Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro amendment. Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of the DeLauro Amendment to the defense authorization bill. One of the great landmarks in freedom for American women came when they won the right for reproductive choice. It is hard to think of a right more important, and it is unthinkable that an American women would have that right as a civilian, but lose it in the service of her country. There has been a great deal of misrepresentation regarding this amendment. Let me take a moment to explain the truth about what this amendment does not do. With the DeLauro amendment only the current law would be retained, nothing new would occur. No taxpayer money would be used to perform abortions, only the private funds of individual women exercising their constitutional right. No military medical personnel would be forced to perform an abortion. The conscience clause that is currently in effect would be retained. Any person who feels unable or unwilling to perform an abortion would not be required to do so. What this amendment does do, however, is to allow servicewomen to maintain their rights abroad while fighting to retain our rights here at home. It is crucial that as these brave women serve our country, they are allowed access to the identical safe health care that the Supreme Court has decided is a right of all American women. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the DeLauro amendment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, at the request of the District of Columbia, I introduced H.R. 1509 on April 7, 1995, in order to begin the necessary process that will enable the District to begin work on a new sports arena. Since then, the District has developed a different funding mechanism and has requested that a revised bill be introduced. Mayor Barry and the City Council have assigned a very high priority to the new arena because of its revenue-generating potential at a time when the city is in acute financial distress. The Council has given its wholesale support to the project and the Mayor has expedited the project in the District to free it from procedures that might otherwise delay it. We will try to do the same here in the Congress. I particularly appreciate that Representative Tom Davis, chairman of the subcommittee that must carry the legislation through the Congress, has agreed to become an original cosponsor and to expedite the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, that's a Washington Post headline about one of DC's much decorated junior high schools. Deal's seventh and eighth grades beat such schools as Sidwell Friends and the National Cathedral School in the 1995 MathCounts Contest. We love our private schools, but with public schools, D.C. has something to prove: That our public schools are brimming with smart youngsters and dedicated teachers and principals. A student from Jefferson Junior High, another public school, had one of the four highest scores in the city in the MathCounts contest. Deal took the citywide mathematics championship the same way athletes win--through intensive training, advanced levels of competition, and diligent preparation. This D.C. public school also excels in many other areas. This spring Deal won both the citywide Spelling Bee and the Geography Bee. Today, I join my colleagues in congratulating the Deal students, principal, teachers, and parents for their accomplishments, perseverance, and commitment, even beyond the classroom and the required study.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Black Caucus budget has been an indispensable part of this process, because it demonstrates that we can balance the budget without robbing grandmothers and parents and kids and the pensions of Federal employees. However, I want to challenge the assumption of this entire 2-day debate. Mr. Chairman, I balance my budget, but that is because I did not pay cash up front for my house. I balance, as businesses do their budgets, because they do not pay up front for equipment the way we pay up front for bombers and submarines. We have been on an insane path to balance the budget with cash money, in a way that must make States and localities and businesses laugh at the top of their voices, because they do not have a unified budget the way we do; they have a capital budget, and an operating budget. We can never balance the budget fairly this way. We are trying to balance the budget in a radically destructive, uniquely damaging way. The people who sent us here did not expect us to go stupid on them.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there are no fun and games in this budget for my constituents. There is one sure way to understand the foolish, heartless, meat-ax document that passes for a budget resolution before us today. Folks who would begin by cutting their grandmothers' Medicare to fund tax cuts for the rich, would cut anyone, anytime, and anywhere. Well, almost anyone. The Republicans have spared the rich, and they have spared defense. But they have sent a search and destroy mission out to get literally everyone else--especially the elderly and the poor--but also, most assuredly working people, middle-income families, students, kids, and Federal employees. The Republican budget resolution reads like a Who's Who of the Most Needy and the Most Deserving. Take your pick. Does it make any sense in today's world to wipe out educational programs and summer jobs for disadvantaged children? How should African-Americans regard zeroing out Howard University, the flagship university of Black America? How can working Americans accept as champions Republicans who propose to completely eliminate additional unemployment benefits and training assistance to workers who lose their jobs--including the hundreds of thousands of NAFTA job-losers. And here's another of the many zeros in this budget--a zero for operating assistance for mass transit--hit the cities, suburbs and the environment at the same