Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation to designate the newly constructed Federal building located at 601 Fourth Street NW. in the District of Columbia as the ``Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington Field Office Memorial Building,'' in honor of five FBI agents who were killed in the line of duty while assigned to the Washington Field Office. The five agents are William H. Christian, Jr., Martha Dixon Martinez, Michael J. Miller, Anthony Palmisano, and Edwin R. Woodriffe. Only 46 FBI agents have been killed in the line of duty since the agency was established in 1908. Yet these five agents were all killed in a period of 16 years. Moreover, the FBI has had a particularly close and useful relationship to crime fighting in the District of Columbia and this region. For years, the professionalism and dedication of FBI agents and other personnel of the Bureau have been made available to the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Police Department. For the residents and law enforcement officers of the District, it is our honor to dedicate this new headquarters to agents who were so dedicated to us and to law enforcement. It is most appropriate to dedicate this new building to these five dedicated agents. On May 29, 1995, Special Agent William H. Christian, Jr., was murdered in his car by Ralph McClean while performing surveillance on him. McClean was suspected in a series of unprovoked attacks on officers of the Metropolitan Police Department which left several officers wounded and one dead. On November 22, 1994, Martha Dixon Martinez and Michael J. Miller were conducting official business at the homicide office of the Metropolitan Police Department headquarters. Without warning, Bennie Lawson entered the homicide office, pulled an automatic weapon from his coat, and began firing randomly. His shots killed Special Agents Martinez and Miller, as well as Metropolitan Police Department Detective Henry Daly. Agents Anthony Palmisano and Edwin R. Woodriffe were killed attempting to arrest a Lorton escapee, Billie Austin Bryant, on January 8, 1969. The agents had just entered an apartment building in southeast Washington when Bryant opened fire on them in a hallway. I am introducing this legislation to pay lasting tribute to the sacrifice of courageous agents who gave their lives in the line of duty. I am particularly pleased that all of the Washington, DC, regional members of Congress have become original cosponsors. Our legislation will remind all who pass through the new Washington Field Office Building of the high price that has been paid for the FBI's work in protecting the lives and safety of the residents of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, teenage sex is wrong. That is the message I carry to my district. I stand with those who have called for total abstinence. That is what I taught my children. I only wish that were the rule. I have to think beyond my own middle- class upbringing and paradigm, the values that I live by. I am forced every day, because of the people I represent, to think AIDS, think HIV, think STD's, think teen pregnancy. By the time many youngsters get to the title X clinic, they have already had a pregnancy. A third of them got there because they already thought they were pregnant. I am glad they got there in time. Most who come have been active for almost a year, sexually active for almost a year. We simply have to face the extraordinary, varied nature of family life today. Most families do not look like yours and mine. Increasingly they do not. In my district there are families that are deeply religious, and for whom sex before marriage is simply unimaginable. There are others for whom sex before marriage is the rule. The Istook amendment wants me to forget about the most troubled, the most vulnerable to pregnancy. Mr. Chairman, in my district, AIDS, which used to be characterized as a gay disease, is becoming a black disease. I cannot sit by and let that happen. Seventy-two percent of the reported cases in 1996 were of black people in my district, many of them teens. It is impossible to pretend today that families need only to get together and they can straighten this out. I wish, how I wish. There is no family life for many I represent, much less communication within a family. Dozens of organizations in the field understand this. That is why they oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to oppose it as well, and to vote with the Porter amendment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Smith amendment would work irreparable harm for women and children throughout the developing world. Gilman- Pelosi is a literal direct response to the concerns of antiabortion advocates. It is almost impossible to sustain a principled position against abortion, without supporting voluntary family planning as it appears in Gilman-Pelosi. Mr. Chairman, we must have one standard for family planning throughout the world. I would want the same standard there as I would want for myself and my constituents. Family planning is one of the great success stories in economic development. It is not in agriculture; it is not in trade. It is family planning which has been the essential key to economic development itself in the developing world. Denying family planning is like denying food to children, because that is exactly what happens when families in the developing world have more children than they can support. Gilman-Pelosi is the rational response that is consistent with the values of the American people who strongly support family planning.