Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of the life of Benjamin Banneker and of Black History Month, I am introducing the Benjamin Banneker Memorial Act of 1998. The residents of the District of Columbia are direct beneficiaries of Benjamin Banneker's extraordinary work in helping to design the nation's capital. I am proud to sponsor a bill to authorize construction of a memorial here in the District to honor and commemorate Banneker's numerous achievements. The proposed memorial is a particularly appropriate way to commemorate Banneker, America's first black man of science. Banneker was noted for his mathematical and mechanical genius. He was self- taught, learning astronomy by studying the stars and mathematics by reading books. Under the legislation, the Washington Interdependence Council (WIC), a non-profit organization headed by Peggy Seats, will be authorized to raise funds for the memorial. Through the determined efforts of Ms. Seats, WIC has already obtained passage of a resolution by the D.C. City Council sponsored by Councilmember Jack Evans endorsing its campaign to establish a Benjamin Banneker memorial. WIC also has entered into preliminary discussions with the National Parks Service regarding the possibility of constructing the memorial at Benjamin Banneker Overlook Park, located near L'Enfant Plaza in southwest, D.C. WIC intends to conduct a design competition for the memorial. Banneker's work deserves recognition in a central location of the nation's capital because of his contribution to all of the citizens of this country. His life has special meaning for African Americans in general and for black Americans in the District in particular. In 1791, Banneker was appointed by Andrew Ellicot to survey and plan the design, layout, and blueprint the nation's capital. Working from early February through April, Banneker painstakingly developed calculations for the survey, using an astronomical clock in an observatory tent. WIC, and especially Peggy Seats, its energetic leader, deserve the praise of this body for initiating this ambitious and meritorious project. Because of the determination Ms. Seats has already demonstrated, I believe that the Benjamin Banneker Memorial project will be as successful as the African-American Civil War Memorial I sponsored here seven years ago, soon to be constructed at 10th and U Streets, N.W. I graduated from Banneker, now a high school for gifted and accelerated students here in the District, when it was a segregated junior high school. Benjamin Banneker deserves greater recognition here and across America. I am delighted that Washingtonians led by Ms. Seats are establishing a memorial to this scientific genius and inventor so that tourists will have another important and historic sight to learn from as they visit the nation's capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman has spoken movingly of his own personal experience, one that I remember when it occurred. In doing so, I think he speaks for many Members of this House, who in one fashion or another have had family members to experience this disease. And in this respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Members of this House are truly representative of the American people, because this frightening disease is one that knows no group of any kind and is spread throughout the society. So it makes great sense that on the people's grounds we would grant an exception and allow a tribute to be held here in connection with the Race for the Cure. So I strongly support this resolution that would allow the use of the Capitol grounds for the so-called Capitol tribute to breast cancer survivors, and I do so in two capacities, or perhaps three, not only as a member of Congress, but as the cochair of the Congressional Women's Caucus, 50 Members strong, who all of us across party lines strongly support this resolution, and, of course, as the Member representing the Nation's Capital, which is proud and pleased to have this tribute take place in this city. I support this resolution for a special reason. I believe these events have made a tremendous difference. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) spoke about the need to raise consciousness. It is raising awareness that is saving lives. It is raising awareness that has sent women of every racial group and income group in huge numbers now to take advantage of mammography. What is most encouraging to me is to see how mammography has spread across all the discernible lines, and that could simply not have happened except for a very much elevated consciousness. We would not have poor women and women of color going to get their mammograms by the hundreds of thousands as we do today were it not for events like this that did perform the simple agent of raising consciousness. The Women's Caucus takes special note of this resolution and especially supports it. Breast cancer was long an underfunded disease spreading at frightening rates throughout our society, and the Women's Caucus years ago took it as its own special mission and obligation to see to it that funding was increased for the eradication of breast cancer. Funding matters and raising consciousness matters. I think we see that in the figures that were reported on March 13, that in the first 5 years of the 1990s the annual number of new cases for cancer of all kinds fell steadily, and this happened among men and women of all ethnic groups and most age groups. I was particularly heartened that this downward trend for cancer was noted among several specific kinds of cancer: lung, prostate, colon or rectal and, yes, breast cancer. This is, of course, as we might imagine, Mr. Speaker, the most frightening form of cancer for women. Perhaps it is not the most devastating, but it just as well may be, because it attacks the mind and the spirit with special viciousness, even as it is attacking the body. Among women, breast cancer has declined for whites, and it has declined for Asians and for Hispanics. But during those years, 1990 to 1995, it rose for blacks. This rise for one group and the continuing numbers of women who get breast cancer of course takes away from the very hopeful statistics that are beginning to be reported. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths to American women, second only to lung cancer. It is the leading cause of cancer death among women ages 40 to 55. Mr. Speaker, those are the ages when women are finally done with child-rearing, can come forward and blossom fully; and to have cancer occur at those prime years is simply intolerable. Even with the more hopeful statistics, even with the access to mammograms we now see across all groups in the society, 44,000 women died from breast cancer in 1997 and 180,000 new cases of the disease were diagnosed. We can do much better than that. We can do better than that not so much by curing cancer with some magic potion but by preventing cancer and by detecting cancer early with mammograms. I greet this activity on the part of the Race for the Cure. I think it is most appropriate for the Congress to show its special concern beyond our funding, beyond the leadership of the Women's Caucus, by opening up this place, these grounds, for this special tribute. The Race for the Cure is a joyful event. There will be many breast cancer survivors participating, but it must reminded us that the Race for the Cure is still a race to be won.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I have just come from a hearing on school vouchers, and I appreciate that I was given the opportunity to participate in the hearing because the hearing involved only the District of Columbia. I am left to wonder why the majority does not bring a voucher bill forward for the people of the United States of America, but picks only on one jurisdiction, the one that has voted at the highest rate--89 percent--against vouchers. I want to thank the Catholic Archdiocese as well as others who support charter schools for coming. The gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), chairman of the committee, is the major sponsor of the Riggs- Roemer bill which brought the House together on both sides on the notion of school choice involving public charter schools. I am very appreciative of the Washington Scholarship Fund. It is a private group that has put its money where its mouth is. It has not walked up and down the halls of Congress lobbying to get Congress to spend money which it knows the Congress is not going to be able to spend, but has simply come forward with the money on its own and now has raised money for scholarships in the District, for kids who want to go. I want to thank Arlene Ackerman, who is the new chief academic officer. She is a piece of work. She is already doing it, not just talking it. Our kids will be reading the equivalent of 25 books each next year. I asked her what she could do with the $7 million in the so-called vouchers bill, and here is what she had to say. She would use that money this summer to send 20,000 kids to summer school so that we can end social promotion in the District of Columbia. She is going to do it one way or the other anyway. She does not have the money to do it now. The credibility of those who are pressing vouchers is severely strained when, in fact, we can do something that will make a huge difference in the District of Columbia this very year with that $7 million. When that vote comes on the floor of the House, however, it comes with the certain knowledge of the leadership that the President has already announced that he would veto a voucher bill. So why are they bringing it? The bill comes with the certain knowledge that such a bill would be met with a lawsuit and an immediate injunction, because there have been two or three vouchers passed in the States and each and every one of them has been enjoined by the courts. So what is the majority trying to do? They come crying crocodile tears for my kids. If they mean it, they should give us the $7 million so that we can end social promotion in the District of