Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Time limits without a way to get to that point are meaningless, especially when the city is insolvent.

Ms. NORTON. I would have no objection to a plan that takes us toward that goal step by step and year by year with a funding bill to that end.

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

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. I want to thank him and the chairman of the committee for their very hard work and for quickly disposing of this appropriation. I thank the chairman as well for meeting with the Mayor and the Chairman of the Control Board before his bill came to committee finally. I thank both Members even as I indicate, as they have not, that I am greatly disappointed in this bill. I am left and the District is left with no alternative, however. A year ago, Congress established a Financial Authority or control board to help the District move out of insolvency. The Authority here is like the control boards in Philadelphia and New York. By this time, however, those cities have made significantly more progress than D.C. has made. The difference almost entirely is the strategy being used to resuscitate the city's economy. The only strategy the Congress has allowed for D.C. is the downsizing of its government. New York and Philadelphia returned to solvency through the use of more comprehensive approaches that rebuilt those cities even as they were being downsized. These included new sources of revenue and takeover of functions by their States. Look now at the first year of the District working with its control board. This first year will be remembered for second-guessing of the board, even after its exhaustive scrubbing of the budget, including deep cuts; a government shutdown of the District requiring the District to pay a full week's salary for locked-out employees; and 7 months delay in receipt of the full Federal payment, driving the District deeper into insolvency. In these and other actions, the Congress must accept a heavy share of the responsibility for the alarming deterioration of city services and the hastening of taxpayer flight. The District has lost more residents in the first half of the 1990's than it lost in the 1980's with no State to help it out and a Congress that refuses to meet any of its obligations. The city is stranded and it is sinking. Although this is the Capital of the United States and this body bears constitutional responsibility for this city, Congress has done nothing to help D.C. get back on its feet since the Financial Authority bill was enacted in April 1995. There has been no action whatsoever, even on those matters for which there is 100-percent congressional responsibility. Costs that are the most responsible for bringing the city down, ironically, are not found in the city's dysfunctional bureaucracy but in congressionally mandated State costs. Without action on these congressional responsibilities, the Capital of the United States cannot revive and will not survive. These include the $2.7 billion in unfunded pension liability, now more than doubled at $5 billion, largely because of interest on the original $2.5 billion. This liability that was incurred exclusively on Congress' watch before home rule. The District, on the other hand, has been meeting its pension obligations by fully funding these pensions since they were handed to the District in 1980. Over $300 million, or 10 percent, of tax raised revenue goes to pay pensions left unfunded by this body. The administration asked for a small additional sum of $52 million to add to the small $52 million congressional contribution for the District in this year's budget. Even this nominal amount was removed by the Committee on Appropriations. Is there to be no end to unfairness to the city? Nor has this House responded any better to what should be done for State responsibilities that no city in the United States has ever carried or could possibly carry today. The District has the lowest contribution for Medicaid and is the only city that must pay for the State and county share while one in four residents are on Medicaid. Such expenses will doom the city to permanent insolvency. More than two-thirds of the States, 37 of them get a higher Federal contribution to Medicaid than the District of Columbia. Even the GAO in recent testimony questioned the wisdom of leaving these costs off the table while trying to revive the District. My friends, this body is pretending. The cost of the pretense amounts to a sacrifice of the Capital of the United States. As if to add insult to multiple injuries, this year's appropriation takes a budget already cut over $100 million by the control board and the city and cuts it an additional $60 million. The cut comes disguised as a $40 million deficit cap that is tied to the city's declining revenues. The cut ignores budget savings of $141 million that the city will realize through layoffs, contracting out of services, reductions in Medicaid spending, welfare reform and procurement reform, just to name a few of the structural initiatives contained in the city's consensus budget. The monolithic downsizing strategy this body has adopted amounts to no strategy at all. In the appropriation process we are abandoning the central strategy we adopted when we authorized the Financial Authority. For very good reason, this Congress gave the city 4 years to return to solvency. Downsizing needs to be planned and precise or it will take down services with it. We are cutting the budget as we must, but in the process we are slaughtering the city. Residents who remained in the