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come forward this evening to lead a special order in recognition of the life of Betty Shabazz. Betty Saunders was the adopted and only daughter of loving parents, who grew up in Detroit, MI. She died on June 24, 3 weeks after being burned over 80 percent of her body. Her grandson, Malcolm, has been convicted of the arson and has since been judged to have been mentally disturbed. I come forward this evening to speak of a woman who in a very real sense was two women. Betty Shabazz was her own woman, and inescapably and memorably, Betty Shabazz was the widow of a great man, Malcolm X. The two identities are inevitably related. Each side, gracious and strong, fed the other side of this remarkable woman. I want to begin by saying some words about Betty, and later on I want to say some words about Malcolm X, because many have no clear vision of who Malcolm became, and in honoring Betty, we inevitably honor this man who transformed himself. I knew Betty well. On one level she was simply a friend, one of the girls. On the level where she is remembered best, she of course was the widow of Malcolm X. But at the level that I find most remarkable, Betty Shabazz was all Betty, not Malcolm, because Betty, like Malcolm, redefined herself from the wife of a great man who was tragically assassinated, to herself, a self-made woman. There is, of course, Betty the mother. There is a kind of primacy that was attached to being Betty the mother. When you raise six girls, when your husband is struck down and assassinated before your very eyes, when you and four children are in the ballroom where that act occurs, you are inescapably, first and foremost, a mother. When you are pregnant with twins who are then later born, there is a very special primacy to being a mother. Yes, she went on to get her doctorate and to become an associate professor at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, NY, and ultimately to become an administrator in that college. This is the kind of transformation aspect of her life that, in many ways, is shades of Malcolm. Betty met Malcolm in New York, having come there to study nursing. She described the courtship as an old-fashioned courtship. I wish we had more of those today. Malcolm loved children, and he particularly loved his children. I must say that during their what turned out to be a short marriage, Betty was pregnant most of the time. Malcolm was assassinated on February 21st, 1965, with four of those six girls by her side. She threw herself onto the children when she heard the bullets, and then she ran to Malcolm, by which time he was already dead. How do you go forward after something like that? Unlike the two other civil rights widows, with whom she became friends, Betty was left without any protection. Myrlie Evers, the extraordinary wife of Medgar Evers, who has since become chair of the board of the NAACP, was left with the protection of our largest and oldest and best-known civil rights organization, the NAACP. Coretta Scott King, when Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, was left with the protection of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and, as it turned out, of much of the Nation, for whom King was recognized as a very special martyr and a very great man. But as for Betty, it was members of the Nation of Islam who were ultimately convicted of the assassination of her husband. She was left with no organizational protection. What did she do? She did what such women often do, only she did it in her way. She raised these girls, got more education, and went on and got a career. The country and the world did not hear much of Betty Shabazz during this period. I cannot imagine who could have heard much of Betty Shabazz, doing what she was doing during this period. She lived a very private life. She was particularly keen to protect these children, and, of course, she had to live and move forward. I had a forum at the Black Caucus Weekend last year where I invited Betty Shabazz, my old friend, to be one of the speakers, because it spoke to issues about which she had been identified. And this very gracious and remarkable woman was anything but self-assured about coming to this forum and speaking at this forum with women whom she regarded as more practiced at such pursuits. I remember that Betty said when she finally got herself so that she could see the movie Malcolm X that the young actress who portrayed her was far more self-assured than Betty felt she was during this period. There was a kind of inner assurance and inner conviction, an inner self-esteem that came out during the forum, and that was part of the very essence of Betty Shabazz. Ultimately, in addition to her professional stature, Betty was to become a human rights advocate of very special stature. I want to say something further about her husband, the man who transformed himself from a petty criminal to a major league thug to a black Muslim and finally to an orthodox Sunni Muslim who embraced universal brotherhood, because I think we ought to be clear who Malcolm became. There is lack of clarity on that in this country, because only then can we understand Betty Shabazz. But before I go on, I see that I have been joined by my good colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. John Lewis]. It is very fitting that John should come forward first, for he and I worked together in the very same civil rights movement for which the civil rights martyrs became so well-known and admired in this country, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Medgar Evers. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. John Lewis].