time. Tell me what sense it makes to throw people off of welfare and at the same time cut $21 billion from Earned Income Tax Credit for working poor families? Who gains by freezing Head Start, making for a 26 percent loss? How many needy students will forego college because they have to pay $5,000 in interest on their loans while still in school? This sampling, courtesy of the GOP, is not a cruel joke. Nobody laughed on Monday at my Seniors' Legislative Day. The figures told the story. Hurt everybody, but hurt seniors the most. Intentionally? Not exactly. Just go where the money is. There are only hard ways out of our untenable deficit. You can't fix Medicare and Medicaid simply by cutting them. You can fix them only by fixing the sick system of which they are a part. Otherwise the system will simply shift the costs to other Americans. The shift that is going to hurt Americans most is the earthquake shift of necessary costs from the Federal Government to States and localities. Much that the budget resolution eliminates still has to be done. The Federal Government with the broadest tax base may still find relief. But, watch for inevitable sales and property tax increases for States and localities. Call it what you want. A cut by any other name is still a cut. When you fund Medicare and school lunches at less than the cost of inflation, that is a cut. When you fund foster care and housing for the elderly at less than the rapidly growing number of eligibles, that is a cut. The Republicans are in a runaway truck with a driver drunk on cuts at the wheel. We must do something before this budget crashes, leaving human debris in its wake.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the Gilchrest amendment. I would hate to believe that the long awaited National Academy of Sciences study has not gotten here just in time. A million dollars is what we put down to get somebody objective to look at this problem. The reduction in wetland acres, my colleagues, is awesome. This is a radical change based on ignorance. Indeed, the provisions that are objectionable are based on discredited provisions of the 1991 manual. How can we use a 1991 manual that failed field testing and not a state-of-the-art study? In this area, we are spending tax dollars to restore wetlands. Let the Amy Corps of Engineers use the NAS study, the only study with any integrity, to develop delineation criteria. The wetlands title before us is an act of ignorance. Please, support the Gilchrest amendment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in this time of budget rescissions and cutting of social programs, I am reintroducing a bill that would aid us in refocusing the debate on funding priorities. The Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act, which is designed to take effect when all foreign countries possessing nuclear weapons enact and execute similar legal requirements, requires the United States to disable and dismantle its nuclear weapons and to refrain from replacing them with weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the bill proposes refocusing resources that are currently being used for nuclear programs to address human needs such as housing, health care, education, agriculture, and environmental restoration. The Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act is consistent with current U.S. policy and moves us to the next logical level by redirecting resources to essential domestic needs. The disarmament contemplated by this legislation is not unilateral on the part of the United States but requires multilateral cooperation to rid the world of nuclear weapons. During the first 100 days of this Congress, many crucial programs were put on the chopping block--money for summer jobs for youth and future levels of funding for school lunches for our children. Yet, with the end of the cold war already making it into our children's text books, we have not yet refocused our priorities, nor reallocated our precious resources toward our most precious resource of all--our children. This act is a step toward that end.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, nobody was home on the other side of the aisle last year when the President pressed health care reform as the only way to contain runaway costs. Suddenly Republicans have discovered the cost side of his equation, but it will not balance without health care reform. Tax cuts for the rich just passed by the House make this a mass problem with no possible solution. In the Senate some Republicans are trying to dodge the bullet by disowning the tax cuts while other Republicans over there would rather die than give them up. This is no way to celebrate May, which is Older Americans Month. Their equation is already out of balance with 20 percent of their income going for out-of-pocket health care expenses. The only way to relieve them and cut costs at the same time is to mop up all the inefficiency in health care with across-the-board reform. Medicare is not out of control. The health care system is. Tax cuts for the rich make a bad situation worse.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the Oklahoma City tragedy has spread some connective tissue among Americans. It has compelled us not only to recognize our fragile vulnerability, but to reaffirm our basic unity. I am bemused by the new crop of civil libertarians the crisis has awakened. They are a welcome sight, especially those who regularly vilified others who defended unpopular speech on the left and right. Talk show hosts and Members of Congress now often sound like card- carrying members of the ACLU. I hope that the new found zeal for civil liberties carrier forward when the next bill to curtail them comes to the floor, or when the militia come at us from the left instead of the right. As a young constitutional lawyer, I was put to the first amendment test when I was called on to defend racists and neo-Nazis. I really had no choice. Surely now we know that none of us do. Free speech is unequivocal, unpolitical, and indivisible.