Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia District Attorney Establishment Act of 2003 continuing a series of bills that I will introduce this session to ensure a continuation of the process of transition to full democracy and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia. This bill will establish an Office of District Attorney for the District of Columbia, to be headed by a District Attorney elected by D.C. residents. Accordingly, this bill would move the city a quantum leap toward full home rule for the District of Columbia and equality with other Americans. This bill effectuates a November 2002 referendum where D.C. voters overwhelmingly (82%) approved a locally elected D.A. This important legislation is designed to put the District of Columbia on par with every other local jurisdiction in the country by allowing D.C. residents to elect an independent District Attorney to prosecute local criminal and civil matters now handled by the U.S. Attorney, a federal official. Instead the new District Attorney would become the city's chief legal officer. There is no issue of greater importance to our citizens and no issue on which residents have less say here than the prosecution of local crimes. A U.S. Attorney has no business in the local criminal affairs of local jurisdictions. No other citizens in the United States are treated so unfairly on an issue of such major importance. This bill would simply make the D.A. accountable to the people who elect him or her as elsewhere in the country. In addition to issues of democracy and self government, such as congressional voting rights and legislative and budget autonomy that we are entitled to as American citizens, district residents are determined to make every effort to achieve each and every other element of home rule. Amending the Home Rule Act with a local D.A. provision would be a dramatic development toward our goal of achieving true self-government. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as Congress adjourns for Memorial Day, I am introducing the Alcohol Tax Equalization Act because of my special concern that beer and wine will take a high toll in human life and injury, especially among teens and other young people this very weekend, because these alcoholic beverages are less costly than they should be. Congress is complicit in this carnage by winking at beer and wine through the Tax Code. We have just renewed vigilance for seat buckling because of growing concern about teen deaths due to driving mishaps. It's time we also focused on alcohol abuse, a much greater cause of traffic deaths among teens and young people. The Memorial Day holiday often begins a season of tragedies resulting from alcohol abuse, particularly beer and wine. In an effort to reduce alcohol-related fatalities, my bill would require that beer and wine be taxed according to their alcohol content, as is hard liquor. Alcohol abuse is the leading cause of death among teens and young adults. The need to provide appropriate disincentives is urgent. The bill creates a substance abuse prevention trust fund for alcohol prevention programs. The kinds of programs that work best include cross-peer mentoring by high school students about alcohol and drug abuse and traffic safety; teen courts to decide appropriate penalties for other teens who abuse alcohol; community-based prevention programs for pregnant women and high-risk populations; and 100 percent drug and alcohol-free clubs. The programs would be implemented through grants from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. It is impossible to explain today why a can of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, and a shot of hard liquor, all of which have the same alcohol content, should not be taxed equally. However, the beer and wine industries want it that way. Expect them to fight to preserve the enormous tax break they enjoy compared to their competitors in the distilled liquor industry. Beer and wine have long replaced hard liquor in alcohol consumption and sales, but tax policy is still lost somewhere in the 1940s. Hard liquor is far behind beer and wine in consumption and sales. More than half of all alcohol sold today is beer, much of it to teens and college students; 15 percent of alcohol sales is wine. America, especially young America, is getting drunk on beer and wine, in no small part because badly outdated taxing policy make beer and wine cheap. If a can of beer, a 5 ounce glass of wine, a wine cooler, and a shot of vodka have the same alcohol content, they should be taxed equally. The resulting transfer of tax burdens to others at a time of dangerous deficits is particularly untenable in the case of alcohol and calls for attention of this inequity now. In 1997, the Senate Finance Committee proposed substantially raising taxes on cigarettes to discourage teenage smoking. Many states have done just that. The very same reasoning should apply to beer and wine. Minors consume more than 1 billion beers each year. Teens are price sensitive because they have less disposable income. By taxing beer and wine substantially less than liquor, we bring the price down and encourage teens to make these the drinks of choice. Because the Federal excise taxes on liquor are substantially higher than taxes on beer, Congress is sending the message to teens that these drinks are okay and are not as dangerous and addictive. Congress therefore bears a heavy part of the responsibility for the fact that alcohol abuse is the leading cause of death among teenagers and young adults. Throughout the country, taxing beer and wine fairly would be an important step in reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities, accidents and disease. The need here is urgent. The bill I introduce today will take the District of Columbia and the entire country closer to the national goal of significantly reducing alcohol-related fatalities.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri for yielding time to me. I thank him for his hard work on this bill, which I find for the most part unexceptional. My amendment essentially from the Committee on Government Reform preserving certain appeal rights for Department of Defense civil servants, has been included in this bill. My concern is that the Committee on Armed Services had thrust upon it an area that should not be in that bill. Yet they said to deal with it, because that is the way the rule works, involving the civil service. What essentially happens in this bill is the establishment of a new and separate personnel system without basic civil service protection or collective bargaining rights for Department of Defense employees. It is the first time we have separated out any civilian employees in this way in 100 years. We have taken OPM out of it, even though they are the only organization with expertise in civil service. Of course, there are some stated collective bargaining and civil service rights here, but they are all waivable. They are either waived or waivable. We have somehow decided to reform the personnel system for DOD before we reform military DOD itself. It mars this bill. I hope somehow we are able to fix it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 28th Annual Capital Pride Festival, a celebration of and for the National Capital Area's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered communities, their families, and their 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 June 7-8, 2003 and will culminate into a street fair on Pennsylvania Avenue, attended by people of all backgrounds from the District and the region. I have marched in the Pride parades since coming to Congress, and I have seen the parade grow bigger and better. In 2002, I marched with over 120 contingents in the parade. More than 200,000 people attended the street fair in the shadow of the Capitol; and hundreds of vendors and organizers had stalls, booths, and pavilions. The street fair featured over five hours of local entertainers and national headline performers. The citizens of the District of Columbia and I feel a special affinity to any American who does not share all the rights and privileges enjoyed by most citizens of the United States. I note that it has been eight years since the Majority changed a historic rule and the District of Columbia lost the first vote we ever won on the floor of the House of Representatives, in the Committee of the Whole, the least we were entitled to. I remind this body that our city of 600,000 residents is the only jurisdiction in the United States subject to ``Taxation Without Representation.'' My Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered constituents feel this denial more acutely than most. Every April 15th they bear all the responsibilities of our democracy yet are denied complete access to its power to redress the injustices that befall Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Americans. Today many are serving their country in Iraq and in the military throughout the world, as District residents have in every United States' war without a vote on war and peace, or any other issue. Similarly, Congress has not yet protected sexual orientation from discrimination in our country. Despite increasing reports of violence and physical abuse against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Americans, Congress has not enacted protections against hate crimes. Congress must pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Congress must pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Congress must pass the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. Congress must pass the No Taxation Without Representation Act. In June, we will rejoice in the accomplishments of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered community. We also will remember those who live on only in our hearts and prayers. As we ``Celebrate Pride'' and reflect, we must continue the fight for full democracy for the District of Columbia and full civil rights for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered people in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in saluting the 28th Annual Capital Pride Festival; its organizer: 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1018 is a bill to honor Judge James Watson, the Nation's most senior African American judge. He served on the United States Court of International Trade, a lifetime appointment by President Lyndon Johnson. Judge Watson was also a former New York Senator and civil