Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, the women of the House have something to celebrate this evening. Nearly all--Republican and Democratic women alike--are members of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues. The caucus will celebrate 20 years of historic legislation and other milestones for women, families, and children led by the Women's Caucus for two decades. Madam Speaker, an all-star cast will be on hand at the elegant Andrew Mellon Auditorium for the 7 p.m. dinner led by remarks from President Clinton himself. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will speak, ABC's Cokie Roberts, the daughter of former Congresswoman Lindy Boggs, will MC, and ``Sweet Honey in the Rock,'' the award-winning singing group, will entertain. Today, 50 of the 52 women of the House are members of the caucus. We are more than three times the group we were in 1977 when 15 Members led by former Representatives Elizabeth Holtzman and Margaret Heckler founded the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues. Resolutely bipartisan from that day to this, the caucus has a list of achievements that boggle the mind. Here is a sampling from the honor roll of legislative landmarks achieved through the leadership of the Women's Caucus: The Family Medical and Leave Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, retirement equity legislation, child support enforcement legislation, the Mammography Quality Assurance Act, legislation that established the NIH Office of Research in Women's Health, legislation barring health plan discrimination against victims of domestic violence and against the genetic information of clients, criminalization of female genital mutilation, and policies requiring that women be included in clinical trials. There is too much more where that came from to name and there is lots more to come. Madam Speaker, this year we have initiated new approaches in the caucus that promise even greater legislative production. We have inaugurated a series of Women's Caucus hearings and we now have 14 issue teams, each led by a Republican and a Democratic Member. My cochair, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], and I have worked hard in the tradition of prior Republican and Democratic cochairs, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], former Congresswomen Liz Holtzman and Margaret Heckler, former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and former Representative and now Senator Olympia Snowe. Tonight we are throwing ourselves a party. We hope to see our colleagues there.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank the gentleman for his very hard work for the District of Columbia. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] for his hard work as well, and I want to say that what I will say today is in no way meant to detract from the hard work and good faith that both the chairman and the ranking member have shown as they have worked for this budget. I do hold up the statement of policy of the administration to tell Members why there are at least a half-a-dozen reasons why this bill will be vetoed. When we are talking about the Capital of the United States, which is on its knees, we ought to be after a bill that will be passed swiftly. On behalf of the people of the District of Columbia, I rise to ask for Members' support for the Moran substitute. I do so because the bill before us violates basic democratic principles, will cripple the District's recovery, and will undermine the difficult job we ourselves have given to the Control Board, whose efforts have the respect and confidence of the majority of this body. The substitute we offer is not a Democratic substitute. The substitute is the work of North Carolina Senator Lauch Faircloth, who has been described as the most conservative Member of the U.S. Senate. I can tell Members all about that. In negotiations on the D.C. rescue package just before the balanced budget bill, I was unable to keep the Senator from taking down much of home rule and putting the Control Board in charge of the city. The Senator's bill largely respects home rule, but not because he cares about that. Rather, it is because the Control Board and the District submitted a consensus budget that is itself so conservative a document that even the North Carolina Senator found no reason to substantially alter it. While Members here are lining up for ways to spend a predicted surplus, the Senate supported the District appropriation because the District uses its surplus largely to pay down debt. The Senate bill supported the District's decision to come into balance a year early. It is the prudent, even conservative, fiscal policy that is at the core of the Moran substitute that has recommended it across party lines. It was reported out of the Senate Committee on Appropriations 26 to 1. Vouchers, of course, is the House bill's high profile controversial provision, but the people from Members' districts already know what to do when that issue is put to them: 20 referenda, 20 defeats. I have already called the roll on that during the rule. For 30 years residents from States in the north and south, east and west, have rejected vouchers. Even when the 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, and then by 70 percent; in Washington State, first by 61 percent and then by 65 percent; in Massachusetts, first by 62 percent, and then they lost by 70 percent. They cannot win for losing, Mr. Chairman. Here in the District the vote against vouchers was the largest of all, an almost unanimous 89 percent. Unable to trump that, the majority asked that we substitute a Republican-worded poll for the votes of the people I represent. I respectfully disagree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], who suggested during debate on the rule that the vote in D.C. was not a voucher vote. It was exactly that. D.C. residents rejected a tax credit for parents who would send their children to private or religious schools, money that otherwise would have gone to the District's general fund. A voucher by any other name is still a voucher, and until D.C. residents vote again on this issue, this body cannot impose vouchers without wiping away each and every claim they have to American principles of democracy. Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a compendium of provisions the majority has been unable to pass despite their control of both Houses: vouchers, medical liability, Davis-Bacon. The strategy is simple: find a jurisdiction that cannot fight back and simply impose their will, like any old dictatorship; find a jurisdiction whose delegate votes you seized and work your will. They call themselves a devolution Congress? Shame on them. If they pass this bill, they will be unable to make any claim to devolution or democracy. I say to the Members, if you want these ideologically charged measures, do them on your own dime with your open bill for your own majority, not on the backs of the taxpaying residents that I represent. The ideological baggage may be the most apparent, but it is not the most appalling. After all, the majority often cannot resist ideological targets but it has refrained from targeting the five distinguished citizens who sit on the Control Board. Not content to go after city officials, this bill unwinds much of the most painstaking and vital work of the Control Board. The bill does reckless damage, to name only some of the most irrational provisions. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following Statement of Administration Policy: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, October 9, 1997. Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 2607--District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY 1998 This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.R. 2607, the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY 1998, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee. Your consideration of the Administration's views would be appreciated. The Administration strongly opposes section 342 of the Committee bill, which would provide for the use of $7 million in Federal taxpayer funds for private school vouchers. Instead of investing additional resources in public schools, vouchers would allow a few selected students to attend private schools, and would draw attention away from the hard work of reforming public schools that serve the overwhelming majority of D.C. students. Establishing a private school voucher system in the Nation's Capital would set a dangerous precedent for using Federal taxpayer funds for schools that are not accountable to the public. If this language were included in the bill presented to the President, the President's senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill. While the Administration appreciates the support of the Committee in developing a bill that provides sufficient Federal funding to implement the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1977 (the Revitalization Act), we strongly oppose a number of the provisions of the Committee bill, as described below. Even if the provision concerning school vouchers were to be stricken, the Committee bill would remain unacceptable. Unless the Administration's concerns are satisfactorily resolved, the President's senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill. The Administration urges the House to approve the Moran substitute amendment, which would address a number of the concerns detailed below. pennsylvania avenue The Administration strongly opposes section 159 of the bill, which would require that Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House be opened on January 1, 1998. On May 20, 1995, the Department of the Treasury implemented the security action to prohibit vehicular traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue between 15th and 17th Streets. A White House Security Review concluded that there was no alternative to prohibiting vehicular traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue that would ensure the protection of the President of the United States, the first family, and those working in or visiting the White House Complex from explosive devices carried in vehicles near the perimeter. The Committee's action would jeopardize the safety of those inside the White House Complex. public assistance payments The Administration opposes section 149 of the bill, which would prohibit the District from increasing public assistance payments under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program beyond the level provided under the District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982. This restriction is inconsistent with the broad flexibility provided under Federal welfare reform and could hinder the District's efforts to invest resources in areas necessary to move individuals off welfare and into work. davis-bacon act The Administration strongly opposes section 363 of the Committee bill. As drafted, this provision would permit waiver of the application of the Davis-Bacon Act to construction and repair work for the District of Columbia schools. Waiving these protections would deny payment of locally prevailing wages to workers on Federally funded construction sites. The Administration supports the Sabo amendment to strike this provision. abortion The Administration strongly opposes the abortion language of the Committee bill, which would prohibit the use of both Federal and District funds to pay for abortions except in those cases where the life of the mother is endangered or in situations involving rape or incest. Further, the Department of Justice has advised that the language would be unconstitutional regarding funds provided to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee, to the extent the language places an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion. The Administration continues to view the prohibition on the use of local funds as an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the District and would support an amendment, if offered, to strike this prohibition. Micromanagement The Administration opposes the provisions of the Committee bill, that would further restrict or otherwise condition management of the District government and expenditure of funds, thereby undercutting the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority's (the Authority's) oversight role and responsibility for the District's annual budget. Specifically, the Administration opposes provisions of the bill that would require the District to direct surplus FY 1998 revenues to a taxpayer relief fund and earmark $200 million in local funds for deficit reduction. These provisions do not reflect the consensus agreement reached by the Authority, the Council, and the Executive Branch on the FY 1998 budget for the District. Moreover, Congress has given to the Authority the responsibility for guiding the District toward long-term financial health, and that role should not be undercut by unnecessary micromanagement. The Administration also opposes a provision that would amend the District's tort laws and impose a cap on punitive damages at an arbitrary level. The Administration believes that these limits undermine the very purpose of punitive damages, which is to punish and deter misconduct. Furthermore, the Administration strongly opposes any differentiation between so-called ``economic'' and ``non- economic'' damages. ``Non-economic'' damages are just as real as economic damages, and limiting them imposes a hardship on the most vulnerable members of our society. In addition, we oppose House language that would restrict the District's authority to improve its financial management systems. The District has been told by Congress, by the General Accounting Office, and by the Administration for some time that it needs to improve its financial management systems. The DC Chief Financial Officer and the Authority have taken steps to implement the necessary improvements. The Congress should not use this appropriations bill to block those efforts.