Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), in bringing to the House Floor five postal-naming bills. These five measures have met the Committee on Government Reform requirement and enjoy the full support and cosponsorship of their respective House congressional delegations. All of these bills were reported unanimously out of the Subcommittee on Postal Service and the full committee. I urge their immediate consideration and approval. 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 thank the gentleman for yielding and I particularly thank him for his leadership on this special order, because there is a hunger and a thirst in the American public for this legislation and for education about this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this chart came home to the American people finally in Littleton and in Georgia. Close to 60,000 deaths during the tragic Vietnam War for 11 years. That is compared to 11 years at home, close to 400,000 deaths, increasingly the deaths of children. The reason that so many of us on both sides of the aisle cannot go home for Memorial Day without a bill is that we cannot face our constituents without a bill, not after the massacre in Littleton and the attempted massacre in Georgia. I want to focus for just a few minutes on gun shows, because frankly I was ignorant until recently of the fact that anybody can buy a gun at a gun show free of any Federal requirement. I am sure most of the public does not know that there is no Federal requirement that says that a person with a mental defect has to be checked before buying at a gun show, with a felony conviction has to be checked before buying at a gun show, or even that a child has to be checked before buying at a gun show. Remember that some of the guns used in Littleton were bought at a gun show. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) was on the floor earlier. He is from the district adjoining mine. My district has an absolute ban on guns of any and every kind. As I speak, my district is flooded with guns of every kind. Many of those guns come from gun shows in Virginia, because anybody can buy a gun at gun shows in Virginia. Maryland also provides guns through gunrunning into the District of Columbia. That is why we need Federal law and Federal regulation. State by State is almost useless, given how porous are the boundaries in our country. We can go from one place to the other. You do not have to go through any kind of check to go from one place to the other, and it is a free country and we would not want you to have to go through a check. But we do want to contain these guns so that we can begin to deal with these contrasts. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, and I sat on a special hearing before the Georgia incident where we heard astounding testimony from the GAO on how easy it is to buy .50 caliber sniper rifles from legitimate dealers, leave aside gun shows. Now, a .50 caliber sniper rifle is a rifle that can penetrate armor if you stand out on the back steps of the Capitol and aim it toward the Lincoln Memorial. The GAO went undercover and asked for .50 caliber weapons of the kind, to use their words, that would pierce a limousine or bring down a helicopter. My friends, this is the Nation's capital. The people who ride in limousines and helicopters are Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and members of the Cabinet. What this says, of course, is that even here, someone who wanted to take out anybody from the highest official to an ordinary citizen anywhere in the city or the region could buy a gun from a legitimate dealer, even telling them virtually that that is what they wanted to do. Imagine what a person with a mental defect could do by going to a gun show. We must remember that this very building was the site of the assassination of two brave Capitol policemen. That gun was shot by a schizophrenic man. At a gun show, he might easily have purchased such a weapon. The long and short of it, my friends, is that what we have in this country is massive gunrunning across the borders, between one State and another, sometimes shipped in large numbers. The result is that in the large cities such as the one I represent, the District of Columbia, the murders take place one by one. Now in the suburbs the murders take place in groups, by massacre. Choose your style. The difference is the same. They are all our children. I focus on gun shows this evening because of the ages of the youngsters in the last two incidents. A 15-year-old in Georgia, a 17 and an 18-year-old in Littleton. These are precisely the ages of children that could go into a gun show today in many States and purchase a weapon. Sometimes we are told that what was passed in the Senate the other day will not make much difference, it is at the margins, why pass it? The simple answer to that is if it will not make much difference, then pass it. If in fact those who cherish guns think that these bills will not hurt them very much, then pass the bills. There will be some slight inconvenience to the legitimate public, but who would say that that inconvenience would not be worth it if the lives of only a few children were saved? And may I remind the House that most of the deaths we will never hear about because they are accidental deaths. We hear about the massacres, we hear about the drive-by shootings. But when these guns are kept in homes, they are most often used accidentally by family members or friends within the homes. The 15- year-old youngster broke into a locked chest to get the gun that he used in suburban Georgia last week. The silent deaths, the accidental deaths will be reduced, and certainly the deaths that have outraged the country will be reduced if we pass the modest legislation that came forward finally from the Senate last week. That is the very least this House can do if we want to make sure that this gap never appears again in our country.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine for yielding, but I especially thank him for his consistent leadership on this very important issue. Yesterday, in the District of Columbia, I had my Senior Legislative Day. There I released the study for the District of Columbia entitled, Prescription Drug Pricing in Washington DC: Drug Companies Profit at the Expense of Older Americans. That study was prepared by the minority staff of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on which both the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and I serve. The gentleman's bill is very important, but it is a very moderate bill. It would only level the playing field so that seniors can take advantage of bulk pricing the way many Americans, most of them younger than seniors, already do. I do not have any problem with bulk pricing. It is a standard American practice. In fact, it is a standard practice throughout the world. In the case of the drug companies, the bill of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) would allow them to share some of the profits, they are now hoarding $25 billion a year, by spreading the standard practice of bulk buying more widely to cover those who can least afford to buy their drugs individually. But I want to say right here and now that while I support the gentleman's bill, I am a cosponsor of the gentleman's bill, I believe that we can afford a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, and I want to say why. There has been a revolution in American medicine. At the time that Medicare was passed, seniors could go to the drugstore and for a couple of dollars, buy the couple of pills that were available for what ails them. Today there has been a shift from invasive procedures to drug therapy, in effect. If I could ask the gentleman a question, does the gentleman know whether there has been a study as to how much the use of drugs and medicines is saving the Medicare program?

