States. If one is serious about getting a bill done, everybody in this room knows that is the only way to do it. This is no longer about any particular riders; all of the riders are now up for grabs. It is about whether we should go to a vote when this matter has been brought forward unilaterally. It is about whether we are willing to give respect to the new mayor and the new city council who have submitted a balanced budget and tax cuts and a surplus; it is about helping a city which has struggled out of insolvency. We are well aware of our differences. We ask that we get the respect of not submitting us to the summary execution of a vote at this time, but allow discussions to go on before any vote occurs so that when we come back on Tuesday, we can have a vote which would be, in effect, a consensus vote.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, along with Chairman Bob Franks today, I rise to introduce the Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Redevelopment Act of 1999 (SEFCA) to develop the largest undeveloped parcel of prime real estate here in the District of Columbia--the Southeast Federal Center located in Southeast Washington. This bill follows a tour of the site at the suggestion of Rep. Bob Franks, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Transportation, as a result of questions I raised to General Services Administration (GSA) officials at a congressional hearing on May 11, 1999, concerning the failure of the federal government to make productive use of this valuable federal land while the government pays to rent and lease space for federal facilities. I recently held a town meeting in the District focusing on the development of the Southeast Federal Center and other properties owned by the federal government and the jobs and spinoff economic benefits that they inevitably have on their surrounding communities. Because the parcel is located in this city, the District of Columbia would gain immeasurably from the project at the same time that the federal government finally would achieve productive use and revenue from valuable property. The win-win approach embodied in this bill has clear potential for a new kind of partnership between hard pressed cities and the federal government. The Southeast Federal Center is a 55-acre undeveloped site just 5 minutes from the U.S. Capitol. Located between M Street, S.E. and the Anacostia River next to the Washington Navy Yard, the site is considered by real estate and land use experts to be one of the most valuable pieces of property remaining on the entire east coast. It is as important a federal parcel as Constitution Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue, the existing prime locations for federal facilities. The property was once a part of the Washington Navy Yard, but approximately 30 years ago, this large parcel was transferred to the GSA in anticipation that the site would be developed into office space for federal agencies. For years, the site remained environmentally degraded, but I have worked hard to secure funds for this purpose, and to its credit, Congress responded by appropriating the necessary funds in FY 1997-99, and environmental upgrading is nearing completion. Yet, despite its inherent value, prime location, a $30 million infusion from the federal government for environmental cleanup of the site, and a proposed mall with stores and amenities to be built by the government to serve federal employees and the neighborhood, GSA has been continually frustrated in attempts to attract federal government tenants to the site, and the property has remained undeveloped. Thus, instead of using this federal land to house federal agencies or for other productive purposes, the federal government rents other space throughout the region. The financial loss to the federal government as a result of its failure to make use of this valuable asset is incalculable. Federal land cannot be used for other than federal purposes without legislation and the new approach embodied in this bill. One of the main reasons the site still lies unused is because the federal government has been unable to commit sufficient financial resources for its development. The bill would overcome this obstacle by creating a public-private partnership whereby the federal government would make the land available for development and a private developer would furnish the necessary capital to make the land productive. This kind of partnership represents an important breakthrough in securing the highest and best use for federal resources, securing revenue for the federal government, and saving the government money while at the same time contributing to the local D.C. economy and its neighborhood. The approach is mutually beneficial: the federal government makes its property available for development and revenue-producing occupancy and the developer, selected competitively, receives a valuable opportunity. Our bill would authorize the Administrator of the GSA to enter into agreements with a private entity to provide for acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, operation, maintenance, or use of facilities located at the site. The bill provides the GSA with wide latitude to enter into arrangements to bring any appropriate development work to the site--private, federal, local, or some combination. The bill also specifies that any agreement entered between the GSA and the developing entity must (1) have as its primary purpose enhancing the value of the Southeast Federal Center; (2) be negotiated pursuant to procedures that protect the federal government's interests and promote a competitive bidding process; (3) provide an option for the federal government to lease and occupy any office space in the developed facilities; (4) not require, unless otherwise determined by the GSA, federal ownership of any developed facilities; and (5) describe the duties and consideration for which the U.S. and the public or private entities involved are responsible. The bill also authorizes GSA to accept non-monetary, in-kind consideration, such as the provision of goods and services at the site. I very much appreciate Chairman Bob Franks for his indispensable leadership on the bill. The Southeast Federal Center has been a subject at hearings since I came to Congress almost 10 years ago, and before. Bob Franks is the first chair of the Subcommittee to initiate action. New to the chairmanship of the Subcommittee, he was astonished to discover during my questioning of GSA witnesses that so large and valuable a federal parcel has long gone unused while taxpayers had been laying out billions of dollars to lease space for federal facilities. On the spot, he suggested that the subcommittee tour the parcel. Shortly thereafter, Chairman Franks indicated that he wanted to hold a hearing to work for expeditious passage of a bill for productive use of the parcel and revenue to the federal government. The result is a