Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) may have been ``talked to,'' as he said, by residents from the District of Columbia. Ninety percent of them voted for me, and I think that I am entitled to speak for them on the floor this afternoon. I respect the differences among us on gun issues. I ask only that my colleagues respect me and the people I represent by allowing us to tailor our gun laws to local demographic circumstances, just as my colleagues tailor their laws to their districts. Here, the Hunter amendment would inflame an already violence-prone atmosphere. It invites citizens to arm themselves. But they will never keep up with the criminals, thugs, and thieves in this town, according to our local police chief. At least now we put thugs to considerable inconvenience by making them find guns illegally. Although teen gun violence has brought us to our senses on the need for new gun laws, the Hunter amendment would allow teens, as young as 18, the troubled teens, the first to get ahold of guns in this city, to keep a gun in the Nation's capital. Violent youths could own guns at 18 legally because they were delinquent, not convicted as criminals. The Hunter amendment is so poorly and loosely drafted that individuals carrying concealed guns might convince a jury that they believe they were transporting them for a purpose allowed by the Hunter amendment. Many other unintended consequences overwhelm any legitimate purpose for allowing residents to arm themselves in their homes here. I do not know about my colleagues' towns, but in this town, guns in homes would lure criminals for break-ins and thefts, putting more guns on the streets. In this town, troubled teens, who most eagerly search out guns here, might find them at home instead of in the streets. In this town, kids would more likely find and use guns than adults thwarting criminals. In this town, with one of the highest domestic violence rates in the country, the last thing we need are guns to inject into family arguments. The Hunter amendment adds to these catastrophic results a new D.C. immunity from Federal laws enforced everywhere else in the U.S. The Hunter amendment nullifies ``any other provisions of law.'' Therefore, the Hunter amendment also wipes out Federal provisions, including the only provisions that deny handguns to fugitives, drug addicts, people under indictment and some felons, among others. A vote for the Hunter amendment is no vote for law-abiding citizens. The Hunter amendment is a vote to ease guns into the hands of troubled teens in this troubled city. The Hunter amendment is a vote the criminals in D.C. have been waiting for for 23 years.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that the Goode amendment shows disrespect for the people I represent, for democratic self- government and for me. But hear me. The Goode amendment threatens the majestic Federal presence as well as our citizens. Why? Because the Goode amendment makes it legal to sell bomb-making materials in the Nation's Capital by killing off the District's strict explosive regulation. The Goode amendment brings domestic terrorism purveyors here, increasing the risk to tourists and to the city's landmarks, including this very Capitol. How? The Goode amendment shoots the entire explosives and firearms scheme in the back. The Goode amendment demeans the very idea of a dignified capital. The Goode amendment makes the Nation's Capital the most lenient gun jurisdiction in the country. The Goode amendment encourages tourists to bring weapons to D.C., only to have them confiscated in this capital. I ask, after the killings of Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson in this building last summer, which of us would want to send the message that D.C. is a city with no handgun laws? Perhaps the strongest opponent of changes in the District's gun laws is D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey. Chief Ramsey reminds us that we lost three local police officers in 3 months' time in 1997. He says that his officers would be the first to face the consequences of increases in guns in homes when they make stops on the streets. We are dramatically bringing down gun killings in the District. Do not drive murders of citizens and cops up by killing off local gun laws here.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing unique about the District's handgun ban law. Dozens of cities have the exact same law across this United States. What the gentleman proposes is dangerous. He cannot even describe what would remain in place if his amendment were passed. For example, today one has to register annually under the existing regulations. Under pre 1976 rules, one can register once. Then if one became a criminal after registering once, so be it for the people in the District of Columbia. As to the gentleman's views about constitutionality, this law has been found constitutional. To quote the courts, ``the Act is a valid exercise of the City Council's legislative authority, and it offends no constitutional protection of appellees.'' Do my colleagues want to know about the Second Amendment? From the (Supreme Court) Miller case: ``The obvious purpose of the Second Amendment is to assure continuation and to render possible the effectiveness of State militia. It must be interpreted and applied with that view in mind.'' This is not a gun vote. This is a vote to stay out of somebody else's business. This is a vote to respect me, to respect the people I represent, to respect the laws that have been made in our local jurisdiction. This gentleman has some nerve. Most of the guns that are killing people in the District of Columbia come from the State of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode). They come from his State. Get off of my back. Get out of my business.