Ms. NORTON. I raise the question for the gentleman only because this much seems clear: We are forcing down costs in the Medicare program. Nothing is forcing down the costs of drugs. So I would wager that there are billions of dollars being saved by the Medicare program by not having to pay for drugs. What I am suggesting is that precisely because they are saving that money, that the Medicare program ought to allow some of those costs to shift to the program itself. After all, that program is willing to pay for the most costly procedures if prescribed by a physician, but it is not willing to pay for procedures under the direction of a pharmacist. This is absolutely irrational. The cost is greatly out of proportion and is quite outrageous. We will pay for institutional care by allowing a senior to spend down her resources until she gets nursing home care paid for entirely by Medicaid, but we will not pay for a drug benefit that will keep her out of a nursing home altogether. Seniors cannot possibly take this much longer. I cannot believe that the seniors who have saved colas and social security will not force prescription drugs into their Medicare. If we are going to change how we treat people from invasive procedures and save the taxpayer money, then it seems to me we have a moral obligation to shift some of that savings to seniors who are on limited incomes and cannot possibly continue to shoulder the burden they are shouldering now. In the report done for my own district, we found that my seniors were paying 137 percent more than preferred customers. An example, and that is six times, by the way, more than they pay for other consumer goods, an example was Synthroid, a thyroid hormone drug where the drug to the preferred customer is $1.75 a dose, and $31.43 a dose to the senior. The gentleman's bill, minimally, must be passed, and it must move us on to making prescription drugs a benefit of Medicare.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating National Older Americans Month in the District of Columbia. District of Columbia seniors will come to the National Arboretum in the District of Columbia on Tuesday, May 18th for an afternoon of information about the programs Congress provides for senior citizens, for entertainment, and for lunch. Our senior citizens have earned this information and celebration I have for them each year at a place of interest in the District. We have celebrated National Older Americans Month at the National Cathedral, the FDR Memorial, the National Zoo, museums, and similarly interesting settings, some of which our seniors rarely get to visit. The growing number of senior citizens in the District, one third of whom are over 80, have contributed to the best days of the nation's capital. As young people, they helped build this city to its strongest point, and as seniors today, they are helping to bring revitalization to the District. Senior citizens in my District want the 106th Congress to know that the Social Security and Medicare programs have done more to make their senior years secure and healthy than any programs ever enacted by the Congress. Today, the Social Security program alone has taken one out of every three elderly Americans out of poverty and has rescued 60% of elderly women from poverty. In 1997, almost half of all elderly Americans would have had incomes below the poverty line without their Social Security benefits. Today's seniors have fought hard to preserve their Social Security. Those who worry most about Social Security are younger baby boomers and their children. This Congress must make sure that the progressive benefit structure with annual increases is available for generations to come. Far more problematic and worrisome for the District's seniors is the future of Medicare. At my Senior Legislative Day, I want to focus my own constituents on the immediate problems of Medicare, which runs out of money in 2008. Seniors, like other Americans, are being directed to HMOs in order to allow the program to achieve cost savings. Yet, already, we see many of the HMOs dropping seniors because the federal government has been unwilling to fund sufficiently these HMO senior programs. We have not met the challenge of doing what must be done for Medicare--making the savings necessary to save the program while assuring seniors that the benefits are sufficient to make the programs worth saving. Passage of the President's Patients' Bill of Rights is a crucial part of this effort. On May 18th, the District's seniors will also be discussing the intolerable costs of prescription drugs not covered by Medicare. The Congress has not yet faced the challenges of the increasing use of costly medicines which are being used instead of more costly invasive procedures. The burden of these costs has been put entirely on seniors. It is a burden they cannot bear and should not bear. Medicare has been a virtually universal program, with virtually all Americans covered, regardless of income. The need for healthcare tends to increase with age. It is certain that Medicare has saved and lengthened millions of American lives. On May 18th, at my Seniors Legislative Day, I intend to assure the seniors of the District of Columbia that I will have no greater priority than preserving Medicare. I ask the 106th Congress to help me keep that promise.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this very timely and solemn resolution to the floor and the gentleman from Colorado for introducing it. I rise to pay honor and respect to the officers of this country who have been slain in the line of duty. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Congressional Black Caucus sponsored a compelling hearing on police brutality in this country, which tragically has gone up as crime has gone down, especially in many black and Hispanic communities. The Nation's capital has been number one in police shootings of civilians. These are matters that must be answered and attended to. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I reported at that hearing that there is enormous respect and appreciation for police officers in the District of Columbia as residents have clamored for more of them, particularly as we now come out of one of the worst crime epidemics in our history. The depth of the feeling was revealed especially during the 1990s when 11 police officers in the District of Columbia lost their lives in the line of duty. There was deep feeling, as well, in the District and across the Nation at the tragic slayings of Officers Chestnut and Gibson and, of course, of other public safety officers in the District of Columbia and throughout the country. One of these especially brutal killings in the District led me to introduce, and Congress to pass, the Brian Gibson Tax-Free Pension Equity Act, which allows the family of a slain Federal or local law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty to receive that officer's pension tax free, just as officers for some time who retired on disability could receive their pension tax free. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), who are cochairs of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who helped me get this through the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997. Mr. Speaker, the next order of business is to build the Visitors Center. I have long had a bill and ultimately named it for Officers Chestnut and Gibson for a Visitors Center. In the wake of the tragedy, an appropriation allowed a Visitors Center to go forward. It would make the Capitol more secure for all of us and especially more secure for the officers. The Visitors Center would help avoid tragedies like the killings of two brave officers in this Capitol in 1997. I salute the Capitol Police and the District of Columbia Police and especially the families of the slain peace officers in this country who have died in the line of duty and whom we honor this week.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, after much soul searching, the families of the victims of the military plane carrying Commerce Secretary Ron Brown that crashed in Croatia on April 3, 1996, have allowed us to introduce this amendment. It would provide up to $2 million in compensation for each of the families of the tragic accident. This amendment is not what the families requested, nor is it what I sought when I first introduced the Ron Brown Tort Equality Act on April 15, 1997. Although this amendment would close the books on the accident, it would not render complete justice to the families; would do nothing to assure that there would not be similar victims of military aircraft in the future; and would have no deterrent effect to ward off serious negligence in the future. Yet surely this amendment is what is minimally required. The Ron Brown Tort Equality Act had nearly fifty cosponsors in the last Congress and we are on our way to that and more now. This is a notably bipartisan bill in no small part because the victims originated in 15 states and the District of Columbia. The Ron Brown Act would allow federal civilian employees or their families to sue the federal government but only for gross negligence by its officers or employees and only for compensatory damages. Because there will be few instances where gross negligence can be shown, this is a small change in our law. There also were non-federal employees on that fated plane for whom no compensation is possible today. Astonishingly, federal law does not allow compensation when private citizens are killed or injured overseas. Yet, private citizens can sue under the Act for the same injuries when they occur in this country. The Ron Brown Act would allow individuals who do not work for the federal government, or their families, to sue the United States for negligent or wrongful acts or omissions that occur in a foreign country. This tragic accident yielded great sorrow and mourning by the nation and members of this body. The mourning period is over, colleagues. It is time now to compensate the families.