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, those were very special words, and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], my wonderful colleague, for coming forward to make them here this evening. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to be joined by another wonderful friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Millender-McDonald].

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for those remarkable remarks. This special order would not have been the same without her. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I simply want to thank not only the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus but the other Members and friends who came forward at a time when many of us are thinking through ways to transform ourselves into better people, to transform our country into a better place, and when I, I must say, Mr. Speaker, am trying to think of a way to transform my own city into a united city that will regain its own human rights and that will reform its own agencies at such a time I find great inspiration in the life and work of Malcolm X and in the life and work of Betty Shabazz.

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for those remarkable words about Betty Shabazz. If I had to bet money, I would have been willing to do so that the next speaker would have to come to the floor this evening. It is my very special pleasure to recognize at this time the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], who is at the same time the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for those very warm and wonderful words of tribute to Betty Shabazz. There may, indeed, be other Members coming to the floor, and while I await them, I think I would like to deepen my own remarks, because we speak of Betty Shabazz, a woman who carved out her own identity in a most memorable way. And yet we also say and remember that this was the widow of Malcolm X. Because of confusion concerning who Malcolm X was and, therefore, in a great and important sense who Betty Shabazz was, I feel an obligation to say a word about the legacy of Malcolm X that Betty Shabazz carried with such grace. It is according to what generation we live in and what we saw as to who we may understand Malcolm X to have been. It was his very capacity to transform himself that leaves me wondering when I hear people say Malcolm X, which Malcolm are they talking about? Are they talking about the Malcolm who transformed his life and who in so doing should be an inspiration to us all that we can all become something else, something better, something different? It takes enormous will to be able to say at the end of 5 years, I am something different from who I was 5 years ago, because I have made myself something different. If we think about the extraordinary transformation of Malcolm X, then I think there will be a greater capacity for us to imagine the transformation of our country and the transformation of many in our country who seem stuck where they are. Let me say to you that Betty transformed herself, and in a real sense, when you see a great man like Malcolm, you ought to understand that a great man does not choose a little woman. He chose a woman who also was capable of transforming herself. I have to say, if I was left in this world with four babies and two more I was about to bear, I am not sure I could have transformed myself. It would have been doing good just to hold on. This is a woman who said, hey, I, too, can make myself what I need to be. And what a model she had for self-transformation. Make no mistake about who Malcolm X was before we met him, Malcolm Little, the petty criminal who became the serious felon and who, while in prison, became converted by the Black Muslims and finally left them. Each and every time Malcolm X had to say to himself something that is very hard to say, who am I? Is this who I want to be? Can I be something else? I ask you to consider, how many people do you know who have become something truly different from who they once were? How many people do you know who have improved themselves? How many people do you know who live by principle so that they are willing to risk their very lives for principle? When Malcolm X converted, he became an orthodox Sunni Muslim and so did Betty Shabazz. He broke with the Nation on matters of principle at the risk of his life. He came to accept universal principles of human rights, brotherhood and sisterhood. I do not always know who we are remembering when we remember Malcolm X. The Malcolm X on the T-shirt, which Malcolm X is that brother? Yes, it will be the Malcolm X of black nationalism. I think he would have continued to stand for that, but that sense of nationalism would have been for him the motivating force to continue to bring justice to his people, for he had also embraced orthodox Sunni Muslim religion and spoke openly and often of universal principles of brotherhood. This is a man who learned, was willing to say when he thought he had been wrong, and to move on. I have to tell you, I ask you, even among great men or women to find me examples like that. Here is a great man, Martin Luther King. But he was born into the tradition that he came to represent and he represented the best of that tradition. He was born into a family of Baptist ministers which led him to get a wonderful education which led him to study philosophy. All of this was growing into something. That is very different from becoming somebody different, from leaving behind somebody who you were, recognizing and taking responsibility to say that was the wrong person, that is not who I want