Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, after speaking with the distinguished chairman concerning matters involving lead in the water that are transpiring in the other body, I think a vote is unnecessary. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a vote.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor because of two court decisions that will have, I think, very important effects on the criminal justice system, on justice in our country, and on the lives of many Americans who have indeed not had the benefits of equal justice in our country. One comes from the Massachusetts Supreme Court where a district judge has thrown out the Federal sentencing guidelines as unconstitutional. This is an interesting case because the guidelines were upheld in 1989 by the Supreme Court, so it will be important to look closely at this case because the judge clearly feels that there are now grounds to throw the sentencing guidelines out notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision and probably because the Supreme Court decision does not take into effect all that the Massachusetts district judge has found. This has to go, of course, to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. It is very significant. What makes it more significant is that the Supreme Court itself has now just thrown out Washington State guidelines of a kind that are very similar to the Federal guidelines, at least in many respects, in an opinion written by Justice Scalia. Essentially what the court found in the 5-4 decision is that the Washington State guidelines violate the sixth amendment right to a jury trial because the sentence is beyond the ordinary range for the crime and this increase in punishments was decided by a judge and not by a jury. Therefore it was in violation, according to the Supreme Court, of the sixth amendment right to a jury trial. Essentially what the court seemed to be saying was that the Washington State sentencing guidelines allow a judge to enhance sentences beyond what has been placed before a jury and beyond what the crime usually carries. That is exactly what the Federal guidelines do and that is why everyone is scrambling to see whether or not we have something very significant and how to take charge of it. Its significance, of course, cannot be doubted. For myself, my chief interest is not only as a constitutional lawyer but my interest as well is on the effect of the Federal sentencing guidelines on an entire generation of young black men. Only crack cocaine drug offenses have enhanced sentences. That is to say, if you have cocaine, there is no enhanced sentence. But if you have crack cocaine, there is an enhanced sentence. As you might imagine, crack cocaine, because it is cheap, is found in lower-income communities. The effect has been quite outrageous. Essentially if you look at our country today, black men are 5 percent of the population. They are almost 50 percent of those in jail. Have they been in jail for being drug kingpins? Not at all. These are mostly drug users. Any selling they have done has been to support their habit for the most part. And the Federal sentencing guidelines have so outraged the Federal judiciary that the Judicial Conference has in fact for years now been for the repeal of the guidelines. No less than two conservative justices, Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy, have come forward in speeches against the Federal judicial guidelines. These cases merit real attention. The harm that has been done has been done by this Congress. It is the Congress who in effect has virtually instructed the sentencing commission to enhance sentences and to enhance sentences as much as possible and particularly for these drug offenses which are far from where the harm is being done. The essential effect is to destroy the African American family. Young women, well educated, who are out in the world working in disproportionate numbers to the young men who are there; young men as boys siphoned off into the drug economy, the gun economy, the underground economy which is the economy left in the inner cities of our country; a huge disparity between marriageable young men and marriageable young women, all traces back to the criminal justice system. These cases have a lot to teach our country. They are going to make their own changes. These cases are an instruction to us to look closely at the Federal sentencing guidelines so that we can do our part to get rid of this injustice in the criminal justice system.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time, and I appreciate his work in managing this bill and bringing it forward on our side, and his own work for civil rights in his own State of Virginia. I want to thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his support and cosponsorship of this important resolution. I also want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for his work on the resolution as well as for his steadfast effort of four decades in establishing and preserving civil and human rights in the Congress and in our country. Not surprisingly, but nevertheless with gratification, I note that this resolution is also cosponsored by all the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. As a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I was pleased to introduce this resolution and to work with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to perfect its wording. The 1964, Civil Rights Act was enacted during the most fruitful period for civil rights legislation in our history since the Civil War. President Kennedy called on Congress to pass a civil rights bill, and the great march on Washington of 1963 was perhaps the seminal event leading to passage. After much debate, on July 2, 1964, Congress passed the Act. President Lyndon Johnson, whose political skills and dedication to civil rights were vital to passage, signed the bill into law. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in the Nation's history. The Act, among other things, prohibits the use of Federal funds in a discriminatory fashion, bars unequal application of voter registration requirements, encouraged the desegregation of public schools, and authorized the United States Attorney General to file suits to compel desegregation. And very importantly in this period of many demonstrations, it banned discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other places of public accommodation engaged in interstate commerce. The Act contained a historic prohibition against discrimination based on sex. That was inserted at the very end, but has since changed the workplace and our country profoundly. Perhaps the most important provision of this very important Act was the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was established to administer the Nation's first Federal antidiscrimination employment law that had been a major goal of African Americans throughout the 20th Century. Mr. Speaker, the 1964 Act is one of the great milestones of the United States Congress. We see the fruits of the Act virtually everywhere in our country. Forty years later, may the act inspire us to continue to do what is necessary to arm the EEOC and the Justice Department, and to arm ourselves to carry its work to completion.

