Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise and ask the House to support H.R. 6109, as amended, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2008. I want to especially thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica, and my own subcommittee ranking member, Congressman Graves, for their very strong, bipartisan support of this essential bill. H.R. 6109, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2008, reauthorizes the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program for 3 years. The bill authorizes grants to States awarded on a competitive basis, except that each State, and this is important, each State receives a statutory minimum of $557,000 or 1 percent of the funds appropriated, whichever is less. In this way, the bill increases the minimum amount that each State can receive under the program from $500,000 to $575,000 and codifies the competitive selection process of the program, as currently administered by FEMA. The bill authorizes $250 million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011 for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. The PDM program was first authorized in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The program, administered by FEMA through its Mitigation Division, is authorized under section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which we call the Stafford Act, of course. Pursuant to section 203(m) of the Stafford Act, the PDM program terminates on September 30 of this year unless Congress reauthorizes the program. This program provides cost-effective technical and financial assistance to State and local governments, which on the basis of a study of the effects of this quite new program, we now know reduces injuries, loss of life and damage to property caused by natural disasters. It provides grants to the States, territories, tribal governments and local communities on a competitive basis. According to the CBO, on average future losses are reduced by about $3 measured in discounted present value for each $1 spent on these projects, including both Federal and non-Federal spending. Madam Speaker, this is not a program which we have lightly authorized. We learned some lessons from Katrina. We have learned lessons, I believe, Madam Speaker, this week when entire sections of our country are being ravaged by flooding. This amount of money we do not pretend will allow pre-disaster programs to be undertaken for every event that can be expected. What it does do is to draw to the attention of local and State governments to what they and what we should be doing to reduce our own liability from particularly these natural disasters. Whenever a disaster occurs, Madam Speaker, this Congress will do what it must do. It will step up and do what we are doing in Louisiana. We do not pretend that the worst disaster in recorded United States history could have somehow been even perhaps mitigated by these funds, but we do believe that Katrina tells the story that every bit of mitigation you do, $3 for every $1 invested, says CBO, saves, first of all, lives, and then, of course, saves the investment that we ourselves will be required to make, and as Americans, we can say will make, in the event of a disaster. We all owe it to the country and to our local jurisdictions to use this money strategically and wisely so that it has the greatest effect, given the amount available. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6109.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. This entire House has you, Mr. Chairman, to thank for a lifetime of work in civil rights and human rights for all people, I thank you here on the floor. I thank my good colleague who serves on the Judiciary Committee. And I especially thank my colleague, John Lewis, who was chair of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee when I first joined. And I think I can say for John and me that either of us expected to be on the floor of this House at that time. I thank you, John. I'm not surprised that you would come forward with this resolution. For me, it would be too poignant an occasion but for the progress that I think we can say assures that these brutal murders, the murders that we came to call the ``Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman murders,'' certainly have not been in vain. In 1963, Bob Moses, a legendary figure of the Mississippi movement, recruited me while I was in law school to go to Mississippi. SNCC had opened up virtually everyplace else, but not Mississippi because, frankly, it was terrorist country. And to show you the extent to which Mississippi was a different place, it took the NAACP and Medgar Evers to lead the sit-ins there, and they got beat unmercifully. And that was in Jackson. I came to the Mississippi Delta that year for an express purpose, to prepare for the 1964 Freedom Summer, by conducting the prototype ``freedom school'' to be used in 1964, when we knew we would be able to gather thousands of students to come down. It was the high point of student activism. John and others went throughout the United States and students came in huge numbers. We had the highest hopes. I was particularly working on the 1964 Democratic Convention with my mentor, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Larry Guyout, who now lives here, the cochairs of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, and, working indeed, on the brief that would be used to say that this delegation, rather than the official delegation which excluded African Americans, should be recognized by the 1964 Democratic National Convention. And why was there a Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party? Because, indeed, in the summer of 1964, so many had come down to risk their lives for whom that had to have been their choice. Those high hopes were not extinguished when our delegation did not get seated. Those high hopes were not even extinguished when these brutal murders occurred. It took authorities weeks to find the three young men. Those high hopes remained high and, if anything, thrust the civil rights movement forward in a way it had not been before.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I won't take much longer, but this is a very special moment. In 1963 when I went to Mississippi, I first worked for the March on Washington under Bayard Rustin, then went to the Mississippi Delta. That was, I must say, the most eventful summer of my life, more eventful even than 1964. The great chief of the Mississippi NAACP Medgar Evers put me on a bus. Medgar Evers tried to convince me to stay in Jackson, but I said, no, that I had promised I was coming to the Delta. So he put me on a bus to go to the Delta. He then turned around, went back home, and he was shot and killed in his driveway that same evening. That was a year I shall never forget. But the fact is that the 1964 summer, in fact, happened. The students did not go home after the murders. We continued to organize. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, with Fannie Lou Hamer leading the way at the convention, was the high point of that convention. And the country has never forgotten it. It democratized the Democratic Party. It democratized even the Republican Party. And I must say that both parties then recognized that they had to have representative delegations. Steve Schwerner Michael's brother was one of my classmates in college. When I have met with the families, what has been extraordinary about them is to see that they understand the contributions they personally made to the freedom struggle. They have no regrets. They understand that the loss of Cheney and the two youngsters from the north was the last thing we expected and that that loss helped to waken the country. Do not forget what happened in 1964. The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that act contained Title VII. Something else I could never have imagined--I would one day come to enforce a major civil right's law, the 1964 Civil Right's Act as a Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This was the first civil rights legislation since the radical Republicans gave us our first civil rights legislation after the Civil War, and look what happened afterwards: the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Oh, no, these three young men died for a great and noble purpose. And in case the national panorama doesn't drive that point home, surely the fact that Mississippi today has the largest number of black public officials will help you to see that they did not die in vain, and surely the fact that their relatives now see the first African American to secure the nomination of a major party for President of the United States will drive home the reality that these three young men, at the dawn of their lives, not only did not die in vain but for generations to come and, yes, for this generation, have left a legacy of their own. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON. How much time do we have, please, Madam Speaker? I don't want to go over.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Public Charter Schools Home Rule Act of 2008, to give the District of Columbia local government full jurisdiction and complete oversight over the District of Columbia Charter School Board. I had hoped this normally routine local control would be possible when I was in the minority and worked with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Representative Steve Gunderson on the bill that created the District's major charter school board. While the charter board bill itself was created on a home rule basis, the structure was not, and reflects a period before the recovery of the DC government from financial and managerial distress. The DC Charter School Board is composed of members selected by the mayor, but only from a list of individuals presented by the Secretary of the Department of Education. Unlike similar boards in the District, the charter school board members need not be residents of the District of Columbia. Because the mayor is not permitted to select members of the board other than those submitted by the Secretary, the Federal Government inserts itself into critical decisionmaking about an important local education matter. This is an anti-home rule anomaly in a bill which had strong home rule support and is justifiably resented by DC public officials and residents. Ironically, the charter school bill itself was drawn with an abundance of home rule officials and resident participation. The DC Charter School Board was established by Congress during a time when the District was in the midst of a serious financial crisis. The city's local charter board, working under the DC Board of Education, had largely failed in its mandate to charter schools. Yet, it was clear that the District's children needed an alternative to the local school system. I am grateful that my Republican congressional colleagues, who controlled Congress at the time, agreed that alternatives to DCPS could be created without going to private school vouchers, which DC residents and elected officials strongly opposed. Instead, a task force, created by Speaker Gingrich and led by former Representative Steve Gunderson, worked with officials, residents and me, on a home rule basis, to develop the bill. The task force held many sessions that members of the City Council, the School Board, DC education advocates, and residents who had a special interest in education attended. H.R. 3610 became the first Federal charter school bill. Shortly thereafter, a nationwide charter school bill that includes grant funding was enacted with broad bipartisan support. I do not believe any of us could have anticipated the phenomenal growth and success of the DC Charter School Board or the level of innovations, diversity and excellence of many of the schools that has made it a model, and my bill is not intended as a criticism of the Charter School Board or its work. DC residents have created huge demand. The exponential growth of charter schools up to the largest number in the U.S. and their long waiting lists are a solid indication of the success of our charter schools in meeting the needs of thousands of students. The city would almost surely have lost many more residents than it has without the large growth of charters schools. Mayor Adrian Fenty is restructuring and reforming the DC public school system and has dissolved the local charter school board, leaving the federally created charter school board as the only standing authority. However, a federally chartered board structure is at odds with these reforms. Only a structure developed by local, officials is appropriate, particularly for local education matters. This bill, therefore, does not create a structure or indicate the appointing authority. In our country that is a matter for local officials alone. I have insisted that this bill do no more than repeal all existing Federal jurisdiction and transfer that jurisdiction to the District of Columbia to write its own bill. Only DC officials should appoint members to its local education board. The board cannot be appropriately accountable if its members are chosen from outside the accountable jurisdiction. I urge my colleagues to pass this important measure as soon as possible.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. By talking about ``Big Russ'' his father and writing about ``Big Russ,'' Tim was reminding us that he always knew whatever he did on his program, what was important, that family was important. He was not a politician but imagine what kind of politician he would have made? Can you imagine what he would have done in political life? Tim took an old, respected format and made it new. Tim revolutionized his species of broadcast and branded it as his own. Our hearts are breaking but our hearts go out to Maureen, to Luke, and especially to Tim's beloved ``Big Russ.''