bipartisan effort made possible by the Chairman's understanding that something could be done about a notorious waste of a valuable federal resource. I urge rapid passage of the Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Redevelopment Act of 1999 so that the progress we have made thus far can soon produce a result at once beneficial to the federal government and the nation's capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, no one should forget where the tragedy at Columbine began; not in the suburbs of Colorado, but in the streets of the inner cities, where guns were first made available like free lunch. Now, astonishingly and tragically, that is the case throughout America. On Friday evening a youngster, 17 years old, in the District, going to see his girlfriend, minding his own business, was shot on a bus by somebody who hoisted himself and shot him through the window. For 10 minutes the bus rode and did not even know the kid had been shot. This youngster is described by his teachers and all who knew him as an excellent student, talented and energetic. He was in the marching band at Ballou High School. He was on his way to Howard University next year. He participated in the Arthur Ashe tennis program. He is the kind of kid we are so pleased to see come out whole from the inner city. Mr. Speaker, guns are everywhere. They are in our districts. Please pass gun safety legislation before we go home this year.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, who would have thought that our country would ever see so much gun carnage? Who would have thought that the killings would spread from districts like mine to districts of all my colleagues? Who would have thought there would ever be a Congress like this one who would have done nothing about the killing of children like those whose names I read killed since Columbine? Lee Martindale, age 14, killed by gunfire on June 17, 1999, St. Louis, Missouri; Roshon Hollinger, age 5, killed by gunfire on June 20, 1999, Atlanta, Georgia: Darryl Hall, age 13, killed by gunfire on June 22, 1999, Jacksonville, Florida; Khari Bartigan, age 18, killed by gunfire on June 23,1999, Boston, Massachusetts; Deslond Glenn, age 17, killed by gunfire on June 24, 1999, Fort Worth, Texas; Fred Warren, age 18, killed by gunfire on June 25, 1999, Miami-Dade County, Florida; Chau Tran, age 17, killed by gunfire on June 26, 1999, Lansing Michigan; Richard Rogers, age 16, killed by gunfire on June 29, 1999, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in November 1899, The Reverend Theodore Williams, a recent graduate of the School of Theology at Howard University was inspired by God to establish a mission which was named High Street Baptist Church. The mission worshiped in an old jail, a former detention center for runaway slaves, on High Street, now Wisconsin Avenue, NW, in Georgetown. Later, the church held worship services at the Seventh Street Baptist Church--which is now named Jerusalem. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 1901, a recognition council was called, and High Street Baptist, which now had thirty-four members, was recognized as a regular Baptist Church. The congregation continued to grow, and in November 1904 purchased and relocated to a new site at 814 25th Street, NW, and was renamed Mount Lebanon Baptist Church. An all-day service was held on Sunday, November 19, 1908, in thanksgiving for the completion of the work of renovating this property. Six years later (1914), the congregation demolished that building and constructed a new building, to the glory of God, on the same site. The mortgage for the new building was burned in 1919. In April 1923, after 24 years of inspired and zealous leadership and service as pastor, Reverend Williams was called to his reward. He was succeeded by the Reverend John Ford, who served as pastor from 1924 until 1932 when he left to accept a new charge. In November 1932, the Reverend Edgar Newton was installed as pastor. His motto was ``Follow me as I follow Christ.'' Much was accomplished during his leadership of almost thirty-nine years. New clubs (ministries) and a building fund were established, significant growth in membership was accomplished, two properties adjacent to the church were purchased, services to members and the community were expanded, and the site of the present church was purchased. In addition, three mortgages were burned--two at the 25th Street site and one at the present site, 1219 New Jersey Avenue, NW, to which the congregation relocated on January 27, 1963. Reverend Newton retired in June 1971; and on June 18, 1974, he was called from service to reward. The Reverend Vernon C. Brown, a son of the church, succeeded Reverend Newton to the pastorate on November 12, 1972, and served faithfully until his retirement on December 31, 1991. Under his leadership, programs of services to members and the community were expanded, including services to senior citizens and a ``feed the hungry'' program providing balanced hot meals at least once per week. His motto was ``The family that prays together stays together.'' From the time of Reverend Brown's retirement until November 1992, pastoral duties were shared by three sons of the church, the Reverend Norman King, the Reverend Benjamin C. Sands, and the Reverend William O. Wilson. In November 1992, the Reverend H. Lionel Edmonds became the fifth pastor of the church. Pursuant to his vision of ``building the beloved community'', great strides have been made including nearly quadrupling the membership and the establishment of new ministries to meet the spiritual, physical, and intellectual needs of members and the community. These include a Cedars Discipleship Institute (Christian education); Sons of Simeon (men's ministry); Daughters of Miriam dance classes; boys' basketball and football teams; classes to develop job skills in computers, lock smithing and electricity; health and beauty workshops; aerobics classes; and a soon-to-be-opened child development center. All services are open to the community as well as to members of the church. Mount Lebanon's community service extends beyond its immediate environs. Through very active involvement in the Washington Interfaith Network (WIN), an interdenominational coalition of churches from all eight of the city's wards, it also participates in other citywide programs to provide low-cost housing for families and after school care for children, reduce crime, provide education/job skills to citizens, and to assure a living wage for all persons employed in the city. Mr. Speaker, through worship and community service, Mount Lebanon carries out its slogan, ``We serve a great God; we are a great people; and we are about a great work.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that the members of this body join me in congratulating the Mount Lebanon Baptist Church, and celebrating the spiritual understanding that has guided their path for 100 years.

