Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in regard to the colloquy between Mr. Lightfoot and Mr. Tom Coburn concerning the relocation of the Federal Communications Commission into the Portals Building, in Washington DC, and enter into the Record a letter from the Administrator of General Services Administration about this issue. In addition to summarizing the court proceedings which ruled that GSA reinstate the space procurement and proceed with the planned move for the FCC into the Portals, the Administrator of GSA details the costs associated with any delay in the move. Administrator, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, October 7, 1996. Hon. Robert Kerrey, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kerrey: I am writing to express my most serious concerns regarding the delay of the consolidation of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the Portals Complex in Washington, DC. This move was the subject of colloquies on the floors of the House and Senate on September 28, 1996, and September 30, 1996, respectively. Because I do not believe the colloquies reflected critical pertinent information, I would like to request that this letter be added to the Record. The Court of Federal Claims issued a specific ruling on this matter that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Furthermore, a delay of the FCC's relocation will cost the Government over $19 million annually in rental costs. It is in the best interest of the Federal Government to consolidate the FCC at the Portals complex for the following reasons: 1. The Federal courts instructed the General Services Administration (GSA) to award a lease at the Portals for the FCC, and GSA has complied with their instructions. 2. GSA signed a 20-year firm-term lease with Portals to consolidate the FCC headquarters. If the FCC is not relocated to Portals, it will cost the Federal Government more than $19 million annually for each year that the space remains vacant, with no resulting benefits. 3. The FCC is currently located in seven locations in Washington, DC. This has resulted in increased operating costs. Relocation to a consolidated site will eliminate this costly and undesirable condition. 4. The FCC's current space requirements are consistent with their space in the Portals Complex. 5. The Federal Government will pay $31.99 per rentable square foot (rsf) ($38.47 per occupiable square foot (osf)) for the FCC lease consolidation. This is below the amount authorized by the Congress ($32.30 per rsf). In addition, this is at the low end of the rental range in Washington, DC, which is $29 to $40 per rsf.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Note: GSA utilizes two space measurements in lease prospectuses, occupiable and rentable square feet, (osf) and (rsf), respectively. OSF is a national standard for GSA, and is the space which is available for use by an agencies personnel or furnishings excluding hallways, restrooms, and vertical penetrations such as elevators and stairwells. RSF is usually a larger area than osf, and is calculated by measuring from inside wall to inside wall excluding any vertical penetrations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Both the House and Senate Public Works Committees authorized the consolidation of the FCC headquarters, indicating congressional support for the project. Since 1987, the General Services Administration (GSA) has attempted to consolidate the FCC headquarters from dispersed locations in Washington, DC. On July 9, 1987, GSA submitted a lease prospectus totaling 260,416 osf for the FCC headquarters. The prospectus was authorized by the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation on September 23, 1987. Subsequent to the approval of the lease prospectus, the FCC's space needs grew because of new programs such as the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992. As a result of this growth, GSA canceled the lease procurement on February 10, 1992. At the time of the cancellation, GSA had selected Parcel 49C Limited Partnership (Portals) as the successful offeror. The Parcel 49C Limited Partnership sued GSA because of the canceled lease procurement. On February 28, 1994, the Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of 49C Limited Partnership, and returned the lease procurement to the point prior to lease award. In response to GSA's argument that resolution was necessary to accommodate the FCC's space needs, the Federal Circuit ruled specifically that resolicitation was not in the public interest and would ``result in further, unnecessary expenditures of Government resources,'' and that the existing award could accommodate the FCC's prior and future space needs. GSA appealed the ruling, and on August 1, 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Court of Federal Claims ruling. On August 12, 1994, GSA awarded a lease to Parcel 49C for 260,416 osf, consistent with the fiscal year 1988 lease prospectus and in accordance with the court ruling. GSA negotiated a second lease reflecting the FCC's expanded requirement. This second lease would only be effective, following the approval of the Public Works Committees of the House and Senate. On September 23, 1994, GSA submitted a lease prospectus for 545,076 osf to meet the entire estimated FCC requirement. The