Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join many Americans across the country who would want to honor Kristina Kiehl, a founder and co- chair of Voters for Choice. Later this week, we will celebrate the 26th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. Kristina Kiehl, a Californian, will celebrate her 50th birthday on Saturday, January 23. Kristina has spent most of those 50 years working to ensure reproductive choice, equality and human rights for all Americans, regardless of race, sex, ethnic background, sexual orientation or, other characteristics irrelevant to merit. As a founder of Voters for Choice, a national bi-partisan organization dedicated to protecting and expanding reproductive choice for women, Kristina has been a pioneer in protecting the reproductive rights and health of women. With her leadership, Voters for Choice has helped to develop leaders across our country on choice issues; to educate Americans about reproductive issues; and to train advocates for this important work. For 18 years, Voters for Choice has been a superbly effective organization that has led the fight for many women's health issues, in no small part because of Kristina's commitment, dedication, energy and leadership. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased and very proud to honor and recognize the accomplishments of Kristina Kiehl, a national leader who has dedicated her life to improving the health and protecting the reproductive rights of Americans. I urge my colleagues in this House to join me in saluting Kristina Kiehl.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on January 6, 1999, I introduced the District of Columbia Prison Safety Act, a bill to assure the safety and well being of District of Columbia and other Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmates, who may be placed in private prison facilities, as well as the safety of communities where the prisons are to be located. This provision has become necessary as a result of Sec. 11201, the 1997 District of Columbia Revitalization Act (P.L. 105-33), which requires that the BOP house in privately contracted facilities at least 2000 D.C. sentenced felons by December 31, 1999 and at least 50% of D.C. felons by September 30, 2003. Under the Revitalization Act, the Lorton Correctional Complex is to be closed by December 31, 2001, and the BOP is to assume full responsibility for the maintenance of the District's inmate population. My bill would give the Director of the BOP the necessary discretion to decide whether to house D.C. inmates in private prison facilities, and if so, when and how many. The Revitalization Act privatization mandate marks the first time that the BOP has been required to contract for the housing of significant numbers of inmates in private facilities. The extremely short time frames were placed in the statute without any reference to BOP capabilities or the capabilities of private prison vendors. I am introducing this bill because recent events have driven home the necessity for better informed and expert judgment and calculation before decisions to contract out inmate housing are made. On December 3, 1998, the Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia released a report on the investigation of problems arising from the placement of D.C. inmates in the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC). This highly critical report documented numerous violent confrontations between guards and inmates, an escape by six inmates, and the killing of two other inmates. The Trustee's report strongly and unequivocally critized virtually all aspects of the operations of the NEOCC. It should be noted that the company that runs the NEOCC, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), is the most experienced in the country. However, the industry is a new one with relatively few vendors and few bidders for substantial work. The NEOCC experience is fair warning of what could happen if BOP proceeds on the basis of an automatic mandate in spite of the evidence that has accumulated in Ohio and around the country. The mounting problems have been so troubling that the BOP was forced to revise the original request for proposals (RFP), fearful that similar problems would occur. The bid now requires two separate facilities. The new process uses two RFP, thereby separating low security male inmates from minimum security males, females and young offenders. Furthermore, the RFP for low security inmates now requires the BOP to consider prior performance of the vendors before awarding the contract. However, the new RFPs put the BOP, perhaps hopelessly, behind schedule for the privatization mandated by the Revitalization Act. The experience of the private sector argues for a much more careful approach than Congress realized at the time the 1997 Revitalization Act was passed. For example, the 50% quota for privatization far exceeds any comparable number of similar inmates currently housed in a private facility from a single jurisdiction. My provision does not bar privatization, but it could prevent further privatization disasters. BOP may still decide to house the same, or a different number in private facilities. The purpose of this provision is to keep the BOP from believing that it must go over the side of a cliff, avoiding more sensible alternatives, because Congress said so.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to correct an erroneous statement by my good friend and colleague from California, concerning the constitutionality of the Delegate vote in the Committee of the Whole. On January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California, Mr. Dreier, made the remark concerning the Delegate vote in response to my statement on withdrawal of my right to vote in the Committee of the Whole, despite the fact that D.C. residents alone among American citizens pay federal income taxes while lacking full representation in the Congress. He said that a federal court had settled the constitutionality of the Delegate vote against the District. As my letter points out, the opposite is in fact the case. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have ruled that the Delegate vote is constitutional. The text of the letter follows: January 7, 1999. Hon. David Dreier Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC. Dear Dave: I am writing to point out an error in your statement on the House Floor, as recorded in today's Congressional Record that ``in 1993 a Federal judge found a House rule change to allow Delegate voting in the Committee of the Whole could be unconstitutional, so that clearly was addressed at that time.'' I did not realize that you were unaware that the opposite is the case. Both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that Delegate voting is constitutional. In Michel v. Anderson, 817 F.Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1993), and subsequently on appeal in Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623 (D.C.Cir. 1994) the courts that heard the case found that the House is the sole arbiter of its own rules and that it could amend its rules to allow Delegate voting. I assure you that I would have never have been so reckless as to take to the floor and argue for something already declared unconstitutional by the courts. Delegate voting was originally applicable to all Delegates and included jurisdictions whose residents do not pay federal income taxes. After the vote was withdrawn, several Members, including some on your side, indicated they would support the vote in the Committee of the Whole for District residents because of our federal income taxpaying status. Given the fact that there must be a revote if the Delegate vote proves decisive in the Committee of the Whole, it seems needlessly punitive for a Congress that regards taxes as a priority, to deny this vote, harmless to your side, to Americans who are third per capita in federal income taxes. If, as I believe, the constitutional matter has been cleared up, I hope that you will have occasion to reconsider the Committee of the Whole vote for the District residents. Best personal regards. Sincerely, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Prison Safety Act, a bill to assure the safety of the District of Columbia and other Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmates, who may be placed in private prison facilities, as well as the communities where the prisons are placed. This provision has become necessary as a result of Sec. 11201 the 1997 District of Columbia