court judge. I knew Judge Watson when I lived in New York City. I saw him make history there. He was from a family of African American achievers and path breakers. His career spanned 36 years, and he set a record of 70 appearances serving as a visiting judge in districts around the country. On several occasions, he was the first African American to held court in parts of the deep south, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Compassion and evenhandedness were hallmarks of his judicial behavior. In World War II, he served as an infantryman with the legendary all- black 92nd Buffalo Soldiers Division and was seriously wounded in combat in Italy. He received the Purple Heart, the Battle Star, the Combat Infantry Badge and a U.S. Army commendation. After the war and his recuperation, he attended New York University and Brooklyn Law School. Upon graduation, he established a private practice with retired Judge Bruce Wright, Lisle Carter, former Assistant Secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Jacob Smith. Judge Watson was elected in 1954 to the State Senate and to the Civil Court in 1963. Judge Watson hired as one of his first law clerks a young attorney named Charles Rangel. In March, 1966, President Johnson named him to the U.S. Customs Court, which was later renamed the Court of International Trade. During his years on the International Court, Judge Watson helped develop a modern court system, rewrote many of the court's rules, and introduced computers into the court. He was noted for a judicial style that was fair and balanced. His personal ability to settle many cases out of court helped avoid costly expenses and the unpredictability of an often-long trial. He was a lifelong resident of Harlem, a sought-after public speaker, and an insightful adviser to local public officials. His cousins include Bruce Llewellyn, chairman of CocaCola, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Dorothy Llewellyn Cropper, a New York Supreme Court justice. Judge Watson's life was full of success and friendship. He was blessed with a devoted family and loving wife. It is fitting and proper to honor the distinguished Judge Watson with this designation, and I urge support for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Buckle Up America Week marks a high point in our push for greater seat belt and child safety seat use. This week kicks off a massive $20 million ``Click It or Ticket'' mobilization, the largest-ever nationwide law enforcement program to increase safety belt use. More than 12,000 law enforcement agencies in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico will conduct safety belt checkpoints as part of the mobilization. And all I can say is, watch out, Members, because we are doing it in this region. This year, the effort is specifically targeting one of our most at- risk populations: teenagers. Due in large part to low seat belt use, fatality rates for teen drivers are four times higher than for older drivers. In 2002, 4,942 16- to 19-year-old teens were killed in traffic crashes, and thousands more were injured. Two out of the five deaths among teens are the result of a traffic crash. Today, safety belt use stands at 75 percent of the general population, but less than 69 percent for teens. We know the way to increase seat belt use is through strong laws and high visibility enforcement. Prior campaigns of this kind have produced a 9 percent overall increase in seat belt use. So today we begin by putting people on notice to click it or expect a ticket. The campaign runs through June 1st. I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), as well as the sponsor, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), for bringing this matter to the House floor. Because of our efforts, and especially efforts of communities and law enforcement agencies around the Nation, I believe we will see Americans and American teenagers buckling up as never before. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this lifesaving measure.

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this Memorial Day weekend, May 23-26, is the 13th Annual DC Black Pride Celebration in Washington, DC. DC Black Pride is an exciting 4-day event complete with dynamic workshops, receptions, cultural arts activities, small and large nightclub events culminating with the world's largest Black Pride Festival at Washington's new Convention Center. It is considered one of the preeminent Black Pride celebrations in the world, consistently drawing 30,000 people to the nation's capital. Attendees come from every major urban area in the United States as well as from Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands and South Africa. The Black Pride Festival features activities for the entire family including performances from national recording artists, 200 exhibition booths, book signings from noted writers, participation from national and local health organizations, and arts and crafts. The event is coordinated by Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc. (BLGPD), a nonprofit organization with a volunteer Board of Directors: Earline Budd, Cheryl Dunn, Clarence J. Fluker, Eric Richardson, Members-At-Large; Toni Collins, Secretary; Ronnie Foster, Vice- President; Robert Jones, Treasurer; and Earl D. Fowlkes, President. BLGPD's mission is to build awareness of and pride in the diversity of the Black lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community as well as to create a funding source and support for organizations that are addressing HIV/AIDS and other health issues adversely affecting our community. Mr. Fowlkes has been President of Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc. since 1997. In addition to his duties with BLGPD, Mr. Fowlkes is the Executive Director of Damien Ministries, Inc., a faith-based HIV/ AIDS service organization in Washington, DC, and he sits on the boards of Siloam Ministries, Prevention Works, the DC Black AIDS Network, Project Ujima, International Federation of Black Prides and DC HIV Prevention Community Planning Committee. Mr. Fowlkes is retiring as President of BLGPD to devote more of his energies to the International Federation of Black Prides of which he is also President. I ask the House to join me in welcoming all attending the 13th Annual DC Black Pride celebration in Washington, DC, and I take this opportunity to remind the attendees that United States citizens who reside in Washington, DC are taxed without full voting representation in Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentlewoman, and I appreciate her yielding me this time. I also appreciate the efforts of the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), and may I thank especially the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), as well as the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member, who worked very closely with me to get this bill to the floor and keep it on track. I appreciate very much the efforts throughout this process from the very beginning in my first bill to this bill, H.R. 1012. Mr. Speaker, this bill directs the National Parks Service to take ownership, restore, and manage the historic Shaw home of Carter G. Woodson, the Father of Black History, as he is called. The bill would authorize the NPS to preserve, protect, and interpret for the benefit of education and inspiration of present and future generations the home where Woodson lived from 1915 to 1950. This legislation also authorizes NPS to rehabilitate adjacent properties on either side of the home to facilitate tourism. The Association for the Study of African American Life and History, which Woodson founded, also would be housed on this site as it was originally. Congress passed my previous bill, H.R. 3201, the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site Study Act, in 2000, to begin the process of making the property at 1538 9th Street Northwest a historic site within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. An NPS study as mandated by the legislation is required before the NPS can take control of the property. The study determined that the Woodson home is suitable and feasible for designation as a unit of the parks system following the transfer of title from its current owner, the association. I am particularly pleased by the proposed rehabilitation of the entire block that has come about because of this legislation and independent of this legislation. The NPS would work with the Shiloh Community Development Corporation established by Shiloh Baptist Church, which owns almost all the property on the block of the Woodson home. The Shiloh Corporation would convert the block of homes to senior independent living housing, maintaining the historic facade of the rural houses. So Congress is able to leverage much more out of this designation and take over of this property than might have been originally envisioned. This legislation honors Dr. Carter G. Woodson, a distinguished black American and founder of the Association of Negro Life and History. The significance of his home was recognized in 1976 when it was designated as a nationally historic landmark. This bill will ensure that the Nation's pride and purpose in celebrating Black History Month is not marred by neglect of the home of the founder of the commemoration and the study of black history itself. Dr. Woodson was a distinguished American historian who established African American history as a discipline and spent a lifetime uncovering the contributions of African Americans to our Nation's history. He founded and performed his work through the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, which has since been renamed the Association for the Study of African American Life in History. Among its enduring accomplishments, the association under Dr. Woodson's leadership instituted Negro History Week in 1926 to observe in February the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Today, of course, Negro History Week, which was mostly celebrated in segregated schools like my own here in the District when I was a child and in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, has gained support and participation throughout the country among people of all backgrounds as Black History Month. Dr. Woodson, the son of former slaves, earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1912, becoming only the second African American to receive a doctorate from Harvard after the great W.E.B. DuBois. Woodson's personal