city through years of management problems are giving up and leaving as services dissolve before they can be fixed because of a speedup in downsizing. This appropriation accelerates the downsizing far faster than the Financial Authority recommended in its objective findings. As the city moved toward insolvency, I never asked this body to spare it downsizing or cuts. They were clearly necessary. I was the first to step forward to indicate that a control board was necessary. All I have asked is that downsizing be done in a way that is fair to the innocent bystanders. They are my constituents, not the D.C. Government. They are my constituents, our residents, who are second per capita in Federal income taxes. They deserve far better from the city and the Congress than the appropriation before us allows. Yet I have no choice but to ask Members to approve this appropriation. An appropriation that does harm will do more harm if it is delayed, as it was last year. However, I take this opportunity to ask my colleagues to make this the last year that the city stands alone, with a Congress that insists, as it should, that the city meet its obligation, while the same Congress ignores its unique responsibilities and the weight of its own heavy hand in keeping the city down. A city left twisting in the wind long enough will fall. If the Capital of the United States falls, the sound will be heard around the world.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to close now, seeing none of those who asked for time are here. Mr. Chairman, there is very little to get excited about when we discuss a choice amendment on the District of Columbia appropriation. No one believes that in the state of its finances, what we are going to see is an epidemic of abortions in the District. This amendment has largely symbolic importance. It says to the District, you are full Americans, you are full citizens, you can spend your money as you like. You can vote for this bill, even if you oppose abortion, because this bill is almost surely not likely to yield abortions because there is no money for abortions in the District. There is little money even for front-line services in the District. Yet I would think we would use this opportunity to say to the residents of the District, hey, you are full Americans, it is your money, use it the way we use our money in our cities and counties. I just want to say that the recitation of the bills the President signed last year, including our own, which contained language like this, ought to be understood in light of the President's statement on this bill. In that statement he has said that he is strongly opposed to this language. The chairman indicates, and I must say that I appreciate, that the language here is like the language in other bills inasmuch as it incorporates life of the mother, rape, and incest. If that is to be the case and if the chairman is to take note of it, there is no reason not to go the rest of the way and make the language the way the language is for the rest of America. What you do with your money is your business, and especially in this year when you are almost guaranteed not to use your money for abortions for poor women. The people I represent pay the highest taxes in the United States of America. When you combine their State taxes with their Federal taxes, they are No. 1. Put yourself in the position of the people I represent. Put yourself in the position of people who pay the same taxes and, in almost every case, more taxes than the people you represent and imagine how you would feel if a national body tried to tell you how to spend your local funds. I guarantee my colleagues that if they put themselves to that test, they will vote for my amendment. I ask that this body approve my amendment and approve the bill as the chairman has brought it to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], ranking member.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, several people asked to speak. I may not need the full 20 minutes if they, in fact, do not appear. My amendment would return us to the policy of this body on abortion that was used throughout President Reagan's administration. During each year of his administration, President Reagan signed a bill that prohibited the use of Federal funds in the District of Columbia for abortion services to low-income women except for risk of the life of the mother, rape, and incest. This put the District in the same boat with every jurisdiction in the country, ``Use your funds, not ours,'' Congress said. Only in 1988, at the onset of the Bush administration, did the policy change. Even local funds they could not be used until the 103d Congress, when the President signed a bill exactly like the Reagan bill during all his 8 years. In 1988, leave aside that our residents in the District were not treated as full and equal American citizens in democratic home rule, in representation in the Congress, and in taxation. Now added was the sensitive and abidingly local issue of choice. Here too inequality with all other Americans was to be the order of the day. Allowing the District the right of all other local jurisdictions leaves in place the Hyde amendment. It will apply to the District as Hyde applies now and as Hyde applies to every other jurisdiction that flies the American flag. What a small step this would be. In its financial condition, the District is, after all, unlikely to use little, if any, money on abortions for poor women. It needs the option in the rare case where it might decide that it is in the best interest of the woman and of the District to pay for such an