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this loosely-worded law, for example, defines a law-abiding individual, who would carry a gun in the streets, as one who has not been convicted and served time. That leaves lots of felons who have not served time as an example of unintended consequences from the gentleman's bill. Domestic violence felons often do not serve time. But one of the main reasons one would want to vote against this amendment is who would indeed profit? First, criminals; secondly, troubled teens; third, accidental shootings by kids; fourth, increased shootings of D.C. cops; gun violence during family arguments; break-ins and theft of guns. That is what happens in big cities when guns are freely available. That is what would happen. I ask the Member to remember that the demographics of my district are as personal to me as his are to him.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on the grounds of the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home (USSAH) in Northwest Washington, D.C., sits one of our country's most historic buildings, the Anderson Cottage. Rarely visited and virtually unknown, it was the summer White House of three U.S. presidents: Chester Arthur, Rutherford B. Hayes,and, most notably, Abraham Lincoln. President Lincoln spent a quarter of his presidency living at the Soldiers' Home and it was in Anderson Cottage where he wrote the last draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. The building is in need of restoration, and the USSAH has been working with the National Trust for Historic Preservation to find funding to restore the building and open it up as an historic site. Anderson Cottage also is listed as one of the First Lady's ``Save America's Treasures'' sites. The following article illustrates the importance of this home, as well as the equally historic Soldiers' and Airmen's Home on which it sits. [From the Washington Times, March 18, 1999] Living Link to Lincoln Hidden in Plain Sight (By Catherine Watson) I went to Washington recently to look for links to one of the country's heroes. I wanted to explore the city that Abraham Lincoln knew, the Washington of the Civil War. Because I had only a few days, I thought I should choose the big names. But the highlight was a place I had never heard of--one of the least-visited of Lincoln sites and arguably the most important: Anderson Cottage. (See? I didn't think you had heard of it.) The cottage lies off North Capitol Street, on the grounds of what Lincoln knew as the Soldiers' Home, now the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, a handsome, 320-acre campus on high ground in the Northwest quadrant of the city. About 1,100 retired enlisted personnel live there, veterans from World War II through Vietnam. I parked near the house, walked up the wooden porch steps and entered a large room that would be familiar instantly to anyone who knows military posts. There was that same smell of governmental dust, the same kind of linoleum alternating with Veterans Affairs gray paint on the floor, even the same sickly pale green on some of the walls. I liked it. But there didn't seem to be much to see. Just how important is it historically? Very, said Kerri Childress, public affairs director for the home, whose office is in Anderson Cottage. This is where Lincoln finished the Emancipation Proclamation. Ms. Childress, a tall, slim woman with bright blond, short- cropped hair, has a contagious enthusiasm for the Soldiers' Home, its residents and Anderson Cottage. ``This really is a well-kept secret,'' she said. ``Even the Lincoln buffs are sometimes surprised.'' More surprising is how rarely it's visited: At most, 100 tourists a year find their way to the cottage. ``If this building were any place else, it would be a national shrine,'' Ms. Childress said. ``We make such a big deal out of Ford's Theater. Nothing happened there except that he died. This was where he lived. This was where he created. This was where he became Abraham Lincoln.'' Like many presidents, Lincoln had a summer White House, though I had never associated that plain man with such a luxury. This was it--a getaway that may have been the only place in Washington where he and his family had a semblance of normal life or anything approaching happiness. It's still fresh and countrylike, but now the Soldiers' Home is an island awash in city streets. During Lincoln's summers, it was well outside of smelly, muddy, crowded, insect-ridden Washington--a genuine country estate built for a local banker in 1840. The government purchased the property in 1850 to create one of the nation's first homes for veterans. The cottage was renamed at the start of the Civil War to honor Maj. Robert Anderson, the Union Commander of Fort Sumter, the bastion off the South Carolina coast where the first official shots were fired. Anderson Cottage was the first infirmary at the Soldiers' Home, the first guest house and, in 1954, the first dormitory for female veterans, Ms. Childress said. The gray-stucco cottage also served as summer White House for presidents Rutherford B. Hayes and Chester A. Arthur. President James Buchanan had his summer residence across the street. But it's the Lincoln connection that matters most. ``Secretary of War Edwin Stanton did not want Lincoln up here,'' Ms. Childress said. ``He felt they could not protect him out here.'' Stanton probably was right. From late June to early November, starting in 1862, Lincoln commuted virtually daily by horseback between the cottage and the White House, accompanied by 20 to 30 cavalrymen with their swords drawn. He didn't much care for the escort. Even so, Ms. Childress said, one night he arrived at the cottage without his stovepipe hat. It had been shot off his head. Anderson Cottage also is where John Wilkes Booth's first plot against the president was supposed to have been carried out. It was a kidnapping plan that later was abandoned in favor of a bullet. There, too, Mary Todd Lincoln held seances, trying to connect with the spirit of her son, Willie, who had died in the White House just three months before the Lincolns first came to Anderson Cottage. This also is where Mrs. Lincoln spent two months recuperating from an 1863 carriage accident. Some historians believe the carriage had been tampered with in an attempt on Lincoln's life, Ms. Childress said. Mrs. Lincoln refused to be taken to the White House after the accident. ``There