and educational achievements were extraordinary in themselves, especially for a man who had been denied access to public education in Canton, Virginia, where Woodson was born in 1875. As a result, Dr. Woodson did not begin his formal education until he was 20 years old, after he moved to Huntington, West Virginia, where he received his high school diploma 2 years later. He then entered Berea College in Kentucky, where he received his bachelor's degree in 1897. Woodson continued his education at the University of Chicago, where he earned his A.B. and M.A. degrees, and then got his Ph.D. from Harvard University. During much of Dr. Woodson's life, there was widespread ignorance and very little information concerning African American life and history. With his extensive studies, Woodson almost single-handedly established African American historiography. Dr. Woodson's research literally uncovered black history and helped to educate the American people about the contributions of African Americans to the Nation's history and culture. Through painstaking scholarship and historical research, his work helped reduce the stereotypes captured in pervasively negative portrayals of black people that have marred our history as a Nation. To remedy these stereotypes, Dr. Woodson in 1915 founded the association. Through the association, Dr. Woodson dedicated his life to educating the American public about the contributions of black Americans to the Nation's history and culture. This work, in bringing history to bear where prejudice and racism had held sway, played an indispensable role in reducing prejudice and making the need for civil rights remedies clear. Mr. Speaker, this extraordinary history includes starting his own press, because there were no publishers, even for his great historical works. To assure publication, under Dr. Woodson's leadership, ASNLH in 1920 also founded the Associated Publishers, Inc. for the publication of research on African-American history. Dr. Woodson published his seminal work, The Negro in Our History (1922), and many others under Associated Publishers, and the publishing company provided an outlet for scholarly works by numerous other black scholars. ASNLH also circulated two periodicals: the Negro History Bulletin, designed for mass consumption, and the Journal of Negro History, which was primarily directed to the academic community. Dr. Woodson directed ASNLH's operations out of his home at 1538 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC in the historic Shaw neighborhood. From there, he trained researchers and staff and managed the organization's budget and fundraising efforts, while at the same time pursuing his own extraordinary discoveries in African-American history. The three-story Victorian style house, built in 1890, served as the headquarters of ASALH into the early 70's, well after Dr. Woodson's death in 1950. In 1976, the house was designated as a National Historic Landmark. However, it has been unoccupied since the early 80's, and today, it stands boarded up and sorely in need of renovation. The walls inside the house are crumbling, there is termite infestation, water seeps through the roof during heavy rainstorms, and the house also constitutes a fire hazard jeopardizing adjacent buildings. This house that is a priceless American treasure must not be lost. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as ranking members of both, for their indispensable help in moving this bill forward.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman not only for yielding but for his very astute service as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Reorganization and his leadership on that subcommittee and on the Committee on Government Reform. I also want to thank my good friends the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, for bringing this resolution forward, but Mr. Speaker, I am sure when they originally decided to bring it forward they did not have in mind what is about to transpire in the Committee on Government Reform. How perfectly ironic that we would be celebrating Public Service Recognition Week this week to honor Federal employees when tomorrow the Committee on Government Reform is about to mark up a bill that would strip one-third of the Federal workforce of essentially all of their civil service and collective bargaining rights. Let us have a big celebration for Public Service Week. This bill that is before us, on not a fast track but on a jet plane for reasons that have yet to be revealed to us because we have not been given a reason for the rush, goes well beyond the homeland security bill that was so terribly controversial in this House and in the Senate, and let me document what I am saying. The bill that will be before us tomorrow sweeps away most of the rights of the civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Pay for performance would immediately come into now the entire workforce, but no system for measuring performance is in place, according to the GAO, which has said slow this train down. The Department of Defense employees would be exempt from these executive bargaining rights that are applicable to other agencies. Mr. Speaker, they are already exempt because the employee representatives testified that they had not been consulted, they simply were called in and told what was going to happen. Consultation as is now required under the law has not taken place. They are already exempt from the collective bargaining rights of the rest of the government. No appeal or due process rights when you are suspended or demoted, no right to file a sex or race discrimination complaint before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mr. Speaker, I am a former Chair of that commission, and the notion that the Congress would ever exempt its own workforce from race and sex discrimination claims is almost unbelievable, but that is what this bill does. For reductions in workforce, there would be no need to base them on length of service or on efficiency while you were on the job or on performance. What does that leave, Mr. Speaker? It does leave race and sex since an employee cannot file a complaint at the EEOC. One could file a complaint with their agency, but we know what that means. AT&T has discriminated against me; I will file with AT&T. DOD has discriminated against me; and I will file with DOD, and no right for an independent review of what is found. That is what this bill would do, and a lot more that I do not have time to explain. Worse, just as we see homeland security spread now to DOD, they mean to spread what has happened in DOD to the rest of the workforce. Except as it spread from homeland security, it got worse than it was in homeland security. So what is the rest of the workforce to expect now? I want to make it clear that many of us on the Committee on Government Reform were relieved to hear that DOD was finally going to reform itself, particularly after 9/11. Many of us believed that DOD needed a lot of reform before 9/11; but after 9/11, it is imperative and indispensable. The notion that reform means sweeping away the rights of the employees is an oxymoron. There may be greater efficiencies; I believe there are with respect to all of these matters. But the notion of waiving them or sweeping them away in a couple of weeks with no scrutiny is simply unthinkable. The bill stunned the Committee on Government Reform on both sides of the aisle. It stunned even the Committee on Armed Services, but they are under huge pressure to pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor of course to congratulate the employees who have shown how important they are to us, particularly since 9/11 made us understand what perhaps we should have understood all along, but it will not do to celebrate their service while sweeping away their rights. I implore every Member of the House because most Members have civil servants in their districts to closely look at this bill and help us slow down the jet plane that is flying away with the rights of Federal employees even as we celebrate their service this week.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Washington, DC institution that has been in the forefront of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered civil rights movement, and that I have the distinct honor and pleasure of representing in this body: the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC (GLAA), the oldest continuously active gay and lesbian rights organization in the United States. Since its founding in April 1971, GLAA has been a respected and persistent advocate in District politics tirelessly asserting equal rights and social equality for lesbians and gay men living in the city. GLAA has long fought to improve relations among the District's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered communities and DC's public safety agencies. GLAA also has long been at the forefront of the efforts to strengthen enforcement of the DC Human Rights Act of 1977. On April 15th, GLAA held its 32nd Anniversary Reception honoring the 2003 recipients of its Distinguished Service Awards: Councilmember Kathy Patterson; the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit of the Metropolitan Police Department; longtime District activist Karen Armagost; the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington, DC; and former GLAA President Bob Summersgill. Councilmember Kathy Patterson has been an ally of gay citizens and a leading force for government reform and accountability. Councilmember Patterson wrote and secured passage of the law that established the DC Office of Human Rights as a separate, independent agency. She has supported strengthening diversity and sensitivity training in the police and fire departments and establishing an effective Office of Citizen Complaint Review. DC Metropolitan Police Department Chief Charles Ramsey created the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit (GLLU) in June 2000. The work of Sgt. Brett Parson, head of the GLLU, and Ofc. Kelly McMurry, its founder, along with community volunteers, active, auxiliary and reserve police officers, has resulted in a dramatic improvement in community-police relations; an increase in the mutual respect of gay people and the police; and a focus on previously ignored problems in the community. Karen Armagost has been an activist in Washington, DC for over fifteen years. As a professional canvasser, GLBT activist, and past President of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, Karen has exemplified the dedication and hard work that makes grassroots organizing a powerful political force. Karen works for the repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy through the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. This year marks The Gay Men's Chorus of Washington, DC's 22nd Season. The Chorus has performed at inaugurals of a mayor and a president, and most recently performed in tribute to Elizabeth Taylor at the Kennedy Center Honors Gala before President and Mrs. Bush. Bob Summersgill is the immediate past President of GLAA. He has led efforts to secure legal protection against harassment in our schools and workplaces; to open the DC HIV/AIDS Administration to public accountability; and to ensure the full rights of transgender and intersex people under the DC Human Rights Act. GLAA's thirty-two year fight to secure equal rights for the LGBT citizens of Washington, DC is more poignant because it is being celebrated on April 15th. It is a reminder to us all that United States citizens living in our Nation's Capital, who have fought in every American war, including the present war in Iraq, are taxed without representation. I ask the House to join me in congratulating the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance and its honorees.