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in the bill originally passed by the House, we set out to require that members of the Authority have a stake in this city, and used as evidence the payment of personal income or business taxes in the District. As part of the technical amendments adopted in the Senate, this language, for the purpose of clarification, was modified to require members to maintain a primary residence or have a primary place of business in the District. As with the original House provision, it is intended that members of the Authority have a clear tax-based stake in the District. Such a stake exists where a person pays personal income taxes or, because his or her primary place of business is headquartered in the District, pays business taxes to the District. Such a stake, however, clearly does not exist where a person merely, by virtue of employment, works in the District but pays no business taxes in the District. As an indication of this intent, the Senate agreed to eliminate a requirement of employment in one of its proposals. By so doing they agreed to the elimination of individuals who work for the government or for private employers but live elsewhere and pay no personal or business taxes in the District of Columbia. As reiterated in each of the hearings on this legislation held by the House Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, such basic stakeholdership is critical to the ultimate legitimacy and success of such authorities. Section 202(g) allowing line-item authority by the Mayor and the city council is necessary during the control period because the finances all of the revenue of the District must be treated as a whole and the same financial discipline applied in the same fashion to all units that are funded by the District of Columbia government. Home rule requires that first the school board and then the Mayor and the city council initiate any necessary designation and realignment of expenditures before any action may be taken by the Authority. Therefore, there was no way to avoid line-item authority by any of the city's elected leaders. However, Congress intends no interference with the Home Rule Act jurisdiction of the elected board of education. Although no agency is protected from cuts that may be necessary to bring the city's budget as a whole into line, Congress does not intend that there be raiding of the school system budget. The Authority and, if necessary, the Congress itself will enforce the board of education's existing legal prerogatives. Nor does the Congress endorse recent implications that it would be best for the Board of Education, the school system, or the Superintendent to be under the jurisdiction of other elected officials. The residents of the District, elected officials, or the Authority may make appropriate recommendations in this regard. However, it is not appropriate for Congress to make such a significant change without receiving a recommendation pursuant to hearings and a thoughtful process, and Congress has no evidence that would warrant such a change at this time. In H.R. 1345, Congress has made only those changes necessary to meet the financial emergency that is the subject matter of this legislation. The Home Rule Charter establishes the Board of Education as an independent agency of the District government and gives it the statutory authority and jurisdiction to determine all questions of general policy related to the schools, direct expenditures, appoint the superintendent of schools, enter into negotiations and binding contracts, provide state certification for personnel, and control the use of public school buildings and grounds. While H.R. 1345 gives line- item authority over the school system's budget to the Mayor and city council, it is not intended to change the relationship between the board of education and city council. Just as the Authority should not be able to reorder the priorities of the Mayor and the city council, the Mayor and the council should not be able to reorder the board of education's educational priorities. Elected officials and the Authority need to be especially vigilant in guarding the school board's independence. Because there is no bright line between budget and policy, it would not be difficult to trespass into the legitimate areas reserved for the school board. One important way to avoid this problem is, before a final decision is made on any line-item cut in the school system's budget, there should be collaboration and an effort to reach consensus among elected officials and the superintendent of schools. This is how the Mayor and the council will relate to the Authority and it is how they in turn should relate to the schools. We note that District of Columbia elected officials have worked collaboratively in the past to establish a formula for public school funding similar to funding formulas in many school districts, and these efforts should be continued. Since Congress gave the district authority to cut the school system's budget during the fiscal year, that authority has been used to make large cuts in the school system's budget late in the fiscal year. September is the time in the fiscal year when the city scrambles to balance its budget by ordering cuts to make up for agency overspending. These actions destabilize school operations and directly impact on local funding. While it is true that the school system spends most of its budget at the beginning of the fiscal year, and spending activities drop during the summer months, the system needs its budgeted money to reopen schools in September, the last month in the fiscal year. If the council is able to raid the school system's budget late in the fiscal year, the board may be unable to balance its budget. Every effort should be made to do careful planning to avoid sudden and unplanned cuts. Finally, the Congress is particularly concerned that there be no political influence in the operation of the schools or in matters such as the awarding of contracts.