was an open-door policy at the White House'' during the war, Ms. Childress said. ``I can only imagine the chaos.'' Besides, ``Mrs. Lincoln wasn't set up to be a politician's wife, especially a president's wife. What comforted her was this place.'' At Anderson Cottage, ``Lincoln did not entertain and did as little business as possible,'' Ms. Childress said. ``There is very little doubt in my mind that some of Lincoln's greatest thoughts and greatest writings took place in this house. This is the only place he would have had the solace and the quietude to do that.'' As the afternoon deepened into the winter twilight, Ms. Childress walked me across the drive to an ancient copper beech, a gigantic tree with a knobby trunk and a ring of low branches touching the ground. Where each touched, a young tree had sprung up. ``In summer,'' Ms. Childress said, ``it is like a big canopy.'' Lincoln took refuge in there, she said. When aides couldn't find him anywhere else, they would look for him under the swooping branches, where he often went to read. Sometimes he even played there. He climbed this tree a couple of times, she noted--once with his son Tad, another time with Stanton's children. I was awed. This tree knew Abe Lincoln--it's one of the few living things in this world that did. Back inside, I saw that the cottage was bigger than it looked--it's a ``cottage'' only if you compare it with a mansion such as the White House. The style is Gothic revival, and it still has its lacy white trim, big front porch and heavy interior moldings. Except for modern furniture and a few partitions, the layout of the house is about the way it was when the Lincolns knew it. The White marble mantelpieces are original. So is the simple wooden banister leading up the stairs from the entry hall. And the shutters folded into the window frames. And the sliding pocket doors on the ground floor--painted shut now, but still there. I wandered upstairs on my own and easily found the large second-floor room at the front of the house that had been Lincoln's bedfront. This was where he wrote the final draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. The room is sparely furnished--a Victorian dresser, a contemporary dining-room table ringed with modern chairs. But its appeal lies in its silence, not its furniture. It was dead quiet there the day I visited--genuinely peaceful. The only sound from outside was a plaintive bugle call as veterans lowered the flag for the day. I could imagine the tall, gaunt president leaning against the fireplace mantel or looking out the windows at the green lawn that still surrounds the cottage. He probably even looked through the same panes of glass. It hit me then: This place has more to do with Lincoln the president than any other shrine. More than his well-preserved home in Springfield, ILL. More than the frontier hamlet of New Salem, ILL. More than the White House itself. Here he was not only commander in chief, but also husband, father and human being. No wonder he would take risks to ride out here every chance he got. The house is structurally sound--always has been and always will be, Ms. Childress said: ``We will always take care of it.'' It's not restored, so it's not pretty, but it could be. Unfortunately, the Soldiers' Home doesn't have the money to do it. The home has been funded from its beginning by small deductions from enlisted men's pay--now 50 cents a month, plus any fines and forfeitures from disciplinary actions. It has never been supported by taxpayer dollars. But with the downsizing of the military, less money is coming in because there are fewer soldiers to fund the deductions. The effect has been ``devastating,'' Ms. Childress said, ``just devastating.'' A rescuer may be coming, however. The United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home is negotiating with the National Trust for Historic Preservation to have the trust take care of the cottage. Rather than having it become just another Victorian house with antique furniture. Ms. Childress said she hopes it can be used as a learning center for an array of related topics: the Civil War, the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln himself. But all that, she said, is still a long way off.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the Foggy Bottom Association as it celebrates forty years of service in one of Washington's oldest neighborhoods. The Foggy Bottom Association is not only one of the oldest, it is one of our most active and valuable associations. The Foggy Bottom Association's recorded history dates back to 1765 when Jacob Funk, a German immigrant, purchased and subdivided 130 lots between 24th and 19th Streets, NW and H Street to the river. This area, known as Hamburg, was the site of docks, glass factories, breweries, a gas works, and later stately homes and what were known as ``alley dwellings.'' Shortly after World War II, public and private developers moved in, building large residential complexes, highways, government and private office buildings, and cultural and educational centers. At the same time, run-down housing stock was being purchased and rebuilt by a mix of people who formed the core of what is now the Foggy Bottom Association. This organization was dedicated to protecting and promoting the neighborhood. Today, Foggy Bottom is an unusual mixture of homes, apartment dwellings, churches, hotels, restaurants, small businesses, large institutions and government agencies. Many old, historic buildings have been restored and are open to the public. Music, art, good fellowship, and lots of history are all part of the anniversary program which culminates on June 19, 1999--the day the Foggy Bottom Association was incorporated in 1959. Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of this body to join me in celebrating the Foggy Bottom Association and congratulating the membership for their commitment to the preservation and protection of one of our treasured neighborhoods.