Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 521) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building''.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to grant the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) 2 minutes, noting that in the Iraq war he has lost more than any other Member, more members from his district than any other district in the United States. Therefore, I know he feels strongly about Lane, who devoted his entire time in the Congress to focusing on veterans and their needs. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to not only thank the gentleman from California but to just for the record state that in calling Mr. Hare I was calling him out of order. I was yielding him part of my time, because you, of course, by rights were entitled to the next speaker, and I appreciate your statement. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues and particularly the original cosponsor of this resolution, Mr. Hare of Illinois, in the consideration of H.R. 521, legislation naming a postal facility in Rock Island, Illinois, after former Member of Congress Lane Evans. This measure, sponsored by Mr. Hare, was unanimously supported by our committee and has the support and co-sponsorship of the entire Illinois delegation. Mr. Evans proudly served our country as a Marine during the Vietnam War and was an outspoken voice for all veterans in the House of Representatives. During his 24-year political career, he sought aid for homeless vets, championed benefits for soldiers exposed to Agent Orange, and was an early critic of the Iraq War. He chaired the Vietnam-Era Veterans Caucus and was the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, where his service is fondly remembered. Mr. Evans' ability to keep in close contact with his constituents made him an effective and compassionate legislator. He fought hard for working families and was a strong, progressive leader in the Congress. He continued his dedicated service while fighting Parkinson's disease for the past decade, and his presence is already very much missed in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge the swift passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), cosponsor of the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 49) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1300 North Frontage Road West in Vail, Colorado, as the ``Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Post Office Building''.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 49, legislation naming a postal facility in Vail, Colorado, after the late Gerald R. Ford, Jr. President Ford helped ease a Nation during tense times. But even before he was President, he was widely known in this Chamber as a man of great integrity and openness. Although never elected to the office of President or Vice President, President Ford was appointed to mend a bruised American psyche and maneuver our country through the only Presidential resignation ever, to help end the Vietnam War, and to help ease rising inflation. He succeeded, and for that extraordinary service to his country his legacy should be remembered by all in our country and throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I urge the swift passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 335, a bill naming a postal facility in Laramie, Wyoming, after former Senator Gale W. McGee. As a three-term Democrat from Wyoming, Senator McGee played an important role in improving the Post Office and securing deserved benefits for Federal workers. He was an expert on foreign policy and helped push our country into its current role as a world power. During his senatorial tenure that stretched from 1958 to 1976, Senator McGee served on the Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Appropriations, Foreign Relations, and Post Office and Civil Service Committees. He went on to be appointed by President Carter as U.S. Ambassador for the Organization of American States, where he was a strong advocate for the 1978 Panama Canal Treaty. He later started a consulting firm that helped Caribbean and Latin American countries facilitate economic growth. Prior to his political career, Senator McGee taught high school history and eventually became a professor at the University of Notre Dame. His dedication to service should be remembered by the Congress of the United States. I urge swift passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 335) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 152 North 5th Street in Laramie, Wyoming, as the ``Gale W. McGee Post Office''.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Robert Drinan, or Father Robert Drinan as he was always known, the only priest to serve in the House of Representatives. He was the colleague of many who are still in the House. He was my own colleague at Georgetown Law School where he served on the faculty after he left the Congress. Father Drinan, while he was in Congress, wore his priestly garb because he always considered himself a priest, but when asked why he did not put on civilian clothes, he said, ``It's the only clothes I have.'' And they were. He bowed to the discipline of his church when the ruling came down that priests should not serve in a legislative body. He took many of the concerns he had brought to this floor with him into books and studies, particularly in the field of international human rights. I am beginning work on a resolution in honor of Father Drinan. He has already been honored by this House with the Congressional Distinguished Service Award. We are going to be on a retreat on Thursday. I hope that we can make some arrangements so that many of us who would want to attend the funeral on Thursday may do that and then go to the retreat. I will save further remarks for such time as a resolution or other fitting period of memorial for Father Drinan is offered here on the House floor.