Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy amendment to H.R. 1976, the Agriculture appropriation. I cannot imagine what national interest the Congress is forwarding by subsidizing the export and promotion of American alcohol overseas. We should adopt the Kennedy amendment, and end this insanity. Surely the companies who benefit from this subsidy can get by just fine without it. Can you imagine the outcry if we were using taxpayer money inside the United States to help the liquor companies introduce drinking to young people? Do we not have enough problems at home brought about by alcohol abuse? In the District of Columbia alone, alcohol abuse costs the city $1.8 billion annually. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has said that no serious discussion on the economic recovery of the Nation's Capital is possible without factoring in the economic burden of alcohol consumption. It is not moralizing to point out that the $35 million the city collects each year in alcohol taxes barely touches the massively calamitous consequences of alcohol consumption. The human toll cannot even being to be calculated. This is indeed a moral issue. What is immoral is that corporate giants like Jim Beam, Miller, Coor's, and Stroh's have the U.S. Government's blessing and an expense account to enter into foreign markets. Are we subsidizing comparable efforts to provide education about alcohol abuse, alcohol's role in infant mortality, and efforts to combat drunk driving? The liquor companies need to pay their fair share, not get a subsidy to develop new markets. I urge my colleagues to adopt the Kennedy amendment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman, indeed, there have been only nine abortions since this right has been in effect, and women in prison have fewer abortions than women outside, and more choose to carry their babies to term, considerably more than choose to have abortions, so that what we are asking for here is merely for genuine choice.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]. (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise as a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who was able to get rid of the backlog of the commission not only through greater efficiency but because the President of the United States gave me enough money to do it and said the rest would have to be done by efficiency. And we did that. Mr. Chairman, I just heard a stark contrast. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] says, give a few dollars to get rid of discrimination. The chairman says, no, give a few dollars to put people in jail. Watch out for the message you send. The message you send is that this Congress does not want to devote the money it would take to process cases of intentional discrimination but instead refuses to do that and says the money has to go to prisons. I know what this means in the society at large, and I know what that means at EEOC. The agency is under ever so much greater pressure than when I was there. There is a whole new complicated statute. We have court decisions, the Adarand decision, and we have a level of funding that will not allow the job to get done. The majority says, what we want to go after is intentional discrimination. These are backlog cases of intentional discrimination. This is a very difficult agency to run. It is much more like a manufacturing agency than a Government agency because you have to put out and account what you put out and account what you take in. If we do not want to pay the money, if we do not want the money to go for antidiscrimination enforcement, then do not be heard to say that you are for ending discrimination, because when the time came, when the test was before you, you refused to allow the money to go to enforce antidiscrimination. I thank the gentleman for this amendment. It draws the line. Let us ask the Members here today which side of the line are they on.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Prisons has gone to great lengths to make sure that it is operating within the law, and indeed, has attached conditions to abortion that do not obtain in every State of the Union. For example, there must be medical, religious, or social counseling sessions offered. There must be written documentation that these sessions have taken place. The process is laid out in great detail in order to make sure that there are no violations. Those who are on the staff and somehow involved also have their rights protected. No staff or supervisory person need be involved with these decisions at all. The Bureau of Prisons, it seems to me, has handled this sensitive issue in just the right way, and the question before the House is are we prepared to handle this issue in just the right way. Almost all of these women will be faced with two choices: Either make the choice for abortion, or make the choice to have a child who they will have very little, if anything, to do with. Most of these children, if they are carried to term, will go to the State. Since the majority of these women are women of color, in effect that means putting children born in prison into the foster care system. Mr. Chairman, the foster care system cannot absorb the children of parents who are not in prison. The GAO has written a report on the foster care systems in a number of States. It is an appalling report. The situation is the same all over the country: too few foster parents, too many children. If a woman decides when she is incarcerated that she would like to choose an abortion, society, it seems to me, should be where she wants to be, just as it would be if she made that choice and were not in prison. Remember, Mr. Chairman, of whom we are speaking. Since more than two- thirds of these women are in prison for drug offenses, understand that most of them were selling drugs because they were addicts themselves, many of them crack addicts. That says all we need to hear about their own pregnancies. The decision to carry a child or not carry a child should not be circumscribed by whether one happens to be incarcerated or not. The nature of the duress is even greater if the woman involved is, indeed, incarcerated. I recognize that this issue is now and always will be contentious in this House. I would hope that at some point and for some women, we would understand the consequences sufficiently so we would not vote in knee-jerk ways on this sensitive issue. I ask, therefore, Mr. Chairman, for support of the Norton amendment, in the name of these women who cannot speak for themselves. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would ask who has the right to close.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this Congress did the right thing in 1993 when it finally allowed women in prison to elect an abortion among the medical services provided them. We overturned the barbaric policy that allowed such abortions only when the life of the mother was endangered or when rape had occurred, not even apparently when incest was involved. Women in prison, Federal prisons, earn between 10 and 40 cents an hour. There is no hope that they could get the average $231 that an abortion in the first trimester costs. Yet these are the women most in need of choice. These are the women in our country who have led the most chaotic lives. These are the women who are least capable of taking care of themselves. They have not been able even to keep within the law. These are the women least able to bear and relate to children. Who will speak for these children? We must speak for these children. We must speak for these women. I strongly favor and would rise just as adamantly to protect the rights of these women to bear children in prison, if they desire. But surely we would not want to deny a woman the right to choice in prison. Two-thirds of these women are drug offenders. More than two-thirds are 40 or under. Most of them are of reproductive age. Many of these women are HIV infected or have full-blown AIDS. Many are addicts who have landed in prison, very often. In the last 11 years, the number of women in Federal prisons has more than doubled, more than tripled. These women have themselves been the victims of wholesale physical and sexual abuse. What happens to these women happens to their fetuses or to their children. In prison they are subjected to a high-starch prison diet. Nobody brings in the right WIC food for women in prison. Prison is not where people go to get prenatal care. These women have to contemplate the fact that if they were to bear a child to term, they would have to be separated from that child. These are the women in our society most in need of choice--those in Federal prisons. They do get counseling, including religious counseling and social counseling. This is not, for a women in prison, any more than for any other woman, a decision that can or should be made lightly. In effect, if these women do not have choice, of course, we are forcing women who are incarcerated to bear children. This is not America if that is what we are prepared to do, particularly given the particular kind of population that we find in Federal prisons today. Mr. Chairman, we must, even at this time in the proceedings, try to be remembered for other than being the Congress who looked for each and every opportunity to deny women the most fundamental of rights. We have done it to women in the military who are serving their country, we have done it to Federal workers, we have done it to Federal planning overseas, and today in committee we passed, or the committee passed, a provision making it optional for States to fund for rape and incest. How low are we willing to sink on the question of abortion? How far are we willing to go to deny the most fundamental of rights? Mr. Chairman, whatever we think and wherever Members stand on the notion of choice generally, I hope Members will now allow themselves to be recorded as forcing women who are incarcerated to bear children against their will. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that advances the process for realizing two major projects in the District of Columbia: The District of Columbia Convention Center and Sports Arena Authorization Act of 1995. This bill combines and refines two bills that were previously introduced, taking each of these projects another step forward. The sections addressing the convention center project allow for the expenditure of previously collected taxes for preconstruction work so that cost estimates and time lines can be confirmed before the building process begins. Additionally, it allows for the expenditure of funds to operate the present convention center. This language goes greatly unchanged from that in the previously introduced bill, H.R. 1862. The sections addressing the sports arena refine the language in previously introduced bill, H.R. 1843. These sections allow the District to use an annually collected tax to finance the land acquisition and other background work for the sports arena project. Once these steps are taken, the sports arena can be built. Both of these projects are being financed by District and private resources, and will bring significant revenue into the District's shrinking coffers. Additionally, both projects will bring additional and much needed jobs to District residents, both while the projects are in development and during the future operations of these facilities. I am pleased to be joined in cosponsorship and support of this bill by