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I am impressed with what she had to tell us about the school in her district. I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for introducing this bill. This is an area in which the Congress has been working and working very well in the last several years. Actually, the first Federal charter school bill was passed for the District of Columbia. It was passed on a home rule basis at a time when the District was in financial trouble. Speaker Gingrich was here at the time. He recognized that the District had strongly opposed vouchers, and instead of trying to impose it on us, as he had the power to do, he worked with me, with the task force. We called in school board members, people from the community, and designed the first charter school bill, and I am here to report on how well that bill has done for the District of Columbia. We have got 40 charter schools. Imagine one city having 40 charter schools. Twenty percent of its children are almost in charter schools' waiting lists. We are told in the gentleman's bill that 70 percent of the charter schools have waiting lists. The District is a large part of that, I fear. Actually, too many of our children are in substandard or overcrowded facilities because they have rushed to take advantage of these charter school facilities so quickly. I am going to a press conference on Thursday at the Thurgood Marshall Charter School in our poorest ward, Ward 8, located in the Congress Heights United Methodist Church. They have added a grade each year. They are just popping out of their facilities and need the resources to get into more facilities. Actually, I appreciate that this House and the Senate appropriated 20 million extra dollars for the District as a reward for expanding so rapidly because they did not want these children in substandard facilities and wanted to make room for the children on the waiting list. Compare what the District has done to Maryland. Our former colleague, now Governor Ehrlich, was able to get one lousy charter school bill out and it is very toothless. He is very disappointed with it. In Virginia, they have no charter schools. But, Mr. Speaker, no good deed goes unpunished. Despite the fact that the District of Columbia has set the pace for charter schools in this country, a member of this body, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) who comes from as far as away from the District of Columbia as one can get, elected by nobody in the District of Columbia, has authored a bill to impose vouchers on the District of Columbia, although this town as long as 20 years ago voted 90 to 10 against vouchers. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) needs a lesson in federalism and democracy and equality. How many charter school districts are there in his Arizona School District? In the District of Columbia we have a virtual alternative school system, and yet we have got at our bus stops now national voucher people paying people in the District of Columbia, with bright T-shirts and slick literature, to pass out literature for vouchers in the District of Columbia. Why here? Why not go to Maryland and Virginia, where they do not even have charter schools? We are no trophy. We may be a majority black school system, we may be the Nation's Capital, but we do not need to be anybody's guinea pig for their experiments. The people of the District of Columbia have voted with their feet. They have sent their children to our charter schools, and I challenge any Member of this body to have anything like the number of charter schools per capita that we have. The administration, which has said it will not impose vouchers on anyone, is trying to give the District some money it already has coming to it to entice us to in fact accept vouchers. We cannot do that without a majority vote of our council; and I can tell you one thing, you are not going to get that. Every other district under the President's bill may choose whether or not the money goes to private or public schools. This is America, after all. That is the way it always has been. But they are trying to impose vouchers on the District of Columbia, despite its stellar record in producing charter schools. Indeed, before the Leave No Child Behind Act was ever a figment in anybody's imagination, the District for years and years, and I am a native Washingtonian, has allowed people to transfer out of their districts in order to get away from bad schools. Actually, I have something in common with my Republican voucher friends: I believe it is untenable to leave a child in a neighborhood school that is not educating that child. But I believe that child must be in publicly accountable schools; and that is why the District has stepped up to the plate, not simply against vouchers, but with a real alternative for our children. And the least efficient way to spend the little bit of money in the President's budget, it is $9 million, is to give it in $3,000 tranches to a very few kids, as opposed to helping us expand our charter schools, helping us get more of our kids out of the facilities that are sub-standard, helping us do repairs for the facilities in which they find themselves. There is one education pot, my friends; and that is why in the States that have had voucher referenda, and half of the States in the United States have, how come not one has won? Not one has won because everybody knows where that money is going to come from, out of that one pot; and they want to make sure that their public schools get every thin dime that the Federal Government gives, and that is exactly what we in the District of Columbia are going to insist upon. The Leave No Child Behind bill is hideously underfunded, and the testing regime will mean that there are going to be massive dropouts in districts like my own. Yet we want to give this money away. You might want to do that in some other districts, but you are certainly letting those districts choose. We are going to insist that we be treated like the first-class Americans we are. The hypocrisy of it all, of trying to impose vouchers on the District, is that the Leave No Child Behind bill in committee had an amendment for vouchers for the Nation, defeated in committee. Then they tried on the floor, defeated on the floor. We are in the minority, so we could not have defeated it. Republicans defeated it, because they know that vouchers are not wanted in their districts, and they know it because they have not been able to pass a single referendum anywhere in the United States of America. So they come to the defenseless District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, we are going to fight back, especially since we have got an alternative school system that none of the rest of you could even stand up beside us on. Charter schools are a bipartisan way to approach this matter, and we are going to insist that we be a part of the bipartisan consensus. We are going to especially insist upon it every time you try to impose anything on us, because District residents are in Iraq as I speak, as they have been in every war fought in the United States since the Revolutionary War; and we just paid our Federal income taxes at the rate of second-per-capita in the United States. And I will be darned if anybody is going to treat us unequally in the face of our meeting our first-class obligations to our country and to the Federal Government. We play by the rules. We are not requesting to be treated as second- class citizens. The rules of the Congress say if you want the money to go to charter schools, it will go to charter schools. If you want the money to go to private schools, it will go to private schools. If you want the money to go to alternative public schools, it will go to alternative public schools. There is no way in the world to have that as a principal position for every district in the United States and not for the 600,000 people who live in the Nation's Capital. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to remember to capture the bipartisan spirit of this bill, to remember that the District of Columbia deserves your compliments for being ahead of all of the rest of you in producing alternative schools for our children, and not the punishment of the imposition, undemocratically, of your solution on a district that you do not represent and which cannot vote you in or out. This bill in one of its paragraphs says: ``Whereas, charter schools can be vehicles for improving student achievement for students who attend them, for stimulating change and improvement in all public schools and for benefiting all public school students.'' That is the spirit of the bill, that is the spirit we are trying to meet, and I ask Members to support me in the work that my district is doing to meet the very spirit encompassed in this bill today.