Ms. NORTON. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the distinguished chairman of the full committee.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlemen for their kind and gracious remarks and for all of their unyielding help and determination during this very difficult process. I am pleased that it is at an end and it has received such remarkable support in this House, in the Senate, and I applaud especially the efforts of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], who has worked untiringly for fair results.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I, too, have examined the amendments, and I will not object to them. I am inserting a statement from the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] at this point in the debate.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I further reserve the right to object. (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], to explain the nature of the Senate amendments.

Ms. NORTON. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, at the request of the District of Columbia, I am introducing the National Children's Island Act of 1995, which will transfer the national park service land on Heritage and Kingman Islands in the Anacostia River to the District of Columbia. These lands will then be developed by National Children's Island, a nonprofit organization, as a year round recreational and educational park and playground free to the public. National Children's Island is a fully private enterprise project in the District of Columbia. The District estimates that the park will mean not only recreational and educational facilities for residents and tourists, but also over 1,500 full- and part-time jobs, with at least 51 percent of such jobs going to District residents. The park will bring revenue to the District projected at $12 million. A share of the park profits and revenues will be earmarked for educational grants, scholarships, and other programs. The park also will have educational pavilions that will feature a number of the sciences, especially computers, medicine, and the environment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in celebrating Dr. Leffall's appointment as the president-elect of the American College of Surgeons, as well as his commitment to his students, and his dedication to the study of cancer specifically within the African-American community. Dr. Leffall is a scholar we can all respect and admire, graduating suma cum laude from Florida A&M, and first in his class from Howard University Hospital College of Medicine. Since that time has he served at the highest level of many civic and professional organizations, including: president of the American Cancer Society; president of the Society of Surgical Oncology; member of the board of directors of the Medical Education for South African Blacks; member of the National Cancer Advisory Board; member of the American Board of Surgery; and secretary of the American College of Surgeons. Beyond his personal scholarly achievement, Dr. Leffall has served as a professor and an inspiration for approximately 3,500 medical students and more than 150 general surgery residents instructed during in his 33 years on Howard's faculty. For his teaching, he has also received commendation--named outstanding teacher by the student council honoree and recipient of the Howard University Distinguished Scholar-Teacher Award. Since that 1979, as the national president of the American Cancer Society, Dr. Leffall's professional concentration has been on the increasing incidence and mortality of cancer in the African-American community. His never-ending commitment has affected the District's community, as well as the national African-American community, and he has received commendation from both. Dr. Leffall received the Humanitarian Award from the District of Columbia branch of the NAACP and the National Achievement Award from the Black Caucus of the Democratic National Committee. He also received the Presidential Award from the Metropolitan Washington Chapter of the American College of Surgeons, been named a Washingtonian of the Year and listed as one of the best doctors in Washington, DC in the Washingtonian. Therefore, we commend Dr. Leffall's past work, his dedication to medicine, cancer within the African-American community, and look forward to his continued commitment and achievement as the first African-American president of the American College of Surgeons.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that presents a unique and extraordinary economic opportunity for the District of Columbia. This bill offers this unprecedented opportunity through revenue bonding authority, including the authority to build a new convention center, as well as a new sports arena downtown. These are not only remarkable projects. In light of the District's need for revenue in the midst of a severe economic crisis, these projects are remarkably timed. These two buildings hold virtually the only promise for indispensable economic development for a city that otherwise faces an unprecedented and painful fiscal crisis. The bonding authority authorized in this bill will mark a critical step toward the revival of the economy of the District. Today, the Washington Convention Center operates at a 90-percent occupancy range. In this year alone, the District will lose over $80 million in economic impact because of the loss of shows that are too large for the present center. However, the new convention center will be three times the size of the current center. That translates into over $2.8 billion in direct convention revenue for the District between 1998 and 2003. On the other hand, without the new center, the District will lose $968 million in direct convention revenue by the year 2002. A new sports arena also could not come at a better time for the District. Moving the arena from the Maryland suburbs to downtown Washington will result in more than $100 million in net new spending in the District annually from people buying tickets and purchases from concessions at events, as well as patronizing restaurants in the area. The arena also will create a minimum of 540 full-time equivalent jobs in the city. It is important to note that these projects are not pipe dreams that may or may not come true. The District's Hotel Association has agreed to an increase in the hotel tax to back the convention center bonds and the owner of the two sports franchises has agreed to pay the cost of building the arena. The only thing that stands in the way of making these a reality is congressional approval of revenue bonding authority for the District. I strongly urge support for this legislation. It will help give the District of Columbia the tools to become again the master of its own economic destiny.