Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Let me begin by saying that Article I, section 8, clause 17 is repeatedly cited as the basis for anti-democratic, authoritarian control over the District of Columbia. Almost a century after the Article I language was added by the framers, new language was added that must be read in conjunction with the Article I language. It reads as follows: No State shall deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Legislating for District residents and overturning its laws deprives the citizens I represent of equal protection of the laws. I ask that out of respect for the sanctity of the Constitution, if Members insist upon undemocratic actions, you do so in your own name, not in the name of the Constitution of the United States. Once again, Congress is about to engage in a game of self-torture. For the District, this annual appropriation has become a profoundly punitive exercise. The District appropriation bill is replete with undemocratic interference and amendments that concern only the over half million people who live in the District. Yet we are about to spend hours on a city council agenda. No serious national legislature should be voting on a residency law for city employees or on funding for neighborhood commissions or on funding of a voting rights lawsuit or on local tobacco legislation. Nor should Members be dragged to the floor only for the purpose of putting them on record on a litany of controversial amendments. Are there no limits to political opportunism even when it hurts Members on your own side? Clearly there are no compunctions about hurting District residents. The city council, the mayor and the control board have done what Congress has urged for years. They have produced a tight, balanced budget with a surplus. One would think that the Congress that has been critical of the city would want to acknowledge the good work of the control board and elected officials who have brought the District back from the ashes of insolvency. One would think that the Congress would say, amen, and get on with the Nation's business. Instead, this body is treating the city today no differently now from how the District was treated when it was at its nadir just a couple years ago. Is not the District entitled to deference when it submits a tough budget that uses all of its surplus to pay down the debt? The Congress itself has yet to be so fiscally responsible about its finances. The District's need for investment in technology and in its many residents who have been hurt by the financial crisis is palpable. Yet the city has submitted a budget that puts compelling needs aside to pay down the debt. What is the congressional response to this fiscal responsibility? An irresponsible set of controversial legislative ornaments that undemocratically overturn the wishes of local residents. It is time this body showed District residents the respect they are entitled to as American citizens. This appropriation disrespects the District's elected officials. It disrespects Congress' own agent, the appointed control board, and it profoundly disrespects the people I represent. It shows hardly more respect for the Members of this body who will be forced to vote on local trivia and controversial social issues alike, none of them national matters. There is only one appropriate way to respond to this appropriation. Send it back where it came from.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the present bill contains language barring the use of both Federal and District funds to pay for abortion services for low-income women. I do not rise to ask for an exception to the strongly-held views of this Congress on abortion. I ask only that the District of Columbia be treated no better and no worse than other districts. I must accept that the rule of this body on a prohibition on Federal funds should yield to no exception, except in the case of protecting the life of the mother, rape, or incest. Barring the use of Federal funds for abortion for low-income women creates a special hardship for a jurisdiction that has been in financial crisis. Considering its financial position, the District is unlikely to choose to fund abortions on its own. However, no city should be put in the position where it would be unable to respond even to catastrophic pregnancies by using its own locally-raised funds, if necessary. This is a Federal Republic built on the premise that there are vast differences among us. No issue shows these differences more than reproductive choice. The Congress is within its rights to say, use your funds, not ours. It is out of line when it tells a local jurisdiction how to spend its own taxpayers' funds. The real test of democracy is whether we are prepared to allow others to make lawful choices we ourselves would not make. I have profound respect for the conscientious and religious scruples of those who oppose abortion. The District has the right to the same respect. I ask Members to allow the District to spend its own local funds as it may need for abortions for indigent women. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Is it the gentleman's view that the framers intended democracy to obtain in every other jurisdiction of the United States except the District of Columbia because they enacted Article I?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely amazed by the capacity of this body to debate settled issues. This is the second time that these folks have tried to gather enough signatures for medical marijuana in the District, and this is the second time it has failed. My staff, in order to keep this from wasting the time of this body, went so far as to wake up the Board of Elections and have verified that there are not enough signatures. The fact that there are not enough signatures for the second time says pretty definitively that the residents of the District of Columbia have decided this issue. The medical marijuana debate goes on. Anybody trying to do an innovative approach, unproven, I believe undergoing tests, but as yet unproven, and trying to do that in the District of Columbia, must surely know that this Congress is going to strike it down. That is exactly what happened, except the people struck it down first. I am going to ask Members at 5 minutes to 11 to voice vote this, to consider it moot, so that we can go on with our business.