Ms. NORTON

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, visual health and oral health are integral to our general health, as the House well knows. Oral and eye diseases are progressive and become more complex over time. Our ability to eat, see, read, learn, and communicate all depend on good visual and oral health. Periodic eye and dental examinations are an important part of routine preventive health care. Many visual and oral conditions present no obvious symptoms. Therefore, individuals often are unaware that such problems exist. There are safe and effective measures to prevent the most common eye and dental diseases. That is why early diagnosis and treatment are important for maintaining good visual and oral health and why a vision and dental benefit should be made available to Federal employees and annuitants. We know that in 1987 the Office of Personnel Management stopped plans in the Federal Health Benefits program from adding new vision and dental packages. OPM did so for various reasons. However, the decision was made over 15 years ago, and it is time to take a fresh look at how we can meet the visual and oral health needs of Federal employees. In the long run, preventive care, through periodic examinations and doctor visits, will help keep down long-term vision and dental costs due to early detection. To further improve the bill, during subcommittee consideration of H.R. 3751, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) offered an amendment requiring OPM to include glaucoma screening and hearing benefits in its study. The amendment would require OPM to study the feasibility of providing hearing benefits to Federal employees and retirees. Currently, over 28 million Americans suffer hearing loss, half of whom are under the age of 50. Hearing loss is not just a problem affecting adults. Thirty- three children are born every day with some form of hearing loss. With early detection and treatment, these children can be taught in regular classes, saving a school system as much as half a billion dollars during a 12-year education. Like vision and dental benefits, most insurance plans do not provide hearing benefits, such as coverage for hearing aids. We believe the Federal Government should consider taking a lead in this area. In addition to hearing benefits, the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Davis) amendment required OPM to include glaucoma screening in its study. This amendment was offered to better understand H.R. 3268, which was introduced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). H.R. 3268 would extend the same glaucoma screening coverage provided by Medicare to Federal employees who are in high-risk populations. The studies conducted by OPM under H.R. 3751 will go a long way in helping the Federal Government to craft a better dental, vision and hearing benefit for Federal employees.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. At the time that I was in Mississippi, the gentleman was Chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. And while in 1964, I guess I had become a lawyer because I had graduated, I first came to Mississippi in 1963 in order to prepare for the summer of 1964 when students would come to the South and help the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to register African Americans to vote in large numbers in the South. The gentleman from Georgia and our Southern colleagues in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had, in fact, essentially opened up much of the Southeast and they wanted to tackle Mississippi, the hardest territory in the civil rights struggle. In the summer of 1963, we experimented with freedom schools, which is what we were about doing in 1964. We were going to bring African Americans, the sharecroppers out of the cotton fields, talk about how they should prepare themselves to pass the test, and try to register people. The summer of 1964 was a summer of both heartbreak and hope because no sooner had the students arrived than we lost three of them in one of the worst atrocities in the entire history of our country in Philadelphia, Mississippi, an unforgettable sacrifice of three young people, one a native of Mississippi, the other two from the North who had simply come to peacefully register people. We must not forget the summer of 1964, because while it was the summer of great sacrifice, it was also the summer when, in fact, at the Democratic National Convention, we broke the notion that delegations to political conventions could be discriminatory. It was the summer when we were passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Indeed, a bill on suspension to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act will be on the floor. But it is important for us not to forget how we got to these great landmarks, particularly the civil rights legislation. We got to them through a lot of sacrifice, some sacrifice by very young people who helped our country reach one of its greatest aspirations, and that is that everybody should be treated the same way and have the right to vote. We remember Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner today for the tragedy, to be sure, but for the way in which their sacrifice reminded people that we could overcome this greatest flaw in our democracy. We are still in the process of overcoming. But we will have a much better chance of achieving a more perfect society with racial discrimination gone if we remember the sacrifices of such Americans as these very young men, Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by thanking my friend and colleague on the Committee on Government Reform, its chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for working closely with me in moving H.R. 3797. This legislation institutes a new process that will significantly facilitate D.C. government operations, promote greater efficiency in Congress by conforming the handling of District of Columbia matters to House rules, and improve the efficiency of both the House and the District of Columbia on these matters. This is the first time that the Committee on Government Reform, the authorizing committee for District of Columbia matters that must come to the Congress, has introduced a bill to enact legislative changes that have been passed by the D.C. council, and are here only because they require affirmative action by Congress to become law because they amend the D.C. Home Rule Act, which can only be amended by the Congress. Perhaps the most noteworthy provision, in light of recent events, is the change in the