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, April 12 marks the culmination of Youth Pride Week in Washington, DC with our Seventh Annual Youth Pride Day. Youth Pride Day occurs every April in Washington, DC. It is the annual celebration for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender young people, which has brought over 10,000 youth together since its start in 1997. The celebration has grown from just 900 participants in 1997 to over 2,800 young people last year. Youth Pride Day has evolved into Youth Pride Week, which comprises over a dozen events ranging from a conference, dances, and poetry readings, to Youth Pride Day on Saturday. The Youth Pride Alliance sponsors Youth Pride Day. The Alliance was founded in 1996, and its mission is to celebrate the dignity and courage of all young people as they discover their identities as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or straight. The Alliance challenges society to stop hate, violence, fear, isolation, and denial as it reminds us every young person deserves to live, to love, and to be loved. We, who live in our Nation's Capital and are taxed without representation, feel a special affinity to any other group that has been denied the full rights and privileges, which most United States citizens enjoy. I remind the House that Washingtonians are taxed without representation. I ask this House to join with me in welcoming all those attending Youth Pride Day.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, over 25 years ago, in May 1977, Congressman Oberstar testified in front of the Public Buildings Subcommittee, chaired by former Congressman Norman Mineta, our current Secretary of Transportation, about the stark reality of our energy demands. As everyone knows, a few years earlier, in 1973, the oil embargo had sent shock waves through the nation as energy prices soared. For the first time, with the exception of fuel rationing during World War II, America faced a serious shortage of energy. Long lines formed at the gas pumps and a national maximum speed limit was set at 55 m.p.h. President Nixon ordered the lights on our monuments and public buildings here in Washington turned off to save power and encourage the nation to cut back on its energy consumption. Then, in 1977 we staggered again under the natural gas fuel crisis. In 1977 President Carter created the Department of Energy by combining the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), the Federal Power Commission, the Federal Energy Administration, and several programs in the Department of Interior. At this time the Federal renewable energy program was enhanced to include basic and applied research and development, and encouraged partnerships with the private sector in demonstration projects. In developing incentives for the renewable energy program the Federal Government stepped in and created market incentives through a series of residential and business tax credits. It is even more relevant now than it was in 1977 that the Federal Government stimulate not only basic and applied research in alternative energy systems but also encourage the production of such systems. Encouraged by both the Carter Administration's and Congress's interest in renewable energy and convinced that solar energy provided numerous benefits and cost savings, in June 1977 Congressman Oberstar introduced H.R. 7629, a bill to provide for the procurement of advanced photovoltaic energy devices for use in government buildings. The bill became part of a larger bill to establish a comprehensive national energy policy, which became PL 95-619. Most unfortunately, the Reagan Administration chose not to fund the bill, resulting in not only a lackluster renewable energy program but also a serious deterioration of national focus. So now, more a quarter century later, we find ourselves still struggling to develop a comprehensive national energy policy. It is in this environment that I join with Ranking Member Oberstar to introduce this amendment to H.R. 6--The Energy Policy Act of 2003. The purpose of the amendment is ``to accelerate the growth of a commercially viable photovoltaic industry in order to make this energy system available to the general public. . . .'' The Federal Government has used federal procurements as a method of ``jump starting'' a technology. Procurements for the Department of Defense helped develop integrated circuits. The General Services Administration, using its FTS 2000 telecommunications contract was also successful in promoting advancements and enhancements in telecommunications. Because of the government's interest in the benefits of solar technology, solar systems are frequently incorporated into the operations of Federal buildings. Just across the Anacostia River, here in the Nation's Capitol, at the Suitland Federal Center the General Services Administration has installed a large PV system to supply electricity for the Federal center. During disaster relief solar power systems step in quickly to supply efficient, easy to install, mobile power sources. The amendment authorizes the Administrator of General Services Administration to establish a photovoltaic energy commercialization program for the purchase and installation of photovoltaic solar electric systems for electric production in new and existing Federal facilities. As I mentioned, the purpose of the program is to accelerate the growth of a commercially viable photovoltaic industry, to reduce the fuel consumption of the Federal Government, to stimulate general use within the Federal Government of life cycle costing, and to develop performance data to support policy decisions on future incentive programs. This is an excellent amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I and other members of the House and Senate introduced two bills--the Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act--at a press conference with a female custodial employee, who successfully sued the Architect of the Capitol for wage discrimination. An excerpt of the press conference follows. Norton's Fair Pay Act, introduced in the Senate by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), addresses sex segregation ``where work is paid according to gender and not the job to be performed,'' she said, ``the major cause of the pay gap today.'' The Fair Pay Act addresses wages that often are lower in female dominated occupations, such as nursing, teaching and social work, and would allow suits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for jobs with the same skill, effort and responsibility, as comparable male jobs, even if the jobs are not the same in content. Norton, who was the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Carter Administration, was the first woman to head the agency. Norton also became an original co-sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which seeks to update the Equal Pay Act (EPA) allowing suits for equal pay for equal work. ``At a minimum,'' Norton said: ``Pat Harris and 48 other female custodians, who work right here in the Capitol should be the last word on the continued importance of the EPA and the urgent need to update it. If female custodians can be paid $1.00 an hour less than their male counterparts right under the nose of the Congress, it is surely time to reexamine the 40 year old Equal Pay Act.'' Norton said that the female custodians' case also demonstrates why the Fair Pay Act is necessary ``as a 21st century amendment to the EPA.'' The Congresswoman, who from the inception of the suit, worked closely with the female custodians, their union, AFSCME local 626 officials, and their lawyers, pressed the Architect to settle the suit. She said that settlement discussions were ``endlessly protracted by the Architect's claim that the laborers did different work. The female custodians' case actually was a classic equal pay case, but settlement would have occurred earlier if the Fair Pay Act had already been law.'' Last year, Norton was invited to join the female custodians at the Ford Building when they received the checks they won as a result of the settlement. She said that the women showed exemplary courage in stepping forward to become the first to sue under the Congressional Accountability Act, which holds Congress accountable for the laws it applies to others.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership this evening. I want to say to the gentleman that his leadership is especially appropriate because this Special Order is devoted to actions inspired by young people, many of the age or close to the age of the gentleman who leads this Special Order. He well may be the youngest member of the Congressional Black Caucus, one of the youngest Members of Congress; and what we are here to talk about tonight has everything to do with young people and what they themselves initiated on April 1, first by some of them staying up all night in order to prepare for the rally and to get into the Court, others coming to go to a town meeting at Howard University convened by the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus at a wind-up rally. Now April 1 is April Fool's Day. That is not why we are going to remember it this year. We are not even going to remember it first and foremost because the University of Michigan case was argued on that day. The University of Michigan case is largely to be remembered by the date it is decided, not the date it is argued. That is how we remember Supreme Court cases; but even that is not how we are going to remember April 1, 2003. I think we are going to remember April 1, 2003, as the day that gave birth to a new American civil rights movement, a second American civil rights movement. This is not my characterization. This is how these young people title themselves, and if I may say what their long title is, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, which they have boiled down to the acronym BAMN. They came from everywhere. They came from every college and university in the District of Columbia, and they came from as far west and as far north as we can go. It is amazing that these students poured in from all over the country. Why were the students here? There is the stereotype the courts read the newspapers, and the courts read the election returns. We all know that courts are independent and that even rallies cannot and must not decide how courts rule. Black people know that most of all because if rallies or public opinion could have decided how courts rule, we would never have gotten Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 when the majority of American people in the South were not for integration of public schools. Courts are independent branches of government which must rule by the rule of law. So why were the students here? The students are very sophisticated. That