Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding. Had he not taken out this special order, there would have been 100 Members to come to the floor who would not have allowed Ronald Dellums to leave this Chamber without expressing their views. Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the gentleman's extraordinary record of services on the Armed Services Committee, the Committee on National Security, about South Africa, about the Vietnam war, about civil rights, about helping people get out of poverty. But I am here to talk about a committee that Ron Dellums chaired for 17 years, the Committee on the District of Columbia. I am here to speak for the people I represent in thanks and in great gratitude to Ronald Dellums. His attitude toward the city and toward the Minority during the time he chaired the Committee on the District of Columbia was a virtual model for this body. Toward the minority, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) will tell you there was collegial disputatiousness, always willing to join an issue, always as an officer and a gentleman joining an issue. Let me tell my colleagues as toward this city, I look at it now as what surely must be its low point as it rises; and I remember that Ron Dellums chaired the committee at its high point, perhaps second only to when the city got home rule. It was when he was chairman that we got a 40 percent increase of Federal payment to make up for years of no increase. Ron Dellums was no pushover. He believed in appropriate oversight. He had impeccable judgment about exactly what that meant, because Ron Dellums was the ultimate democrat with a small D. Ron was called to preside over people who had not elected him. He did so with grace in principle and with elegance. Mr. Speaker, in the name of the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia, Representative Ronald V. Dellums, I am here to thank you this afternoon.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, tonight Karla Faye Tucker may well be executed. But whether Ms. Tucker lives or dies, her case is making the country think more reflectively about the death penalty. The moral bankruptcy of adopting death and violence to conquer death and violence has not been lost on our moral leaders, such as the Catholic Church, and the American people are beginning to appreciate the futility of execution. Given a choice, most people would choose life without parole, plus restitution to the victim's family, over the death penalty. In the Senate, there is a bill that few Americans would condone to impose the death penalty on the District despite a referendum and a council vote to the contrary. Karla Faye Tucker's Christian conversion has drawn her much support. May her faith convert us all from selective Christianity when it comes to the death penalty.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to welcome Members home to Washington as we begin the 1998 session and to once again invite those who live in the city to call me if they need help from local government. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Members who took high school volunteer interns in September when the schools were closed for repair work. Many Members heaped praise on the performance of those D.C. high school interns. They were thrilled by the opportunity to work in Members' offices. The distance between official Washington and hometown Washington disappeared. We were so impressed by the benefits to all concerned that we have now established a permanent D.C. Congressional Intern program. Interns will compete and be screened and oriented before being assigned to Members. The best and the brightest will be recommended to do such tasks as answering phones, sorting mail, filing, and computer searches. Almost 100 Members of the House and Senate have already signed up to take interns. I ask Members whether they would like to help a kid from D.C. and get extra help for their office as well. The program will go from February 3 to May 25. Please call my office and get a free D.C. high school intern.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a protrade, proenvironment, and prolabor Democrat. I do not appreciate being placed in a position where I must oppose a free trade bill, in this case H.R. 2621, the Republican fast track trade proposal. I must oppose this particular proposal because it does not include the elementary steps that might have made it acceptable. We could achieve the very same results that H.R. 2621 seeks with a more balanced bill that does not sacrifice the interests of workers here and abroad and environmental quality as well. I believe strongly in free trade. For those who do not, I would simply say that we have no choice today except to compete in world markets if we are to continue to create high-paying, private sector jobs and to sustain economic growth. However, there are good and ample precedents on how to move to broader, freer trade without leaving substantial numbers of our residents jobless and workers abroad without basic labor rights. Confronted with a similar situation, the European Economic Community, now the European Union [EU], adopted an aggressive, transitional economic program to bring developing countries, such as Portugal and Spain, to the point where these less developed countries would not be sacrificed for free trade. This transitional aid enabled them to be full partners not only to their benefit but to the greater benefit of free trade in the entire EU. Supporters of fast track like to point out that since 1992, over 11 million new jobs have been created, that of these, 1.5 million have been high-wage, export-related jobs, and that much of this job growth can be attributed to passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. By the administration's assessment, NAFTA has created up to 160,000 new jobs. What supporters of fast track conveniently ignore is that, at the same time, we have lost jobs in other sectors of our economy. The Department of Labor has estimated that NAFTA has led directly to the loss of about 150,000 jobs and has found that two- thirds of Americans who lose their jobs because of foreign trade end up with work that pays less than they earned before. Clearly, this is not a case where a rising tide lifts all boats; while some are cruising along, others are sinking. Transitional assistance has mitigated this inevitable adverse effect in the EU. H.R. 2621 simply