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today we will have before us an appropriation bill that is at odds with our core beliefs. It takes the tough, fiscally responsible work of a district that is not our own, presided over by a no-nonsense control board, and tears it up. No amount of rhetoric about the constitutional obligation to run, or is it run over, the Nation's capital will work this time, not when the control board and the city have submitted a budget that uses almost all its small surplus for deficit reduction. No righteous rhetoric will explain some 60 instances of legislating on an appropriation in fine detail, some of it quickly altered to appropriation language, but just as devastating to the work of the control board and the city. No amount of crocodile tears for the District's children, from Members with a long history of not supporting these children or District bills for these children will make credible the ideological baggage, especially vouchers, they have stuffed into this bill. Here are five questions we should ask ourselves as we hear today's debate. One. Ask yourselves: ``If my District had voted 89 percent against vouchers in a referendum, would I then vote for vouchers on the basis of manipulative polls that ask poor people and ministers not whether they desire vouchers for public money but whether they would like some free money for scholarships.'' It is a scam on poor people and I resent it. If my colleagues are from one of the many States that have turned down vouchers, they must vote for the substitute. They should know who they are: New York, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Idaho, Maryland, Washington State, Missouri, Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Utah, Colorado. The so-called free ``scholarships'' or vouchers come from the District's own meager surplus funds. The District's public schools desperately need every cent of public money. Every child in the District could have a place in an after school program with the $7 million that would go to private and religious schools in the District, Maryland, and Virginia. Think of what that money would do for our kids' education and for elimination of juvenile crime in this city. Two. Will it help or hurt the District if we prevent a contract for a state-of-the-art financial management system to be awarded on a competitive basis after years of delay? Should the Congress override all of the experts who advise that the upgrade of the present nonfunctional system is unworkable and wasteful? Is this body prepared to take responsibility for the serious delay in the congressionally mandated management and financial reforms that will result from preventing the contract? Three. Should Congress cancel a contract for the annual audit now in progress that was won through a competitive bid about which no question whatsoever has been raised? Four. Will it help or hurt the District's fragile recovery to cancel the city's authority to eliminate its accumulated deficit using exactly the same approach that was necessary to bring New York and Philadelphia out of insolvency? Why would we want to retract this authority when we just gave it to the control board in the Balanced Budget Act? Five. Does Congress want to keep the control board from using self- generated interest to do studies, such as those that are the basis for wholesale reform of the police department and the school system now in progress? I believe my colleagues will be puzzled by these provisions. They reveal only the tip of a volcano of an appropriation that is dangerously capricious. I do not believe that a substitute for an entire appropriation bill has ever been offered in 23 years of home rule. When the substitute is copied from the fiscally conservative bill of a conservative North Carolina Senator that even has my support, Members perhaps get a sense of how radically damaging to my constituents, how arbitrary the bill before us is. I ask my colleagues to reject this bill and to vote for the rule so we can vote for the Moran substitute that rejects this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor to say that my colleagues can cite their deceptive letters and free money petitions all they want to, but I got 90 percent of the vote in the last election in the District of Columbia, and I think I can say with confidence that the people I represent would deeply resent the imposition of vouchers paid for out of our own rescue package money when we have rejected such a measure by 89 percent. There is another reason for voting against this bill, and I will let the conservative Washington Times have the last word on that, and I am quoting: Charles Taylor, whose litany of amendments which at one point numbered an incredible 62, threatens to unravel the very fiscally conservative and sound management reforms Congress has been working on for the past 2\1/2\ years. It is one thing to question the resolve of a few of D.C.'s elected officials to get the job done, but has Mr. Taylor no confidence in even the efforts of his colleagues on Capitol Hill? R-E-S-P-E-C-T spells respect. Show some respect for me and for the people I represent. Support the Moran substitute.