House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, authorized 450,416 osf for the FCC headquarters on September 26, 1994, and October 10, 1995, respectively. Because of the unacceptable cost implications of not moving the FCC to the Portals, we are continuing to explore alternative methods of paying for the FCC's relocation costs. It may well be that we can reduce the costs of moving and of fitting out the Portals Complex, and we will work with the FCC to try to reduce those costs while making sure that the FCC can function effectively at the Portals. GSA will report back to the Subcommittee when the new Congress convenes. If you have any questions, please have a member of your staff contact Mr. David Bibb, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, on (202) 501-1100. Sincerely, David J. Barram, Acting Administrator.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I ask the House to join me in tribute to seven great African-American actresses who have taken their bows in many places. They deserve to take their bows in this chamber as well. These black actresses were pioneers who broke daunting barriers. They were able to do so only because their talents were so formidable that they were able to climb the high and stoney walls of racism. Had their skin been white, they would have climb even higher. In paying tribute to these black actresses, I give special honor to Cicely Tyson who brought me this suggestion and who, in my judgment, is the greatest living American actress. cicely tyson Cicely Tyson, an Emmy Award winner, is universally revered. As a child growing up in Harlem, Ms. Tyson always knew that there was a life for her beyond her own African-American community. How right she was. She was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in the movie ``Sounder,'' and received the Vernon Rice Award for her role in the off-Broadway production of ``The Blacks.'' This star of every medium within her craft continues to amaze us by the breadth and depth of the roles she can play with consummate skill and talent. She is one of a kind. butterfly mc queen Butterfly McQueen never got to show the breadth of her talent because only stereotyped roles were available to her in her day. She is best known for her role as Prissy in ``Gone With the Wind.'' Far less well known is her return to college at an age when many people are retiring. In 1975, I had the honor of speaking at her graduation from the City College of New York, when at the age of 64, she earned her degree in political science. This unusual accomplishment in her later years is a mark of the complex and multiple talents of Butterfly McQueen. ``I didn't mind being funny, but I didn't like being stupid,'' she once said. Stupid she was not. Butterfly McQueen was a wonderful actress and a life-long activist. She put her foot down, refusing to play more roles demeaning to blacks, even though that eventually ended her career. It did not end our memory of her talent or the great affection Americans will continue to have for her. dorothy dandridge While Butterfly McQueen was famous for her comic roles, Dorothy Dandridge was known for her roles as a leading lady in a period when African-Americans were not supposed to lead anything. Yet Ms. Dandridge was described as one of the five most beautiful women in the world. Her talent and smooth style helped break many barriers for blacks. She was the first black to sing in the world-famous Empire Room in New York City and the first black to be nominated for an Oscar. The nomination was for her role as Best Actress co-starring role with Harry Belafonte in ``Carmen Jones.'' She heated up the screen in this all-black production and adaptation of the opera ``Carmen.'' ``Porgy and Bess'' is another role that made her famous and demonstrated her sensual style. Dorothy Dandridge will be remembered for the formidable combination of her beauty and talent. lena horne Lena Horne was a contemporary of Dorothy Dandridge, but discrimination in Hollywood kept Ms. Horne from playing roles her talent merited and that critics said she was born to play. Many of her scenes were cut from movies before audiences ever saw them. However, no one will forget her performance of ``Stormy Weather'' in the 1943 movie by the same title. It became her theme song. Lena Horne continues to bring down the house whenever she appears. In the end, instead of a leading lady, she has become a legend. rosaland cash Despite her refusal to play stereotypical black roles, Rosaland Cash was an actress who had an extraordinary career on stage, television and the screen. Calling herself ``a one-lady movement,'' Ms. Cash spoke out against the color consciousness and bias of the entertainment industry. She starred in ``Melinda,'' ``The New Centurians,'' and Lonnie Elder's ``Ceremonies in Dark Old Men.'' Ms. Cash often played strong, out- spoken women. One of the most popular actresses of the 1970's, the magazine, ``The Guardian,'' said she typified the '70's slogan ``Black is Beautiful.'' Rosaland Cash was above all an artist of enormous powers. roxie roker A contemporary of Ms. Cash, Roxie Roker broke another color barrier when she played the wife in television's first interracial marriage on ``The Jeffersons.'' An alumna of Howard University, Ms. Roker's big break came with her role in ``The Blacks.'' She also co-hosted ``Inside Bedford Stuyvesant'' the first television show to come out of the black community. She will be remembered as a superb comic actress. madge sinclair Madge Sinclair showed how irrelevant color can be when she provided the voice for Queen Sarabi, the mate of King Mufasa, in the much heralded animated film ``The Lion King.'' Ms. Sinclair was the recipient of five Emmy nominations and won an Emmy in 1991. These African-American actresses were among the pioneers who broke through barriers for today's stars. Years after Butterfly McQueen's debut in ``Gone With the Wind,'' it remains a daunting challenge for African-American actresses to find roles today. We honor them here today as great American artists just as they have honored and graced their craft as well as our country. We hope that paying tribute to them we will encourage the American entertainment industry to live up to its potential for artistry and fairness by welcoming a greater number of black actresses to reach their potential.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this replacement bill contains an amendment which was meant to be incorporated into H.R. 3244, the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act of 1996. Only because of the rush to get H.R. 3244 in on April 15, 1996, income tax day, was it omitted from the bill. This amendment is not an unusual provision. As is often the case with a bill which strives for particular effects, this amendment provides a mechanism to measure those effects. The primary importance of this amendment is to provide for course corrections, if necessary. Because no bill of this kind has been attempted before, unintended consequences could arise and changes may be needed. The data the Treasury will provide will alert Congress of any need for changes or improvements in the bill based on actual experience.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of Members who have opposed on constitutional law and international treaty grounds the attachment to the Transportation appropriations bill of H.R. 1855, a bill which strips the District of Columbia courts of jurisdiction over the child custody case Morgan versus Foretich. In addition, I must oppose the bill on home rule grounds. This matter now comes on the floor encased in a conference report which cannot be amended. The Chair of the full Government Reform Committee and the Chair of the D.C. Subcommittee have obtained a waiver of the relevant point of order. They have thus cleared the way for a matter that I believe to be deeply unconstitutional and that badly transgresses all principles of self-government to come to the floor. In 1987, Elizabeth Morgan was held in jail for 2 years because she would not reveal the whereabouts of a child she said she believed had been sexually abused. In substantially less time than she had served, release of such a person is usually allowed or required. I was not a Member of Congress at that time. Apparently, largely because of the length of the incarceration, an act of Congress freed Ms. Morgan. No one is incarcerated; nor does the present matter have anything else in common with that situation, as is clear from remarks of Members from both parties, the majority of whom have spoken against this unprecedented trespass into the unique and exclusive realm of the judiciary. I believe that what has transpired here today, in any case, is a complete nullity that guarantees the continuation of an inflammatory domestic dispute that has made a mockery of the legal concept of the best interests of the child. The constitutional doubt surrounding this matter is so large that it does not merit unworthy precedent set in the House today. The adoption of this bill also puts the Congress on a collision course with international law. The New Zealand court that has jurisdiction over the child holds the child's passport and has ruled that she may not leave New Zealand. David Howman, a barrister, the guardian appointed by the family court in New Zealand, has written the counsel to the D.C. Subcommittee that, ``I am directed by His Honour Judge Mahony that the enclosed statement is to be made available to you for the purpose of * * * fully and properly informing the Congressional Subcommittee dealing with bill H.R. 1855 of the position relating to Hillary/Ellen.'' The court says: The Court has held [the child's] passport since 1990 when the question of her care and residence first came before the Court. There is also a condition on the custody order issued in 1990 that she not be taken from New Zealand without order of the Court. If and when it is appropriate for an application to be made to this Court for removal of that condition or return of the passport the application will be considered at that time. Thus, if the Congress of the United States permits the child to return through H.R. 1855, it is almost certainly in violation of the Hague Convention as it relates to child custody. The insult to the District, its residents, and its independent judiciary is no less serious. The home rule trespass is all the more serious because of the absolute and unfailing necessity for an independent judiciary at every level of Government. No principle of the Constitution was considered more fundamental by the framers. Imagine the chill this bill sends to the sitting judiciary in the Nation's