leaves the hapless victims to fend for themselves against economic forces they cannot possibly control on their own. Precedents such as the EU assistance, however, show that these forces can be controlled consistent with free trade. Where is the comparable assistance in H.R. 2621? How wasteful and unnecessary to divide Americans further into economic winners and losers. That is exactly what the Republican fast track proposal will do. In order to ensure that free trade also results in fair trade, fast track must authorize the President to negotiate strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards within the main body of any future trade agreement. Otherwise, businesses have shown that they cannot resist the temptation to move their manufacturing facilities to take advantage of low wages and lax enforcement of environmental standards and labor rights in developing countries. This fast track bill is fundamentally flawed because it allows American manufacturers to exploit foreign workers, to the ultimate detriment of workers here at home. The failure of this fast track proposal to establish protection of worker rights as a central tenet of U.S. trade policy is one of the important reasons why I oppose H.R. 2621. I am particularly alarmed at how the current fast track proposal would allow U.S. manufacturers to enter into a race to the bottom on the environment. This fast track bill fails to ensure that trading partners compete fairly by requiring all parties to vigorously enforce environmental laws. Indeed, I am puzzled at the administration's failure to insist that environmental issues be addressed squarely in international trade agreements--that position only sends a signal to the world that the United States is not really serious about preserving the environment and will undermine our negotiating position at the upcoming Kyoto summit on global warming. We have fought too hard and come too far to see our fragile environmental progress unravel in trace agreements. Until fast track explicitly addresses worker rights here and in the countries covered by trade agreements and equally so the substantial environmental issues that beg to be addressed, I cannot support it. I ask the administration and supporters here in Congress to go back to the drawing board. We can do much better.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] for yielding this time to me. I want to say a word about the census and then about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I hope that youngsters and students have not been listening to this debate about statistical sampling because, if so, they have had a royal miseducation about the science of statistics and statistical techniques. I want to suggest an alternative constitutional theory, that if this body approves a method of taking the Census that deliberately gets an undercount, that raises a constitutional question, and because we know that statistical sampling is more accurate, that is the constitutional issue before the body. Mr. Speaker, I am a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I appreciate that in conference $2.5 million was added to the EEOC's appropriation after the Women's Caucus wrote the conferees concerning stark underfunding of that agency. While this is $4 million less than the President's request, this amount does represent an increase. I am pleased that the $7 million increase that was forthcoming from the Watt-Norton amendment last year actually helped reduce the backlog 30 percent, and we should continue to fund the agency so that it can continue to do that. The Women's Caucus wrote the conferees in addition concerning committee report language that remains in the bill and that could have a chilling effect on EEOC's small litigation intervention program. Historically, the complaint has been that the EEOC does too little, not too much, litigation, and that is still the case. In our letter, we express concern that the language could discourage the EEOC from intervening in cases like the notorious Mitsubishi case which protected the interests of hundreds of women who were not included in the private litigation. The Women's Caucus has another concern as well. In 1994, the Women's Caucus supported and the Congress passed with strong bipartisan support the Violence Against Women Act. An important provision of that act allows for a suspension of deportation during a period in which an abused immigrant spouse is granted an exemption to pursue legal residency through self-petition. Because the immigration section 245 provision in this bill does not contain that specific exemption for qualified immigrants, these battered spouses will be subject to deportation to obtain their green cards, making it harder for women and their children to leave dangerously abusive relationships with U.S. citizens. The women are often intimidated and reluctant to leave as it is. They may be subject to continuing abuse by their spouses and even to stalking if they return to their countries. The immigration provisions of the Violence Against Women Act were written to provide a way out of violent relationships for battered immigrant women and children. We believe that it is a serious mistake not to include this exemption.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3025, a bill which simply adds a new section to the Federal charter of Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., the organization licensed to operate as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of the National Capital Area, to permit it to enter into a business combination with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maryland. This new arrangement is designed to improve both companies' service delivery and to reduce their operating costs. By combining operations, the two hospital plans will be able to offer their enrollees a larger provider network offering greater portability and broader product options. In addition, economies of scale should lead to more affordable premiums. Should the combination go forward, a new nonprofit holding company would be established, and the two Blue Cross plans would become its subsidiaries. H.R. 3025 would give D.C. Blue the requisite legal and corporate authority to have one class of members whose rights and privileges would be set out in the plan's bylaws. Only one member will be authorized, which would be the holding company. I wish to emphasize that H.R. 3025 does not