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time and for her extraordinary leadership on a very hard bill to manage and carry, but one that has to be carried. I want to make three points. One goes to the futility of this bill based on its unconstitutionality. The other goes to who gets protected. The final goes to the intolerable trade-off that this bill forces and that cannot be condoned under any circumstances. Why are we here on a bill that is unconstitutional on its face? We have not had to deal with the exception for health of the mother in the Hyde amendment and other matters because we had not focused on postviability. But the Supreme Court has been clear. I want to quote the language, that a bill is unconstitutional if it ``fails to require that maternal health be the physician's paramount concern.'' That is where the Catholic church has always been. That is where all of us have always been, if ever there is that kind of tragic decision to be made. We must face that now as we have not had to because we are focusing postviability. Why are we here on a bill that protects physicians and not women? The doctors got language that satisfied them and jumped ship. I thought they were supposed to have a paramount duty to their patients as well. They better watch out, because there is language in this amendment that I think leaves them in jeopardy as well. It must be found that no other medical procedure would suffice. I can imagine that going before committee of doctors in the hospital, particularly when we consider how reluctant physicians are ever to use this procedure. And finally, this forces the intolerable tradeoff of mother for fetus. It comes down on the side of fetus. It requires sacrifice of the mother because whatever the state of her health, it cannot be taken into consideration. For these reasons, I do not see how in good faith this body can pass this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Anne A. Fickling, who participated in CIVITAS@Bosnia and Herzegovina, an intensive program designed to train teachers from throughout Boznia and Herzegovina with materials and methods developed to educate for democracy. Ms. Fickling was part of a team of 20 American educators who were assigned to 16 locations throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the Republika Srpska. The Americans were teamed with 18 teachers from the Council of Europe in 9 of these sites. This Education for Democracy Program reached 550 teachers from both entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The summer training program was developed by the Center for Civic Education as part of a major civic education initiative supported by the U.S. Information Agency and the U.S. Department of Education and built on a program begun in 1996. The U.S. Information Service in Sarajevo provided valuable assistance to the program. The goals of the program are to provide teachers with the tools necessary to help prepare students and their communities for competent and responsible citizenship, including participation in elections and other opportunities to take part in the political life of their communities. Achieving this goal will contribute to the reconstitution of a sense of community, cooperation, tolerance, and support for democracy and human rights in this war-torn area. I am also pleased to announce that the curricular materials being used for the program in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been adapted from the We the People--the Citizen and the Constitution, Foundations of Democracy and the Project Citizen Programs which are supported by Congress and used in schools throughout the United States. Initial reports evaluating the summer program indicates the materials, selected and adapted by educators from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and teaching methods were enthusiastically received and will be adapted for use in classrooms in both entities of the country. Anne Fickling is a resident of the District of Columbia and currently serves as program coordinator for the Center for Civic Education. She has traveled to Bosnia and Herzegovina 6 times spending 25 weeks assisting in the coordination of this important program to promote Democratic values in the classroom. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend Anne Fickling for her dedication and commitment during the CIVITAS@Bosnia and Herzegovina program. Her work is helping to achieve the overall objective of building democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Equal Surety Bond Opportunity Act [ESBOA]. The ESBOA will help qualified women and minority-owned businesses to compete in the contracting business by helping them obtain adequate surety bonding. In addition, the ESBOA is directed against barriers that many qualified small and emerging construction firms encounter in obtaining surety bonding. I have introduced this bill before. I do so again because it is a commonsense way to eliminate a serious form of discrimination without an additional enforcing bureaucracy. A surety bond is issued by insurers for the purpose of guaranteeing that should a bonded contractor default, a construction project will be completed and the contractor's employees and material suppliers will be paid. Surety bonding is mandatory for competing for all Federal construction work in excess of $25,000, all federally assisted construction projects in excess of $100,000, and most State and local public construction. However, surety bonding requirements are not restricted to government contracting. Increasingly, private construction contracts also require surety bonding. As surety bonding has become a widespread requirement, the inability to obtain surety bonding can cripple a construction firm, especially a small or a new one. In 1992, Congress acknowledged the importance of this issue when it enacted the Small Business Credit Crunch Relief Act and included legislation to study the problem of discrimination in the surety bonding field, Public Law 102-366, that I had introduced. The survey provision required the General Accounting Office [GAO] to conduct a comprehensive survey of business firms, especially those owned by women and minorities, to determine their experiences in obtaining surety bonding from corporate surety firms. The GAO completed the requested survey in June 1995. The survey found that of the 12,000 small construction firms surveyed, 77 percent had never obtained bonds. In addition, minority- and women-owned firms were more likely to be asked for certain types of financial documentation. Further, minority-owned firms were also more likely to be asked to provide collateral and to meet additional conditions not required by others. The ESBOA bill I am introducing today is modeled on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in credit practices. The ESBOA requires the contractor to notify the applicant of the action taken on his or her application within 20 days of receipt of a completed bond application. If the applicant is denied bonding, the surety would also be required, upon request, to provide a written statement of specific reasons for each denied request. Furthermore, the bill would provide civil liability in the form of damages and appropriate equitable relief should a surety company fail to comply with this notice requirement. This legislation would help all contractors to have a better understanding of the reasons behind the denial of their bond applications. Furthermore, the importance of civil penalties cannot be understated for minority applicants who currently have no recourse