capital. Now, not only the city council and the executive agencies of the District, but also the judiciary is fair game for imposition of a Member's views regarding his pet issues. No member would even think of attempting to intrude into the legitimate and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in any other jurisdiction of the United States or the territories. I am attaching the letter of the court appointed guardian and the statements of the New Zealand family court. I am also attaching a Legal Times article detailing further my position on this matter. David Howman, Barrister, Wellington, New Zealand, September 18, 1996. Mr. Howard A. Denis, Counsel, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Denis: I was appointed by the Family Court in New Zealand to assist that Court in proceedings involving Hillary/Ellen Morgan. Principal Family Court Judge P.D. Mahony made that appointment late last year. Subsequently the Family Court conducted a hearing to consider matters relating to the child. I have been asked to communicate with you on behalf of the Court as a result of the Court's decision. This communication is for the purpose of fully and properly informing the Congressional Sub- committee dealing with Bill H.R. 1855 of the position relating to Hillary/Ellen. I am directed by His Honour Judge Mahony that the enclosed statement is to be made available to you for that purpose. Please could you write to confirm receipt and to confirm that the statement will be made available to your Congressional Sub-committee accordingly. Yours sincerely David Howman, Barrister.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Members should vote ``no'' on the OPIC bill before us today unless we want to double subsidized insurance and loans for the Fortune 500. That is what the OPIC bill does. OPIC is touted as a Government subsidized entity that acts like a private corporation. Nonsense. If it is a corporation, why does it pay no taxes? That is a subsidy right off the top. Why does it declare no dividends? Why does two-thirds of its income come from Treasury securities? Contrary to what we were told yesterday, the AFL-CIO does not support this bill. It has no position. Why? Because some unions support it and some do not. The standard should be not are some jobs made, but are more jobs made than are in fact destroyed. Look at the OPIC Fortune 500, just 4 of them: Ford, 160,000 Americans laid off; Exxon, 83,000 Americans laid off; AT&T, 127,000 Americans laid off; GE, 85,000 Americans laid off. Until they bring in jobs to match Americans laid off, we must vote against more subsidies for OPIC.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, let me try to rebut two points that have been made here. Makes money. First of all, we lose right off the top. OPIC pays no taxes, pays no dividends, and two-thirds of its income comes from Treasury securities, from us to us. Second, unions who support it, there are always some unions who profit from exports. The real question for us is do we make up in the loss of jobs here? For example, let me take four of the large OPIC users. Ford, minus 160,000 jobs here; Exxon, minus 83,000 jobs here; AT&T, minus 127,000 jobs here, General Electric, minus 185,000 jobs here. When you show me they are making up for that kind of loss of jobs, you will get me.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not directly affect the District of Columbia but rather 3 plans in Philadelphia and New York. Yet I feel compelled to come to the floor to rise in strong support of H.R. 3871, in a real sense, as they say ``in the street,'' because we have been there and done that. For a number of years we have had a similar plan in the District which, at low cost, rendered exceptional care to Medicaid recipients. It took an enormous amount of work to get a waiver. I am particularly grateful to the committee for its help in obtaining that waiver for Chartered Health Care that goes until October 1, 1999. I simply would like to bring out the larger issue involved in what may look like a private bill. It is not that at all. These plans have to come here because of the way the statute is structured. The notion that at least 25 percent in a plan have to come from the commercial sector, from private parties, like us, and not only from welfare recipients, is very well-intentioned, particularly if you recall Medicaid mills, some of which perhaps still exist today. The problem, of course, which this proxy for quality is that these plans serve largely inner city residents. They are not a part of larger organizations like Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and so they encounter great difficulty when they try to recruit 25 percent of their clientele from people who are already attached to Blue Cross and Blue Shield or larger operations or HMO's near their own workplaces. The disabilities that come with not getting this waiver are great and are passed onto cities and ultimately to us and to the Federal Government. They cannot borrow as easily, they pay higher interest pending a waiver, but they are doing a remarkable service. They behave like managed care organizations but they have to be paid on a fee-for- service model without these waivers. Health Care Financing Administration of course, monitors these organizations, and so this legislation carried no risk, but what it does do is free these organizations to do the job that must be done in the inner cities to keep people from going to emergency rooms and going to doctors who charge too much. I commend both sides for the work they have done on this bill. General Leave