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his gracious introduction and work on this debate. The other side really doth protest too much. Most Delegate votes, of course, don't carry the day, so a revote is not necessary. If the vote doesn't count, if the vote is only symbolic, then it certainly has not been worth 2 hours of votes to adjourn, as if the world was coming to an end. It certainly has not been worth the insults to the Delegates. It certainly has not been worth the disgrace to the House of Representatives to have Members of this venerable House come down and take to the floor to argue against the right to vote that has been upheld by the Federal courts of the United States. It certainly isn't worth besmirching your name in that way, and besmirching ours because that debate has occurred here. The matter before us is no longer subject to debate in a political body in our political system because that matter has gone the full way in our system. And the courts in our system, my friends, have the last word in our system on matters of constitutional right. You have got to understand that. Using regular order, Mr. Speaker, right after my freshman year I wrote a memo arguing for the Committee of the whole vote. The Democrats didn't handle this matter lightly. Nobody in 200 years had argued that Delegates should have a vote on the House floor; they sent the memo to outside counsel, then they subjected it to debate in the Rules. The first day of the 103rd Congress the Republicans argued strongly against the matter. And then they did something very unusual, they took the House to court and lost in the district court and the court of appeals. This is a system of laws in which we work. They had two more times to debate in the courts, in the trial court and in the court of appeals. They finally had their way politically. They had their way, notwithstanding what the Federal courts had found, and they yanked the authority, court-approved authority of Delegates to vote out of the rules the moment they came to power, showing no respect for the Delegates, and an insult to the Democrats who had tried to maximize participation in the people's House. I was thrilled and grateful to get that vote then, I welcome the vote now, but it is very hard to be grateful to the House or anybody else for a vote you are entitled to. A vote that offers so little for Americans who have given so much should be hard even for the other side to resist. The test for the 110th Congress is not the Delegate vote, however. The test is the District of Columbia House voting rights bill, where we left off at the Judiciary Committee. I want to thank Representative Tom Davis and the cosponsors of that bill. I want to thank the Democrats. I can't go anywhere in my own caucus that they don't say, when are we going to get to vote on your full House bill? The Democrats have devoted decades of energy to full voting rights. I ask that the House bring forward H.R. 328 so that the House can vote on a full House vote for the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for reminding this House of the bottom line. The delegate vote resolution on the floor will confuse many, anger others, and needlessly divide the people's House about a right to vote settled by the Federal courts 14 years ago. Mr. Speaker, during the 103rd Congress, I had just finished my freshmen year. When the Democrats were in the majority, I submitted a legal memorandum and requested and obtained the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole for the residents of the District of Columbia. The House decided to include the other Delegates as well because we normally have all been treated the same. Of course, we had no objection. The Democrats, however, sent the matter to outside attorneys and experts who confirmed that a Delegate vote would be constitutional, and the House acted. The Republican minority then sued the House. However, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals both confirmed the constitutionality of the House's action in allowing Delegate voting in the Committee of the Whole, just as Congress had long done in subject matter committees created by the House. The Republicans took control in the 104th Congress and withdrew the only vote the residents of the District of Columbia have ever had on the floor for more than 200 years. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, there is nothing left to debate about. The courts have now spoken. You had your say. In a debate when the Democrats did it the right way, simply put it in the rules and allowed full debate, you debated then. You took it to the courts. You debated again, and you took it to the Court of Appeals, and you debated it again. If there had to be a debate, it should have been on January 4 when this Congress convened. But for reasons I have not been able to find, it wasn't in the rules the way it was in the rules when I first got this vote. I want to be clear, this was a breakthrough for the District of Columbia when after my first term, I got this vote. My residents, seeing the first thing trotted out of this House now is not H.R. 328, for 4 years we have tried to get the full vote, but the vote I got 14 years ago, regard this as a setback for the District of Columbia. This House and the Senate in 2006 reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965. My friends, the D.C. vote is the Voting Rights Act of 2007, and we will be held accountable to enact this bill. This is not my fight. The civil rights movement has spent 4 years, 4 years in actions all over America to get support for the full House vote for the District of Columbia. Most Americans expect that a vote for the District of Columbia will be the vote they see come from the House first. They are going to be completely confused. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to allow this needless debate to poison the atmosphere that Tom Davis and I have struggled to create for the last 4 years in a bipartisan bill for the full House vote for the District of Columbia. The right to vote was taken out of the rules by the Republicans. If the Republicans took it out of the rules, it obviously was an obligation of the Democrats to put it back in. They had no alternative. Why not put it back in the rules? Why are we having to be drawn and quartered as Delegates out here? There are differences being drawn out here. Why is this debate dividing this House and seeking to divide the Delegates? Why is there a debate that divides me from my brothers and sisters who are Delegates? Why have you done this to us? And don't you take the bait. Please don't take the bait. Respect the Delegates, not just me who pays Federal income taxes, but the other Delegates who fight and die in war disproportionately compared to the rest of us. What has my side done, giving the Republicans a nonissue? Worse, they have subjected us to controversy and we don't want to be controversial. We want Delegates to be fully respected. It is heartbreaking for me. This debate is entirely heartbreaking for me. As you know, this vote is not the full vote. That is what is heartbreaking. Look at the calendar. The calendar is empty because the committees are just organizing. Why isn't H.R. 328 the first bill out of the Democratic House? That is what I cannot explain to my constituents. They don't understand this debate. Somebody has got to come to this floor and tell me why I have to plead for the vote that the courts said I was entitled to 14 years ago. It is time to go where we left off. Mark up at Judiciary Committee and let us get that vote out of here. For goodness sakes, you have got to give this vote to the Delegates. Move on. The residents of the District of Columbia have been grateful for those Republicans who have supported our full House vote and for Democrats who have done so for so long. The Delegate vote is unavoidable. Do it, get it done. But it is less than the full vote that the District of Columbia deserves and that you have supported. It does not set the standard have set for yourselves-- to have me to come to the floor to ask for a vote that I won 14 years ago. The standard we have to meet is the standard we set for ourselves. Full voting rights for the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I cannot close without saying a word about the spirit in which the gentleman from Delaware has handled this matter. What is it, we are told 8 years. It was a quintessential moment of bipartisanship. I was sitting in my office when the bill came to the floor, and staff came in and said the District of Columbia and the territories are not included in this coin bill. I ran to the floor and ran over to the gentleman. It is understandable, it is called 50 States, that it is easy to forget us I guess, and he assured us there had been no intention. Madam Speaker, I had two choices. One choice was on suspension, as it is today, which was simply to ask my side to vote against it and it wouldn't have passed on suspension. The other side was to listen to what the chairman said, and what he said was that he would put this bill again on the floor. He, and for that matter his successor committee chairs and subcommittee chairs, has never wavered on putting this bill forward. Let us be clear that when we are talking about five times, we are talking about, shall we call them, the other body. I point this out because I believe we owe the same reciprocal spirit of bipartisanship that, sir, you so kindly granted us. The fact is, this is such a small matter. That such a small matter can be so hurtful may not be understandable to others. One way to understand it is the disproportionate service in the Armed Forces. I don't know why, but you have only to look at the statistics to be stunned by the disproportionate service in our Armed Forces of people from the District of Columbia and the insular areas. It is not because they during the period of the draft were more often drafted; it was a greater willingness to serve. I want to say, Madam Speaker, in closing that a virtual unwritten rule of this House should be that no distinction not proscribed by laws ever be made among American citizens, particularly in the people's House. We will all be challenged, I hope shortly, on an entirely unrelated bill, not the bill that the gentleman from Delaware spoke of that is due to come to the floor on delegate voting, but yet another bill, a bill 200 years in the making, 200 painful years of service in the Armed Forces, of paying taxes without representation which are going to call Congress to account, especially my party, which has flooded