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in enacting the Equal Pay Act [EPA] in 1963, Congress hoped to close the wage gap between men and women by prohibiting wage discrimination based on the gender of the employees performing the work. Some progress has been 62 cents to a man's dollar; in 1992, they earned 71 cents. However, this movement reflects an alarming decrease in male wages as well as the new presence of highly educated women in entry level positions. The wage gap persists largely because most women are still segregated into a few low-paying occupations. A supplementary remedy is needed. This bill, the Fair Pay Act, amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure equal pay not just for equal work, but also for comparable work--jobs that are equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. More than 30 years of EPA experience demonstrates that if we are serious about gender and race-based wage discrimination, we must sharpen our remedies. When we look closely and objectively, can we honestly say that an emergency services operator--a female dominated profession--should be paid less than a fire dispatcher--a male dominated profession? Or that a social worker should earn less than a probation officer simply because the social worker is usually a woman? Shouldn't the market set these rates? Too often the habits of employers over the decades have been built into distortions in the market. Women and minorities pay the price in reduced wages. The Fair Pay Act also expands protections provided in the Equal Pay Act by prohibiting wage discrimination based on the race and national origin of employees. In 1992, African-American men earned 72 percent as much as white men, while African-American women earned only 64 percent as much as white men. Hispanic men earned 65 percent as much as white men, while Hispanic women earned only 55 percent as much. While some of the wage gap results from differences in education, experience, or time in the work force, studies estimate that 75 percent of this differential may be a result of discrimination. A remedy that exorcises only the discrimination factor is necessary. As with sex discrimination and all other kinds of discrimination, the plaintiff who alleges discrimination must carry the burden to show that discrimination is the proximate cause of the violation. Most American families are wholly or significantly dependent on women's wages. Fair pay has become increasingly a family necessity and an urgent issue. Families cannot meet the challenge unless Congress takes up its challenge to enact a wage statute that meets the needs of the nineties as the Equal Pay Act did in the sixties. Section-by-Section Analysis, the Fair Pay Act of 1995 section 1--short title and reference Section 1 (a) states that this Act may be cited as the ``Fair Pay Act of 1995.'' Section 1 (b) provides that all amendments in this bill refer to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. section 2--findings Section (1) states that there are differences in wages for equivalent jobs in Government employment and in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. These wage differences are based on sex, race, or national origin. Section (2) states that the existence of the wage differentials causes the following: Subsection (2)(A) provides that wage differentials depress wages and living standards for employees. Both which are necessary for their health and efficiency. Subsection (2)(B) provides that wage differentials result in the prevention of maximum use of available labor resources. Subsection (2)(C) provides that wage differentials cause labor disputes therefore burdening, affecting and obstructing commerce. Subsection (2)(D) provides that wage differentials burden commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce. Subsection (2)(E) provides that wage differentials constitute an unfair method of competition. Section (3) states that a segregated workforce has been maintained due to discrimination in hiring and promotion of women and people of color. Section (4) states that many women and people of color work in occupations dominated by individuals of their same sex, race, and national origin. Section (5)(A) provides that a General Accounting Office analysis of wages in Washington State civil service found that, in 1985, of the jobs studies that paid less than average, approximately 39 percent were female dominated and approximately 16 percent were male dominated. Subsection (5)(B) provides that a study of wages in Minnesota using 1990 census data found that 75 percent of the wage differential between white and non-white workers was unexplained and may be a result of discrimination. Section (6) states that Section 6(D) of the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits discrimination in compensation for ``equal work'' on the basis of sex. Section (7) states that the United States Supreme Court has held that the prohibition against discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to jobs which do not constitute ``equal work.'' However, lower court decisions have demonstrated that further clarification of jobs that do not constitute ``equal work'' is