so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I hope we can work together for speedy passage of this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation of vital importance to the District Columbia in rebuilding the financial viability of the District. As my colleagues are well aware, the District is contending with a serious financial crisis. This bill allows the Mayor and the City Council to address some of the causes of the city's budget difficulties that are now outside of their reach with greater efficiency, flexibility, and fairness. This bill has three provisions that accomplish these purposes. First, the bill gives the Mayor the authority to reduce the appropriation for the judicial branch of the District government, if such a reduction is necessary to balance the District's budget. The Congress previously empowered the District to take similar steps with other independent agencies, including the board of education. However, unlike the case at other agencies, the judicial branch savings may only be directed in the annual appropriation total, not on a line-item basis within the budget itself. Thus, this bill treats the budget of the courts differently in recognition of the separation of powers and the independence of the courts. Second, the bill enables the District to decouple the rate of compensation for District of Columbia judges from that of Federal judges. No decrease in pay would occur, however. D.C. Superior Court and Court of Appeals judges are local, not Federal judges, and have no Federal jurisdiction. Because of home rule limitations, however, they are appointed by the President--though they are recommended by a panel of local residents. These local judges are paid entirely from the District budget, not from Federal funds. When District employees have taken pay cuts or had level pay for several years and very few have received raises, the judges serving the District have several times had increases in their salaries because their salaries are tied to the pay scale for Federal judges. To remedy this imbalance, the District of Columbia Council will determine the new rate of compensation for judges, as is usually the case with legislatures. Third, the bill gives the District greater leverage and flexibility to accomplish savings in the negotiation of contracts, such as procurement contracts. Presently, such agreements can be negotiated only on an annual basis. As a result, the District cannot enter into multiyear agreements that often have better terms. Because such contracts require significant commitments they will be evaluated by the District of Columbia Council, and will require a council resolution, two-thirds vote of members present and voting. If for any reason, the funds are not appropriated during a subsequent year of the contract, the contract would be canceled, preventing the District from being bound unreasonably. These components of the bill act together to strengthen the District's financial position. This bill is noncontroversial. Because it is an essential ingredient of the District's financial discipline and recovery, I ask for support and passage at the earliest time. Summary of the District of Columbia Budget Efficiency Act The Congress gave the ability to reduce the budgets of independent agencies, including the Board of Education, if it is required to balance the District budget. However, this power did not include the District courts. This bill expands that power to include the budget of the District courts. This expansion of power does not affect the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches because it does not give the Mayor power over the judicial salaries, but only the budgets. The Mayor is required to notify the District of Columbia courts of any proposed reductions in their budget. The bill also amends the Home Rule Act to allow the D.C. Council to establish the rate of compensation for judges in District of Columbia courts. This severs the tie of D.C. judges' salaries to those of federal judges. Additionally, the bill allows the District to form multiyear contracts for goods and services in areas where funds are appropriated annually. If the funds are not appropriated in some subsequent year of the contract, the contract is cancelled or terminated. Costs of cancellation or termination are paid from sources limited to: appropriations available for the contract's performance; appropriations available for procurement of the acquisition type covered by the contract that is not obligated; funds appropriated for payment of such costs. Any such contract will require support of the Council by resolution, a two-thirds vote of members present and voting. Further, the contracts will be made pursuant to criteria established by the Council. section-by-section analysis--district of columbia budget efficiency act of 1994 Section 1. Short title Section 1(a) states that this Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Budget Efficiency Act of 1995''. Section 1(b) amends the relevant provisions of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act by adding the following: The District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act provides that whenever in the District of Columbia Multiyear Financial Controls Act is referred to, the reference will be considered to be made to that section of other provision of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act. Section 2. Budgetary control over independent agencies Section 2(a): Section 2(a) amends Section 47-301(b) of the D.C. Code to include expenditures for District of Columbia Courts and the Board of Education the submission of the District's annual budget by adding the following section: Section 47-301(b) of the D.C. Code provides that the budget