Mr. NORTON

Mr. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in November 1899, the Reverend Theodore Williams, a recent graduate of the School of Theology at Howard University was inspired by God to establish a mission which was named High Street Baptist Church. The mission worshiped in an old jail, a former detention center for runaway slaves, on High Street, now Wisconsin Avenue, NW, in Georgetown. Later, the church held worship services at the Seventh Street Baptist Church--which is now named Jerusalem. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 1901, a recognition council was called, and High Street Baptist, which now had thirty-four members, was recognized as a regular Baptist Church. The congregation continued to grow, and in November 1904 purchased and relocated to a new site at 814 25th NW and was renamed Mount Lebanon Baptist Church. An all-day service was held on Sunday, November 19, 1908, in thanksgiving for the completion of the work of renovating this property. Six years later (1914), the congregation demolished that building and constructed a new building, to the glory of God, on the same site. The mortgage for the new building was burned in 1919. In April 1923, after 24 years of inspired and zealous leadership and service as pastor, Reverend Williams was called to his reward. He was succeeded by the Reverend John Ford, who served as pastor from 1924 until 1932 when he left to accept a new charge. In November 1932, the Reverend Edgar Newton was installed as pastor. His motto was ``Follow me as I follow Christ.'' Much was accomplished during his leadership of almost thirty-nine years. New clubs (ministries) and a building fund were established, significant growth in membership was accomplished, two properties adjacent to the church were purchased, services to members and the community were expanded, and the site of the present church was purchased. In addition, three mortgages were burned--two at the 25th Street site and one at the present site, 1219 New Jersey Avenue, NW, to which the congregation relocated on January 27, 1963. Reverend Newton retired in June 1971; and on June 18, 1974, he was called from service to reward. The Reverend Vernon C. Brown, a son of the church, succeeded Reverend Newton to the pastorate on November 12, 1972, and served faithfully until his retirement on December 31, 1991. Under his leadership, programs of services to members and the community were expanded, including services to senior citizens and a ``feed the hungry'' program providing balanced hot meals at least once per week. His motto was ``The family that prays together stays together.'' From the time of Reverend Brown's retirement until November 1992, pastoral duties were shared by three sons of the church, the Reverend Norman King, the Reverend Benjamin C. Sands, and the Reverend William O. Wilson. In November 1992, the Reverend H. Lionel Edmonds became the fifth pastor of the church. Pursuant to his vision of ``building the beloved community'', great strides have been made including nearly quadrupling the membership and the establishment of new ministries to meet the spiritual, physical, and intellectual needs of members and the community. These include a Cedars Discipleship Institute (Christian education); Sons of Simeon (men's ministry); Daughters of Miriam dance classes; boys' basketball and football teams; classes to develop job skills in computers, lock smithing and electricity; health and beauty workshops; aerobics classes; and a soon-to-be-opened child development center. All services are open to the community as well as to members of the church. Mount Lebanon's community service extends beyond it's immediate environs. Through very active involvement in the Washington Interfaith Network (WIN), an interdenominational coalition of churches from all eight of the city's wards, it also participates in other citywide programs to provide low-cost housing for families and after school care for children, reduce crime, provide education/job skills to citizens, and to assure a living wage for all persons employed in the city. Mr. Speaker, through worship and community service, Mount Lebanon carries out its slogan, ``We serve a great God; we are a great people; and we are about a great work.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that the members of this body join me in congratulating the Mount Lebanon Baptist Church, and celebrating the spiritual understanding that has guided their path for 100 years.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the Order of the Knights of Columbus is an international Catholic family and fraternal service organization founded in 1882 in New Haven, Connecticut, by a 29-year-old parish priest, Father Michael J. McGivney, as a means for mutual social and financial support (self-insurance) among young Catholic men and their families. From its original 30 members from St. Mary's Parish, the Order has grown to more than 1.6 million members worldwide and, unlike many other similar fraternal organizations, is still growing. With its strong American orientation, in contrast to the focus on ancestral homelands and languages of ethnic or immigrant-centered societies, the fledgling organization had a broad appeal in the United States, expanding first through New England and then down the Atlantic Coast. In the Order's 15th year, 1897, Washington Council No. 224 was instituted in the District of Columbia. Within two years of the establishment of the Order in the District of the Washington Council, four other councils were instituted in the District: Keane Council No. 353 and Carroll Council No. 377 in 1898, and Spalding Council No. 417 and Potomac Council No. 433 in 1899. The first public appearance of the Knights of Columbus, as an Order, in the Nation's Capital was at the dedication of the Franciscan Monastery on September 17, 1899. With four councils and several hundred members in the District, the Supreme Council, the governing body of the Order, relinquished its direct