create or mandate the plans' combination. That arrangement would first have to be approved by the District of Columbia and Maryland insurance commissioners before taking effect. Madam Speaker, I can support H.R. 3025 because of ironclad safeguards. No conversion of tax-exempt assets will be allowed under the language of this bill. As I speak, the District and Maryland both have been holding hearings on this affiliation. There have been 4 days of hearings by the D.C. insurance commissioner. There are three safeguards that are most important to my support. One, for a substantial change to occur, there must be an 80 percent vote. This assures that the District of Columbia will not be overwhelmed by the larger Maryland company. This House is aware that in the District we are jealous in guarding our jurisdictional rights. The 80 percent vote is very appropriate in that regard. Secondly, no conversion can take place without review and approval by the respective insurance commissioners. They, of course, would have every reason not to want to see the tax-exempt assets squandered, and therefore to guard against that on their own accord. Third and perhaps most important, any conversion could have to come before this body before it could be approved. Madam Speaker, I support this bill with these safeguards, because I want this corporation to live. I am not sure that it will do so without this combination. As recently as 1993, Blue Cross of Washington was almost out of business. The competitive landscape does not make it easy for a health care provider to remain in business. What Blue Cross/Blue Shield is up against in this jurisdiction, for example, are combinations between Humana and Kaiser, Aetna's acquisition of U.S. Health, and to name just one more, United Health Care has bought Chesapeake Health Plan. In the face of these combinations, there is every reason for Blue Cross, which has had very severe problems, to want to consolidate to get efficiencies of scale, such as one computer center, as it begins to rebuild its computer operation, for example. Ironically, the best shot at keeping this a nonprofit company is to allow this combination. That is why I can support it. The D.C. ``Blue'' can make no change in its nature, purpose, or structure without the Congress taking further action on its charter, and, again, I emphasize that. I want to say how much I appreciate the concern of other Members who have had experiences with such combinations that have not been at all productive. Their experience and their advice have been instructive and helpful. Congressional action on this legislation must be taken before adjournment for the year, because the agreement between the plans to pursue the combination expires at the end of next month. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3025 because I believe that the proposed combination between the District and Maryland Blue Cross plans will benefit the people I represent. I am pleased to point out that the bill also enjoys the support of other Members in this region whose constituents will be benefited as well. All of us are confident that our local regulators will ensure that the public interest is well protected, should they approve this combination. I ask that Members give H.R. 3025 their support. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I support the 50-State Commemorative Coin Program Act and want to call attention to Chairman Castle's promise to include the District of Columbia and the four insular areas in this privilege in forthcoming legislation. The Chair has agreed to cosponsor with the other delegates and me a bill that would allow us the same privilege as the 50 States, namely, the ability to choose a design for the reverse side of the quarter coin in order to commemorate each jurisdiction. The Act provides that all quarter coins issued for the 10 years beginning in 1999 would carry designs from five States each year. The side of the 25-cent piece with George Washington's image would remain unchanged. The quarter would have to carry the existing slogans. Approval of each State's design by the Federal Government is required. Earnings from silver collectors of $110 million and indirect earnings of $2.6-$5 billion are estimated. I supported this bill on the House floor in September when it was agreed that the District of Columbia and the four insular areas would be included in a subsequent bill. We asked to be included in the bill while it was on the floor at that time. However, the Chairman wanted to take the matter back to the Treasury Department and through the rest of the process in order to avoid objections to the bill that might inhibit fast passage of this bill in the Senate. We are writing our bill now and intend to introduce it when Congress reconvenes early next year. Although the residents of the District and the insular areas are American citizens, there are some differences between us and the States. However, qualification to be part of a program to redesign quarters to commemorate home jurisdictions is not one of them. As to the District, the Congress has no trouble including us when it comes to collecting Federal income taxes. The four territories or insular areas do not pay Federal incomes taxes, but they have earned the right to this privilege in many ways, among them, because of the larger numbers of their citizens who have fought or died for their country. I look forward to supporting a bill adding the District and the other four insular areas when we return next year.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, last night's happy passage of the D.C. appropriation was marred for me and many who had helped me by the omission of relief for Haitians from an attachment to my appropriation. Frankly, it looked awful. Whatever the intent, we are left with black immigrants out and other similarly situated immigrants in. I am prepared to believe that discrimination was not intended if we quickly make good on the promise to correct this exclusion. The administration promises to use its prosecutorial authority to keep Haitians from being deported while Congress is out. What will we do when Congress comes back? The very first week we must make good on the promise that emerged from the immigration negotiations. The leadership should come from the Hispanic caucus, where relief was most keenly felt, and from the Black caucus. But the burden is on this entire body. Discrimination or the appearance of discrimination has no place in a great legislative body. Early action to obtain equal treatment for Haitian immigrants is the way to show it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to speak at the funeral for John Sturdivant on November 4, 1997. I knew John as a friend and as the leader of one of America's great trade unions. His death from leukemia impoverished all of us who knew him and the countless number of Americans who benefited from his work. The foundation he laid was so strong it is bound to be lasting. Many Members of Congress knew and respected John Sturdivant. I know they will join me in paying tribute to his work and his lasting legacy. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting these comments that I made at the funeral. Working people have lost a champion before the fight is over. It was not a fair fight. John never lost those. There was a reason that John was such a winner. Look at what John had to fight with--just about everything, beginning with that disarming, broad grin. He had it all--the talent, the sophistication, the charisma, the energy, the ability to think outside the box, and the unfailing dedication to workers. John Sturdivant represented the same people I represent: federal and D.C. government employees. John's work often wasn't much different from mine. If so, I knew I'd hear from him. When I first met John, however, we were not on the same side--at least not structurally. I was cast as the manager of a troubled agency, John as the local union president. President Carter had named me to chair the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when the Commission had gone though perhaps the most troubled period--a huge backlog, firings by the President at the top of the agency, the whole ball of wax. Though entirely a management problem, it could not be fixed without top to bottom change and a wholesale make over. As a civil rights lawyer and a veteran of the movement. I did not look forward to tension with the employees, and there inevitably was some. The union never missed a beat, but John had a lot to do with the mixture of wit and determination that made it all work. In the end, the agency got rid of most of its backlog, not by fighting the union, but by empowering the workers with new, upgraded duties. John Sturdivant rose through the ranks of his own union the way unions insist that employees should move up in the workplaces that unions represent. But, John rose the way that yeast makes bread rise--because, by conviction and ability, he could not be contained. John Sturdivant was made for the modern era of American unionism. He knew how to do it by fighting, he knew how to do it by negotiating, and he knew how to do it in ways nobody had thought of. He was a strategic thinker who knew how to pick his fights while keeping the others alive to be fought another day. Without that kind of smarts, he would never have achieved the landmark changes the occurred when I chaired the old Subcommittee and that John wore on his sleeves like stripes; the political empowerment of government workers through Hatch Act reform, locality pay, and the first government-wide buyouts. In the end, John Sturdivant, who was a leader in reinventing modern unionism, was not about to let government reinvent itself without the union as a partner. And the man who had risen to leadership with the rise of public sector unionism was not about to preside over its decline. John Sturdivant had a quality union leaders seek in these tough times for workers and that public officials with a movement background like mine most admire. John knew how to work the inside with the vision of an outsider. Now if the rest of us could only learn to beguile our opponents with a broad, disarming grin.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank him for his hard work on this bill. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the many people on both sides of the aisle who contributed to finally getting this bill out. Before I say a word on this bill, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentleman from Florida who have helped us to expedite this bill by not calling for a recorded vote. I want to promise them that I will stand with them so that we get a vote the first week we come back on Haiti. This may not be a moment of truth but it has arrived. We must get the D.C. appropriation out tonight. We have a bipartisan compromise only because of the hard work of people on both sides of the aisle. No one has gained much. Everybody has given up a lot in order to get this bill through. We have tried to accommodate all reasonable requests. It is not the bill I would have wanted. No one has had to compromise more than I have, Mr. Speaker. The bill has no new Federal money, only rescue package money. It is $4.2 billion raised exclusively in the District of Columbia, 6 weeks late in getting permission to spend our own money. Congress, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] in particular, who had the oversight here, openly spoke to the District that it should use the surplus to pay down the deficit, and that is exactly what the District in response to him has done. The city and the Control Board have come forward with a budget that is balanced a year ahead of time, almost all of the surplus used in exactly the way the Congress has suggested. There is a lot I would change. I want to thank everyone for helping do what I think we will do in a few minutes and get this bill out so that the District of Columbia can begin to spend its own money.