Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Why does that not deal with the gentleman's problem with the quality of the work force?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, in the words of the old adage, to consider the source or, shall I say, consider the sources. The only Members who have come to the floor to support the repeal of the District's residency law have been suburban Members who are selfishly interested in the outcome of this repeal. Exclusively, we have heard from suburban Members. They have ignored every argument in favor of the bill. Waiver, we are told, is not good enough. There will be a bureaucracy, and it will not be waived. Of course, it is in our interest to fill positions. They do not know whether it will be waived or not. But since they do not have an answer, the answer is, I simply reject it without any proof. We are told it is class legislation. Although I have indicated a perfect example, the 911 operators who are likely to be filled by anyone who is competent. I tell my colleagues right now that with all of the movement out of the District, we probably could not fill a police class in the District alone because the standards have been raised. Kids must not have gotten into trouble and the like, for example. There is no class bias here. People who voted for this would hardly have done so considering that they have to run for office in the District of Columbia if there were class bias. We are told in one of the most innovative arguments that the land to form the District of Columbia was donated by the State of Maryland; ergo, the District must, therefore, grant whatever the State, what is in the interest of the State of Maryland and not in its own interest. We are told that this is an election year, that this was done for political reasons. Well, that must mean that it was done because those who voted for it believe that the people of the District of Columbia wanted it. We are told that there is no reciprocity here. If you find that two- thirds of your workers do not in fact live in your city, then you are free to enact this kind of proposal as well. That is why we are doing it, because we are recovering from insolvency. We need the tax money here. And you suburban Members, you are the same Members who keep us from having a commuter tax, even a commuter tax on people who earn their living from the taxpayers of the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, there is a conflict of interest on the part of every Member who has spoken for repeal. They want it their way. They want to have us coming, and they want to have us going. The fact is that the District government has provided a safe Civil Service job for their residents. They have taken those safe jobs and used those jobs to move out of town. This legislation gives the words ``special interest'' new meaning, new meaning and pregnant meaning. I ask my colleagues to support me on this matter, to support the District as it recovers from insolvency, as it passes a law that allows liberal waiver to preserve the quality of the work force, to allow us to decide whom to employ and whom to pay and not to allow that decision to be made by suburban Members of this body, all of whom have exclusively been those who have spoken for repeal.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not object to this amendment. I regret that it has been offered because I think it unnecessary. The reason I do not object to it is that it is not a violation of Home Rule but comports with an existing court order that already prohibits above medium classification prisoners from being shipped to Ohio. The gentleman has every reason to be very concerned that there were misclassified prisoners who were sent to this facility. Moreover, unlike some of the amendments that have been brought forward in this body, this matter directly adversely affects this Member's district. The fact is, however, that the court order has been agreed to by the District and is better protection for the Member's concerns than the amendment he has offered. The District has gone further and adopted the Bureau of Prisoners classification for prisoners because part of what happened in Youngstown was the difference between the District and other jurisdictions, as one might imagine would be the case, on what indeed is medium classification, what is a low classification prisoner and the like. In order to straighten that out the District now simply adopts the Bureau of Prisons' classifications, which is of course the right thing to do, considering that these prisoners are on their way to being in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, because under the revitalization package passed by Congress, last year, these are no longer District of Columbia inmates. We are in a transition period, and that transition period means that gradually these prisoners are being moved from the custody of the District of Columbia to the custody of the Federal Government. I accept this amendment. I believe it is unnecessary. I do not oppose it, however, because the District has already agreed to it. I absolutely sympathize with the gentleman's concerns. The gentleman has been a strong supporter of Home Rule. The gentleman did not spring this on me but came and talked with me about it so that we could reach an agreement. I only ask that other Members, before they decide what to do with respect to a District issue, do me the courtesy of approaching me so that we can seek to work out an understanding.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand your concern and I do not blame you, considering that there has been a breakout up there, but if I may say so, there is no better protection than a court order that says you are in contempt if you violate what I say, because you can break a law that this body passes and nobody can do anything to you until somebody decides to go in and go through a long rigmarole to bring a court suit. Contempt proceedings are fast and sure. In any case, the gentleman and I, as usual, are not in disagreement.