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. By what right does the Speaker of the House come forward to personally impugn those who would disagree with him? By what right does the Speaker, who has led this House in refusing to fund hundreds of programs that are on the books, dare to say that those who would apply money to the public schools where this House has always said it should be applied, by what right does the Speaker impugn the integrity of those who would fund what has always been funded by this House? By what right does the Speaker accuse those of us who disagree with him of being in the pockets of the unions of this country? This Member, this Member, this Member got 90 percent of the vote in the District of Columbia and does not have to answer to the unions any more than she has to answer to you, Mr. Speaker. By what right, by what right, by what right does the majority leader bring to this floor a vouchers bill three months after the same bill was just vetoed, incurring a harmful delay for the very families and children he purports to want to help? If you ask D.C. residents whether they would like some free money to send their children to private schools today, like most Americans, they would probably say yes. It is important also to tell them that most court decisions say no and that the President's veto means no. There is something this House can do for D.C. kids. You can get on the train that is breaking through with tough, new standards and higher scores for our kids. You can get off the voucher train, which you know is headed straight for a veto. On behalf of the children of the District of Columbia, I thank you for the hypocrisy of the debate we have witnessed this very evening.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, representative Hefley's amendment to the Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations for FY 1999 would prohibit any of the funds in this bill or any other act from being used to implement, administer or enforce Executive Order 13087, which prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against individuals in federal hiring or in the receipt of federal grants because of their sexual orientation. This is an unabashed and bald pro-discrimination provision. It has no place in federal law, and all who have worked for equality or even paid lip service to the notion should be offended that this amendment has been offered. Every employer in the United States has the responsibility to be proactive in removing discrimination. The President has acted responsibly as the CEO of the federal workplace. Unfortunately, there is great confusion among some Americans about homosexuality and, astonishingly, there are some who would deny people ordinary rights because of their sexual orientation. I had hoped that by now Americans could at least agree that private consensual sexual relationships bear no relationship to job performance and that even those who adopt the unscientific view that it is appropriate to manipulate sexual orientation in order to change it (imagine what most of us who are heterosexual would think if someone tried to change our sexual orientation) would agree that discrimination is always wrong and should be off limits. The official expression of bias in our law through the repeal of an anti-discrimination provision should be as unthinkable as to gay men and lesbians as to other Americans. The last few months have seen an outpouring of homophobic proposals that insult people based on their sexual orientation. Sexual choice goes to the core of a person's being. Issues of sexual orientation are no place for amateurs acting out their sexual biases in public policy. History will look back on this amendment and shake its head, even as black people look back on similar proposals that were fraught with racism. Let us not replay that history with a new set of discredited proposals against a new group of Americans.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, five years ago in the District of Columbia, the Do the Write Thing Challenge Program was established. The program was started by the Kuwait American Foundation as a way for private Kuwaiti citizens to give thanks for America's support during the Gulf War. The program attracted the interest of a variety of groups who formed a coalition that created the National Campaign to Stop Violence. Young people in the seventh and eighth grades were asked to write an essay, poem or song that responded to the question, ``What can I do to stop violence?'' This spring, the writings were reviewed by community leaders and 60 finalists were selected from 22 states. A leather bound book of their essays was presented to General Scott at the Library of Congress, and the young people enjoyed a reception, in their honor, in the Cannon Caucus Room. Mr. Speaker, I rise in this chamber to celebrate and encourage the aspirations of the finalists from the District of Columbia, Nia Hepburn-Nelson and Mark Parker. Nia is a seventh grade student attending Jefferson Junior High School who aspires to be a computer programmer. Nia and her family reside in Northeast Washington, DC. Mark is in the seventh grade at Stuart Hobson Middle School. He has an avid interest in international relations and would like to serve his country as the Secretary of Defense.