Columbia. Instead, they have dangled free money before some poor kids in the District of Columbia. They are playing with my constituents because they know that this free money will not come out of here. They did the same thing with our ministers last year. They got them to sign on for some free money for scholarships for the District of Columbia. But have they told my constituents there would be a veto and that the free money would never come out of the halls of this House? Have they told my constituents there will be a lawsuit, and that every such voucher bill that has been brought in the United States of America has been halted by an injunction? Who are they playing with? Who are they fooling? Do they care about youngsters in the District of Columbia? They should prove it. They should put their money where their mouths are. It is time to stop talking about the schools of the District of Columbia. There is something they can do about it. Stop raising expectations among poor people in the District. The Congress is back again. The bill is fast becoming a cruel hoax. I asked the two parents who testified before the committee this morning, whether they knew that they would not qualify for the vouchers if the vouchers were in fact passed by this House, because they are already in private schools? And they did not know that, my colleagues. Please help me. The children of the District of Columbia are as desperately off as my colleagues claim. The schools are indeed as bad as the schools in all of the large cities of the United States. My colleagues can do something about it. We are not the Congress' burden, we are not the Congress' responsibility, but we seek a partnership to quickly bring these schools up and to give these kids what they deserve. They deserve much more than they have gotten from the District. My colleagues' critique of the schools is well placed, but it will mean nothing unless they also step up and do something. And what my colleagues can do this summer is to begin quickly in the short-term to turn around a school system that has brought nothing but condemnation on this floor and in the District. The difference between the District and my colleagues is that the Congress controls billions of dollars. With only $7 million, we can get a bill that would be signed by the President and would send 20,000 children to school and help them quickly improve their standards.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the record. The District is nobody's burden and no one's responsibility except the responsibility of the residents of the District. I correct what the Speaker said in that regard. The majority claims it wants to help, it wants a D.C. voucher bill to help D.C. youngsters. How can such a claim be credible when a veto of vouchers has been promised and a lawsuit would be inevitable? Do Members want to help? Our youngsters need help now. Twenty-five percent of our students will be attending a newly established summer program to keep them from failing, to quickly improve their performance and even to offer advanced work and enrichment as the city pressures themselves to new and more vigorous standards. Do my colleagues want to help? Help these 25 percent who need our help now. Vouchers for 7,000 kids will not do it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I choose today, International Women's Day, to call to the attention of this body that women business owners are proving to be a major factor in the most robust economy since World War II. Women business owners are showing remarkable staying power. Three- quarters of the women businesses that were in existence in 1991 are still in existence, compared to the overall American average of two- thirds of all firms. What does this signify? What does it tell us about women? What we have already known: that the stability and hard work for which women have been known in the home, they are bringing now not only to the workplace but to owning businesses themselves. The bipartisan Women's Caucus has put special emphasis on women-owned business. I salute the bipartisan team leaders in our caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Kelly) for their leadership on women- owned business issues. They have introduced House Resolution 313, which I invite all Members to sign on. The Federal Government has a goal of 5 percent women-owned businesses. We are only at 2 percent.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, if the average American had a kid in almost any public school today, what do you believe she would say if someone advertised free money for scholarships to attend private or religious schools? How about you colleagues? If you are like most Americans, you believe that private schools are more selective, have better classes in some important subjects, have a better teacher/student ratio. Why not apply? Private certainly have better reputations in many parts of the country. Free money for such schools would probably get many takers if advertised anywhere in this country among any group. Last year, some District of Columbia ministers were asked to sign on to a letter to support free scholarships--that is how it was called-- for D.C. kids. They, too, jumped at the opportunity. When they found out that these scholarships were, in fact, publicly funded vouchers, which take taxpayer dollars away from public schools, they felt deceived, had a press conference, and took their names off of the letter and off of the campaign. In public meetings around the District, I have raised this subject regularly with my constituents who have now applied in numbers over 7,000 for some free scholarship money. Who in America would not? They are no different, however, from the 69 percent of Americans who say that they do not want public money to go to vouchers for private schools. In the District, 89 percent have voted against private school vouchers. What the majority puts up against this vote is a poll slanted with words to try to defeat what the people said at the polls. Why is the majority picking on D.C.? If they are for vouchers, why not bring a bill to the floor to have an up or down vote for everybody for vouchers? What are they afraid of? Why do they go for the smallest, least powerful district in America? We are not the only district, I have to tell my colleagues, that has poor public schools. I think it just may be because so many States have turned down vouchers at the polls, just as D.C. has. Listen to hear whether your State is in this list. New York, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Idaho, Maryland, Washington, Missouri, Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Utah, Colorado. What a cross-section of America has turned down private vouchers with public money at the polls! Even when voucher advocates lose, however, they double back and lose again, always by more than they lost the first time. In California they lost first by 61 percent; then by 70 percent. In Washington State first by 61 percent; then they lost by 65 percent. In Massachusetts the first time they lost by 62 percent, then they lost by 70 percent. And here in the District, vouchers, public vouchers with public school money, have lost by 89 percent. My constituents do want a better education for their children, but they are neither foolish nor selfish. They want educational choice but not at the expense of their own public schools here in the District. I ask my colleagues: Do we want to help poor children get a better education, or do we want a veto, or do we want a lawsuit? Because that is all we will get out of a voucher bill for the District coming to the floor at this time. If we are serious, there is a way to get scholarships for the remaining kids. Please join me in a group committed to raising private money for children who want to attend private schools in the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon, I expect to be joined by other women Members of Congress. I have already been joined by my distinguished cochair of the women's caucus here in the Congress, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). We have come because this is a special month. It is called women's history month. We who are Members of Congress are not historians, however. While we exalt in women's special history in this country and acknowledge the need to use this month to make Americans more aware of the vital role that women have played in the country's history, we have an additional obligation, we who serve in the Congress, and that is to keep people current on what it is that this Congress is doing for women and for families. For now 21 years the women's caucus has taken as its special obligation to secure the rights and needs of women and their families. I am going to say something about the work of the women's caucus because I believe that much of that work is done behind the scenes and women's history month is a good point to let Members and others know of the history that is being made in this body for women and for families. Before I am through, indeed in just a few minutes, I am going to hand it off to my cochair, the Republican cochair of the caucus, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and then I will come back to say something further. Last year was a landmark year for the women in Congress. We are 50 strong now. We know that that is nothing to write home about if you consider that there are 440 Members of this body, but it does mean that there has been progress in this body since there was hardly a woman to be found among the Members. And that was the case 21 years ago. Last year in celebrating our 20th anniversary, we had the first dinner we have ever had because we thought when you get to be 20 years old, you ought to do something special, and we had that in a beautiful Federal building downtown, a historic structure. President Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton, both attended the dinner and spoke, and the first woman ever to be Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was the featured speaker, and because women like