Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this session the Congressional Women's Caucus has crafted a must-pass list of bills which we call the Magnificent Seven. For the first time, the Women's Caucus, and we are now 55 women strong in this Congress, has chosen not a wish-list, but a real list for passage. Last week the second of the Magnificent Seven passed, the Lowey amendment affording contraceptive choices for Federal employees. The week before, sections of the Violence against Women Act, another priority, passed. That leaves five more, all carefully chosen consensus bills which every Member can support, from the reauthorization of the Mammography Standards Act, assuring safe machinery to detect breast cancer, to a Sense of the House Resolution encouraging the Federal Government to raise its support for the burgeoning number of women-owned businesses. There is no gender preference here. All Members can support these bills.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in the name of the Bipartisan Women's Caucus to thank the House for the vote last Thursday to cover contraceptive prescriptions for Federal employees, the pill, the diaphragm, intrauterine devices, Norplant and Depo-Provera. Some plans covered no contraceptive prescriptions. None of these prescriptions promote abortions. All preserve women's health. Without contraception, of course, abortions are promoted, and some of these devices in fact lead to abortions because they are not as effective as others. That is why women need these choices, at least these choices when deciding something as central to their health as preventing abortions and deciding whether or not to bear a child. Every woman has had some contraceptive device that does not work for her. With this bill, we have passed one of the most significant women's health bills in many years.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill 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 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, the $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 purposes. 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 of this bill.

Mr. NORTON

Mr. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and celebrate the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the District of Columbia, and the Freemasons of this nation who gather for the Sesquicentennial Celebration of the laying of the cornerstone of the Washington Monument. Mr. Speaker, this monument to our first President, himself a Mason, retains the distinction of being the tallest freestanding masonry structure in the world. It is my privilege to enter into the Record information from the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the District of Columbia. The Masons of the United States, having played a major role in the funding and erection of the Washington Monument, also have a major role in the current restoration effort. The cornerstone of the structure honoring the Father of our country was laid on July 4, 1848, by the Freemasons of America, with our own Past Grand Master, Benjamin B. French presiding. In these duties, he was assisted by the Grand Masters of the Grand Lodges of Pennsylvania and Maryland. Other Masons in attendance included representatives and members of Grand Lodges of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas, and of the Grand Royal Arch Masons of Maryland. Records of the occasion inform us that the procession to the site consisted of the President and Vice President of the United States, and of the Heads of Departments, the Senate and the House of Representatives; Foreign Ministers, distinguished strangers, and of the civil and military services. Also in the group were representatives of the Independent Order of the Oddfellows, the Order of the Red Men, Rechabites, and other Temperance and Benevolent Societies. But it was a Masonic day, and it was the Freemasons of the District of Columbia who were responsible for seeing that the ceremonies were in accord with Masonic custom and protocol. At the conclusion of the ceremony Grand Master French presented the architect, Robert Mills (also a Mason), the working tools of his profession with these words: ``I now present you, my Brother, the square, level, and plumb, which are the working tools you are to use in the erection of this monument. You, as a Freemason, know to what they morally allude: the plumb admonishes us to walk uprightly in our several stations before God and man, squaring our actions by the square of virtue, and remembering that we are traveling upon the level of time to that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns. Never forgetting this sublime moral lesson, you are here to use them practically in your profession. Look well to the erection of this national monument; see that every stone is squared, and that it is placed in its position both level and plumb, that the noble offering of a nation to commemorate greatness, patriotism, and virtue, may stand until the end of time.'' Mr. Speaker, I invite the Members in this hallowed chamber to join me in remembering the Masonic stones at the monument and the ongoing support provided by Grand Lodges and Lodges of Freemasons across America.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to make two points. One has to do with the real purpose of this bill. The second has to do with who it is really aimed at, whether intentionally or unintentionally, because the result is the same. The real purpose of this bill is clear. It is yet another attempt to sacrifice women and girls, to drive back the right to choose by any means necessary, whatever the consequences. America ought to be on notice, these folks have lost, because the people have spoken on the right to choose, the people and the courts have spoken on the right to choose. So they have lost on that question. They have adopted another strategy. They are trying to do incrementally to the right to choose what they have been unable to do through frontal attacks on the right to choose. What is particularly serious, as far as this Member is concerned, is who this bill is really aimed at. This bill chooses to go at the most vulnerable girls in this society. They are disproportionately girls of color. I resent the fact that this bill goes after those who are most likely to come from broken families, most likely to be abused children, and I stand here to speak for them. The most vulnerable people in the country are girls who find themselves pregnant and alone with not even a parent they can turn to. A third of them would find themselves involved in violence, according to the data, if they turned to a parent. So this bill really ought to be called the Runaways Encouragement Bill, because the children who are most likely to be hurt by it are those who have no adult to turn to. And to the extent they have one, you have taken away that right because even a sibling or grandparent or close friend they cannot turn to. So runaway, do it on your own. Instead of encouraging girls to turn to an adult, and I was impressed with what the gentleman from Maine has just said, it encourages girls to run away from adults. Who are we talking about? After all, 75 percent of minors involve themselves with at least one parent. Who is it in America who does not? I have to tell my colleagues that the sponsors of this bill must have an Ossie and Harriet view of the family, but the fact is, if you saw the resent Ossie and Harriet documentary, even that one is gone. So that there are huge numbers of families that would be hurt by this. But they are disproportionately children of color, that is, inner city girls, those who come from where there are no families, where there are no fathers, where there may well be not any mothers. That is who you are hurting. You are hurting the people that I represent. You are hurting the people that the Black Caucus represents. You are hurting the people that Hispanic Caucus represents. You are hurting those who are most likely to be without parents, and I resent it. You ought to define family the way the family has always been defined in America, and that is as an extended family. The family is not simply a two-parent family. A family is not a one- parent family. In my community, a parent may be mentors. It may be your cousin. Do not hurt those who have already been hurt by the disintegration of families, by the break-up of families. Do not make it any harder for children who have no place else to turn. Defeat this bill. Save the most vulnerable of our children.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I hate to see a good bill sacrificed on the alter of contraception. That is what this rule does. We are seeing many important provisions of this bill go up in smoke because of one provision. The notion that plans could pick and choose what contraceptive a woman or man should use is or should be anathema to this House. I warn this House, the Lowey amendment is one of seven priorities of the Bipartisan Women's Caucus. We have chosen seven bills on which, Democrats and Republicans alike, as women we regard as must-pass provisions for this Congress. The Lowey amendment is one of those. We had an entire hearing on contraceptive research because of the neglect of contraception and what that has done to women over the past decade. We have gotten to the point where if you are in service to your country as a member of the Armed Forces or as a Federal employee, you can guarantee to have your privacy invaded. We are talking about grown women, and plans, health plans choosing what contraceptives they should use. The last thing a woman or a man should be subject to is somebody else choosing or advising them which contraception is best for them. Some do not work, some are absolutely harmful, some have side effects. We have to have a choice here, because one size absolutely does not fit all, and indeed, one size clearly endangers the health of many. I am looking for anti-choice allies on this one. If we cannot come together on this one, I am not sure where we will come together. Members cannot go home and say they are against abortion, and also go home and say they are against preventing abortion. Defeat this rule.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 1998, my first bill following the July 4 recess. District citizens commemorated July 4 of this year by presenting a petition to Congress for redress of grievances granting the citizens of the District of Columbia representation in Congress. July 4 was the date the Founders of the Nation and the Framers of the Constitution declared their right to full voting representation before submitting to any government. The residents of the District take them at their word and insist upon the same. Because the petition is not self-executing but requires the introduction of a bill, I have an obligation to respond to the petition by introducing a bill to carry out its request to the Congress to grant the District full voting representation. I expect the same bill to be introduced in the Senate. District citizens, with great patience, have pursued all the remedies available to them, the Voting Rights Act of 1978 and the New Columbia Admission Act of 1993. Following the example set at the founding of the Nation on July 4 of 1776, it has become impossible for the District to let the matter rest any longer. A combination of authoritative sources now make clear that Congress cannot continue constitutionally to deny District residents representation in the national legislature, but must and can take all steps necessary to afford them full representation. The Congress has continually cited Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, for the proposition that it has plenary power to do whatever is constitutionally and legally necessary to or for the District. Using this power, the Congress has required District residents to meet the responsibilities of States and to accept the obligations of States, but has denied District citizens the rights that citizens of the States take for granted. Under the Constitution as interpreted by the courts today, it has become impossible to argue that the Constitution gives the Congress power at once to impose obligations and to deny rights. Fortunately, the Framers of the Constitution have not left District citizens without a remedy, should Congress fail to act. That is what the courts are there for, and that is what the Constitution is there for. Therefore, today I am introducing into the Record the Petition for Redress of Grievances, which lays out the broad outlines of the constitutional framework that requires that District citizens be treated like the full American citizens they