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the rich history of the Mount Olive Baptist Church on the 125th anniversary of its founding. Mr. Speaker, on August 17, 1873, the Mount Olive Baptist Church was organized in the home of Brother Robert Terrell and Sister Martha Terrell by a group out of the Second Baptist Church in NW, D.C. who accepted the challenge to establish a church to meet the spiritual needs of families residing in the Near Northeast Community. From these humble beginnings, the church became extensively involved in the community. The ministerial staff, in conjunction with the Near Northeast Group Ministers Association participated, with John Hechinger, in the development of Hechinger Mall, the Pentacle Apartments and Benning Court Apartments, and initiated a Meals on Wheels Program for the sick and shut-in. In 1975, the Near Northeast Community Enrichment Program which provides social services, employment, and after school and summer enrichment programs was implemented. The ``Feed My Sheep'' ministry was instituted to provide a nutritious breakfast to children each Sunday morning before Sunday School. An outside community day, ``Taking Jesus to the Streets'' conducting by the Youth Ministry has evolved into ``Love and Unity Day.'' Mr. Speaker, with the opening of the Mount Olive Baptist Church Learning Center, the church continues to grow and serve the needs of the near northeast community. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members in this hallowed chamber to join me in saluting the officers, members and friends of the Mount Olive Baptist Church, a beacon of light and a safe haven in the near northeast community.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, this year the Women's Caucus made a calculated decision to concentrate our energies on 7 must-pass bills. This decision is being vindicated as we look at bills that have, in fact, already moved forward. These bills say to Members on both sides of the aisle that the bipartisan Women's Caucus has 7 bills and expects every Member to support these consensus bills. These are easy bills. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor this morning to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for moving the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act, one of the 7 bills that we believe must be passed before we go home. It simply reauthorizes for another 5 years standards that would ensure that mammographies are safe, that technicians are well trained, and that mammography results are read correctly. This bill, we are told, will move to full committee and will be passed by the Committee on Commerce in time to reach the floor before we adjourn. Madam Speaker, we have already seen progress on the Violence Against Women Act; piecemeal to be sure, but better piecemeal than nothing. The appropriation of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, The Judiciary and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations has some of these provisions in it. Some provisions were passed as part of the Child Sexual Predator Act. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) has a commission on the advancement of women in the fields of science, engineering and technology development, an act that seeks to learn why, and then remove, barriers to women coming into and progressing in science. So a commission would be established to look at recruitment and advancement of women in science, engineering and technology in a country which is begging for men and women in the sciences. We cannot afford to let female talent go undiscovered, or worse, when discovered, not used. This is a must-pass bill. There is a women-owned businesses resolution, H. Con. Res. 313, which simply calls upon agencies to review the recommendations before them for improving the access of women-owned businesses to the Federal procurement market. It is women-owned businesses that are growing at a rapid pace. That should be reflected in Federal contracts. There are 2 more pieces of legislation which we believe we will have trouble getting passed this session, but they remain our priorities. One is child care legislation. We have endorsed no bill, but have indicated 4 principles that every bill must contain. Finally, a bill that would bar genetic discrimination, a looming problem. We have 3 bills by 3 members of the caucus, any one of which would mean great progress. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Smith); and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) all have submitted different bills. Madam Speaker, what this focus of the Women's Caucus says is that men and women in this House need to go home saying, we voted for and passed Women's Caucus bills this session.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Colorado, the sponsor of this amendment, which I have sponsored in the past because a woman gives up many constitutional rights when she goes to prison, but not the right to have control over the most profound impact on her body. She does not, she must not, be said to submit herself to forced childbirth. I have sponsored a GAO report, now in the making, because of the extraordinary rise of women in prison. The rate of HIV infections and AIDS for women in prison exceeds the rate for men, and 5 percent of women who enter Federal prisons are pregnant. Why Federal dollars? Because these women are without any way to have an abortion. We would not come forward at this time or ever, given where this Congress has been, to ask for Federal funds for abortions unless we were dealing with helpless women who had no other way to get an abortion. Not to allow this particularly, when we consider that we are talking about many women who have AIDS, who would be quite unfit as mothers, not to allow abortions in these circumstances would be entirely cruel, and I ask that an exception be made and that these Federal funds be allowed for women in prison.