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) is an urgently needed bill whose time is long overdue. Our country needs to wake up to the true meaning of the word ``infrastructure'' today. Those whose view of infrastructure stops with roads and bridges will find that they are more a part of the 19th century than the 21st. Further delay in passing AIR-21 is likely to leave the country with a national aviation system stalled in the past as well. The underfunding of our air infrastructure system has become a threat to our global economic position. Neglected investment has gone on for so many years now that it amounts to disinvestment. Reports concerning the effects of underfunding are frightening. For example, the U.S. will require a 60% increase in airport infrastructure investment in the next decade simply to maintain the levels of delay tolerated in air service in this country today. Instead of increasing productivity to keep up with exploding increases in air travel (a 50% increase in the next decade alone), airlines are racking up record delays at a cost of $2.5 billion annually and a loss in productivity to the nation of over $1 billion every year. How long can our airlines remain competitive with foreign carriers, many of them publicly subsidized, at that rate? The needs of our aviation system are legion from top to bottom: from runways to terminals; from hiring air traffic controllers to modernizing our antiquated air traffic control system; from funding to raise safety standards at small airports to a new streamlined environmental program patterned on the TEA-21 program; from loans to help airlines buy regional jets for service to small communities to increased funding for primary airports and major hubs. Some say we cannot afford this bill. It is clear that we cannot afford the continued neglect of what was once a world class air transportation system. Part of the delay in bringing this bill to the floor has had very little to do with the funding and budgetary provisions of AIR-21. The manipulation of slots for landings has delayed this bill and hurt the great majority of airports for which the slot concern is irrelevant. Slot manipulation has spread from National Airport in the Washington metropolitan region to three other airports. However, National Airport raises problems of the greatest magnitude because its compact land mass and short runways prevent it from ever becoming a state-of-the-art airport. The present slot rule at National Airport has been considered minimally necessary because of the unusually heavy population density near the airport, the clear safety risk, and the palpable noise intrusions. Some residents of the region justifiably complain about any new increase in slots. Even with the present slot and perimeter rule, airport noise is one of the factors that drives taxpayers to flee from the District, a city desperately trying to hold on to residents as the city emerges from a fiscal crisis. Nevertheless, Chairmen Shuster and Duncan and Ranking Members Oberstar and Lipinski deserve the appreciation of the region for resisting the greatly expanded slot rules advocated by a few in the Senate. I have strongly opposed any additional slots. However, I must express my gratitude that the leadership of the House Committee has accommodated the unique needs of the national capital area region. The compromise allows for 6 additional slots per day, and none of the additional flights may venture outside the existing 1,250-mile perimeter restriction. The excellent, painstaking work that has gone into this bill cannot keep it from facing a long, hard road ahead. It will be difficult enough to secure sufficient funding to do the job necessary to preserve and advance our national aviation system. However, we will face a fight of special ferocity to maintain the slot compromise contained in this bill, even with the House Committee leadership firmly behind the compromise. I do not underestimate the fight ahead. It is the right fight. It is the least the people of the District of Columbia and this region deserve. I intend to make that fight.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 105, as amended, authorizes use of the Capitol grounds for the Law Enforcement Torch Run in support of the Special Olympics World Games. In 1999, the World Games will be held in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, from June 26 through July 4. Mr. Speaker, law enforcement departments have adopted the Special Olympics as the event of choice for their nationwide support, and all law enforcement officers support the games. For this event, one law enforcement officer from each State will carry the torch from Washington, D.C., to Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. The World Games are held every 4 years. The flame of this year's games was lit on Mt. Olympus and will arrive on June 18 at the District of Columbia police dock and will be carried through the District to Capitol Hill for a ceremony. This Special Olympic Games are a worthy endeavor, and I join in supporting this resolution. We are very happy to welcome these Games in the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 91, as amended, authorizes use of the Capitol grounds for a sporting recruitment event to be held in August, sponsored by the U.S. Luge Association. The association, based in Lake Placid, New York, is the national governing body of the Olympic sledding event. The association conducts a summer recruiting program to introduce the sport to youngsters. The most promising athletes receive a further invitation to attend a 1-week training session. This year's recruiting program involves visiting 10 cities, including Washington, DC. The program is over 10 years old has been highly successful, with several athletes being selected for the U.S. Olympic team. This event will provide a new and different use of the Capitol grounds here in the Nation's Capital. I join the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey), my colleague, in supporting this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the brief and fruitful life of Louis Matthews surely gives us an appreciation for what firefighters face and what we have lost. Seven years in the Department, only 29 years old, Firefighter