are. The courts have already decided that all Americans are entitled to equal representation in the national legislature. The Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause, the equal protection clause, the privileges and immunities clause, and the guarantee of a republican form of government, to mean that no American citizen may be excluded from an equal vote in the Congress. The right to be represented in the national legislature is a function of national citizenship. District residents cannot be held to be the only citizens excluded from the one man-one vote equal representation of Reynolds versus Sims. The citizens of the District of Columbia are as much entitled to the right to full representation as citizens who leave our shores, perhaps for a lifetime, but still claim the right to representation in the House and Senate, under the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 passed by the Congress. Thomas Jefferson spoke for the people whom I represent when, in the Declaration of Independence, he wrote about ``. . . a long line of abuses and usurpations'' resulting from government without representation of the governed, and concluded that there was ``a duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards.'' Like the colonists, District citizens pay taxes as required by a body in which they have no representation. Unlike the colonists, District citizens have recourse to a peaceful path for the redress of grievances, the Congress of the United States, and failing that, Article 3 courts established by the Framers themselves. Therefore, I call upon my colleagues in the House and Senate to use Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and the other relevant constitutional provisions and cases forthwith to grant, in the words of the bill I introduced today, ``. . . the community of American citizens who are residents of the District constituting the seat of government of the United States . . . full voting representation in the Congress'' before the 105th Congress adjourns sine die. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the Petition for the Redress of Grievances.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of its Diamond Jubilee, I rise to celebrate the Kelsey Temple Church of God In Christ and its founder, Bishop Samuel Kelsey. Mr. Speaker, The life and history of the late Bishop Samuel Kelsey speak volumes about the church legacy he bequeathed to the citizens of the Nation's Capital. The church officers and members, in the Washington, D.C. Jurisdiction of the Church of God in Christ, take great pride in the combined histories of their great church and its founding father. Bishop Kelsey was born on April 27, 1898 in Sandersville, GA. He received Christ in May 1915 and relocated to Philadelphia, PA in 1920, Bishop Kelsey officially started the first Church of God In Christ, now known as the Kelsey Temple Church of God In Christ, at 331 C Street, SW. Tent revivals were held nightly. The text of his first sermon, ``Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord'' was later adopted as the church's creed. Prior to the purchase of the present site, services were conducted at several locations, 404 4\1/2\ Street, SW, 2030 Georgia Avenue, NW 4th Street, SW, 451 Virginia Ave., SW and 610 H. St., SW. Bishop Kelsey's message and ministry reached the entire Washington, D.C. area through the airways. He began broadcasting on WWDC AM in 1941, and later on WOOK AM. The broadcasts continued for more than 40 years. Many broad branches were established as a direct result of Bishop Kelsey's work in this city including: St. Paul Miracle Temple Church of God In Christ, New Bethel Church of God In Christ, Friendship Church of God In Christ, Emmanuel Church of God In Christ, Open Door Church of God In Christ, Star of Bethlehem Church of God In Christ, Macedonia Church of God In Christ, Kirkland Memorial Church of God In Christ, Cornerstone Church of God In Christ, Victory Praise Church of God In Christ, Capital Temple Church of God In Christ and Living Word Church of God In Christ. In his early ministry, Bishop Kelsey stood as a giant against the adversarial forces which resisted the holiness movement taking root in the Nation's Capital. His charismatic persona and great zeal, however, affirmed his prominence in the local, national and international religious communities. Samuel Kelsey engineered and erected bridges which spanned denominational gaps, and elevated his ministry to a pinnacle of religious diversity and camaraderie in this city. He also pioneered media relations and, in 1989, was recognized by the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) for his excellence in service to the broadcasting community. Bishop Kelsey's contributions to the city at-large demonstrated the compassion and commitment which characterized his ministry. Under his pastorate, the church acknowledged its debt ``to serve those in need'' physically as well as spiritually, by burying many of the disenfranchised and by establishing an Outreach Ministry which still exists today. This endeavor demonstrates the essence of servanthood through its clothing, food, and Summer Youth programs. The church also distributes tracts and Bibles, and has a strong Prison Outreach Ministry which serves the D.C. Jail and the Lorton Correctional Institutions. The church often provided an open forum for the city's political process by offering its pulpit to noteworthy candidates. As an agent in social causes, the church accepted the challenge to continue rendering services during times of civil unrest. In the aftermath of the assassination of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., this church provided temporary relief and shelter for duty-worn officers and civilians. In 1953 and 1958, Bishop Samuel Kelsey was awarded both the Doctor of Divinity (DD) and Doctor of Laws (LLD) degrees, respectively, from Trinity Hall College and Seminary in Springfield, Illinois. The esteemed legacy of Samuel Kelsey is a tower to the monumental temple that is the gateway to Park Road and 14th Street, NW. It is the inheritance left by a visionary and humble servant that is deeply rooted in the essence of Pentecostalism, and continues to serve as a beacon to the weary and downtrodden. The current pastor, Elder Fred D. Morris, Sr., the former assistant pastor, has accepted the charge of continuing to spread the good news from this vantage point. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members in this hallowed chamber to join me in echoing the theme of the Diamond Jubilee of the Kelsey Temple Church of God In Christ, ``Remembering the Past . . . Living the Present . . . Preparing for the Future.''

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to three local photographers, recorders of history, who are being recognized by The Exposure Group, African American Photographers Association for their contributions to humanity and to the District of Columbia. Robert H. McNeill was born in Washington, DC in 1917 and graduated from Dunbar High School where, in 1935, he first became interested in photography. He worked as a consultant for the Works Project Administration, and owned McNeill Photo Service and GEM Photographers. He was a staff photographer for the US Navel Gun Factory, the Pentagon, the Naval Ordinance Laboratory and the Department of State from which he retired as Chief of the Photography Branch, Audio-Visual Services. Mr. McNeill's work has been published in several books, many magazines and, mostly recently, in seven issues of the Washington Post Magazine. He has also exhibited his work in a traveling show sponsored by the Rhode Island Institute of Design, the Charles Sumner School, the Smithsonian Institution's Anacostia Museum, the National Museum of American Art and the Smithsonian's Center for African American History and Culture. Mr. McNeill will receive the Maurice Sorrell Lifetime Achievement Award. James M. Johnson, Jr. is also a native Washingtonian and, for nineteen years, has operated a full-service photography studio in southeast Washington near the banks of the Potomac River. In 1975, he received a Master of Engineering degree from Howard University and worked as an engineer for seven years before he decided to follow his heart and study photography. Mr. Johnson is president of the Professional Photographers' Minority Network, an international affiliate of Professional Photographers of America, and an Ambassador to the International Photography Hall of Fame and Museum. Mr. Johnson will receive the Photographer of the Year Award. Nestor Hernandez, Jr. is currently the Chief Photographer, Communications Division, District of Columbia Public Schools. He is the president of the FotoCraft Camera Club, which recently celebrated its 60 year history with an exhibit at Howard University. Mr. Hernandez has exhibited his work nationally and internationally. He was exhibited in a solo show at the Christina Cultural Art Center in Wilmington, Delaware and participated in group shows in Springfield, Massachusetts and La Habana, Cuba. Mr. Nestor will receive the Community Service Award of Merit. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this body join me in saluting these gentlemen photographers, and applauding the magnificent work they have done.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment. We are constrained to come to the floor once again to send out an alert to American women that once again, one of the perennial attempts to get around Roe versus Wade and to stop abortions when they are most safe is at hand. The Coburn amendment has grave constitutional implications. Roe versus Wade says we may not regulate abortion in the first trimester. There is a reason for that, because that is when it is safest. If anything, we want to encourage whatever abortions are to be done to be done then or not at all. RU-486 is only for early abortions, and it perhaps may be used for emergency contraception up to 72 hours after intercourse; again, at the very earliest period when abortions are performed. Moreover, this method may be the only method or the safest method that some women should use. And that clearly comes under Roe vs. Wade's concern with the health of the mother. Surgical abortion obviously poses more risk, the most risk, at least as far as we know. And at least given the kind of approval that RU-486 has thus far received, we do know this, that for most of us a nonsurgical procedure is in fact preferable. We want to say to women who need abortions, while the rest of us for other procedures will use nonsurgical procedures, we want them to repair to surgical procedures, to invasive procedures only. For abortion we make a distinction between women and men that we do not otherwise make. Mr. Chairman, if nonsurgical abortion is available, if it is the safest method, it must be allowed. Most of us would choose nonsurgical methods if they were available. Indeed, managed care requirements today in health care often require us to use nonsurgical methods because they are the least costly. Why would we want to deny safe, nonsurgical approaches here? Why would the government want to turn toward the most invasive form of abortion? Why should the government not step back and say whatever method women use is something that the government is in no position to prescribe in the particular case? Why is it not an absolute insult to women to deny them the right to choose the safest method, if any method at all must be chosen? Why is it not a risk to the health of women for whom more invasive methods would simply not be prescribed? Should we not welcome the fact that there is a choice for those women? And why would this body want to engage in the know-nothing, nonscientific practice of, for the first time in this Chamber, saying what the FDA should approve and what it should not approve? That takes us back to the kind of ignorance I would hope this body had escaped long ago. If this drug is safe, by denying the right to go through the approved channels we are welcoming back-channel, black market approaches to getting this drug. Surgical and invasive procedures are not preferable. Once again, we are invading the territory of a physician and his patient. Whenever we do that, we lose our way. Let us stand back, even if we regard this as not the right way to go, and leave it to those who are in the best position to make this most personal of decisions, and that is the physician and the woman who has to decide what is safest for her.