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the John Wesley A.M.E. Zion Church, ``The National Church of Zion Methodism,'' on the occasion of their 150th Anniversary. Mr. Speaker, the John Wesley A.M.E. Zion Church was established in the nation's capital during a period when free black Americans began and expanded a major effort for self-expression, self-esteem, and freedom. Free blacks established their own churches after they became dissatisfied with their treatment in white-controlled churches, treatment which included their segregation in religious services and disqualification from holding church offices and preaching. Founders of John Wesley experienced this treatment, and were led to leave churches that were discriminating against them. Led by John Brent and John Ingham, a group called the ``Little Society of Nine'' withdrew from Asbury Methodist Episcopal Church which was under the ministry of white leaders. They met in the home of John Brent at 1800 L Street, NW and formulated plans, which culminated in the Organization of John Wesley Church in 1849. At that time, John Wesley was a dependent church which selected its own locations and ministers. One member of the group, Martha Pennington, organized a ``Woman's Aid Society,'' and raised $300.00--the greater part of the down payment of $349.00 required to purchase the church site at 1120 Connecticut Avenue NW. It took two years to build the church. The congregation, led by Rev. Abraham Cole, the first minister, moved into the new church in 1851. In that same year, the Board of Trustees and the Board of Stewards were created. The church established a relationship with the A.M.E. Zion Church, and was legally confirmed in 1904. Mr. Speaker, founders and early members of John Wesley, like those of many other black churches, were attracted by the doctrine of Methodism. This doctrine, expressed strongly in the sermons of John Wesley and in the hymns of his brother, Charles, proclaimed that no one was too poor, too humble, or too degraded to share in the privilege of divine grace, have a personal intimacy with God, and have assurance of eternal life. Pioneering black Methodists in New York City, led by James Varick, paved the way for the creation of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. From the founders of this church, the organizers and leaders of John Wesley Church in Washington, D.C. were destined to draw their inspiration and guidance. Since 1851, the leadership of the church has been vested in forty ministers. Mr. Speaker, from 1855 to 1866, John Wesley Church was an important community facility for black education during a time when public schools in Washington were not available to blacks. The church, with the support of philanthropic groups, provided substantial elementary education under instruction from black and white teachers. The early growth of the church was stimulated by a remarkable group of able ministers. Five of them had been elected bishops of the A.M.E. Zion Church by 1904. Very substantial growth was indicated as early as 1884, when the church expanded its edifice by adding a second story. The architectural expansion was made under the supervision of Calvin Brent, the son of founding member John Brent who was one of Washington's first black architects. For a dozen years before its move to its present location in 1914, John Wesley Church was located at 1121 18th Street, NW. The relocation to 14th Street provided a beautiful, large edifice that many persons felt was an appropriate place to have a national church of Zion Methodism, just as other denominations had a national church in the nation's capital. At the General Conference of the A.M.E. Zion Church, held at John Wesley in 1940, John Wesley was officially designated the National Church of Zion Methodism. During the twentieth century, the history of John Wesley Church has been characterized by increasing concern for the social welfare and the general quality of life of its members. The church has shown this concern while maintaining a strong interest in the spiritual well-being of its members and others. The ministerial and lay leadership of the church has been in the vanguard of the civil rights movement and the general effort to make Washington and the nation a better place in which to live. Two former pastors, The Right Reverend Stephen Gills Spottswood and Dr. E. Franklin Jackson, national civil rights leaders, were instrumental in the desegregation of public accommodations in Washington, D.C. The church has held sustained leadership roles in the NAACP, assisted in the coordination of the 1963 March on Washington, hosted President Bush in 1989, and will be hosting the cultural program for the National Trust for Historic Preservation's National Conference later this year. John Wesley Church is a member of the Interfaith Council and Downtown Cluster of Churches. Outreach programs at John Wesley include workshops on domestic violence, care for the senior citizens, feeding the homeless, and awarding scholarships to high school seniors and college students. Mr. Speaker, I salute the pastor, The Reverend Vernon A. Shannon, the officers and members of the John Wesley A.M.E. Zion Church, ``The National Church of Zion Methodism''--a Washington monument beyond the monuments.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Littleton, Colorado, tragedy yesterday, the gentleman from California (Mr. Henry Waxman) and I sat at a hearing on the GAO report on the 50-caliber, state-of-the- art military rifle that is of Persian Gulf vintage. The problem is that this armor-piercing sniper rifle, meant to bring down tanks and jeeps, has now infiltrated the States. GAO investigators went undercover in the National Capital area region and found dealers willing to sell the rifle even when the agent said he was interested in taking down a helicopter and in piercing a limousine. All that is needed is an 18-year-old ID and no felony conviction. In contrast, you have to be 21 to get a handgun. Amazingly, there is no regulation of secondhand assault weapons. Some of the weapons used at Columbine High School were bought at a gun show. Let us fill this loophole and keep the weapons of war off our streets and out of our schools.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thought that I should go to Andrews Airport Air Force Base yesterday to welcome Jesse Jackson home. Reverend Jackson had helped raise the consciousness of the nation to freedom concerns in the District of Columbia when he was statehood senator and lived here a few years ago. I thought that I should be there to greet him for bringing a freedom message to President Slobodan Milosevic, who heard Jesse Jackson and freed the three American servicemen. I listened intently to Rev. Jackson's comments at the airport. He detailed how he had managed to free the three soldiers, and it was clear that he had done it with great care and skill without undermining U.S. foreign policy concerns and military aims. Reverend Jackson carried the NATO four conditions and urged them on Milosevic at the same time that he urged our country to look for diplomatic openings. Through the efforts of the former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, who coincidently arrived at Andrews shortly after the Jackson delegation, these openings are beginning to appear now. Rev. Jackson's work has not hurt our goals, and may have helped in ways we cannot yet know. What we do know is what Jesse Jackson, through an act of will and skill, has produced the three young men before the war's end. Jesse Jackson deserves credit not only for what he did but for the way he did it. Today's special order is a well deserved tribute.