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for a vote, a positive vote, on the rule on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, this is the last appropriation out. By all rights, it should have been the first, considering the condition of the District of Columbia and considering that there is only a token amount of Federal funds. I am coming to this floor to ask permission to spend my own money. I do not know what the rest of the Members would do if they had to do this. This is a caboose appropriation held up in the Senate, as Members have heard, over an issue completely unrelated. I could not be more in sympathy with the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. If my appropriation has been treated regrettably, she has been treated most unfairly, and I pledge to her that I will do all in my power to monitor this matter to see that the compromise that has been achieved is carried out and to see that full justice is done in legislation when we return. This bill has been cleansed of the issues that would have gotten a veto. Some of them would have been micromanagement of the District. Others would have been ideological issues. We have gone from micromanaging the District to micromanaging the Control Board. We have to stop that. The Control Board is not above criticism, and I have been among its critics, but the fact is that these are five distinguished people working for no pay who are trying to do an almost impossible job. We ought to reinforce them, unless they get way off the mark. We are not close enough to take what they do and unravel it dollar by dollar. All sides need to talk and negotiate before the appropriation period, rather than waiting for the appropriation to try to reform the District of Columbia. If Members want to have meaningful participation in the reform and restructuring of the District, let the Committee on Appropriations, the subcommittee, the authorizing subcommittee, the Control Board, and the District sit down and work out their problems before they get to this floor. Home Rule? Yes, that is one reason this bill must be supported, because it has the support of the District of Columbia, which worked hard to please the Congress in what it has achieved, but it also must be supported because this bill is, in fact, an efficient and reliable way to move the District forward.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am asking for a bipartisan vote for the D.C. appropriation. There are issues in this bill I would change, and my colleagues may feel the same. But Congress is not a consensus organization. Moreover, this is not Congress' money. There is only a token amount of Federal money in this appropriation, and that is mostly from the D.C. rescue package, not new money. Imagine how it would feel if my colleagues had to come before this body to get permission to spend money raised by their taxpayers at home. The issues that divided the House into two camps, such as vouchers, are gone. So are some items that would cripple the control board and management reform. I agree with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Davis and some of the criticisms that they have of the control board in the District. I am most willing to work with them. This is a tough, prudent budget of the kind the Congress has demanded. The District has accepted it. Let us pass it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] for yielding me the time. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] for the way in which they have expeditiously moved this bill forward. I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for his bill. The streamline procedures which this bill would provide are precisely the way to improve the efficiency of this vital regional facility. The provision that would allow Metro Transit officers to carry their weapons while off duty is a common-sense use to correct what is surely a waste of skilled person power when these officers are not allowed to carry their weapons with them off duty. My own D.C. coordination bill would seek to in many ways do the same thing for other Federal officers. This is a high-efficiency bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize in the official record of this body the extraordinary history of one the District's leading congregations, the New Bethel Baptist Church, organized in 1902 by former members of the Salem Baptist Church. Today, New Bethel's pastor for the past 28 years is my distinguished predecessor Walter E. Fauntroy, who ably served the people of the District of Columbia for 19 years. The opportunity to offer this tribute today is a real personal honor. The group met first in the home of Brother Benjamin Graves under the guidance of Dr. W. Bishop Johnson, Pastor of the Second Baptist Church. The membership grew and purchased a building on 15th Street, NW. Under the leadership of the Revs. Alfred A. Agerton, Samuel Washington and Richard L. Holmes, the church experienced steady growth. In 1903, the Rev. William D. Jarvis accepted the call to the pastorate, and the church embarked on a 37 year journey of spiritual growth and prosperity. In February 1915, the first worship service was held in the building at 9th and S Streets, NW which had been purchased from the Grace M.E. Church. Before Dr. Jarvis' retirement on October 1, 1940, the church had grown to 600 in number and had become a fixture in the community. In May 1941, the Rev. C. David Foster, of Philadelphia, PA, was unanimously called to the pastorate. Under his leadership, the church grew spiritually, numerically and financially, and the building underwent extensive renovation. On January 19, 1959, the Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, a son of the church who had served as supply pastor, received a unanimous call from the members to serve as pastor. For thirty-eight years, he has responded to the spiritual needs of the congregation and the rapidly-changing dynamics of the community. Existing organizations have been revitalized and new ones have been created. The position of full-time Assistant Pastor was established, and a ministerial staff was implemented. A tithing program was launched, and in 1973, New Bethel constructed the C. David Foster House, an eight-story building with 75 units for low- and moderate-income families of the Shaw area and other displaced persons. In 1977 the old structure at 9th and S Streets was razed, and the new edifice constructed on the site was dedicated and entered in 1982. Today, guided by the pastor's 5-year plan, the church continues its mission of service to church members and to the Shaw community. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this body join me in saluting the pastor and members of the New Bethel Baptist Church on the occasion of their 95th Anniversary with its theme--Christians Committed to Serve.