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary sponsor the Voice of Democracy audio- essay scholarship competition. The program is now in its 51st year and required high school student entrants to write and record a three to five minute essay on an announced patriotic theme. ``My Voice in our Democracy'' was this year's theme, and more than 100,000 students participated in the program nationwide. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to report to this body that Andre R. Nicholson, a senior at Ballou Senior High School has been named a National winner in the 1998 Voice of Democracy Program and recipient of the $1,000 Department of Nevada and its Ladies Auxiliary Scholarship Award. Andre is the son of Robin and Jane Nicholson and he plans a career in marketing. Andre participated in the program as a project of his government class. I am pleased to acknowledge his teacher, Paul Charles and his principal, Kenneth Jones, Ph.D. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the reflections of the Members in this hallowed hall Andre Nicholson's award winning essay. ``My Voice in Our Democracy'' Good afternoon Honorable Judges and members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). As a young man in high school, it is an honor and pleasure for me to participate in the VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program. I hope that not only my voice in our Democracy will be heard but other voices young and old, as we enter the twenty-first century. In Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address he stated ``that this government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.'' The basic premise of democracy cries out that each individual's worth and dignity must be recognized and respected by all of society at all times; regardless of race, religion, or station in life. Dr. King once said he had a dream, and that dream was that one day this nation would live out the true meaning of its creed, we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. The concepts of democracy go on to insist all men should be equal before the law and by way of opportunity; that the majority should rule restrained by minority rights. It also states that we must compromise to find a satisfactory solution and that the freedom of one individual should not infringe upon others. This has been an experiment in government, and like all experiments it's been a trial and error process, good times and bad times, sunshine and rain. However, if we the people of the United States are to form a more perfect union; we must be willing to grow along spiritual lines. On the back of one of our most prized possession (the dollar bill) is the statement ``In God We Trust.'' If we would try more diligently to seek and do God's will, we as human beings would exhibit more God-like characteristics such as honesty, consideration, tolerance, forgiveness, faith, patience and concern for others. By doing this I think the democratic process would run smoother and we would form a more perfect union. Will my voice be heard in our Democracy? Yes, I believe that my voice, as well as other young adults will be heard. In order to have a unified democracy to improve our country, it is vital that the voices of the young and the old go together in order to make this a better world. Too many individuals, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, put in countless hours of work in order for us to have a good constitution in a democratic society. We must continue and push hard. I know we can make it work.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to put the Congress on fair warning that there is a statute in serious need of fixing. Women Members of Congress will hold a press conference tomorrow at 11 a.m. to call the attention of the Congress to this predicament. The Supreme Court handed down a decision, the Gebser decision, involving a ninth grade student who was assaulted by her teacher in as much as he had sexual intercourse with her over a period of time. She sued under title 9 for sexual assault and harassment and the Court found that this Congress had not, in fact, given the Court sufficient guidance so that damages could be awarded under title 9. This affair with a student began when she was in the eighth grade and joined a high school book discussion group. The teacher often made sexually suggestive remarks to her. Later on, when she went to the ninth grade and was assigned to his class, he lured her into sexual intercourse and apparently had sexual intercourse many times, including during class times. This youngster did not report this relationship to school officials. She said she was uncertain how to act. I am sure she was utterly confused that this disproportionate power relationship had evolved in this direction. When her parents found out, of course they looked for remedies and among them was a remedy under title 7. The Court found that she did not report the relationship to school officials. Surprise, surprise. But the Court also found that the school system had not distributed an official grievance procedure for how to lodge complaints with school officials, even though that is required under title 9. So the Court found that one could not sue under title 9 for teacher- student sexual harassment unless the following four circumstances were met: First, that the employee had supervisory power over the offending employee; actually knew of the abuse; had the power to end it; and failed to do so. Of course, the school system at top levels could not meet those standards. Mr. Speaker, if in fact this were a title 7 matter involving a teacher and a principal, and the principal had sexually harassed the teacher in any way, then the teacher would have a cause of action against the school system under title 7. But here we have a minor child who has no cause of action under the only statute available to her. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Court's predicament. The Court had implied a cause of action for damages rather than gotten it from the wording of title 9. And so the Court simply does not know how far we in the Congress want the Court to go in allowing damages. I do not think there is a Member of this body that would not regard damages lying against the school system as the way to deter this kind of harassment, this kind of affair, this kind of assault by a teacher on a student. But the court said, and I quote, absent further direction from Congress, the Court could not go further. Mr. Speaker, I know I will be joined by other Members of this body, quite apart from the women Members, who will appear with me tomorrow at a press conference to suggest to this body that the only reason the damage element is not laid out is when title 9 was passed 25 years ago, who would have thought that we would be dealing with teacher affairs with an eighth and ninth great student? No, we did not have it in our mind then. We must have it in our minds now, because it has occurred and we are all embarrassed that there is no remedy. I do not believe we seek this remedy simply because the remedy would be deserved in regard to this case. And if ever there was a damage remedy deserved in this case, it is this case. The reason this remedy is important here is that we want to deter this kind of conduct and we want to say to school systems that they must pass out a grievance system guidance manual that puts people on notice as to how to file a complaint. And if they do not, then they, themselves, will be liable under the statute. I am sure that that is what we mean. We must move to do so as soon after the school year for 1999-2000 begins. I regret that this occurred. It is time though for the Congress to move forward and meet its obligations to correct the statute.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Strategic Transitional Employment Program Act or STEP, and I thank Senator Wellstone, who will introduce the bill in the Senate today, for his leadership. The unemployment rates in many parts of this region are so low that almost anybody can find a job. Yet in the District and other large cities and in rural areas, unemployment rates remain unaffected by the excellent Clinton economy. Entire sections of our society scratch their collective heads at daily reports of the splendid economy. The STEP Act seeks to link long-term unemployed Americans with the roaring economy. It provides the three indispensable elements that most often are missing: job readiness, job experience and job placement. STEP is tightly structured. The program would be available only for individuals who meet three criteria: individuals unemployed for 15 weeks or more, whose families are at or below the poverty line, and who live in communities of concentrated poverty and unemployment. Clearly, individuals who face all three of these conditions are walled off from self-sufficiency. If they have not found jobs after 87 months of an exceptional economy, we cannot expect jobs for them to appear miraculously. They obviously need our help. Transitional jobs that provide work experience while some transportation and child care services are provided can make the vital difference. Unlike some job programs, at the end, STEP would come with vital job placement for those who had not found work in 12 months. Moreover, paid part-time participation in education and training, including college, would insert a vital missing link to decent employment sadly lacking in last year's welfare bill. I am also preparing an Omnibus Welfare Reform Amendments bill that will incorporate amendments from members of the House to last year's welfare reform statute, in the hope that one or the other provision might be pulled out for passage. However, STEP hops over welfare reform and confronts the missing ingredient for all the long-term unemployed-- a realistic way to get them to a real job that pays a liveable wage. STEP's $20 billion cost over four years, creating 1.8 million entry level jobs, would be money well spent from a budget that now boast a surplus. The challenge to those who have no plan for the hard core unemployed is, if not this what? The challenge to those who do not want to spend the money is, if not in this roaring economy, when?

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to welcome the first-ever D.C. Women's National Basketball Association team to our nation's capital. This moment comes on top of other news that the District for the first time received acclaim as the best place to live in the East from Money Magazine. Together these firsts affirm that Washington, D.C. is truly a special city, and not only because D.C. is our nation's capital. Tomorrow, I will join thousands of fans at the MCI Center to see our first home game against Utah. The District is very proud of this team, which will be led by standout shooting guard Nikki McCray, the lead scorer on the 1996 gold medal winning U.S. Olympic team. Head Coach Jim Lewis promises a full-court offense, using the fast break and aggressive defense, which are sure to be exciting viewing for the fans here in Washington. I would also like to commend and thank team owner, Abe Pollin, Irene Pollin and Susan O'Malley, president of the Mystics organization, for their vision and commitment to making women's professional basketball a reality here in the District. This team is important to the fans here in the District, including the many young girls among them who look to these outstanding women athletes as role models. Last year, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of Title IX and today the fruits of this achievement are being recognized. This important legislation contributed in large part to the participation of more than 100,000 women in intercollegiate athletics in 1997, a fourfold increase since 1971. In the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, American women won a record 19 Olympic medals. Thousands of women today, including many WNBA players have benefitted from athletic scholarships that simply were unheard of before Title IX. The number of girls participating in high school athletics has risen from fewer than 300,000 in 1971 to 2.4 million today. Girls' participation in high school basketball increased 300% from 1971 to 1995! Research suggests that girls who participate in sports are more likely to experience academic success and to graduate from high school than those who do not play sports. Half of all girls who participate in sports experience higher-than-average levels of self-esteem and less depression. We welcome the Washington Mystics' team--Nikki McCray, Heidi Burge, Deborah Carter, Keri Chaconas, Tammy Jackson, Penny Moore, Murriel Page, Alessandra Santos de Oliveira, Adreinne Shuler, Leila de Souza Sobral, and Rita Williams. We look forward to their contributions to the community and to the basketball profession. Go Mystics!