submitted by the Mayor shall include, but is not limited to recommended expenditures at a reasonable level for the forthcoming fiscal year for the Council, the District of Columbia Courts, the Board of Education, the District of Columbia Auditor, the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission, the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia, the Public Service Commission, the Armory Board, and the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. Section 2(c): Section 2(c) allows the Mayor to balance the budget by reducing the amount appropriated or otherwise made available to independent agencies of the District of Columbia to reduce the appropriation or amount if it is determined to be necessary to balance the District's budget. These figures must be submitted to the Council. It further requires that the Mayor notify the District of Columbia courts of any proposed reductions in their budgets. Section 2(d): Section 2(d) decouples the link between District of Columbia court judges and federal court judges, allowing the District of Columbia Council to establish the rate of compensation for the judges. Section 3. Contracts extending beyond one year Section 3(a) allows the District to enter into multiyear contracts for goods and services where funds are appropriated on an annual fiscal year basis. These obligations are valid only for the fiscal year appropriated. Section 3(b) allows multiyear contracts to be cancelled or terminated if money is not appropriated in subsequent years. In such an event, the cost of cancellation or termination is to be paid from the following: (A) appropriations available for the performance of such contract; (B) appropriations available for procurement of the acquisition type covered by the contract where not otherwise obligated or; (C) funds appropriated for the payments of such costs. It additionally provides that contracts entered into under this section are invalid unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of its members present and voting, authorizes such a contract by resolution. Further, contracts under this subsection are made pursuant to criteria established by act of the Council.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Federal Service Priority Placement Act of 1995. This bill directs the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to establish a governmentwide interagency placement program for Federal employees affected by reductions-in-force [RIFs]. I believe that the immediate enactment of this legislation is essential to respond to the needs of employees who, through no fault of their own, will be adversely affected by the massive downsizing of the work force ordered in the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-226) and increased under the recently passed budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. Recall that no plan or rationale that matched the number of employees to be eliminated with the administration's National Performance Review efficiency objectives was ever offered. Indeed, the number kept changing, going from initially 100,000, then to 272,900, and will undoubtedly go even higher under the new Congress, giving the downsizing the appearance of deficit reduction without efficiency goals. As such, RIF's may well be inevitable in the future, notwithstanding the widespread use of buyouts by Federal agencies. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the Federal Government selects its own displaced employees over outside hires when filling vacant positions. RIF'ed employees are a valuable resource of dedicated civil servants in whom the Government has invested training and knowledge. It is in the Government's best interest to take advantage of the continued positive contribution these employees can make rather than to discard the Government's investment and start all over with new hires. We will not achieve a government that works better and costs less if the talents and energies the government has helped to produce are not rechanneled where they are needed in the government. The Federal Service Priority Placement Program Act of 1995 would facilitate the placement of RIF'ed employees at other agencies by requiring that those agencies with vacant positions within RIF'ed employees' commuting areas offer jobs to such qualified employees first. Last fall OPM launched its new Interagency Placement Program [IPP], an initiative that combines the old Displaced Employee Program and the Interagency Placement Program. I believe that the new IPP is sure to be as ineffective as the two programs it replaced because OPM only refers registrants for vacancies to be filled by competitive appointment. Most important, agencies need only consider, and are not required to hire qualified OPM referrals. Agencies can avoid hiring the RIF'ed employee by simply filing an objection with OPM. In the context of the most extraordinary downsizing in the Federal Government's history, this hardly seems fair to qualified employees RIF'ed to satisfy an undocumented quota having nothing to do with their own qualifications or record of service. A 1992 GAO study makes clear that a clear and direct statutory mandate that agencies give RIF'ed employees a mandatory hiring preference over outside job applicants is warranted. Otherwise, it is not at all clear that agencies will voluntarily give up their prerogative under the existing OPM placement program to reject displaced workers and hire whoever they want to fill vacant positions. The President's National Partnership Council, a new Federal labor- management organization, has likewise recognized the need for the Federal Government, in the midst of such massive downsizing, to be more activist in trying to place displaced employees. In a July report, the Council advocated a governmentwide placement policy that gave displaced or RIF'ed employees priority over outside hires. Similarly, in an NPR draft report entitled the ``Federal Human Resource Management Reinvention Act of 1995,'' the administration endorses requiring agencies to give their own displaced employees and displaced employees from other Federal agencies placement priority over new outside hires. The Federal Service Priority Placement Act of 1995 protects the Federal Government's sizable investment in personnel training and education while accomplishing the goal of governmentwide downsizing in the most orderly and humane fashion.