Revitalization Act (P.L. 105-33). That bill requires that BOP house in privately contracted facilities at least 2000 D.C. sentenced felons by December 31, 1999 and at least 50 percent of D.C. felons by September 30, 2003. Under the Revitalization Act, the Lorton Correctional Complex is to be closed by December 31, 2001, and the BOP is to assume responsibility for the maintenance of the District's inmate population. My bill would give the Director of BOP the necessary discretion to decide whether to house D.C. inmates in private prison facilities, and if so, when and how many. This mandate would mark the first time that BOP has contracted for the housing of significant numbers of inmates in private facilities. The extremely short time frames were placed in the statute without any reference to the BOP capabilities, but rather, in order to meet the 6 year limit for the closure of Lorton. I am introducing this bill because recent events have driven home the necessity for informed expert judgement before decisions to contract out inmate housing are made. On December 3, 1998, the Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia released a report on the investigation of problems arising from the placement of D.C. inmates in the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC). This highly critical report followed numerous violent confrontations between guards and inmates, an escape by six inmates, and the killing of two other inmates. The Trustee's report strongly and unequivocally criticized virtually all aspects of the operations of NEOCC. The company that runs this facility, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), is the most experienced in the country. The industry is a new one with relatively few vendors. The NEOCC experience is fair warning of what could happen if BOP proceeds on the basis of an automatic mandate in spite of the evidence that has accumulated here and around the country. The mounting troubles have been so great that the BOP was forced to revise the original request for proposal (RFP). The new process employs two RFPs, thereby separating low security male inmates from minimum security males, females and young offenders. Furthermore, the RFP for low security inmates now requires the BOP to consider prior performance of the vendors before awarding the contract. However, this action puts BOP behind schedule for privatization mandated by the Revitalization Act. The experience of the private sector argues for a much more careful approach than Congress was aware of at the time the 1997 Revitalization Act was passed. Whereas 50 percent of D.C. inmates are to be privatized in 5 years time, the 50 percent far exceeds any comparable number of inmates currently housed in any private facility. My provision does not bar privatization, but it could bar further disasters that have surrounded such privatization contracts. BOP may still decide to house the same, or different number in private facilities. The only point in this provision is to keep the BOP from believing it must go over the side of a cliff even if there would be a more sensible path.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the first bill in my D.C. Democracy Now Package. The bills to follow, as many as half a dozen, will be introduced at appropriate times throughout the 106th Congress. The purpose of the first of these bills, the District of Columbia Democracy 2000 Act (D.C. Democracy 2000) is to ensure that the new city administration has sufficient control of the District government to be held accountable in preparation for the expiration of the control period. Among the other bills that will be included in the Package are: D.C. Budget Autonomy Act; D.C. Legislative Autonomy Act; D.C. City Employee Tax Fairness Act (Commuter Tax for District Government Employees); and Delegate Vote Restoration. I am introducing D.C. Democracy 2000 first because it is the most urgent. This bill is essential to assure the stable transition to full self-government already begun by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. The heart of D.C. Democracy 2000 is the early return of Home Rule, allowing the Authority to expire a full year ahead of schedule. At the time that the Authority Act was passed, the District's insolvency led the Congress to estimate that it would take four years of balanced budgets to achieve the necessary stability. However, the District's reforms have far outstripped the estimate of Congress. It now seems clear that by Fiscal Year 2000 the District shall have had three consecutive years of balanced budgets. If the failure to achieve balanced budgets could delay the return of Home Rule, it should follow that the prudence reflected in continuous years of surpluses should be equally recognized. Further delay is especially unwarranted in light of the continued oversight of the City Council and Congress. The District has just revolutionized its political culture by election of a new Mayor who earned his stripes as a tenacious Chief Financial Officer who cut budgets, prevented overspending, and helped create surpluses. To match the new Mayor, a new City Council has already shown a new, strict approach to oversight that holds the executive and the city agencies accountable. Moreover, the District has used most of its surplus revenues to pay down its accumulated deficit. As a result, the District is expected to eliminate its operating deficit without using the authority to borrow, that Congress granted the city in the Revitalization Package in 1997. This is performance that not only deserves recognition, it is performance that deserves encouragement by the return of authority that was stripped away only because of a fiscal crisis. Needless to say, it would lift the spirits of District residents to begin the Year 2000 with Home Rule restored. The bill also includes a section that would give the Mayor authority to hire and fire department heads. This section carries out the purpose of the Authority Act ``to ensure the most efficient and effective delivery of services, by the District government during a period of fiscal emergency.'' P.L. 104-8, Title I Sec. 2(b)(2). On January 2, Alice Rivlin, for the Authority, signed a memorandum of agreement delegating authority to the Mayor to run the District government to the fullest extent allowed by existing law. Viewed from the front lines of the District government's present progress, the Authority's considered judgment was that a transition to Home Rule through the delegation of power to the new Mayor was necessary in advance of the transfer of ultimate power at the end of the control period; a clean line of reporting authority unmistakably identifying the responsible officials was necessary for efficient and effective government operational reform; and Mayor Williams, in his role as Chief Financial Officer, had already demonstrated his capacity to administer complicated operations. This section amends existing law to complete a transfer of power that the Authority desired but could not make because of the wording of the statute. The Authority transferred to the Mayor its jurisdiction over nine operating agencies, but believed it was unable to return that authority to hire and fire department heads. In returning this power, this section seeks to enhance and facilitate the Mayor's ability to control managers. It eliminates the possibility of an illusion of an appeal to a higher authority beyond the Mayor to acquire or retain a position. The advantage of having a government that knows that it and it alone will be fully accountable cannot be overestimated in a democracy. Whatever justification some may have found for the denial of self- government has been stripped away by the growing fiscal health of the District government and its prudence in management of its finances and operations. Beyond securing more revenue, city officials have already shown that they know what to do with it. Their decision to use surplus revenues to pay down the city's accumulated deficit demonstrates they can and will make tough financial choices. In the face of the sacrifices that District residents have made and the unanticipated surpluses that have been produced, there is no justification for delaying a return to coherent and fully accountable self-government.