when they suspect that the denial of surety bonding was based on considerations such as gender, race, or religion. The disclosure of pertinent information to rejected applicants is an equitable principle familiar throughout the Federal acquisition process. This is the case when a small business is turned down for a government contract and has the opportunity to demand a negative pre- award survey. With this information, the business can contest the award or use the information to be better prepared for the next award competition. The more a business knows about what is wrong with its proposal, the greater the likelihood that the next time the business will submit a better and more competitive proposal. According to the National Association of Minority Contractors [NAMC], many minority contractors reported being turned down for a bond without an explanation. When explanations are not proffered, a perception of discrimination in the surety industry is created. This perception drives minority contractors to obtain sureties outside the mainstream, often at significant additional expense and fewer protections, placing themselves, their subcontractors, and the government at greater risk. Civil penalties in this bill are necessary to compel surety bond companies to provide accurate and nondiscriminatory reasons for denial of surety bonding. This bill will provide the applicant with the necessary civil remedy should the surety bonding company refuse to provide this important information. In addition to providing essential information for future bond applications, a clear response will identify whether surety bonding companies are discriminatory or using fallacious criteria in making these decisions. This legislation will create an environment in which small business firms, particularly those owned and controlled by minorities and women, can successfully obtain adequate surety bonding. This legislation will enable us to ferret out continuing biases in the industry. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and help abolish the artificial impediments to the development and survival of emerging small businesses.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. Morella asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just spoke eloquently of the unwanted powerless child who would be taken just a few blocks from this very Chamber, I beg to differ. Children whose parents have not been near prisons cannot be taken. We find no homes for them; and the children of incarcerated parents are more dammed than those whose parents have not been incarcerated. The figures tell the story of what happens to foster children and children in prison, and the figures do not lie. Now Mother Theresa might have taken them, but there are not other takers out here. The gentleman would be the first to come to the floor if Planned Parenthood came forward to try to pay for abortions for these children, to try to deny them funds to pay for abortions for these women. We are talking about voluntary abortions here, as always. I would prefer if there were a mechanism for these women to have their children adopted, assuming there were people who would, in fact, adopt them. There are not people who will adopt a homeless child on the street today, and everybody knows that. The notion of violence raised here in this context is an amazing one indeed. What would of course be violent is forced childbirth. That is what would be left here. All of the inflammatory debate about abortion has not reduced support for abortion in this country. It is legal for women in society; it should be legal and accessible for women in jail.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to offer the option of abortion to those that may be at once most in need of it and least likely to have access to this choice. I offer this amendment for the damned and the desperate. In the United States 60 percent of pregnancies are unintended. Imagine what that figure is for women in prison. I ask for an exception to the ban on Federal funds in order that those funds be available for women in prison because they do not even have the option of other poor women. They cannot borrow, they cannot use State or Federal funds as some women who live in such localities can. They are in Federal custody. It would be barbaric to force such women to bear children against their will behind bars. The number of women in Federal prisons has grown astronomically. There was 75 percent growth in the last decade. The annual growth rate is considerably greater than for State prisons. There is twice the growth rate for these women as for men. The rate of infection for HIV and AIDS exceeds the rate of infection for men in prison. Five percent of these women enter prison pregnant. Who are these women? We have the figures for women in State prisons. They are roughly comparable to Federal figures. Forty percent have been sexually abused. Half committed the offense under the influence of alcohol or drugs. More than half used drugs the month before committing the offense. Forty percent use drugs daily. Fifty-eight percent use alcohol, 20 percent every day. Who are the children of these inmates? They are five times as likely to be imprisoned as other children. Half of the children in the juvenile justice system have a parent in prison. The racial implications are awesome. Blacks, regardless of sex, are six times more likely to go to prison than whites. Black women have nearly the same chance as white men of going to prison. Why Federal funds? Federal funds, because Federal funds must pay for everything for these women, for their food, for their shelter, for their clothes. So if there is to be a choice, and here the choice is most necessary, it can only come from Federal funds. Providing an exception here is akin to the exception we provide for rape. There is no other way. These are women who, if they desire, and only if they desire, an abortion, should be most granted that desire, given their particular history. Moreover, there has been experience in 1993, when this body lifted the restrictions on abortions for women in prison, the Bureau of Prisons handled the matter with great sensitivity, no complaints about it. There was medical, religious and social counseling. There was written documentation that that counseling had taken place. Employees who had a moral or religious objection had that objection recognized. I recognize that there is an objection of many to abortion. We have recognized some exceptions, very rare, to our admonition against abortion. Surely if there are to be exceptions, this should be one. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] for yielding me the time. I must say, I learned only today that this may be his last bill. I hope this is not his last hoorah, however. I am sure it will not be, especially since I understand there is a $23 million cathedral that awaits him in Queens. May I also thank the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] for his kindness in agreeing to support a subsequent bill that he would cosponsor with me and with the other delegate to add us to the 50 States who are being commemorated with these coins. I rise, then, in support of H.R. 2414. And I congratulate the chairman and ranking member on a very innovative and worthwhile bill that manages to commemorate and make savings for the Treasury at the same time. Would that we could more often accomplish this dual feat. We come to the floor, however, to remind our colleagues that this is a union of 50 States, four insular areas and the District of Columbia. I know it is important to all of us to think of our country in all of its fullness. There are, of course, among us those of us who still sting from the fact that the vote that we won on the House floor was, in fact, taken back when the majority arrived. My taxpaying citizens have not forgotten that. It is one thing to take back a vote that we won on the floor and was approved by the courts. It is quite another to exclude our jurisdictions from a mere commemorative act. The fact is that there was no intent to exclude us, and we should have come forward sooner. I very much appreciate the way in which the chairman has worked with me to see that the four insular areas and the District are subsequently included. I daresay, Mr. Speaker, that including us in the commemorative coin act means more to my district than to that of most Members. That has to do with our peculiar history. This bill seeks to, and I am quoting, promote the diffusion of knowledge among the youth of the United States about the individual States, their history and geography and the rich diversity of the national heritage. The commemorative coin, when it includes the territories and the District, will probably for the first time inform many Americans that there are such areas and the District. The bill seeks also to encourage young people and their families to collect memorable tokens of all of the States, yes, and of the four insular areas and the District. We are most pleased that we have been able to come to an agreement to support what is surely one of the more worthwhile and innovative bills that will come to the floor during the 105th Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I want to join the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] in supporting H.R. 2443, a bill I introduced with strong bipartisan support from the gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Davis, Mr. Moran, and Mr. Wolf as well as the gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Wynn and the gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Morella. The bill would designate the new FBI Washington Field Office at 601 Fourth Street, NW., in honor of the five FBI agents who have been slain in the line of duty. The building will be officially dedicated on Friday, September 26, with the surviving families and friends as the honored guests. These FBI agents were our friends and neighbors who lived in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. They were parents, sons, brothers, and sisters. Agent Palmisano and Agent Woodriffe were partners. Both were born and raised in the New York City metropolitan area. Agent Woodriffe was the first African-American agent killed in the line of duty. Martha Martinez was a young woman of 35 years of age who was married to FBI Agent George Martinez and was an acknowledged expert at electronic surveillance methodology. Agent Mike Miller was a native of Prince George's County and was educated at local schools. Agent William Christian, also a Maryland native, was a graduate of Loyola College. He consistently received superior performance evaluations and numerous commendations for his outstanding work. He was killed doing undercover work. It is most fitting and proper that we honor the sacrifices of these brave agents with this designation, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, however, I do not intend to object, and I ask the gentleman from California, [Mr. Kim] for an explanation of the bill.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his moving remarks and for his support of this bill, and I would also like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim], for his cooperation in allowing us to get this bill out on a very short time frame and for his strong support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, a number of women members of the women's caucus may be coming to the floor this afternoon to make speeches concerning the report of the Secretary of the Army's Senior Review Panel on Sexual Harassment. The reason women Members of the House would speak to this subject relates to the fact that sexual harassment in the Armed Forces was the first issue of the 105th Congress to come to the attention of the women's caucus. We did not choose it; it chose us. We came back to find a full-blown scandal. This time it was not Tailhook and the Navy, it was Aberdeen and the Army, and it looked like a far more serious scandal than the Tailhook scandal. We had a meeting with the Secretary of the Army. We have followed this issue, met with officials. Some of our Members have given very special attention to it. We have sought remedies, we have monitored this issue, and now a report comes through. Mr. Speaker, what is important to note about this report is the absence of equivocation. The findings of the report are nothing short of refreshing, and the Secretary of the Army, Mr. Togo West, deserves our compliments for sending forth a panel to do a job, frank and full, so that the Armed Forces of the United States would not be disgraced by continuing allegations of sexual harassment. Examples of findings that are bold and unequivocal are, and I am quoting: ``The Army lacks institutional commitment to the EO Program. Examples: Sexual harassment exists throughout the Army, crossing gender, rank and racial lines.'' Pretty stark, pretty frank, and the kind of straight talk that will pierce the ranks up and down. That is what we need if we want to get rid of this stuff. The panel said, ``We are firmly convinced that leadership is the fundamental issue.'' That is indeed refreshing. At Aberdeen we saw that there were drill sergeants and others of lower rank who were prosecuted and sanctioned. Only now are we seeing that at Aberdeen some of the upper ranks have also been sanctioned. Unless that happens, there is no credibility for sanctions at all in