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Packard/ Dornan amendment to HR 2020, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1996, and in strong support of the Lightfoot substitute amendment. The Packard/Dornan amendment, in seeking to redress a few well-publicized abuses in a few isolated Federal employee training programs, employs a shotgun approach that would preclude Federal employees from receiving potentially lifesaving information regarding the transmission of HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS is the leading killer of Americans age 25-44. Under the Federal Work Place HIV/AIDS Education Initiative, Federal employees are provided with accurate and comprehensive information on how HIV/AIDS is, and equally important in the work place, is not transmitted. This vitally important initiative is protected under the Lightfoot substitute amendment; it is eviscerated under the Packard/Dornan amendment. Supporters of the Packard/Dornan amendment would lead people to believe that the Federal Government, in offering such HIV/AIDS training, is acting in an extreme or unusual manner. This is not the case. HIV/AIDS prevention and education training is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Red Cross. Likewise, a sizable number of Fortune 500 companies such as AETNA Life Insurance Company, RJR Nabisco, Eastman Kodak, IBM and employ HIV/AIDS training in their work places. I urge my colleagues' strong opposition to the Packard/Dornan amendment and ardent support for the Lightfoot substitute.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern that the Committee on Appropriations has failed to fund the IRS compliance initiative. The House bill calls for a $139 million cut. According to the IRS, this would result in a loss of 8,000 to 10,000 FTE's. Last year Congress approved a 5-year initiative at a cost of $405 million annually to hire 5,000 compliance personnel at IRS. The IRS predicted that this initiative would bring in $9.2 billion in revenue that would otherwise go uncollected. The IRS has hired or in many cases reassigned the personnel, and CBO and GAO have indicated that the revenue projection targets are on track. If this compliance initiative is not fully funded this year, IRS employees may have to be RIF'd and revenue owed the U.S. Government will go uncollected. Such shortsightedness would not be tolerated in the private sector, and should be rejected by us as well.

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I know the American public must be saying, ``I cannot believe this issue is back. They settled it last Congress. They settled it in that Congress consistent with the views of the American public. What is it doing back?'' A woman's right to choose should not depend on the vicissitudes of who is in charge. But it would appear that is the case for Federal employees. Mr. Chairman, this is not an issue about abortion. This is about discrimination. This issue is about discrimination in medical services directed at millions of Federal employees. The other side would not have the nerve to raise this issue unless they characterized the funds involved as Federal funds. That is a transparent mischaracterization. Ask employees at IBM and AT&T whether the share of compensation that they pay for their medical is IBM's or is theirs. Don't insult Federal employees by saying to them that money they have earned, their own compensation, nevertheless still belongs to the Federal Government and is Federal funds. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about Medicaid. These are people who work every day, and buy their own health care. Federal employees are not on welfare. It is not up to you to tell them what to spend their health care money for. They can buy any other pregnancy-related service. We are talking about 1.2 million women of reproductive age who happen to work for the Federal Government, and for that reason incur discrimination in health care. That is an abomination. You can only do it because you can reach your own employees and you cannot reach private sector employees. How often does an American have to go outside of her own already paid-for health care plan to get medical care? Perhaps you have to go outside of your own health care plan to get a facelift. That is not what this delicate procedure is about. Mr. Chairman, Federal employees have had enough. They are going through the most severe downsizing in history. They do not know whether they will get their pay raises and locality pay. They are called bureaucrats derisively, when they are risking their lives as FBI agents, or inspecting meat to make sure we do not risk out lives. You get them at work. Please do not get them in the bedroom. Stop the discrimination against Federal employees.