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership; and I commend her and the gentlewoman from Connecticut for their work in organizing this special order to draw attention to the various special needs of women in Social Security. We are told that there may well be no Social Security reform this year. I would regret that, though I want to go on record to say that it is certainly not true that Social Security is going bankrupt. We really do have more than a quarter of a century before that. Nevertheless, it certainly would be better if we could get a bipartisan consensus this session. Let me say that I would rather see nothing, however, than see a new model based on some of the ideas that have come from the majority on Social Security. We do not need a new model for Social Security. We need a revitalized model. The reason we do not need a new model is because the present model is a feminized model. It is literally organized around the needs of women, around longer lives, around those with lesser earnings, and, if I may say so, around housewives. In particular, the notions for personal savings accounts do not take into account this feminized model. Most of the time when we talk about Social Security reform, we have reference to the elderly. I want to talk for my few minutes not about the elderly but about women whose Social Security is most endangered, because we are talking about Social Security in 2030, not Social Security in the year 2000. Older women have been grandfathered in. Neither the Republican majority or anybody else in his right mind would dare touch Social Security today. They would not dare recommend personal savings accounts for Social Security today, not when 53 percent of those receiving Social Security would be at the poverty line without it; not when it is a major source for two-thirds of today's beneficiaries. I want to focus on the baby boomers and the younger women whose earnings today translate into pensions or Social Security tomorrow. Those are the women who are not secure. The last time women Members came to the floor to talk about Social Security, I spoke from my past work as chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, because it is from that work that I learned to focus on women's earnings. It is by focusing on women's earnings today that we have any idea of their pensions or their Social Security tomorrow. Only by looking at younger women in particular can we evaluate the notion of personal savings accounts. I want to be clear that we should all be saving, and we should be doing more in this Congress to encourage more saving: 401(k)s, IRAs, IRAs for homemakers. There is ever so much more we must do to encourage savings. And, indeed, savings in the United States is going down, and that is itself very serious. But the focus on earnings now is how we figure what workers will have tomorrow. Let us look at women. Women today earn $24,000, the average woman, year-round worker, $24,973. For a man, it is almost $10,000 more, $33,674. What does a woman who earns less than $25,000 have to put into a personal savings account? Something, I hope, but I guarantee it is too little. Social Security, as we know it, needs to be there for that woman. She cannot afford to put all of her eggs in a personal savings account basket. No matter how we look at earnings, we draw the same conclusion. The progressive Social Security model now in place must be there especially for women. First, for the large number of women with no earnings, what are they supposed to do with a personal savings account? Look at who they are. There are only 7 percent of men who spend time out of the work force; 21 percent of women spend time out of the work force. Look at part time. Seventy-four percent of men work full time; only 49 percent of women work full time. What are they going to put in personal savings accounts? What will their Social Security look like, for that matter? That is why it has to be progressive, because they will have too little earnings in even to get out enough of Social Security unless we have the present system which benefits low earners. Look at the labor force participation: 73 percent of men in the labor force, 63 percent of women. This translates into no pensions or pensions that are too small, and it certainly leaves very little for personal savings accounts. Personal savings accounts are not progressive. They go with the market, not with need. I am with the market. I am in the market. I want more women to be in the market. But I would not want my future, if I earned under $25,000 a year, to lie with the market. By all means, go into mutual savings. But women cannot afford to leave Social Security as we know it today behind. The Republican majority would attribute the difference in wages between men and women to the fact that women are out of the work force more than men, and they tell us that all the time when we complain about women's wages. That is true, but not entirely. And there is a debate between us as to what accounts for that gap. But let us assume for the moment that they are indeed correct, for purposes of argument, that the difference is because women spend more time out of the work force; and may I ask them to please carry that thinking over to the needs of women into old age. If they spend less time in the work force, they should be subject to less risk when it comes time for old age. What will housewives contribute to personal savings accounts? What will part-time workers contribute to personal savings accounts? What will mothers who go into the work force later, who took time out, contribute to personal savings accounts? Where are the family values when it comes to security for today's young mothers? I am not talking about my mother. Her Social Security is intact, and I think mine will be. But what about my daughters? That is who we must concentrate on now. What about the young mothers who are staying at home? And there are more of them because of the absence of a child care system, and many more are going back home rather than go where they would like to go, to work. Retirement becomes and is a burden in the thoughts of these women, and we must make it less of a burden by encouraging them to save but also by assuring them that Social Security will be there in the progressive way that their mothers and grandmothers have known it. Young women are most at risk. They are most in doubt. We cannot restore confidence in the Social Security System by dismembering it. We must look far more closely at the President's plan, where 62 percent of the surplus goes to Social Security and 15 percent to Medicare. Then, of course, we have a balanced notion of means tested personal savings accounts. We encourage savings and help people to save and encourage them to save. If my colleagues do not like the President's plan, they should draw their own plan, but plan it around women who are the Americans who will most need the security our country has guaranteed for their mothers, for their grandmothers and for their great grandmothers. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentlewoman from Connecticut for their important work in drawing these issues to our continuing attention.