necessary. Section (8) states that artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in compensation based upon sex, race, and national origin continue to exist more than 30 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act. Elimination of such barriers would have positive effects: Subsection (8)(A) providing a solution to problems in the economy created by discriminating wage differentials. Subsection (8)(B) reducing the number of working women and people of color earning low wages, thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance. Subsection (8)(C) promoting stable families by enabling working family members to earn a fair rate of pay. section 3--equal pay for equivalent jobs Section 3(a) provides that Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards act is amended by adding a new section. The new section states the following: Section (g)(1)(A) states that no employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate between employees based on sex, race, or national origin by paying wages at a rate less for work of equal value, except where the payment is made based on a seniority system, a merit system or a system where earnings are measured by quantity or quality of production. Section (g)(1)(B) states that an employer who is paying a wage differential in violation of subparagraph (A) shall not reduce the wage rate of any employee. Section (g)(2) states that no labor organization or its agents representing employees of an employer subject to any provision of this section shall cause or attempt to cause the employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of paragraph (1)(A). Section (g)(3) provides for employers to pay any amounts which have been withheld in violation of paragraph (1)(A). Any amounts owing to any employee shall be deemed unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this or section 7. Section (g)(4) provides that the following definitions apply to this subsection: Section (g)(4)(A) defines `labor organization' as an organization of any kind, or an agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. Section (g)(4)(B) defines `equivalent jobs' as those jobs that may be dissimilar, but whose requirements are viewed as equivalent in a composite of skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. section 4--prohibited acts Section 4 states that section 15(a) (29 U.S.C. 214(a)) is amended by adding after paragraph (5) a new subsection (6) which provides the following: Section 15(a)(b) prohibits the discrimination of any individual who has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by section 6(g) or because such an individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under section 6(g). Section 15(a)(7) prohibits the discharge or any other form of discrimination, coercion, intimidation, threat, or interference with any employee or any other person because the employee asked about, disclosed, compared, or otherwise discussed the employee's wages or the wages of any other employee, or because the employee exercised, enjoyed, aided, or encouraged another person to exercise or enjoy any right granted or protected by section 6(g). section 5--remedies Section 5 states that section 16 (29 U.S.C. 216) is amended by (1) adding the following: Section 16(f) authorizes the court, if any action is brought, to award to the prevailing plaintiff(s), in addition to any other remedies, expert fees as part of the costs. Any such action may be maintained as a class action as provided by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. section 6--records Section 6 states that section 11(c) (29 U.S.C. 211(c)) is amended by inserting ``(1)'' after the current section (c), and by adding a section which provides the following: Section c(2)(A) states that every employer subject to section 6(g) shall have records which document and support the method, system, calculations, and other bases used by the employer in establishing, adjusting, and determining the wages paid to the employees of the employer. Every employer subject to section 6(g) shall keep records for a period of time and make a report to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as shall be prescribed by regulations. Section c(2)(B) states that every employer subject to section 6(g) shall file an annual report with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission containing information in such detail as necessary to accurately disclose the wage or salary rates paid to each job classified, position, job title, or other wage or salary group of employees employed by the employer, as well as the sex, race and national origin of employees at each wage or salary level in each classification, position, job title, or other wage or salary group. The individual employee. Section c(2)(C) states that the reports filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall be public information. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may publish any information or data it obtains through the reports. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is also authorized to use the information and data for statistical and research purposes, and to compile and publish such studies, analyses, reports, and surveys based thereon as it may deem appropriate. Section c(2)(D) states that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall by regulation make reasonable provision for the inspection and examination by any persons of the information and data contained in any report filed with it pursuant to subparagraph (B). Section c(2)(E) states that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall by regulation supply copies of the report filed to anybody upon payment of a charge; charge depends on the cost of the service. Section c(2)(F) authorizes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue rules and regulations prescribing the form and content of reports required to be filed under subparagraph (B) and such other reasonable rules and regulations as it may find necessary to prevent the circumvention or evasion of the required report. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may prescribe by general rule a simplified report for those employers for whom it finds that by virtue of size a detailed report would be unduly burdensome. section 7--research, education, and technical assistance program; report to congress Section 7 amends section 4(d) (29 U.S.C. 204(d)) by adding the following at the end: Section 4(d)(4) states that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall undertake studies and offer information and technical assistance to employers, labor organizations, and the general public concerning effective mean available to implement the provisions of section 6(g) prohibiting wage discrimination between employees performing work in equivalent jobs on the basis of sex, race, or national origin. The studies, information, and technical assistance shall be based upon and make references to the declared policy of such section to eliminate such discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must further carry on a continuing program of research, education, and technical assistance including the following: Subsection (A) states that it shall include undertaking and promoting research with the intent of developing means to expeditiously correct the conditions leading to section 6(g). Subsection (B) states that publishing and otherwise making available to employers, labor organizations, professional associations, educational institutions, the various media of communication, and the general public the finding of studies and other materials for promoting compliance with section 6(g) is included in the further continuance of the research. Subsection (C) includes sponsoring and assisting State and community informational and educational programs. Subsection (D) includes providing technical assistance to employers, labor organizations, professional associations and other interested persons on means of achieving and maintaining compliance with the provisions of section 6(g). Section 4(d)(5) states that the annual report submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Congress shall include a separate evaluation and appraisal regarding the implementation of section 6(g). section 8--effective date Section 8 states that the amendments made by this Act shall take effect one year after the date of its enactment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this rule. Republicans have boasted that they have reformed the process. It is anti-reform to bypass a committee of jurisdiction. It is worse than that when you do so in order to take people's retirement in order to fund a tax cut. The American public regards its retirement as sacred, and this House has treated Social Security as sacred. Well, this is these folks' Social Security. You have used the contract time and time again as a metaphor. This is the Federal workers' contract. You asked them and forced them to choose between two systems in 1986. They chose. It is irrevocable for them, but you want to change the rules for yourselves in a tax cut. That is wrong. It is a tax cut nobody wants except Republicans in this body. How many times, how many ways do Americans have to say it? Deficit reduction, deficit reduction. It is bad enough to give a tax break to the rich; it is shameful to do it by taking money from the retirements of middle-income workers.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing four bills to bring some accountability and cast a search light on the elusive, stealth ``shadow government.'' This government we cannot see is the proliferating and largely unmonitored private contract service sector and work force from which the Federal Government procures services. Although a huge $105 billion Goliath, this sector has emerged unscathed and uncut at a time when deficit reduction has spared few others. In fact, service contracting constitutes the fastest growing area of Federal Procurement. In the 1980's, Federal officials acted as if they wanted to contract out the entire Government. From fiscal year 1989 to fiscal year 1992 alone, before the Clinton administration came into office, the number of contractors doing business with the Government rose from 62,819 to 82,472. Over that same period, the amount of money shelled out to contractors of all kinds mushroomed from $184 billion to almost $200 billion. Service contracts alone account for $105 billion of the $200 billion spent each year on outside contracts. This is a Government-created and financed monster that the OMB itself concedes is out of control. How extraordinary, then, that in a budget which has left no visible stone unturned, this large Federal expenditure has remained hidden in the shadows and has not contributed a single dollar of mandated cuts to deficit reduction, as Federal agencies and employees have. How remarkable that, despite a Government- wide effort to promote efficiency, we have not considered the inefficiency of guaranteeing contractors an invulnerable chuck of tax dollars. The Clinton administration, to its credit, has worked hard to make service contractors more responsive--for example, by proposing new performance-based standards for existing service contracts. how surprising, then, that the budget the Congress is now considering proposes no cuts in funds allocated for service contracts--thus leaving untouched a huge source of potential savings--while demanding continued sacrifices from the career work force that makes up the ``visible government.'' Thus far, the shadow government has not registered beneath the green eyeshades of budget cutters, including the Congress. practices. With the four bills I am introducing today, I hope to help begin the process of reinventing Federal contracting just as the rest of our Government is being reinvented. full federal pay raise My first bill would cut $2 billion in Federal agency funds for service contracts and make this money available for pay raises that are due Federal employees