abortion. The District has many women who have AIDS, are on drugs or are in deep distress. With the flight of middle-income taxpayers, this group of low-income women grows ever larger. There is absolutely no reason to deny the District this right, is the rare case, if it so chooses, where it would feel compelled to spend its own money in this way. It is wrong to single out the District in a way that we do not single out San Diego or Bloomington or Syracuse. It is wrong to find yet another way to say to my constituents--you will not be treated as other Americans. Choice is the law of the land. Choice is the law equally across the entire land, except here where the Congress sits, and except for poor women when an abortion must be paid for because there is no personal fund available to do so. Mr. Chairman, I ask this body to bring democracy home in this instance. The time has finally come in 1996, when it is highly unlikely that the right would be exercised, to give the District, at least in law, the right that every other jurisdiction has: to afford funds for women to make the choice that only they have the right to make. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I am inclined to simply say, ``Enough already.'' Mr. Chairman, look at this week's U.S. News and World Report. The National Capital, the gentleman's capital, has become a national daily controversy. You cannot separate yourself from that. There is a reason why the chairman of the committee on which you serve and the chairman of the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations oppose this bill. This is not an appropriation we are dealing with; this is a city we are dealing with. It is a city that is insolvent. These across-the-board cuts have been offered before in the Congress, but never for the District of Columbia appropriation. There is a reason for it. It is a complicated organism we are dealing with here. It is down on its knees, going, going, gone. The Federal payment has not increased in 5 years. For the third year in a row the chairman has required a cut in the District's payment. Mr. Chairman, the PILOT we have here, PILOT, the payment in lieu of taxes, keeps us from building on the most valuable and most useful land in the city, right in the middle of the city. Let me tell the Members something: Congress has not paid its taxes recently, because the PILOT has not been increased in 5 years. Before that, until 1991, it had not been increased in 5 years. Mr. Chairman, we have been using a monolithic strategy to downsize the District of Columbia. We have been using that even before the 104th Congress came into place. It is going down so fast that the taxpayers are picking up and leaving at a rate that should make your hair stand on end. I have not called for an end of downsizing or an end of cuts, but after a control board and a Committee on Appropriations have looked closely at a city that is on the verge of dying and cut and said no more cuts, it ill behooves any of us to come to this floor and, shall we say, third-guess them on what should be done. The 1.9-percent cut, you are not selling anything, I do not know why you do not say 2 percent cut and round off this figure, the 2-percent cut I think is sincerely offered, and it is sincerely received. I ask Members to note the difference between an ordinary appropriation and a city in the deepest possible trouble. I ask Members to realize that the 2-percent cut has more than been made by, first, the control board, then the subcommittee, then the Committee on Appropriations, and now, it would appear, by the full body here. Please vote against this amendment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to be an original sponsor of the Economic Equity Act of 1996 [EEA]. Three of my bills are included within this omnibus bill. The first bill, included in title I of the EEA is the Federal Employees Fairness Act (H.R. 2133), will revise and improve the process for Federal employees to file employment discrimination complaints. Employees would have 180 days in which to file a discrimination complaint, and the Equal Opportunity Commission--rather than the accused agency--would be required to investigate the complaint within strict time limits. The bill also encourages sanctions to be levied against employees found guilty of discriminatory behavior. The Equal Surety Bond Opportunity Act [ESBOA] is included within title II of the EEA, which addresses issues of economic opportunity. This title will help qualified women and minority-owned businesses to compete in the contracting business by helping them obtain adequate surety bonding. It 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. Whatever these prejudices may be, getting rid of them will open up the industry, creating entrepreneurial and employment opportunities and making the industry more competitive. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and help abolish the artificial impediments to the development and survival of emerging small businesses. The last bill that I introduced this June and which is included in the EEA is the Work and Family Parental Equity Leave Act will ensure that employees who choose to care for a foster child or adopt a child will benefit from the same leave policy as their coworkers who are birth parents. This bill does not mandate that employers provide leave benefits beyond existing law, but rather that if they choose to provide such benefits they do so for all parents equitably.