supervision of these four councils by instituting the District of Columbia State Council on April 27, 1899. The State Council is the intermediate level of government within the Order's organizational structure whereby the councils within the State jurisdiction, in accordance with the Bylaws of the Order, can legislate their own affairs and elect State officers. This includes the Deputy Supreme Knight, or State Deputy, who serves as the chief executive officer for the jurisdiction. State Councils, in turn, collectively elect the leadership of the Supreme Council. Mr. Speaker, in the more recent years of the 20th century, another 12 councils have been instituted in the District of Columbia, including councils at Catholic University of America and Georgetown University. The 17 councils in the District of Columbia have a combined membership of approximately 1900 Knights and their families. Mr. Speaker, the Knights of Columbus are dedicated to four major principles: Charity, Unity, Fraternity, and Patriotism. Patriotism, the promotion of responsible citizenship and good government, is the special focus of the Fourth Degree of the Order. The Knights, in colorful capes and chapeaux at ecclesiastical and patriotic functions are members of the Color Corps of the Fourth Degree, the ``visible arm'' of the Knights of Columbus. Of these four principles, Charity is the basic principle of the Order. Within the Order's ``Surge . . . with Service'' program, the major program areas are service to Church, Community, Family and Youth. Within these program areas, in 1998, the Knights of Columbus Order-wide raised and distributed $110,692,742 for charitable and benevolent causes. In addition, Knights worldwide volunteered a total of 55,033,160 hours of service to others. Of these total numbers for 1998, the 17 councils within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia raised and distributed $177,008 and volunteered a total of 109,756 hours in service to others in the four primary programs. Notable within these figures is the support to care of the elderly through The Little Sisters of the Poor (a relationship dating back to 1899), and to persons with developmental disabilities through support of the Lt. Joseph P. Kennedy Institute for the past three decades. Mr. Speaker, throughout the 117-year history of the Knights of Columbus and, most particularly the 100-year history of the District of Columbia State Council, the Order has been in the forefront of service to the Church, the Community, Families and Youth and, most especially, in service to the United States. The greatest gift of the Knights of Columbus to mankind is the truly personal commitment of time and energy individual knights and their families give of themselves to charitable and benevolent causes. The Knights of Columbus, within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia State Council are dedicated to maintaining and, indeed, increasing the level of service to others in the new Century and Millennium fast approaching. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in saluting the District of Columbia State Council of the Knights of Columbus for a century of selfless service and patriotism.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Universal Pre-Kindergarten and Early Childhood Education Act of 1999 (Universal Pre-K), a bill to begin the process of introducing universal pre- kindergarten into the nation's public schools by adding an additional grade in elementary school as an option for every 4-year-old child, and in some cases under 4, regardless of income. I seek to include my bill in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is scheduled to be reauthorized during this Congress. The authorization task will be to reshape the federal government's role to fit the challenges of the next century, which parents and school systems are already experiencing. In particular, the new science on brain development, decades of successful experience with high quality Head Start programs, and definitive data from an array of the best experts all indicate that the expansion of universal pre-kindergarten is the next frontier in education. The bill I introduce today adds a section to Title X, Part I of ESEA, entitled the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, aimed at using schoolhouses as centers of neighborhoods. Under this new program, any school district in the United States may apply to the Department of Education to fund pre-kindergarten educational classrooms. Grants funded under this Sec. 10905 of the ESEA totaled nearly $100 million during fiscal year 1999, at an average of $375,000 per three year grant. Universal Pre-K grants will seek to rapidly encourage school systems to permanently add pre-kindergarten classrooms to the elementary school grades and to their own school budgets, using the experience they acquire from the federally funded program. The bill will allow school districts throughout the United States to systematically begin organized 4-year-old classes to demonstrate how children respond to earlier child education. Districts will craft models for capitalizing on the elusive window for early brain development, and the pre-kindergartens will provide an alternative for desperate parents who today are left to daycare with little, if any, educational component, or to the homes of people with no background in child development. Because the programs must be in regular school buildings with teachers equivalent to those who teach in other grades, widespread problems with unqualified aids, non-compliant building codes or inadequate facilities will be eliminated automatically. The program in this bill would not displace existing daycare programs as an option. Its purpose is to encourage local school budgets based on demonstrated experience provided by grants under this bill. The new science shows that brain development determining lifelong learning begins much earlier in infants and children than was previously believed. The