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Professional journalism and millions around the world are in mourning today and ever since they heard of the passing of one of America's giants of journalism. Hometown D.C. is also experiencing its special brand of mourning. It's true that Tim Russert always talked about Buffalo and the Buffalo Bills. He never let you forget where he was from. It was important to him, where he was from. He identified with the Buffalo Bills because he identified with Buffalo and because Buffalo reminded him of his childhood and his church and his working class upbringing. The fact is that Tim made his fortune in the District of Columbia and lived in this city. So we adopted Tim long ago as a resident of the city, knowing that his heart was back in Buffalo, but he needed a hometown. This was a man who always needed a hometown, and I can tell you he knew where he lived, and he made me know that he knew where he lived. I was, in fact, on his program more than once and especially remember one of his end-of-the-year programs, where he kind of looked at the world and looked at what is going to happen. I love it that somehow Tim understood or at least allowed me to weave into an answer what he expected, which was some notion of voting rights that was still necessary in the District of Columbia. Buffalo and the Buffalo Bills were the only things I know that Tim was not objective about. His gift was somehow to humanize hard news and subjects for interviews by reminding us every so often of Buffalo and the Buffalo Bills and making us laugh and making us know that he was one of us all. At the same time, he managed to be a thoroughly objective reporter and tough interrogator. That, Madam Speaker, is indeed a gift. I don't know of anyone else in broadcast who has that gift. What was both heartbreaking and heartwarming to hear were the many personal stories from Tim's colleagues, not about their professional work with him but about how he related to them and their families as people. That, in a real sense, makes us know that when Tim talked about the Buffalo Bills and Buffalo this was always the human being talking.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 397, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I have to thank him first for a bill that is the breakthrough of the decades. Not only is this a bill about the beginning of an entirely new train system for the United States, it is a bill about keeping the old system, Amtrak, in check, a bill we have been needing it seems forever. Everybody who rides Amtrak, I have to say to you and to my good friend the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Brown, is enormously indebted to you both, particularly in this region, and, if I may say so, across the country. At least 43 different districts are affected by what you do here today, and it has been a long time coming. It is important in every way. It is important for the workers at Amtrak, trained workers who have suffered through a period when we have not brought forward what it takes to keep such trained people on the job, and it is most important for Amtrak, which the Federal Government has today only because the private sector threw it at us because it was unprofitable. We are now making up for years of neglect of this system. I also want to say a word on the Davis amendment. It makes sense that it is a part of this bill. Both are in my district. The nation's capital is the hub for Amtrak and it is the hub, of course, for Metro. Metro mostly serves Federal workers. It is in this bill. The region has ponied up and said, we will pay for what it takes for capital improvements. But the fact is that we should watch what we wish for, because we told people to get on the Metro, and we said, especially after 9/11, Federal workers better learn how to get on the Metro. So many have gotten on the Metro that they have broken down the Metro. The obligation falls to the Federal Government to do its share, along with the region. This amendment would not be on the floor if the District first, then Maryland and then Virginia, hadn't passed local bills, saying all right, we will have dedicated funding every year for our share, for the first time. This is the only major system that does not have dedicated funding. The system has suffered for it. What the Congress says in this amendment is in return for that, D.C., Maryland and Virginia, particularly because the people who ride back and forth are mostly Federal employees on weekdays, we will do our share for capital improvements as well. I thank the chairmen, both Chairs, very much.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the dean of the Massachusetts delegation, not only for his assistance but for his generosity in yielding to me first on this bill that I sponsored along with him and the entire Massachusetts delegation. I have to begin by thanking the many, many Republicans and Democrats who are part of the two-thirds that are necessary to award the Congressional Gold Medal. As you are aware, it is a pretty arduous process. In this case, it was not because of the underlying substance of the bill, but because when Members sign on to a bill they obviously have to know something about it. And you have to go from Member to Member. I am pleased to say that many, indeed most, remembered Senator Brooke, who is alive, and I would say alive and well, if you could talk with him. He has had some illness. I will speak of it in a moment. Of course, it was necessary to remind others of Senator Edward Brooke who became the first African American elected to the United States Senate in 1967 presciently ahead of his time. He was the first popularly elected Black Senator. I thank Members because I never encountered a Member who didn't see Senator Brooke as a historic figure worthy of the highest award the Congress can give, the Congressional Gold Medal. Senator Edward Kennedy, of whom the gentleman from Massachusetts spoke, quickly gathered his two-thirds. Our thoughts and prayers are with him. The thoughts and prayers of the American people have been with him since his illness was discovered. He quickly gathered his two- thirds and passed this bill in the Senate. His colleagues understood Senator Brooke's accomplishments in that ``club,'' after all. He was able to get not only his colleagues to sign on quickly but to get the bipartisan leadership. The majority leader, Mr. Reid, the assistant leader, Mr. Durbin were cosponsors. The minority leader, Mr. McConnell, was a cosponsor. Senators Ted Stevens, John Warner and John Kerry were cosponsors. That gives you the flavor of the degree of respect former Senator Brooke enjoys. Now, I must say for the Record that Senator Brooke is a man who is known for his modesty. He never expected the Congressional Gold Medal. When I approached him to tell him I thought he deserved it, he warned me away from this effort. But he should have expected it. President Bush, 4 years ago, awarded Senator Brooke the Nation's highest medal, the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award. But after all, Senator Brooke was a Member of the United States Congress. We noted last week the first African American was nominated for the presidency by a major party. The country deserves the self- congratulations it took for the distance it has come and that Senator Obama's nomination signaled. We must remember, however, that Senator Brooke was elected to the Senate from the State of Massachusetts as a Republican. In 1967 our country was just starting down the road we are traveling and towards the landmark we saw last week. After all, the 1964 Civil Rights Act had just been passed. The 1965 Voting Rights Act had just been passed. We are talking 1967, when Senator Brooks was first elected. 1967 was the beginning of the urban disturbances known as ``the riots,'' which swept the country even before Martin Luther King's assassination, and even before Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination. There was an openly hostile climate to issues affecting race. And racial attitudes were often retrograde. Mr. Speaker, I began this effort and began to think about Senator Brooke during the struggle for the D.C. Voting Rights Act because the analogies to our struggle and to his seem to me inescapable. Senator Brooke is a native Washingtonian. He spent his entire life in this city. He never left the city until he went to the Armed Forces of the United States of America. The Senator grew up in this city when there was no example of democracy, much less a public official to emulate. There was no vote for President when he grew up in the District of Columbia. There was no self-government at all. The city was run by three commissioners from the Congress of the United States. It had been kept a segregated city by the Congress of the United States. So the medal for Senator has a double symbolic quality for those of us who live in the District of Columbia. What is most amazing about Senator Brooke is he seemed undaunted by any of the so-called barriers he encountered. The city was as segregated as any southern city in the United States. He went to public schools that will be familiar to D.C. residents--Shaw Junior High School and Dunbar High School were still segregated when I was graduating. He went to Howard University for his college education and then stayed right here to go to Howard Law School. How could Senator Brooke have thought of himself as a Senator? He probably, at the time he was at Dunbar and at Howard, did not think about the fact that he would be the first African American attorney general in the United States and the first African American popularly elected to the Senate. He could hardly have thought as a Republican who attained these offices in a heavily Democratic State then and now--that that would be his fate. But he had no fate. He obviously had only his own sense of aspiration of who he was. During his time in the Senate from 1967 to 1979, Senator Brooke was a strong advocate for the rights of D.C. residents who had nobody, had got home rule only during his time, strong advocate for home rule, got a delegate during his term, pressed hard for that. And he has been a major advocate for the pending D.C. Voting Rights Act, which again I thank this House for passing in 2007. He made calls to Senators urging passage. And during his book tour last year he spoke of the importance of passage of the D.C. Voting Rights Act. His book tour concerned the publication of his autobiography, ``Bridging The Divide: My Life.'' Senator Brooke has breast cancer. Speaking of obstacles, he has regarded his recovery from this disease as an important obligation to educate men about the disease. He