Matthews spent his entire short but productive, adult life serving the people of the nation's capital, and finally gave his life for them. Firefighters are known to be a breed apart and to have their own culture. That culture has developed from the fact that they are like no other civil servants. Not only do firefighters work together, they live together, and they await the possibility of injury or death together. Two died in this fire, and two were seriously injured. One of the injured, Charles Redding, lived to attend both funerals. Joseph Morgan is very seriously injured and still in the hospital. Anthony Phillips was killed in the fire. Yes, they live and die together. Firefighters are very much like soldiers in a battalion ready and waiting for the next battle. I know something of their culture. I am a proud member of a firefighter family. My grandfather, Lt. Richard Holmes, became a District of Columbia firefighter in 1902. I am still approached in the streets by people who remember him--he lived to be 96. I give some credit to the Fire Department for his physical and mental fitness and for the fact that he played a cutting game of badminton with his grandchildren in his 80's and 90's. And, I am grateful to the Department for giving me a picture of my grandfather standing in uniform as a part of Engine Company No. 4. As I have my memories of my grandfather, Firefighter Matthews family will cherish theirs.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in my conversation with Lysa Phillips, the very young widow of Firefighter Anthony Phillips, I have been struck by her personal strength and her inner peace. I have deeply admired how she has drawn on the strong bond and deep love she and Firefighter Phillips shared and the extraordinary devotion that Firefighter Phillips had for his children, his family, and his work. So strong was his love for his family, his God, and his work that his love has made Lysa and his family especially strong. Again and again, we are told that Firefighter Phillips loved his work. We are indebted to brave young firefighters, like Firefighter Phillips, who love their work and who, unlike us, neither fear nor shun danger, but rush to conquer it. We give thanks for the young, loving life of Anthony Phillips and we honor him for his courage and his sacrifice. In remembering Firefighter Phillips, we are especially mindful of the men and women of the Department he has left behind to carry on his work of confronting danger whenever and wherever it appears. To properly remember Firefighter Anthony Phillips is to remember the members of the District of Columbia Fire Department and their indispensable mission, the debt we owe him, and the debt we owe them.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to commemorate the lives of two brave young firefighters who gave their lives in a fire in the District while Congress was out of session. Both firefighters were born and raised in the Nation's Capital. The loss is not only to their families but to the Congress of the United States and to this city, where D.C. firefighters prepare every day to do what is necessary to protect both hometown Washington and official Washington, including the Members of this House. Anthony Phillips of Engine Company No. 10 worked the busiest fire house in the Nation. Only 30 years old, he was the father of two boys, one 21 months old, the other 6 years old. Firefighter Phillips married his childhood sweetheart, Lysa. They were a deeply loving couple and family. Louis Matthews of Engine Company No. 26 was only 29 years old but served 7 years as a D.C. firefighter. He leaves a loving family, including his mother, Cassandra Shields, and two young children. Members of this body have been mindful of the risks firefighters face and the sacrifices that their families could be called upon to make. I am grateful that the 105th Congress passed my bill, the Officer Brian Gibson Tax Free Pension Equity Act, that allows the families of firefighters killed in the line of duty to receive survivors' benefits tax free. They did their duty, and I am grateful that we did ours.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time, because I would like to devote my time to why I think there is confusion about this amendment. The gentleman may be a doctor, but in drawing his amendment it is clear that he is not a lawyer. He says he has drawn an amendment to stop the FDA from approving RU-486. The language he has used instructs us on an amendment to stop the FDA from testing drugs that can treat cancer, high blood pressure, ectopic pregnancy, fibroids, epilepsy. The list is very long. The reason is that although the gentleman mysteriously says that he would accept an amendment to limit the language, he does not propose language of that kind. Why has he brought broad language here? The reason that his language is defective is that, in the law, it is overinclusive and overbroad. Therefore, in the words he used, it must have unintended effects. In the law it is called a chilling effect. What that means in this case is that a pharmaceutical company will not come forward with a drug that may cure cancer because that company believes it may be sued because of the overinclusive language he has used. It ought to stop every Member in this body when they know that every chemotherapy drug can cause a miscarriage. If, in fact, this amendment had been in the law at the time these drugs were being produced, people who are alive today by the hundreds of thousands would be dead. I ask you, how many people would be dead today if we consider how many drugs are on the market that have unintended effects that none of us could possibly approve, deadly effects? That is why politics and medicine, or politics and science are like oil and water. You get into politicians overreaching when you insert political judgments into what should be only scientific matters. Nor is this one of those great ethical issues on the frontiers of science, where ethicists and politicians have some reason to intrude, because abortion is legal, and I regret to say that miscarriages are also legal. We are entitled to ask, where does it begin, where will it end? I believe we must today let it end with legitimate scientific research. If we care anything about the many drugs that will be stopped by this amendment, we must defeat the Coburn amendment.