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote for a new gift ban rule today not for themselves, but for their Nation's Capital. For Members, the gift ban represents the loss of trivial token gifts. For the District of Columbia, the gift ban has caused millions of dollars in lost revenue. The District is just now emerging from a financial crisis that brought insolvency to the Nation's Capital. The Congress made great strides last Congress to hasten the District's recovery with the passage of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act (the Revitalization Act) in 1997. Last Saturday, a new, tough, fiscally prudent mayor and new City Council took the oath of office, ushering in new era in the District's political culture. Most importantly, downtown D.C. is coming back and is increasingly alive with people taking advantage of new reasons to go to downtown. Despite these great strides, however, the District's recovery remains in its infancy. District revenues are significantly dependent on tax receipts from downtown businesses. Moreover, these revenues have been flat, partly because of the effect of the gift ban. Small retail businesses have been particularly hurt. However, the most prominent example of the effect of the gift ban is the new MCI Center, the centerpiece of the revitalization of downtown D.C. Abe Pollin, the owner of the Washington Wizards, Capitals, and Mystics did the unheard of when he invested $220 million of his own money into the construction of an arena in downtown D.C. when the District was insolvent and at its lowest point. In making this commitment to the city, Pollin relied in part on the gift rule in effect at the time that allowed tickets to be accepted as gifts. The MCI Center is an unusual example of a sports arena that has been built with private rather than public funds. It is unfair and unfortunate to have an abrupt change penalizing a private entrepreneur who has willingly taken on what in most jurisdictions is viewed as a public responsibility. Private economic development is the key to maintaining the solvency of the District. Harmonizing the House gift rule with the Senate rule does not cost the Congress anything, but this change can mean millions to the city. If the Congress can't help us, at the very least, it should not hurt us. There is more than one way for the House to help the District. A reasonable gift ban would be a cost-free way for the Congress to help meet its obligation to continue to assist the recovery of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the bipartisanship that is apparent in some of these rules. A rules package worthy of this House, however, would return the vote in the Committee of the Whole to the taxpaying District's residents. Some rules inevitably reflect partisan desires in either caucus. But surely there is no partisan answer to the question: Should taxpaying American citizens have voting representation in the Committee of the Whole in this body. The House said yes in 1993. The Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court said yes when it was challenged. The people I represent have met every obligation of citizenship. They have fought and died in every war. They sent more people to fight in Desert Storm than 47 States. Yet, it is our taxpaying status that might most move this tax-conscious body. We are third, per capita, in Federal income taxes sent to the Federal Treasury; $1.7 billion sent last year. Do I have to remind this body that our forefathers went to war over taxation without representation? Make peace with the District of Columbia on the vote that was taken away in 1993. We have a tough new mayor who has helped bring the city out of insolvency. We have a brand-new oversight-conscious city council. The city is running surpluses. Yet every law my city enacts comes here before it becomes law. Every cent we raise in the District must be appropriated by this body, although this body gives us no Federal payment. Should I have to stand here voteless and watch others vote on local revenue raised in my city and local laws passed by my council? I ask for the vote as a minimal recognition of the citizens who live in our Nation's capital. Do not leave the people who live here to watch you vote while having none of their own.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, most Americans do not know and most people in the world are unaware that the residents of the Nation's Capitol do not have any representation in the Senate and cannot vote on this floor. But the Constitution of the United States, in its 23rd amendment, does give to the residents of the District the right to vote for President and Vice President of the United States. The same Constitution that gives the District the right to vote for President must recognize the right of District residents to representation for a vote on removal of the President. I have submitted a narrowly-tailored resolution, along with a legal memorandum, for a narrowly-tailored right. I am not here asking for the delegate vote in the Committee of the Whole at this time. I am not asking for a House vote. I am asking to vote only on impeachment, in order to perfect the rights of District residents under the 23rd amendment. The House has abundant authority to grant me this right at this time. Clause 2 of the 23rd amendment gives the House the power to enforce the amendment through legislation. My resolution is that legislation. The District clause, as this body so often reminds us, gives Members full authority over the District of Columbia, and the impeachment clause gives Members unilateral authority, or the sole power of impeachment. The 23rd amendment explicitly treats the District as a State for purposes of electing the President and the Vice President. I ask for this right in the name of half a million people, the only Americans who pay Federal income taxes who do not have full representation in the Congress. They are a third per capita in Federal income taxes. Their one right that is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is the right to vote for President and Vice President. The decision to expel a President from office is as important as the decision to elect the President to office. Indeed, the decision to expel him is more momentous. There are no partial rights in the Constitution. It is unconstitutional and irrational to interpret the 23rd amendment to afford a vote for President, but no vote on whether to impeach a President. Let this process begin on a high note of fairness. In the name of the half million American citizens who happen to live in the Nation's Capital, I ask for the vote in these impeachment proceedings, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a resolution affording the District of Columbia Delegate a vote in impeachment proceedings. The House is fully empowered to enact my resolution under Article I, Sec. 2, clause 5 of the Constitution (stating that the ``House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment''); the Twenty-Third Amendment affording the people of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President of the United States; and Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the Constitution affording Congress plenary power over the District of Columbia. I am seeking to protect the constitutional right of District residents to vote for President by securing a vote in the impeachment proceedings only. My resolution is narrowly tailored and would not be a grant of voting privileges to the Delegate in other proceedings of the House. American citizens living in the District of Columbia participated in the last two presidential elections by choosing as their electors three citizens pledged to President Clinton. Unless Congress acts to remedy the situation under the Twenty-Third Amendment, the District population will be the only community of American citizens who participated in the Presidential elections of 1992 and 1996 who will have no vote at all on impeachment or conviction. This constitutional asymmetry not only violates the rights of more than half a million voters; it is unnecessary. Congress has sufficient authority under the District Clause and under the enforcement clause of the Twenty-Third Amendment to grant the District of Columbia Delegate to the House of Representatives a vote in the House impeachment process on the House floor. The Supreme Court has liberally construed enforcement clauses in all of the suffrage amendments to vindicate the broad and central constitutional purpose of securing equal voting and participation rights for all Americans. The Twenty-Third Amendment put the District of Columbia essentially on the same level as the states for purposes of presidential elections. The purpose of Twenty-Third Amendment was to give Congress the power to provide