obviously has had some of the illnesses associated with being 88 years old, but I must say his robust mind leads me to believe that he will attend the ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda if we award him this medal. It is an amazing accomplishment that with all these strikes against him, he didn't even seem to notice. So 208 years since the framers of our Constitution expected Congress to grant DC voting rights once it became the capital under its jurisdiction, in this very year when we expect in fact to get that right, I ask this House to do what it has already done for voting rights and to award the Congressional Gold Medal to our native son. We are close to voting rights. It was filibustered, but we believe we can break that now. I want to leave you with the Senator's own words when we told him that we were seeking the medal for him. He wrote this letter, which I ask to be entered into the Record, to his Republican colleagues, and he wrote a similar letter to his Democratic colleagues or former colleagues here, and I am quoting the Senator: ``As much as I would appreciate such a high honor from my peers, I would place even greater priority on a full House vote for the American citizens who live in my hometown. The right for citizens of the city where I was born and raised was not achieved when I was a Member of Congress. Witnessing the District of Columbia obtain the right to be represented in the House with votes cast by Republicans would mean more to me than any honor that I could achieve as an individual.'' I said he was modest. He means it. I think he means that sentiment. I ask that Senator Brooke be awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. March 21, 2007. Dear Democratic Members: I have written to Republican Members of the House as a life-long Republican and a native Washingtonian, who was privileged to serve as the first African American elected by popular vote to the U.S. Senate (Massachusetts from 1967-1979). I am writing to Democrats as well to thank you for your long support of voting rights and home rule for my hometown, and to ask you to cast your vote for H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. I grew up in the District when it was as segregated as other Southern cities, including the city's public schools, and I was educated at Howard University. We had no local or federal rights, even to govern ourselves or to vote for President, and no one to represent our concerns in the Congress. A Democratic Congress changed all of that when Democrats and a Republican president granted the citizens of the nation's capital home rule and a delegate to the House. Now you have another historic opportunity to grant these tax-paying citizens the full representation in the ``People's House'' that they deserve. At 87 years of age, I have had rare privileges and honors as an American citizen that few Americans, particularly residents of the District have never enjoyed. At a recent press conference at the Capitol held by senators to celebrate my recently published autobiography, I learned that members of my congressional delegation and others were seeking for me the highest congressional honor, the Congressional Gold Medal. I could not help but be overwhelmed, but I had to say that as much as I would appreciate such a high honor from my peers, I would place even greater priority on a full House seat for the citizens of my hometown. I was elected as the nation's first Black attorney general and then as the first African American elected by popular vote to the United States Senate when Black Americans running for state wide office seemed the stuff of fantasy. However, I had to leave my hometown to become a Member of Congress or be represented at all. Nothing would mean more to me, particularly at this stage in my life, than witnessing Democrats and Republicans voting together to afford voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia. I believe that Voting Rights Reauthorization in 2006 and the D.C. House Voting Rights Act of 2007 are equivalent in their historic purposes and deep meaning. Both bills are the same in extending long-denied congressional voting rights, and in the District's case, to an African American city as well. I lived in the District until I joined the Army and was proud to serve as a combat infantry officer in [captain during] WWII. The experience of living in a segregated city and of serving in our segregated Armed forces helps explain why the pending D.C. House Voting Rights Act is so important to me personally. I have been heartened by the strong support of the Democratic leadership and committee chairs and members who are swiftly bringing this bill to the floor early in the session. The bill has passed twice by overwhelming majorities in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and this year by a two-to-one vote by the Judiciary Committee. I ask that you join the large majorities in those committees and vote for H.R. 1433. I am grateful for your work and attention to voting rights for all Americans. Sincerely yours, Edward W. Brooke, U.S. Senator, Retired.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, Memorial Day Week, May 21-26, is the 18TH Annual DC Black Pride celebration in Washington, DC. DC Black Pride is an exciting six-day event complete with dynamic workshops, receptions, cultural arts activities, small and large nightclub events, that culminates in the world's oldest, most inclusive Black Pride Festival. Many consider DC's festival one of the world's preeminent Black Pride celebrations. The Festival consistently draws more than 30,000 people to the Nation's Capital. Attendees come from every major urban area in the United States as well as Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. The Black Pride Festival features activities for the entire family, including performances by national recording artists, 200 exhibition booths, book signings from noted writers, participation from national and local health organizations, and arts and crafts. Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc. (BLGPD), the celebration's organizing body, chose the theme ``Official 18: Empowered and Poppin' '' to encourage the Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities to vote, to combat homophobia, to promote health and wellness, to strengthen their communities, and to inspire Black LGBT people everywhere to live their lives with pride. Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc., a non-profit organization with a volunteer Board of Directors, coordinates this annual event. BLGPD's 2008 Board of Directors consists of: Courtney R. Snowden, President; Ray T. Daniels, Jr., Vice President; Christopher Lane, Corresponding Secretary; Khalid Parker, Recording Secretary; Meagan Marcano, Treasurer; and the following Members at Large: Lisa Washington, Sterling A. Washington, and Shanika Whitehurst; and these Members Emeritus: Earl Fowlkes, James W. Hawkins, Eric E. Richardson, Clarence J. Fluker, and Cheryl Dunn, who lead BLGPD in its mission to build knowledge of and to create greater pride in the Black LGBT community's diversity, while raising funds to ameliorate and prevent health problems in this community, especially HIV/AIDS. I ask this House to join me in welcoming all attending the 18th Annual DC Black Pride celebration in Washington, DC, and I take this opportunity to remind the celebrants that United States citizens who reside in Washington, DC are taxed without full voting representation in Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, as another presidential election fast approaches, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend and improve the Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA, which was enacted after the chaos of the 2000 presidential election. The genesis of my bill is my own experience and observations from the 2004 elections here in the District of Columbia and campaigning in other parts of the country during the 2004 presidential elections. The first provision is in response to the long lines that voters have been forced to endure throughout the country that may have deterred significant numbers of voters and would require States to permit counties or other subdivisions upon request to begin voting prior to the scheduled date of an election. During the 2004 election, some subdivisions had voting machines that were modern and plentiful, while other jurisdictions in the same State were burdened with scarce and out-of-date machines, resulting in long lines. In the pivotal state of Ohio, which determined the outcome of the close 2004 presidential election, the controversy was deepened by reports that lines were particularly long in counties where there were large minority populations compared with largely white counties. One reason for the difference is that in many States, voting machines are purchased by counties or other jurisdictions. Differences in income levels, tax bases and other issues often result in large disparities within the same State in the availability of machines. Small changes in the calendar day that voting begins can help eliminate these disparities and the lines that discourage the exercise of the right to vote, and without the often significant capital investment in new equipment. The second provision of my bill adds a section to HAVA that responds to calls my office received regarding absentee ballots sent in that inadvertently did not include postage, or had insufficient postage. My bill would require officials to accept such absentee ballots. Postage mistakes may be made depending on the number of issues on the ballot and the resulting size and weight of the envelope containing the ballot. The cost to authorities, if any, is de minimis. The public interest in counting every ballot voters have cast outweighs the incidental, virtually immeasurable cost, if any. There should be no doubt that such ballots should be counted. A third provision amends HAVA to eliminate the confusion that arises when voters go to the incorrect voting sites because they are first- time or infrequent voters or their usual voting site has been changed. To encourage participation, my bill would allow voters registered anywhere in the State to cast a provisional ballot and have it counted and verified. However, voters would be told the correct polling site to allow the option of going to the correct site and thereby avoiding any doubt that their ballots would be counted. The 2000 presidential election was a calamity of such historic proportions that it cast doubt on the validity of the election of the President of the United States and led to the enactment of HAVA. The continuing problems in the 2004 elections were very serious, unacceptable, and controversial. Although that election was also razor thin close, its problems took longer to surface and there was no delay in the certification and settlement of the final result through the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore in 2001. However, the 2004 elections were another close call that yielded bitter controversy. Beyond the recent election controversies, the voting franchise is precious enough for us to want and endeavor to protect its full expression. Congress must be willing to learn from our continuing experience to make improvements in protecting the right to vote as they are needed. My bill simply uses the experience from my own district and elsewhere to contribute to this effort.