fiscal year for D.C. public schools and the University of the District of Columbia's academic year to conform to the school system's new fiscal year. Imagine the difficulties if the fiscal year and the academic year are not in tandem, as they have not been. The proposed change was already in the bill, but its necessity is underlined by the fact that this is one of the changes requested by the top candidate for superintendent of the D.C. public schools, Carl Cohen. Similarly, as requested by the mayor and city council, H.R. 3795 amends the Home Rule Charter to give the city council and additional 6 days with which to review the mayor's proposed budget, restoring the full 50-day period to the council to allow the D.C. government to use compressed schedules in order to exempt employees from Federal overtime requirements, to allow the D.C. government to offer enforced annual leave, or enforced leave without pay as a disciplinary action for corporation counsel attorneys while an investigation is underway for alleged misconduct, and to allow oversight of D.C. chartered banks to be changed from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in order to bring D.C. banking law into conformity with what occurs in all 50 States, relieving the current regulatory burden that has discouraged the establishment of D.C. charter banks. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 163.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 4222, legislation naming a postal facility in Kansas City, Kansas, after Newell George. The measure was introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) on April 27, 2004, unanimously reported by our committee on June 3rd, 2004, and enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the entire Kansas delegation. Newell A. George had a distinguished career serving the citizens of Kansas. He served as a member of the 86th Congress from 1959 to 1961, representing the second congressional district. This district was later redesignated as the third congressional district following the 1960 congressional reapportionment. While serving in Congress, Representative George served on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. After his defeat, former representative George served as U.S. Attorney for Kansas from 1961 to 1968. After that, he practiced law until his death in 1992. Newell George was an exceptional public servant and active member of his community. Naming a postal facility after the late representative from Kansas honors his legacy and dedication to public service. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), for sponsoring this bill and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that an amendment for the study of the crime and accident rate in the most-used national parks would be made in order and regret that it is not made in order. The issue is so important, I would like to discuss it on the floor at this time. There have been troublesome reports of increases in crime and vehicle accidents in the national parks. It first surfaced perhaps in a major way here in the District of Columbia when former Police Chief Teresa Chambers complained that she could no longer adequately cover the park territory entrusted to her. She said that there had been redeployment of her troops to cover monuments and other important places after 9/11. But then I began to note complaints of a rise in crime and homelessness in parks here and around the Nation as well. The crush of crowds we now understand all the parks are experiencing during this season makes this claim much more credible. I want to be clear that I take no position on whether there has been an increase in crime or accidents. I really do not know. This was only a request for a study so that we could begin to find out. The study would go to the appropriate committees; and they could decide what, if anything, to do with it. It would have looked at the heavily used units of the national parks from 1998 for about 6 years to give us a critical mass of years to look at crime and to look at accidents on nearby roadways. I noted that right after 9/11, there was a bump up in the number of park police just as there was a bump up in police everywhere; but park police stabilized while, for example, Capitol Police continued to soar. And I do not want to make any invidious comparisons here. We need all the help we can get on the Hill. But I cannot help but be moved by the fact that if we are going to have millions upon millions of people visiting our parks, they are protected not only against accidents and against crime but they are protected by the patrols in the parks against terrorism as well. I know about complaints in my own parks, for example on Rock Creek Parkway, about Park Police cruisers not being available, but that is anecdotal. I wanted a study to see if these were in fact complaints we should take seriously, and particularly now it is clear to me this has become a national concern. We should not be deploying personnel, we should not be in fact authorizing and appropriating money for personnel, without knowing more about needs, especially when those needs are changing, as they are in the Nation's parks. My own district happens to have many of the Nation's most important parks, from the Mall to the beautiful Rock Creek Park itself, but there are parts of the country which are far less densely populated than the national capital park regional area, but have far more heavily used parks. It is time we found out how to better deploy the Park Police. I regret that we will not be able to do this study through this appropriation. I hope that the Park Service on its own will see the importance of doing a study with the resources it has before it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) for bringing this bill to the floor. I support this bill. I am very pleased that this question has been settled by the commitment of the Department of Homeland Security to make its home in the District of Columbia. It is unthinkable that the Department of Homeland Security of our country should be elsewhere. I commend Secretary Ridge for his personal involvement in this decision. I am a member of both of the committees involved with this issue, the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I am not a member of the Committee on Armed Services, of course, and the Subcommittee on Public Buildings, Economic Development and Emergency Development of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Since the Department was created 2 years ago, I have worked with both the Department of Homeland Security and the General Services Administration to identify suitable space in the District of Columbia to house the new Department. I am delighted that for now, and until the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reviews and approves housing plans, which the Department is in the process of drawing, the Department will be housed at