a command structure. If one is at the top, one is in charge and one is accountable for whatever happens throughout the ranks. Among the conclusion and recommendations is one that says that ``It is necessary to imbed human relations training in the Army training system as a doctrinal imperative.'' That is very strong, because a doctrinal imperative means when it is part and parcel of a mission, and the mission is incomplete unless it is part of that mission. I was struck by a recommendation that the EO Programs had to be engineered to protect those who use it and ensure that those working in it are not stigmatized. That said to me that if one was in the EO part of the program, one was not in the regular Army, or at least one did not have the same respect as those who were. This says that those people must be given credit for what they are doing, take pride in it and do it well. And when it says protect those who use it, it implies that in fact what we know to be true was true, and that is that the EO Program just as well may not have been there when it came to matters of sexual harassment because it did not do its job. According to this report, women did not feel that they could come and report the sexual harassment at all. That is a comment on a justice system that no one ever wants to hear. The report says that a command climate assessment down to company size units, at least annually, should take place. If that had taken place, if there had been annual assessments at the company level, then it seems to me sexual harassment, which included criminal conduct, could have been found out. Unless one is willing to go down to that level, of course one is not going to find out about sexual misconduct. People do not come out, salute, and then engage in sexual harassment. We do not think that there needs to be a witch-hunt, but one can uncover these matters if we do our job, and I congratulate the Army on this report. We will be looking to see if they carry out the report with the strength that its language implies.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the Asbury United Methodist Church, celebrating 161 years in the Washington, DC community, is conducting its 11th annual homecoming September 23 through 28, 1997. Asbury's extraordinary history and contributions warrant praise and honor from this body and I ask that you join me in rendering that honor today. Asbury United Methodist Church was organized in 1836 when a group led by Eli Nugent left the Foundry Methodist Church to form its own congregation. The first Asbury Church was a white frame building on the same site as the current Asbury Church edifice. Mr. Speaker, Asbury's growth and history are intricately woven with that of African-American history. The decade of the 1860's brought civil war. Asbury opened its doors to provide space for classrooms for the fleeing and newly freed slaves. Operated under the auspices of various freedmen's aid societies, schools and classes helped provide the basic education needed if former slaves were to survive emancipation. These programs continued through the early 1870's. Asbury's leadership remained in the hands of whites until the time of the emancipation. The Washington Annual Conference was founded in 1864. Asbury's role and leadership as a black congregation was firmly established with the appointment of the first black pastor, Rev. James Harper. Asbury experienced its greatest growth during the Reconstruction era. New organizations and programs were added and by the 1880's the Sunday school and choir received frequent mention in the press. This growth was accompanied by both missionary efforts and doctrinal disputes which led to the formation of other congregations that separated from the main body. These were Wesley African Methodist Episcopal Zion in 1847, Simpson Methodist Episcopal in 1875, and Peoples Congregational in 1891. Mr. Speaker, with the dynamic leadership of ministers, Rev. J.W.E. Bowen, Rev. I.L. Thomas, and Rev. Matthew Clair, Sr., Asbury added new programs, expanded its services, and built a new edifice. By 1915, with a membership of over 1,000 the structure built in 1866 could no longer contain the church body. Under the leadership of Reverend Clair, the old building was replaced with a two story structure of Gothic design. By the early decades of the 20th century, with its emphasis on social justice, enlightened efforts on behalf of the race and a range of programs for the education and social improvements of its youth, Asbury was attracting Washington, DC's most prominent citizens. The press described it as the ``National Church of Negro Modernism.'' Mr. Speaker, the heritage and traditions that shaped Asbury's illustrious history continue to inspire its current membership. Asbury has established programs for the hungry from the soup kitchen of the 1930's to its food pantry in the 1980's. Its activities for transients and the homeless includes regularly scheduled breakfast and an outreach center which distributes clothing and personal items. It has operated the Asbury Federal Credit Union since the 1950's and the educational building, which houses the Child Development Center, was completed in 1973. Asbury Dwellings contains 147 apartments for senior citizens and handicapped individuals. The church once operated community centers in Washington, DC and supported a church and school in Sierra Leone, West Africa. Asbury now provides support to Africa University in Zimbabwe and to TransAfrica. Asbury was placed in the DC Inventory of Historic Sites in 1984 and was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on November 1, 1986. During its 150th anniversary, an endowment was established to support programs in education, outreach, history, and heritage. A history center was established to collect, preserve and disseminate Asbury's history. Mr. Speaker, the leadership of pastors such as Bishop Matthew W. Clair and the Reverends Robert Moten Williams, James D. Foy, Frank L. Williams, and Joshua Hutchins and the commitment of the membership are very much in evidence today. This legacy continues under Asbury's present senior minister, Dr. Eugene Matthews who was appointed in 1992. Asbury's members now number 1,700 and routinely extends itself into the community-at-large. The church supports the programs of the Washington Interfaith Network [WIN] and the Holy Boldness activities envisioned by Bishop Felton E. May of the Baltimore-Washington Conference. Asbury is also a leader in the United Methodist community with its emphasis on Discipleship Bible Study, Convenant Discipleship, and class leader programs. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this body join me in saluting the Asbury United Methodist Church on the occasion of its 11th annual homecoming, ``Nurturing, Outreaching and Witnessing Into the Twenty First Century.'' I am proud to recount Asbury's rich history and to emphasize its role in this community since its inception in the 1800's.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will establish a commemorative coin for the African-American soldiers that fought in the Civil War. Several years ago, the release of the movie ``Glory'' brought national attention to the role played by African- American soldiers during the Civil War. This movie told the story of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment which distinguished itself at the historic battle of Fort Wagner in July 1863. These soldiers of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment and those African-Americans who served with the Union Army did so as volunteers. At first they were barred from combat and made to contribute only as members of service and labor battalions. The number of African-American troops that were in the Union Army was larger than the entire Confederate Army in the final months of war. Ultimately, their determination, courage, and love for their country and for the cause of freedom, enabled them to transcend this barrier. the 185,000 African-American troops who served in the Civil War never received the recogniation they deserved for fighting so bravely for our country. Following the end of the Civil War, The Grand Army of the Republic paraded 200,000 Union soldiers for 2 days down Pennsylvania Avenue in the District of Columbia, but not one of the units representing the African-American soldiers was invited to attend the celebration. They never received a thank you for their service. Not only is it fitting for the memorial in their honor to be located in our Nation's Capital, but they too deserve a commemorative coin to memorialize their sacrifice to our country. This coin would be of no net cost to the Government and it is for an outstanding cause. It is my hope that this legislation serves as a reminder of the contribution that these brave men gave for this country.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Riggs-Roemer amendment. I rise in appreciation that these two Members on opposite sides of the aisle have adopted a bipartisan approach to perhaps the most important issue facing our country at this time. At a time when, on education matters, we are fighting over tests and fighting over vouchers, two Members have anchored us where we all are. They deserve our support and they deserve our appreciation. They have my particular support because the divisive fight over vouchers has caused unnecessary splits in people who really want the same thing. There is a constitutional issue raised there. There is the fight over diversion of public money. Here is the kind of compromise that can get everybody working together. In the District last year, when there was a task force appointed by the Speaker to work on school issues for the District, and Representative Steve Gunderson, who has now left the Congress, found that there had been a referendum in the District against vouchers. He looked for an alternative that would accomplish the same thing, and worked with us to get a charter provision in the D.C. appropriation. Now we see this issue coming alive all over the country. Those who support vouchers tell us existing schools need competition. They could not be more right. Public schools need competition, but I have to tell the Members, they have been getting competition from church schools and from private schools forever. There were those schools there before there were public schools, and they have done nothing to, in fact, improve public schools. The reason is, public schools need to see a public school doing better than they are doing. That is what a charter school is; it is a public school that is allowed to fly by its own light. If they see children, just like the children in the public school, going to school on public money, using innovation, you then have real competition. We do not have it from the wonderful parochial schools in my district now. We do not have it from the private schools in my district now. But I can tell the Members, out of the side of their eye, our public schools look at charter schools that are doing better, getting better test scores, and getting better involvement of parents. The private schools have been there all along. Charter schools are giving a big push to public schools. In my district, we cannot keep up with the number who want public schools. One hundred million dollars will not begin to do it nationwide. Why should this money be put here? Because there is a market. The market out there in the country is saying: We want these schools, and we ought to respond to that market. Mr. Chairman, if we want innovation, that is where the innovation is. Vouchers are stuck in the courts and are going to be stuck there for a long time, until the Supreme Court tells us there is a violation of church and State. Meanwhile, all energy, for example in the District of Columbia, is going into public schools, and well it might. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Members, and there are so many now, who are hosting D.C. students as interns in their offices. Many have stopped to tell me how helpful these students are. We want to keep the focus on these public schools; not only on their roofs, but what goes on in these schools. The District has been chosen out for a possible attachment to its appropriation, imposing a voucher provision on the District, after the District has already said in a public referendum that the District does not want vouchers. This issue held up our appropriation 2 years ago and almost took an insolvent District all the way down. Mr. Chairman, we know that a voucher provision will be filibustered in the Senate. What a waste of time and energy. Why cause this divisiveness among us on a question of overriding importance to us all, and that is education? Nobody would filibuster a charter school provision. The overwhelming majority of the public want us to find a quick, nondivisive way to improve their schools tomorrow, not after the Supreme Court tells us whether or not money can be given to a parochial school or a private school. And, above all, imposing vouchers on a helpless jurisdiction that is not fully represented here, nor in the Senate, is a shameful way. Mr. Chairman, if the majority thinks that they have a majority for vouchers on the District, then they have a majority for vouchers in this House. The majority should put their own bill forward, and not bully a smaller jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment and urge its passage.