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the 140th Anniversary of Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine Church is the oldest Black Catholic church in the Nation's Capital. As the Mother Church of Black Catholics, Saint Augustine Church continues in the tradition, in which it was founded, as a strong Black Catholic institution which witnesses in faith the Living God, His Son and the Holy Spirit. Saint Augustine will continue to be a center which recognizes, proclaims and preserves our Black Roman Catholic Heritage. It will expand and improve activities to advance the education of our children; to continue work in evangelization, liturgy, music, ecumenism and in efforts towards the achievement of a spiritual, economic and social development of all people. Saint Augustine Parish traces its heritage to 1858 and the efforts of a group of dedicated emancipated Black Catholics. Faced with a society that was not yet willing to put off the last vestiges of slavery and a church that, at best, tolerated the presence of Black people in its congregation, these men and women founded a Catholic school and chapel on 15th Street under the patronage of Blessed Martin de Porres. In what is perhaps a touch of historical irony, this school was operating 4 years before mandatory free public education of Black children became law in the Nation's Capital. After operations were briefly interrupted by the Civil War, a new church was built and dedicated to Saint Augustine in 1876. From its beginning, Saint Augustine was the parish of Black Catholics in Washington, DC. From its earliest years the school was staffed by the Oblate Sisters of Providence, the oldest religious order of Black women in the United States. The parish continued to grow and flourish with a strong commitment to education and good liturgy. In February 1928, under the pastorship of Father Alonzo aIds, the parish purchased the site of the Washington Home for Children at 1715 15th Street, NW., intending it to be the new home of Saint Augustine Parochial School. The school, a rectory and a convent were soon built and the construction of a new church begun. Most of the parish activities and operations were moved to the 15th and S Streets location, while the original church building at 15th and M Streets was maintained and used until 1946, when it was sold by the Archdiocese of Washington. One of Saint Augustine's neighbors was a large Catholic parish, Saint Paul, whose original membership was primarily of Irish and German descent. With the rise of integration and shifting urban demographics, membership at Saint Paul dwindled steadily until 1961, when Archbishop Patrick O'Boyle decreed that the parishes of Saint Paul and Saint Augustine would be united. In 1979, the Saints Paul and Augustine parish, through the parish pastoral council, staff and the Archbishop of Washington, made a decision to sell the Saint Augustine property at 15th and S Street. The old Saint Paul buildings at 15th and V Streets would be renovated to house the consolidated schools and other ministries of the parish. On November 12, 1982, Archbishop James Hickey decreed that the parish of Saints Paul and Augustine, served by the Church at 15th and V Streets NW, would again be called the parish of Saint Augustine. With 2,000 registered members and 3,000 who call it their home church, Saint Augustine is now one of the largest parishes in Washington, DC. Saint Augustine's proud history continues. In November 1989, Father John F. Payne, OSA, was ordained and named as the first African American associate pastor assigned to the Saint Augustine Parish. In January 1991, Father Russell L. Dillard was installed as the first African American pastor in Saint Augustine's history. Father Dillard was elevated to Reverend Monsignor in May 1991. Father Lowell Case, SSJ, was appointed Pastoral Administrator in February 2003. On February 5, 2005, Father Patrick Smith was installed as Pastor of Saint Augustine Parish. Now in its 147th year, Saint Augustine Roman Catholic Church and its parish continue to grow, learn, and rejoice in God's love.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the outstanding doctors of Providence Hospital right here in our Nation's Capital for the recognition they received from the Washingtonian Magazine this April in its annual issue listing the Washington area region's top doctors. I particularly want to thank Providence Hospital for assisting the most medically underserved and vulnerable members in our metropolitan area with a full range of inpatient and outpatient services. These services range from women's obstetrics and gynecological health, which cater to the health and wellness of mothers and babies, to assisting our elderly community via Carroll Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and the three Senior Wellness Centers the Hospital operates. Providence's concern for all human life and dignity of each person leads the organization to provide medical services to all people regardless of creed, national origin, economic status, or their ability to pay. As a community hospital that serves the entire community, I am proud to recognize these outstanding physicians including Earl M. Armstrong (pulmonology); Michael E. Batipps (neurology); Kathy S. Brennerman (geriatrics); Kenneth M. Brown (gastroenterology); Inder M. Chawla (rehabilitation); Ramville S. Clark (psychiatry); Pamela W. Coleman (urology); Cameron Ghafouri (ophthalmology); Mary G. Hall (plastic surgery); Steven Blair Hopping (plastic surgery); Beverly Johnson (dermatology); Leslie W. Kingslow (pulmonology); Neal W. Kurzok (neurology); Lewis W. Marshall (infectious diseases); John E. McKnight (oncology/hematology); David G. Moore (neurology); William E Morris (opththalmology); Abbas Motazedi (endocrinology); James A. Mutcheson, Jr. (allergy/immunology); Thomas Pinder (cardiology); Octavius D. Polk (pulmonology); Joseph A. Quash (cardiology); E. Anthony Rankin (orthopedics); James C. Robertson II (rheumatology) and Kirk D. Williams (otolaryngology). I am particularly proud that earlier this year, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons elected its first African American President. A graduate of Lincoln University in Jefferson City, Missouri and the Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee, Dr. Rankin completed his internship and residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and is currently Chief of Orthopedic Service at Providence Hospital. As a five-time recipient of a certificate of commendation from the government of the District of Columbia, Dr. Rankin has received many more honors and awards including the prestigious Bronze Star Award and the Army Commendation Medal.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, Ray Davis, host of The Ray Davis Show on WAMU's Bluegrass Country, celebrates 60 years in broadcasting on May 2. Ray Davis joined WAMU 88.5 in 1985 to host Saturday Bluegrass, and shared hosting duties for the weekday afternoon program, Bluegrass Country, until 2001. He currently hosts 3 live hours of traditional bluegrass music on The Ray Davis Show at 3 p.m., weekdays, and 10 a.m., Sundays, on WAMU's Bluegrass Country, heard in Washington, DC, in HD Radio at 88.5, Channel 2, and online at bluegrasscountry.org. Davis provides area bluegrass fans and online listeners worldwide with a daily dose of the traditional American art form, from prison songs and ``plum pitiful'' tunes to the great train rides--and train wrecks--of bluegrass music, all delivered with Davis' encyclopedic knowledge of the artists and the music. More than a D], Ray Davis is both a musicologist and an archivist who takes listeners on a stroll down bluegrass music's memory lane. His specialties, the plum pitiful tunes, are tearjerkers that explore universal themes of death, betrayal, and jealousy. ``Ray Davis is a legend in music broadcasting. He has helped define bluegrass music on-air since its earliest days as a discrete genre, and has placed a lasting imprint on it with his dedication to playing, promoting, and recording its musicians,'' said Caryn G. Mathes, WAMU 88.5's General Manager. ``His booming, resonant voice is synonymous with the sound of bluegrass at WAMU, and his willingness to explore broadcasting on multiple new media platforms as radio evolves has been an inspiration to me.'' Davis began his radio career at the age of 15, when he left his boyhood home in Wango, MD, for a job at WDOV-AM in Dover, DE. He had jobs at other small town stations around the country, as well as a stint south of the border at XERF, the Mexican mail-order station that made Wolfman Jack famous, where he learned to be a radio pitchman. Davis returned to the east coast and spent 38 years hosting a popular bluegrass program from Johnny's Used Cars for WBMD in Baltimore, MD. In 1962, he began recording some of the Nation's finest bluegrass musicians and selling these recordings under his own label, Wango. Davis hosts bluegrass festivals and concerts around the country, including the Delaware Valley Bluegrass Festival, and the Arcadia Music Festival. He also produces 15 hours of bluegrass music each week for WAMU's Bluegrass Country. When he's not acting as program host or concert emcee, chances are Davis is holed up in his basement studio producing CDs from hundreds of bluegrass tapes he's recorded over the years. Since the 1960s, Davis has been enlisting friends like Carter and Ralph Stanley, Don Reno, Bill Harrell, the Warrior River Boys, the Gillis Brothers, Owen Saunders, and a host of others to make his so- called ``basement tapes.'' The basement tapes include previously unreleased jam sessions with many of these legendary bluegrass artists. American University's radio station since 1961, WAMU 88.5 is the leading public radio station for NPR news and information in the greater Washington, DC, area with more than 650,000 listeners in the region. WAMU 88.5 is ``your NPR news station in the Nation's capital.''