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 197, introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) on January 6, 1999, designates the United States Postal Facility at 410 North 6th Street in Garden City, Kansas as the Clifford R. Hope Post Office. Mr. Hope was a former Member of Congress representing the 7th congressional district in Kansas from 1927 to 1957. His political career began in the Kansas House of Representatives, where he served as Speaker of the Kansas House. Following his election to Congress, Mr. Hope became Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture. I am pleased to honor such a distinguished colleague, and we are pleased to support this bill from this side of the aisle.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I could not agree more with the words of the gentleman, and so much so that I want him to know that I will be working with the city to see if residents can use this bill beginning with this school year. If they tool up, I think that they can make it happen, even though our fiscal year begins October 1 and school usually begins in August and September. I thank the gentleman again for his leadership and for his great assistance on this bill.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the words of our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), this bill in and of itself will encourage youngsters to go to college in the first place who simply would never have tried, despite their qualifications. They know full well that they have the money only for a semester or for a year, and now with this bill, providing 4 years of tuition to go to college, what we have here is a bill that encourages youngsters to do well in school, in junior high school and in high school. The District of Columbia College Access Group that is supplementing our own efforts with private funds has indicated that it was astonished at how many of our youngsters simply drop out of college after getting into college and earning the right to go to college. The gentleman from Virginia has indicated something very important here, and that is that these youngsters have to get into college in the first place. So here we have an incentive to do well enough to get into college, and what this will do for youngsters is indicated by reference to the gentleman's own premier university, the University of Virginia, one of the best colleges in the United States. Well, a youngster in Virginia, no matter what the family income, from the richest to the poorest, pays less than $5,000 to go to one of the best universities in the United States. If a youngster from my side of the river applies to go to University of Virginia, those parents must come up with about three times that amount of money, or $16,000. Imagine what it means to my taxpayers to know that they can encourage a youngster to compete to go to UVA or to go to University of Maryland and that the parents will be able to afford that. I want to mention something else to the gentleman. The gentleman from Virginia and I have fought very hard for this bill to be nationwide, and I want to inform the gentleman that he and I are going to have to continue that fight. Our bill says that if one gets into the University of Michigan, if one gets into a junior college in Texas, they can take this money and have it follow the student, and we are going to have to fight for that provision. And I think that is a very important provision, as much as I admire the roster of colleges in Maryland and Virginia, but I want to encourage youngsters to fly, to broaden their horizons, and this is a provision we are going to have to fight for. One of the reasons that I want us to fight for this provision is that they have other bills introduced which do not have nationwide application, but the reason they do not have nationwide application is because there is a need to make sure that there is enough money. The bill that the gentleman and I have worked on recognizes that it may be necessary to circumscribe the bill based on the amount of money. So the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), and I have delegated to the mayor of the District of Columbia, whomever he appoints, the task of drawing the bill in to fit the funds. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) has acted wisely in this regard, not only for home rule reasons, because, of course, the mayor and those closest on the ground know best, but because we do not want to have the first year or two some of these funds go unused because we have prematurely circumscribed who can, in fact, get these funds. How silly we would feel if, because some youngsters may get scholarships to private schools, they do not want to go to school in Maryland and Virginia, we have leftover funds from this bill that could desperately be used by a student who has achieved admission to the University of Michigan or the University of Alabama, but cannot go because from on high, in the capital of the United States, we have without any data and any way to get any data circumscribed how the bill should be drawn. Let me finally say that the gentleman has often spoken with good reason about the extraordinary number of jobs in the region, one of the fastest-growing technological regions in the country that has jobs that cannot be filled, and they are all the way from jobs way down on the technological ladder to way up. Our own State university has not had the technology to adequately prepare students for these jobs with the grant to allow UDC to become a historically black college and university. We go a long step toward preparing youngsters for jobs in the regions since that money will be used for technology and infrastructure and, of course, within State tuition, allowing our youngsters access to some of the best schools in the United States. We, of course, allow them to get the preparation necessary