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for yielding this time to me. I appreciate the gentleman's work and the work of the chairman of the committee and wish to say as well that on this side of the aisle we will miss the chairman as he retires from the Congress. We are at the end of the toughest year in memory for Federal employees and for Federal agencies. It can only get better, and I know this has been a tough bill to work on, in part for that reason. I would like to call the attention of the House to a few issues that give me particular concern. The Office of National Drug Control Policy now has a new director, and then we tie his hands. At the very least it seems to me as he deserves the right to start without staff reductions. On that side of the aisle a major issue has been made of the increase in some sectors of drug use, especially among young people. The way to send a message we are serious about curtailing that use would be to allow the Office of National Drug Control Policy to proceed without undue cuts. There is no time to waste on this issue. It is enveloping us again; it rises, it falls, it rises again. I also regret that there has been competition for funding between the IRS and the Treasury, the IRS making money, the Treasury making peace. I commend the committee that there is $24 million in this bill for the ATF to combat torching of churches. I appreciate, and I am sure America appreciates, the sensitivity of the subcommittee on this matter. But there is a false tradeoff here. If we are going to lay off thousands upon thousands of IRS employees--and that could happen--who can make money and therefore reduce the deficit, we are making false choices. We have cut into not only the compliance initiative, but the existing operations of the IRS, an unwise decision if ever there was one. This is no time to slow up on collecting revenue. I just want to say a word about the Postal Service because the story there has been the story of broken promises since we have spun the Service off. I do regret that the Workman's Compensation matter remains unresolved. We promised the former Post Office employees that that matter would be dealt with by this body, not by the new Service. It reminds me of the unfunded pension liability issue in the District of Columbia. We now are fully funding pensions, but the House has transferred to the city unfunded pension liability from when the city was on its watch. We are doing the same thing to the Postal Service. In this jurisdiction the ranking member knows that we have had difficult problems with Service. We do not need to have the Postal Service take that money out of services. Finally, we are once again here with no Federal funding for abortions for Federal employees who happen to be women. We are talking about a million women of reproductive age. We have done the same thing to military women and to women in the Federal service, alone among American women. We choose them out for special insult. They are bunched only with the women of the District of Columbia, poor women, who cannot have abortions paid for by our own funds.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan both went to the conventions of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Why is Mr. Dole boycotting this organization? I come to the floor not to castigate the putative nominee but to ask him to change his mind. Could it be that the Dole-Canady bill is what is keeping Mr. Dole from attending the convention? That bill, of course, would abolish virtually all forms of affirmative action, and it is a tough sell to the NAACP audience. On the other hand, I am certain that Mr. Dole would get a very polite reception. After all, it was he who saved goals and timetables in the 1980's. Throughout his career he has been a strong supporter of civil rights. It is certainly important that anyone seeking the Presidency of the United States, upon the invitation of the premier grassroots civil rights organization in the country, accept that invitation. To be sure, the Dole-Canady bill is a grave disappointment to civil rights supporters. The bill is unnecessary, given what the Supreme Court has done to affirmative action. In order to apply goals and timetables, for example, with respect to women and minorities, there has to be a compelling government interest and goals have to be narrowly tailored, and so far we have not come upon that case, although we surely hope we will soon. The Dole-Canady bill would not even permit affirmative action when that very narrow test is met, and it would not even allow the Supreme Court to use goals and timetables, for example, if the Court finds that a company had deliberately excluded women because they were women or had deliberately excluded blacks because they were blacks. The Court would be shorn of the ability to monitor progress in making up for that discrimination through the use of goals and timetables. Interestingly, business says it is going to continue to do affirmative action anyway because it knows that it lives in a country where increasingly women and minorities are the majority in the work force. And, of course, business has used goals and timetables precisely because they protect business from liability. To the extent that they are correcting their own discriminatory practices, they do not face the certain probability of a lawsuit. Most disappointingly, the Dole-Canady bill would set us back decades because it would allow the exclusion of women for certain jobs based on privacy concerns. Been there, done that, overcome that hurdle, do not need to go there again. This is a disquieting time for race relations in this country. There is a spate of torching of black churches. This is the time for any man or woman who wishes to lead