to have fun, Sweet Honey in the Rock came to sing for the women and men who were gathered there. What we do most of the time, however, is not to celebrate. What we do most of the time is to fix upon some priorities from among the many that confront the country every year affecting women and families. Mrs. Johnson and I thought that on the 20th anniversary of the caucus, we ought to look at the great progress we have made and think about how we should proceed in the future. We looked at what milestones had been accomplished. I have to tell Members, without detailing all of them during the time we have this afternoon, that they are most impressive, 20 years of concrete achievements. To give you just a feel, a few examples. Women in Congress are particularly proud of what we have done for women's health. Women's health was a submerged and neglected field when the women's caucus was born. Today, however, women's health is an issue that women and men in this body can take real pride in. Women are now included in clinical trials. Women had the great neglected conditions, but now osteoporosis and breast cancer are among the conditions that the Congress has given a particular time and attention to. We are beginning to focus on a real sleeper issue in women's health. If I were to ask the average person what kills more women than any other condition, there would probably be some conditions in the cancer category that people would come forward with because there is so much said about this disease. But the fact is that it is heart disease that kills most women. We need to look closely at heart disease in women to see what it has in common and how it is different from heart disease in men. Beyond health, and there are a dozen conditions and avenues in health that the women's caucus has brought alive in its 20 years, but I would also cite the Family Medical and Leave Act. This opportunity for people to take uncompensated time off for a serious health need has been a godsend to hundreds of thousands of families already, and it was just signed in 1992. It is a landmark piece of legislation. It leaves us behind most industrialized countries because most industrialized countries give some form of compensated leave for family and medical needs, but we are getting there. There is, of course, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, to name another of the great achievements of the women's caucus. When I was having my children, pregnancy was not even covered by health insurance plans, and if it was covered at all, it was covered in a very small amount compared to other conditions. A woman could be dismissed because of pregnancy. This, of course, was discrimination based on pregnancy, and I was Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at a time when we believed that pregnancy discrimination was, of course, covered by title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A decision from the Supreme Court interpreted title VII not to cover pregnancy, however, and it fell to this body to make it clear that title VII should cover pregnancy, and the landmark Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed. There is no question that women's ability to move as they now must in the workplace would have been severely hindered without the work of this body on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. If I could name just one more among many pieces of legislation that are hallmarks of the 20 years of women in the Congress, the Domestic Violence Act, this is another piece of legislation that it took years to enact, but which everyone now embraces as a landmark act. Domestic violence crosses all manner of boundaries in our society, and women have been left without help or assistance, with the focus of the Congress on criminal violence. This body opened itself to understanding that some of the worst violence occurs inside the home, and that more women are murdered by partners and husbands than by strangers. And so the Domestic Violence Act was passed. Before speaking further about the work that the Congress is doing led by women Members of Congress to make history and not simply celebrate women's history month, I would like to turn to my very good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Johnson. I turn to Mrs. Johnson, with whom I work side by side, sister to sister, one party or the other notwithstanding. We work together, we believe, as a model of how bipartisanship can and should work in this body. And we believe that the women's caucus is the best example of bipartisanship in the Congress, and we have lots of concrete results to show for what good bipartisanship can do notwithstanding difference in party. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), Republican cochair of the women's caucus.

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her efforts to make our caucus truly bipartisan, because it certainly takes hard work. We iron out our differences and go ahead. On things we disagree, those do not become caucus issues. On choice, for example, there are some Members, Democrat and Republican, that are not with us on choice. Therefore, we do not worry with that in the caucus. Those of who are strongly pro-choice will do it on our own or with other Members. Mr. Speaker, let me finish by saying that the two other groundbreaking approaches the women's caucus has used this session are town meetings and women's caucus hearings. We had a town meeting on pay equity, because we have found that that is a number one issue for women and families. That was a meeting where we did not do most of the talking. We invited women from around the country to do most of the talking. Most of those women came from operations like the business and professional women's clubs of America. It was an important innovation for the women's caucus. We have had four women's caucus hearings. I mentioned some of the team members. Those hearings have been on zero to 3, the groundbreaking work that has been done on what we all had better understand about young children and what has to be done. It is to far more adequately stimulate them and get child care for them. I have mentioned contraceptive research. We have to move ahead on that or else we are inviting more abortion. This last year was the 25th anniversary of Title IX. We had a hearing to commemorate it and to indicate the great unsolved issues under Title IX, and of course I have mentioned the procurement hearing because while there is a 5 percent goal, a voluntary goal, for women for contracts from the Federal Government, we are only at 2 percent. The women's caucus hearing brought that out. Mr. Speaker I appreciate the time that has been awarded to the 50 Members of Congress for this special order.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), for those very important remarks and for her work with our caucus. I want to continue to talk about that work. I spoke earlier about new legislation that the caucus worked to get passed last year. I want to speak about new ground we have broken with new approaches to working for women as a part of the Women's Caucus. We have initiated three new approaches. One is a team approach, a bipartisan team approach. The other is a Women's Caucus hearing approach, and the third is a women's town meeting approach. Let me say a word about women's bipartisan teams. We are a bipartisan caucus, and we have often worked together on an omnibus legislative bill so we can bring together every bill that women have introduced, and we have put it all into omnibus legislation and we introduced it. We decided that the Women's Caucus should continue to work on such legislation, but that we ought to work more closely together in teams of Members who have special interests. I think the women and families of America need to know about this team approach. Did you know that the women of the Women's Caucus are working as teams? That means we Republicans and Democrats led each team, one from each party, on issues that we read from our constituents as among their primary concerns when it comes to women and families. Let me call out what these teams are, and let me let you know what women Members are working on these teams. Expanding the work against violence against women, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard). Preventative health services for women, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green). Educational child care and school readiness, a major issue this session, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher). Job training and vocational education, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and here may I say I am calling out the team leaders. There is not enough time to call out all the team members for each important area. Title IX, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). Health care insurance reform, the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Smith) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). Juvenile justice, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). Women in the military, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). Pensions and retirement benefits for women, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly). Teen pregnancy, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). Higher education, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). Women-owned businesses, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). HIV-AIDS, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson). International women's rights, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney). You have teams, but what do these teams do? Let me offer a representative sample of what these teams have been doing, because I believe that when you hear some of what in fact happens that may not meet the public eye on the floor of the Congress, that women, men and families in America will have some sense of the very hard work that women insist upon doing for women and families. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Fowler) is a Republican; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) is a Democrat. They have worked like two peas in a pod on an issue that reared its head the first day of the 105th Congress, and that was sexual harassment of women in the military. As I speak, there is an important trial going on of a high level military official who was accused of sexual harassment. At Aberdeen, they broke a terrible story of drill sergeants who were said to be harassing women in their command. We are concerned about this, but I do not think the country should be surprised. You cannot change what has occurred over the millennia, which has been putting men and women together in the military, without knowing there will be occasions like this. The real question is, what are you going to do about it? You ought to expect there will be some occasions like this, and we ought to, I think, be very proud of our armed services, that this is very much the exception and not the rule. Well, Representatives Fowler and Harman, working closely with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and me, simply decided we were going to press this issue to the finish. I am pleased to report that our team leaders, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Fowler) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), worked with the chair of their subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security on military personnel, and brought that work into our caucus so that we could coordinate with that committee as they went all around the country to see whether or not sexual harassment of this kind was present in other installations as well. This issue has been settled in the Army, as far as I am concerned, because they brought it before us, the secretary of the Army Togo West, and what has happened is an extraordinary report that indicates the action that the Army is going to take. I have to say that if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and I sat down to write what had occurred, we could not have written a better report ourselves. We think this is going to take care of the sexual harassment in the Army, and I am proud of the work the women in the caucus have done here. We were far more disappointed at the Kassebaum Commission report, because that commission had been established by Defense Secretary Cohen following reports of sexual harassment in the military, a very distinguished commission, which worked very hard. But I am here to report that the bipartisan Women's Caucus disagrees that women should be separated in training. We think all you do is to delay the problem. If women are separated in training, you are going to get women and men coming together for the first time when they are in fact in the field. Rather work these problems out in training, than to bring them to the field, where we simply cannot afford that kind of intrusion on the work of our Armed Forces. This is a bipartisan matter. We are not necessarily speaking for Democratic women or Republican women. We are not about to turn back on the notion that we want to further integrate women in the Armed Forces, not move back from where we were. As it is, each service can decide how they are going to do this, and the Marines are not integrating training. But we are not going to stand for moving back, for example, integrated training in the Army, where integrated training has occurred. If there is a problem, there is a problem at one installation. There may be problems at others. You do not deal with problems by turning back the clock; you deal with problems by rooting out the problems. There is a commission of people who have studied this matter before in the Armed Forces, and they have said they believe, above all, that women should be further integrated, and not taken back. So the Secretary of Defense is going to have to decide which way to go. We appreciate what the Kassebaum Commission did and we understand why they did it, but I have to tell you, if anybody had looked closely at the integration of blacks and whites in the services after World War II, I can tell you that there were many incidents, and that it was very hard to get southern white men under the command of black men. But in a command structure, you can do it, and we did it successfully in the military with blacks and whites, and the Women's Caucus is going to demand it be done as well with women and men. The team has done yeoman service and work, and they continue to be vigilant and report to us in their report to the caucus that they will be looking at specifically gender segregation in the military to see whether or not anything emerges on the floor, so that the entire Women's Caucus will come forward to fight, if need be. Thus far, all is quiet on the home front. I think that those who want to come forward to try to sex segregate training know that they are going to have a fight on their hands, and I think so far, so good. But be forewarned, you are going to meet a phalanx of women on the floor if you try it, and they are going to be Republican women and they are going to be Democratic women. Let me go on to report on another team, the Preventative Health Services Team, just to give you an idea of the kinds of things Women's Caucus do that do not always make it to the floor as legislation. That team, of course, is chaired by team leaders the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), from whom you have just heard, and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green). I should really say Dr. Christian-Green, by which I mean MD doctor. Dr. Green has been a MD for more than 20 years, and is now a Member who represents the Virgin Islands. An example of what that team has in mind for this year is that among the things that that team will be doing this year is a presentation on breast self examination by Doctor-Congresswoman Donna Christian-Green. They reported she is going to discuss proper breast self-examination, and what she is going to do is ask women staff from all over the Congress, the Senate and the House, and she and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) are going to call them together and have a discussion about this, the progress that has been made, and what we need to do to get breast self-examination more widespread. You will not see that on the floor of the House. That is the kind of innovative thinking and follow through that is typical of these two Members and of Members of this caucus. Let me give you another example from the work of the team leaders on Women-owned Businesses. That team has as team leaders the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). They have already had a hearing, and I will have a word to say about that later, but they have already had a hearing on women's procurement in the Federal sector. The Federal sector is the granddaddy of all procurement, obviously, because the Federal Government is so large and so many contracts are let, and they found some difficulty as women strive to get more of those contracts. Let me tell the Members an interesting approach they have taken. Together they have introduced House Resolution 313, which makes recommendations on ways women can gain access to more procurement opportunities for the Federal Government. But being women, who always like to get something done, they have done more than simply introduced the resolution. They have sent copies of their resolution, their follow-up in this session has been to send copies of this resolution to all Federal agencies, encouraging them to implement these recommendations right now, without legislation, as a follow-up to their own women's caucus hearing. I believe the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) may want to say some more. I will finish with these teams, so if she wants to have something more to say, I will yield more time to her. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) works on the team on HIV/AIDS. This is an issue that plagues our country still. We have made enormous progress on it, but the disease is moving sideways to women and to people of color. We have to find ways to keep the disease from popping up in a new population. We have done well. We need to do much work, but we have done well with gay men. We cannot have this disease move over to minorities and women, and we need more work here. They will be sponsoring a briefing with HHS and advocacy groups to discuss access to treatment for low-income HIV-infected women and their families, and Medicaid coverage for such patients. This disease is moving to women, but particularly to low-income women, and particularly to women of color. That will be a real service. Finally, let me say a word about a follow-up to a hearing that my co- chair, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Nancy Johnson) and I had on contraceptive research. We found that the government is not doing contraceptive research anymore. That means more abortions, and that means nobody in the world is doing it, because we pay for most of this research. We want to encourage more of this research, and we want to encourage more work to cover contraception so that after-the-fact remedies like abortion will become rare, as it is said. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and I sponsored such a women's caucus hearing and we are sending a letter to insurance companies encouraging health plans to provide adequate coverage for contraception. There are all manner of plans that cover abortion and do not cover the pill, do not cover the IUD. That is an invitation at a time when we have not done enough contraceptive research, it is usually inadequate and I must say not foolproof methods available to use, and then go to backup remedies which none of us want to encourage. We hope that insurance companies will provide such coverage. I am a cosponsor of the bill, as is the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) that would require companies to do so. But in advance of that and before that bill passes, we would like voluntary compliance. We are also drafting language regarding contraceptive research funding to start up again the kind of funding that only the most powerful and richest government can do. We do not have adequate contraceptive research for women in America. We do not have it for women in the world. It is one of the great services we could do for the world. Would the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) have more time she desires before I go further?