is why they did not call themselves the students to influence the University of Michigan case before the Supreme Court of the United States. They have called themselves the second civil rights movement. They knew they were bigger than this case, and they knew that the Court when it raises its hand must rule on the law as they see the law. I think this Court has been real wrong on the law, but they knew that they were not going to essentially affect this Court, even those who argued the Court are trying to affect one justice in a closely divided Court where frankly we have lost most of these cases 5-4, not won them. They knew by what they called themselves, which did not even have ``Supreme Court'' in the title that what they were doing on April 1 was much bigger and more important than any single case in 25 years since the Bakke case was decided. They knew that they could be in worse shape than their parents were because many of their parents were like the Member, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who went to the University of Michigan, and here she is with grandchildren who may not be able to enter the University of Michigan on that same basis. It took 100 years after the Civil War to get to the enforcement of the Civil War amendment, so the notion of getting as far as we have gotten, which is not even halfway home, is not what this generation is about. This generation has been touched finally by this issue, affirmative action, as they have not been touched by any other issue. I am not critical that they have not been touched by any other issue because these are the beneficiaries of the civil rights movement. They mean to see that they continue to be beneficiaries of the civil rights movement and that they are not the generation that lost the benefit of the civil rights movement. My generation, and I see the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who I know from the Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and back then the entire spectrum of discrimination and segregation was here. I went to segregated schools in the District of Columbia. Black people in the South could not vote, equal opportunity and employment was not available north, south, east or west, and housing discrimination was the order of the day. Inside of 15 years, a combination of court suits and Federal laws changed that, at least as a matter of law. As we know today, not entirely as a matter of practice, but as a matter of law. Brown v. Board of Education began it all, and then there was the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it was my great privilege to enforce title 7 and a number of other statutes under that act. Then there was the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Here is the work of one generation, the so-called civil rights generation. Over. Done. Even we were not naive enough to believe that, but we did think that we would continue to move forward and would not be pushed back. But the only way not to be pushed back is to produce a new generation of freedom fighters, to produce what these young people tell us they are, a new civil rights movement; and that is who came to Washington on April 1. These folks came to Washington. They did not go to where the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) went to Alabama or Selma, or to where I went, to the delta in Mississippi. They came to Washington. We went South because that is where we saw the threat to be. They came to Washington because they know that it is here that the threat is now. They know it because they see a President of the United States who has filed on the wrong side of a civil rights case, and that has not happened in a very long time. That has not happened in my lifetime. That President has placed himself on the wrong side of history, and they saw it and saw what kind of act it was. They saw the threat at the Supreme Court which has already taken down affirmative action as far as it could go. Interestingly, and I want to praise and thank my colleagues, my colleagues have not passed a single bill that has taken down affirmative action. All of the problems have come from the Supreme Court, the 5-4 Supreme Court with us on the 4 end and they on the 5 end, and a lot of it has been in areas like contracting with implications for affirmative action and every other area as well. These students from every college and university in the metropolitan region and in the country saw that the threat could well be in this Congress if the Congressional Black Caucus and its allies on both sides of the aisle did not continue to stand fast and say look, do not even go there. My colleagues know that we have had to say that. In the 1990s, we had to say do not even go to the floor with an amendment to take back affirmative action. We are going to close down this House if that is what you are going to do. I will not say that is the reason that it did not happen; there were Members on the other side of the aisle who believed that was the wrong thing to do. I want to go on record right now paying tribute to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have kept that from happening. Nevertheless, the threat is here. It is not where it was for the last civil rights generation. The threat is here that can carry us back to Brown v. Board of Education. Yes, they say that because that is the effect and could carry us back to where most higher education in the United States of America was for whites only, and that is what it was for when I went to college. Mr. Speaker, these students from colleges and universities around the United States simply put America on notice. They say, Court, do what you will and we hope you do the right thing; but whether you do or not, America be on notice there is a new civil rights movement in this country, and we are determined to finish the job that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and his colleagues in the civil rights movement began. We are determined to finish the work begun with the march on Washington, and we are determined to finish the work still unfinished. And as long as we need affirmative action and affirmative action is a remedy, it is temporary, it goes away when the job is done, the numbers are built in the system, they are there so long as it takes to get and keep a critical mass of the excluded coming in. They say we are there as long as we see other indications of inroads into the work of the last generation, such as the judges that this President has continuously put forward. As long as he puts forward a Priscilla Owens, this generation says we will be there. Or as long as he puts forward a Charles Pickering, we will be there because the courts are the last great hope of any excluded people, or of any people treated unjustly. They say, look, we see a whole new species of intentional segregation with racial profiling which largely affects the younger generation, young black people on the streets subject to being stopped because of their race, color, or ethnicity. As long as that is there, this generation has stepped up and said I do not know where my parents are, but I have not gone away. We are still here. We come to simply thank these young people tonight and to encourage them to continue to take up the mantle and to say that we are going to do whatever we can to be with them and behind them. We have asked only one thing of this generation. We noted that they are underregistered, and we know if you are underregistered and if you do not vote, the powers that be will walk all over you because people pay attention to people who vote. We have asked them to make sure that their movement begins by getting every young person at their university registered to vote and out to the polls. We recognize that the incentives that their parents had to vote, the New Deal generation, the World War II generation, the civil rights generation, the Vietnam War generation, are not there for this generation, but they have found their incentive in the University of Michigan's case. We applaud them for using that case as the catalyst to move forward with a new civil rights movement. We applaud them for making April 1 a memorable and historic date for the people of the United States of America. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force, which holds its Annual Meeting this weekend in Washington, DC. The LGIRTF advocates for the rights of HIV positive immigrants, persons seeking asylum because of sexual orientation, and bi-national couples. The Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force grew out of a small group of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund attorneys, who, in 1993, held a meeting at the New York City Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center. Over 50 persons attended and expressed interest in forming a group to address immigration issues affecting lesbians and gays. In December 1994, the LGIRTF was incorporated in New York City. The LGIRTF began publishing The Status Report the following year. Implementation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 in 1997 increased the need for Gay and Lesbian specific immigration services. By 1998 the LGIRTF ceased being an all-volunteer organization and in 1999 the LGIRTF hired its first attorney. The LGIRTF has grown from one chapter to an international organization with 19 chapters in the United States, including Washington, DC and Europe. We, who live in our Nation's Capital and are taxed without representation, feel a special affinity to any other group that is denied the full rights and privileges, which most United States citizens enjoy. While any straight married couple may petition for permanent residence for a spouse and his or her children, Lesbians and Gays cannot petition for pen-nanent residence for their life-partners. I remind the House that we have the ability to correct these inequities: passage of the ``No Taxation Without Representation Act'' and the ``Permanent Partners Immigration Act.'' I ask this House to join with me in welcoming the members of the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force to Washington, DC.