the residents of the District an equal role in selecting the President and the Vice-President. The Amendment allows District residents to participate in presidential elections on an equal footing with the states. Today, this right can be fully vindicated only by reading the Twenty- Third Amendment to permit Congress to grant the District of Columbia Delegate a vote on the Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. Otherwise, the political will and sovereignty of residents of the District of Columbia in the selection of the president will be lost in violation of the Twenty-Third Amendment. The legislative history of the Twenty-Third Amendment does not contradict this conclusion. Apparently because impeachment has been so rare, there was no discussion of this problem at the time. This is the first occasion that articles of presidential impeachment will go to the floor of the House since the Twenty-Third Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1961. This is a case of first impression. The Twenty-Third Amendment is part of our Constitution's progressive inclusion of all ``the governed'' in the processes of government. The Fifteenth Amendment secured the right of African-Americans to vote. The Nineteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to women. The Twenty- Fourth Amendment abolished the poll tax. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment gave the right to vote to 18-year olds. All of these suffrage amendments have been interpreted liberally to secure the inclusion of once disenfrachised Americans. As the Supreme Court stated in Reynolds v. Sims in 1964: ``history has seen a continuing expansion of the scope of the right of suffrage in this country. The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.'' 337 U.S. 533 (1964) This reasoning applies equally to the Twenty-Third Amendment and American citizens who happen to live in the nation's capital. The case for the Delegate's vote on impeachment would be harder put if such participation had to be self-executing. But section 2 provides that, ``the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' Since Congress is given the instrumental role in activating and enforcing the Twenty-Third Amendment, it may interpret that amendment to give the Delegate the right to cast her vote along with the representatives of all the other states that participated in the presidential electoral college. The Supreme Court has clearly treated impeachment as a political question solely within legislative competence and control. In Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the Court rejected an impeached judge's attack on Senate Impeachment Rule XI, under which the presiding officer appoints a committee of Senators to ``receive evidence and take testimony.'' The Court found that this process of delegating to a committee was wholly within the Senate's powers because the Senate has ``the sole power to try all Impeachments.'' Article I, Section 3, Clause 6. The Court found that the ``common sense meaning of the word `sole' is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. . . . If the courts may review actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body `tried' an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be `functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.' '' Just as the Senate has the ``sole power'' to shape and control the trial process, the House of Representatives has the ``sole power of Impeachment'' in the first instance. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5. As the Nixon Court itself pointed out in discussing the nonreviewability of the Senate trail, ``the word `sole' appears only one other time in the Constitution--with respect to the House of Representatives' sole Power of Impeachment.'' Thus, like the Senate, the House of Representatives is free to structure the impeachment proceeding consistent with its own judgment of constitutional requirements. The Delegate's participation on the impeachment articles can thus be accomplished by way of a House rule. Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution generally makes ``Each House'' both ``the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members'' and the sole body to ``determine the Rules of its proceedings.'' As precedent, the House unilaterally granted the Delegate from the District of Columbia and other Delegates full power to vote in Committee of the Whole deliberations, a decision upheld against constitutional attack in Michel v. Anderson. This case, too, presents little constitutional difficulty because the House is not acting in its bicameral legislative capacity but rather in its unilateral capacity to ``have the sole power of Impeachment'' under Article 1, Section 2. Thus, the House must be able to design and enforce its own rules for conducting the impeachment process. The Supreme Court has recognized an extremely broad degree of interpretive powers under congressional enforcement clauses found in the Constitution's suffrage amendments. In Katzenbach versus Morgan it upheld the power of Congress, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to override a New York law and grant the right to vote to all persons who had completed the sixth grade in Puerto Rican schools regardless of their inability to read or write English. The Court rejected the argument that Congress' powers under the enforcement clause were limited only to what the Fourteenth Amendment itself required, stating rather that: ``It is the power of Congress which has been enlarged. Congress is authorized to enforce the prohibitions by appropriate legislation. Some legislation is contemplated to make the amendments fully effective.'' The Court emphasized that Congress was acting to protect voting rights and expressed reluctance to interfere with congressional judgement in this field. The Court said: ``It was well within congressional authority to say that this need of the Puerto Rican minority for the vote warranted federal intrusion upon any state interests served by the English literacy requirement. It was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgement, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations . . .'' The Court concluded that any legislation enacted under the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was permissible so long as the enactment `` `is plainly adapted to [the] end' '' of enforcing Equal Protection and ``is not prohibited by but is consistent with `the letter and spirit of the Constitution','' regardless of whether Equal Protection itself dictates such a result. Elsewhere, the Court has also found that enforcement clauses give the Congress the power to act to vindicate voting interests even where a particular statutory result is not constitutionally required. In South Carolina versus Katzenbach, the Court upheld Congress' power under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment to enact the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which included a ban on literacy tests, the requirement that new voting rules must be precleared, and the use of federal voting examiners. The Court stated that ``Congress has full remedial powers to effectuate the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination in voting.'' These powers are defined in these terms: ``Whatever legislation is appropriate, that is, adapted to carry out the objects the [Reconstruction] amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce submission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.'' In Oregon versus Mitchell, the Court unanimously upheld the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, which banned literacy tests for five years. Using a mere rationality test, the court found that Congress could rationally have found that these measures were needed to attack the perpetuation of racial discrimination. In City of Rome versus United States, the Court upheld Congress' Section 2 power to ban electoral changes that are discriminatory in effect intentional discrimination in voting. Thus, the Court found that Congress' enforcement authority under Section 2 went beyond the strict requirements of Section 1. The Court stated that it ``is clear . . . that under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment Congress may prohibit practices that in and of themselves do not violate Section 1 of the Amendment, so long as the prohibitions attacking racial discrimination in voting are `appropriate.' '' Because the Twenty-Third Amendment is an attempt to bring voting rights to a historically disenfranchised population, its enforcement clause should be read in a very broad way consistent with the Court's deference to congressional enforcement of suffrage rights. It is also relevant that the District Clause, contained in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, provides that Congress shall exercise ``exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever over ``the District.'' This ``plenary power'' has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give Congress complete authority over the District. There is thus ample constitutional basis for Congress having the final authority to define the meaning of the Twenty-third amendment, given that this is a ``case'' involving the District. The courts, at any rate, would, in all likelihood, treat this matter as a political question solely within the legislative competence, as impeachment is clearly a political question, as determined by the Supreme Court in Nixon versus United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a privileged resolution that is at the desk.