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate two of the Nation's beloved icons of professional athletics. On the same day, Art Monk and Darrell Green were inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. To say that Washingtonians and regional residents are serious about their football would be a classic understatement. This region's strong tradition and love of football owes much to Art Monk and Darrell Green. Along with the Nation, we love and respect them not only for their world class excellence as athletes, but for the way they played the game. Both men are revered, not only as athletic greats, but because of their work out of the limelight. Art Monk was a wide receiver drafted in the first round by the Washington football team, the Redskins, in 1980. Monk's quickness and strength despite his size made him a top notch wide receiver. He wasted no time distinguishing himself, even in his first season, setting a team rookie record with 58 receptions and becoming a unanimous all- rookie selection. For nine seasons throughout his 16-season career, 14 of which he spent with Washington, Art Monk had 50 or more receptions. Monk became the first receiver for our home team to produce three consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, going on to have five 1,000 yard seasons in his career. Monk set the then league record for catches in a season with 106 catches, the most consecutive games, with at least one reception with 164 games, and the most career receptions with 820. Along the way, he also became the first Washington team player to catch 70 or more passes in three consecutive seasons, finishing his career with 940 catches. Monk was twice named All-Pro and All-NFC, selected three times to play in the Pro Bowl. He was a major part of the Redskins' dominance in the 1980s, and boasts three Super Bowl victories. Darrell Green, an All-Pro cornerback, was one of the greatest cornerbacks of all time. Over his 20-season career with the Washington football team, Green set many standards. He was a first-round draft pick in 1983 and made an immediate impact, scoring the very first time he touched the football on a 61-yard punt return in a preseason game, starting in all 16 regular season games, and being honored as runner-up for the Associated Press NFL Rookie of the Year Award. Known for his great speed, Green achieved a high level of success as a cornerback, recording an interception in a record 19 straight seasons, a career- best of five interceptions in each of three seasons, and a club record 54 interceptions, which translated into 621 yards and six touchdowns. Green was also a formidable punt returner, averaging nearly 12 yards a return as he recorded 51 career returns for 611 yards, in addition to the team record longest fumble return of 78 yards. Darrell Green is a member of the NFL's All-Decade Team of the 1990s, boasts two of the team's Super Bowl victories, was named All-Pro four times and was voted to seven Pro Bowls. Beyond their star-quality football careers, I have come to know both men as exemplary citizens through their excellent work in the community. Art Monk helped found The Good Samaritan Foundation on MLK Avenue, SE with his Redskins teammates Charles Mann, Tim Johnson and Earnest Byner to ``Prepare Youth for Leadership in the Community and the Workplace.'' Their center for youth most in need of service is under construction in the city's lowest income ward. He has also lent his expertise and testimony to my own Commission on Black Men and Boys. Darrell Green started the Darrell Green Youth Life Foundation that helps youth to maximize their own potentials, focusing on four core principles: values, education, home, and community. Art Monk and Darrell Green have led exemplary lives as men and as athletes. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating both of these role models for reaching the height of their professional careers by being inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. The story of sacrifices made is not a story I should need to tell. All I should need to say is what I leave you with this evening, with my gratitude for your support and friendship. I am an American. I represent 600,000 Americans. Please do all you can to see to it that we are treated as you would want to be treated, like other Americans.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, this is a special day for all Americans, none more so than the people I represent, the residents of the District of Columbia. And so I have come this evening to offer some remarks, remarks that I think are particularly justified today when the residents of the District of Columbia, like all other American citizens, are paying their Federal income taxes. The difference is they are doing so without any voting representation on the floor of the House or the Senate. First, I begin with some gratitude to my colleagues, the so-called Blue Dogs, for whom this hour had been claimed, but who gave it to me this evening because of the subject matter of this special order. I very much appreciate their support. For those of you who don't know who the Blue Dogs are, they are the more conservative Members of the House. They supported the D.C. Voting Rights bill that indeed passed the House, one of the first. We hadn't been here 6 months, I don't think we had been here more than 4 months before this bill to give the District of Columbia citizens, the citizens of the Nation's Capital, voting rights only in this chamber, the people's House. It was indeed passed by the House of Representatives, mind you, the only House that is affected. In a Nation known more for its incrementalism than for rapid change to effect justice, we have accepted the notion that we must begin with the House, the people's House. After more than 200 years of meeting every obligation that has been met by every other citizen, we think it is not too much to ask that the residents of the Nation's Capital have the vote at least in the people's House. We are asking for no more than that. Our thanks go especially to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who made it a priority to pass this bill and put her full energy behind it. She was willing to bring it to the floor. She made it clear that she, as the leader, the first woman to lead the House of Representatives, wanted to put her signature on this bill and asked four Members on both sides of the aisle to support it. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a longtime supporter of this bill, as well, put all of his energy in it. Particularly when it was stopped first by a parliamentary maneuver, he worked tirelessly until he got this bill passed. He has been with us every step of the way. These two leaders have stood for full representation and equality for Americans in so many ways. No one should be surprised at the leadership they have given us on this bill. I have to very especially mention Congressman Tom Davis who doggedly started us on what has been a truly bipartisan path. When I was in the minority and he indeed became the chief sponsor of the House-only bill, I discovered indeed a partner for us. The State of Utah barely missed getting a House vote in the last census. And they missed it for reasons I have to put into the Record. Utah sends many of its citizens who willingly agree to go away and become missionaries when they are young for a few years of their lives. They, of course, are missionaries for their Mormon church. And they are coming home to their families. Like others who come home, the State of Utah wanted them counted since they remained residents. They took the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. And because of the way the Census Bureau and the administrative process had ruled, the Court allowed the census to stand. And all of these missionaries exercising their freedom of religion, their freedom of speech, while being residents of their State, lost their State a seat. To say the least, residents of Utah were not joyful about this. And they have joined us in what would seem to be the example par excellence of win-win in our country. A heavily Republican district and State, some would say the most Republican State in the union, a big city in the United States tends to be Democratic, this one is, joined together. It's a wash politically. Nobody gains and nobody loses. Why hasn't this bill passed? Well, it has almost passed. And we will get into that in a minute. Just a few more indications of gratitude. Henry Waxman, chairman of the committee that has direct jurisdiction, along with another chairman, John Conyers, were extraordinary leaders in this process. I mentioned Utah. I thank Governor Jon Huntsman for coming here to testify about the importance of the bill and the entire Utah delegation, Representatives Bishop, Cannon, and Matheson. I particularly thank the 219 Democrats and 22 Republicans who won a vote of 241-177 and passed this bill last year. And may I thank the 8 Republicans and 49 Democrats who have brought us so close that it is hard to believe that we are not already there. Only in the other body is 57 percent not a majority. The Senate has required 60 votes. We are three votes short. We are so close. I have every reason to believe that we will, in fact, this year pass the D.C. Voting Rights Act, creating a historic 110th Congress that every Member, I think, will be proud of. I have to thank the local and national civil rights organizations that have been a formidable force spreading around the country the message. There are too many of them to name on the local level. The great leader has been DCVote Ilir Zerka and his army of residents in the region and in the city carrying a message for us, the leadership conference on civil rights, the Nation's great leader on civil rights matters has been a major figure in this bill. We could not possibly have gotten this far without them, along with every major civil rights organization in the country. I particularly thank my own mayor, Adrian Fenty, and city council chair, Vincent Gray, who joined every mayor and city council of the District of Columbia in supporting our residents and this bill. And I especially thank the residents of the District of Columbia, living and dead, who have fought for equal citizenship over the ages. I have not yet mentioned my Senate partners, but they have been equally important to this bill. You don't pass a bill just in the House. Senator Joe Lieberman was the lead Democratic sponsor. Consistent with the way he has helped me on voting rights in every iteration, and there have been several different kinds of bills, he became the lead sponsor here. A very special word of thanks goes to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Some of you may think that Orrin Hatch comes to this because, after all, he represents Utah. And he does. But had you had the pleasure of hearing Senator Hatch in the committee hearings, you would understand that he is moved by a deep principle about voting rights. His principal reason for voting rights dominated much of what he had to say about people who pay taxes and go to war without representation. I thank Senator Orrin Hatch who was a good friend of mine before this bill. He has endeared himself to me in ways I will never be able to pay by the way in which he has stood fast with us, yes, because his State is involved. Of course, that is his primary obligation. But making it clear in the way he discusses the bill that there is a deeply rooted principle in his support. The many supporters of this bill will forgive me for not making this a calling of the roll. But I come to the floor because on tax day in the District of Columbia, people have gone all over the city to assure residents of the very substantial progress we are making. DCVote and its coalition have been all across the United States targeting seven States and have done a remarkable job. I have a little bit to say about that. What I want to do this evening during this special order hour is to essentially discuss this issue from three perspectives. Whose rights are we talking about? What barriers are there? And whose responsibility is it to remedy this matter? I start with whose rights they are, because the greatest frustration I have had as a Member of the House is that most Americans do not know that 600,000 people live in the Nation's Capital and don't have the same rights as they have. A lot of them have been in the armed services with people in Washington, DC. They come here, 20 million of them, every year. There is no indication, until they begin to see license plates that say ``no taxation without representation'' on those official license plates, which was put there precisely to relieve our frustration that most people simply do not know. I have a word to say about that, because increasingly people do know and support us. According to the Washington Post poll, 61 percent say they support the bill I have come to the floor to speak to tonight. That is close to an American consensus today. Why would people be for the vote? They are Americans, that is why. Do you really think that in this country today, at war, a country where love of country is manifest in everything we do, they will do anything but say that people who have fought, yes, and died in every war since the country was created, including the war that created the country itself, the American Revolutionary War, that people who pay taxes the same way they do, are just like them, should not have representation? It is a thoroughly American idea. So don't be surprised that 61 percent today support this bill, in the House only, because that is all that is before the other body, the Senate, as we speak. Who are these people? We thought we would let you see exactly who we are talking about. This man's name is Larry Chapman, a resident of the District of Columbia. I am proud to represent him. I don't know him. I checked him out. He lives here. I represent him. By the way, note his uniform. He