this country to go to black people and reassure them and their premier organization that the laws will be followed and that the laws will be executed fairly. I come not to praise Mr. Dole and not yet to criticize him, because the convention is not over, but to say that I think there is still time to go and make an appearance before the NAACP to help dissolve some of the terrible racial polarization that is building up on both sides, because if he does become President, he will surely have to use that bully pulpit in order to try to do what he can on his watch, should it be his watch, to bring this country together racially. We are all too comfortable in our black and our white sides of the country. This is one country. We have to come together and say that. Read my lips, we are all Americans. This is one country. Anyone who wants to be President of the United States should relish the opportunity to go before the NAACP and say those words.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to associate myself entirely with the gentleman's remarks. This is a regional matter. All of the regional partners agree. It is before this body only because a charter change in the District of Columbia law requires the action of this body. The matter has enormous environmental implications. We want to move quickly, because we want to avoid environmental damage to the city and to the region. I appreciate the work of the gentleman in moving this matter forward to the floor.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this House was so shocked by church burnings in recent weeks that it last week passed a bill to add to Federal law enforcement authority, and I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Hyde, and the gentleman from Michigan, ranking member Conyers, of the Committee on the Judiciary, for the leadership they took and also Chairman Conyers for the Congressional Black Caucus hearing that shed additional light on this matter, including the need for prevention. In my years as a youngster in the civil rights movement, I never saw this kind of systematic racist church burning. This House's response does it honor. A few high-profile prosecutions are now in order, but, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor because I want something more. Martin Luther King would have wanted us to use his life amidst the polarization and balkanization that has contributed to these burnings. I come to the floor to call the House's attention to two events and to two people, both youngsters, who deserve the notice of this House. One is Billy Shawn Baxley, a 17-year-old white youngster who has confessed to burning a church; and the other is Keshia Thomas, an 18-year-old black girl who saved a pro-Klan white man at an anti-Klan rally a few days ago. Both are reported in the papers, and I know nothing more than what the papers tell me, but the Nation ought to know more. In the small rural community of East Howellsville, NC, Billy Shawn Baxley, 17 years old, burned the church across the road from him, and he confessed on television. People in the community said, well, he did not know what he was doing, he is only a kid. The State's attorney said he was not willing to concede that race was not involved. The youngster could have burned a McDonald's; he burned a church. But the response of the two churches involved is what deserves special notice, and I want to tell it unvarnished by reading from the New York Times. He confessed to it in a televised interview. On Thursday night the teenager and about 12 members of his white church, Zion Tabernacle Baptist Church, joined about eight members of the Pleasant Hill congregation for bible study at the church that Mr. Baxley is accused of setting ablaze. After an hour of singing and scripture, the group stood in front of the pews, held hands and prayed. Mr. Baxley wiped a tear from his eye after prayer, and several members of both congregations hugged him and said they forgave him. This is a story out of these tragic racial burnings that deserves the mention and the notice of Americans throughout this country. It is in the tradition of Martin Luther King. It reminds us that after the prosecutions are over, we are still one people, and we have to find a way to reduce the polarization and the racial conflict in this society. Then perhaps you saw this picture; this young woman was interviewed on television last night. Keshia Thomas was a protester against the Ku Klux Klan at a Klan rally. There a white man who had a Confederate flag on his jacket and who appeared to support the Klansmen came forward. The crowd lunged at him and started to beat him. It looked as though they might beat him to death. This is 18-year-old girl did what Martin Luther King told us must be done, except she was not here when he lived or when he died. Her instinctive decency was such that she threw herself on the racist white men and fended off those who were beating him. Finally, taking blows herself, they moved back and then she got up with him and led him away. She was no admirer of this man, but she was a decent human being. She said, and I quote her, ``Just because you beat somebody doesn't mean you are going change his mind.'' She has not had time to develop a very deep philosophy, but what she is is a decent black girl who happens to be a decent American. These two youngsters, the 17-year-old who could not hold the crime in himself and confessed on television and the 18-year-old black girl who could not bear to see a man beat to death because of his views, these are the heroes of this ordeal. These are the people who have learned from it.