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland for coming forward to participate in this special order, for her work last term as cochair of the Women's Caucus and for her continuing hard work with this caucus. I thank her also for those very valuable remarks. I am pleased to see that as the gentlewoman from Maryland has said, we have been joined by another good friend in the caucus, another very hard worker in the caucus and a very productive and hard worker for women and families in the Congress, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. NORTON. I would like to thank my co-chair of the Women's Caucus for those very informative remarks and for her work with me on women's issues in the Congress. Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) who has joined us, I want to also thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for continuing the theme that we have set during this hour; that we are not simply this month celebrating women's history. We in the Congress are celebrating women making history. As such, we are informing women and families of America about just how that history is being made in this body. Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Morella), I do believe we have an obligation to update women and families on new legislation that has just been passed in 1997, much of it through the work and pressure of the Women's Caucus, that affect women. There are four or five very important such pieces. One is an expansion in mammography coverage. Breast cancer and mammography coverage have been a priority for the women in Congress, important facts for women on Medicaid, which covers not only elderly women but disabled women. We have reduced the age where mammography is covered from 39 years to 50 years. This is important information that is probably not out in the public as yet because it is so new. We have expanded Medicare and Medicaid coverage for Pap smears, pelvic exams, clinical breast exams, and bone mass exams; this only in the past year, 1997. We have barred discrimination in Medicare and Medicaid coverage of domestic violence and discrimination in the use of genetic information. This moves us toward correcting abuses that were reported to the Congress. And, of course, I think that there is more general information, as we approach April 15 when taxes must be paid, that we are beginning in this year to have the possibility for families who are raising children under 17 to get a tax credit for those children of $500. These are examples of the nuts and bolts of what it means to fight for women in the Congress, to have something to show for it, to listen to what women and families say they need and to fight for it on this floor and to carry that fight over into the other body. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have been joined by the woman who was the Republican cochair of the Women's Caucus during the 104th Congress, the Congress before this Congress, and a woman who has fought hard for women and families ever since coming to Congress. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be deleted as a cosponsor of H.R. 2495.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I support the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act, a bill which would ensure that children and families will not be unnecessarily punished in states still working on establishing database systems required under the Family Support Act of 1988. Under the current law, 42,182 children in the District of Columbia could lose vital assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. And the District is not alone. Because of the complexities involved in establishing these database systems, 29 states including several large states such as California, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania, were unable to meet an extended deadline under the old law. The alternative penalties that have been developed in this bill will reward the states that have met the statutory deadline of setting up a database system without unduly punishing the children of our country living in the majority of the states and the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to The Julia West Hamilton League, Inc., which was formed in 1938, the outgrowth of 10 women who dared to dream. Mrs. Ellen V. Johns Britain, the organizer, believed that women joining together as a dedicated unit might accomplish some of the things that seemed impossible at that time, but could be helpful to the betterment of the community, education, youth and self. Mr. Speaker the League was named to honor a great woman who gave unsparingly of her time, devotion and love to the causes of humanity, Mrs. Julia West Hamilton, who was a participating member of the League until her death. The League was incorporated in 1971. The first president was Mary EC Gregory. The League is currently led by Mary J. Thompson. Mr. Speaker, The purpose of the League is (1) to promote benevolence, cultural and educational interests in the community; (2) to strive to gain new knowledge and skills of achieving better self-understanding, learning to interact more sensitively and honestly with others; (3) to encourage young people to aim early in life toward education, develop good character and find a useful place in society; and (4) to establish a monetary award known as the Julia West Hamilton Award. This award is presented to a student in each of the 14 senior high schools in Washington, DC and a four-year Julia West Hamilton Scholarship is awarded to a recipient from one of the senior high schools every four years. To date, the League has provided over $68,000 in student awards and scholarships. Over the past 21 years the League has donated approximately $73,500 to the Hospital for Sick Children and has supported Howard University's Sickle Cell Anemia Program. The League has also contributed to the Brigadier General West A. Hamilton Scholarship Fund of the Washington Club of Frontiers International, the United Negro College Fund, the Cardozo and Eastern High School bands and the Eastern High School Choir for travel abroad. Assistance is also provided to needy families at Thanksgiving and Christmas. The League holds lifetime memberships with the National Council of Negro Women and the Phyllis Wheatley YWCA. In 1980, the Ellen V. Johns Britain Award was established in honor of the founder of the Julia West Hamilton League, Inc. This award is presented for out-standing and dedicated services to a member of longstanding. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this August body join me in special tribute to the gentle ladies of The Julia West Hamilton League, Inc. whose motto, ``THE ONLY GIFT IS A PORTION OF THYSELF'' and good works, on the occasion of their 60th anniversary, are worthy to be praised.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. The economic package I introduce today is the missing piece for the revitalization of the District of Columbia. The new and improved District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act of 1998 (DCERA) proposes tax incentives for D.C. residents and businesses designed to stem the inexorable flight to middle income residents from the District, a phenomenon that has resisted the presence of a control board, a historic rescue package, and improvements in the city's financial condition. The bill has two important goals. First, the DCERA affords benefits to the only group in the city that has received none--D.C. residents. Last year, the District government got a billion dollar rescue package that grows in value each year and D.C. businesses got billions in potential tax benefits that all agree are invaluable. D.C. residents are still waiting for tax benefits that can stem the mounting tide that is sweeping the middle income tax base from this city while we look the other way. Second, the bill makes city-wide the tax benefit package I won for the District last year in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Let me turn first to needed remedies to correct unfair advantages to some and outright discrimination against others unintentionally incorporated into the package we recently won for D.C. businesses. Although I pleaded with Congress to make city-wide the benefits for D.C. businesses in the Taxpayer Relief Act passed last summer, Congress was unwilling to absorb the small additional cost. These very valuable business tax benefits, including a $3,000 tax credit for every D.C. resident employed and elimination of capital gains tax, were limited to certain levels of residential poverty. These neighborhood limitations have justifiably stirred objections and the unintended consequences I warned of are all too apparent. For example, the Willard Hotel can get $3,000 off the $15,000 it may pay to a cleaner or a bell hop, but the Hay Adams and the Washington Hilton, whose general manager will speak this morning, can not. Businesses in one section of a struggling commercial strip are included, but their mirror counterparts down the street are not, as one business owner who will speak here today can testify. High income university students with little personal income have brought Georgetown and Foggy Bottom businesses under the law, but businesses in struggling areas of Ward 5 do not qualify. These discriminatory effects litter the economic landscape city-wide. This section of my bill would correct anomalies that give some businesses an unearned competitive advantage, forcing competition among our already depleted pool of businesses instead of between those in and outside of D.C. The solution is simple and fair; designate the District of Columbia an empowerment zone. This designation