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have chosen today to introduce the District of Columbia $5,000 Homebuyer Credit Act of 1999, a permanent version of my $5,000 homebuyer credit, because Franklin Raines and the Fannie Mae have significantly increased the credit's value to D.C. residents by monetizing the $5,000 credit. This means that D.C. residents will be able to convert the $5,000 homebuyer credit to cash to help make the down payment on a house. The credit alone will be the down payment on a $100,000 house in the District. As a result, for a $100,000 house, no down payment will be necessary. I am pleased that the President has already agreed to a one-year extension of the credit in his budget, and I am hopeful that Congress will approve this extension. The President acted because, like the Congress, he realizes that if the District is to regain permanent solvency, there is no substitute for rapidly increasing the number of residents. The indispensable increase in the home sales we are seeing in the city today cannot continue without a stable incentive that will be here for the foreseeable future. The tax base loss has been so devastating that the job before us is literally one of repopulation. The District has not yet regained a tax base sufficient to sustain the city. Its competitive position with the suburbs means it will not regain its tax base without very substantial incentives. The $5,000 homebuyer credit, limited by income, has proven itself as cheap way for the federal government to have a large effect on reviving the city. The credit has been significantly responsible for the phenomenal result that D.C. is now number one in home sales in the country. Home sales in the District increased an extraordinary 50% last year, ``the fastest pace in the nation,'' according to a local analysis. We have gone from 14,206 homesales in 1997, when the credit was enacted, to 21,406 last year. We have come from a few years back when people couldn't sell to today, when people can't buy. This is why Fannie Mae's effort to increase the supply of affordable housing and to monetize the tax credit are so welcome. The $5,000 homebuyer credit, coupled with a rapid increase in housing stock and investment, are the best hope for increasing our population on a permanent basis. When people buy homes, they lay down roots and are less likely to flee. The District has already lost three times the population in this decade as the city lost during the entire 1980s, and D.C. is still losing population. The credit helped stimulate new population and could ultimately help turn the city's population loss around. For years, I have searched for natural ways to increase revenue for the District. My large tax cut bill, the progressive flat tax, is a major leap forward and is still the most important initiative we could take to make the nation's capital thrive on its own. I will soon be announcing a bill to make the entire city an enterprise zone. It will spread citywide the lucrative tax breaks for D.C. businesses I won in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act. However, as the city looks for revenue, it must not lose sight of the reality that there can be no permanent increase in revenue without a permanent increase in our population. Investment in housing is the best way to achieve not only a livable city in all eight wards, but a thriving city of taxpaying residents who own their own homes. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation critical to the continued revitalization of the nation's capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today is Earth Day. I chose to commemorate Earth Day by introducing the Academic Excellence and Environmental Sciences Act. My bill seeks to encourage academic rigor in scientific education by beginning at the lower grades through the study of the environmental sciences and the use of hands-on recycling. This, of course, is the year of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I hope that my bill will be included in the act. I have two goals here. The first comes from what I understand to be the difficulty of imparting and explaining scientific ideas and concepts, some of them fairly abstract, to elementary schoolchildren. As a result of this difficulty, in the elementary grades, children are often relegated to ``play science.'' This ``play science'' not only does not prepare them for science; it turns them off of science. Secondly, I believe that hands-on recycling will help children learn at an early age habits that conserve our resources at the same time that it will help concretize their interest in science and their understanding of science. By the time many youngsters are exposed to science in high schools, large numbers of them have lost interest or are simply unready for the rigors that are necessary to become proficient. We are suffering from starting too late to interest children in science. We are suffering because of the reduced pool of scientists and scientific experts. Increasingly, many of our seats in colleges and universities are filled by young people from abroad, coming here to study science because we have the best science in the world. Part of the impetus for my bill comes from my experience in recruiting my own D.C. youngsters to the military academies. I am pressing my own school system, the D.C. public schools, to begin science and math at earlier years so that children retain their interest in science and get prepared for the rigors of the military academies. Although the major emphasis of my bill is scientific education for young children, I also hope to encourage recycling approaches. I believe that recycling techniques involving children--saving papers and crushing cans and talking about where these materials come from and why they degrade, etc.--will help concretize the underlying scientific ideas. I also think children are the best messengers for recycling and for the environment. They are the real environmentalists in this society. If we want scientists, we had better get them before they get turned off and we had better learn that we must not begin in junior high school; we should begin much earlier than that or else they are off to computer games or cable or other interests. We must begin at the beginning. The beginning is at the lower grade level. We must start there if we mean to groom scientists. We cannot start grooming when they already have other interests. We want it started young, as well, because these young people can help us conserve our own resources by learning about recycling early and teaching us how to do it and why it is so necessary.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in a special tribute to An Uncommon Legacy Foundation, Inc. (``Legacy''). On Saturday, April 24, 1999, Legacy will host its Fifth Annual Celebration of Women at the home of Hilary Rosen and Elizabeth Birch. At the event, Legacy will honor Sheila Alexander-Reid, founder of Women in the Life, Inc. and publisher of Women in the Life Magazine. Legacy will also present grants to the Lesbian Health and Wellness Network (``LHWN'') and After Stonewall and scholarships to three outstanding students: Katie Batza, Amanda M. Gunn, and Suzanne Degges White. An Uncommon Legacy Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit foundation dedicated to enhancing the visibility, strength, and vitality of the lesbian community. Legacy invests in the community by awarding scholarships to students with leadership potential and by awarding grants to fund projects and organizations that contribute to the lesbian community's health, education, and culture. This year, Legacy will honor Sheila Alexander-Reid, who has made it her mission to empower lesbians of all colors. Women in the Life, Inc. is an events management company based in Washington, D.C., and it was honored last year with a prestigious grant from Avon and the Mautner Project to promote breast cancer awareness in the black lesbian community. Legacy will also award grants to the Lesbian Health and Wellness Network, a multi-disciplinary coalition of over 125 lesbian and lesbian competent providers serving the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. area. This grant will enable LHWN to improve access to health care for women in the lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities. Legacy will also award a grant to After Stonewall, a 90-minute documentary airing nationally on PBS on June 23, 1999. This important documentary chronicles the lesbian and gay experience since the 1969 Stonewall riots--the historic moment 30 years ago which gave birth to the modern gay and lesbian civil rights movement. Finally, Legacy will award scholarships to three outstanding students: Katie Batza, who attends Johns Hopkins University as an undergraduate; Amanda M. Gunn who is pursuing her doctorate at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro; and, Suzanne Degges White who is pursuing her masters also at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. An Uncommon Legacy Foundation 1999 scholarship recipients are as follows: Katie Batza is pursuing a bachelor's degree in history at John Hopkins University. At the age of 15, Katie helped start YouthPride, an Atlanta-based support group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth, which has, in less than five years, served over one thousand people. Amanda M. Gunn is pursuing her doctorate in cultural studies through the Department of Education at the University of North Carolina/ Greensboro (UNCG). She will be presenting her thesis, Lesbian Passing: Identity Construction as a Strategy for Survival in a Perceived Hostile Work Environment, at the Eastern Communication Association and UNCG Women's Studies