Ms. NORTON. I ask to be heard, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this impeachment is unfair on three counts. It is unfair to the President, whose admitted misconduct in covering up a private sexual affair cannot compare to the Nixon precedent, where high State crimes were not in doubt; it is unfair to the country, because the preference of the voters for censure of the President is being barred even from consideration; it is unfair to the people who live in this city, whose 23rd amendment constitutional right to vote for president has been denied, because they cannot vote for removal of the President. We are converting a solemn constitutional process into a petty political proceeding. The people, acting officially on November 3rd, repudiated impeachment, yet the majority has denied a vote on the public preference for censure, defying its own announced standard that no impeachment could occur without bipartisanship. The majority is headed for an incredible partisan party line vote to impeach the President. This impeachment is raw with unfairness. Mr. Speaker, this impeachment is unfair on three counts. It is unfair to the President whose admitted misconduct in covering-up of a private sexual affair cannot compare to the Nixon precedent where high stake crimes were not in doubt. It is unfair to the country because the preference of the voters for censure of the President is being barred even from consideration. It is unfair to the people who live in this city, who have a 23rd amendment constitutional right to vote for President but have been denied a vote on removal of the President. We are converting a solemn constitutional process into a petty political proceeding. The framers raised the bar as high as possible allowing impeachment not even for crimes, but only for high crimes. The Republicans have lowered the bar as low as they can to reach tawdry private consensual sex. The framers sought to make partisan impeachment a contradiction in terms; the majority is making it a reality. The people acting officially on November 3rd repudiated impeachment. Yet, the Majority has denied a vote on the public preference for censure. Defying its own announced standard that no impeachment could occur without bipartisanship, the Majority is heading for an incredible partisan, party line vote to impeach the President. This impeachment is unfair to the people of the District of Columbia. The Majority has relegated them to the functional equivalent of partial citizens--good enough to vote for president, but not good enough to decide whether to remove him. This impeachment is raw with unfairness. Only a repudiation of all articles can save us now.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas rule IX of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides that questions of privilege shall arise whenever the rights of the House collectively or the Members individually in their representative capacity are affected; Whereas under the precedents, customs, and traditions of the House pursuant to rule IX, a question of privilege has arisen in cases involving the constitutional prerogatives of the House and of Members of the House; and Whereas the House is prepared to consider a resolution impeaching the President, and the Delegate to the Congress from the District of Columbia seeks to assert the constitutional prerogative to cast a vote in the consideration of the resolution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved,

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as many in the Congress know, Mayor Marion Barry has decided to leave office at the end of this year after 16 years of service as Mayor. I issued a statement when Mayor Barry announced his retirement in May. I ask for permission to include that statement in the Congressional Record. After a lifetime of public service and devotion to this city, my friend Marion Barry is leaving office with the city on the rebound. Sometimes controversial, always congenial, Marion leaves with his infectious optimism about the city he loves intact. The man who invented politics in D.C. was also its most skillful and resilient practitioner. He always called me his ``warrior'' on the Hill. I always knew that my old civil rights buddy would no more settle for second class citizenship here than he did in the movement. Whatever our differences, Marion Barry was my friend before he was Mayor, and he will be my friend when he is no longer Mayor. I wish him well.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time, and I thank her and the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) for their initiative, timely and important these last days. My sympathies are with Matthew Shepard's family and friends. At the same time I recognize that they deserve much more from this body. Last night I welcomed thousands of people to the west steps of the Capitol on behalf of the jurisdiction that has the strongest human rights laws and the strongest hate crime laws in the United States of America. That was not the United States of America; it was the District of Columbia. I wish I could have said the same about the country that we in this body serve. As I speak, indeed there are anti-gay measures on the D.C. appropriation. This body has to take responsibility for the fact that when people read that this body wants gays not to be able to adopt children, when this body wants clean needles not to be available even with the District's own money, this body has sent a homophobic message that is picked up by people like those who murdered Matthew Shepard. Last night was a very moving memorial of its own. But the Members who came in large numbers surely thought, do we not have in our hands the ability, the capacity to come forward with the most meaningful memorial of all, the bill pending for years now in this House that would deter this crime and when it occurs, punish this crime? So this afternoon while we all commiserate and grieve for this family, this should be a moment of introspection for this body, because the question for this body is what are we going to do about it and is it enough to grieve about it. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is what is left to be done about it. Imagine human rights legislation that left you out. If you are white, if you are black, if you are male, if you are female, you are included within the great American family of human rights laws, but not if you are gay. We must use what amounts to human sacrifice, the sacrifice of this young man, to include gay people in the family of American people. We must also be very careful with our own talk. No one who speaks about their disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle means for somebody to go out and murder gays. But we must come to grips with the fact that that is how that message is perceived and taken by many. Pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and, while you are at it, pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have kept the count for the Women's Congressional Caucus of our legislative achievements in a productive session for our achievements, working closely with my Republican co- chair, the gentlewoman from Connecticut. I come to the floor this afternoon cheered to know that one of the last of our seven must-pass provisions has now finally been passed, after having been passed several times, twice in the Senate and in the House, and that is a provision that will allow the full range of