to be, and becoming somebody else. Very few of us can become somebody else while growing, as a matter of principle. That is what Malcolm El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz did, and when you wear those T-shirts, do understand that you are not wearing T- shirts of the man who spoke of white devils because Malcolm, who became a Sunni Muslim, said that is not who I am anymore. I am Malcolm El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz who embraces the notion that we must become one people. That is who he was, and I have had many a conversation with Betty Shabazz about that Malcolm. This was the last and the final Malcolm, and that is the Malcolm who deserves our greatest respect. That is the Malcolm whom history will remember now, not only as a revered leader of my own black community but as a far more universal figure, standing for universal principles and standing for the strength of character to change who he was. Oh, do I wish I could put aside some of my habits and tomorrow wake up and say, Eleanor, that part of Eleanor is not anymore, I can say with assurance that there is a new Eleanor here. That kind of strength of character I find simply awesome. I have to tell you that at the memorial service that I attended for Betty Shabazz, I found that legacy living and I found that legacy of principle living in Attalah, the eldest daughter, the eloquent Attalah. This girl has Malcolm in her. And let me indicate how and why. There came a point in the service, to show you how universal a figure Malcolm has become, Governor Pataki was there, Mayor Giuliani was there, all of the prominent politicians of New York were there. Mayor Koch was there. He talked about a street, a grand avenue named for Malcolm. There came a point in the service when they recognized the politicians in the audience and they would stand up and say something or at least be recognized. When they recognized Mayor Giuliani, there was some boos in the church. At that point, others in the church began to clap so as to drown out the boos, and it was all over. When it came time for the daughters to come forward, all six of them, it was only one who spoke for them, the eldest. I know about that obligation; I am the eldest of three daughters. Attalah stepped forward, extemporaneously to speak for the remaining family. And she obviously had thought about what she was going to say. And the question of the boos, I can tell you, had been dealt with. But this girl had Malcolm's principle in her. She felt the necessity to say that that had been wrong. I was never so impressed in my life. She did not have to get in that. She did not have to take the chance that there were some in the audience who thought maybe you should boo Giuliani and so you might turn them off. She did not have to get in it. She got in it. As an aside, she said, and by the way, it is wrong in this service to boo the mayor or anyone else. She had to say it. It was a matter of principle for her. Teach girl, I thought. That is what Malcolm would have done. Malcolm would have said, hey, silence is not a moral act. The moral act is to say, that was wrong and I am going to take the consequences. I am going to stand up and say it. That is Malcolm. That was Attalah. That legacy is in her. It was in her with great eloquence. This is family I revere for the way in which their values have been spread across their family. These values feed on one another. I don't know where they come from. I cannot say Attalah got this from Malcolm. She was such a little girl. I do not know that Betty got her sense of universal brotherhood from the final Malcolm. I do not know that. All I know is that in families those things just come together and that is what being a family is all about. I hope we all regard ourselves as part of that family as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson- Lee], another very good Member of this body.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] for his eloquent words concerning Betty Shabazz. I see that I have been joined by other Members, and I am pleased to recognize at this time the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], who will now speak to us, and I am pleased to receive her words at this time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her memorable words. I want to say how pleased I am to be joined at this time by the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on my special order in recognition of the life of Betty Shabazz to be given today.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the State Reciprocity in Professional Boxing Act of 1997, a bill that ensures that professional boxers under suspension in any State will not be able to fight in a professional bout anywhere else in the United States. The bill is intended to close a loophole in the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, made compellingly visible by the disgraceful performance of Mike Tyson at the Las Vegas fight on June 28, 1997. As we learned from our consideration of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, professional boxing is not only a brutal sport whose purpose is to cause serious physical harm to its participants; it has attracted corruption and organized crime influence for many years. Members who were responsible for shepherding last year's legislation, in particular Congressman Michael Oxley, Senator John McCain, and former Congressman Pat Williams, successfully addressed many of the most pressing problems of the sport. The country is particularly indebted to the pathbreaking work by the Members of the House and the Senate who took the