bipartisan Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues held hearings during the 105th Congress, which were among the first hearings to explore brain development in children from birth to age 3. Experts testified to new scientific evidence concerning the critical need for early brain stimulation beginning in infancy to assure that the child develops the necessary cognitive, linguistic, emotional and motor skills. During the early years, a child's brain begins to develop the neutral connections that lay the foundation for the rest of life. According to experts, the longer the brain grows without sufficient stimulation during these critical first years, the less likely the child is to develop fully the neutral connections needed for a wide variety of higher brain functions later in life. To lose the irreplaceable years at the beginning of a child's life when the brain is forming is to miss periods of development that cannot be retrieved. Early childhood education is not new, of course, but beginning education in the very first years has just begun to be deeply explored. As early as 1647, Massachusetts required that children as young as three years of age learn to read the Bible. German immigrants brought kindergarten, designed to be a ``play garden,'' to the United States in the mid-nineteenth century and often included children younger than 5 years of age. As early childhood education spread in this country in the latter part of that century, states such as Vermont and Connecticut incorporated kindergarten into the public school system. For the most part, however, the kindergartens of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were supported by philanthropists as a way to free low-income mothers to work and to provide education as a way out of poverty. Today kindergarten is a universal option in the United States. More recently, we have seen great success in many early education programs, including many Head Start programs, which target low-income children beginning at age three through third grade. The success of high quality Head Start and other pre-kindergarten programs combined with the new scientific evidence concerning the importance of brain development in the early years should compel the expansion of early childhood education to all of our children. Traditionally, early learning programs have been available only to the affluent who have the resources to take advantage of preschool opportunities and to poor families in programs such as Head Start, who may need extra help. Research on high quality early learning programs uniformly demonstrates that graduates are less likely to be arrested than other students; are less likely to be held back; are less likely to need special education; and are more likely to achieve a higher level of education attainment. Parents of children under age 5 who attend daycare pay an average of $79 weekly, or $4,000 annually. Yet, undergraduate tuition at the University of Virginia is about $4,800 annually and about $6,000 at the University of Michigan. Over 60 percent of mothers with children under age 6 work, a proportion that is increasing as more women pour into the workforce, including welfare-to-work mothers now rapidly moving to jobs. For the average family, the need is palpable and the expense is exorbitant. The vast majority of families cannot afford the cost of childcare, with the result that parents place their children wherever an accessible place can be found, regardless of quality. Even subsidized early childhood education reaches only a small fraction of low-income children. This bill seeks to demonstrate that we can achieve meaningful and significant gains in preparing American children for a lifetime of learning by taking fuller advantage of the early malleability of their developing brains at an early age. The absence of viable options for working families to educate their children at the most important stage in life demands our immediate attention. Considering the staggering cost of daycare, the inaccessiblity of early education, and the opportunity earlier education offers to improve a child's chances in life, 4-year-old kindergarten is overdue. I urge my colleagues to use the opportunity presented by the reauthorization of ESEA to make up for lost time by incorporating the Universal Pre-KindergartenAct.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Congressional Award Program. This program has an Olympian quality because it encourages young people to stretch to their limits. The difference is that they set the high goals themselves. The experience is that the self- initiated goals are set so high that only 400 of the 1,000 students who start the program complete it. Too often, we allow the impressive accomplishments of our youth to go unrecognized and unappreciated. We must encourage our young women and young men to strive to do their best in activities which develop themselves or their communities. The Congressional Award Program does just that by challenging students to set high goals for themselves in either personal development, physical fitness, or public service and provides them with recognition when they reach these goals. Last year I was proud to present seven awards representing a total of at least 400 hours of work to D.C. high school students, and this year, I believe that I will be able to award many more. I would like to recognize the 1998 recipients of the Congressional Award: Leidi Reyes of Bell Multicultural High School, Silver medal; Jehan Carter--Banneker Senior High School, Bronze medal; Christin Chism-- Bishop McNamara High School, Bronze medal; Brian Ford--Eastern Senior High School, Bronze medal; Miya Jackson--Eastern Senior High School, Bronze medal; Christiana Hodge--Eastern High School, Bronze medal; and Kate Ottenberg--Maret High School, Bronze medal. These young people's families and community are rightly proud of them. They are members of an elite group of only 400 young people across the country who completed the program. I ask my colleagues to support them by supporting the re-authorization of the Congressional Award Program through 2004.