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come this morning as the cochair of the Congressional Women's Caucus. There are now 55 women in the House of Representatives, 55 women strong, a high point and a high number. For 21 years there has been a Congressional Women's Caucus. That caucus has been responsible for the lead of much of the most important family legislation to pass this House, from the Family Medical Leave Act to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Violence Against Women Act. We have normally had a very long legislative agenda with every woman Member putting her piece of legislation in and the caucus embracing all of that legislation. This year, we have decided on a more focused approach. With 55 women in the Congress, we think there should be a number of bills that simply must pass. We have designated 7 must-pass pieces of legislation, and we call them the ``Magnificent 7.'' They have been chosen because they are easily consensus pieces of legislation, even easy pieces of legislation to pass. We are seeing both leaders; we have already seen the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and this week we will be seeing the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich). The focused approach the Women's Caucus has adopted this year is already paying off. We have seen pass this House some provisions of the Violence Against Women Act and the reauthorization of that act was one of the ``Magnificent 7.'' There are other provisions of the act due to come forward, we think, with the bill of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. We have seen another of our priorities pass the House and the Senate, which is contraceptive coverage for Federal employees, so that women who are Federal employees have choices of contraception. This is very important for women's health, since some forms of contraception do not work for some women; others are dangerous to the health of some women. The Mammography Standards Act is a priority we would like to see pass this week. This is another easy piece of legislation. It is a reauthorization of a bill that would set standards so that when mammograms are read, they are read correctly because the machinery is in good standing. This bill, the Mammography Standards Act, has passed the Senate; it is now here in the Commerce, Justice, State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies bill. We have been promised by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies that they will move this bill forward, and we ask them to move it quickly. There are 4 other pieces of legislation that would be easy to pass. The Women-Owned Business resolution, H. Con. Res. 313, simply calls upon Federal agencies to review their own recommendations for the purpose of improving women-owned businesses' access to Federal procurement. There is the Commission on the Advancement of Women in Science and Engineering. At a time when the country is begging for scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, this commission would look at the barriers that keep women from entering and moving forward in these vital professions. The sixth and seventh are a bill, any of 3 that are pending, that would forbid genetic discrimination, and finally, a bill that would allow child care legislation to come forward. On child care we have no preference; we have only principles. We think that the 105th Congress should not close without finally coming forward with the first significant child care legislation ever to pass. These are the 7 priorities of the Women's Caucus, which for 21 years has led this Congress, and which this year asked the Congress, the House and the Senate, to focus on 7 pieces of legislation which would allow every Member, male or female, to go back and say, I have done something for women and children; I have done more than talk about families. I have helped pass vital pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, we can do it if we focus on the Magnificent 7. We can do it because these bills have been chosen precisely because this is the kind of legislation, bipartisan in its very genesis, bipartisan in the way it is designed to embrace us all and to have us embrace these pieces of legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and mark the passing of Dr. Lucille Banks Robinson Miller. Dr. Miller was born in the District of Columbia. She was the eldest of six daughters born to Deacon Edward Lewis and Deaconess Mary Lewis of the Metropolitan Baptist Church. As an adult, Dr. Miller became affiliated with Corinthian Baptist Church. Most recently, she was a member of the New Bethel Baptist Church. She was the devoted mother of three sons: Dr. Thomas Tipton, Arthur Robinson and Reginald Robinson. Dr. Miller graduated from Armstrong Senior High School, the Just Nursing School, and Jennifer Business College. She also attended Howard University, where she majored in music and minored in psychology. Dr. Miller received an Honorary Doctorate from Virginia Seminary and College in 1983, and an Honorary Doctorate from the Washington Saturday College in 1996. With a deep love for gospel music, she formed the Banks Seminary Choir in 1937. That group rapidly became one of the most successful youth choirs in the Washington area. Following this success, Dr. Miller founded the Paramount School of Music, one of the largest private schools in the area. She taught music for 38 years. As she gained popularity among churches and ministers in the Washington area, Dr. Miller was called upon to be the Mistress of Ceremonies at area churches and for major gospel events. During this time she established friendships with renowned gospel artists of her time, including Mahalia Jackson, James Cleveland, Roberta Martin, Richard Smallwood, Donald Vails, and a host of others. She also held regular Sunday vesper services at various churches from the late 1950's to the 1970's. Known for her colorful and inspirational style, Dr. Miller