leadership in achieving the first comprehensive Federal legislation to protect the welfare of professional boxers and provide for appropriate oversight of the professional boxing industry. I am introducing this legislation today because of the recent heavyweight match between Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield in Las Vegas that stunned the world. Mr. Tyson viciously, deliberately, and inexplicably bit Mr. Holyfield's ear twice, during the third round of their heavyweight championship bout. On the second bite, Mr. Tyson bit off a part of the ear itself. Upon review of Mr. Tyson's actions, the Nevada State Athletic Commission unanimously disciplined him by revoking his boxing license for a 1-year period and fining him the maximum amount, the sum of $3 million on July 8. Other States, however, are not required to honor Nevada's action. Under our legislation passed by the 104th Congress, States are required to recognize another State's decision to suspend a boxer only if the reasons for the suspension relate to a boxer's medical condition, poor boxing skills, failure of a drug test, or falsification of information. Thus, today, any other State may host a boxing match featuring Mr. Tyson prior to the expiration of his suspension if the State notifies and consults with Nevada Athletic Commission prior to granting approval. Mr. Tyson could conceivably fight in a boxing match somewhere else in the U.S. some time before his suspension in Nevada expires. The legislation which I introduce today would unequivocally foreclose this possibility. I am proposing that in addition to the existing requirements of the Professional Boxing Safety Act, States must ensure that no boxer is permitted to box while under suspension by any other State due to the boxer's commission of a malicious foul or infraction. A malicious foul or infraction is defined to include intentionally biting any part of an opponent's body or extremities. It also encompasses some of the more common dirty tricks used by boxers, such as intentionally headbutting or hitting below the belt. Most Americans would be appalled if they knew that Mike Tyson could conceivably fight somewhere outside Nevada within the next year. Many of us cannot imagine this possibility, but the fight game and its promoters are known for unacceptable and brazen actions. The legislation that I propose today ensures that no boxer will be allowed to fight in the ring after any State has imposed a disciplinary suspension on the boxer to punish the boxer's misconduct during a fight. It does so by building upon the comprehensive framework that Congress, with overwhelming bipartisan support, has already wisely enacted.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Kapitol Klowns was organized 20 years ago, to perform within the greater D.C. area to provide wholesome family entertainment for all to enjoy. This club educates and encourages its members to the highest ideals in the art of clowning. This year, during International Clown Week, August 1-7 the Kapitol Klown Alley will be competing for the Clowns of America Award. The Charlie Award--Clowns Have A Real Love In Everyone--is an award that commemorates the alley that has the most active participating members during International Clown Week. Mr. Speaker, the members of the Kapitol Klown Alley range from 5 to 79 years of age and help raise money for humanitarian causes. Among their humanitarian deeds, they served the community by participating in the 52d and 53d Presidential Inaugurations of the 20th century. They also provided financial support to The Children's Inn at NIH, an organization that meets the medical needs of children who experience serious and life threatening illnesses. Mr. Speaker, the Kapitol Klown Alley has contributed to the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area in other capacities such as the International Furnishings and Design Associates [IFDA] Christmas Party sponsored by the Kennedy Institute. Those individuals that reside at the Kennedy Institute are children who do not have family or live in disadvantaged homes. Last, but not least, the Kapitol Klowns supported the United States Navy Band by participating in the annual Children's ``Lollipops'' concert. Mr. Speaker, these humanitarian deeds, among many others, exemplify that the Kapitol Klowns indeed have a real love for everyone. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this body join me in acknowledging the public and human service commitment of the Kapitol Klown Alley.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their generosity. I do not think we have to look far to see the crying need for the gentleman's amendment. I especially appreciate that in his role as chairman of the D.C. committee he has looked far and wide and always dealt with the District in a bipartisan manner. I would like to make a suggestion to the ranking member because I can understand his concern as well. As to these computers in the District of Columbia, the cost of shipping will probably be more than the computers would be worth, but there are Federal agencies in all the large cities; and it seems to me the same kind of situation could be worked out with the Federal agencies in cities like New York who would also have, it seems to me, excess technology equipment of this kind. It said that the District needs a billion dollars in school repairs. In that respect, it is clear that we will not get to computers for an awfully long time. Bell Atlantic is wiring the schools of the District free. That will be done by April. General Becton in his budget this year asked for $20 million for technology, and of course it had to be cut. The District came into compliance a year ahead of time, into balance a year ahead of time in order to qualify for the President's plan to relieve it of some State functions. While the District is getting its act together, I do not think that the children should suffer. The Speaker has said that if we put a lap- top in the lap of every kid in the city, we would see changes, if not overnight, then very soon. The gentleman from Virginia is clearly trying to get us close to that by at least putting a computer in every school. I thank him for it, and I urge this amendment be adopted.