to make our regional jobs available to everyone in our region including the residents of the District of Columbia. I want to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that his own hard work on this bill has been absolutely indispensable. Where we have worked together trying to fashion a bill that he and I could both agree upon, we have reached out to the residents in order to find what their concerns were from the private colleges who wanted to make the kind of private college alternative available here that is available in Virginia. We have reached out to UDC where there are students who cannot possibly take advantage of out-of-State tuition and because we have worked so closely together and worked with the Secretary of Education and with members of the administration, we have reached a bill that we think fits and serves the residents of the District of Columbia. He spoke, the chairman spoke, about the students at Eastern High School, and I do not believe that he exaggerated when he spoke about how absolutely thrilled these youngsters were to think of going to school outside of the District of Columbia, to have their opportunities broadened so spectacularly with one bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the members of my committee and the leadership of the full committee for a Herculean effort not only in designing this bill but in working with the Speaker and the minority leader to bring this bill forward so that it could get and achieve early passage so early in the 106th Congress.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The District of Columbia College Access Act before us is but one example of a series of bipartisan bills benefiting the residents of the Nation's capital on which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and I have worked since he became chair of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I want particularly to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his indispensable leadership on legislation that has been critical to the rescue of the Nation's capital from fiscal crisis. I particularly appreciate his work on H.R. 974, the District of Columbia College Access Act, a bill that signals the move of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia from crisis to rebuilding. May I also take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) who has treated the city's problems with great attention and urgency, always moving bills quickly and helpfully; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) whose assistance and wise counsel has been much appreciated; and the members of the subcommittee, all of whom support H.R. 974 and have contributed to this and other bills that have rescued the Nation's capital. The committee, the subcommittee and the administration have worked closely together on H.R. 974 in an indispensable collaboration. We have worked closely with officials of the administration including Mrs. Clinton, Secretary Richard Riley and Assistant Secretary Scott Fleming in crafting H.R. 974. I want to particularly thank the President, who included funds for this bill in his own budget, raising substantially the amount that would otherwise have been available. In its three features, H.R. 974 goes a considerable distance toward offering District residents and students the State public higher education available to residents of the 50 States. Funds are authorized for grants for students to attend State colleges and universities anywhere in the United States at in-State rates for a limited private college alternative, such as some States offer to broaden the State's option, and for the District's own public admissions university, the University of the District of Columbia. The central feature of H.R. 974 is authorization for funding for students to attend any State college or university where admission has been granted at in-State tuition rates. This provision is essential because unlike every State in the Union, the District has only one public institution of higher education, an open admissions university. One size does not now and never has fit all in higher education and certainly not in today's fast-moving technological society. In addition, the in-State tuition provision is critical to keeping and attracting taxpayers, the sine qua non for the continuing recovery of the city. The cost of higher education is so high today that it alone drives many parents with children out of the city. H.R. 974 also provides more limited funding for private colleges in the District, Maryland and Virginia, just as States often offer some funding for private college attendance in order to increase the diversity of options students need today. Encouraged by H.R. 974, the private sector is raising an even larger amount to help District students prepare for and attend college. Business leaders in the District and the region approached the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), and me some months ago, disturbed that many students in the District did not go to college or dropped out for lack of funds. These leaders have raised nearly $20 million in private funds to supplement money D.C. parents and students raise or win on their own. They suggested that in-State tuition rates could greatly enhance the educational opportunities they were raising funds to expand. Thus, H.R. 974 is a true public-private effort with the private sector, more than equaling what we do here today. The symmetry and opportunities in this bill take higher education in the Nation's Capital a great distance toward providing D.C. residents with equal opportunity, compared with opportunities routinely available the residents of the States. Many students can now go out of State. Some will remain in the District to get limited funding to attend private colleges and universities in the district or go to Maryland and Virginia with such funds. Many more will attend the District's own open-admissions State university that allows any student to qualify for admission to college. The UDC pool of students will not be able to take advantage of the in-State provision. Two-thirds of UDC students