became a legend in her own time. It was this same personal style that led her to become Washington's premier gospel music radio personality. She started her radio career at Station WOOK. She also worked at WUST and WOL radio stations. In 1979, she joined the WYCB Family. Her radio career continued for more than 45 years. The spirit of Dr. Miller's WYCB programs--``The Early Dawn of Gospel Sound'' and ``The Hour of Love and Power''--radiated a family warmth. Her never-ending concern for senior citizens, youth and the religious community was always apparent. During her career, Dr. Miller received over 600 awards and commendations and was received in an audience with Pope John Paul II at Vatican City in Rome, Italy. Two of her most cherished awards were her induction into the Thomas Dorsey Gospel Music Hall of Fame in 1996 and her induction into the Eta Beta Sorority Hall of Fame in 1996. Her passion for helping others will always be remembered. She made sure that the children of her listeners had tuition and clothes for school, that families in need of food and shelter were provided for, and that the needs of senior citizens were met. This was her legacy of compassion, touching the hearts and lives of hundreds of thousands. Mr. Speaker, for her faithfulness, nobility of character and humbleness of spirit, I ask the Members in this chamber to join me in celebrating the marvelous legacy of Dr. Lucille Banks Robinson Miller.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to amend the D.C. Convention Center and Sports Arena Authorization Act of 1995 in order to enable the Washington Convention Center Authority (Authority) to finance revenue bonds for the cost of constructing a new convention center in downtown D.C. This legislation moves forward the hope and promise of the 1995 legislation for a sports arena and a convention center, twin centerpieces of economic development and jobs in the city and revitalization of downtown in the District. The quick and efficient construction of the MCI Center and the new jobs and revenue the arena has brought to D.C. residents have encouraged the city to complete its work on a convention center, where the need has long been conceded. In every other city in the United States, this matter would not come before any but the local city council. Unfortunately, unlike every other city, the District does not have legislative and budget autonomy and therefore cannot spend its own funds unless authorized by Congress. Extensive hearings in the D.C. City Council have been held on the underlying issues, with an informed and vigorous debate by members of the City Council. On June 16, the City Council approved legislation to finance the new convention center, and on July 7, the City Council passed a bond inducement resolution to approve the Authority's proposal for the issuance of dedicated tax revenue bonds to finance construction of the convention center. On July 13, the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Control Board) gave its final approval to the financing plan for the project, leaving only congressional authorization, which is necessary for the District to proceed to the bond market. On July 15, the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia heard testimony from Mayor Marion Barry, City Council Chair Linda Cropp, City Council Member Charlene Drew Jarvis, Control Board Chair Andrew Brimmer, Authority President Terry Golden, and representatives of the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the General Services Administration (GSA) on the financial aspects of the project. After hearing this testimony, I am satisfied that the Authority is ready to proceed with the issuance of bonds to secure financing, allowing the Authority to begin to break ground possibly as early as September. Considering the many years' delay and the millions in lost revenue to the District, ground breaking cannot come too soon. Although the GAO testified that the cost of constructing the new convention center would be $708 million, $58 million more than the $650 million estimate, this $58 million is not attributable to the cost of the center but to certain costs that should be borne by entities other than the Authority. For example, vendors who will operate in the facility are anticipated to contribute $17.7 million in equipment costs; the District government will provide $10 million for utility relocation from expected Department of Housing and Urban Development grants; and the President has requested $25 million in his budget to expand the Mount Vernon Square Metro station. The GSA testified that the agency had worked closely with the Authority to keep the costs of the project down. With the GSA's assistance, the Authority secured a contract with a construction manager for a ``Guaranteed Maximum Price,'' whereby the private contractor is given incentives to keep costs down and assumes the risk for any cost overruns. Mayor Marion Barry testified, among other things, regarding the promise of additional jobs for District residents. He said that the new convention center would create nearly 1,000 new construction jobs, and that once the facility is completed, it would generate nearly 10,000 jobs in the hospitality and tourism industries. He testified that, using some of the approaches that were successful with the MCI Center, special training and goals for jobs for D.C. residents would be met. The District of Columbia Subcommittee hearing was not a reprise of the lengthy D.C. City Council hearings, and, on home rule grounds, did not attempt to repeat issues of local concern. However, since the issues of financing and bonding before the Congress implicate other areas, the Subcommittee asked extensive questions and received testimony concerning many issues, including location, size, and job creation, in addition to the strictly financial issues. This convention center has an unusual