is a firefighter. He is a man who risks his life for whoever is here, a Member of Congress, a visitor, a resident, a regional resident. I don't represent this man, Jayme Heflin. He lives in Maryland. He does the same thing for Maryland that Mr. Chapman does for the District of Columbia. I don't think you will find an American citizen, if you went out with a microphone, who thinks that Larry Chapman, who lives in the District of Columbia, should not have representation in the Congress, someone who can vote on war or peace or raising or lowering taxes, and that Jayme Heflin should. That is who I represent. The difference between these two men cannot be seen in their faces, cannot be seen in their jobs. The only difference is where they live. They live within a few miles of one another, because Maryland is part of our region, a region without borders, as a matter of fact. If you go to Maryland, you won't even know you are there. Both of them pay Federal taxes. Both of them don't like it, and both of them do it. There should be no difference between Larry Chapman and Jayme Heflin. There is no difference. The only difference is a difference that only this body can correct. Why do I say only this body? Because the Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the Nation's Capital. The Framers were intent upon one thing and one thing only when they set up the Nation's Capital. It certainly wasn't to deprive us of the vote. It was to make sure we weren't in a State, because you couldn't tell when the State's jurisdiction would conflict with the Federal jurisdiction. That is the only principle that was at stake. And, indeed, all the evidence is that the last thing they would have done would have been to give a vote to Mr. Heflin and not to Mr. Chapman. The reason we know it is that four signers of the Constitution which gave the Congress this jurisdiction were from Maryland and Virginia, which contributed the land for the city where we are today, two from Maryland and two from Virginia. They contributed land on which a sizable number of their own constituents were living. They made sure that in the 10-year transition period during which the land was being shifted, that their residents would still have the vote. But once, of course, it left the jurisdiction of Maryland and Virginia, it was up to the Congress. And the first Congress, in so many words, promised that when the land came after 10 years under the complete jurisdiction, that these residents would indeed continue to have the vote. We know it for sure, because not only were these residents of Maryland and Virginia living in the territory, but among them were men who had fought in the Revolutionary War. The one slogan that every school child knows from that war is we are fighting against no taxation without representation. It is inconceivable and it is impossible and it simply did not happen that the Framers of the Constitution from Maryland and Virginia gave the land and said, take away the vote from the people we represent once you have jurisdiction. Maryland couldn't give us the vote once we became the Nation's Capital. Virginia couldn't do it. Only the Congress can do it. The Constitution itself makes clear that the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the Congress means that the Congress is empowered to offer this correction that has been needed for much too long. This is another resident of the District of Columbia whose work all of us would admire, because she is a teacher. Her name is Chandra Jackson-Sounders, teaching and counseling in the D.C. public schools for 17 years. A native Washingtonian, like me. She pays Federal income tax, like all the rest of us who live here. We are not immune from that. There she is, teaching children. Who would deny this young woman, who has committed herself to one of the hardest jobs in the country, who pays hefty federal income taxes, the same rights that they have? No American. No one imbued with the spirit of our Constitution or of the native ethic, the ethic that gave birth to the country, no taxation without representation. The more people know about D.C. voting rights, the more support we have. I ought to thank Stephen Colbert right here on the House floor, because at least four times he has invited me on the Colbert Report to make fun of the District of Columbia for not having voting rights, until under cross-examination one day on his program I found out that he was born in the District of Columbia himself. He has managed to get himself in the portrait gallery, to be sure, either in the men's room or in a corner close to it. But I must here pay tribute to Stephen, whom I call Colbert, because, more than all we have been able to do, he has gotten the message out that 600,000 people live in the Nation's Capital, pay taxes, and do not have the same representation as they do. He makes fun of me. That is why I go on and allow it. ``You must not be in the United States.'' He said, ``Who could you possibly represent?'' ``Why don't you move into the country?'' That is what I have to take. But taking what Colbert has thrown at me has gotten people to understand, yes, through his jostling and joking, what is a very serious matter; that in a country that is trying to bring democracy all over the world, including particularly Iraq, where we have given so many American lives, over 4,000, there are people right here who don't have the same rights that people from the District of Columbia are, as I speak, fighting to get for the residents of Iraq, Afghanistan and so many other countries. Support for D.C. voting rights keeps going up. I noted earlier that 61 percent say that they are specifically for that bill, because that is the question we asked. You ask them the question, this is the kind of response you get. ``Do you support equal voting rights for the people of the District of Columbia?'' In 1999, you got 72 percent of Americans saying yes. In January 2005, you got 82 percent. Thank you, Colbert, D.C. Vote, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and all of those who have helped us get the message out. Eighty-two percent of the American people. Not a surprising figure, not in the United States of America. What you may believe is that, well, they have got a lot of liberals up here, and what do you expect? A very scientific poll was done behind these figures. With 72 percent and 82 percent, you know there must be some bipartisanship here. But are they all piled up in one part of the country? Are they all really young people or older people? Who are these people who support D.C. voting rights? ``Norton says who the people are who want voting rights. Well, who are these people who registered these large numbers, 61 percent for this bill, up to 82 percent if you ask the bald question about equal voting rights in Congress for the people who live in the Nation's Capital?'' This is perhaps the most important data, and it is fascinating for the Senate in particular to bear in mind, because it breaks down who we are talking about in the American public. Notice how far out the blue bar goes. That is because there is no support less than 77 percent among all adults, and 82 percent is that figure I just showed you. Women, 86 percent; men, 78 percent. Let's look at the age groups. Is this all a young persons' thing, or what? Young people, well, they were raised to believe that democracy is for everybody. They are off the charts, 87 percent. But look at 35-54. They are at 78 percent. And look at 55 years old and above, many of whom were raised at a time when many Americans did not have equal rights and perhaps imbued that culture. 55-years-old and above, 82 percent of the American people support equal voting rights for the people who live in the Nation's Capital. Sometimes we find that some parts of the country favor certain kinds of action more than others. You are quite aware that some parts of the country are more military, some parts of the country are considered more liberal, so it was important to know who are we talking about. And this I found perhaps the most fascinating part of the revelation. Northeast, 84 percent of the people; midwest, 80 percent of the people, these are for equal voting rights; south, ladies and gentlemen, put aside your stereotypes, 84 percent of southerners support equal voting rights in Congress for the people of the District of Columbia; west, 80 percent. So the south and the northeast give us the largest majority or super majorities, 84 percent each with midwest and west right behind them at 80 percent. In this metropolitan area, where they know us best, have seen us at our best and our worst, the metropolitan area includes Virginia, Maryland, and the figure is 82 percent. In the nonmetropolitan area, beyond the counties immediately surrounding the District where people tend to be more conservative, hardly any difference, 83 percent there support it; 82 percent in the immediate area. I am still looking, friends, for some break in the public of the kind we regularly see on things like guns or the military or the war. It will not be found in this graph, not on this Tax Day, not tomorrow, not in the America of the 21st century, maybe in the America of the 19th century, early 20th century. But now for decades, I believe it would be difficult to find Americans who would stand up and salute the proposition that people who are paying Federal income taxes, that people who are fighting and dying in war are being denied a say-so on those issues in this House. You break it down even further to see who you are talking about, how about those who have a family member in the military, 82 percent support D.C. voting rights. How about a favorite that is often cited as difference among Americans, regularly attend services, we note at a moment when the Pope has just arrived in town, but we see that that's 82 percent of those who regularly attend religious services. We, of course, have family or friends living in D.C., I wouldn't even cite those. You would expect those people to perhaps be more aware and more inclined to be with us. Registered voters, 81 percent of registered voters support equal voting rights for the residents of the city, and here is one that cannot be put aside, because this is the great divider, Republicans and Democrats, 77 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of independents, 87 percent of Democrats, no statistical difference even by party on so basic a matter as whether or not the people I represent, and I should be required to do whatever this chamber says, along with the others, and not have any say, utterly and thoroughly un-American even to state such a proposition. Well, the Republicans who supported us in the House on this bill, led by Tom Davis, including a number of others who voted for us, didn't have this figure before them. They had a gut instinct of what it means to be an American. There are any number of them who could be quoted. Among the most eloquent was Representative Mike Pence, who actually wrote out what was in his head and published it and posted it, ``Why I Voted for D.C. Representation in the House,'' and the senior Senator Lugar, one of the eight Republicans who voted for this bill. But it was Mike who started it here, because the bill started here. Let me quote from Representative Mike Pence, a leader of most conservative matters here, understood to be a leader in the House and particularly a much-respected conservative leader. He is a wonderfully affable man, but he would be the first to note that he and I have considerable differences on issues that come before this House. But at the time this bill was pending, Representative Pence wrote, ``The fact that more than half a million of Americans living in the District of Columbia are denied a single voting representative in Congress is clearly a historic wrong and justice demands that it be addressed.'' He goes on to say, ``The old book tells us what is required,'' and he quotes the Bible, ``do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with Your God.'' Then he says, ``I believe that justice demands we right this historic wrong. The American people should have representation in the people's House. I believe that kindness demands that, like Republicans from Abraham Lincoln to Jack Kemp, we do the right thing for all Americans regardless of race or political creed. And I believe humility demands that we do so in a manner consistent with our Constitution, laws and traditions. The D.C. voting bill gets this test, and I am honored to have the opportunity to continue to play some small role in leading our constitutional republic ever closer to a more perfect union.'' Those are the words of Representative Mike Pence. I believe they are words that history will remember. The support continues to grow, the support reflected here, just to name a few of the States that have been visited, not by me but by residents in the city of the region. I want to thank the citizens of Oregon; of New Hampshire, where a whole resolution has been introduced to support the bill; of Montana, where the editorial boards of the major newspapers, in Montana, the Butte Chamber of Commerce, have accorded the residents of the District of Columbia every courtesy in meeting with them and the papers have editorialized for voting rights. I named those States because DC Vote--Leadership Conference on Civil Rights have targeted those States among others. I particularly note a resolution in New Hampshire, pending in both the New Hampshire House and Senate that is quite extraordinary. It expresses regret that New Hampshire's two U.S. Senators voted against the D.C. voting rights bill and calling upon them to correct that in the next vote. As one of the sponsors, Representative Cindy Rosenwald said, and I am quoting her, ``We are, here in our small corner of the country, democracy's most passionate supporters. Therefore, I believe we should expect the same level of commitment and passion for representative democracy from