the Naval complex on Nebraska Avenue. The Department has spent considerable time in preparing a housing plan, but it is important to note that this is a department in formation, so the Department itself is having its difficulties thinking about how the Department will look 5 years out, 10 years out; and for that reason we have not held hearings to review the DHS's plan for what security elements will be included in headquarters operations. Members can imagine that they would have to be extraordinary. My colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a bipartisan fashion shared that they all have concerns about the language contained in the title. The language is that this facilitates the establishment of a headquarters complex at the Nebraska Avenue complex. This may seem like a technical matter. I hope it is a technical matter. We would hope if the director, after drawing his housing plan, were to decide that he wished to be elsewhere, the way in which the GSA operates is it goes and tries to find him space elsewhere. We do not even know how big this Department will be and if it will outgrow the Nebraska headquarters, so the notion that this is the headquarters could be read technically to mean they do not have the authority to move elsewhere. By way of background, officials from the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Homeland Security, the General Services Administration, and the Navy agreed to a three-step approach whereby: (1) the Nebraska Avenue complex would be transferred to GSA; (2) GSA would lease the space to homeland security; and (3) the Navy would be made whole for the expenses associated with its move from the site. In fact, in February of this year, these officials met with the transportation committee staff on a bipartisan basis to review the details of this approach. That is the administration and the staff on both sides of the aisle meeting in the same room. The original bill title merely spoke about the use of the property by homeland security, not establishing permanent headquarters. Again, this is a very technical matter, but we have seen how technical matters can throw people off once they want to do something in the Congress. I am not making a major objection, but I want to go on the record to say that if Secretary Ridge says this is a whole lot smaller space than we need, I do not want us to say you are locked in by the language of the title. That is all I am bringing to Members' attention. The Nebraska Avenue complex is 38 acres in northwest Washington. It contains 33 mostly unconnected buildings, over 1,000 parking spaces, and 556,000 square feet of office space. Many of the buildings are old, one dating back to 1916, many constructed in the 1920s. The site is not nearly as secure as it has to be for the agency with the highest security mission. Currently, there are 1,300 personnel at the site, almost evenly split between Navy personnel and DHS personnel. Eventually DHS intends to house 1,986 personnel at the site; at least that is what they think now. Those personnel are now housed in mostly leased space in over 5 million square feet of space in the District and the region. Given the enormous impact DHS will have on the government's administrative costs, and the impact it will have on the District and the region, more thought and attention should be given to establishing a headquarters in the District of Columbia. I have to assume that the decision of the Secretary would be controlling, it always is, when we look for space for an agency. The bill also contains a mandatory sale provision of the property in the event the Navy is not fully reimbursed for its moving cost. A sale of such magnitude in the District of Columbia should be consistent with provisions of the Property Act, and not an act conducted solely by the Navy.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, many of us looked in awe as former President George Herbert Walker Bush parachuted from a plane yesterday to celebrate his 80th birthday. Today I am pleased to join my colleagues to celebrate the entire life of our former President on his 80th birthday. Born into a family known for its tradition of public service and having served his country in many important posts, George Bush enlisted in the armed services at the age of 18. The youngest pilot in the Navy when he earned his wings, George Bush flew 58 combat missions during World War II. So we can see the former President was only continuing what he had first done as a young pilot when he parachuted from that plane yesterday. After being shot down during a mission in the Pacific, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery in action. As President, George H.W. Bush presided over the Nation through major events in our history. These events included the dissolution of the Soviet Union; the tearing down of the Berlin Wall; and the first war with Iraq, Operation Desert Storm. Through all of these events, President Bush served his country with remarkable dedication. Today it is my privilege to thank him for his hard work for our country and to wish him a happy 80th birthday. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my great pleasure to take the time today to congratulate the Tampa Bay Lightning for winning the 2004 National Hockey League Stanley Cup championship and to salute them for their outstanding performance throughout the season. Though only in the league for 12 seasons, the Lightning have quickly ascended to the pinnacle of their sport and won the hearts not only of their hometown fans in Tampa Bay but of fans all over the world. Tampa Bay fans respect that the team plays hockey the way it is supposed to be played, with hard work, discipline, and teamwork. Special mention must be made of team captain Dave Andreychuk. After playing in one of the roughest professional leagues in the world for 21 years, retiring must have seemed the logical step to take. Instead, this true team leader rejoined his teammates for an outstanding 22nd season. It is not always the case in sports that the most deserving team wins. Fortunately, the Lightning of Tampa Bay have been awarded the Stanley Cup for their valiant play. The Tampa area is famous for its scorching lightning and the Tampa community sure hopes this Lightning will strike twice. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the good gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), the author of the resolution.