financial base, which I believe other cities might do well to emulate. The financing arises from a proposal by the hotel and restaurant industry for taxes on their own industry that would not have been available to the city for any other purpose. The proposal was made at a time when the city's need for revenue and jobs has been especially pressing. For many years, the District had been unable to attract large conventions. Not only has the District lost billions as a result; the local hotel and restaurant industry has suffered from the absence of a large convention center. It is estimated that the inadequacy of the current facility led to the loss of $300 million in revenue from lost conventions in 1997 alone. My legislation will enable the District to compete for its market share in the convention industry for the first time in many years. The delay in building an adequate convention center has been very costly to the District. In a town dominated by tax exempt property, especially government buildings, a convention center is one of the few projects that can bring significant revenues. To that end, the District intends to break ground this September. I ask for expeditious passage on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Jacob Joseph Chestnut-John Michael Gibson United States Capitol Visitor Center Act of 1998 (Chestnut-Gibson Act). I feel a special obligation to do so because I represent the District of Columbia in which the Capitol is located. I also introduce the bill because the residents of the District have a special relationship with the Capitol Police. In 1992, when there was a large spike in crime in the District, Congress passed the United States Capitol Police Jurisdiction Act, a bill I introduced authorizing the Capitol Police to patrol parts of the Capitol Hill residential community closest to the Capitol where various facilities of the Capitol are located. Capitol Police officers were not only willing; they were enthusiastic to use their excellent training and professionalism for the benefit of residents and the many tourists and visitors whose safety might be compromised by having to travel through high-crime areas in order to get to the Capitol. My bill authorizes the Architect of the Capitol ``to plan, construct, equip, administer, and maintain a Capitol Visitor Center under the East Plaza of the Capitol'' grounds. The primary purpose of the bill is to increase public safety and security. A second purpose is to provide a place to welcome visitors who are seeking tours, taking into account their health and comfort. To guard against excessive costs and to obtain quick action, the bill requires the Architect to consider existing and alternative plans for a visitor center and to submit ``a report containing the plans and designs'' within 120 days. I have supported a Capitol Visitor Center since it was first extensively discussed in 1991. During this decade of high deficits, the reluctance of Congress to appropriate funds for such a center has perhaps been understandable, until last Friday. No one knows whether Officer Chestnut or Detective Gibson or, for that matter, any other officer or individual would have been spared had a visitor center been in place. What we do know is that our nineteenth century Capitol was not built with anything like today's security hazards in mind. According to the Capitol Police and the United States Capitol Police Board, a visitor center would provide significant distance between the Capitol and visitors, and for a host of reasons they have documented, would make the Capitol more secure. Our foremost obligation is to protect all who visit or work here and to spare no legitimate consideration in protecting the United States Capitol. The Capitol is a temple of democracy and is the most important symbol of the open society in which we live. It is more so than the White House, in part because the President's workplace is also a residence and cannot be entirely open. However, the Capitol symbolizes our free and open society not only because it is accessible but also because of what transpires here. It is here that the people come to petition their government, to lobby and to persuade us, and ultimately to discharge us if we stray too far from their democratic demands. Thus, we neither have nor would we want the option to make the Capitol more difficult to access. After last Friday's tragedy, we have an obligation to demonstrate that security is not inconsistent with democracy. There is a second reason why this bill is necessary. Visitors are safe when they come to the Capitol, but the conditions they encounter do not ensure their health, convenience, and cordiality, nor afford them the welcome to which they are entitled. Members address constituents seated on stone steps outdoors. In the blistering heat and merciless cold of Washington, visitors wait in line outdoors to tour the Capitol. During this summer, the hottest on record in the United States, it has not been uncommon for tourists to faint during lengthy waits on line and then be rushed inside to be treated by our physicians. Even if the Capitol had not incurred a terrible tragedy, we would be in need of a more civil way to welcome the people we represent. I will seek cosponsors for this bill at once. I have not waited to do so because I believe a bill requiring plans for a visitor center is necessary to provide the assurance of safety and comfort the public has a right to demand. We must do more than try to recover from the shock of the invasion of the Capitol by a gunman. We must do more than mourn the irreplaceable loss of two fine men. We must do what we can and we must do it now.