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Mink amendment because the distinction the amendment makes is vital. It is a distinction that this body makes all the time in favor of the most vulnerable and the least likely to take advantage of Federal fund opportunities. These are the women who are most likely to have been tracked into low-wage jobs. We can untrack them and undo that discrimination by allotting a very small portion of these funds for them. Why go to that trouble? Why not use what is already in the bill? The reason is that there is no question but that these funds, like most Federal funds, are likely to go disproportionately to the best-educated and the most conscious; those who understand their rights and the availability of funds. Those happen not to be displaced homemakers, single pregnant women, or single parents. This body has a vested interest in the Mink amendment because these are the women most likely to cost the government the most, because these are the women most likely to be dependent and the women least armed with education and experience. We make distinctions of this kind all the time, and ought to continue to make them. Constantly, Mr. Chairman, I see Federal opportunities getting to people who would get them anyway. We need to make it impossible to spend a certain amount of this money, this small amount, except for the most vulnerable. Nothing guarantees that except the Mink amendment. What it means is that the funders, the States and cities, are going to have to do outreach rather than simply report to us that they tried to do outreach. The Mink amendment encompasses a long, bipartisan tradition. This is not the year to break that tradition. I thank the gentlewoman for indeed striving to continue this important tradition.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] for their leadership on the floor on this bill, and I particularly thank the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for their overall leadership in this important bill. I know I speak for the Women's Caucus, which I cochair, when I embrace this bill in their behalf. The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act has two purposes as far as I am concerned. The very fact of the stamp will help to raise the consciousness of women to go for a mammogram, and the voluntary funding mechanism is most important. We have already gotten some considerable distance on breast cancer simply by raising the consciousness of women to go and get a mammogram. We now see rates falling, including rates for African-American women which were rising steadily before. But, Mr. Speaker, we have got to move on to the next important plateaus, and those are prevention and research. We have a whole set of notions about how we may go at prevention, but none of them has been proven. We are told about lifestyle and environmental factors. We are told to do aerobics. We are told that diet has an effect, that alcohol consumption, that obesity, that chemical hazards and radiation have an effect, but nobody knows because the research is yet to be done. With this research at the National Institutes of Health and in the Department of Defense, we would look to such areas as the contribution to breast cancer made by the environment, by hormones, by genes. We would look at areas still to be uncovered, such as the role of accessibility and delivery of medical care to underserved populations. We would look at gene therapy and vaccines and chemotherapeutics. We would look at the susceptibility of various groups of women and why. Until we do that, we will not be able to conquer this disease. We have gone very far with cervical cancer because of research. We need to go the rest of the distance, and this stamp will make that possible.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the Mink amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is no time to turn tail and run after 13 years of bipartisan support for special attention to the most vulnerable women in America on vocational education opportunities. That is not only because we are in the throes now finally of welfare reform, but because vocational training is where women have been most shortchanged and where there has been the most discrimination. Vocational training has been a major element in discrimination against women in the workplace. It is only fair to specially target some of our funds toward these most vulnerable of women, displaced homemakers, single parents, single pregnant women. These are the women most in need. These are the women most likely to be trapped into discriminatory job opportunities. These are the women most likely to be overlooked. This amendment assures that there will be special outreach to these women, and if there is not special outreach, then for many of them it simply will not happen. We will not need the sanctions if we get the outreach. We will not get the outreach without this amendment. In many ways I regard this amendment as akin to a nondiscrimination provision. Where we