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the historic Ebenezer United Methodist Church, a beacon of hope and ``The Stone of Help.'' For 161 years, Ebenezer has been a leading church in the Nation's capital. To know something of Ebenezer's history is to understand why the city and the Congress have abundant reasons to celebrate the church's history and its continuing contributions. The history of Ebenezer United Methodist Church dates back to the beginning of Washington, D.C. In 1805, the meeting place of the Methodist Episcopal Church is known to have been a dwelling located on Greenleaf Point (South Capitol and N Street). The membership consisted of ``61 whites and 25 coloreds''. In 1807, the congregation moved to Dudley Carroll's barn on New Jersey Avenue, SE. In 1811, services were held in a newly constructed edifice at Fourth Street, SE between South Carolina Avenue and G Street. This first church built by Methodists in Washington was named the Fourth Street Station. In 1819, the church was renamed Ebenezer, and was later changed to the Fourth Street Methodist Church. At a later date, this Parent Church of Ebenezer Church was relocated to Fifth and Seward Square, SE, where the name was changed to Trinity Methodist Church. On April 30, 1961 Trinity United Methodist Church merged with three other churches to form the Capitol Hill United Methodist Church. In 1827 the ``colored'' membership had outgrown the galleries which were reserved for them in the Mother Church. A lot, located at the corner of Fourth and D Streets, SE, was purchased from Rachel and William Prout on April 27, 1838. A small frame church building was erected under the supervision of the pastor of the Mother Church with the assistance of three local preachers. The church was named Little Ebenezer, and Reverend Noah Jones became the first colored pastor in 1864. A private school for colored children was held there, and Reverend H. Henson served as the teacher. In the District of Columbia, as in other southern areas, education was considered the concern of the individual and not the community. As long as Negroes were a comparatively minor factor in the community, concern over their welfare was not a major consideration of the white population. After the start of the Civil War, the situation changed. Slaves in the District of Columbia were freed in 1962. Between 1860 and 1863, the local Negro population increased about 68 percent. Such an increase could not be ignored by the whole community. For the mutual benefit, private charitable agencies, associations, and individuals, northern and local, white and colored, began to recognize the need of assistance in this situation. In the Spring of 1864, the first public government sponsored school for colored children in Washington, D.C. was established and housed there. The teachers of the school were Miss Frances W. Perkins, sent by the New England Freedmen's Aid Society of Boston, who taught without pay, and Mrs. Emma V. Brown, a prominent colored worker who was employed by the District Columbia for $400.00 per year. Thirteen months later, because of the increasing student population, the school had to relocate to a new location at Second and C Street, SE and was named the Abraham Lincoln School. The significant increase in the congregation of Little Ebenezer necessitated the building of a larger church. The second church was planned by the Reverend Tillman Jackson in 1867, and built in 1870 under the pastorship of the pastorship of the Reverend C.G. Keys. Many dedicated pastors followed in this period including the Reverend George T. Pinckney, under whose pastorate the first Annual Conference was held in Ebenezer in 1885. During this period, the term ``Little'' was dropped from the name of the church. The Ebenezer Colored Station of the Washington Conference Methodist Episcopal Church was incorporated on September 28, 1891 at 2:00 PM. In 1896, the second church was damaged beyond repair during a severe storm. Reverend Matthew A. Clair, who later became Bishop, developed plans to construct a third church. Reverend John H. Griffin, who succeeded him, undertook the implementation and completion of the new church. In 1939, when the three branches of Methodism met and formed the Methodist Church, Ebenezer became Ebenezer Methodist Church. In 1968, the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church merged and formed the United Methodist Church. Ebenezer's namer changed to Ebenezer U.M.W. Church. In 1975, the Ebenezer U.M.W. Church was designated a Historical Landmark. Ebenezer continues to be known for her support of education for Black children and continues to strive to obtain quality education. From October through May, the Work Areas in Education of the church sponsors a tutoring program to help students who are having difficulty with reading and writing. Church school classes for children of all ages and Bible classes for adults are held every Sunday. The Saturday Concerns Program involves the youth of the church and the community. The church also conducts a Summer Enrichment Program and a Vacation Bible School. Mr. Speaker, we in the District of Columbia are happy to have the Congress join in recognizing Ebenezer for its many contributions to the Nation's capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has forced me and D.C. elected officials to the outrageous position of opposing our own appropriation. No local budget has any business here, but the least D.C. residents are entitled to is respect. Once their elected officials have submitted a frugal balanced budget, D.C. went even further. The local budget has tax cuts that the majority likes and a surplus, signalling that the city has pulled itself out of fiscal crisis. I ask for a no vote, not because of attachments. The District has long lived with attachments, and I would not ask for a no vote because of attachments