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the Congress has banned the use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs and left local jurisdictions to decide for themselves how to handle the AIDS epidemic. I ask you not to read the District out of our federalist democracy by imposing the Congressional will on this life or death issue. Let us be clear who we are talking about. The District is in the throes of an AIDS epidemic that is totally out of control. It ranks first in the Nation in HIV-AIDS. The majority of District residents are African-Americans. Nationally, AIDS is the leading killer of African-American men and women 25-34, and half of these deaths are needle-related. New infections in young men and women age 13 to 24 are rising so rapidly they have become the focus of special concern. Two-thirds of AIDS in women and 50 percent of AIDS in children can be traced to the needle chain of transmission. All of the world class investigators that Congress asked to look at this issue have come to the same conclusion. The entire medical and scientific establishment, among them six federally funded investigations, have found that these programs reduce infections markedly and do not promote drug use. The Vancouver study has been, according to its authors, misinterpreted. They have said so in an article in the New York Times. The use of that research on this floor is bogus. Wherever you stand on needle exchange, even if you are willing to disregard the findings of the NAS, the CDC, the GAO, the National Commission on AIDS, the University of California, the Office of Technology Assessment and the National Institutes of Health, I ask you not to place the District in a class by itself, unable to make decisions for its own residents that are a matter of life or death.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON. May I inquire how much time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman citing the Federalist Papers for the proposition that the national legislature should be able to overturn any law of a local legislature?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the outright repeal of the District's residency law in this bill is an abuse of congressional power that even Congress has been reluctant to do. This repeal would mark only the fourth time that a District law has been overturned in 24 years of home rule. Despite the fact that this residency law does not threaten the job of a single suburban worker employed by the District Government, regional Members have placed the repeal in the D.C. appropriation bill. The residency bill applies prospectively to new hires only, and even then a suburban worker could be hired so long as he or she moves to the city within 6 months. The strongest reason against a residency law has been eliminated by the requirements in the law itself. Residency may be waived for hard-to-fill positions. In the District today this could range from modestly paid 911 operators, where problems of competence and sick leave have been found, to technology talent that may be in short supply. To assure work force quality, waivers could be exercised for entire units, even agencies. Mr. Chairman, the residency repeal in this bill is selfish special interest legislation, pure and simple. The repeal is opposed by the Control Board for financial reasons. The residency law would strengthen the District's economy because city employees would pay city taxes, spend most of their disposable income within the city, and improve their own neighborhoods. Suburban employees earn 60 percent of the total annual salaries paid to District employees. If District employees who live in Maryland, Virginia and other States paid D.C. income taxes, the income tax revenue generated from their payments would be almost $60 million. Most of the employees about whom residents and Congress alike so often complain are not District residents. Almost 45 percent live in Maryland; 8.5 percent live in Virginia. If more of them lived where they work, then, as the courts upholding residency laws have found, absenteeism would be reduced and employee performance improved because employees would have a stake in their community. Half of all American cities with a population of over 500,000 have residency laws, and 11 States have laws mandating that local government employees live in the State. Regional Members have succeeded in denying the city the right to tax commuters who use our services. Now they want to deny us the right to have employees who live in the District and would automatically pay taxes. They want it all their way. Mr. Chairman, it takes real special interest, tunnel vision to repeal a provision that does them no harm but could help a city coming out of fiscal crisis. This repeal is not just a slap in the face, Mr. Chairman, it is a fist in the gut. No city on the planet deserves to be denied the right to decide whom to employ and whom to pay. We reach a new low with this repeal. Let this democratically passed measure by the D.C. City Council stand.