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I thank him also for his leadership in proffering this most valuable resolution. I also thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), for the bipartisan spirit in which he has joined this resolution. Before I speak directly to it, I do want to note for the Record that the majority seldom comes forward to endorse another public entitlement, and here the majority appears to endorse a public entitlement to choice for education. I think it is a precedent that should be noted for the Record. If only the majority would support entitlements such as the one that was on the floor just ahead of this one, that 40 percent of funds for children in special education be paid for by this body, I would be prepared then to look more seriously at the public entitlement to go to private schools that is here offered this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I do want to commend the gentleman for his support of charter schools. We know that vouchers are on their way to the Supreme Court, one State court having already found them unconstitutional. I wish to offer what amounts to a subset of this resolution for a truce, until the Supreme Court tells us whether vouchers are constitutional or not, because neither the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), nor I, nor any Member of this body, will have the last word on that. The last word on that serious church-State question lies with the court. So if we are serious about providing education for children in the meantime, we will look for opportunities such as that offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), for true bipartisan work to help children where they are now, such as the resolution that was offered before this one, and this resolution now. May I also note for the Record, Mr. Speaker, that I endorse choice in the very way that the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), has shown how choice works in a society which separates church from State. Instead of entanglement of church and State, something that has kept us free from religious warfare for 200 years, essentially it says, choices are available to us all, but as with everything else in a market economy, the Federal Government will not pay for all choices, and one choice we choose not to pay for is religious education, in no small part because that entangles the State with the church and would force the church to abide by rules and regulations that no church in this society could possibly accept, because there is no free money that comes from the Congress. Every bit of money that comes from us comes with strings attached, and this Member will never attach strings to money that goes to churches or to religious institutions. I am proud to associate myself with the work of the Washington Scholarship Fund which, instead of coming with hands out to this body, came into the District of Columbia and said, how many children are there who want to go to private schools? We will raise the money to go to private schools. I went to the graduation sponsored by the Washington Scholarship Fund and spoke at that graduation at their invitation. Last year I went to St. Augustine Catholic School with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and spoke to those eighth grade children who were on scholarship, courtesy of the Washington Scholarship Fund, and on this floor today I want to thank the Washington Scholarship Fund for each and every scholarship they have raised with private money to send our children to religious schools all across the District of Columbia. I wish them well, as they now set up the Children's Scholarship Fund to do the same in cities all across the United States of America. I have sent a letter to them so that they could use it in their publications endorsing their extraordinary work. Meanwhile, there is much that we can agree upon here today, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) and I agree on charter schools. I salute him for his extraordinary leadership there and as, of course, this bipartisan resolution offers us the opportunity to do. The Martinez resolution to end social promotion speaks to one of the most important issues facing both U.S. education and the U.S. workforce today. I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and come to bear witness to his resolution in the Summer Stars program which is to be implemented in the District of Columbia beginning June 30. Mr. Speaker, this program makes the District one of the first and one of the few districts in the United States to abolish social promotion. Children are socially promoted throughout the country in part to avoid incurring dropout rates that occur when students are left behind and to avoid placing older and younger children together in the same class. The reason social promotion is so widely used, however, is that systems are unwilling to do the hard work associated with replacing social promotion. The District's public schools have just done that hard work establishing an academic enrichment program in math and reading to replace social promotion. Although students who score below basic in reading and math must attend the Summer Stars program, it is not just an old-fashioned program for failing students that stigmatizes children. It is offered not only to students who must or should attend; students who score proficient or advanced may also attend. Mr. Speaker, 7,000 students signed up for Summer Stars in the District before the scores were out. The student-teacher ratio will be 15 to one. Homework is required, and three absences drops the student from the program. Breakfast and lunch are provided. Private funds have been secured for afterschool enrichment activities that mix recreation and education. Test results reported last week already show significant improvement in virtually all grades before the Summer Stars program even begins. Further progress from this rigorous and skillfully developed program almost surely will follow. The collective hats of this House should be off to Arlene Ackerman whose leadership as superintendent is responsible for this progress. If the District keeps this up, Congress will soon not have the D.C. public schools to kick around anymore. I know that this is the desire of this House. The D.C. public schools are not only proud to be leading the way in abolishing social promotion; we are especially proud of the Summer Stars program that we are putting in its place.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I especially thank him for his leadership. I can do that with respect to at least some of the bills in his package for the entire Women's Caucus because the Women's Caucus has agreed that Title I in the reauthorizations of a Violence Against Women Act should all be enacted, and two of the gentleman's provisions come from Title I. I want this body to know, therefore, that the women of the House do want, especially these two provisions, to be enacted. One is subtitle A for law enforcement and prosecution grants to States to strengthen law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against women. The other are grants to encourage arrest policies. We cannot say enough about the need to encourage and implement arrests when, in fact, we know that, in very many of these cases, that is really the only strategy to prevent violence against women and children. Beyond these two sections of the gentleman's amendment are a number that I personally support, and I believe the great majority of the women in the House support, but are not on our list of bills. We have already met with the minority leader because the Women's Caucus has seven must-pass bills this year that we have overwhelming support in our caucus for. We believe since we are a strongly and rigorously bipartisan caucus that we have support, therefore, in the entire House. I have indicated what the two provisions are from the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Let me say for myself and for so many other Members that his provision from title 6 limiting the effects of violence on children is so important. Perhaps Members saw the piece that was on national television this week about an underground that seeks to take children who are or have been abducted or have been sexually abused. This provision would free a custodial parent from a kidnapping or child abduction charge if that parent, of course, has custody. I must say the gentleman has chosen carefully the provisions of his amendment. It is difficult for me to believe that there is any Member of this House who would oppose any of his amendments, and I think only a few dollars here and there stand between him and this entire amendment. I compliment the gentleman for saying he does not oppose the gentleman's amendments. Some of them should be slam dunk. Taking 10 percent of a State's Byrne grant when it fails to support the protective order of another State is absolutely essential as one more example of why this bill is, for all intents and purposes, a motherhood bill. I appreciate the gentleman for bringing it forward.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have informed this body a few weeks ago that I would be coming to report on how the District of Columbia is proceeding as it moves to improve itself in the city. But my internal campaign is behind the times because the improvements are coming so fast and furious. Have you seen this morning's Washington Post? On the front section of the Metro section, two stories lead. D.C. Test Results Seen as Progress; that is about our youngsters who were doing so poorly in the schools. The other, Mr. Speaker, says For Washington a Positive Mark of Distinction. Let me be explicit. The District of Columbia is the best large city or place to live in the eastern United States, according to Money Magazine's latest ranking of the 300 most livable areas in the Nation. It is not us, Mr. Speaker; that is an objective observer, Money Magazine, which has not always rated your Nation's Capital thusly. New York City has already been heard to complain, but I do not believe that anyone in this Chamber has any reason to complain, because, Mr. Speaker, while this is our hometown, it is your capital of the United States. We have all be criticizing that capital. It is time for us to now start rooting for that capital as it pulls itself up by its own bootstraps. Money Magazine has an objective formula which it uses to designate the city. The entire details of that formula are not public, but we do know that they rated air quality, medical care, property taxes and cultural facilities. There are other improvements in the District that we know cleared the way for this designation. For example, Money Magazine noted our higher than average crime rate. But, Mr. Speaker, the crime rate in the District of Columbia went down 20 percent, virtually the largest reduction in the country last year. The national news recently had a story about crime going down in the country, and they used as an example public housing in the District of Columbia. Something important and different is happening in this city, and this body needs to take note of it. Much else has happened in hometown Washington that cleared the way for this designation. A surplus, Mr. Speaker, not a balanced budget, but a surplus 2 years ahead of when it was expected. Public housing now off the troubled housing list; a Summer Stars program which will end social promotion here in the District of Columbia, one of the first cities to do so in the Nation. Scores up in our schools, and, Mr. Speaker, I do want to read from that so that you will hear it from the newspaper and not from the Member: D.C. Public School System showed improvements in most grade levels in the last scores from standardized tests. That follows last year when students showed no improvements whatsoever. Our hats should be off to Dr. Arlene Ackerman, the new superintendent who has helped make this happen. Mr. Speaker, the control board is going to set 2 years earlier than anticipated because the District has moved ahead with such energy to improve its finances and now to improve its management. Money Magazine has gotten the word. I come to the floor this evening to make sure that this House gets the word, too.