is sensible for three reasons. It would (1) erase indefensible distinctions that tear neighborhoods apart and help some D.C. businesses at the expense of others; (2) draw upon the criterion of poverty already in the law; and (3) assure the congressional intent of the existing package to make the city an exemplary capital is not undercut by the hit-and-miss effect of the recently passed D.C. tax package. The present law requires a 20% residential zone poverty rate for businesses to receive to receive the tax benefits and a 10% poverty rate to qualify for capital gains tax elimination. Since the poverty rate for the District is 23%, it makes sense to use the city-wide poverty rate to designate the entire city an empowerment zone. I want to move to the second major section of the bill. This is not the first time that I have introduced a tax cut package for residents, but the urgency has grown. Bills that represent a decided departure almost never pass except after several introductions, lots of hard work, and the building of momentum. In introducing a tax cut this year, I mean to indicate that I do not intend to give up until D.C. residents and those who might be attracted here are given a reason to live in this city. We need this provision because we lack what has saved other big cities from collapse: a state to funnel money back from fleeing taxpayers and the ability to tax commuters who work in the city. As a result of these twin deficits, the continuing population hemorrhage could find the recovery now in progress countermanded by a simultaneous exodus of the city's core middle income tax base. We are losing three times as many residents in the 1990s as we lost in the 1980s. Ominously, in the two years since 1995, even with a control board in place to stabilize the city, we lost nearly as many residents as we lost in the 1980s. This unchecked flight is virtually the worst among other cities today. Yet the totals at the bottom line do not tell the real story of what the loss means to the city. Worse than the total loss is the income distribution of that loss. The people who are leaving I call prime movers because they are in the prime income groups. They give communities their grassroots vitality, insist upon excellence in education for their children, prevent the deterioration of neighborhoods, and pay taxes adequate to fund city services. The prime movers are in the prime years of their earnings, with disposable income rising each year. Two-thirds of the prime movers are ages 25-44 and 50% of them earn $50,000 or more. A hefty majority of the taxpayers in flight, or 63%, earn between $35,000 and $100,000. This income group are the people whom demographers mean when they use the words ``middle class.'' The greatest flight, 38% is in the taxpaying core of this group between $50,000 and $100,000. Just below them at $35,000-$50,000 is the second largest group of prime movers. At only 3%, the least likely to leave are the poorest residents with income under $15,000, who need the most services. The major tax breaks my bill provides residents are simple. After affording sharp increases in the traditional standard deduction and personal exemption, a uniform rate of 15% will be applied progressively up the income scale to reduce present tax liability--from a 79% reduction to a 34% reduction, depending on income. The lower the income, the greater the tax reduction. The DCERA would leave 50% of D.C. residents off of the tax rolls altogether. The uniform rate would rescue the rest from bracket creep, and thus assure that income increases resulting from the tax cut are not then significantly taxed away. Let me try to dispose of one canard. It is true, of course, that people don't leave one jurisdiction for another because of their federal income taxes, and they are not leaving D.C. primarily because of the onerous combination of federal and high local D.C. taxes. It does not follow, however, that a substantial federal tax reduction will not be an incentive to keep people here or bring some back. The feedback from residents indicates that today only a tax break makes a significant difference to prime movers. They see a tax break as an incentive that overcomes the many disincentives to stay in the District today, including schools, other services, and urban conditions. The bill has important safeguards against artificially rapid property value increases and against gentrification. A list of these safeguards, all of them in previous versions of the bill, is attached as an addendum to this statement. An important new safeguard against gentrification is my recently enacted $5,000 D.C. homebuyer credit. This credit already is allowing D.C. residents of modest means to become homeowners and to avoid exclusion as the market rises, as you will hear from one of our speakers today. The District has less to work with than any American city: no lifesaving state to help as Maryland helps Baltimore and Virginia helps Richmond; no ability to tax commuters who use costly city services, as Philadelphia and New York do; and no clearance of state functions, such as welfare and mental health, among the costly functions that the President's revitalization package did not take. Above all, the District uniquely is denied the most fundamental of American rights-- full representation by a Congress that extracts the same federal taxes as it does from those, who, unlike District residents, have full representation in the Congress and full democracy where they live. What the DCERA seeks today is not the full value of the rights and remedies due us and which we will never concede. Today, we seek enough relief from taxes to give us the only route to economic salvation for the city--a middle income tax base. Safeguards Against Unnatural Increases in Cost of Living Requires Proof of D.C. Residency For 183 Days Annually Applies Only to Wage and Salary Income Earned in D.C. or Metropolitan Region Applies to Investment and Dividend Income Earned Within D.C. Only Capital Gains Relief on D.C. Investments Only Old IRS Rate on Investments Outside D.C. Annual Treasury Study to Protect Against Unintended Consequences Stand-by Legislation Examples Council Passed Legislation Freezing Property, Sales, and Income Taxes Effective Upon Enactment of DCERA Cap on Property Tax Rates and Growth of Assessments (Similar to TRIM, P.G. County) Surtax on Capital Gains Derived from Excess Profits Revolving Fund for Zero Percent Interest Loans (Or Tax Credits) to Cover Unusual Increases in Home Prices Maintenance of Rent Control

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Sixth Presbyterian Church on the occasion of its 145th Anniversary of splendid spiritual and civic guidance. Dr. Mason Noble came to the District of Columbia from New York City in 1852. He canvassed a neighborhood in southwest Washington with the hope of starting a Presbyterian congregation. The first few months, the group met in the home of William and Amanda Thompson. On January 23, 1853 at a meeting in Island Hall Dr. Noble, with 32 people, voted to organize Sixth Presbyterian Church. Land and a building were purchased at Sixth and C Streets, SW and the congregation celebrated its first Eucharist on February 14, 1853. Dr. Noble served as pastor to the growing congregation for twenty years which is longer than any of the eighteen pastors who followed in his foot steps. The congregation worshiped in its first building for more than 65 years. As the city expanded to the northwest, the members voted to move to Sixteenth and Kennedy Streets, NW. The Chapel, now the Choir, Primary and Nursery rooms, was dedicated on Sunday, September 23, 1917. The seventh pastor, Reverend Douglas P. Birnie, with the tireless efforts of the elders and trustees, guided the Church through the difficult period of World War I. Ground was broken for the present sanctuary on January 2, 1929 during the Great Depression. The first worship service was held in the new sanctuary on Thanksgiving Day, November 28, 1929. The building was dedicated on Sunday, March 9, 1930. The eleventh pastor, The Reverend Godfrey Chobot, D.D. guided the members through this building phase. Shortly after the dedication, the Washington Board of Trade's Committee on Municipal Art awarded the congregation its Award in Architecture and acclaimed the sanctuary as the finest example of French Norman Architecture in the city. The carillonic bells were dedicated as Ground was broken for the third phase of the present edifice on February 8, 1952. The Earl Franklin Fowler Memorial Hall or Fellowship Hall with church offices, classrooms and the Church Parlor on the lower level was dedicated on January 23, 1953--exactly one hundred years after the church was organized. On November 12, 1951, Dr. Fowler, the thirteenth pastor, died in the pulpit just before the realization of his and the congregation's dream for the new building. Twenty-four years ago Pastor Donald D.M. Jones and a group of elders decided to open the doors of this Church to all who would come. The Church continues to grow as a multi-cultural congregation, with members from thirteen countries, and celebrates this 145th Anniversary as a beacon of light in the nation's capital. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this body join me in congratulating this remarkable institution on the occasion of this anniversary knowing that its future will be as bright as its past.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, a matter of self-determination should be a matter that brings unanimous consent in this body, and it pains to me to see divisions and splits. If the bill is imperfect, there are many hurdles yet to go: additional island votes, additional congressional votes provided by the bill. Also, the vote to be taken in Puerto Rico is nonbinding. Above all, we cannot get ahead of the Puerto Rican people. In 1993, we in the District of Columbia had a historic vote on statehood. That is not what this vote is about. It is about allowing the Puerto Rican people to decide what affiliation they themselves desire. This is what we say we want people around the world to decide. I represent half a million people in the District of Columbia who identify with Puerto Ricans because we too are treated as less than full Americans, living here right under the noses of the Congress of the United States. We know what it is like to fight and die in wars while suffering denials of concomitant rights. The District has even fewer rights than Puerto Ricans because we do not have the right to self-government. We in the District feel a deep kinship which demands for self-determination around the world, and especially self-determination among our own in Puerto Rico.