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have put in a unique remedy for a catastrophic financial crisis in the District of Columbia. Questions have been raised about it. I think I and the people I represent are due the courtesy of a moratorium on off-the-cuff conclusions about the bill until they are fully briefed. The reasons, of course, for my bill, for a tax cut for the District, lie in the unique disadvantages of the city and the unique remedy it will take to solve them. We lost more residents in the first half of the 1990's than we did in the entire 1980's. Perhaps we share that in common with other cities, but virtually nothing else. Uniquely, we have no way to recoup revenue when we lose people. Leon Panetta, a personal friend and a friend of the District, spoke on television yesterday about my bill. In virtually every respect he was way off the mark. For example, Leon said congresspeople would be able to get this tax cut. They do not pay D.C. income taxes. The law requires them to be citizens of their own States. Imagine the pain in my District when they heard opposition to a tax cut to the District because it would be unfair to other cities. I never would have put the tax cut bill in in the first place if we had a State like other cities. We are the only city in the United States which has State responsibilities and State costs, and no State. Seventy-five percent of the money that big cities get, they get from external sources, such as State aid. I do not oppose Mr. Panetta's notion that we ought to have some tax- based remedy for other cities. I welcome it. I would be thrilled. But do not hang a bunch of unique responsibilities around our necks and then say when it comes to relief, the same relief must go to those who do not have those unique responsibilities. There are four reasons, briefly, why I have put this bill in. We are the only city required to pay for State, county, and municipal functions. That means that we pay for Medicaid. Thirty-seven States get a greater Federal contribution for Medicaid than the District of Columbia. We are the only city with no State to recycle income from wealthier areas. Detroit has Michigan, Mr. Panetta. New York City has New York State. We have nobody. We are the only city barred by Congress from a commuter tax, and commuters take two-thirds of the revenue out, use our services, and leave nothing, not one thin dime in tax revenue. Finally, my constituents were particularly pained because apparently no notice has been taken of the fact that we are second per capita in Federal income taxes, with no full voting representation in the House or the Senate. Four territories, which have the same delegate to Congress as the District has, have paid no, I repeat, no Federal income taxes. Yes, I have asked for a unique remedy, because there are unique responsibilities. If you want to enlarge that to include the other great cities of the United States, be my guest. It would be magnificent. Finally we would get an urban policy. The Control Board that Congress has set up is not reviving the economy of the District. It is in fact reviving the government of the District. But taxpayers are leaving at such a rate that your Capital of the United States is dissolving as I speak, and nobody, not the administration, and not soon enough the Congress, is stepping up to save it in time. It will be too late 3 years from now. If there is to be a tax cut, let it be now, so there be time for it to kick in. If not a tax cut, then I challenge Mr. Panetta and every Member of this body to come up with a remedy during this session. It is your Capital City. It may be my home as a fourth generation Washingtonian, but 200 years ago, you set up the Capital of the United States and you gave it special and peculiar disabilities. Are you going to let if go out of existence? Are you going to treat Washington, DC, less than England would treat London? Are you going to treat Washington, DC, less than France would treat Paris? Do not compare the District of Columbia to Detroit, New York, Atlanta, or San Francisco, unless you give the people I represent the same citizenship rights and the same aid that those cities get. This is your Capital. Treat it as your Capital. Do not leave us stranded, swinging in the breeze, by the neck.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am not only grateful but proud to stand with the gentleman and with the ranking member as well, and especially in this bipartisan exchange, to stand with my good friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Watts, who sought me out and indicated that if indeed the offset had been different, he had very much wanted to support this matter with me. I do believe that this is precisely the kind of bipartisanship on precisely the kind of issue we need more of in this country, and I am very proud and pleased to be associated with everybody in the Chamber.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment in the terms that we have just heard from the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].