luncheon. Suzanne Degges White is a first-year masters student in the Counseling and Counselor Education program at the University of North Carolina/Greensboro (UNCG). She is enrolled in the MS/PHD track in community counseling at UNCG. Suzanne was instrumental in obtaining a state charter for the North Carolina Association for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Issues in Counseling, a division of the North Carolina Counseling Association. Mr. Speaker, the Annual Celebration of Women in one of Legacy's most important and widely attended events. The generous contributions of the women in this community who actively support An Uncommon Legacy Foundation make the work vital to the lesbian community possible and represents a true investment in the future leaders of our great country. I ask the House to join me in expressing our gratitude to An Uncommon Legacy Foundation, its national co-chair, Andrea Sharrin, Board member, Mary Snider--both of whom I am proud to say are members of our D.C. family; and the entire national Board for their leadership and support to women across this nation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Federal Employee Flexibility Act of 1999. This bill will extend to federal employees the same commuting benefits that have been given to private sector employees under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21). This is a very important bill which could have a significant impact in helping the Washington metropolitan region and a great many others with federal employees come into attainment with Environmental Protection Agency air quality standards. For this reason, I am introducing this bill in time for Earth Day. Senators John Chafee and Daniel Patrick Moynihan also recognize the potential environmental benefits of this bill, and they are reintroducing companion legislation in the Senate today. Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, the federal tax code contained an anomaly that in practice discouraged employers from using mass transportation or other means other than driving. Previously, employers could provide tax-free up to $65 per month ($100 by 2002) in transit benefits in lieu of taxable salary. However, if any employee within a company elected to take the salary instead of the transit benefit, the transit passes for all the other employees would lose their tax-free status. This made employers wary of offering any transit benefits. Likewise, employers were allowed to offer tax-free parking up to a value of $170 per employee in lieu of some other taxable benefit, such as salary. However, if any employee chose to receive the taxable benefit rather than parking privileges, the parking of all employees of the company became taxable. The result was that employers were encouraged to grant all employees tax-free parking and employees were given no choice as to ``cashing out'' the benefit and commuting by other means such as walking or car pooling. TEA-21 included language that eliminated this all-or-nothing approach for the private sector. However, federal employees were inadvertently left out of this more flexible approach. Federal compensation law must be modified to specifically authorize federal employees to have the option of receiving transit, parking, or additional salary. The bill that I introduce today provides this specific authorization. The absence of a specific authorization has had a greater negative impact on the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area than on other cities and regions. As the federal city, Washington, D.C. has a far greater percentage of federal workers than other cities. In addition, the region has the second worst traffic congestion in the United States, behind the Los Angeles area. I believe my bill will go a long way toward relieving some of that unbearable congestion if federal employees who live in Maryland, Virginia, and outlying areas of the District are given incentives to commute into downtown Washington by means other than driving every day. Since coming to Congress, I have worked hard to ensure that federal agencies and their accompanying jobs remain in the District. Last year, I signed a Federal Facilities Recruitment and Retention Pledge for Washington D.C. and its Inner Suburbs to ``actively work to locate Washington Metro area federal facilities within \1/2\ mile of a Metrorail station'' and to ``give preference in federal facility location decisions to sites first within the Nation's Capital . . .'' This is a critical goal, and I work hard to carry out this pledge. However, we do not have much trouble getting federal agencies to remain in the District, and indeed have insufficient land for many federal facilities that would prefer to be here. Our greatest unmet challenges are the air quality and the congestion that pose immediate and dangerous threats to the quality of life, the growth, and the economy of this region. This bill is an important step toward moving us in the quest to overtake this challenge. I urge the support of Members as well to eliminate unintentional discrimination in benefits for federal employees when compared to those this body has already granted private sector employees.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the officers, members, and friends of the Galbraith African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church for ``156 Years of Charting Our Legacy Through Spirituality With an Unchangeable God.'' Mr. Speaker, Galbraith A.M.E. Zion Church was organized before slavery was abolished and while the city of Washington was still in its infancy. The church grew out of the efforts of the late Bishop Singleton T. Jones, then pastor of the Zion Wesley A.M.E. Zion Church in Southwest Washington. He extended the borders of Zion by establishing a mission in the northwest section of the city. In 1843, with a meeting in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Payne on New Avenue, Northwest, between Fourth and Fifth Streets, the mission was established. Rev. Singleton T. Jones preached the sermon. Professor R.H. Dyson, Chorister of the then noted Clintonian Songsters, furnished the music. Six members joined the mission--Father and Mrs. Bartlett, Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Payne, and two other individuals whose names have been lost in history. Rev. Richard Tompkins, a local preacher from Zion Wesley Church, was appointed to take charge and served for approximately ten months. The Mission struggled and fluctuated for a period of eight years until its reorganization in 1852, under the leadership of Rev. R.H.G. Dyson. The success of the Mission at this time was due primarily to the efforts and determination of Father and Mrs. Bartlett, Mr. and Mrs. Payne, and Mr. Julius Warren, the Assistant Class Leader to Rev. Dyson. The first building, a room 8 feet by 20 feet, was erected by Mr. Payne and was used for Sunday School and preaching services on Sunday, and for day school taught by Miss Martha Ross. As there were few facilities for the education of Black children in those days, the church served a double purpose. After only two months, the church became too small for the congregation. Mr. Payne stretched a number of tents in the rear of the building, providing accommodations for three hundred people. In 1853, because of the danger and lack of protection from a band of lawless white men, who amused themselves by stoning the tents during services, Mr. Payne erected another home for the mission with two stories. Upon the recommendation of Presiding Elder J.H. Hammer, Rev. Dyson joined the Annual Conference May, 1853, and was again sent to the Mission. In the fall of 1852, a lot was purchased on L Street between Fourth and Fifth Streets, Northwest for $225.00. The owner, Dr. Hall, donated $25.00 for the purchase price, and Brothers Julius Warren and Payne each paid $25.00 for a deed of trust. Mr. Naylor, a builder and contractor, agreed to build a church for a reasonable sum to be paid in small amounts. The cornerstone was laid in 1853, the first to be laid by the Colored Masons of Washington. Rev. Dyson selected the name ``Galbraith A.M.E. Zion Chapel'' in memory of Bishop George Galbraith. The dedication was March 1854. Mr. Speaker, this city is grateful for the spiritual guidance and the progressive leadership of the current pastor, Rev. Frederick B. Massey, Sr., and those who preceded him, coupled with the cooperation of the officers and members of Galbraith A.M.E. Zion Church.