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 29th Annual Capital Pride Festival, a celebration of the National Capital Area's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) communities, their families and friends. Since its beginning in 1975, the Capital Pride Festival has grown from a small block party to a seven-day series of events. This year, the Pride Parade will be held on June 12th and will culminate in a Street Festival on Pennsylvania Avenue, attended by people of all backgrounds from the District and the region. To emphasize the universality of human rights and the importance of enacting congressional bills addressed to the human rights of the GLBT community, I have marched in the Pride parades since coming to Congress. I have seen the festival and parade grow bigger and better each year and with it the spread of support of equal rights for this community. This year's theme of ``Pride + Vote = Power'' holds special meaning for the citizens of the District of Columbia and its GLBT community in particular. It has been nine years since the District of Columbia lost the first vote we ever won on the floor of the House of Representatives, the delegate vote in the Committee of the Whole. That vote was retracted when the Republicans assumed control of the House. Our city of nearly 600,000 residents, the only jurisdiction in the United States subject to ``Taxation Without Representation,'' is entitled to that vote now and to the full voting representation that has always been our birthright. American citizens who live in our nation's capital, have fought in every American war, including the present war in Iraq and Afghanistan, are taxed without full representation in the House and do not have any representatives in the Senate. The joy of the Capital Pride Festival contrasts with the lot of GLBT soldiers who have volunteered to protect our country with their lives and must serve in silence and without the open support of their chosen families and communities, neither asking nor telling. Neither here nor elsewhere has Congress protected sexual orientation from discrimination in our country. Despite increasing reports of violence and physical abuse against Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Americans, Congress has not enacted protections against hate crimes. Congress must pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Congress must pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Congress must pass the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. And Congress must pass the No Taxation Without Representation Act. In June we will rejoice in the accomplishments of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community. We will also remember those who live on only in our hearts and prayers. As we gather to celebrate and reflect, we must continue the fight for full democracy in the District of Columbia and full civil rights for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender people in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in saluting the 29th Annual Capital Pride Festival, its presenter, Whitman-Walker Clinic, and the sponsors and volunteers whose dedicated and creative energy make the Capital Pride Festival possible.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, longtime resident of the District of Columbia Benjamin F. Wilson is the immediate past chairman of the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics who served as a member of the Board since June 29, 1990 and as its Chairman from October 1, 1991 until May 24, 2004 having been appointed by three different Mayors of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, a Charter independent agency, comprised of a three-member Board who are unpaid volunteers charged to carry out the agency's mission. The mission of the Board is to enfranchise eligible residents, conduct elections, and assure the integrity of the electoral process. Since the Board's inception in 1955, he is the first chairman to serve continuously for a period of fourteen years without interruption in his service providing exceptional public service to the citizens of the District of Columbia. He is the longest serving Chairman of the Board in its 49 year history. Mr. Wilson is to be commended for leading the Board while it carried out its mission of administering the electoral process which requires wisdom, courage, and the desire to remain focused on its vision of conducting free and impartial elections conducted in a fair, efficient, and accurate manner. He has maintained the highest level of integrity in performing the duties of the Board displaying courage and stamina while protecting the public's interest from manipulation for personal or partisan gain respecting the rights of all and maintaining the highest level of integrity. He has taken to heart the Board's mandate to administer an impartial electoral process for the citizens of the District of Columbia both in the conduct of elections and his commitment to assuring the integrity of our election system in the Board's role as the gatekeepers of Democracy. Mr. Wilson has been at the forefront of the core of the Board's mission which is voter education, registration, and electoral advancement in the areas of support and technology. He has served on the Board while addressing issues such as the right of homeless individuals to gain and maintain access to the franchise, developing the process for compliance with the National Voter Registration Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the support of the right of college students to register and vote, and the Help America Vote Act. During his long tenure on the Board, he has led the expansion of voting precincts to provide greater voter accessibility for disabled and elderly voters leading the District of Columbia to be the first major jurisdiction in the United States to provide dual voting systems in the polling place allowing blind and other disabled voters to vote in privacy and secrecy without assistance. He has also led the Office of Campaign Finance to successfully revive and stabilize programs which were formerly dormant and addressed a backlog of cases that existed at the time of his first appointment as Chairman regarding investigative matters. He has insisted on education for voters, candidates, and the public at-large regarding campaign finance and conflict of interest laws and on imposing and collecting fines to enforce the ethics laws in the District of Columbia. Mr. Wilson has done outstanding work at the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, sometimes under trying conditions. For example, the Board conducted a flawless election with new voting machines that had never been used before when the two leading candidates for Mayor of the city were write-in candidates. He successfully led the Board and its staff during an extremely difficult period. In addition to his service on the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, Mr. Wilson has actively served the community by serving as the former Chairman of the Board of Directors of Healthy Babies, Incorporated; former Co-Chairman of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law; former Chairman of the Board of the Dwight Mosley Foundation; and former Chairman of the Advisory Board of WAMU public radio. I commend Mr. Wilson for his volunteer public service to the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Equal