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening with some good news, and let me report it from a more objective observer. The Washington Times, in an editorial, said the following: The District is looking good. There is a $186 million surplus from fiscal 1997. People are buying homes in the District and businesses are expanding and setting up shop. I know that everyone on both sides of the aisle greets this good news about our Nation's Capital in the same spirit I do. Yes, a surplus. The District is turning around. It has balanced its budget, more than balanced it now 2 years ahead of the congressionally mandated year. How has this been done? Through prudent budgeting, Mr. Speaker, through fiscal discipline, and through preserving the fruits of an excellent economy rather than spending that money. The highlights are quite extraordinary, and I am sure to many Members, unexpected. Vendors are now being paid ahead of time rather than behind time. We have, Mr. Speaker, a clean opinion from an outside independent auditor, which means an unqualified opinion looking at the books and records of the District of Columbia, that the District is revitalizing itself financially. We have a general fund surplus of almost $186 million. This is a city that was close to bankruptcy just a few years ago. And the District is reaping increased revenue from taxes, not because it has raised taxes, but because improved operations have allowed the city to collect taxes from those who should have been paying taxes all along. Mr. Speaker, the District's problems have not been entirely self- inflicted, but the city's repair must be completely self-generated. I think that we now have evidence that that self-generation is occurring, and it is occurring for a combination of reasons. It is occurring because this Congress set up a Control Board. It is occurring because the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), chair of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and I, the ranking member, have worked collaboratively and in a bipartisan fashion on the District ever since the Control Board was set up 2 years ago. It is occurring because of the work of the Control Board, and yes, Mr. Speaker, it is occurring because of the work of the mayor and the members of the city council. They deserve our congratulations, even as they have gotten the criticism of this body when they have deserved it. And I must say, sometimes even when they have not. Mr. Speaker, the District's Government is now multilayered. The Congress seeks an efficient government from the District, but the fact is that the Congress has imposed a highly inefficient structure to do the job. The District needs better collaboration among its many layers until the Control Board sets and Congress will be hearing from me about streamlining its oversight as it requires the District to streamline its operations. Mr. Speaker, I began with editorial comment praising the District from the Washington Times. The Washington Post said as much when this audit was reported: The District is not enjoying a $185.9 million general fund surplus and a clean fiscal year 1997 annual audit by accident. It took hard work and a stiff spine to bring unchecked and irresponsible spending under control. That is exactly what has happened. I have been as impatient as many Members to see this day. Now it has come in spades, not little by little, but with a buildup of improvements that is now showing itself in a way that I think none of us anticipated seeing in this fashion. The District, knowing that this is no time to sit down, that there is much work to be done. The District has revved itself up to work now on its services and operations. It knows that those services and operations must improve and improve quickly. And that is not, Mr. Speaker, because of what this body wants, although that is part of it. First and foremost, it is because the residents of the District of Columbia, among the highest taxpaying citizens of the United States, deserve no less. My congratulations to the Control Board, to the chief financial officer, to the mayor, and to the city council for a job that is beginning to be well done.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this has got to be a bittersweet moment for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). The women Members of Congress rejoiced when a new woman joined us in 1996, bringing the number of Hispanic women finally to four. But my colleague was forced to win her seat twice; first at the polls, and then from a baseless challenge in the Congress itself. Her ordeal has been unworthy of a body that promises democracy and fair representation. But she has shown herself to be a fighter extraordinaire. The attempt to steal her seat has raised her status from simply one more excellent new Member to one of heroic proportions throughout this country. The best way to make this one right is for every Member of this House to congratulate her and wish her well. Loretta, you won, not once but twice.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, expect to see me on the floor often reporting on the condition of our capital city. An extraordinary turnaround is in the making. At a hearing today, the District reported an almost $200 million surplus. My colleagues heard me right: surplus. This signifies another breakthrough. The District has balanced its budget 2 years ahead of the congressionally mandated year. This progress comes before the historic revitalization package we passed last summer has been felt. I will be coming to the floor on a regular basis in what are sure to be similar improvements on the way. This progress sets in motion the day when the District will soon regain the home rule it has lost. Get ready for it. We are on a roll, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to honor The Epicurean Club, which was originally an all-male group of Executive Chefs who had apprenticed in Europe or Stewards. The club's membership today is composed of men and women who are chefs, bakers and restaurant owners. I am delighted that The Epicurean Club will celebrate its 60th anniversary with a Dinner Dance on February 22, 1998. During that event Chef Richard Fisher, CEC will be honored for his skillful and untiring service as Chairman of the club's annual Christmas Party. Twenty-five years ago, when chefs were not very well-paid or recognized, this party was an important social event. The club borrowed a ballroom and solicited donations of food and wine. Spouses who rarely went out because their husbands were always at work put on their finest and the party was always a tremendous success. The party was evolved and today serves over 500 people and has become the only Christmas party for some of the area's neediest children. Last year, the club served 200 children from the DC Department of Human Services and The Orphan Foundation of America. Each child received a gift, a gingerbread house, extra food and a visit with Santa Claus. For over twenty-five years, Chef Fisher has worked in hotels and restaurants and was a representative for Knorr-Swiss in the Metropolitan area. He has been an active member of the club for over twenty years and is also a member of the National Capital Chefs Association. He has served as a judge at Culinary Salons and is regarded as a true food professional. He lives in Virginia with his wife Trudy and has been Chairman of the club's annual Christmas Party for twenty-five years. Chef Fisher's work on behalf of children of the District of Columbia reflects the caring spirit of many persons who reside outside our city. His efforts serve as a model and motivation for men and women in the metropolitan region who sincerely want to lessen the impact of poverty and hunger. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this body join me in congratulating The Epicurean Club of Washington, DC, Inc. on the occasion of their 60th Anniversary and in applauding Chef Fisher for his selfless service.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. History judges Presidents over time. People love Presidents in real time, and millions clearly love Ronald Reagan today. Monuments spring up all over America. They always spring from the ground up. That way we assure consensus and comity and dignity surrounding the process. There is a pragmatic reason for this, as well and that is because we seek to honor the person, not to have a quarrel among ourselves. If we do, we overwhelm the honor with contention and embarrass the person and the family. That is why naming bills in this House are always done by consensus, first within State delegations and then always on a bipartisan basis. H.R. 2625 breaks the time honored tradition of the House in moving forward a bill that does not have the necessary consensus. The other value, besides consensus, that has always been honored in naming bills is local control. This is the second time that local control has been violated in the name of President Reagan. The first time was the Ronald Reagan Building located in my district. It was my project. I worked harder on it than any other Member. I was not consulted on the name. Out of respect for President Reagan, I did not raise an objection. Now, we have the second instance of no respect, this time for the entire region. D.C. is one of three jurisdictions on the regional authority. So is the Federal Government on the regional authority. Congress has been glad to have the authority pay for the magnificent new terminal. Congress is glad, however, as well, to intervene at every whim. There have been two Supreme Court lawsuits. Both of them Congress lost when Congress wanted to intervene whenever it wanted to do something. The lease says full power and dominion and complete discretion go to the regional authority. What we are doing now is going to get us another lawsuit. President Reagan deserves much better than that. There have been a number of great Presidents. History may one day say that Ronald Reagan is one of them, but only one President's name belongs on the airport that is the gateway to the Nation's capital. That is the President whom Congress named the capital itself for. There is no partisanship, no division of the House surrounding George Washington's name. We would not remove his name from this city. I ask this House please do not remove George Washington's name from our airport.