have had the breakthroughs for women is in professional jobs like law and medicine and accounting and business. In jobs where women can make as much or more money as a welder or machinist is where we need to put our attention and where we need to do the most outreach. The call on vocational training funds will be enormous. These funds are going to go to the most enlightened and the most educated. Those are not the women covered by this amendment. The remedy for poverty, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. It is a job. But it is not every job. As those seeking to get off welfare now understand, it is not most jobs for which most of the most vulnerable women have the training. I approach this in many ways as a nondiscrimination provision. Government money has been used to reinforce existing job patterns. What we do with this amendment is to use government money to get us out of those patterns. Remember, this amendment ought to be seen as the counterpart to the horrendous budget cuts that these women themselves have received, 97 percent of the people on AFDC are women and children. They have $53 billion in cuts; 85 percent of the people on Medicaid are women and children. They have $72 billion in cuts. And it goes on and on that way. The way to make sure that these cuts do not harm these single mothers, these displaced homemakers, and these single pregnant women is to give them the best opportunities for jobs. For them, the best opportunities are in vocational training. If we take away this opportunity after so many years of bipartisan support, we undermine what we have been trying to do.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) be removed as a cosponsor of my bill, H.R. 886.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, students from Cardozo Senior High School gave an outstanding performance in the national finals competition ``We the People . . . The Citizens and the Constitution National Academic Program'' which is administered by the Center for Civic Education. These talented young students competed against 50 other classes from throughout the Nation and demonstrated a working knowledge of the fundamental ideas and values of the American constitutional government. The national finals competition simulated a congressional hearing where students testified as constitutional experts before a panel of judges. I want to encourage these promising Cardozo Senior High School constitutional scholars Davida Baldwin, Ta Hoang, Andrea Jones. Thomas Richardson, Suleimon Shifaw, Tiffany Simms, Antoinette Stephenson, Zerai Kifle, Quana Teleferro, Levi Ruffin, Veronica Nguyen, and Toan Vu. I want to also salute Mr. Bruce Pendleton for utilizing strong learning patterns in teaching American Government. I ask that this body join me in congratulating these young people, Mr. Bruce Pendleton, and the District of Columbia Coordinator, Sharon Yohannes-Bocar on this worthy accomplishment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this coming Thursday I will lead a special order on the life of Dr. Betty Shabazz. Her tragic death from burns to her body cannot overwhelm her triumphant life. Betty's life teaches that it is possible to rise against all the odds. She became a devoted mother and grandmother and a distinguished educator and bearer of the legacy of a great man. Like her husband, Malcolm X, Betty Shabazz was not defeated by life's cruel terms but used them to become a better, deeper, stronger person. Malcolm left behind racial bitterness and embraced orthodox Islam and universal human rights. Like Malcolm X, Betty Shabazz took the best of her old life and created a new reality, of devotion to family, educational excellence, and human rights. Please join me in celebrating the life of Betty Shabazz this Thursday in a special order.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Congress will adjourn for recess at the end of this week. By the time we return on July 10, beer and wine will have taken a toll in human life and injury, especially among teens and other young people, because these alcoholic beverages are less costly and have become a virtual part of the holiday itself. By blinking at beer and wine through the Tax Code, Congress will be actively complicit in this carnage. That is why today I introduce the Alcohol Tax Equalization Act of 1997, a bill that would increase the taxes on beer and wine so that they are taxed according to their alcohol content at the same level as hard liquor. The bill creates a substance abuse prevention trust fund for alcohol prevention programs. The kinds of programs that work include cross- peer mentoring by high school students about alcohol and drug abuse and traffic safety; teen courts to decide appropriate penalties for other teens who abuse alcohol; community-based prevention programs for pregnant women and highrisk populations; and 100 percent drug and alcohol-free clubs. The programs would be implemented through grants from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Ask Congress to explain why a can of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, and a shot of hard liquor which have the same alcohol content, are not taxed equally. The answer is plain--the beer and wine industries want it that way. Expect them to fight to preserve the enormous tax break they enjoy compared to their counterparts in the distilled liquor industry. The Senate Finance Committee has just proposed substantially raising the taxes on cigarettes to discourage teenage smoking. The very same reasoning applies to beer and wine. Minors consume more than 1 billion beers each year. Teens are price sensitive