Surety Bond Opportunity Act (ESBOA). The ESBOA will help qualified women and minority-owned businesses to compete in the contracting business by helping them obtain adequate surety bonding. In addition, the ESBOA is directed against barriers that many qualified small and emerging construction firms encounter in obtaining surety bonding. I have introduced this bill before. I do so again because it is a common sense way to eliminate a serious form of discrimination without an additional enforcing bureaucracy. A surety bond is issued by insurers for the purpose of guaranteeing that should a bonded contractor default, a construction project will be completed and the contractors employees and material suppliers will be paid. Surety bonding is mandatory for competing for all Federal construction work in excess of $25,000, all federally assisted construction projects in excess of $100,000, and most state and local public construction. However, surety bonding requirements are not restricted to government contracting. Increasingly, private construction contracts also require surety bonding. As surety bonding has become a widespread requirement, the inability to obtain surety bonding can cripple a construction firm, especially a small or a new one. In 1992, Congress acknowledged the importance of this issue when it enacted the Small Business Credit Crunch Relief Act and included legislation to study the problem of discrimination in the surety bonding field, Public Law 102-366, that I had introduced. The survey provision required the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a comprehensive survey of business firms, especially those owned by women and minorities, to determine their experiences in obtaining surety bonding from corporate surety firms. The GAO completed the requested survey in June 1995. The survey found that of the 12,000 small construction firms surveyed, 77 percent had never obtained bonds. In addition, minority and women-owned firms were more likely to be asked for certain types of financial documentation. Further, minority-owned firms were also more likely to be asked to provide collateral and to meet additional conditions not required by others. The ESBOA bill I am introducing today is modeled on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in credit practices. The ESBOA requires the contractor notify the applicant of the action taken on his or her application within 20 days of receipt of a completed bond application. If the applicant is denied bonding, the surety would also be required, upon request, to provide a written statement of specific reasons for each denied request. Furthermore, the bill would provide civil liability in the form of damages and appropriate equitable relief should a surety company fail to comply with this notice requirement. This legislation would help all contractors to have a better understanding of the reasons behind the denial of their bond applications. Furthermore, the importance of civil penalties cannot be understated for minority applicants who currently have no recourse when they suspect that the denial of surety bonding was based on considerations such as gender, race or religion. The disclosure of pertinent information to rejected applicants is an equitable principle familiar throughout the federal acquisition process. This is the case when a small business is turned down for a government contract and has the opportunity to demand a negative pre- award survey. With this information, the business can contest the award or use the information to be better prepared for the next award competition. The more a business knows about what is wrong with its proposal, the greater the likelihood that the next time the business will submit a better and more competitive proposal. According to the National Association of Minority Contractors (NAMC), many minority contractors reported being turned down for a bond without an explanation. When explanations are not proffered, a perception of discrimination in the surety industry is created. This perception drives minority contractors to obtain sureties outside the mainstream, often at significant additional expense and fewer protections, placing themselves, their subcontractors, and the Government at greater risk. Civil penalties in this bill are necessary to compel surety bond companies to provide accurate and non-discriminatory reasons for denial of surety bonding. This bill will provide the applicant with the necessary civil remedy should the surety bonding company refuse to provide this important information. In addition to providing essential information for future bond applications, a clear response will identify whether surety bonding companies are using discriminatory or fallacious criteria in making these decisions. This legislation will create an environment in which small business firms, particularly those owned and controlled by minorities and women, can successfully obtain adequate surety bonding. This legislation will enable us to ferret out continuing biases in the industry. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and help abolish the artificial impediments to the development and survival of emerging small businesses.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address provisions contained in section 2841 of H.R. 4200 that authorizes a transfer of 38 acres in the District of Columbia from the Department of Navy to the General Services Administration for the purpose of housing the Department of Homeland Security at the Navy Complex on Nebraska Ave. First let me say I support the commitment of the Department of Homeland Security to remain in the District of Columbia and commend Secretary Ridge for his personal involvement in this decision. Since the Department was created two years ago I have worked with both the Department and the General Services Administration to identify suitable space in the District to house the new department, and am delighted that for now and until the Transportation Committee reviews and approves its housing plans, they will be housed at the Naval Complex on Nebraska Ave. However, I do have objections, and these are bi-partisan objections shared with my colleagues on the Transportation Committee, about authority contained in section 2841 that transfers the Naval property into the GSA inventory. Section 2841 transfers the property to the General Services Administration using the phrase ``administrative jurisdiction,'' rather than the more traditional and routinely used phrase ``custody and control.'' Mr. Chairman, by way of background, officials from the White House, Office of Management and Budget, The Department of Homeland Security, General Services Administration and the Navy agreed to a three step approach whereby: (1) the Nebraska Ave. Complex would be transferred to GSA; (2) GSA would lease the space to Homeland Security; and (3) the Navy would be made whole