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply keeps the promise of the House that there shall be no unfunded mandates. I do not believe that there is any Member of this House who would take exception to this amendment. The bill itself represents a broken promise: No congressional mandates on Federal buildings without local consent. All I am asking is that we do not add cost to injury by adding cost to the operating budget of the Washington Regional Airport Authority. The authority that runs the airport consists of four jurisdictions. This authority has not given its consent to this renaming or to accepting the cost. Two of the Members are from Maryland, five are from Virginia, three are from the District of Columbia, and three are Federal appointees. My amendment simply requires that funds outside the operating budget be obtained to carry out any renaming. Now, those who are for the renaming ought to be the first to vote for this amendment; that is, if they have read the Supreme Court decisions which have interpreted the language to mean that the Congress cannot, in fact, impose its will on any issue at this time. At the very least, when this matter goes to court, and I predict that it will, Congress will be able to say that it did not add to the operating costs. And that is important also to protect the financial position of the regional authority. The whole reason for the absolute language in the lease is to protect the financial position and the legal posture, and also to protect the Congress so that it is clear that the full faith and credit of the United States of America is not behind this airport at this time; that only bonds floated by this airport stand behind this airport. My amendment simply says, that is right, we are not imposing on you any costs from Federal legislation, nor is there any Federal mandated cost, nor would any Federal costs be allowed for my bill. And we do not need any Federal costs to be imposed as well. If in fact Ronald Reagan's name is to be imposed on the airport from the top down, rather than the way it is always done in our country, from the bottom up, then certainly no costs should devolve to the local area. But, Mr. Chairman, nobody has a shred of evidence of what the costs are because we were not given the courtesy of hearings. There is no information and no data. We do not know what the cost to government would be, governments around the world, the country, and regional. We do not know what the cost to the private sector would be. Essentially, what the Congress would be saying by passing this bill is, ``It is not our cost, so why care?'' Well, I tell my colleagues who does care. The business community and the public in this region who will bear those costs care. There is very substantial injury to this region well beyond cost. What is in a name? Well, billions of dollars in real money and in good will are in a name. That we must all surely recognize from the fact that establishments now sell naming rights and earn millions of dollars simply by selling the right to put one's name on a building or on an establishment. We in the District of Columbia have just sold the naming rights to the wonderful new arena, which I invite Members to partake of, downtown. It is called the MCI Arena, not because we like it that way but because we got millions of dollars for getting it that way. Over time billions of dollars are tied up in the name of the Washington National Airport. This is a major tourist region. This is the gateway to official Washington, named for the first President of the United States. My amendment is surely one that the entire House can support. It is very short. All it does is to say to the regional folks that the money from this is going to come from elsewhere; it is not going to come from you. We are sure that those who want the airport renamed, many of them from the private sector, if there are costs, would in fact be able to raise those costs. There is no partisan content here. I ask for a bipartisan vote. And, Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record a letter from the Board of Trade opposing this change. Greater Washington Board of Trade, Washington, DC., January 26, 1998. Hon. Bud Shuster, Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Shuster: On behalf of the Greater Washington Board of Trade, I am writing to express our opposition to H.R. 2625 designed to change the name of Washington National Airport to the ``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.'' With all due respect to President Reagan, we believe that renaming the airport would be very confusing to air travelers, visitors, and local residents alike. If there is a compelling desire to memoralize President Reagan at Washington National Airport, we believe that a more appropriate recognition would be in renaming the new terminal in his honor. The revitalization of the terminal and other improvements can, after all, be traced to activities initiated during his term in office. The Greater Washington Board of Trade is the chamber of commerce for the greater Washington region covering Northern Virginia, suburban Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Through the Transportation and Environment Committee, the Board of Trade addresses the needs of our region's transportation infrastructure and the environment. Thank you for your consideration in this important matter. Sincerely, Charles A. Dukes, Jr. Chairman, Transportation and Environment Committee.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment, and it is in that spirit that we usually change names or put names on buildings or monuments. It is an amendment that will be supported by some who are for the name change and some who are against the name change. This amendment is one that Members should rush to the floor to support because it simply says that local control should apply here as it does everywhere else. In this case local control would mean regional control. This was the only airport under the control of the U.S. Congress for a very long time. The result was that an airport that was a state-of- the-art airport when it was opened became almost dysfunctional and unworthy of being the airport for the Nation's capital. What Congress wisely did was to create the Washington Regional Airport Authority, and what has emerged, is a beautiful new airport to show for it. My colleagues, we simply cannot have it both ways, not under the law. This cannot be a regional or local airport when you pay for it and when you run it, but a national airport whenever the Congress feels like intervening into local affairs. Indeed, to have that kind of back and forth, even if it were legally permissible, would be the antithesis of local control. It would be arbitrary and capricious, and the courts have so found. We wrote a lease which gave absolute, total control and discretion to the Washington Airports Authority. I assure my colleagues, we did not do that out of our great generosity. It was very controversial. Congress did not want to give up control of this airport because it regarded this as its airport with all of the perks attending that status. But Congress was forced to write a lease that gave full responsibility to the Washington Regional Airports Authority. And the reason it was forced to do so was that the legal status and the financial status of the new airport required it. We were simply not going to be able to float bonds, for example, at a reasonable rate if in fact the marketplace was not sure who was in control and who was not. So the words are simply unmistakable; words like ``full authority,'' ``complete discretion.'' There are simply no exceptions in the law or in the lease. My colleagues do not have to believe me. Simply go to two Supreme Court decisions which have interpreted this language. The Supreme Court has interpreted this language twice. This language is designed to protect bondholders. And what will happen if the courts were to allow even a name change, intervention to change a name, to rename, is that it would send a message in the marketplace that you cannot tell when Congress may come in, and, therefore, we would destabilize the legal and the financial position of the Washington Regional Airports Authority. That is why, Mr. Chairman, this name change is not going to withstand another legal attack. What do we need--three Supreme Court decisions in order to get it? Congress has already lost twice. This is no way to honor a President of the United States who is beloved by millions upon millions of Americans. But we are on our way not to a name change, we are on our way to a court suit unless this amendment passes. This amendment is a common-sense amendment, the kind of amendment that those who want this name will support, and the kind of amendment that I think could get them this name if they do it the right way, the way we have always done it in this House, the way we always do it in other locations. This amendment leaves us with the only way to honor a President who lived for and by local control. I ask Members to support this common- sense amendment.