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to sing well deserved praises for David J. McCarthy, Jr., who is retiring from the Georgetown University Law Center as professor and former dean after 37 years. Every Member of this body knows well that Georgetown is among the Nation's top law schools. Not every Member knows how the law school got that way. Great law schools do not just happen. They are made, not born. One of those who made it happen was Dave McCarthy. Dave was dean at a critical moment for the Law Center in this century from 1975 to 1983. During Dave's tenure, the law Center firmly established itself as the first-rate institution it has been known to be ever since. After his service as dean, Dave McCarthy remained at the Law Center as Carmack Waterhouse Professor of State and Local Government. Dave was a graduate of the Law Center he later was to lead and, as a student, was managing editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. In addition to his law degree, Dave earned an L.L.M. and was awarded an honorary doctorate by Georgetown. His career has been enriched by abundant other activities as well, including service as Chair of the American Association of Law Schools Accreditation Committee, on the Citizens Choice National Commission on the IRS, and the Individual Taxpayer, and on the Executive Committee of the D.C. Pretrial Services Agency. David McCarthy's service to Georgetown University, to the profession, and to this community has been exemplary. I know that the House of Representatives would want to join me in saluting David J. McCarthy.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the National Urban Watershed Model Restoration Act, a bill which will establish a new approach to restoring urban waters. This pilot program, to be administered by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], will serve as a national model for the restoration of urban watersheds and community environments. To achieve more focused and rapid action, the new program will integrate the various regulatory and nonregulatory programs of the EPA with other Federal, State, and local programs to restore and protect the Anacostia River and promote community risk reduction. EPA is to coordinate its efforts with other Federal partners, particularly the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to addressing a major local environmental concern, this model program will provide a framework for urban communities around the Nation to work towards sustainable community redevelopment and to meet national environmental goals. Under the new program, EPA shall allocate a total of $750,000 per year over the next 4 fiscal years to implement the provisions of the model program. EPA may authorize no less than $400,000 per year in the form of grants, which are to be matched on a 75-25 basis with other Federal funds and State, local, and private contributions. The Anacostia River has been my top environmental priority since coming to Congress in 1991. I realize that restoring a river requires a long-term commitment. I am committed to whatever time and effort it takes to restore the river that runs through our neighborhoods. I am particularly pleased that all of the regional Members of Congress whose districts encompass the Anacostia River, Representatives Connie Morella, Steny Hoyer, and Albert Wynn, recognize the importance of this effort and have become original cosponsors of this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, if this were a court, I would be forced to throw myself on the mercy of the court. Congress has an obligation to allow the Capital of the United States to spend its own money by enacting our appropriation. Did my colleagues know that the District no longer gets a Federal payment under the rescue plan? Almost every dollar in the D.C. appropriation was raised in the District from the people I represent. Without an appropriation, there should be no appropriation subcommittee. Did my colleagues know that there is no dispute over money? First there were vouchers. Now Republicans are fighting among themselves over an authorizing measure outside the jurisdiction of the appropriators. Ominously, the District's chief financial officer is warned of $100 million of fast cuts that will be necessary if the District of Columbia has to spend at last year's levels much longer. That will stop the city cold. The majority has an obligation to get 13 appropriations passed every year. The majority speaks often of its special authority over the Nation's capital. Exercise that authority. Let the District spend its own money. Save the Nation's Capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, this has been an extraordinary month for women in the House and in the country, and I want to say a few words about women in both places; first, about women in the House, and then about two issues that concern women throughout the country. On October 21 the women of the House, those who belong to the Women's Caucus, and that is virtually all of us, had our first ever gala. That gala was given to raise funds for Women's Policy, Inc., and it was a most successful event, with the President and the First Lady and the Secretary of State all coming to pay tribute to 20 years of achievement by women in Congress. We set an extraordinary bipartisan example. The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Nancy Johnson, is the Republican cochair this year. Last year the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Nita Lowey was the Democratic cochair, and the gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, was the Republican cochair. They kept the caucus alive and bipartisan, and we were pleased to follow in their wake this year. The caucus simply gets things done. It gets things done any way it can. Sometimes it is by getting policies changed; sometimes it is by getting laws changed. And what does the caucus have to show for 20 years from the work we have done? More women getting mammograms, and therefore a decrease in breast cancer and cervical cancer; the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; the Violence Against Women Act. It is a roster to be proud of. But as it turns out, October was the awareness month for two concerns that women across the country have given the caucus as their own priorities, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and Domestic Violence Month. The Women's Caucus this very year waged a battle for mammograms for women over 40. This was in the tradition of the Women's Caucus, when it looked as though we were about to get a reversal in policy on that very issue. The science did not support a reversal, and we were able to get it changed based on the science. We pride ourselves in not getting changes like that not on political grounds, and using the data that is provided us by Women's Policy, Inc., we were able to help turn that decision