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, great strides have been made in concurring breast cancer. Much of this progress is due to the work of the Congress in general and the bipartisan Congressional Women's Caucus in particular. Tamoxifen, a new drug now promises to prevent and cure breast cancer. One of the seven must-pass bills of the bipartisan Congressional Women's Caucus this year is the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act to assure correct and safe mammograms. This bill has passed unanimously in the Senate. We cannot go home without doing the same here. American women and families deserve no less. Mr. Speaker, I include for the record the testimony from the Women's Caucus hearing on tamoxifen. Introduction of Panelists Witness 1: Surgeon General David Satcher. Witness 2: Rici Rutkoss--Tamoxifen study participant. Witness 3: Lynda Peterson--Chair-Elect of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation / At high risk for breast cancer and considering Tamoxifen. Witness 4: Marica Plater--At high risk for breast cancer and considering Tamoxifen. Witness 5: Leslie Ford, NCI Associate Director of Oncology. Witness 6: Dr. Michael Friedman, FDA--Acting Commissioner. Witness 7: Dr. Gerard Kennealey, Zeneca--Vice President of Medical Affairs.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Riggs Amendment might just as well be called the ``Join the District of Columbia Club'' amendment. Until now, bald intrusion into the affairs of a local jurisdiction was confined to the nation's capital. Now another noble city joins the ranks of local jurisdictions run by the Congress of the United States. San Francisco local code not only bars discrimination based on sexual orientations; San Francisco requires contractors who benefit from city contracts to provide health care and other benefits to domestic partners only if they provide these same benefits to married partners. This is a wise policy because it assures health care at no cost to the city from companies who profit from city contracts. Otherwise the city of San Francisco might well be left to pay for the health care of people with AIDS or other illnesses. Is there nothing we will not do to promote gay bashing? Some of the most revered principles in this chamber have been sacrificed in the name of anti-gay chest thumping--religious tolerance, civil rights, privacy, service in the armed forces, and now, devolution and local control. We've done enough harm through Federal laws. But this is still a Federal republic. Let each jurisdiction decide its own local laws locally.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I come to praise the two valiant officers who sacrificed their lives on Friday, to comfort their families and to thank the Capitol Police who daily live up to their reputation as one of the finest police departments in the country. On Friday, Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson showed that the reputation of the Capitol Police for dedicated professionalism is fully earned and richly deserved. These two men were part of a police force that operates at once like a friendly small town police department and a crack security force. It is hard to pull that off, but they do it every day. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson were devoted men who were part of a splendid force. In FY 1997 there were 286 reported crimes on the Capitol grounds, and the Capitol Police made arrests in 252 of them. What a record. The Capitol Police patrol part of the Capitol Hill community as well. In the first 5 months of this year, these dedicated officers made 413 arrests in the community, up from 258 for the entire previous year. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson did not expect to lose their lives, but they clearly were prepared to do so. They knew that they were part of a department that protects the highest-profile accessible building in the Nation. They knew that this duty put them in harm's way. They were prepared to pay the price for this temple of democracy and all who visit or work here, and tragically they did. There are no words that fit that price. May the Chestnut family and the Gibson family know that our hearts go out to them and that Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson have a place of honor among us no Member has ever attained.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of the bright stars of the District of Columbia, Julian O. Breece, Though only seventeen years old, Julian has compiled an exemplary academic record, extensive production and anchoring experience in local and national television, served as a Youth Ambassador to Israel, and participated in the Junior Statesmen summer school program. Now, I am proud to recognize his latest achievement: a $10,000 scholarship in the Arts and Humanities category of the Discover Card Youth Program. Julian joins a select group of only nine award recipients from around the nation, achievers who stand out personally and academically. Julian Breece, like so many other D.C. students, is a gifted and talented young man. His 4.0 grade point average at Benjamin Banneker Academic Senior High School simply wasn't enough; Julian had to do more. He has worked with the D.C. Public Schools cable station, DC28, for two years, honing his skills as an anchor, writer and producer. Julian is a regular panelist on Black Entertainment Television's Teen Summit show, which airs nationally each week. I am proud that Julian uses his exceptional oratorical and communications skills to serve his community. Julian's community service endeavors, awards and activities are simply too numerous to list here. From theater troupes to helping the homeless, from foreign affairs programs to science fairs, Julian Breece has made an important contribution to the life the District of Columbia. I have no doubt that he will continue to contribute to this city and this nation as he grows and matures, striving to promote cultural understanding and community awareness. My warmest congratulations to Julian on his latest award, and my regards to his parents, who have raised such a fine son!