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for their leadership in bringing this important matter to the floor. The last thing I thought there would be a bipartisan split on would be veterans benefits. We talk about unity around the troops. What about unity around the veterans? Members want to wave the flag. Let us begin with those who have already served. Instead, we are talking about the great differences between the Democratic budget and the Republican budget. The Democratic budget was more than $30 billion over a 10-year period than the Republican budget. That tells Members something about the different priorities of the two parties in this Chamber, particularly today when what we are talking about is a volunteer Army. We should be going out of our way to make sure that every ``t'' is crossed and every ``i'' is dotted. We have used all kinds of inducements to attract these men and women into the Army, and we have a class- and race-based Army. A lot of folks are going in there because there are not a lot of opportunities in society, and they are depending on those education and health benefits. What have we done? We have spared no cost when it comes to the equipment that they have to go to war, but we are pinching pennies on the health consequences of their going to war. Shame on us. We enticed them into service. We make no sacrifice ourselves, and we ask them to sacrifice when they come home. Who has made a sacrifice during this war? The only folks I can think about who has made a sacrifice since 9/11 are the people who died in the Twin Towers and at the Pentagon. None of us has been asked to make a sacrifice. Instead, we have been offered a big, fat tax cut. In this way, we separate ourselves from our ancestors and our forefathers. When they went to war, they said, we are going to pay for war and our veterans, and they raised taxes. These were not folks that liked to raise taxes. Indeed, we had our first Federal income tax during World War I, and nobody had even heard of taxes; but they said, if we are going to war, we are in for a dime, we are in for a dollar. We have raised taxes; and during every war, including the Persian Gulf War, we have never cut taxes in time of war. We have not asked the other side of the aisle to raise taxes, but we have asked them not to sacrifice veterans benefits in order to offer tax cuts to the wealthy. The veterans who are most offended are veterans who live in the District of Columbia, who have gone to war since our first war, without having full representation in this House. In their name, I ask that these cuts be restored.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform my colleagues in the House of Representatives that on February 22, 2003, in Washington, D.C., Alice P. Miller, who is Executive Director of the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, was sworn-in as President of the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED). That was an exceptional achievement, because the membership of NASED comprises the Election Directors of all of the 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. NASED is a non-partisan organization, whose members do not take stands on legislative matters. Those matters are left to elected officials to decide. NASED members are committed to conducting elections that are free, fair, and open, while maintaining the public trust. Those of us in the Washington Metropolitan Area (D.C., Maryland and Virginia) have known about Alice's exceptional talents, integrity and leadership for many years. It is especially gratifying, however, that an organization that represents all 50 states and several Territories, also appreciates Mrs. Miller's fine attributes by electing her President of NASED. I had the honor of welcoming this national organization to Washington recently and also enjoyed meeting the NASED leaders. I found them to be very knowledgeable and dedicated public officials who are certainly aware of the serious responsibilities that they have. Mrs. Miller, a Washington, D.C. resident, is the first African American to be elected President of NASED and has served on the National Association's executive committee for four years. She has represented NASED at Congressional hearings, including the 2001 Congressional Black Caucus hearing on election reform. That legislation culminated in the passage and signing of the historic Help America Vote Act of 2002. Recently, Mrs. Miller, who is married and the mother of two children, was also named to serve on the board of directors of the Election Center. This organization promotes, preserves and improves democracy. Their members are government employees who serve in local voter registration and election administrative activities. She is also a member of the board of the Center's Professional Education Program. Last year she was also appointed to the Federal Election Commission Advisory Board. Before she was appointed Executive Director of the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, Mrs. Miller served as the Board's General Counsel. She was elected President of NASED at a very important time. The nation is hoping that election reform will increase voter participation and also increase the trust of voters in protecting the integrity of the electoral process, which is vital in a democracy. Mrs. Miller has done outstanding work at the D.C. Board of Elections, sometimes under trying conditions. For example, the Board conducted a flawless election with new machines that had never been used before when the two leading candidates for Mayor of the city were write-in candidates. Thus, Mrs. Miller's election to NASED begins with excellence at home. I congratulate Mrs. Miller on her major national achievement and wish her the very best in her new and challenging responsibilities.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the President and the majority have put us on a budgetary equivalent of automatic pilot. No matter what the Nation faces in emergencies, wars and ups and downs of the economic cycle, only tax cuts for the rich remain stable. Denials and delusions have taken over the majority. They now tell us that the Bush tax cuts are the only thing that saved us from a worst economy. That must be magic then, because the tax cuts have not gone into effect, only the rebate has and that ought to be called the Democratic tax cut. This budget cheats each and every other American except wealthy Americans. The only people who have sacrificed for this country since September 10, 2001, were those who died in New York and the Pentagon and those who are now serving as Reservists abroad. Mr. Chairman, we have to show that we can do more than what this administration has done for the last 2 years, which is to give us 2.5 million jobs lost. We must not approve a budget where the only sacred cows are not citizens, seniors or children, but tax cuts for the wealthy. Vote for the Democratic alternative.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, whereas travel is a vital component of the educational experience for Americans of all ages; Whereas, the Washington, DC area is an area rich in American history and is visited by students nationwide; Whereas many school boards across the country are reluctant to approve student trips to Washington, DC and other historic areas due to the attack on the World Trade Center, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania and the fear of additional attacks; Whereas many U.S. students will not be able to experience landmarks and monuments celebrating American democracy, political figures and scientific achievement; Whereas the absence of student travel to our nation's historic sites will leave a vital gap in the education of America's youth; Whereas America's youth must be cognizant of American history to understand fully the concepts and responsibilities of democracy and citizenship; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and the United States House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, that student travel is a vital component of the educational process and should be encouraged so that Americans, young and old, can participate in travel, the perfect freedom.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the United States Commission on an Open Society and Security Act, expressing an idea I have been working on since well before 9-11. For years now before our eyes, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down because of fear of terrorism. Such actions have accelerated and with war coming now, even more so. For example, Pennsylvania Avenue has just been closed to pedestrians, isolating the country's most visible landmark from the American people and connection to the President. The bill I introduce today would begin a systematic investigation that takes full account of the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and substantial threats terrorism poses. These years in our history will be remembered by the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country. As a result, American society faces new and unprecedented challenges. We must provide ever- higher levels of security for our people and public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society. As yet, our country has no systematic process or strategy for meeting these challenges. When we have been faced with unprecedented and perplexing issues in the past, we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply and to move to resolve them. Examples include the Warren Commission following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the Kerner Commission following riotous uprisings that swept American cities in the 1960's and 1970's. The problems associated with worldwide terrorism are of similar importance and dimension. The Act requires that a commission be presidentially appointed which, to be useful in meeting the multiple problems raised, would have a careful balance of members representative of a cross section of disciplines. To date, questions of security most often have been left to security and military experts. They are indispensable participants, but they cannot alone resolve all the issues raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the balance required by our traditions, constitution and laws, a cross cutting group representing our best and wisest minds needs to be working at the same table. With only existing tools and thinking, we have been left to muddle through, using blunt 19th century approaches, such as crude blockades and other denials of access, or risking the right to privacy with the misapplication of the latest technology. The threat of terrorism to our democratic society is too serious to be left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are often as inadequate as they are menacing. We can do better, but only if we recognize and then