those elected officials who represent New Hampshire in Congress.'' Thank you, New Hampshire. I thank many others whose efforts today, up to 10 States, I cannot specifically acknowledge in the time allotted to me. I bring you deep gratitude from the residents of the District of Columbia who have only my voice, no voice in the Senate, only my voice, and whose voice, of their own, you will see in the Internet but who do not have ways to reach you, which is why I am here this evening. I must thank, in particular, the legal scholars who have come forward. In searching for legal comment, we found many willing to come forward, and from constitutional scholars of various views, there were any number who were particularly helpful in expressing and answering the hard questions that have been raised, hard questions, not because most Americans would consider them such, but if you happen to be a constitutional lawyer, and I, myself, practice constitutional law, these questions become closer questions than if you are an American who does not have to take the Constitution into effect in forming your own view. I particularly thank Kenneth Starr, former judge Kenneth Starr; former judge, Patricia Wald. Kenneth Starr is a Republican. Patricia Wald is a Democrat. Both have testified for the bill. I thank Professor Viet Dinh who has come forward in a quite extraordinary way. He is the point man on constitutional issues, or was, when Mr. Ashcroft was the attorney general. He has been, perhaps, the foremost conservative scholar to come forward for the bill. I particularly thank Walter Smith, a former corporation counsel, or attorney general, as it is now called. Richard Bress of Latham & Watkins, Walter Smith of D.C. Appleseed, these are different scholars who are from different parts of the constitutional spectrum who have come forward to be helpful. But you I think that I ought to cite conservative scholars. Frankly, those are the scholars on whom we have chiefly relied because we believe that if we relied chiefly on Judge Wald or Walter Smith or many others who have helped us, then we would have greater difficulty in showing that this bill is eminently constitutional. Remember, it's the constitutional issue to which the opponents have been pushed back. They can't make an argument that sounds in American terms that the average person could understand. So they go into the Constitution. That, my friend, is defamation to the framers, because what they are saying, hey, the framers did it to you. We don't have anything to do with it. Of course, if the Framers did it to us, then we must pass the bill and let the only part of our Government that is empowered to tell us that do so, and that's the Supreme Court. But, no, they sit back and fancy themselves constitutional scholars for the purpose of saying that 600,000 residents who pay taxes like they do, have served in the country's wars, should not have the same rights they do. This in the 21st century, no less. Professor Viet Dinh, who served as a scholar, who served in the Bush Justice Department under former Attorney General Ashcroft, and, therefore, advised the whole Justice Department, he was the man who advised them on constitutional matters, testified there are no indications, textual or otherwise, to suggest that the Framers intended that congressional authority, under the District clause, that's the District of Columbia clause, extraordinary and plenary power in all other respects, would not extend to grant District residents representation in Congress. You see, we are left with either the Framers intended to have the people who lived in the Nation's Capital they just set up without the same rights as everybody else, or they intended somebody to be able to give it. Now, if they intended us not to have the same rights then we, of course, have to amend the Constitution. But I would suggest that unless you can cite evidence of somebody getting up and saying that, that you have got to find a better reason. To hide behind the Framers is an act close to cowardice. If you think we shouldn't have it, you should say why. Take the responsibility, but do not say that the Framers of the Constitution from Maryland and the Framers of the Constitution from Virginia meant to disenfranchise their own residents. Do not say that the Framers of the Constitution meant once you crossed the District line, you would lose the rights you had on the other side in every other State of the Union. The opponents rest on one word, and that is the Constitution says that the vote in the House should go to Members of States. They say ah- hah, the District is not a State; ergo, no vote for you people. Well, the fact is that since the passage of the Constitution, this government, this Congress, has defined the District as a State in over 500 provisions of United States Code. The only way in which we are not defined as a State respects our voting rights, and that brings me to the floor today. Cite chapter and verse to prove that, and I shall. And what I am citing is not only the language of the Constitution, I am citing the Supreme Court of the United States who interprets the Constitution. The Supreme Court has approved action by this Congress equating the District of Columbia with the States for constitutional purposes. Here is the language from the Constitution that the Supreme Court over the years says includes the District of Columbia although the word ``State'' is used. ``Commerce among the States'' taken to court, the District is not a State and shouldn't be included in the commerce clause. Answer from the Supreme Court: For these purposes, the Nation's Capital is included when the word ``State'' is used. Suits between citizens of different States, means something special for the District of Columbia, it was alleged, not a State, took it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says citizens of different States of course includes the Nation's Capital. They said this is not what we meant, we only meant that the District of Columbia would not be a part of a State. We set up something that for lack of a better word we called a District of Columbia. What, is the Commonwealth of Virginia not a State? Are they not a State because they are called a Commonwealth? Is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts not a State? How in the world can one hinge a right so precious in this democracy on the use of the word ``State'' when it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in decade after decade to include the District of Columbia? I must cite on this April 15, Tax Day, my very favorite. If indeed States means or does not mean the District of Columbia, the people I represent want every dime we have paid to the Federal Treasury back because the 16th amendment says there shall be direct taxes by the Federal Government. Direct taxes only on citizens of the States; if we are not a State, you owe us a lot of money. It is almost silly to even try to argue from so slim a use of language. When one reads the Federalist Papers, if one reads American history, if one reads decade after decade where the matter of State has been challenged when someone was trying to pay less taxes or trying to get out of the commerce clause, and in a dozen other ways I could name and the Supreme Court has simply pushed them back, I don't think you would be quick to continue to make that argument. I want to especially thank the Blue Dogs again for their generosity in giving me their hour. I want to thank all of those on both sides of the aisle who have rallied after more than two centuries finally to this idea. I want to leave you with a picture in your mind, this young woman, Chandrai Jackson-Saunders who pays her Federal income taxes and teaches our children and doesn't have the vote. I am moved to tears and to laughter by a series of cartoons making fun of our country for not giving the residents of the District of Columbia a vote. Here is one that happened to be in the Washington Post. It says ``Import Democracy'' on a raised placard, then in small print at the bottom it says ``No Invasion Necessary.'' No, all that is necessary is that we face up to 200 years of obligation. For me, I confess that this matter is deeply personal. I am the third generation of Holmes family to live here. My great grandfather, Richard Holmes, was really born in Virginia as a slave. One day he left the plantation. He just walked away; nobody must have been looking. In my family no one says that he gathered together in some kind of heroic way--he left the plantation--and got as far as here and started our family. My father was born and raised in District public schools, just like my grandfather. My grandfather entered the D.C. Fire Department in 1902. We have long been without our rights here. So for me it is first and foremost a matter for the people I represent. But in the interest of revealing all that is concerned, hiding nothing, it is hard for me to say that there is not a personal matter associated here, particularly when I see it is in the Senate that the bill is now awaiting 60 votes, although it already has 57 percent of the Senate, because what I remember as a child growing up without a mayor, without a city council, there was no representation whatsoever here. The place was ruled by the Congress. The President appointed three commissioners; no democracy of any kind. And it was a segregated city. Oh, how segregated. The schools were not integrated until Brown v. Board of Education. When I was at Dunbar High School and had mostly finished high school, the District was one of six Brown v. Board of Education cases. So the notion of filibuster rings far too personal to me. I remember the filibusters of the Senate, my friends, as a child. In the Senate, the N-word was routinely used. This place was entirely controlled by southern Democrats who controlled every subcommittee and every committee because racial rhetoric and racial prejudice were used to get them back to the House each and every year. It gives me great grief and sadness to see that Republicans have not been in the forefront of this bill except for those who have stepped forward and unabashedly embraced the bill and Republican traditions because it was after the Civil War that the District first got a delegate and home rule. It was the Republican Congress that first gave us democracy. It was the so-called radical Republicans who in the Nation's Capital exercised their right and their obligation to see that democracy came here. It was the end of Reconstruction and the Tildon- Hayes compromise with the withdrawal of Federal troops from the South and the resurrection of Democrats that overturned home rule for the District of Columbia and sent a delegate who had only a term or two back to where he came from. It was Republicans who were in the leadership then. In the name of the great leaders who gave birth to their party, you would expect them to be in the leadership now. The interesting thing is that this is a now-majority African American city, but that is a recent vintage. The segregated city I grew up in was a majority white city. It didn't become majority black until close to 1960. Black people in the minority took a lot of white people down with them because the fact is that race played a central role in the denial of voting rights and home rule to the District of Columbia. Today it is partisanship. But it was unabashedly race. Even though blacks were a minority, there were enough blacks here so that southern Democrats wanted to be sure there was no home rule and no representation, even a delegate. They were not bashful about it. To quote one Alabama Democratic Senator, ``The Negroes flocked in, and there was only one way out, and that was to deny suffrage and power to every human being in the District,'' that means regardless of race, creed or color. I don't want to hide from whence cometh what gave birth to the issue here. Senator Ed Brooke, a native Washingtonian, became the first popularly elected Black Senator, born and raised in the District of Columbia, went to the same high school I did. But he had to go outside the District of Columbia to get any vote at all, and certainly a vote in the Senate. So there's a very sorry racial history behind it all. The last thing Republicans want to do is to attach their partisanship to that history because they're not a part of that history. That history was led by Democrats, and mostly southern Democrats. Now, the Democratic Party, to its great credit, has taken that off of itself, scrubbed that terrible stain, that racial stain off. To their great credit, the Republicans joined us when we reauthorized the 1965 Voting Rights Act. There is no difference, no difference whatsoever here. There's no difference when you are talking about the District of Columbia which, in the Vietnam war, lost more men than did 10 States; in World War II, lost more men than did four States; World War I, lost more men than did three States, and the Korean War, lost more than did eight States. We have fought, died, bled for the country we love. The notion that there would be a Member who'd have to come to the floor to ask for such a right in 2008 should be unthinkable. I particularly, tonight, dedicate these remarks not only to those who paid their taxes today, but to those who've given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and most recently, Darryl Dent, the D.C. National Guard, Specialist Darryl Dent, Army Reservist Lieutenant Colonel Paul Kimbrough, Marine Lance Corporal Gregory MacDonald, Marine Lieutenant Colonel Kevin M. Shea, among thousands over the years that we have sent to war, proudly so. I dedicate these remarks to Wesley Brown, the first black graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy is still living. There have been at least 20 Blacks who had gone to the Naval Academy. They had to be what we called super Black. They were driven out by the most horrendous racial harassment. The story of sacrifices made--what's my time?