alone. The opposition of the District is based on new and unprecedented inroads into self-government for the first time in 25 years of home rule. First, the bill takes funds slated for urgent District priorities and redirects those funds. In addition, not only have attachments grown more numerous, now they are prepackaged in the bill before it even goes to subcommittee. Further, whatever the District wins, fair and square, along the way, does not matter. The Committee on Rules simply reverses the vote and reinstates defeated amendments. We lose even when we win. Yet the District now has a new management-oriented Mayor with a proven track record of fiscal prudence and a revitalized City Council. If anyone has been reasonable during this process, I believe I am that Member. The bill has gotten this far not because it is fair to the District. It would never have gotten to conference except that I stretched to be fair to the Committee on Appropriations that had worked hard on a bill that had some features I supported. Even yesterday I asked the Committee on Rules to send the bill back as I considered new approaches that might satisfy all concerns. I believe, and Members who know me know I believe, in negotiation over confrontation. Many Members did not want to vote for an appropriation that had attachments they opposed. Many more simply did not want to be dragged into controversial local issues. Nevertheless, I counseled a yes vote because of promises made and of prospects for improvement. The bill passed only because many Members voted for it as a courtesy to me. Out of the same courtesy and out of respect for the people I represent, I now ask Members to oppose the conference report before us. The bill has grown worse in conference as the Senate simply piled on with unrelated additions, and the House made no improvements and kept no promises. The District should not be asked to grovel to get its own money. I stand here to put Members on notice that I will never grovel before this House to get the money to which we are entitled, our own money. Nor should the District be asked to live with automatic attachments and redirected local spending. If we do not send this bill back to conference, it will be vetoed. Mr. Speaker, the new city, the new District of Columbia that on its own might, with its own sacrifices, has risen from the ashes, deserves better. District of Columbia residents deserve much better.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, to clarify on the court suit, the measure in the bill keeps our corporation counsel, the one lawyer with expertise in District affairs, from even looking at the papers that had, in fact, been drawn by the private law firm, on his own time. When our corporation counsel did so on his own time, after getting permission of a court, a Member of this body wrote him and asked him to submit all of his leave records. If that is not extreme, the word needs a new definition.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, in one of the great ironies of this session, I am forced to ask for a no vote on the D.C. conference report that will come before us later today. My appropriation is actually a local budget with the old federal payment now abolished. Though the budget comes balanced, replete with tax cuts and a surplus, it has proved needlessly contentious here, dragging Members into local matters that most want to avoid as somebody else's business about which Members necessarily know little. The new Mayor, revitalized City Council and I cannot live with back- door approaches to weakened self-government. Take it straight from D.C. itself. We all ask for a no vote on the D.C. conference report.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his kind consideration. Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert

Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh). Mr. Chairman, I had intended to introduce an amendment, but have elected not to do so because the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) has agreed to engage in a colloquy with me, and I appreciate his willingness to do so. My amendment would have sought to extend for an additional year a provision that was included in the FY 1998 VA-HUD appropriation that states that the Federal share of grants awarded under title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for publicly owned treatment works in the District of Columbia shall be 80 percent. Currently the matching formula for water treatment projects in the District of Columbia is 80-20 because of a measure included 2 years ago by the VA-HUD chairman, at the time the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). I have spoken directly with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and he has indicated his support. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has already indicated his willingness to work with me in devising permanent language that could be included in a clean water funding bill that the committee intends to consider shortly. I also have the support of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, for extending the provision. The 80-20 match has been indispensable to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority in helping it to undertake necessary capital improvements. I intend to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) to obtain passage of legislation to make this change permanent. In the meantime, however, the provision that was passed 2 years ago is set to expire on December 30, 1999. Therefore, I must seek an additional 1-year extension so that important projects that WASA will be undertaking next year will not be jeopardized because of lack of funding. I would ask the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), I understand that you would like additional time to consider my request for a 1-year extension and that you would be amenable to working with me to have language included in the VA-HUD conference report. Is that the gentleman's understanding?