because they have less disposable income. By taxing beer and wine substantially less than liquor, we bring the price down and encourage teens to make these the drinks of choice. Because the Federal excise taxes on liquor are substantially higher than taxes on beer, Congress in sending the message to teens that these drinks are OK and are not as dangerous and addictive. Congress therefore bears a heavy part of the responsibility for the fact that alcohol abuse is the leading cause of death among teenagers and young adults. Here in the District where there are so many low income and teen drinkers, taxing beer and wine fairly would be an important step in reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities, accidents and disease. The need here is urgent. The District of Columbia death rate from alcohol is almost three times the rate in Maryland and Virginia--14.4 in the District, compared with 5.8 in Maryland, and 5.7 in Virginia (1994). I am pleased that the District is 1 of 39 States that has enacted impaired driving legislation. The bill I introduce today will take, District of Columbia and the entire country closer to the national goal of reducing alcohol-related fatalities to no more than 11,000 by 2005. Beer is what America, and especially young, the America, drinks. In 1995, 60.3 percent of all alcohol sold was beer and 11.4 percent was wine. Only 28.4 percent was hard liquor. America is getting drunk on beer and wine. It is time for the taxes on beer and wine to reflect their alcohol content. A can of beer, a 5 ounce glass of wine, a wine cooler, and a shot of vodka are the same thing. In America today, parents rarely give permission to teens to drink, but Congress does. It is time we withdrew that permission. This bill does just that.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Col. David G. Harrington, a resident of the District of Columbia, on his retirement and to thank him for his 29 years of dedicated service to the U.S. Air Force. Colonel Harrington joined the Air Force on July 25, 1968, and has served at several locations throughout the United States and Europe. His most recent experience has been in human resources. He has attained the position of chief of the education and training division at headquarters, U.S. Air Force. Colonel Harrington has devoted his 29-year career to helping the men and women of the U.S. Air Force through the development of systematic policies that improve their personal and professional readiness to defend the United States and its allies. The colonel has received many awards and decorations for outstanding service during his career. Upon the completion of such exemplary service to our Nation, I commend Colonel Harrington and wish him well in the future.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today is the 25th anniversary of a landmark civil rights statute. Title 9 is singularly responsible for remarkable progress in eliminating sex discrimination from athletic and sports programs in schools and colleges. Two years before title 9's effective date, an estimated 50,000 men, but only 50 women, were attending college on athletic scholarships. Today, women account for $137 million in Division I athletic scholarships but men get $407 million. Way to go; but a long way to go, too. Title 9 requires equal allocation between male and female athletes. There are very good reasons for insisting upon strict enforcement, and many of them have little to do with athletics. Girls who participate in sports are more likely to graduate from high school and from college and have less depression. Surely these are reasons enough to restore enforcement funds for States that Congress ripped out of title 9 last year. For now, only two cheers for title 9, with more to come.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Crime Stoppers Club of D.C., a wonderful 30-year old organization in the District that teaches youth in D.C. to ``Stop crime by not committing crime.'' Since it began this valuable work, almost 25,000 boys and girls have become members and taken the Crime Stoppers pledge: ``We, the Crime Stoppers of D.C., pledge to obey all laws, respect police officers and all other citizens.'' Recently this club celebrated its 30-year history at a special proclamation ceremony at Eastern High School in D.C. where they delivered speeches and celebrated living their lives crime-free. These youth have every reason to celebrate and to be honored by the community. They are contributing to the significant reduction we are seeing in crime in the District. Most important, the commitment of these youth to grow into adulthood without the burden and stigma of a police record shows how bright and successful their futures can be. Crime and its results have destroyed the lives of many children in many communities. How fortunate District residents are that this grassroots club of great effectiveness continues its work and that it is successful in encouraging children to stop crime and to become tomorrow's law-abiding citizens. The founder of this club, Margie Wilbur, is the driving force behind this thriving club whose spirit and commitment has made it so effective in reaching youth in D.C. A retired Federal employee, Ms. Wilbur deserves much praise for actively nurturing this club and keeping it alive throughout the years, sometimes with her own funds. It is my particular pleasure and honor to congratulate and salute the present members of the Crime Stopper's Club and the 25,000 boys and girls whose lives have been changed by its 30-year presence in Washington DC. You look forward to a future full of achievement and opportunity.