Ms. NORTON. I understand that when the bill goes to conference, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] hopes to provide some additional funding for this program.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act of 1995, that would require the District to pay its Federal matching share of highway funds in fiscal year 1997. This legislation must be enacted by the House and the Senate this month if the District is to avoid losing millions of dollars in Federal funds and missing another construction season. Without the swift passage of this legislation in both Chambers, $82 million in fiscal year 1995 apportioned moneys and a similar amount in fiscal year 1996 moneys to the District of Columbia will evaporate effective August 1, 1995. During this period of acute fiscal crisis, such a result would be absurd and counterproductive, and would jeopardize the safety and well-being of local, regional, and national travelers on District roads. This should be considered unacceptable for the Nation's Capital. At present, no new highway projects are planned this year in the District, and no new bids have been solicited over the past 20 months because the city's fiscal crisis has left the city unable to meet the matching funds requirement for Federal moneys. With this bill, vital District projects to improve the major gateways into the city could proceed, aiding more tourists and commuters than DC residents. Under this legislation, the District would be required to repay any cost share that is waived. Such cost share waivers have substantial precedent: in 1975 after passage of the Federal jobs stimulus bill; in the 1982 highway bill when the gas tax was increased 5 cents; and in the 1991 transportation bill when program funding was increased. All totaled, 39 States have been granted such cost share waivers under these three authorities. It should also be emphasized that this bill gives the District no extra Federal highway money, but only allows the city to use its own Federal aid funds. Time is of the essence. If the Congress does not grant the District this waiver before July 31, 1995, the District will lose millions in irretrievable Federal funds. This would be a major loss for the District, but an even greater loss to the region and to the Nation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to what this bill does to the Government Printing Office. It virtually begins the dismantlement of that office with a 50-percent cut from 1995. No thought is given to access by the public, which will now have to go through the individual agencies instead of to a single service to get documents. I fear for the public. Government is hard enough to find your way through. This massive cut assumes that the agencies are going to pay. Of course, we are cutting the agencies too, so we are simply moving the cost. GPO, ironically, is the leading agency in contracting out. Yet the underlying assumption of this bill is that what we ought to do with this agency is contract out. They contract out 75 percent of their work. We ought to send the other agencies to the GPO to find out how they do it. We need a referee, however, when we are talking printing and printing technology, to decide what should be contracted out and what should not. I cannot imagine each individual agency going through the process of deciding that. And particularly, I cannot imagine that given what a recent GAO report has found; that agencies contract out work that can be done more cost efficiently in-house, more cheaply in-house. Mr. Chairman, I have a bill, cosponsored by the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], that would require executive agencies to make a specific determination, before contracting out occurs, that it is going to indeed cost less. Nothing, of course, requires that to happen within this body. We need, with this body, procurement with some controls on it from a central, knowledgeable source. For most of our history that source has been the GPO. Finally, let me say the Government Printing Office is one of the few manufacturing facilities still left in the District of Columbia. It is the largest minority employer in the manufacturing facility. Congress has ultimate responsibility for the District of Columbia, which is on its financial knees. This is not the time to cripple one of its major employers.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take note of the significant improvement in the performance of the Postal Service in the District of Columbia. In just over 1 year, under prodding from the Congress, the Postal Service has taken a new direction with a pay back for postal customers in the District of Columbia. The most recent performance figures show that local, on-time delivery performance is now at 81 percent--up from 69 percent this time last year. This is a clear demonstration that the Postal Service can do the job if we keep on its case. Last year, when we became aware of problems effecting mail service in the metropolitan region, I indicated that our last place finish would not be tolerated. In addition to residents' mail, the most important mail in the country and the world passes through the Washington, DC Post Office. The Postal Service apparently heard us--at a town meeting I convened in the District and through our many hearings that brought out the details of delivery problems here in the District. Since I began monitoring local mail service closely over the past year, I am encouraged that performance has been steadily rising throughout this period. The Postal Service's investment in providing the type of service required in the world's most important city is finally paying off. New technologies, new employees, and a renewed commitment to customer service are making the difference, just as they are showing us what Government can do when it places its customers first. Not only has service in the District of Columbia improved, but nationally, on-time delivery has reached the highest level ever. A few months ago, I walked a delivery route with a letter carrier here in the District of Columbia. I learned first hand of the pride many postal employees take in serving their customers. There is a fragile bond between the customer and the service provider. I am pleased that the Postal Service recognizes the very real need to maintain and strengthen this bond. I will continue to monitor the progress of the Postal Service and make monthly reports to District constituents in my column ``Notes from Congress'' in community papers. As shown by the good news of the most recent figures, monitoring and pressure from House Members has been among the most important factors influencing the improvements in service. Now is no time to let up the pressure. D.C. needs to do more than improve markedly, as we have. We must shoot for the top--and we will.