contraceptive drugs and devices for Federal employees who faced Federal insurance that was very diverse in what was offered. This was a major fight. Abortion politics somehow made its way into this mainstream contraceptive issue. Finally, it has been settled and these drugs will be provided. That means that four of the seven must- pass bills of the Women's Caucus, which is a bipartisan caucus in the House has been passed. We are grateful that the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act was passed; the reauthorization and strengthening of sections of the Violence Against Women Act occurred; that a new Commission on Women, Minorities and People with Disabilities in Science, Engineering and Technology Jobs will take place. Now that the contraceptive priority has passed, the House and the Senate have now been passed four out of seven of our priorities. It shows what bipartisanship can get us if we are willing to do it. The women of the Congress have set the example for the entire Congress. I do want this body to know that in addition to our annual must-pass provisions, there were other legislative priorities that the caucus had and that were passed. I am particularly cheered that gender-integrated military training, a strong bipartisan goal of the Women's Caucus, occurred. And my hat is off to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), who were on the committee and carried the matter for the caucus. Child care, as we desired it, did not come about because no bill came to the floor. But I am pleased to note that $45 million was included in the Higher Education Reauthorization Act for campus-based child care. Mr. Speaker, with all of the concern about taxes, this House did not overlook the need for tax relief for innocent spouses, women who were left holding the bag after divorce when taxes they did not know were not paid fell to them. The Women's Caucus has led the notion that women and minorities are to be included in clinical trials. Now we have been able to get that proposition accepted under the Federal Food and Drug Administration Reform Act. Mr. Speaker, child support enforcement continues to be a priority concern of the congressional women. We are moving along incrementally until this full job is done. There are incentive funds that we have passed in order to improve the performance of child support enforcement programs. We take heart that it has now become a felony if parents do not pay their child support for a year, or if they owe more than $5,000. That is what a felony ought to be, when we consider what is at stake is the lives of children. We are pleased that the House, in fact, has helped displaced homemakers find job skills. These are woman who will not qualify for welfare, many of them divorced or separated, women who now under the Job Training Reauthorization Act will in fact be able to get job training targeted and focused on them. Mr. Speaker, I have been to the floor this week already with a strong set of disappointments about women's issues. They were quite overwhelming. They involved, especially, choice and child care issues. I come to the floor this afternoon, however, grateful that we have removed contraception from the women's list of demerits for the 105th Congress. May we all do better in the 106th Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon in sincere gratitude and sincere regret, in my capacity as chair of this session of the Women's Congressional Caucus. In that capacity I have worked most productively with the cochair, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Nancy Johnson). The work we have produced I think indicates what happens when Members work together. I want to say a word about my gratitude, and then how what we have achieved has been quite overwhelmed by what women have been denied. I want to acknowledge the innovations that we designed this year, and the must-pass agenda. It had the help of the Speaker, gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). Three of our seven priorities were passed. Two were vital to women: the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act, which assures women that both the equipment and personnel involved in mammograms are up to standards; and sections of the Violence Against Women Act. There was a third important bill on our must-pass agenda, the Commission on Women, Minorities, and People with Disabilities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Jobs. Two more bills of great importance to women I want to acknowledge. We beat back an attempt to take women out of basic training and separate them from men, and we passed an Innocent Spouse Tax Relief Act. These are very important, and I do not want to denigrate what they are. But, Mr. Speaker, these are overwhelmed by the regret that I bring to the floor this afternoon and that regret boils down to the three Cs: Choice, Contraception and Child Care. Mr. Speaker, if we were to ask women how they would rate this Congress, I think the three Cs would give us an F. Choice, because since the majority took control, we have had a hundred votes on choice, which should be a settled vote in this body, 23 of them in the 105th Congress. We continue to be obsessed with choice, though the American people have laid this issue to rest. In this Congress, the Hyde amendment is no longer an appropriation rider, but became law. Shame on us. Perhaps the greatest disappointment was in contraception, where we had a case study on how victory can be stolen from women. Because both the House and the Senate voted to include the full range of contraceptive coverage for Federal employees in Federal employees' health plans. This, which had the support of this body, majority support of this body, passed by voice vote in the Senate and was stripped out in conference in a move that deserves remark for its profound anti-democratic tactics. Then there is the one issue we hoped would be passed this year. This should have been the year of the child. Child care would have made it the year of the child. The Women's Caucus put together what we thought was a bipartisan set of principles that would produce child care in this session. Something for each side of the aisle. For Democrats who tend to be concerned about working families, more low-income certificates. Particularly, because the welfare to work is absorbing all of the child care, leaving little for women who want to go to work, for them, for low-income families. And then for stay-at-home spouses, we said we would accept a bill for tax relief for stay-at-home spouses, and then we would accept quality that was State imposed and the Federal Government would assist the States to bring up the quality of child care. Mr. Speaker, anybody who cannot get a bipartisan bill for our children out of that is not trying hard enough, and we have not tried hard enough in the 105th Congress as long as mainstream issues like choice, contraception, like child care are not done by this Congress. Whatever we do, including the must-pass victories of the Women's Caucus, will be overwhelmed when the gavel goes down on this Congress. As delighted as I am by the passage of three of our four priorities, we of the Women's Caucus of the 105th Congress will have to answer the question: ``What did you do for women in the 105th?'' The answer from American women will be: Not much.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and urge its adoption by the House. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has a long history of working in a bipartisan manner with the inspectors general to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in Federal programs. Indeed, the original authorizing statute establishing inspectors general in the executive branch was drafted by the Government Operations Committee 20 years ago. The close relationship between the inspectors general and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is entirely appropriate. The Inspector General community is one of Congress' principal watchdogs in the executive branch. There is much we can learn from each other as we work to ensure that our government operate in the most effective and efficient manner possible. IGs have a very difficult job, in part because they are asked to serve so many masters. They are appointed by the President, but report to the Congress as well as the agency head. As independent investigators within the Federal agencies, they are often the last person a manager wants to hear from, and Members of Congress can get very upset when the need or cost of pet projects are questioned. Yet, in many instances the toughest jobs are the ones which need doing the most. That is certainly the case here. During fiscal year 1997, IGs returns $3 billion to the Federal Government in restitution and recoveries and their audits identified other $25 billion in funds which could be used more effectively. They also had more than 15,000 successful criminal prosecutions and over 6,000 debarments, exclusions, and suspensions of companies or individuals doing business with the government. Similar accomplishments are made year after year. The IGs have more than proven their usefulness to Congress and the American public. The Chief Financial Officers Act, the Government Management Reform Act and the Government Performance and Results Act have given the IGs some new responsibilities, particularly to ensure that Congress has complete and reliable financial information. Their work in this area is invaluable to policymakers and management executives throughout the administration. Madam Speaker, it has been 20 years since the passage of the original IG act, and 10 since the 1988 amendments authored by Senator Glenn. The original act established IGs in six Cabinet level departments. One measure of its success is the fact that today there are inspectors general in all departments, and also in most major independent agencies. Madam Speaker, as this resolution states in part, inspectors general serve the American taxpayer by promoting economy, efficiency, effectiveness and integrity in the administration of the programs and operations of the government. May I add that when it came time to choose a United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, I asked the President to appoint the Inspector General from the Department of the Interior, Wilma Lewis. She has already shown what the experience of an IG can do for the city, the Nation's capital. I urge Members to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me begin my thanking the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton); the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) ranking member; and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) for their leadership and support in bringing to the floor H.R. 4566 to attend to some unfinished business of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997. The revitalization act is already pulling the District out of insolvency by relieving the city of the most costly State functions, missions that are not performed by any other city in the country. However, the experience with such complicated and comprehensive legislation in the Congress is that technical corrections are almost always necessary. There is no need to detain the House on these small technical matters. One set of the corrections in this bill concerns detailed procedures that are necessary to accomplish the employee transfers, retirements and terminations while minimizing unnecessary dislocation, frustration and stress. The second set of technical corrections relates to matters involving the courts and various components of the justice system that have been transferred from the District of Columbia to the Federal Government. The transfer of Lorton to the Federal Government is in the first year of transition. The transfer of court costs has already taken place. The provisions of H.R. 4566, therefore, are overdue. I strongly urge the passage of this bill to tie up the loose ends and avoid unnecessary problems in this complicated and unprecedented transfer. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Elizabeth Karlin, a physician and humanitarian, who possessed uncompromising compassion and belief in humane medical treatment for women, died of a brain tumor on July 27, 1998. She was 54 years old. Elizabeth Karlin was a mother of two children, an impresario of folk music, a general practitioner of medicine in rural Tanzania, an internist specializing in endocrinology, an abortion provider, and a national leader in the movement to provide access to abortion as part of a full range of health services for women and families. Dr. Karlin served as Director of the Women's Medical Center in Madison, Wisconsin. She was a founding member of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University Hospitals in Madison. She received her BA from Antioch College and graduated with honors from the University of Wisconsin Medical School. The American Medical Women's Association awarded her its Reproductive Health Award in 1993 and its highest honor, the Elizabeth Blackwell Award in 1996. Because of her outspoken belief in providing the best possible care for women faced with unintended pregnancies, Elizabeth Karlin was targeted by extremists, who stalked her in her neighborhood and staged protests in front of her home. In a New York Times article in 1995, Dr. Karlin explained why she had chosen such a courageous, but difficult path when she said: ``I don't do abortions because it's a filthy job and somebody has to do it. I do them because it is the most challenging medicine I can think of. I provide women with nurturing, preventive care to counteract a violent religious and political environment. I hope to do it well enough to prevent repeat abortions . . . My job is to stop the next abortion. To do this we expect our patients to leave us empowered, more informed, healthier, and, yes, happier than when they came in.'' Dr. Karlin testified before the Congressional Women's Caucus in October 1997, urging the importance of American women's access to contraception and new contraceptive research. Following the hearing, the Congressional Women's Caucus, pressed for the full range of contraceptive coverage for federal employees in their benefit plans. A role model for many and an apologist to no one, Dr. Karlin set a high standard for doctors who strive to provide women with the best medical care possible under the worst of circumstances

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate James Forman, who should have been a celebrated leader years ago. Jim, as we always called him when he was the engine and the engineer of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), has just celebrated his 70th birthday. Jim Forman is the least known of the major civil rights leaders of the 1960s. Our colleague, John Lewis, may be the best known of those of us who worked in SNCC, but John would be the first to say that it was Jim who ran SNCC. Jim Forman was the Executive Director of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee when it was at its best and at its height. This was the SNCC that pioneered the nonviolent techniques of the sit-ins at segregated lunch counters; that organized the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party that broke segregated national convention delegations in both parties; and that originated the 1964 Mississippi civil rights summer that brought an integrated army of students into the South to break open the worst and most dangerous areas. These historic achievements required more than young people who were willing to sit in, go to jail, or risk their lives. Jim did those and more. Jim was the sturdy hand at the helm who brought order out of movement chaos, kept everybody focused, and headed off trouble. I remember Jim as the forceful man in charge who was good at the whole range of human interactions. He could cajole, he could persuade, he could entice, and, if necessary, he would order. SNCC was an extraordinary, collegial, decentralized movement organization. Its loose structure, youthful participants, and free spirits demanded a special leader. How fortunate our band of the young and foolish were. At the moment when we needed a leader who could hold us all together until the segregated south succumbed to the rule of law, we found one--James Forman.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed astonishing confusion in this House and in the Judiciary Committee concerning the requirements for impeachment. If these very issues were before a court of law, there might be wide disagreement on the facts, but everyone would know what the law is. In an impeachment proceeding, the law is the standard the House sets. We move today, Mr. Speaker, not by any standard, but by the seat of our pants. We are a constitutional democracy, not a parliamentary republic. A vote of no confidence in Great Britain requires no standard, but calls forth a new election. A vote for an impeachment inquiry in the United States requires a high standard, because it could nullify an election. Mr. Speaker, the President's misconduct may warrant an inquiry, but neither he nor any other American deserves an inquisition.