Ms. NORTON. I ask unanimous consent to offer a----

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am back again with an amendment that has a very different offset which I hope this body will now pass. I am back with a bipartisan amendment for a small increase in EEOC funding. My bipartisan sponsor is the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. J.C. Watts. Mr. Watts had intended to sponsor this bill with me but at the time the offset on the bill kept him from doing so. I used that offset on the bill because it was my understanding that there was no way in which the prisons that are now under construction could be finished in time. The good chairman of the committee indicated that he had already taken that into account and that, therefore, somehow not even this very small amount of money, $13 million, could be extracted from the delay in prison construction. I am back with another idea, a .06 reduction across the board in this appropriation. It is so small but that it is hard to envision what amount of money that would be, but what it would do would be very great and very large. Mr. Chairman, we are divided in this House on what the remedy is for discrimination. We are not divided on the proposition that there must be remedy for discrimination. This bill is not about whether there will be a remedy, for that is the one thing that I think we could get a 100-percent vote. This is not a vote about affirmative action. This is not a vote about set-asides. This is not a vote about goals and timetables. This is a vote about whether a person should be able to walk into an office, file a complaint, and get a timely remedy. This is a civil rights vote that comes very cheap this year in a Congress that has paid almost no attention to civil rights. It comes cheaper than it should. The President wanted $35 million. The Watts- Norton amendment asks only for $13 million. Why are we making such a large point about such a small increase? Because we hope to make a large difference in whether or not offices will be opened or closed. In the 100,000-case backlog, that is the backlog I found when I came to the EEOC. We got rid of it. Why is it there again? Because there has not been the money. Even the alternative dispute resolution system, which I think is the way to handle discrimination cases, individual cases should be settled and that should be the end of it, that is the system that allowed me to get rid of the backlog, even that system will be delayed for want of this small amount of money. I ask my colleagues to understand where the pressures are coming from. The half of the population that is female has discovered the EEOC. It is the sex discrimination cases that are driving the agency. Yes, the agency has a black face, and we are proud of that because black people went into the streets to get an antidiscrimination agency. It has a black face but it has a female engine today. The cases are about sex discrimination. That is the fastest growing group of cases. We looked into this matter when the Mitsubishi case hit the front pages, and we found that there were obscene photos in the plant and physical assaults in the plant, and that Mitsubishi had called meetings of its employees where they said when such complaints are filed, people might stop buying cars and, therefore, they could lose their jobs, retaliation under the law if ever I have heard of it. Then we asked EEOC, are you prosecuting this case, are you trying to settle this case? Do you have the money to do so? And we got the astonishing answer that in real terms the budget of this agency has not been increased since, as Chairman Casellas says, since Delegate Norton was chairman. My friends, that was more than 15 years ago. Then there were 3,390 people at the EEOC. Now there are 2,813 people, and I did not have any Americans With Disabilities Act. I did not have a 1991 Civil Rights Act that now has been entirely rewritten and therefore has to be reworked at the administrative level. I, in fact, wrote the sexual harassment guidelines, but I did not have thousands of sexual harassment cases because the consciousness was not then what it is now. The chairman deserves credit for not cutting the EEOC, and he is right that he has cut some other agencies. But by leaving EEOC at level funding for 1995, 1996, and 1997, a very large cut has in fact occurred because expenses have gone up at an extraordinary rate. The case level has gone up at an extraordinary rate and there is simply not the money to do it. They already have a furlough day. They will have much more. They must take every case that comes before them under the law. But the law does not say that they must indeed provide a remedy or provide fair dealing for every case that comes before them, because they can only do what they have the capacity to do, and they do not have the capacity to do the work they are mandated to do under the law today. These cases will bury the agency. We have done almost nothing about civil rights. This is the way to stand up in America and say, look, there is too much racial division, there is too much division of every kind in this country. But there is no division on the proposition that this is a country that stands for the right to file a complaint, leave it to the objective process and live with the resolution. We must make that objective process functional. I ask Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON. I am. Would my colleagues like me to read this language, or shall I send it to the desk to be read?