for the expenses associated with its move from the site. In fact in February of this year these officials met with Transportation Committee staff, on a bi-partisan basis, to review the details of this approach. This provision reflects that approach, except that the property should be transferred to the full custody and control of the Administrator of GSA. The reason for this change is quite simple. According to GSA's lawyers, administrative jurisdiction is undefined and thus open to interpretation regarding the bundle of rights and responsibilities associated with use and ownership of property in the GSA inventory. Such uncertainties associated with the transfer of responsibility for property inevitably lead to delays based on different legal interpretations and often to litigation. For example, the ability of GSA to operate, maintain, and protect buildings is for buildings under the custody and control of the Administrator, but the ability to perform these activities is unclear for facilities under administrative jurisdiction. Further, the ability to assign and reassign space is for those buildings under the custody and control of the Administrator, but it is unclear that the Administrator would preserve the complex for federal purposes under ``administrate jurisdiction.'' Finally, the application of NEPA and historic preservation provisions are unambiguous for buildings under the custody and control of the Administrator but would not apply for buildings under the administrative jurisdiction. Needless to say, a simple remedy of inserting ``custody and control'' will clarify any use or ownership circumstances that could affect these 38 valuable acres in my District. My staff has been working with staff from the House Armed Services Committee on a freestanding bill that will make this section obsolete. On a bi-partisan basis, we believe there is a way to deal with this issue. Once we reach agreement on appropriate and legally sufficient language we hope this agreement will be reflected in the DOD conference report.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the work he has done on this bill and the work to point out the real problems with this bill. I must tell my colleagues, I would be in the corner of those who want to control the regulatory process. I chaired the EEOC, completely reformed the agency to reduce regulations, and one of the reasons I am for controlling the regulatory process is because overregulation makes people hate government. I do not hate government. I think government does many good things. I come to the floor to tell my colleagues one of the reasons why I oppose this bill. During hearings we discussed so-called regulatory budgeting. That is not defined in this bill, as it should be, but it was clear during the hearings that the point was to set a limit on the total costs of regulations. This limit is based on the gross costs, not the net costs, which would account for benefits from social legislation or regulations. For example, we have seen lead in the water in D.C., and now we think it is all over the United States. Who would not believe that in trying to control lead in the water, even if it proved costly, we would not know more if we knew what the benefits were. Assuming we could ascertain that, let us look at how inconsistent my good friends on the other side of the aisle are. When it comes to tax cuts, they insist upon something called dynamic scoring. I know of no reputable economist who believes in dynamic scoring, but they say what we should count are the benefits from the tax cuts as well as the expenditures or the costs to the government. Well, if this is the case with tax cuts, why are we not counting the benefits of regulations as well as their costs to get a fair estimate? That is only one of the problems with this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee for his generosity, and I thank him for his leadership, and I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) as well for his leadership on this important issue. I also thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership on education issues in our Congress. I think it is fair to say that the Brown decision is the most important court decision in American history. The decision saved our country from catastrophic racial division that could have come to race war rather than to a nonviolent revolution led by Dr. Martin Luther King that began with the peaceful overthrow of legal discrimination with Brown v. Board of Education. Most shamefully, our country tolerated segregated schools here in the Nation's Capital as well. I attended those segregated schools. We pay tribute and I offer my personal thanks to the plaintiffs in Bolden v. Sharp, the decision which was one of the cases that went to the Supreme Court grouped together under Brown v. Board of Education. But, Mr. Speaker, Brown is much larger than school desegregation, as large a mission as that decision took on. After Brown, public funding of segregated policies or programs became constitutionally untenable. Brown did more than we had the right to expect from any one court decision, but Brown could not prevent resegregation through white flight, or discriminatory housing. Brown could not fund our Nation's schools. And Brown cannot raise test scores of children. On this 50th anniversary, let us remember that Brown did its job, and it left the Congress and the American people with work still to do.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 2004, the Library of Congress will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education. This celebration will include an exhibit as well as a panel discussion on school integration. In conjunction with this celebration the Library's Leadership Development Program class of 2003-2004 sponsored a poster contest in the District of Columbia Public Schools. Children in three grade categories, grades 3-4, 5-6, and 7-8, were asked to submit posters which expressed the theme, ``How has the case changed our schools?'' The three winners of the poster contest are: Maria Oliva, age 9, Shepherd Elementary School, Teacher: Dee Dee Chambliss; Canaisha Vaughn, age 11, Hamilton Center, Teacher: Leslie Milofsky; and Nathan Johnson, age 13, Kramer Middle School, Teacher: Mary Jackson. Congratulations to these three winners and to all students who participated in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce a bill to prevent the District of Columbia from becoming a test case for the privatization of Medicare. A Medicare comparative cost demonstration project under part C of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act was a part of the new Medicare prescription drug law. My bill is one of several introduced by members of Congress designed to prevent the federal government from making a particular district one of the six testing grounds for the entire country. The Medicare prescription drug legislation, signed