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for her leadership on this matter, and the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) for managing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, this is the end, not the beginning of the century, but this crime is a throwback to the sorriest period of American history, and reminds us that that history is not all done yet. Those who deprecated the President's race commission, take notice. Race is more complicated today. This, however, is real simple. This is the worst of American racism, this is racist terrorism. I commend the local sheriff who made the arrests. I ask that the Federal officials remain involved until justice is done. At the same time, I remind this body that if these were black men, we would be rushing them to the death penalty now, and as a principled opponent of the death penalty, I stand here to ask that these men not be executed. This country does not need to execute black men and it does not need to execute white men. I part company with those blacks in Texas that have called for execution. I ask that these men get life without parole.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the third bill in my Democracy Transition Package, a resolution that would return the District's limited right to vote on the House floor in the Committee of the Whole to the rules package for the 106th Congress. I ask Congress to return the delegate vote that I won in the 103rd Congress out of respect for the more than half million taxpaying residents whom I represent. This vote was withdrawn from all five delegates in the 104th Congress, but, as I will indicate, I do not believe the withdrawal was an act focused on the District and its unique circumstances as the home of the only taxpaying residents without full congressional representation. The repeal was wrapped in a package of rules, and the District was never considered individually. On behalf of my constituents, to whom the vote is deeply meaningful, I ask my colleagues to support this important measure. Without disparaging the rights of the other delegates to seek the return of their votes, I base my request on the unique responsibilities and equities particular to the District of Columbia. I supported the rationale of the decision that gave all the delegates the vote in the Committee of the Whole, namely that, historically, delegates have been accorded the same treatment. At the same time, there are important differences between the District and the territories, most notably, that the District is subject to federal income taxes. The unique circumstances and equities that argue for a vote for the District can be embodied in four principles. Principle No. 1--I represent the only Americans who pay federal income taxes but have no vote on the House floor; my constituents pay $1.7 billion annually in federal income taxes, making them third per capita among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The District is the only territory under the jurisdiction of the United States whose citizens are subject to every obligation of citizenship, notably federal taxation, but remain barred from sending a voting representative to the House and Senate. Unlike the delegate from the District, the delegates from American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands do not represent citizens who pay federal income taxes. Yet, fortunately, they enjoy full self-government and the District does not, and they are afforded the same representation in Congress as the District. Principle No. 2--I represent the only Americans whose budget governing the expenditure of their own locally raised tax dollars must be enacted by the Congress. The passage of the President's Revitalization package ensures that nearly all of the District's local budget will now be D.C. taxpayer-raised revenues. As the first measure in my Democracy Transition package and with the support of the President, I introduced a bill that would eliminate the D.C. Appropriations subcommittees in the Congress to reflect this important change. Principle No. 3--I represent the only Americans who do not enjoy full democratic self-government. The four territories, like the states and localities, are self governing under accepted principles of democracy without interference from the Congress. Under the Home Rule Act of 1973, the Congress reserves and exercises the right to revoke and change the laws and budget of the District consisting of locally raised revenues. As the second measure in my Democracy Transition package, I introduced a bill that would allow the District to enact its own laws free of Congressional approval. Principle No. 4--I represent more than a half million residents, a population more than some Congressional districts. The District Court of the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for this circuit have ruled that there is no constitutional impediment to extending voting rights to delegates in the House to the Committee of the Whole. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 which states that, ``Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings'' is the constitutional basis for this ruling. Had the case gone against the House, an extraordinary precedent for intrusion by the courts into the Rules and proceedings of this body that no one in the House desires would have resulted. The House granted a limited right to delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole on the basis of a legal memorandum that I prepared that was factually grounded in the District's taxpaying status. The other territories were granted the vote at the same time to avoid differential treatment, although, of course, taxpaying status legitimately sets the District apart from the residents of the territories, who do not pay federal income taxes to the federal treasury. Subsequently, the courts approved delegate voting as granted by the Rules of the House, removing any legal or constitutional question. My vote in the Committee of the Whole still left taxpaying District citizens without a vote in the formal House and without any vote in the Senate. To avoid any constitutional question, a re-vote requirement provided that a delegate's vote would never decide an issue before the Committee of the Whole if the delegate's vote provided the deciding margin. the work of the Committee of the Whole is no more final than that of standing committees, such as Transportation and Infrastructure and Judiciary, where Delegates have long had the vote. Therefore, nothing done in the Committee of the Whole is final until the full House acts. My constituents do no assert that they yet meet the constitutional requirements for full voting membership in the House, inasmuch as the District is not a state. What my constituents do meet each and every day is each and every obligation of citizenship, including paying every federal tax paid by other American citizens, serving in the armed forces, and being subject to all obligations required by the nation's laws. District residents have fought and died in every war since the American Revolution and sent more citizens to fight the nation's most recent war, Operation Desert Storm, than did 47 states. Most Americans today would almost surely agree that citizens who are third per capita in federal income taxes should have the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole if that is constitutionally permissible. Denying me my vote in the Committee of the Whole punishes hard working taxpaying Americans. The House gains by adherence to its often expressed democratic principles while losing nothing if my vote is returned. It would mean a great deal to the people I represent at this critical time in the life of the nation's capital. Disempowering me cannot help in my work to help dispel the District's current problems. A vote in the Committee of the Whole would give District residents a vote on most matters--several steps up from being a representative confined to debating while other Members vote on her local laws and her local taxpayer raised budget and revenues. In a body that justifiably gives great deference to taxpaying Americans, allowing a vote to a jurisdiction that ranks higher in federal income taxes than almost all others is a matter of simple justice. The unique taxpaying status of my constituents, the unique privilege this body assumes of appropriating locally raised taxpayer revenue, the unique requirement to bring each and every action taken to the local city council to a body in which residents have no voting representation, and the significant population of the District makes the District's case unique. The vote in the Committee of the Whole should be granted to the District, considering the principle that produced the nation itself: no taxation without representation. Under these circumstances, the House should do all that is constitutionally permissible. I ask my colleagues to restore my limited voting rights in the House and afford the respect that the residents of the nation's capital are due.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for yielding this time to me, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their prompt and diligent work on this bill that would indeed give to what I think every Member recognizes as a national treasure funds necessary for its upkeep, maintenance and security. Mr. Speaker, this bill passed our committee by a voice vote not only because it is noncontroversial but because it involves an institution that has the support of the Nation and the great respect and gratitude of the Nation. If there has been anything controversial about the Kennedy Center, it has been its maintenance and security. To the credit of this body, the Congress in 1991 transferred its maintenance and upkeep from the Park Service to the Board of the Kennedy Center. The Park Service was miscast in this role and, of course, with all that it has to do, could not fulfill that role in the way we expect it. What we now expect in this bill is that necessary maintenance and security matters will be upgraded. For example, the ADA provisions which now need to be fully recognized and implemented will be taken care of by this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a facility built in 1971. We are coming onto 30 years old. Its upkeep and maintenance becomes more and more important when we recognize that it has become a more and more popular facility for all of our constituents and people around the world to visit. I must say that the Kennedy Center has been wonderfully innovative in its outreach to the American people, and I am sure every Member of this body and of the other body are grateful for the way in which it has become a truly national institution. As for those of us fortunate enough to live in the District of Columbia, we have formed an increasing working partnership with the Kennedy Center. Most recently, we have begun to talk with the Kennedy Center about a specific relationship to the Duke Ellington School of the Arts; and those talks and that partnership would be uniquely promising; and I would hope ultimately for the support for this body on that matter. Meanwhile, this bill simply assures that the Kennedy Center will be in good repair and will be secure when 25 million Americans and people from around the world visit the Nation's Capital and when so many of them believe they simply cannot leave without visiting the Kennedy Center. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for having yielded this time to me.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we in the District and many others around the country will mourn the passing of valiant AIDS activist Steve Michael, who died May 25th at the age of 42. As the founder of ACT UP-Washington and a ceaseless campaigner on behalf of men and women suffering from HIV and AIDS, Steve made an indelible mark on our nation's fight against this disease. We in the District are fortunate that Steve took as his own our fight for full democracy as well. Steve arrived in Washington from Seattle in 1993, pressuring the Clinton administration on AIDS funding and on the rights of homosexuals. Steve's political career, however, was not limited to activism; he proved to be a staunch advocate of Home Rule, a frequent participant in the local and national political process, and finally a candidate for the District of Columbia City Council. His service on the DC HIV Planning Council as chair of the Fiscal Oversight Committee will not be forgotten by the citizens of Washington. Steve's untimely death highlights the need for continuing research and funding as we work to find a cure for the scourge of AIDS. As the Washington Times noted, Steve pushed into the AIDS debate with ``incredible energy,'' and his confrontational style broadened the health dialogue beyond the traditional corridors of power. Steve Michael came to Washington as an angry young man. Until the end, he was angry enough to fight hard for the lives of others and then for his own life. In his activism over the years, Steve mellowed enough to develop a relationship with some public officials that became friendship. I count myself among those friends. I will think first and foremost of Steve this coming Sunday when I march in the annual Capital Pride parade for freedom from all forms of discrimination, including the homophobia that is still reflected in our laws. I will honor Steve's friendship, not with memories alone but with a continuing resolve to continue the fight against AIDS and HIV, against homophobia and for life.