this floor with statements of belief in the full voting rights of the people of the Nation's Capital. To his great credit, Representative Tom Davis when he chaired the Government Reform Committee discovered a magic opportunity, that is the only word for it because it won't come again soon, that the State of Utah had barely missed getting a vote in the last census. And he came to me and suggested that we put Utah and the District of Columbia together just as Alaska and Hawaii came in the Union together, and precisely the only way we have increased representation in the House and the Senate, and that is through political balance. It was an offer we couldn't refuse, but it took us 4 years of my negotiating with the Democrats who kept telling me what they wanted and Mr. Davis negotiating with Republicans who kept telling them what they wanted, and finally we got the bill through the Government Reform Committee 15-14. This is such an extraordinary bipartisan vote on a controversial bill, 15 Democrats, 14 Republicans voting for the bill, the Davis-Norton bill for a House vote. Not a vote in both Houses, my friends, a vote in the people's House, went to the Judiciary Committee, additional requirements made, they were fulfilled by the State of Utah. Here, we have the most Republican State in the Union and a big city normally Democratic who come forward together, who are literally joined at the hip together, and say regrettably, although we thank the other side who took this almost to the floor, through two committees, didn't get it to the floor, my party has an obligation written in miles of rhetoric, written in their platform over many decades to bring the bill for the full vote for the residents of the District of Columbia to this floor. I congratulate my colleagues on the other side who almost brought us home. Now, the challenge is to those who got up and pointed their finger at the other side about not doing enough, the finger is now pointed at us and the time has come. While this bill has nothing to do with that, if you represent the District of Columbia, if you were second per capita in Federal income taxes, if you had gone to Arlington during this war, if you had sat in churches during this war, then you would understand that any opportunity to remind this Congress, including my side, that the moment of truth has come and it has got to come in the 110th Congress for a seat for the District of Columbia this year. Meanwhile, we begin with an entirely noncontroversial ``yes'' symbolic bill. Let this bill pass the House. I thank the Speaker, and I particularly thank my good colleagues for persevering with us. I hope we have set the tone for the 110th Congress. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding and for his early work on this bill, and I certainly thank the gentleman from Delaware, who has worked on this matter with me, which now this makes the fifth time. Indeed, this is the fifth time, and I am grateful that the House has been willing to come back time and again, that we will pass a bill to afford the five insular areas and the District of Columbia a quarter bearing a design of their choice on the reverse side. Inadvertently these Americans were excluded from the 50 State bill affording this same right to the States in 1998. We owe very special thanks to successive committee and subcommittee Chairs and ranking members of the Financial Services Committee. We especially appreciate the new chairman, Barney Frank, who reached out to us to put this bill for consideration by the House on the early suspension calendar. Forty States have had their State designs on the reverse side of the quarter with four more States to be added before this year is ended. All the coins are minted according to the year each State ratified the Constitution of the United States or were admitted into the Union. Although States have appropriate latitude, there are limitations as to what can be used as a design. According to the law, the Secretary of Treasury has the final approval of each design. The law gives clear guidance as to what is an acceptable design concept. Suitable design concepts include State landmarks, historically significant buildings, symbols of State resources or industries, official State flora and fauna, State icons, and outlines of States. Among the examples of suitable coins are many, New York's Statue of Liberty and the like. This bill points out the importance of including all Americans in the symbols of American citizenship. The residents of the District and of the insular areas are full and equal American citizens. To leave them out of mere exercises of citizenship is to seem to deny the citizenship they revere and share with other Americans. The Americans who live in these areas have fought and died in our country's wars and have extraordinary records of service, particularly in the Armed Forces, in considerably larger numbers than many States. District citizens, in addition, pay Federal income taxes. We in the Congress all represent proud Americans. There are, of course, significant differences between the States and the jurisdictions covered by this bill. However, qualification to be part of a program of quarter coins to commemorate congressional districts is not one of them. Under the Constitution all Americans are equal notwithstanding important differences in form, structure, and other significant distinctions. Today, by including all Americans, Congress avoids any appearance of differential or discriminatory treatment and any implication that these areas are colonies, never the intention when the five jurisdictions were not included in the original bill in 1998, as the House has made clear by repeatedly bringing this bill to the floor. Perhaps the other body this time is ready to grant us our citizenship. Today, when our country is at war and faces unparalleled dangers, this bill is yet another example of our unity as Americans and our indivisibility in honoring all of our country's citizens. By repeatedly passing this measure, the House has made it abundantly clear that we are one country, and that our hope is that the Senate will join us.