come to grips with the complexities associated with maintaining a society with free and open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The place to begin is with a high-level presidential commission of wise men and women expert in an array of disciplines who can help chart the new course that will be required to protect both our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the ``No Taxation Without Representation Act'' in the House, and simultaneously our good friend, Senator Joe Lieberman, will introduce the same bill in the Senate. The bill would afford the residents of the District of Columbia the same congressional voting rights enjoyed by all Americans. The introduction of this legislation follows a well-attended Town Meeting on voting rights last week of determined D.C. residents intent on obtaining Congressional voting rights, especially today as the nation prepares for war. Our bill is particularly inspired by the District of Columbia's 46,000 veterans, who are represented by three distinguished veterans who appeared with me at a press conference this morning. I especially thank my friend, former Secretary of the Army Clifford Alexander, who also served in the United States Army. Secretary Alexander has long worked for equal rights for the American people, and especially for D.C. residents, and was the lead plaintiff in one of the D.C. voting rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Alexander v. Daley. I am also personally indebted to Secretary Alexander, who preceded me as an especially distinguished chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I am also grateful to the other veterans who are here today. Both are D.C. residents and graduates of the service academies-- Wesley Brown, the first black graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a former chair of my Service Academy Selection Board and George Keys, a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and current Selection Board Member as well as a former chair. The Service Academy Selection Board performs an indispensable service for D.C. residents and for our country. Board members spend countless hours screening, interviewing and selecting candidates for me to nominate to the nation's service academies. I also invited the current chair of my Service Academy Board, Mr. Kerwin Miller, to participate in the press conference today, and he originally agreed to speak. However, Mr. Miller not only serves on my Service Academy Board, he also is the Executive Director of the D.C. Office of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Miller was forced to decline for reasons that sharply underscore the very reason why we are here today. Mr. Miller is unable to appear at this press conference because of a rider attached to the District's annual appropriations legislation that prohibits city officials, except for elected officials, from lobbying on behalf of their own voting rights. Not only is the District of Columbia denied voting rights, but the Congress adds insult to injury by attaching this outrageous provision to our own budget to deliberately hamstring the city in its quest for voting rights. This provision is hideously un-American, and I again will seek to have it repealed, especially this year. In seeking full congressional representation, we often have stressed the District's taxpaying status because most of us pay federal taxes and because uniquely among American citizens, D.C. gets no vote in Congress in return. However, today we emphasize a duty of citizenship far more important, requiring far greater sacrifice. Ever since America's first war, the Revolutionary War, that was waged to eliminate taxation without representation, D.C. residents have fought and died for their country. They have done so often disproportionately. In World War I, the District suffered more casualties than three states; in World War II, more casualties than four states; in the Korean War, more casualties than eight states; and in Vietnam, more casualties than ten states. Since I have been in Congress, I have participated in ceremonies that have sent D.C. residents to the Persian Gulf War, to Afghanistan, and now to the Iraqi border. I have never been able to vote in their name, and our residents are without any representation in the Senate. Yet, in today's military, each is a volunteer who has willingly taken on the most weighty of all the obligations of citizenship. Thus, I introduce our voting rights bill today for D.C. residents but particularly for our residents serving in the military today and the nearly 50,000 veterans who live in our city. Encouraged by the 9-0 Senate Committee vote that took the city's voting rights bill to the Senate floor last year, we are now in the throes of preparations to take our case to the country. Let us begin by telling America what too many do not know about service and sacrifice without representation. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I have introduced a D.C. voting rights bill here in the House, and in the Senate it has been introduced by Senator Lieberman with seven sponsors besides Mr. Lieberman: Mr. Feingold, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, and Ms. Landrieu. I will be seeking cosponsors here in the House from both sides of the aisle beginning next week, and I will be seeking it on this eve of war. I am asking Members of the House to consider what it means to send people to war when those same people have no vote in the House and no Senators whatsoever. We, of course, are second per capita in Federal income taxes. Unless one comes from Connecticut, your constituents do not pay as much in Federal income tax as we do. Most of our residents pay income taxes. The difference this year is that we are emphasizing something that most of our residents and most of my colleagues' residents have not had to do. On the eve of war, we honor 50,000 veterans of the District of Columbia who live here now. Three distinguished veterans who are also Washingtonians stood with me to announce that we are introducing the No Taxation Without Representation Act. They were former Secretary of the Army, Clifford Alexander, Harvard College, Yale Law School; Wesley Brown, a native Washingtonian, the first black person ever to graduate from the Naval Academy. He is also a graduate of Rensselaer Polytechnic, served in Korea in World War II, and is the former chair of my Service Academy Nominating Board that nominates young people from the District, selects people from the District for me to nominate to go to the academies. George Keyes, native Washingtonian, Air Force Academy, Yale Law School, Rhodes Scholar, just finished as chair of my nominating board for the service academies. The present Chair, Kerwin Miller, was to be here. A West Point graduate, he could not attend for a completely outrageous reason. The House has attached a rider that forbids anybody who happens to be an employee of the District government from lobbying for voting rights. This man is head of the D.C. Veterans Affairs Office. What an outrage, Madam Speaker. This veteran, this West Point graduate, could not come here to plead for his own freedom because of a rider that has been attached to an appropriations bill that should not even be here in the first place because it consists of money raised in the District of Columbia. The Revolutionary War ``Taxation without Representation'' slogan has been with us since District residents fought in that war and have fought in every war since. The people I represent have indeed had more casualties in many wars than many others in this House. In World War I, more casualties than three States; in World War II, more casualties than four States; in Korea, more casualties than eight States; and in Vietnam, more casualties than 10 States. And no vote, Madam Speaker. Since I have been in the House, three wars have taken place: the Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan, and now we are on the verge of war with Iraq. I have spoken at all three, sent all three off to war, all with no vote. Madam Speaker, it is one thing to give your taxes to your government without a vote. It is quite another to lay your life on the line for your country without a vote. Everyone in the military today is a volunteer. There is a freeze so one cannot even get out, making it really a draft. Taxes without a vote in return is awful, particularly in this body that does not want people to pay taxes in the everyday sense of the word. But patriotism without a vote for it is a shame and a shame on us, particularly given the kind of war we now want to fight, a war for democracy in Iraq and in the Middle East. I am pleased that there are Republicans who have said to me, This is wrong and I am not for it. Voting is not a partisan issue, except in undemocratic countries. It cannot be a partisan issue in our country today when we are sending young men and women off to war, yes, even from the Nation's Capital. So the people I represent, in whose name I submitted this bill today, standing with three veterans who live in the District of Columbia, I ask this question of this House: how much longer are you going to ask the residents of your Nation's Capital, 600,000 of them, to pay taxes more than most of my colleagues do per capita and to go to war without the right to vote? How long? I hope not very long.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 19 would designate Room 236 in the House of Representatives as the Richard K. Armey Room. H-236 is located in the Capitol and currently serves as a meeting room. Mr. Armey retired at the end of the 107th Congress after serving 18 years in the House. He was born in Cando, North Dakota, in 1940. After graduating from the local high school, he attended Jamestown College in Jamestown, North Dakota. He received his Master's Degree from the University of North Dakota and his Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Armey taught for many years, holding positions at the University of Montana, West Texas State University, Austin College and North Texas State University. While at North Texas State, he was the Chairman of the Economics Department for 6 years. In 1992, Congressman Armey became the chairman of the House Republican Conference, and in 1994 he became the majority leader. Designating this room in the Capitol is an appropriate recognition of Congressman Armey's civic contributions and his dedicated public service. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.