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 many qualified small and emerging construction firms encounter in obtaining surety bonding. Surety bonding is mandatory for bidding on 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. Surety bonding requirements, however, are not restricted to government contracting. Increasingly, private construction contracts also require surety bonding. As surety bonding has become a widespread requirement for competition, the inability to obtain surety bonding can cripple a construction firm, especially a small or nascent one. In 1992, Congress acknowledged the importance of this issue when it passed 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 meet other conditions than the firms not owned by minorities. 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 notification of a contractor 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. 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 expenses and fewer protections, placing themselves, their subcontractors, and the Government at greater risk. 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. Whatever these prejudices may be, getting rid of them will open up the industry, creating entrepreneurial and employment opportunities and making the industry more competitive. 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. Speaker, today, I introduce the Parental Family Leave Act of 1996, a bill which will ensure that employees who choose to care for a foster child or adopt a child will benefit from the same leave policy as their coworkers who are birth parents. This bill does not mandate that employers provide leave benefits beyond existing law, but rather that if they choose to provide such benefits, they do so for all parents equitably. Because the employers involved are generally larger businesses and the number of children is small, the bill will not burden employers. The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 [FMLA] provides that employers must grant up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for adoptive, birth and foster parents to care for a new child. Although some employers go beyond the mandate of the act and provide paid leave or allow paid sick leave to be used by employees with a new child, they often extend these benefits only to birth parents and not to foster parents or parents who adopt. My bill tracks the FMLA, correcting this inequity by providing that if an employer allows additional leave benefits for the birth of a child, the employer shall provide the same leave benefits to parents of a foster child or an adopted child. Thus, my bill does not require employers to provide leave policies beyond the requirement of the FMLA, but provides only for equal treatment for adoptive and foster parents, in keeping with the intent of the original legislation. The basis for granting parental leave to both foster and adoptive parents overlap, but the circumstances of foster parents and adoptive parents are often different. Foster children are generally older children who have been removed from their own homes. Often they are children with specific needs. Sometimes they have been abused. Thus, a foster parent will normally have a greater challenge of adjustment than a new birth parent. A foster parent must acclimate to a child who already has set habits and personality traits. The foster child is sometimes intimidated by being thrust into her new surroundings. She may have come from dangerous or perhaps life threatening circumstances. In addition, foster care systems, especially those in large cities, are in great disrepair. A recent GAO report reported disgraceful circumstances for the care of many of these youngsters, a situation that is pervasive throughout the United States. The wreckage left behind by failed foster care systems is often reflected in the lives of foster children. They clearly need their parents in their new home as much, and probably more than the newborns who are the major recipients of paid leave. Adopted children are generally not as old as foster care children and do not generally come to their new families from troubled circumstances. However, because most adoptive parents are caring for an infant, they find themselves in a situation similar to the parents of newborns. There is no reason, therefore, to treat them differently than birth parents. There are few foster or adoptive parents in any single workplace, guaranteeing that the effects on the employer would be minuscule in keeping with the policy of the FLMA. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help ensure that foster parents and adoptive parents receive the same opportunity as birth parents to bond with a new child and to acclimate that child to her new family and surroundings.