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Shiloh Baptist Church following a week of special services commemorating the completion of a new sanctuary. Mr. Speaker, the Shiloh Baptist Church of Washington, DC had its humble beginnings in Fredericksburg, Va. In 1854, the white congregation of the Baptist Church decided to relocate. The white membership offered the building to its black members for $500.00. The offer was accepted and the black members renamed the church Shiloh. By 1861, Shiloh had 750 members, most of whom were slaves and the balance of the membership was free blacks. In that same year, with the onset of the Civil War, Union troops entered Fredericksburg and occupied Shiloh using it as a hospital. This disrupted church life and the growth of this branch of Zion. In 1862, the Potomac branch of the Union Army offered safe passage to any blacks, free or slave to Washington, DC. In June of that year, hundreds took advantage of the offer and traveled to the Capital City. Approximately 400 members from Shiloh Church were among the group. Soon after arriving in Washington, several members of the group from Fredericksburg began to meet in a little shanty on L Street between 16th and 17th Streets. They met under the direction of McCleary Perkins, a white Union soldier. They learned to read and write and held regular prayer and fellowship meetings. On September 23, 1863, the Shiloh Baptist Church of Washington, DC was formally recognized by a Recognition Council and on September 27, 1863, the Reverend William J. Walker was ordained as pastor. Under Reverend Walker's leadership, Shiloh's membership grew to over 800, two buildings on L Street, NW were purchased and the members constructed a two-story brick building, also on L Street, that was completed in 1883. Reverend William J. Walker died on August. In 1891, following some controversy and a split in membership which led to the formation of the Walker Memorial Baptist Church, Shiloh called its second pastor, the Reverend J. Anderson Taylor. Under his administration the church was enlarged, a new organ was installed, the choir was vested, the music ministry expanded and missions at home and abroad were established. In 1906, Reverend Taylor gave up the pastorate. About 200 members left Shiloh, formed the Trinity Baptist Church and called Reverend Taylor as pastor. Reverend J. Anderson Taylor died on October 6, 1916. Reverend J. Milton Waldron was called in 1906 and set out to develop an instructional church that would care for the needs of the total person. By 1924, Shiloh had outgrown its two-story edifice and a new home was found at the corner of 9th and P Streets, NW. There were a series of fires during which Reverend Waldron's health began to fail and he resigned. Reverend Milton J. Waldron died November 20, 1913. Shiloh searched for a leader who could help reduce its debt and provide leadership through the Great Depression. In September 1930, Reverend Earl L. Harrison became the fourth pastor and served for forty-one years. During his forty-one years as pastor, the debt was retired, properties were acquired, the circle system was established, young ministers were mentored and the music ministry continued to develop. Reverend Earl L. Harrison died on November 14, 1971. In 1972, Shiloh called its fifth pastor, the Reverend Henry C. Gregory III a fourth generation preacher. Reverend Gregory had served as the assistant pastor under Reverend Harrison between 1961 and 1963. During his administration, Reverend Gregory increased the sacred components of the worship service and instituted a plan to develop the leadership within the church. He is best remembered for building the Family Life Center. The Center provides Christian development, spiritual education and recreation opportunities for church families and the community-at-large. Reverend Henry C. Gregory died on April 29, 1990 after 17 years as pastor. In July 1991 Shiloh called the Reverend Wallace Charles Smith, its sixth pastor in 128 years. During the annual Henry Booker Organ Recital in November 1991, the church erupted in smoke and flames. Everyone was evacuated safely, however, the building suffered extensive damage and could not be used. Services were held in the gymnasium of the Henry C. Gregory, III Family Life Center. Under Reverend Smith's leadership Shiloh was rebuilt on the corner of 9th and P Streets, NW. Mr. Speaker, Shiloh Baptist Church is a beacon of light and hope in the Shaw Community and on March 15, 1998 marched into its newly built church from which its tradition of spiritual, civic and social activism continues. Mr. Speaker, I ask this body to join me in celebrating the rich history and perseverance of the historic Shiloh Baptist Church of Washington, DC.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the historic transportation bill being reported out of conference today. This bill will provide badly needed assistance to communities across the country struggling to maintain and repair the transportation infrastructure which is the lifeblood of our nation's social and commercial activities. I commend the conferees for including the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program in this bill. This affirmative action program for contractors in the transportation industry will ensure that all Americans have an opportunity to participate in the construction and other activities envisioned by this legislation. The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, also known as the DBE program, is fair, constitutional and, most importantly, it works. It is a tribute to the Congress that it is included in the bill before us. Despite ample evidence that the DBE program is necessary and effective, there are still some who apparently wish to ignore the need for this program. Along with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee report accompanying this bill, nine members of this body filed additional views in which they criticized the DBE program and expressed their view that it is not needed. The fact is, however, that I, and the majority of my colleagues, disagree with this assessment. If we did not, the DBE program would not be included in this bill. The authors of the House committee's additional views made several serious factual misstatements. The most serious misstatement is that there is no evidence of discrimination in the transportation construction industry before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This could not be more false. The fact is that there is a raft of evidence of discrimination in the transportation construction industry--and many related industries. Moreover, much of this evidence has been formally presented to Congress. In order to set the record straight, I want to make sure that my colleagues are aware of at least some of the volumes of evidence of the persistence of discrimination. It is beyond the scope of a brief floor statement to detail all of the evidence that exists with respect to discrimination, but I must mention at least some of the most important and probative evidence. Evidence of Discrimination Presented to Congress: In the Additional Views section of the House committee report entitled ``Additional Challenges'', the authors contend that based upon existing case law, the DBE program raises significant constitutional questions for the following reasons: (1) No evidence was presented to the Committee that actual discrimination has occurred within the transportation construction industry; (2) No evidence has been presented that race neutral remedies were attempted and found deficient; (3) No evidence was presented justifying the program on a nationwide basis; (4) No statistical evaluations have been presented justifying the program in any given market; and (5) No evidence has been presented justifying the fact that the program does not include a procedure for individualized inquiries into whether a particular DBE has suffered from past discrimination. The first four claims are similar to claims made by Adarand Constructors before the district court after the Adarand case was remanded from the Supreme Court. The court rejected these contentions when it stated that Congress had a compelling government interest in adopting the statutory provisions that support the DBE program. Consistent with current precedent, the court agreed that Congress had a unique role as a national legislature which permitted it to address nationwide problems with nationwide legislation. The court also found that Congress had considered the use of race-neutral measures before adopting the statutory provisions supporting the DBE program. The fifth claim ignores the provisions in the current DBE regulation that permit challenges by a third party to the certification of a DBE as disadvantaged. Furthermore DOT's proposed rules revise the current regulation to include an even more rigorous certification of disadvantage. In the Adarand remand, the district court reviewed an extensive record of hearings, reports, testimony and statistics that had been presented to Congress in the twenty years since Congress first amended the Small Business Act in 1978 in order to provide that small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals have the ``maximum practicable opportunity'' to participate in federal contracts and subcontracts. That record included material from the time period when Congress first enacted a 10% goal for disadvantaged business enterprises in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act in 1982, through the continuation of the DBE program in 1987 in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) and its renewal in 1991 in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The court noted that on numerous occasions Congress had received testimony and evidence, as well as annual reports from the Small Business Administration, regarding the discriminatory barriers faced by minority businesses and the continuing need for remedial efforts to address such discrimination. The court concluded that this record met the constitutional standard by providing a ``strong basis in evidence'' from which Congress could conclude that significant discriminatory barriers faced minority businesses. The Department of Justice highlighted the extensive number of hearings held by Congress on the subject to racial discrimination and minority businesses when it published in the Federal Register. ``The Compelling Interest for Affirmative Action in Federal Procurement: A Preliminary Survey'' as an appendix to Proposed Reforms to Affirmative Action in Federal Procurement (DOJ Appendix). 61 Fed. Reg. 26042 (May 23, 1996). At that time, Justice identified at least 29 hearings on this subject between 1980 and 1995. Congress has continued to hold hearings on this issue and an update of this list shows an additional eleven Congressional hearings through the end of 1997 on the same issue. Some of the testimony that has been offered most recently is very relevant to the DBE program. While there have been a great many statements on the subject, I will quote only one here. On April 30, 1996, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Deval L. Patrick, testified before the Committee on Education and Labor about the ongoing need for affirmative action. In his testimony he discussed many types of discrimination but his comments about discrimination against minority and women entrepreneurs is especially important in this context. Mr. Patrick stated: Congress has repeatedly reviewed and supported the SBA's program, as well as those of some other agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, to aid small and disadvantaged businesses. In doing so, Congress recognized the need to help such firms combat the effects discrimination has had on their ability to develop in our economy. A few facts demonstrates Congress's wisdom. While minorities make up over 20 percent of the population, minority- owned businesses are only 9 percent of all U.S. businesses (U.S. Commission on Minority Business Development, Final Report 2-6 (1992)). The minority-owned firms that do exist have, on average, gross receipts that are only about one-third those of nonminority firms (id. at 4). Similar inequities apply to women-owned businesses. Women own nearly 20 percent of all businesses with employees and a third of all small businesses but received less than 3 percent of federal procurement contract dollars in 1994 (Expanding Business Opportunities for Women, The 1995 Report of the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise, at 3, 11, January 1996; see also 1992 Survey of Women-Owned Businesses. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1996)). Discrimination in the critical ability to secure necessary capital persists; white business owners in the construction industry receive over 50 times as many loan dollars per dollar of equity capital as African American owners with identical borrowing characteristics (Grown & Bates, Commercial Bank Lending Practices and the Development of Black Owned Construction Companies Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 1, 34 (1992)). Recent studies have shown that limited access to capital has had a simiarly negative affect on firms owned by women, and that due to that lessened access to capital more women than men finance businesses out of their own resources (Expanding Business Opportunities for Women at 8). Discrimination occurs in both private and public contracting. Disparity studies completed by state and local governments after the Croson decision routinely found that minority-owned businesses are locked out of public contracting markets. After the Croson decision, many states suspended affirmative action business program, with a devastating effect on minority business. In Richmond, in the absence of affirmative action, minority participation in construction dropped from 40 percent of all contracts to less than 3 percent (U.S. Commission on Minority Business Development, Final Report at 99 (1992)). Similar falloffs occurred in Philadelphia (97% decline), Tampa (99% decline for African American-owned businesses and 50% for Hispanics), and San Jose (minority participation fell from 6 percent to 1 percent in prime construction contracts) (ibid). In private industry, discrimination is even more pronounced. Both minority and women-owned firms report that they are routinely unable to secure subcontracts on private work where there are no affirmative action requirements, and that white owned prime contractors even reject minority or women-owned firms that offer the lowest bid.'' Beyond the record of various Congressional hearings, there is further evidence supporting Congress' determination to continue to use of the DBE program. In 1992, the Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Minority Business Development concluded that the severe under representation of minorities in business was caused by discrimination and benign neglect. The Small Business Administration's State of Small Business report in 1994 stated that in 1992, minorities owned 9% of all business, but only received 4.1% of federal contracting dollars. The 1992 Economic Census: Survey of Minority-owned Business Enterprises published in 1996 by the Department of Commerce revealed a similar ratio of minority owned construction firms to receipts for such firms. In 1994, the House Committee on Government Operations found that minority-owned firms face particular difficulties in the construction industry which is dominated by ``old buddy'' networks and family firms and tends to exclude minority firms. H.R. Rep. No. 870, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994). The DOJ Appendix described in some detail the discriminatory barriers to minority contracting opportunities, evidence of which is found in studies and reports issued by congressional committees, executive branch commissions, academic researchers and state and local governments. Such evidence demonstrates that discrimination works to preclude minorities from obtaining the capital needed to form and develop a business because of discrimination by trade unions and employers as well as lenders and that minority firms are denied full and fair contracting opportunities because of discrimination by private sector customers, prime contractors, business networks, suppliers and bonding companies. As described in the DOJ appendix, much of this evidence has been presented to Congress and has been the subject of Congressional hearings, particularly in the area of discrimination by lenders and surety bonding companies. Additional Evidence: The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of additional evidence that is available to Congress in less formal forms. Every day each of us receives evidence of national needs from our constituents and from studies and articles we discover in our efforts to represent those who elected us. Some of this evidence is not presented formally in hearings or Congressional reports--but it is evidence all the same and it informs the work we do. I do not have time here to outline all of the evidence of discrimination in transportation construction that has come to my attention, but I would like to mention a few of the more recent studies and writings. Perhaps the most important source of information comes to us from the numerous disparity studies that have been completed in communities across this Nation. Over one hundred and fifty of these studies have been completed and many have dealt with transportation construction contracting. I will describe just a few of these studies and their conclusions here. A study of the historical record of minority and women-owned business enterprises in public and private contracting in New Jersey submitted to NJ Transit and the Governor's Study Commission on Discrimination in Public Works Procurement and Construction Contracts by the Afro- American Studies Program of the University of Maryland at College Park in August of 1992 states: ``Despite extraordinary efforts to promote equal opportunity in employment and other areas of social and economic life in New Jersey, significant inequalities remain. One persistent area of inequality is business ownership. Many minority group members and women lack access to key channels for entry into business ownership. Some of these blocked paths are the direct result of specific policies by the state in the past to favor white-owned firms or the indirect result of inaction on the part of the state to prevent discrimination that ultimately has resulted in an underutilization of the potential business talents of women and minority citizens of New Jersey. The record of these actions and inactions . . . strongly supports the (re-) introduction of race- and gender-specific remedies to fulfill the state's own constitutional mandate to promote equality of opportunity to all its citizens.'' (NJ Transit, University of Maryland at College Park study at 32.) A study of the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts performed by D.J. Miller and Associates (DJMA) in March of 1994 states that ``there is ample evidence of discrimination against African Americans, Latinos, other minority groups, and women.'' In addition, the report's executive summary states that ``[t]he information revealed in the disparity study leads DJMA to conclude that a sufficient inference of discrimination can be made from this factual predicate to warrant the implementation of a race-conscious procurement program.'' (DJ Miller study at ES11.) A study of the Fort Worth, Texas Transportation Authority by Browne, Bortz and Coddintgton (BBC) issued in November of 1993 concludes that ``[t]he combined quantitative and qualitative evidence of discrimination against minority and woman-owned firms forms a sufficient factual predicate for remedial action by the Fort Worth Transportation Authority. Race and gender-neutral remedies should be considered, but the study team concludes that they alone will not be sufficient to fully remedy the effects of past and present discrimination. Therefore, a basis exists for the Transportation Authority to consider narrowly-tailored race and gender-based remedies.'' (BBC, Fort Worth Transportation Authority study, at ES11.) Of course, disparity studies are only one source of data about discrimination. One recent report also deserves special mention because it deals exclusively with affirmative action in public contracting and because a summary of this report was sent to every member of Congress. in late 1996, the Urban Institute released Do Minority Owned Businesses get a Fair Share of Government Contracts? The Answer to the question posed by the study was a resounding ``no.'' The report was based upon the evidence contained in 58 disparity studies commissioned by various state and local governments and demonstrated wide statistical disparities between the share of contract dollars actually received by minority- and women-owned firms and the share those firms should have received. These disparities are very important evidence. In the Croson decision the Supreme Court made clear that ``gross statistical disparities'' will be considered ``prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination'' in contracting. The report found that minority firms received only 57 cents for every dollar they would be expected to receive based upon their availability. While this statistic is shocking, it should be no surprise to those of us in Congress who for years have been hearing evidence of the discrimination against women and minority entrepreneurs. For specific facial groups the disparities were even greater: African-American-owned firms received only 49 cents on the dollar, Latino-owned firms received 44 cents on the dollar, Asian-American owned firms received 39 cents on the dollar and Native American-owned firms received 18 cents on the dollar. In addition the report found that women-owned firms received only 29 cents of every dollar they would be expected to receive based upon their availability. The report also provided information about the disparities in construction contracting, work which quite often includes transportation construction contracting. In the construction arena minorities received only 61 cents for every dollar they should have received given their availability. Women received only 48 cents on the dollar. The statistics were even more disheartening for certain minority groups. For instance, African American owned firms received only 56 cents for every dollar they would be expected to receive based on their availability--Asian owned firms received only 60 cents on the dollar. What we must all remember is that these statistics--disturbing as they are--represent a world in which there are the kinds of affirmative action programs that some would have us end. Without affirmative efforts like the DBE program, the situation would be far worse. For example, the Urban Institute report found that the disparities between minority- and women- owned firms and other firms were more pronounced in areas in which no affirmative action contracting program was in place. When only areas and years in which affirmative action is not in place are considered, the percentage of awards to women falls from 29 percent of what would be expected in 24 percent. For African Americans the percentages dropped from 49 percent to 22 percent, for Latinos the percentage dropped from 44 percent to 26 percent, for Asians from 39 percent to 13 percent, and for native Americans from 18 percent to 4 percent. These figures clearly show that affirmative action programs are not only effective, but they are also still desperately needed. Statistical evidence--the primary focus of the Urban Institute report--must be considered in combination with other social science evidence and anecdotal evidence provided by those involved in the contracting process. In addition to documenting statistical disparities, the Urban Institute report reviewed the social science literature and the disparity studies to determine the challenges confronted by disadvantaged firms. The study notes that the social science literature reveals several areas in which minorities may confront barriers in their efforts to form businesses. Firsts the study notes that minorities tend to have lower incomes, less wealth, and limited access to financial markets. A second area of disadvantage involves minorities' limited access to business networks and the relative lack of family members who are self- employed or run a business. Minorities may also be disadvantaged by lower levels of educational attainment and less experience in business relative to their white counterparts. The report also notes that minority firms may face limited access to wealthier white customers due to discrimination by white customers and residential segregation. Finally, the study points out that the individual disparity studies contain a huge number of anecdotes about discrimination. According to the study, barriers early in the contracting process may include: failure of the government to break down large contracts into smaller components which could increase the participation of smaller minority- owned firms; restricting affirmative action solely to subcontracting and thus limiting the opportunity of minority firms to work as prime contractors; abuse of good faith waivers; and