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on June 6, I personally commended an exceptional 13-year-old boy who has brought honor to himself, his family, and the D.C. public schools through his outstanding academic accomplishments. Gilbert Wang was the third highest scorer in the District in the recent MathCounts competition, and has also triumphed in the citywide Geography Bee, as well as excelling in all his other subjects. Gilbert Wang is an eighth grader at Thomas Jefferson Junior High School. He completed his first algebra class in the fifth grade (making a special trip to Jefferson for the course) with a perfect score of 100 percent. In the sixth grade, he traveled to Jefferson to study geometry, which he also completed with a 100 percent score. Continuing his advanced coursework in mathematics, Gilbert took trigonometry with ninth-graders while he was in the seventh grade. He recently completed a pre-calculus course at George Washington University with a grade of ``A''. Next year Gilbert will attend School Without Walls, an innovative public high school where students pursue advanced placement curricula, and attend many special courses off-campus and universities. Gilbert will probably graduate from high school in the tenth grade. The D.C. public schools recognized Gilbert's talents early on, and offered him the opportunity to excel that he has so wonderfully used. Jefferson principal Vera White has been one of Gilbert's strongest supporters. The D.C. public schools have nurtured Gilbert's talents, while also keeping in mind that although he may be a prodigy, Gilbert is nevertheless a 13-year-old boy with special needs. While Jefferson has assisted Gilbert in obtaining scholarships for his advanced university coursework, the school, and Gilbert's parents, have helped him maintain an environment where he can learn and socialize with his peers as well. This outstanding child has thrived in the D.C. public school system. The schools have provided him with opportunities to make the most of his extraordinary abilities, and with innovative education options have offered him a chance to explore and grow outside of the traditional educational structure, but within the public school system. Gilbert Wang is truly exceptional, and he has been exceptionally well served by the D.C. public school system. I offered by most heartfelt congratulations and support to Gilbert and his parents, and to Jefferson Junior High School, and its principal and teachers.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill which authorizes the District to do the preliminary work for the convention center, which, during this period of fiscal crisis, will be a major revenue raising source for the District of Columbia. The bill will allow the District to use funds raised through hotel and restaurant taxes designated to support this project. Much to its credit, the hotel and restaurant sector came forward on its own to suggest this new tax on themselves to finance the center. No existing District operating funds are committed under this bill. Mayor Barry and the city council have assigned a very high priority to the new convention center because of its revenue-generating potential at a time when the city is in acute financial distress. They are anxious to have this bill introduced and moved quickly. These funds will enable the District to do vital preconstruction work, including environmental studies and architecture and design studies. The District will be able to move forward and build the new convention center, returning the District to competitiveness in the convention and tourism market. Without a new center, the District will be unable to attract the increasing numbers of large conventions seeking to meet in the metropolitan region and the substantial disposable income these conventions bring to the city. I am particularly pleased that Representative Tom Davis, chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of a bill that invests in the District's economy.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the District rarely gets the opportunity to tell the countless good stories of its residents and its children. After all, in this tabloid society, success is boring. Failure is news. But some successes shine so brightly, they both capture and captivate. Skylar Byrd, a District of Columbia public school student, made the news recently and made some history as well. Her perfect score on her SAT's when she was 15 got the attention it deserves. Skylar is a student at Banneker High School in the District. Skylar's smart all right. But Skylar has more than her considerable talent going for her. She has a capacity for hard work, and a loving family. She also has a public school system that deserves a lot more credit than it gets. Perhaps Skylar's success can help illuminate the accomplishments of Banneker and the District of Columbia public schools and its students as well.