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and for cosponsoring this amendment with me. What we are trying to do here is very straightforward. The President sees an emergency at the EEOC. The backlog is out of control. He asked for $35 million. We have asked for only $13 million. The chairman of the subcommittee says that EEOC was left at level funding. The problem is they were left at level funding in 1996, they were left at level funding in 1995, and they are being left at level funding now. The law does not give them the right to leave complaints level, however. Mr. Chairman, we learned of the emergency conditions at the EEOC as a result of the investigation by some women Members on both sides of the aisle of the Mitsubishi case, which broke into the open when the company, for the first time that I know, in history, led a retaliation against its own employees by paying for people to protest the mere filing of complaints. Mr. Chairman, what we learned was that the number of employees had actually decreased since I left the commission, or to quote Chairman Casellas, ``The EEOC has not received any significant increase in funding since the late 1970's when it was chaired by Delegate Norton.'' When I left the EEOC there were 3,390 employees. Now there are 2,813 employees. They will have a furlough, the Chairman says, that is what is left of them. Now they will be cutting staff, closing offices, and turning down cases. We are talking about everybody's district, because these complaints come from everybody's district. We are talking about setting back the Chairman's--Gilbert Casellas, EEOC Chair--very commendable effort to put alternative dispute resolution into place. When I was at the EEOC we used that, and that is how I got rid of the backlog. This new Chair has come forward and is making great strides, and we are tying his hands behind him. When I was at the EEOC I had many more employees, and yet I did not have the large number of sexual harassment complaints, thousands and thousands of such complaints; I did not have the Americans With Disabilities Act. That act has almost nothing in common with other EEOC complaints, and EEOC must develop a brand new methodology. I did not have the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which essentially was a rewrite of the statute. Mr. Chairman, we may disagree on civil rights matters. Some of us are for affirmative action, some of us oppose it. Some of us are for goals and timetables, others oppose it. But everyone in this body believes in the right to file a complaint when there has been sexual discrimination, race discrimination, discrimination based on religion. To vote against this increase is to vote for sexual harassment, to vote for Mitsubishi. The fastest growing complaints at EEOC are, first, sex discrimination complaints, and then retaliation complaints. The EEOC is 100,000 cases down. In a bipartisan way they now have an approach. The chairman of the subcommittee himself admits they are moving forward. The amount in this appropriation will move them backward. They are helping themselves. We must not leave them alone. What we have done for the last several years is to defund EEOC at a time when women, very frankly, are pressing the agency beyond its capability. Do not kill the EEOC. This is the time for Members who may be voting against us on civil rights measure after civil rights measure to stand up and say, When it comes to whether or not people in my district can go down and file a complaint of age discrimination at a time of downsizing of the Government, I'll be darned, I'm going to give these folks enough money to process those complaints. This $13 million will not hurt the Bureau of Prisons one jot or tittle. We can count on them to be behind in construction. Please help the EEOC. Vote for this small increase.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank the body for the courtesies that are being shown me on the issues I have raised. Above all, I want to indicate to the Chairman that I did not mean to impugn his fairness. He is a man whose reputation for fairness is unmarred in this body, and I think there was honest confusion. Moreover, I should have been here. Even though I was here before the end of the Justice section, I should have been here absolutely on time and I apologize to the body that I was not here. I would hope only that the issue that I raised would not be sacrificed because of my own tardiness. I appreciate that my friends on the other side have given me the opportunity to offer the amendment. Unanimous consent is one of the few privileges that remains almost sacrosanct in this form in this body. It is an indication of the civility that remains in this body, although it is not always apparent. I had never intended to ask for a rollcall vote. As has been indicated, I offered this amendment last year. For me it is a matter of principle just as those who do not support choice find it a matter of principle. For me it is deeply felt because my own district is one that is riddled with AIDS, crack, and alcohol, which is destroying parts not only of my own district but destroying parts of my own black community. It is devastating women of every race. Mr. Chairman, I wished simply to offer the amendment in order to press upon us all that women now have a higher rate of incarceration, growth rate of incarceration, then men in Federal prisons for the first time in our history, that AIDS among them is significantly greater even than AIDS among men, an astonishing fact. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. I will look for opportunities to respond in kind. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the colloquy now in progress. I would say to my good friend on this side of the aisle from Virginia, any comparison between what you now desire here and my tax bill is nonapt. These are the only nontaxpayers leaving the District that we do not welcome back. But this is also the only State responsibility that any Member of this Congress has stood to help the District with. We are the only city in the United States that bears responsibility for State prisoners along with Medicaid and every other State responsibility. I welcome the attention that this matter is now given, even if it comes from the fact that it is in the State of Virginia. When mutual interests come together, that may be the best way to solve a problem. My good friends are correct that conditions at Lorton are detestable and that it is irresponsible to wait until a prison crisis develops, even as we have waited until a financial crisis has developed in the District. Everyone knows that the District is powerless at the moment to do anything about conditions at Lorton because of the insolvency of the city. The mayor and I have indicated that we would accept some measure of Federal responsibility despite the fact that home rule figures large for all of us. But we have also said that that Federal responsibility must come with Federal funds and those funds have not even been requested and there is very little movement, when there could have been some, to find a practical way to get there. We do not expect that the Bureau of Prisons where the Federal prisons lie will simply eat D.C. prisoners. These are felony inmates of a kind that are fairly rare in the Federal system. The Federal system is beyond capacity. We have to bring a problem-solving approach here. I have absolutely no objection to what the Members are trying to do. As long as they include me and the District in what they are trying to do, they will find that I have no objection. But we have to do more than simply beat up on the Bureau of prisons. We have to in fact analytically make our way through this problem step by step until we find a way for Federal responsibility consistent with home rule and funding to obtain in this matter. I thank the gentlemen for their concern.

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I had published an amendment that would allow an exception to our policy of using Federal funds for abortion for women who are incarcerated. I ask for that exception because under no circumstances do these women have access to any personal funds or to any State and local funds. Even though they were not incarcerated, they might obtain an abortion through their own jurisdiction. I asked for this exception because the average annual growth in the Federal prisons has been significantly greater than in State prisons. Annually it has been almost 10 percent a year, and it is amazing when the Federal sector now outpaces the State sector where, after all, most of the criminal law is, the increase in female inmates has significantly outpaced those of male inmates. I am talking about voluntary abortions only. I myself am writing a bill that would make it easier for women in prison to have their children adopted. Now, with voluntary abortions before this was lifted during this Congress, there was counseling, there was the right of staff objections. These are the least responsible parents by the documented evidence that they are in prison. Theirs are the most vulnerable offspring, and the story of what happens to both women and children when the children are born in prison is one of the great horror stories of America. Most of these women are in prison because of the use of drugs and alcohol. More than half committed an offense, the offense for which they are incarcerated, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and almost 40 percent were using crack. The problem was spiraling out of control because of the huge growth of numbers. The number of inmates in the Federal prison in the last decade grew by 75 percent. Women grew at twice that rate while only 10 percent of the prison population; their jump was 137 percent. What I am asking is for an exception comparable to that we have made for rape or incest. Otherwise what we have here is forced childbirth. The rate of infection, HIV infection for women in prison, actually exceeds the rate of infection for men in prison. This is truly an astonishing development. To be sure, women in prison forfeit their rights, they forfeit their rights to, every right to which they are entitled. But they also forfeit their rights to decent prenatal care, the right to a diet that would nourish the embryo. Mr. Chairman, we have denied the right of choice to Federal workers who, after all, have other alternatives, to women in the military who have other alternatives, but when we deny it here, we act in a barbaric fashion. We force childbirth on a woman who is incarcerated. Taxpayers should pay for these abortions for the same reason that taxpayers must pay for everything else these women get in prison. They pay for food, they pay for shelter, and we should not have to pay for that either, but since they are incarcerated we have no choice, and we should have no choice as well but not to compound the tragedy involved in their being in prison and pregnant by forcing childbirth on them in a democratic and humane society. This is not only the bed they have made to lie in. Far more is at stake, given the rising number of women who are now in our Federal prisons. I ask for this exception in the name of humanity.

Ms. NORTON. I am, Mr. Chairman. May I move to strike the last word then, Mr. Chairman?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I do want the Record to show that the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] was on her feet and I was on my feet, and I believe the chairman believed that he could come back to me, because I motioned to the chairman that I was here as the last item, and I am talking about the Speaker now, as the last item in Justice, and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] was called on. If I had been called on this, objection to my even offering my amendment could have been raised. I do not think it was my error, I think it was the error of the Speaker.

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

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