inadequate prosecution of ``front'' firms. Barriers during the bid solicitation stage include: use of closed or private requests for bids; failure to advertise bids in minority media; failure to notify minority firms of bidding opportunities; provision of incomplete bid specification information to minority firms; and untimely notification of minority firms of bidding opportunities. Barriers during the evaluation of bids include: discrimination in pricing by suppliers; ``bid shopping;'' and renegotiating specific projects in order to manipulate the process in favor a majority firms. Finally, the report notes that there is anecdotal evidence of barriers during the actual execution of contracts including: exclusion of minority firms by prime contractors after contracts have been awarded; slow payment of amounts owed to minority firms; and project sabotage. The bottom line is this: there is a vast amount of evidence of discrimination against minority and women owned firms in America. This evidence exists in both the transportation construction arena, and in markets (such as finance and bonding) which are directly related to the construction industry. All of this evidence provides this Congress with a compelling interest to address discrimination through the enactment of the Disadvantaged Business Program. Other Errors in the Additional Views Finally, I cannot complete this statement without noting the misleading pattern of factual misstatements and omissions in the Additional Views in the House committee report filed by my distinguished colleagues. The section of the views entitled ``History of the DBE Program'' obscures the fact that the Department of Transportation has proposed extensive changes to its own program regulations to improve and strengthen the DBE program. Some of the regulations referred in this section are not DOT's regulations, but instead regulations issued by the Small Business Administration. Moreover, the Additional Views represents these SBA regulations as final and they are not. The SBA regulations issued in August of 1997 are proposed regulations which have not yet been finalized. The Department of Transportation's proposed regulations were issued in May of 1997. The section of the Additional Views entitled ``Effect of the Adarand Court Decisions'' states that the courts have made it clear that federal affirmative action programs ``must be restructured to provide targeted remedies to only those who have been the victims of specific discrimination.'' This assertion is incorrect. Seven of the nine Justices recognized ``the unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country'' [emphasis added] and reaffirmed the government's authority to address this problem. The majority opinion in Adarand is consistent with the longstanding understanding of affirmative action programs that, when members of a group have been discriminated against on the basis of their race, then members of that group may benefit from affirmative action measures even if they themselves have not made specific showings of injury due to discrimination. The assertion made in the Additional Views, that individual members of racial groups may benefit from affirmative action only if they prove that they themselves have suffered discrimination, was simply not the position of the Court. In order to be correct, the section entitled ``Challenge to the Subcontracting Compensation Clause'' should note that the subcontracting compensation clause provision was not implemented to comply with the DBE program as asserted in the second sentence of this paragraph, instead it was developed to comply with the contracting requirements of the Small Business Act. Moreover, the argument made before the Tenth Circuit was not that the program should be evaluated under ``lenient'' scrutiny, but under the ``intermediate scrutiny'' standard which had been upheld by the Supreme Court prior to its decision in Adarand. In the section entitled ``Application of the Strict Scrutiny Standard'' the Additional Views state: ``[c]ase law stipulates that the only compelling governmental interest for race preference if the remedying of past discrimination.'' This statement is flatly incorrect. First of all, the Court has clearly held that the government has a compelling interest in addressing not only past discrimination, but also present discrimination. Second, there are also suggestions in the case law that diversity may constitute a compelling government interest for the use of race-based affirmative action measures in certain contexts such as higher education. In this same section, my nine distinguished colleagues repeat the completely untrue assertion that the Sultan of Brunei would qualify for the DBE program. The presumptions of social and economic disadvantage under the DBE program are rebuttable, not absolute. The Department of Transportation maintains a system under which any person, whether or not they are directly involved in the DBE program may challenge the certification of a firm as a DBE. The existing rule has a specific procedure to accomplish this. Moreover, the proposed rule would institute a mechanism to make challenges easier to bring and would allow recipients to hold an application in abeyance while deciding a challenge. If the Sultan of Brunei--or anyone with substantial wealth-- were ever erroneously certified as a DBE, the Department would take steps to decertify that firm. The Department has taken such steps in the past, and will undoubtable do so in the future. Opponents of this program are simply wrong when they state that the Sultan of Brunei qualifies for the DBE program. He does not. Moreover, the proposed regulations issued by the Department of Transportation would impose even tighter restrictions on the economic status of DBE owners by imposing a personal net worth test. A similar--but even more misleading--point is made in the section entitled ``Additional Concerns Regarding the Presumption of Economic Disadvantage.'' Here, the Additional Views quotes the Department's proposed regulations in a grossly inaccurate way. Quoting two sentences as if they appear consecutively in the rule, the section complains that the Department is not doing anything to economically target the benefits of the program. In truth, the section is worse than misleading--it intentionally omits the intervening sentence which clearly changes the focus and meaning of the paragraph: ``However, in order to have relevant information to enable them to make determinations about whether there should be inquiry into the disadvantage of applicants, the applicants would have to submit a signed certification that they are socially and economically disadvantaged and a brief summary statement of their personal net worth, which the recipient would have to keep confidential.'' (Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 104, May 30, 1997, page 29565.) The import of this sentence, which the authors of the Additional Views apparently wanted to obscure, is that the Department is taking action to ensure that recipients have the information necessary to be certain that only those who are truly economically disadvantaged benefit from the DBE program. The section entitled ``Houston Metro'' is also misleading. The Department of Transportation has worked hard to collaborate with Houston Metro to find a workable solution to the problem caused there by the court case brought by the Houston Contractors Association. In fact, in a recent hearing a distinguished member of the Republican leadership who represents Houston, commended the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, Gordon J. Linton, for the ``cooperation'' and ``creative'' efforts made by the Department in responding to the Houston situation. It is important to understand that despite having twice filed motions to intervene, the Department of Transportation is not a party to the case involving Houston Metro. Despite this, the Department has assisted Houston Metro in developing a race-neutral program to replace its DBE program during the pendency of the injunction. In addition, the Department recently extended the exemption it has provided to Houston Metro until October 31, 1998 in order to ensure that funds continue to flow and projects are not unnecessarily disrupted while Houston appeals the district court's decision. Finally, the paragraph entitled ``Monterey Mechanical'' does not belong in a Committee report expressing views on a federal affirmative action program. The Monterey Mechanical case does not address the DBE program--in fact it does not address any federal program. It is not a case based upon the Supreme Court's holding in Adarand, but instead deals with the Court's opinion in Croson and the recent enactment of Proposition 209 which is relevant only to California. Similarly, in the section entitled ``Additional Challenges'' the vast majority of the cases referred to do not deal with the Department of Transportation's DBE program. In fact, most of the cases listed appear to deal with state and local program, not federal programs. I thank my colleagues for their attention to those important issues. The fact of the matter is this: affirmative action and equal opportunity are far too important to be left to the mercy of political rhetoric masquerading as legislative history. The existence of discrimination in the transportation construction industry in this nation is clear--and the legislative record should be clear as well.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Moran-Thornberry amendment. I sat on the Subcommittee on Civil Service, and I have a full appreciation, because I heard the quagmire of technical problems associated with ensuring medical care for Medicare-eligible veterans. There are risks associated with being a part of any control group. I do not for a moment believe that this body is going to leave any veterans who decide to go into this program in a lurch at the end of the period. I do think it is unthinkable to let this gap in health care for these veterans to go on any longer. I do think this is Congress at its best. We did not know what to do after we heard this testimony. We said let us do a demonstration project and learn from it; that will allow us to know whether we spread it or change it or fix it. Moreover, these are the first people to be allowed into the FEHBP program other than the traditional clients programs. I think we will learn something about FEHBP as well, and I think the people to learn it from are veterans who have been left out of their full right to medical care.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time and congratulate her on this important amendment. I rise in strong support of the Lowey-Harman amendment. Do we hear what we are saying in this debate to the women of our armed services? Make the choice to serve your country in the armed services of the United States and lose your choice over your own body. Join the armed services, sisters, and lose your constitutional rights. All the red herrings in the world will not make this palatable to young women in this country today. The notion about whether their own money or taxpayers' money is involved, for example. Women would agree to paying the full cost, including the electricity, for the Member who was concerned there. Include the full cost of the abortion. The gentleman wants to know about contracting out. The last time I heard, we contract out for the full cost of the service. Show some respect for women serving their country. Imagine the position we put them in in Haiti or in Bosnia, having to find a safe place for an abortion. Suppose it is a crisis pregnancy but not one resulting from rape or incest. Why would any Member of this body want to put any woman serving in the armed forces at risk? Why? Why even would we want to put her at any inconvenience? She has signed up to serve her country. I think she deserves all the respect we can muster. And let me be clear. The armed services today needs its women more than its men, because it is the women whose percentages are rising. It is the percentage of men that is going down. Women are indispensable in the armed services today. They are very young; they may have a different life-style from many Members of this body, but we had better understand this: the services will have to close up shop without them. This is the wrong message at the wrong time to send to the young women the services are trying to recruit today. The women's numbers are going up. They are at 14 percent. In 1990 they were at 11 percent. They keep rising. They are the cream of the crop. They are listening to this debate, and I believe I speak for them and for the women now serving when I say eliminate discrimination against women in the armed forces, stand with the women serving their country.