into law on December 8, 2003, contained a little-noticed but crucial provision designed to lead to the privatization of Medicare. Section 214(a) of the Medicare bill established up to six ``premium support'' demonstration projects starting in 2010. These demonstration projects will provide health care vouchers for private insurance to eligible Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, Medicare will compete directly against private plans in offering services to older Americans. I strongly oppose the voucher approach because seniors who choose to remain or must remain in the traditional fee-for-service plan will pay significantly higher premiums than they pay now. The private plans will be able to cherry pick the healthiest and youngest seniors to enroll in their plans while turning away older, sicker people. Traditional Medicare, therefore, will have very high costs and premiums because it will not be able to spread the burden over the larger and most diverse pool of seniors. This ``competition'' proposal is stacked to portray Medicare as inefficient and expensive in order to give the program's critics the manufactured evidence to get the privatization result they want from a premium pool of cherry picked seniors. The Medicare law did not specify where the demonstration projects will take place, but said they will be in 6 metropolitan statistical areas to be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This experiment is the result of a compromise that was necessary to keep the privatized vouchers from going nationwide immediately. The determination to privatize Medicare and Social Security remains a goal of the Republican Congress and of President Bush, however. Like others who have filed similar bills, my bill says count the District of Columbia out.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this bill has an unusual origin. The Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, for himself and the members of the trial court, visited my office to request that the annex under construction for the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building be named for senior U.S. District Court Judge William B. Bryant. Judge Bryant was unaware of the desires and actions of his colleagues, who unanimously agreed to request that the annex be named for the judge. It is rare that Congress names a courthouse or an annex for a judge who has served in that court and even more rare for a judge who is still sitting. Judge Bryant's colleagues, who know his work and his temperament best, have found a particularly appropriate way for our city and our country to celebrate the life and accomplishments of a great judge. I know Judge Bryant personally, I know his reputation in this city and on the law, I know that the request to name the annex for Judge Bryant reflects deep respect for his unusually distinguished life at the bar. Judge Bryant began his career in private practice in the segregated Washington of the 1940s and 50s, when African-American lawyers were barred from membership in the District of Columbia Bar Association and from using the Bar law library. He established his legal reputation as a partner in the legendary African-American law firm of Houston, Bryant and Gardner and taught at Howard University Law School. His reputation as an extraordinary trial lawyer led to his appointment as the first African-American Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He rose to become the first African-American to serve as Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court whose members now ask that the annex be named for Judge Bryant. For his representation of criminal defendants in private practice, Judge Bryant was admired as one of the city's best and most respected lawyers. Among his many notable cases is the landmark Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957), where the Supreme Court ruled that an arrested person must be promptly brought before a judicial officer. Judge Bryant graduated from D.C. public schools, Howard University and Howard Law School, where he was first in his class. After graduation, Judge Bryant served as chief research assistant to Dr. Ralphe Bunche when Bunche worked with Gunnar Myrdal, the famous Swedish economist, in his studies of American racial issues. Judge Bryant served in the U.S. Army during World War II and was honorably discharged as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1947. Judge Bryant, who is 92, took senior status in 1982. He raised a family but, as Chief Judge Thomas Hogan wrote, ``lost his beloved wife, Astaire and now lives alone--with this Court and the law as the center of his life.'' I am grateful to our judges of the U.S. District Court here for the thoughtful proposal that the annex to their court be named for Judge William B. Bryant. The residents of this city that Judge Bryant has served so well and the members of the bar here would be particularly pleased. I am delighted that Senator Patrick Leahy, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has agreed to sponsor this bill in the Senate and I urge rapid approval to give honor to one of the great judges of our court.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act. This is the original home of the National Council of Negro Women founded by the great Mary McLeod Bethune. Ms. Bethune is also the legendary founder of the historically black college, Daytona Normal and Industrial Institute for Negro Girls, now Bethune-Cookman College, and she played a powerful role in the Roosevelt Administration. The Bethune Council House, declared a National Historic Site by Congress in 1982, was acquired by the National Park Service (NPS) in 1994. The Bethune Council House, a historic house museum, features original furniture, photographs and facsimiles of historic documents from the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW). This legislation is needed for two reasons. First, the Bethune House is not handicap accessible, and as a historic building, it would be impossible to alter the house in any way without endangering its historic nature. This bill would extend the current boundary of the Bethune House by authorizing the NPS to acquire the abutting property to allow handicapped accessibility. Second, the bill provides space for administrative offices for the NPS to conduct duties related to the Bethune Council House. This legislation is needed to carry out the important mission of the Bethune Council House. The Bethune legacy is carried forward today by the nation's most prominent civil rights leader, Dr. Dorothy Height, Chair and President Emerita of the NCNW, who recently received the Congressional Gold Medal of here in the Congress. Consequently, this bill honors both of these heroes of our country by assuring that the first home of the organization to which they dedicated their lives is accessible to all Americans. I ask that the House pass this bill promptly.