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I feel like asking this body to wake me up when this is all over. Wake me up when you finish choosing what kind of contraception female Federal employees ought to use. The good faith of this body, indeed the sacred vote of this body and of the Senate is at stake. I have just come to the floor to say women are not going to take tampering with their contraceptive health. Look, we agree choice is controversial in this body. But I can tell my colleagues what is not controversial in this body or among the American people, and that is choice of contraceptives. There is a reason; that is because we have got to have a choice of contraception because some of that does not work on some of us. Some of it will make us sick. Some has long-term effects. Some has short term effects. So when Members of this body go into conference and try to make the diaphragm the only contraception that is available to women, they are insulting the women, not only of the Federal Government, but of the United states of America at their core. We are fooling around with women's health when we decide as a body to choose or to limit their choice of contraception. One does not have to be a women to know that one size does not fit all when it comes to contraception. If we want to preserve women's health, if we want to stop abortion, then the one issue that ought to unite us, pro-life and pro-choice, together is contraception. I ask this body not to let history record that we decided in this year to instruct women on what contraception they ought to use.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cummings substitute amendment. This bill, as much as any I have seen on the floor in recent weeks, shows how little comity we have in this body, for this is a matter that could have been worked out. Instead, this is a bill going for a veto, apparently enthusiastically. The Cummings substitute is a good faith substitute. For example, it contains an exception to the cap on demonstration projects indicating that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is not against such demonstration projects on their face. I have to say for the record that there are parts of this bill that I am personally sympathetic with. First of all, I detest bureaucracy. Do not forget, I am from the District of Columbia where I have had to live with insane rules. I am always going after my own people to break through to where the meat is. Moreover, I am myself an academic, a tenured professor of law who teaches a seminar every other Monday at Georgetown University Law Center. So, I am sympathetic with the flexibility that I think an academic institution needs. But I have to ask, Mr. Chairman, why would anybody want to do a demonstration project without monitoring it to see what has been demonstrated so that one could spread it or correct it? Now, the Cummings substitute has the expert government agency monitoring and evaluating this demonstration project, the OPM. Whereas the bill itself has the Secretary of Interior who knows nothing, of course, about personnel and other issues involved in this bill. I can just see it now, Mr. Chairman. At some point if this bill were ever passed and signed, somebody in this body would ask for the GAO to do an evaluation of this matter because an expert group had not, in fact, evaluated it. If we want it to have any integrity, if we want it to have any credibility, why not have OPM, which has not an iron in that fire, look at it, evaluate. If we do not like what they say, we can always look at it ourselves in committee. Moreover, leaving employee organizations out of the development of such a project is a recipe for disaster. Modern American business understands how these things have to work these days. Bring everybody in under the umbrella and make it go. Otherwise, we leave the dissenters on the outside, leave those who represent the employees on the outside, leaving dissension. We need employee cooperation if we are serious about success. We do not have to get union cooperation on everything that we do, but sitting down and talking with them is a whole lot better way to assure success than leaving them out to throw stones. The fact is, if we had had hearings on this bill, we probably could have worked out many of these issues. I, for one, would have sought a compromise because so many parts of this bill I am sympathetic with. Instead, we thought this bill was not going to come forward. It leaps over all of the rules of this body and appears, voila, on the floor. Mr. Chairman, what I ask that this body do is take this piece of legislation, do not go for a veto, instead go for a bill. Send this bill back or, in the alternative, support the Cummings substitute.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness and for yielding this time to me, and I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) both for working so closely together on what is clearly a ground-breaking piece of legislation, though it affects a smaller universe than our country needs. One of the reasons I am thrilled with this bill is that the bipartisan Congressional Women's Caucus made child care one of its seven priorities this year, focused on seven priorities; six of them were actual bills; four of the seven, in fact, have been enacted, which is not a bad track record; and it has encouraged us as a caucus, now 21 years old, to focus on specific legislation of the kind that we think has a consensus in this body. Now, of the three that did not get through, one was child care. All were fairly complicated. The ones that were fairly easy did get through. Child care was difficult this term, and we knew it. We could not get a consensus on one bill, but we got consensus on three principles: One, that funding would go to lower-income families; two, that there would be tax relief for working families and for stay-at-home spouses; and three, that there would be quality child care. Any bill that incorporated those three principles would have our support. As we know, we were unable to get a comprehensive child care bill through. That is why I am thrilled that at least that there will be a child care bill that passes the 105th Congress. The Federal Employee Child Care Affordable Act gives us something to show for child care in this session. Now, my chief regret is that the Gilman and Waxman provision was not incorporated into this bill as it originally was because that would have meant that one of our three principles, quality, would have been memorialized in an important bill. This provision would have had Federal child care centers comply with Federal or State safety and health standards, whichever is higher, and all Federal centers would have to be free of lead paint. I believe, Mr. Speaker, I can say without fear of being contradicted that there is not a Member in this body who would disagree with the provisions of the Gilman and Waxman bill, but the fact is that a jurisdictional dispute has derailed it, and I was pleased to hear the gentlewoman saying she will follow up next session to make sure that this provision also is passed. This in other ways is a model bill. This is a model bill in the flexibility it allows in meeting child care needs. I am inclined to say to the gentlewoman from Maryland that in a real sense it is making lemons out of lemonade because there is no extra money in this bill, it is a no-cost bill that leaves discretion to the agency to decide where to use its money, and when we have a lot of employees who look like they are not on time or they are not being productive for child care reasons, that may be the best use of discretionary funds. This will go to lower-income people who cannot afford the child care. Mr. Speaker, I can say to my colleagues that when I was a young mother with two youngsters, I remember at one point having the need of both my mother-in-law and someone who helped me in the house. The mother-in-law went to pick up the child from nursery school, and the lady in the house stayed with the other child. I still have not figured out how low-income mothers do it, particularly single parents. Mr. Speaker, with its Federal child care centers the Federal Government surely ought to be in the forefront of child care. With this bill, it moves in that direction, and this legislation is in the progressive tradition of the Federal Government staying ahead of other employers in important matters to its own employees.