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his very kind remarks and for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him for his consistent hard work and vigilance on behalf of Federal employees, especially for his particular contribution to this bill and seeing how it was paid for. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Maryland for writing this bill, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for his hard work in making sure that the bill was shaped in a bipartisan manner and reached the floor here today. Mr. Speaker, this bill is, first and foremost, a richly deserved benefit for Federal employees who have fallen way behind the private sector in state-of-the-art benefits, but it has a more important implication for the Federal Government itself. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government seems not to have heard that there is a labor shortage out there, and it is a shortage that goes from the top to the bottom of the work force. There is a fierce competition for labor at all levels. The Federal Government has literally not joined this competition. It is as if this were 1960, when college graduates and skilled workers automatically gravitated to Federal employment. That has not been the case now for a long time, and it is going to show in our Federal work force. Therefore, the implications of this bill are larger than the modest benefit it provides to our employees in eliminating the waiting period for when an employee can make a contribution to the Thrift Savings Plan and in allowing transfers from a 401(k) savings account. A way to understand the importance of this bill, if we mean to attract good people to work for the Federal Government, is to imagine an employee looking around among her options and seeing that she could not transfer her 401(k), and seeing that she would have a 6-to-12-month break in engaging in tax-exempt savings herself. It seems to me she might well move on to almost any large employer today where we will find such benefits to be state-of-the-art. There are plenty of alternatives. No large, smart employer would fail to have comparable benefits to those which this bill modestly affords. Social Security is the most important issue facing the 106th Congress. The President and the Republican majority together are encouraging private savings and investment. If we are serious about encouraging Americans to engage in private saving and our savings are at a low point, then it is time we took care of home first, and the Thrift Savings Account is the place to begin.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for yielding, and I thank her and the sponsors of this bill for putting it forward at this time. This body seeks to honor a woman upon whom honors have been heaped. It is worth asking, why so many honors? What is her personal appeal, beyond what she has accomplished? It is worth asking why it is that this is such a revered woman of our times. I think it is for much the same reason that we honor Nelson Mandela. Three reasons: First, courage against overwhelming odds; two, the action that few would have taken, remember, this was Alabama, circa 1955; and, three, modesty. She claimed to be too tired to move to the back of the bus. The fact is she had complained of segregation and had spoken of being tired of segregation for years. It was bravery, Mr. Speaker. Two huge and historic effects flow from her act. Her act led to the Supreme Court decision barring segregation in public transportation and, of course, she sparked an entire movement, the Montgomery bus movement. Those of us who participated in the sit-in movement regard the day of the college sit-ins as when that movement began. In point of fact, that movement began when Rosa Parks sat where she insisted on sitting. The Congressional Gold Medal cannot add glory to a woman who has never sought it. We can only express our appreciation through this medal today.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite the Members of this body to join me in saluting the Underwater Adventure Seekers (UAS) as they celebrate forty years in the District of Columbia. UAS was established in the District of Columbia on February 25, 1959 for the purpose of offering water safety and skin and SCUBA diving training to African-Americans in the metropolitan area during a period in this country's development when such training was not available to African-Americans or other minorities through the usual industry venues. UAS is and always has been, an organization that welcomes people of all backgrounds. It has trained more than 1,700 people in the sports of skin and SCUBA diving. Additionally, UAS contributes thousands of hours of volunteer service to the community by sponsoring field trips for marine science students at the University of the District of Columbia; providing 2-year scholarships in marine science or oceanography to District residents; providing instruction in swimming and other water activities for persons of all ages; and providing safety divers for the President's Cup Regatta. The UAS also provides rescue divers to assist federal and local agencies during emergencies when there is a critical need for trained, experienced divers. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the achievements and commitment of the UAS to promoting water safety, conserving aquatic life, and providing services to the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and celebrate the Queen Esther Chapter No. 1, Order of the Eastern Star, Prince Hall Affiliation, of the District of Columbia, on the occasion of its 125th birthday. The Queen Esther Chapter No. 1, Order of the Eastern Star, Prince Hall Affiliation, is a female organization that is part of Free Masonry, and was the first Eastern Star Chapter for women of color. It is a nonprofit organization dedicated to community involvement and improvement, the provision of scholarships for our youth, support of our public schools, and service to the indigent. The chapter was organized in the home of its founder, Sister Georgiana Thomas, on December 1, 1874 by Brother Thornton A. Jackson, Pythagoras Lodge No. 9., F. and A.M., who received the Degree of Adoptive Rite of the Eastern Star from Brother C.B. Case, a deputy and agent of Robert McCoy, 33 deg., the Supreme Patron of the Rite of Adoption of the World. The chapter's first Worthy Matron was Sister Martha Welch and the first Worthy Patron was Brother Thornton A. Jackson. In 1875, Pythagoras Lodge No. 9, F. and M. presented the chapter with its first badges, known as Rosettes, emblems of power, honor, and ability. W.P. Thornton A. Jackson wished the chapter success and prosperity, and admonished the members to wear the badges with dignity, keeping ever before them the memory of the five heroines, Adah, Ruth, Esther, Martha, and Electa. Queen Esther Chapter was under the complete directives of Pythagoras Lodge No. 9 from 1874 until 1892, when the Georgiana Thomas Grand Chapter was organized. The history of Queen Esther Chapter is rich in tradition and honors. The first among them being Sister Georgiana Thomas, P.M., after whom the Georgiana Thomas Grand Chapter was named, Sister Marie I. Smith for whom the Marie I. Smith Court of Cyrenes was named, and Phyllis S. Byrd, P.M. who became P.G.W.M., P.I.G.M., and after whom the Phyllis S. Bird Youth Fraternity was named. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of this body to join me in wishing the Queen Esther Chapter No. 1, Order of the Eastern Star, Prince Hall Affiliation, a future that is as glorious as its past.