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Nationwide Gun Buyback Act of 1999 (NGBA), providing federal funds to local jurisdictions to engage in gun buyback programs like the successful program conducted by the District of Columbia last month. Under the bill, funds would be distributed through the Justice Department after evaluation of proposals, and added weight would be given to jurisdictions with the greatest incidence of gun violence. The NGBA would require that a jurisdiction certify that it is capable of destroying the guns within 30 days, that it can conduct the program safely, and that an amnesty appropriate for the jurisdiction will be offered. Not only individuals, but groups such as gangs could take advantage of the buyback provisions to encourage street gangs to disarm themselves. This bill is necessary because, despite the extraordinary demonstrated success of the gun buyback program in the District, local jurisdictions have no readily available funds for similar programs. The District was forced to find money on an ad hoc basis and ran out of funds despite many residents who still desired to turn in guns. Initially, the District conducted a pilot program using funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Confronted with long lines of residents, the Police Department then took the program citywide, using drug asset forfeiture funds. Even so, after using $290,000, the city ran out of funds, but not of guns that could have been collected. The guns were a ``good buy'' but hard- pressed jurisdictions, especially big cities, should not have to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to public safety. The federal government can play a unique and noncontroversial role in reducing gun violence by providing the small amount authorized by my bill, $50 million, to encourage buybacks efforts where they can be helpful. The District's gun buyback leadership needs to be taken nationwide because the nation's capital has successfully demonstrated a faster and easier way to get guns where criminals cannot use them and children and adults cannot misuse them. Gun buyback efforts are not new, but the recent, dramatic impact of the District's program has special bi- partisan and natural appeal today because the program is voluntary and requires no change in local laws. My bill has the added feature of skirting the present stalemate in the Congress, where we have yet to pass a gun safety bill. A gun buyback bill is certainly no substitute for gun safety legislation, but my bill is based on demonstrated and successful experience in a number of cities that have achieved voluntary compliance by citizens with local laws. Families, and especially mothers, have feared guns in their homes, but have not known how to get rid of them. In most jurisdictions, a grandmother petrified that there is a gun in the house cannot turn it in without subjecting herself or her grandson to prosecution. This dangerous unintended result of gun safety legislation is reason enough for gun buyback efforts. Like tax amnesty, gun amnesty temporarily puts a premium on the ultimate goal. When the goal is taxes, the government puts a premium on getting the amount owned. When the goal is guns, the premium is on getting deadly weapons off the streets and out of people's homes. The Columbine teen massacre, the Jewish Community Center shootings, and the Chicago area ethnic killings have come together with the urban gun violence that has plagued cities for years. The result is an American consensus for multiple approaches to fight the gun culture. The extraordinary success of the buyback programs in the District and around the country has shown that these programs should now be made readily available to jurisdictions that desire to use them. In a market economy, efforts to buy back trouble have special appeal. We may disagree on the various approach as to gun violence, but Democrats and Republicans alike can agree to this sensible approach. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the twenty years of work of the Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington. Founded in the fall of 1978, the Interfaith Conference has been recognized as ``the flagship of interreligious organizations.'' One of the most remarkable aspects of the Interfaith Conference is the diversity of its members--Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Latter-day Saints, Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Sikh faith communities. They have come together and achieved great success, especially in dialogue and in joint work on critical issues of social justice. There is a natural harmony among the faiths and the Interfaith Conference has found it in their work in this city and in this region. The Conference has found a way to act on faith in a spirit that does no violation to faith. The Washington Interfaith Conference has chosen to influence public life, consistent with faith, yet mindful of its purposes and limits. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this body join me in celebrating. The Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington and thanking its members, individually and collectively, for reminding us of enduring values--such as unfailing help to the needy--and for reinforcing enduring morals, civility in language, and in treatment of others.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I very much appreciate the remarks of the ranking member the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I do want to say that I know that the carpenters union is as grateful for the way in which this has been handled this evening as I am. I want to assure the House that the matter under construction has received already the approval of the appropriate Federal and local authorities and will continue to go through those approvals. We needed only now the approval of the House to make sure the construction could indeed proceed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, may I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for the way in which he has shepherded this matter through committee and to the floor. I am very grateful for the attention he has given it. May I also thank the distinguished ranking member the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his invaluable assistance in getting this matter to the floor this evening. I very much appreciate the work of my own chairman the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) who in committee today saw to it that this matter came and was expeditiously handled in the subcommittee itself. This straightforward resolution will allow the Architect of the Capitol to permit temporary construction and necessary other work on the Capitol grounds. The site is along Constitution Avenue in my district between Second Street and Louisiana Avenue Northwest and along Louisiana to First Street Northwest. The construction project will create a high end building with class A office space right here at the foot of Capitol Hill. The new building will be 10 stories high and will contain 500,000 square feet. The Architect has requested a resolution to permit the temporary closing of the curb lane along Louisiana Avenue and Constitution Avenue. Again I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for the very expeditious way in which he has handled this matter and for his continued support for activities that positively affect the economic health of the Nation's capital, the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.