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I particularly thank him for his remarks, because what I am going to talk about, the link I am going to try to make, he knows very well. I appreciate his linking Dr. King to the broad swath of issues for which he stood. How can you honor King without, in fact, talking about his issues. Madam Speaker, recall the poor people's campaign on the Mall, and the gap between the rich and the poor that is greater today than when King lived, and recall the Vietnam war when his opposition was at high risk. Here we have a President attempting to escalate yet another war. But King's signature issue, my friends, was civil rights. The House of Representatives must confront a civil rights issue that is 200 years old, the failure of the Congress of the United States for 200 years to grant equal rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia. Most recently, this has been a Republican failure. But Democrats are just as responsible. I would say more responsible in some ways, historically, than Republicans, because race was at the center of the denial. It was Democrats who stood in the way of home rule and a delegate for the District of Columbia. It was Democrats, however, who faced their racial failings 40 years ago, and, to their credit, became leaders in the fight for civil rights. Yet, the majority African American District of Columbia remains without a vote despite Democratic Party platforms and countless statements, especially on this floor. Now is the time for Democrats to act to deliver. It is the last hope for years to come, a D.C.-Utah bill that delivers party parity, with great credit to my Republican cosponsor, who tried to deliver, great credit to my cosponsor, no partisan advantage. Nonpartisan research reveals that a possible advantage occasionally raised is so de minimis that no credible argument can be made for further delay in failing to correct one of the most odious injustices in American history, 200,000 men and women in the District of Columbia sent to America's war since the creation of the Republic, second per capita of taxation without representation. Dr. King held public officials on both sides of the aisle accountable. The only risk to Democratics on this issue is paying only lip service to his principles.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House lost one of its own. It is with great sadness and heavy heart that I rise today to honor the memory of Darrell Norman and his service to the House of Representatives. Mr. Norman collapsed on these premises and died yesterday. Darrell Norman lived in the District of Columbia and served the institution with distinction and excellence as a senior technical support representative for more than 20 years. His colleagues tell us that they will miss his infectious smile and spirit. His daughter, Monea, actually interned in my office for part of 2004. Kindhearted, professional, and dedicated are words used by Darrell's colleagues to describe him. He is known throughout the House as a person you can rely on to do whatever it takes to get the job done. He has earned the reputation as a person with calm demeanor, steady work ethic, and respect for everyone. Darrell's kindheartedness and drive to serve others was reflected in his work and set a tone for collegial comradery with customers and colleagues. His service to the House is respected by the Members, chairmen, officers, and staff that have benefited from his unwavering disposition and willingness to serve in any role needed. Darrell was always willing to volunteer his time to assist others. His participation on the House emergency preparedness and response teams as a critical staff member was above and beyond his daily responsibilities. Energy and enthusiasm were his trademark characteristics and earned him recognition as a ``CAO All Star'' for his ``can do'' attitude and living his philosophy to never say no. You could always count on Darrell. Admired by the people who knew him and appreciated by those he served, Darrell was an exceptional role model. He received the CAO award for distinguished service in acknowledgement of his consistent and selfless service to the U.S. House of Representatives. Keeping the House an important part of his life did not eclipse Darrell's pride in his children. His eyes would light up and his chest expanded every time he spoke of his daughter and son. Darrell is survived by his mother, Mary Norman, his younger sister Dorita Norman Smith, his younger brother Jeffrey Norman, his daughter Monea Hendricks and his son Darrell Norman, Jr. It is a privilege to pay respects to a man who lived the spirit of unconditional service. On behalf of the entire House community, we extend our condolences to Darrell's family, friends and colleagues in mourning the loss of a special man.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. McMillan.