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the 125th anniversary of The National Crittenton Foundation and one of the leading members of the Crittenton Family of Agencies, Crittenton Services of Greater Washington, which also celebrates 120 years of service. Since 1887, Crittenton Services has been proud to serve more than 20,000 adolescent women in the Greater Washington region with a singular focus: to strengthen the ability of teen women to identify and achieve their academic, career and life goals. The Crittenton Mission was awarded a National Charter through a special act of Congress signed by President William McKinley in 1898. An amendment to the Charter was signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, which extended the national Mission into perpetuity and provided funds to establish a local agency. Dr. Kate Waller Barrett, the pioneering physician and dedicated leader of the Crittenton movement played a critical role in developing a holistic approach to supporting young mothers and their children. Her compassionate approach formed the cornerstone of Crittenton's PEARLS program which strengthens young women's ability to set and meet their personal and life goals. Today, the agency still awards a Barrett scholarship that allows adolescent mothers to continue their education. Dr. Barrett's belief that all adolescents need a warm and supportive atmosphere also remains an important component of Crittenton's SNEAKERS Program which teaches important skills to non-pregnant teens ages 13- 18. Building on Dr. Barrett's legacy, Crittenton employs national best practices to develop and implement holistic programs that ensure a consistent and positive presence in the lives of the teen women it serves. Crittenton staff members integrate support, education and skills-building into four- to five-year programs individually tailored to the needs of each participant. These programs produce measurable results focused on three strategic objectives: (1) improve academic performance (2) increase workplace readiness and (3) increase the adoption of healthy behaviors. These three objectives make Crittenton Services a national leader in serving girls and adolescents at risk. I am honored to acknowledge Crittenton Services of Greater Washington and its long and distinguished record of community service in our region as well as its continuing evolution into an effective 21st century partner.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I especially thank him for his alacrity and the expert way in which he has carried this bill quickly to and through the process. Mr. Speaker, this is a no-cost bill. Indeed, the appropriations for an increase in the amounts paid to these attorneys has been appropriated. This is another of those District of Columbia anomalies. The courts of the District of Columbia operate through payments from the appropriations of the Congress of the United States and the judges are Title I attorneys. Therefore, District of Columbia judges may not use the funds that have been appropriated to raise the hourly rate of these attorneys, who are essential to the functioning, particularly of the criminal justice system, but also of the civil justice system, in the District of Columbia. They supplement the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia. These attorneys have not had their hourly rates raised since 2002, when they were set at $65 per hour. They have requested $80 per hour. They are being granted $80 an hour, this in spite of the fact that the rate of inflation has been between 3 and 4 percent a year. They, of course, had in mind that they went some years where their rates did not keep up with the rates of other attorneys who serve Federal courts. Of course, they recognize that we are not going to raise their rates every year, but this is what the Congress is willing to do at this time. It does seem to me that the last thing we want to do is to slow down in particular criminal justice processing in the District of Columbia, particularly where there are already funds from the Appropriations Committee available, and when the failure to spend them only comes from a jurisdictional technicality, where we and we alone can indeed authorize the spending of these funds. What H.R. 5551 does is simply accomplish this authorization. I am very, very grateful to Chairman Davis for bringing this bill forward so quickly.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, because your quick action on these matters affecting criminal and civil justice in the District of Columbia could not be more important to us. I appreciate the expertise of you and your staff in moving this bill forward. Like the prior bill, Mr. Speaker, this is not a home-rule matter, because the courts involved are Federal courts, article 1 courts. Indeed, this matter started with the Senate of the United States which approves the judges of the D.C. Superior Court and confirms them as it confirms judges of other Federal courts. This bill again may be difficult to understand, but it is equally without additional cost to the Federal Government. This House was vigilant to see to it that the District of Columbia now has a reformed family court as a part of the Superior Court system. And may I thank the prior then-majority leader, Mr. DeLay, who worked so closely with me on this bill and saw to it that the bill was funded, that there were additional judges, and that essentially a court which had not been revised for 30 years is now a state-of-the-art family court. However, the Congress in its concern that children and families have adequate processing through this court mandated that there be at least 15 of these judges who would be family court committed judges only. The purpose was to keep or to repair the prior circumstance where these matters were distributed to the full 58 judges in the ordinary course of business. By segregating these matters out, these matters involving families and children, we sought to see to it that they were handled quickly and efficiently. Congress never intended, however, to reduce the number of judges available to important criminal and civil matters, but in fact the cap has had that effect. So we have had an anomalous situation where the President of the United States, seeing a vacancy in the superior court unrelated to the family court, simply goes ahead and does what he is supposed to do; he nominates somebody to in fact fill that vacancy. But because of the cap which says you have got to have at least 15 of the judges to be family court judges, and with no increase in the number of judges, that person is sitting out there or standing out there, as you may, waiting for a vacancy to occur in the superior general part of the court as opposed to the family court. What this bill does is to recognize what Congress intended in the first place, and that is to do no harm to either section. So, there would be a full cadre of family court judges, but certainly to do no harm to the processing of civil and criminal court judges. Therefore, to retain the kind of balance we had before, we would have to raise the number of judges available to the superior court; and that would mean, instead of 58 as the at-now raise reads, you would have 61. Importantly, Mr. Speaker, you will note that there is no cost to the Federal Government. And both the chairman and I went to great lengths to make sure that we were not talking about increased appropriations. The court has assured us, and we have done our homework to assure ourselves, that the amount is already available in the appropriations that come to the Superior Court. All that is needed is for us to free up, if I may say so, the President of the United States so his nominees can in fact take their seats when in fact they are nominated.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) and I introduced a bill that will correct a long overdue oversight affecting the non-judicial employees of the D.C. Courts, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, CSOSA, and the D.C. Public Defender Service, PDS. Under the 1997 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, the Federal Government took over the operation of the District of Columbia Courts and related services making the non- judicial employees of the D.C. Courts and the employees of CSOSA Federal employees. In 1998, employees of PDS were similarly transferred as part of the District of Columbia Courts and Justice Technical Collections Act. As Federal employees, these court, CSOSA and PDS employees were brought under the Federal Retirement Program, FERS. However, for the employees transferred in 1997 and in 1998, ``creditable service'' for the purposes of determining when they would be eligible to retire and the amount of annuity they would be entitled to under FERS only began from the date of the transfer. That is, the 1997 and 1998 laws made no provision for treating their year of service as court and related services employees prior to these laws as creditable service for retirement. Accordingly, the bill we introduced today will amend these laws to require that the time served by these employees before 1997 will count towards their overall Federal retirement eligibility as ``creditable service.'' So for example, if an employee is 60 years old today and has worked 20 years (i.e., since 1985) for the D.C. Courts, under our bill he would be eligible for Federal retirement today (whereas without our bill he would have to work another 12 years). I should also note that to avoid the problem of ``double dipping,'' since the employees are still entitled to their D.C. retirement benefits (based upon their work status up until 1997), our bill does not count the pre-1997 years spent as D.C. government employees towards the amount of Federal retirement annuity an employee is eligible to receive. However, it is only fair and just that the court and related services employees who started their jobs with the expectation that would be able to retire without penalty after 20 years of service or more should be allowed to do so. Our bill today does just that, it restores their ``lost time.''

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, during the early years of the 20th century, a small number of intellectuals began to question whether the United States was simply a transplant of English civilization. W.E.B. Dubois, Theodore Herzel, and Randolph Bourne believed that modern America should embrace the cultural differences that newcomers brought with them to America. Democracy, they believed, required tolerance of difference and could sustain those differences in harmony. Among those intellectuals of the Progressive era, Carter G. Woodson did most to forge an intellectual movement to educate Americans about cultural diversity and democracy. For the sake of African Americans and all Americans, Woodson heralded the contributions of African Americans and the Black tradition. In 1915, he established the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History and by the time of his death in 1950, he had laid the foundation for a rethinking of American identity. The multiculturalism of our times is built on the intellectual and institutional labors of Woodson and the association he established. He should be known not simply as the Father of Black History, but as a pioneer of multiculturalism as well. In honor of its founder, the Association for the Study of African American Life and History devotes the 2008 Annual Black History Theme to both the labors of Woodson and the origins of multiculturalism. I ask the House to join me in carrying out the work of Carter G. Woodson and to celebrate his many contributions to Black History.