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask that $570,000 in local funds be restored to the advisory neighborhood commissions. These neighborhood elected bodies were included in the original Home Rule Charter to allow residents at the block and neighborhood level participation that would otherwise be unavailable to them. ANCs keep neighborhoods from being overloaded with liquor stores and porno shops and from being disproportionately affected by transfer stations or illegal dumping. ANCs keep parks from becoming open-air drug markets, and the Anacostia River from being polluted by people who dump refrigerators and contaminated waste. ANCs assure community comment and feedback on matters such as the placement of facilities and thus save the central government from making many mistakes. No government agency could possibly monitor daily the minutia of neighborhood life and ensure rapid responses to neighborhood needs. Without the ANCs, the District's huge loss of population would have been far greater. The almost 300 unpaid commissioners achieve what it would take a legion of civil servants to accomplish. The ANCs have already taken a 50 percent cut in funding since 1994, forcing some out of business and leaving citizens in many District neighborhoods with no neighborhood representation. So great have been the cuts and so detrimental to the neighborhoods that the control board actually recommended a $78,000 increase in funding for FY 1999, not zero funding, as proposed here. Ironically, the cut in the appropriation comes as an auditor's report shows that controls are working. The ANCs are audited on a regular basis and must submit quarterly reports. The D.C. auditor's 1997 annual report of ANCs reads much like a GAO report of Federal agencies. Congress does not defund Federal agencies when we find problems. We fix the problems. The amounts involved here are minimal and some ANCs do not even spend their small allotments. This is local and only local money and it is spent on bare necessities: Office expenses, faxes, phones, neighborhood anticrime patrol equipment, and the like. I would have no objection if the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) were to propose more stringent fiscal controls than the admirable controls that already exist. I could not agree more that the District cannot afford to waste a cent. The auditor's report could provide a road map for further reforms. Cutting off residents' lifeline to neighborhood improvement will only increase the already astonishing flight from the city. Restore this small amount in the appropriation. Give local residents, who are doing more than their share, a break.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, it is my obligation to rise and respond to the gentleman from Iowa, who claimed that the funds involved, the funds before us, are ``Federally appropriated funds,'' leaving the impression that the funds we are discussing as ANC funds are Federal funds somehow fungible to the Federal budget. Let me be clear. Every cent of the funds involved here was raised in the District of Columbia from District taxpayers. These funds are found in the budget of the District of Columbia. These funds were scrubbed and approved by the Control Board, which did so after looking at the auditor's report, after satisfying itself that the kinds of inevitable abuses we will find in this kind of operation were being addressed. It is bad enough for the Federal Government to be appropriating somebody else's money, as I speak. We should not be appropriating a cent of the money before us. It is not Federal money, it was raised by my constituents in my city. It is bad enough for Members to appropriate it, but then to insist that because they appropriated it, it is fungible with the Federal budget, is an insult to the hardworking people of the District of Columbia, and I will not have it. This is their money. Let them use their money as they please, as long as that money is used honestly and there are controls, and we have seen that there are.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, the Child Welfare League of America says of this amendment, ``This amendment would unnecessarily limit the pool of families available for these children who desperately need families.'' Make no mistake. This is a gay-bashing amendment, but it is going to take down a lot of kids with it. This matter of adoption rests entirely with the courts. They do it on the best interests of the child. They will not allow a child to go except where a child must be. In the District we have many hard-to-place kids. Three thousand six hundred kids are in foster care and are waiting to be adopted. Our whole foster care system is in receivership. Is this a family values Congress or not? Are two parents better than one? Is it not the child who matters? Studies have been done that show no developmental differences, for example, between gay and nongay parents. The language here is aimed at gays. Who it hits are kids in the District. There are substantial advantages to a child in joint adoptions, even when the parents are not married. There are inheritance rights, there are insurance rights, there is Social Security. We ought to encourage the added security of joint adoptions, not discourage it. This is family law. Do not bring it into this Chamber. Defeat this amendment. Save the kids.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would like to know where my city council stands on this bill. Out of respect for me, I would have thought that the Member would have allowed me to present this matter to my city council instead of springing it on the Rules Committee and on me. This bill requires that the city council spend money setting up a tobacco cessation program, and it lays out what the penalties should be. Maybe the penalties should be more. Maybe they should be less. Why should not my folks have the same opportunity the gentleman says Virginia had to decide whether or not to do this? I cannot say they would not want to do this. They have just passed a whole spate of very good anti-tobacco laws. I do not second-guess my own council, and I live in the District. Who is the gentleman, without even presenting the matter to the council, to presume to legislate for them? This is precisely the kind of disrespect for me personally and for my district that goes on in this body without people even thinking about it. Give me the opportunity, I say to the Member, to present this to my city council. They may well go for it.