around. Now women at 40 should get a mammogram every year or every other year. This is an important issue. It is important to have the focus of women in Congress on it, because since the early seventies the incidence of breast cancer has increased by 1 percent a year, and we do not know why. All we know is that we have to do something about it. Actually, if mammograms are high quality they can spot breast cancer in women over 50 at a rate of 85 to 90 percent of the incidence of cancer. So we have made a lot of progress. While we focused on the threat to women at 40, the fact is that I want to remind everybody that it is women who are over 50 who are at greatest risk for breast cancer. If women aged 50 to 69 have regular mammograms, they can reduce their chances of death from breast cancer by one-third, and gradually, by bringing attention to this dreaded disease, we have been able to do something about it. I do want to put into the record risk factors that are more specific than what we usually hear. These are the risk factors: Having had a previous breast cancer; a specific, identified genetic mutation that may make one susceptible to breast cancer; a mother, a sister, or a daughter, or two or more close relatives with a history of breast cancer, and that could be even cousins; a diagnosis of other types of disease that are pinpointed to predispose one to breast cancer; that is to say, breast disease that predisposes one to breast cancer; dense breast tissue, which makes it difficult to read a mammogram; and having a first child at age 30 or older. Madam Speaker, this was also Violence Against Women Month. By observing and talking about this terrible epidemic in our country, we are finally bringing it out of its special closet. Some 3 out of every 100 women in this country have been severely assaulted by a partner, that is, not simply a slap, but severely assaulted. They had to go to the emergency room or get medical treatment. Madam Speaker, I hope what the Women's Caucus has done helps us all to understand the value of the caucus to bring our attention to problems such as these.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 292) pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX and ask for its immediate consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Hefley]. The Clerk will report the resolution.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which would remove the provision in the Southeastern University charter requiring that one-third of the board of trustees be Southeastern alumni. Southeastern University President Charlene Drew Jarvis and the board of trustees have asked me to introduce this corrective measure. Southeastern University was incorporated by act of Congress on August 19, 1937. Its charter contains a provision requiring that one-third of the university's board of trustees be alumni. On September 9, 1997, I received a letter from Southeastern University President Charlene Drew Jarvis asking that I introduce legislation to remove this provision. On September 9, 1997, I also received a letter from Board of Trustees Chair Elizabeth Lisboa-Farrow confirming that the board of trustees had authorized President Jarvis to seek this change. Copies of both letters are attached. The board of trustees would like this provision removed in order to let the university draw from a wider pool of potential board nominees. Because the university was incorporated by an act of Congress, only the Congress can effectuate this change. Southern University is an important and productive institution which contributes to the economy of the District of Columbia by offering undergraduate and graduate degree programs geared specifically to the needs of working professionals. Under the able leadership of Southeastern's new president, Dr. Charlene Drew Jarvis, the university has begun to rebound from difficult financial circumstances. This legislation will allow Southeastern to expand its fundraising potential to complement these efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this corrective measure. Southeastern University Office of the President, Washington, DC, September 9, 1997. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Norton: I have been authorized by the Board of Trustees of Southeastern University to write to you to ask that you assist the university in obtaining an alteration of the Congressionally-granted charter of the university. On Page 697 of the United States Statutes At Large for 1937 (Vol. 50, Part I), an Act of Congress is recorded as Chapter 700. This law, which was approved on August 19, 1937, amended an earlier certificate of incorporation granted within the District of Columbia and officially renamed the institution ``Southeastern University.'' The act also specified in part as follows: ``Sec. 3. That the management of the said corporation shall be vested in a board of trustees consisting of not less than nine nor more than twenty-one in number as determined from time to time by said board of trustees, one-third of whom, at all times, shall be graduates of the said university, of the qualifications prescribed by the board of managers of the Young Men's Christian Association of the city of Washington, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the Act of Congress approved June 28, 1864 (13 Stat. L. 411 and the Acts amendatory thereof), nominated by the alumni of the said university in the manner prescribed by said board of managers, and all of whom shall be elected by said board of managers; . . . so that the term of office of one class shall expire annually.'' The act further specified, in another section: ``Sec. 9. That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as preventing the Congress from amending, altering, annulling, or repealing the same or any part thereof.'' An Act amending the charter, approved on October 10, 1966, did contain significant changes in the language of Section 3, but it neglected to address the issue we are writing to you about today. Similarly, another Act amending the charter was approved on March 29, 1976, but it did not change the relevant language of that section, either. Our request is that, under the authority of Section 9 of the Act, Congress now delete the provision within Section 3 of the charter which requires that fully one third of the Board of Trustees of Southeastern University at all times be alumni of the institution. We seek this change