work, many have families, many go to college after years in the work force. Despite severe financial hardships resulting from the fiscal crisis including a 6-week shutdown, entering freshman enrollment rose dramatically by 70 percent in only 1 year. This extraordinary growth is the best evidence that D.C. residents must also have their own State university in addition to the out-of-State options provided in this bill. In the State tuition and UDC provisions, H.R. 974 tries to achieve a mirror image of what D.C. parents and students would have if they lived in other jurisdictions. Residents who have stuck with the city during the tough times when so many have left deserve some encouragement to remain. The fact that there is near unanimous support in the city for this bill is some indication that it is probably already having the effect of encouraging residents to remain in the District. What we do here today is a step along the way of assuring equal citizenship for District residents. H.R. 974 addresses a critical educational deficit that not only affects students and other residents, but the revitalization of the city itself. No longer will D.C. youngsters be the only Americans without access to the full complement of the State university systems that are routinely available to the residents of every State as a matter of right. I want to again not only express my personal thanks to the leaders of my committee and the members of my subcommittee. I want also to assure the House that the parents and the children of the Nation's Capital are particularly grateful for the opportunities provided in the District of Columbia College Access Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 100 was introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service. H.R. 100 establishes designations for United States Postal Service buildings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) has named post offices after three great community leaders: the late State Senator, Roxanne H. Jones, the late State Senator Freeman Hankins, and the late Max Weiner, a tireless advocate for consumer rights. I am pleased to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) in honoring such fine individuals. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1191 was introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is the sponsor of a bill to designate four postal facilities in the 7th Congressional District of Illinois. The four individuals the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) seeks to name these postal facilities for have a long history of being servants, activists, heroes and heroines in their respective communities. In fact, the first person, the honorable Cardiss Collins, is a former Member of Congress, well-known to many Members of this body and fondly remembered still. She served as ranking member of this very committee, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, before she retired in 1996. Representative Collins represented the residents of the 7th Congressional District for almost 24 years. I must take a moment to express my special and personal pleasure at this bill in Cardiss Collins' name. She was a dear and distinguished colleague in this House, much revered on both sides of the aisle here. When I was elected to Congress in 1990, she had served for some years then as the only black woman in the Congress, because others had left. During that time and for her entire career here, however, she was known for her devotion, not only to her Chicago constituents and to women and to people of color, but for her dedication to the American people. Cardiss Collins is remembered here for her astute judgment, for her ability, for her collegiality and for her dedication. It is a special pleasure to speak to this bill in particular, and I know that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) will regret that he was detained on an airplane and unable to perform this particular service for a woman I know is also his very good friend. The second postal facility is named for Otis Grant Collins, who, prior to his death in 1992, was recognized as one of the premier activists in apprenticeship training in this country. In addition, while serving as state representative in the Illinois General Assembly, he was a champion of laws that protected minority communities from redlining. The third postal facility is named for Mary Alice Ma Henry, who, prior to her death in 1995, was recognized as one of Chicago's most caring and compassionate community activists. She is remembered as a courageous leader for the poor, uninsured and the left out of our society. In 1976, the Mary Alice Ma Henry Family Health Center was dedicated and now serves over 20,000 patients every year. The fourth postal facility is named after former state representative Robert LeFlore, Jr., who, prior to his death in 1993, was recognized as a leading advocate for the disadvantaged and the underprivileged. He was a tireless worker on behalf of seniors and children, and his contributions will be remembered for a long time. These individuals represent the best of Chicago and the nation. Their contributions have been significant and their legacies have been embedded in the communities they touched. I am pleased to sponsor this bill on behalf of some of the great African American leaders in the Chicago community and in our country.

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1377 was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), on April 13, 1999. This measure designates the United States Postal Service facility located at 13234 South Baltimore Avenue in Chicago as the John J. Buchanan Post Office Building. Mr. Buchanan is a City of Chicago alderman who recently retired as a life-long resident and public servant of Chicago's 10th Ward. He has resided in Chicago his entire life. John Buchanan serves on the board of directors of several community organizations, including the south Chicago YMCA and Trinity Hospital Governing Council. We are pleased to support this naming bill for John J. Buchanan.

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