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a resolution to develop a plan for the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue. This resolution, similar to a resolution enacted in the Senate last night, brings together and reconciles House and Senate approaches to the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue. At my request after the closing last year, the House D.C. Subcommittee held hearings on June 30, 1995, and again this year on June 7, 1996. At both hearings, truly devastating damage to downtown traffic and commerce was reported. The victims of the closing are pervasive--residents, commuters, tourists, and businesses. In effect, downtown D.C. is disjoined and disfigured. No large city today, healthy or not--and D.C. is insolvent--could absorb the enormous costs associated with closing the most important cross town street. Some in Congress had called for an immediate reopening of the avenue. Recognizing that this was impractical and impossible because of the obligations of the Secret Service written into law, I have sought ways to open the avenue while safeguarding the White House and to keep the Park Service from foreclosing the possibility. This has also been the view of D.C. Subcommittee Chair Tom Davis, who joins me as a cosponsor today. The bipartisan resolution we introduce today requires that all the relevant parties participate. Thus, this resolution is the most useful response to the closing. It depolarizes and depoliticizes an issue that has two important sides. It puts everyone to work on solving the problem, rather than facing off against one another, leaving the problem begging for attention. I appreciate the attention that the House and the Senate have given to the effect of the closing on my district and on every American's capital city. I urge all Members to support this resolution.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their alacrity in moving this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, as a student member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the South during the civil rights movement I remember no time when there was a rash of church burnings. We have enough polarization in this society. We do not need the ultimate polarization, the burning of places of worship. You have restored confidence in the rule of law for many Americans. You have said through this bill that we are still committed to eliminating racism, and I thank you.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the United Family Coalition for its commitment to regaining control of their community in Ward 7, Washington, DC. On June 13, 1996, UFC will courageously march against drug offenders in their neighborhood. The organization will march from 60th and East Capitol Streets to the U.S. Capitol Grounds as a symbolic show of their solidarity and determination to rid the community of drug dealers and their illegal activity. The United Family Coalition will put all drug dealers and abusers on notice that the sale of narcotics and violent behavior will not be tolerated in Ward 7. UFC and march participants will announce to Congress that Ward 7 can govern itself. UFC's mission is to enhance the quality of life for children, youth, and families in at-risk communities. This organization provides individual and group counseling on substance abuse, AIDS, employment, and parenting skills. They also provide tutoring and college preparation referrals. We should all applaud the United Family Coalition for its efforts to regain control of their community. I enthusiastically support the march's objective to create safer communities for our children and families. I urge my colleagues on Capitol Hill to make a similar commitment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to introduce the bill to name the U.S. District Court in the Circuit Court of Appeals building for the late Chief Judge E. Barrett Prettyman. The same bill had earlier been introduced by Senator John Warner in the Senate. I am very pleased that the chair of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia was also a cosponsor in introducing the bill with me. Judge Prettyman, a native of Virginia, graduated from Georgetown University Law School, where I still teach a course. He remained associated with Georgetown all of his professional life. I assure my colleagues that the university takes great pride that he is being put forward today to be honored in this manner. Judge Prettyman served on the Federal bench for 26 years. He was Chief Judge of the United States Circuit Court from 1953 to 1960. Judge Prettyman was widely regarded as one of this country's leading legal scholars and a pioneer for judicial reform. He is particularly remembered for the way he worked to improve the efficiency of the Judiciary. Judge Prettyman also championed the cause of the indigent and Prettyman fellows work to this day on that issue out of Georgetown University, where he established a program to better assist indigent defendants. Naming the courts after Judge Prettyman is considered in this city, and I believe by those who know the judge's work, a fitting tribute to one of the most outstanding jurists and legal scholars to hold the bench in this city. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the achievements of a very talented and gifted athlete who is also a Washingtonian. Marvin Graves is a 6'1", 195-pound athlete who is an exceptional football player and a responsible citizen who has dedicated himself to community service and lived up to the respect and admiration he has won from fans. Marvin Graves was born in Washington, DC on February 7, 1971, to Melvin and Katrina Graves. He attended Archbishop Carroll High School in the District where he lettered in football, basketball and baseball. Upon graduation from high school Marvin Graves entered Syracuse University on a four-year football scholarship and majored in child and family studies. During the course of his spectacular collegiate career, he was a four-year starter and holds 16 of the 31 passing records at Syracuse, including 6 of the 11 total offense records. His records also include: a four-time bowl MVP, AP second team All-American, Eastern College Athletic Conference [ECAC] Player of the Year, second team All-Big East, and a finalist for the Daley O'Brien National Quarterback Award. In 1994 Marvin Graves graduated from Syracuse University. He is now the star quarterback for the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian Football League. After an incredible comeback performance on Sunday, October 2, 1994, Marvin Graves' coach Bob O'Billovich had this to say about his star player: ``You saw one of the greatest quarterback performances in a fourth quarter that you'll ever see in your life * * * Nobody in this league has played a quarter like that.'' Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure and honor to recognize the great achievements of my constituent, Marvin Graves. I salute his remarkable career as an athlete and commend his presence and activities in the community. He has spoken at high schools, hospitals, and group homes eager to stress the importance of education, and urging our young people to never engage in drug activity. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this outstanding young man.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the day has been much devoted to a discussion of the minimum wage. This member is trying her best to make certain that more than minimum wage residents continue to live in the District. I have just come back from the other body, where Senator Connie Mack, the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, has just introduced the DC Economic Recovery Act on the Senate side, the bill I introduced on April 15 on the House side, in order to give a tax reduction to the residents of the District of Columbia, who are fleeing in awesome numbers. The District does not have a State, so any tax incentive--tax cut will have to come from this body. The alternative to a tax cut to help to keep middle-income residents in the city is annual increases of a very significant magnitude in the Federal payment. The reason that would be necessary is that the Constitution requires the Congress of the United States to maintain the Capital of the United States. For over 200 years, it is the residents of the Capital of the United States who have maintained the capital, but their flight in great numbers and the insolvency of the city put the capital of the United States at risk. No one can doubt that this is the case if you look at the chart before us. The tax base is already gone. Eighty-three percent of tax filers have an income of less than $50,000. To quote Senator Mack: Washington's situation is desperate. Middle-income residents have been fleeing the city in startling numbers. Senator Mack was not alone in introducing this bill. Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat, became the cosponsor today, as well, and both spoke at this press conference. What I did not know until I walked into the press conference was that yet another Senator had on this very first day of the introduction of the bill come on, Senator Spencer Abraham. Mr. Speaker, I sent my ``dear colleague'' letters out yesterday to Members of the House, and I am pleased to say that they are beginning to come on. Mr. Armey has become a cosponsor today, and I am very grateful for that. The Chairs of both caucuses, Republican and Democrat in this House, support the bill. Why is there such support for this bill? In large part, it is because the District is trying to do it the old fashioned way. This tax break will not come to the Government of the District of Columbia but to the residents, who with their own money, will revive their own city. The District is the only city in the United States that pays for State, county and municipal functions. When it was a city of 800,000 people, as it was when I was a kid growing up in this town, it could do that. Now it is a town of half a million people, and it simply cannot pay for Medicare, cannot pay for a State prison, cannot pay for a State university all by itself. The District is the only city in the United States that is barred by the Congress of the United States from enacting a commuter tax, so all the commuters come here, use the services my residents provide and do not leave one thin dime. The District is the only jurisdiction that flies the American flag, where Federal income taxes are paid by the residents, but they have no voting representation in the House or in the Senate. That, my friends, I am sure you will agree, is un-American. We would still pay Federal income taxes under my bill, but we would not be second per capita in Federal income taxes, as we are today. When you join our local taxes with our Federal taxes, the residents of the District of Columbia are the highest taxed residents in the United States. The District does not say ``Give me some more money.'' The District says, the House and the Senate, the Democrats and the Republicans, yes, and the administration, all have their versions of tax cuts. If taxes are to be cut, let the cutting start in the capital of the United States, which does not have full representation, and therefore is taxed without representation, in the capital of the United States, which is spiralling downward, and needs to give people an incentive to remain in this beautiful city. This will not be the capital we are all proud of if we let it continue to go down. Please sign on to the DC Economic Recovery Act, as three Senators have today.