because a new and more broadly-based Board of Trustees would be a more active and vigorous one, able to fund raise throughout the region and the country, unconstrained by restrictions placed upon it at a time when fund-raising was not such a significant aspect of service on university governing boards. Let me assure you and your colleagues that the Board of Trustees understands that it is an excellent idea for alumni to serve on the governing board of this university. Indeed, our current Secretary of the Board is Dr. Ephraim Okoro, a much valued professor of Public Administration. Dr. Okoro is an outstanding alumnus, holding multiple degrees earned here. Several additional current members of the Board are alumni, as well. Therefore, the governing board certainly shall endeavor to continue to have graduates elected to such positions. Our request, in conclusion, is that Congress amend Section 3 of the charter, to delete the reference restricting Southeastern University's ability to meet its mandates. The preferred language, based on that contained within the October 10, 1966, act, would be: ``Sec. 3. The management of the said corporation shall be vested in a board of trustees consisting of not less than nine nor more than thirty in number as determined from time to time by said board of trustees. Each trustee shall be elected for a term of office of three years from the date of expiration of the term . . . of such predecessor.'' Thank you very much for helping in this matter. If we at Southeastern University can be of aid as the process of amendment occurs, we would be most happy to provide whatever assistance is requested. Please do not hesitate to call upon us. Sincerely yours, Charlene Drew Jarvis, Ph.D. President.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, Loretta Sanchez has been duly elected to represent the 46th District of California; and Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California met only on February 26, 1997 in Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting from a business, rather than a resident address; underage voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number of individuals voting from the same address. It was found that going from the same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to compare their records with Orange County voter registration records, the first time in any election in the history of the United States that the INS has been asked by Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing supplemental information on that manual check to the Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of State of California; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California and the Committee have been reviewing these materials and has all the information it needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the information it needs to make judgments concerning those votes; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over nine months of review and investigation failed to present credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Oxon Run Parkway Land Transfer and Restoration Act, a bill which directs the National Park Service to convey to the District of Columbia all right, title, and interest of the United States to approximately 25 acres of land in Southeast DC, in Ward 8. The purpose of my legislation is to enable a group of churches, the Washington Interfaith Network [WIN], working with the District of Columbia government, to build more than 300 units of low- and moderate-income housing, almost entirely with church- gathered funds. WIN is a coalition of 43 churches. They stand ready to invest $2.5 million at no interest to finance the construction of these homes. Among the major contributors are: First, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, second, the Episcopal Archdiocese of Washington, third, the United Methodist Church, and fourth, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. My understanding is that the Interior Department supports this transfer. The land is bordered on the northeast by South Capitol Street, on the west by Oxon Run Parkway, and on the southeast by the Maryland-DC border. Presently, the land is administered by the District of Columbia but is actually owned by the National Park Service. In 1972, the Park Service transferred jurisdiction to the District of Columbia of approximately 100 acres of land in Southeast DC, that includes the approximately 25 acres addressed in my legislation. However, the transfer was made under condition that the land be used for recreation and related purposes. My legislation removes this legal impediment to construction of low and moderate income housing on this land and enables the future homeowners to own full title to their property. The transfer which I propose is a modest but important step in restoring one of the city's vital residential neighborhoods and the city's overall morale and financial health. Ward 8, the most disadvantaged in the city, has experienced devastating loss of population in significant part because of the absence of affordable housing. In addition, the land which I propose to transfer from the Park Service to the District is currently in a deplorable condition and is an embarrassment to the Park Service and the city. Although this piece of land is ostensibly recreational parkland, it has become unsightly neighborhood dumpyard. Transfer of this land to the District for construction of a residential neighborhood will not only enable environmental cleanup of the property but will also provide desperately needed housing at a site that has become a terrible eyesore.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, what do President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Cokie Roberts, and the singing group, Sweet Honey in the Rock have in common? They are part of the all-star line up this evening when the Women's Caucus celebrates 20 years of incredible achievements for women and families. Originally 15, we are now 50 strong. Almost all of the women of the House are Members. We are bipartisan and proud of it. At 7 tonight at Mellon Auditorium we will celebrate extraordinary legislative achievements that range from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to the Family Medical and Leave Act. The Women's Caucus has given shape and focus to women's issues and we have a lot to show for it. Tonight, though, we will just show off.