next year. Federal employees are again being required to give up part of their statutory pay increased while, again, contract employees paid for the same Federal budget remain untouched. The intent of my first bill is to eliminate the raw discrimination that allows the Government to seek sacrifices for civil servants because they are where we can see them but to give immunity to contract employees because they are out of sight. Beyond the discrimination against career employees who are denied modest increases promised by statute, current contracting practices are fundamentally bad business. According to a March 1994 GAO report, issuing service contracts and hiring consultants actually costs Federal agencies more than using Federal employees. In 3 of the 9 cased analyzed by GAO, agencies could have saved over 50 percent by keeping the work in-house. buyouts My second bill would plug a gaping hole in the landmark buyout legislation we have only just passed. Congress went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that civil servants who were bought out with cash could not be replaced and that the resulting 272,000 reductions in the Federal work force would be permanent. However, as it stands now, the buyout law would allow untold numbers of contract employees to take the places of bought-out Federal employees--substituting shadow government employees for career employees. My bill would amend the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act to prohibit agencies from contracting out work previously done by buyout recipients. cost comparisons The reason most often touted for contracting out work is that it is cheaper. The March 1994 GAO study contradicts this assumption, and an OMB study released in January 1994 shows that the cost-saving assumption is often not even tested. Federal agencies do not compare the costs for contracting with the costs of doing work in-house. My third bill would require agencies to make these cost comparisons and would prohibit any agency from entering into an outside service contract if the services could be performed at a lower cost by agency employees. size of contracting workforce One of the chief obstacles to regulating the contracting workforce has been the absence of information on the extent of the workforce. In 1988, for example, Congress passed legislation requiring agencies to significantly cut service contracts. However, a subsequent GAO report found that there was no way to know if the agencies had actually complied with the legislation. My fourth bill requires OMB to develop a Government-wide system for determining and reporting the number of nonfederal employees engaged in service contracts. All four of these bills would provide more systematic ways for monitoring and constraining the expenses associated with contracting out of services--just as we have insisted for Federal agencies and employees. Efficiency and deficit reduction must not stop at the door of the Federal agency. We need to bring the shadow government into the full light of day so that the sacrifices demanded in the name of reinventing Government may be shared by all employees and by every area of Government. Summaries of Service Contracting Bills Introduced By Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton 1. The first bill cuts $2 billion in Federal agency funds for service contracts and makes this money available for pay raises that are due Federal employees next year. Federal employees are again being required to give up part of their statutory pay increases while, again, contract employees paid from the same Federal budget remain untouched. The intent of this bill is to eliminate this inexplicable discrimination. 2. The second bill amends section 5(g) of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994, (Public Law 103-226) to prohibit an agency authorized to offer voluntary separation incentive payments under that Act from contracting out, in whole or in part, the duties previously performed by an employee who separated upon receiving such a payment. This is to ensure that no substitution of shadow government employees for career employees occurs. 3. The third bill prohibits any Executive Branch agency from entering into a service contract if the services to be procured under the contract can be performed at a lower cost by employees of the agency. It requires agencies to perform cost comparisons (contractor cost v. in-house cost) when deciding whether to contract for a service. The requirement applies to contracts entered into after the date of enactment. 4. The fourth bill requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a government-wide system for determining the number of persons employed by non- Federal Government entities providing services under service contracts awarded by agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. It also requires OMB to submit an annual report to the Congress indicating the number of such persons providing services and the number with jobs comparable to those of career Federal employees providing services to agencies.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], a Member from this region who has been helpful to the District. (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will regard this as a historic day for a new beginning, not a sad day, but a day that marked the period when the District shot out of its doldrums, the kind of doldrums many large cities find themselves in today. I am appreciative for the work of the subcommittee, particularly the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis]. As a native Washingtonian in a region without borders, he has made that understood by the way he has transformed the committee process for these purposes.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], the ranking minority of the Committee on Appropriations and an unusually wise and knowledgeable and essential partner in the negotiations that led to H.R. 1345. (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)