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, never have the Republicans looked worse than they look today in their support of H.R. 472. Because for the first time in American history, the Republicans are trying to force an inaccurate census on the American people. Bad enough that H.R. 472 is the opposite of what all the census professionals, all the statistical experts, what the National Academy of Sciences say gets you accuracy. But what is worse is who H.R. 472 would keep from being counted. I am going to call the roll for you. Because they are first and foremost children, then they are people of color, then they are immigrants, and they are people from big cities, and they are people from rural areas. I am going to call their names out because that is who they are. Undercounting at the Federal level means higher taxes at the local level, because somebody is going to pay for the services for these people. The way in which this bill makes the Republicans look, even if that is not your motive, it makes you look as if there are some people you want to be counted and some people you want to be discounted. Let us look at who gets counted twice and who does not get counted at all. 4.4 million people got counted twice in 1990. Do you know who they were? They were affluent people who had two homes, or whose children were away at colleges. They mostly live in suburbs, God bless them. Let us look at who did not get counted. Almost twice as many people did not count at all. There were 8.4 million of them. And let us see who they were. They were kids. They were black people. They were Hispanic people. They were Asians. They were hard-to-reach people in big cities and in rural hovels. That is who they were. This time they demand to be counted. We know what to do this time. Two things: Involve local communities early, rather than post-census when it is too late to do anything about it. Two, use modern scientific methods that all the experts say are the only way to get a more accurate census. Why do the Republicans, instead of doing what the experts say, hinting at closing down the government, why do the Republicans want to spend $7.2 million on a census the way they would do it while the Census wants to spend only $4 million? Do you want this result or do you want this result? Because this is the result the census would get us, five times as many people were uncounted in 1990. All three minority group caucuses, the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus and the Asian Caucus, we rarely get together on one press conference, we work on the same issues often but we do not usually get together at the same time. We are working as one on this because we have the most to lose. This, my friends, this issue, H.R. 472, is the most important civil rights issue that will come to the floor of the House in the 106th Congress. So all three caucuses have come forward to put you on notice, we cannot give this one up, because to do so is to give up our entire community. We have the most to lose. That is why we want local import. H.R. 472 makes a mockery of local import. Give us a colorblind census by counting people of every color. Count everybody. Support the Maloney amendment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. That is very kind of the gentlewoman and very typical of her. Unless the gentlewoman from New York needs that time, I do think it would greatly illustrate my point to have some examples.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I especially thank her for her initiative in organizing this special order. Mr. Speaker, I am a former Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, have spent much of my life working on women's issues. Many of them are discrimination issues, many of them are not, and if you would ask the average woman which of the literally hundreds of women's issues are more important, you would have a hard time coming up with a single answer. But I think you would probably find more women saying that pay today is important than any other issue, and that is because women are out here and have to be out here working. Senator Tom Harkin and I simultaneously introduced the Fair Pay Act just before recess because Equal Pay Day, when we would have introduced it, occurred when Congress was out of session. Equal Pay Day is a day that women in the year, usually four months, earn about what men earn during the entire prior year. Thereafter we had a meeting at the White House with the Chief of Staff, John Podesta. At that meeting I asked that the President use Equal Pay Day to do an event to raise the profile of pay issues because they already high with the people of the United States, and to his credit the President and the First Lady had an event attended by several hundred women leaders on April 7 where, interestingly, they did not lecture us but invited in women, four women, to tell their own pay stories. Why does pay carry so much weight today? Even women who live in two- parent families, two-thirds of them work. In year-round wages you have women up to somewhere in the 70s. It has bounced between 70 and 75 percent during this decade. The source of the progress we have made in the last 20 years has been largely a thin slice of women at the highly- trained level, and sadly, because of the decline in mens' wages, women are catching up. There are a number of bills, and I support them all, but I wanted to say just a word about the Fair Pay Act, because if you want to meet the problem of the average woman today who works, it will not even be an equal pay, as much as we still have to do in that. It will be an equivalent pay for equivalent jobs in traditional women's occupations. It is the mainstream women's occupations that are undervalued. Regardless of their education, the women now get more bachelors degrees, and women finish high school more often than men, women cannot catch up, and it is largely because even when they have working jobs where they have the same skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions as men, they are not paid the same so that if a woman is an emergency services operator and a man is a fire dispatcher, he is going to earn more money even though they both may have 2 years of community college. The Fair Pay Act therefore says that discrimination in jobs that are equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions should be paid the same, and it would add that to the law. Equivalent pay for equivalent jobs is going to be the issue of the next decade, just as the issue of the 1960's when we got the Equal Pay Act was equal pay for equal jobs. The Fair Pay Act does not tamper with the market system because the woman has to show that the reason for the disparity is not market factors but discrimination. I would like to go through and talk about the women who appeared at the White House on April 7, but in deference to the woman who still may want to speak during this special order, I would like to conclude by saying that I think we are off to a good start and we ought to keep before the House this entire term the importance of women's issues. I congratulate the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) who organized this special order, and I congratulate her strong partner, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), for her work in a bipartisan manner with the gentlewoman from her own home state.

Ms. NORTON. I very much appreciate it. It will take just a couple of minutes. These are the women that came. One my colleagues may have read about, a woman from Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is a molecular biologist who is at the top, who never dreamed of herself as a victim of discrimination, at the top at MIT of a tenured professor, the top of the scale. Then she found out that she was making 20 percent less than men who had come at the same time, had done the same amount of work, and she talked to other women, found 14 other tenured women had precisely the same circumstance. To MIT's credit, instead of becoming defensive, MIT said, ``Let us do a study. We're scientists, let us study,'' and have been decided to bring up the women's pay. That is the example, it seems to me, that we want to put forward. Sanya Tyler who is the head women's coach, basketball coach, at Howard University sued Howard University. She now compliments Howard University because our university has now moved forward to rectify a situation where the only team that was winning was the girls' basketball team, and yet they had disparities in everything from facilities to her own pay. Her pay was brought up, and again the employer has moved forward instead of becoming defensive. Patricia Higgins, a nurse from Cleveland, Ohio, who testified that her daughter wanted to be a nurse, but the fact is she is a pharmacist. People who are not doing the same job, had no more training, did not work in the high-pressured nursing and high- skilled nursing that she did and yet earned more money, and she expects that she is now in a union organizing drive, and she thinks that AFSCME is simply going to be able to negotiate up the salaries of the nurses so that they are equivalent to the salaries of the pharmacists. These were three of the most salient examples, and I think when America hears those examples, America wants to do something about it. I very much thank the gentlewoman from New York, and I particularly thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).