Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, on June 24, 2010, I was not able to be present for votes on amendments to H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 388 and ``aye'' on rollcall 389

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, the District of Columbia gathered on June 11, 2010, in a great hall of the Walter E. Washington Convention Center to honor one of our own, out of S.E. and Ballou Senior High School, Anthony ``Little Benny'' Harley, for his distinctive contributions to our musical identity as a city. We gathered to celebrate our native son, whose magnificent trumpet brought joy to the world and acclaim to the District of Columbia. Little Benny became the living proof that a godfather could have godsons, when Little Benny showed the world that go-go music was no one-man passing fad--from the time Little Benny listened and learned from the go-go Godfather himself, Chuck Brown, to the day Little Benny died after performing alongside the Godfather. Few cities produce musical talent so deep that it comes to symbolize the town itself. Motown did that for Detroit. Go-go has done that for D.C. Little Benny's sound kept us from having ``Government Town'' plastered on our backs. His funk was the musical background for our fight for our vote and for statehood and against the autocrats in Congress who try to step on D.C. and on our rights. Little Benny's non- stop funk, his beat, and his chants said ``Don't Mess with D.C.'' better than anything I could ever say on the floor of the House of Representatives. All too prematurely, Little Benny now joins our city's own hall of fame for musical geniuses, who have put D.C. on the musical map, from Duke Ellington to Sam Cook. Music comes and music goes, fast, but Little Benny has helped carve out a special brand of funk that distinguishes him and his hometown alike. We want Little Benny to rest in peace, but his sound will keep us all moving to his never ending beat.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, in April 2010, more than 1,200 students from across the country took part in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national finals in Washington, D.C. I am proud to announce that a class from Cesar Chavez Public Charter School--Capitol Hill Campus represented the District of Columbia at this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their city-wide competition earning the chance to compete at the national level. While in Washington, the students participated in a three-day academic competition that simulated a congressional hearing, in which students demonstrated their knowledge and skills as they evaluated and defended positions on historical and contemporary constitutional issues. Annual surveys consistently show that high school students who take part in the We the People academic competition outperform other students in the National Assessment of Educational Progress political test by at least 22 percent. Madam Speaker, the names of these outstanding students from Cesar Chavez Public Charter School--Capitol Hill Campus are: Kim Diaz, Marco Gomez, Karen Mejia, Jason Allen, Jesse Balderas, Briana Bullock, Joel Carela, Jaleel Dyson, Kendra Goodwin, Ely Guerrero, Corey Johnson, Jose Maheda, Anthony McCannon, Christian Mondragon, Nakea Paige, Ryan Pope, Alexis Rhett, Leticia Rivera, Elizabeth Rogers, Paul Schmidt, Jaztina Somerville, and Jade Vaughn. I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Dionna Shinn, who was responsible for preparing these young constitutional experts for the national finals. Also worthy of special recognition is Julie Harris, Director of Public Policy at Cesar Chavez Public Charter School, for her tireless commitment to the students on the District's team and implementation of the rigorous curriculum at the Cesar Chavez Public Charter School. I congratulate these young constitutional experts on their outstanding achievement at the We the People national finals.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 35th Annual Capital Pride, a celebration of the national capital area's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender, GLBT, communities and their families and friends. In 1975, Deacon ``Super Hero'' MacCubbin, owner of Lambda Rising Bookstore, in Dupont Circle, launched the first Capital Pride. It began as a block party on 20th St, between R and S Streets, NW. Six years later, in 1981, the annual Pride Parade became part of the festivities. Now Capital Pride consists of more than 10 days of events organized by the Capital Pride Planning Committee and dozens of local community partners. This year's Capital Pride theme, ``You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet,'' both reflects Capital Pride's past and anticipates its future. Capital Pride's producer, the Capital Pride Alliance, Inc., predicts an attendance of 250,000, making Capital Pride one of the largest GLBT festivals in the United States. This year Capital Pride culminates with what the Washington City Paper has declared D.C.'s Best Parade for three years running, the Capital Pride Parade, on June 12, and ``The Main Event,'' a street fair on Pennsylvania Avenue in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol, on June 13. I have marched in Pride parades since coming to Congress to emphasize universal human rights and the importance of enacting federal legislation to secure those rights for the GLBT community. Congress has much work to do. We must pass the Family Leave Insurance Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, the Respect for Marriage Act, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and the Responsible Education About Life Act. This year our nation's capital joined Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in extending equal marriage rights to its GLBT residents. I ask the House to join me in welcoming those who are attending the 35th Annual Capital Pride.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 20th Annual DC Black Pride celebration, which will be held in Washington, DC on May 26-31. The DC Black Pride celebration is a multiple-day festival that features music, dance, fashion shows, films, poetry slams, church services, community town hall meetings, a health and wellness expo, and much more. The DC Black Pride celebration is widely considered to be one of the world's preeminent Black Pride celebrations, drawing more than 30,000 people to the nation's capital from across the United States as well as Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. At the very first Black Pride, the DC Black Pride celebration fostered the beginning of the International Federation of Black Prides and the ``Black Pride Movement,'' which now consist of forty Black Prides on three continents. The DC Black Pride celebration has deep roots in the DC community, dating back to 1975. It grew out of the Club House's annual Memorial Day weekend celebration, called the Children's Hour. After the Club House closed in 1990, local individuals and groups kept the tradition alive by organizing the first DC Black Pride celebration on May 25, 1991, at Banneker Field. The celebration has grown from a few hundred people who attended that first festival to the thousands expected for the 2010 celebration. Fittingly, the celebration's organizing body, Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc., chose ``20 Years Later, The Legacy Lives!'' as the theme for this year's celebration. This theme reflects the 20 years of DC Black Pride of fulfilling the mission, which is to increase awareness of and pride in the diversity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender in the African American community, as well as support for organizations that focus on health disparities, education, youth and families. DC Black Pride is led by a volunteer Board of Directors, which coordinates this annual event and smaller events throughout the year. The 2010 Board consists of: Patricia Corbett; Jimma Elliott-Stevens; Earl Fowlkes, Jr.; and Jhahbriel Moore, Sr. I ask the House to join me in welcoming all who are attending the 20th Annual DC Black Pride celebration.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduce a resolution directing the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee to recommend to the Postmaster General that a commemorative stamp be issued to honor the lives of Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr., the two United States Postal Service (USPS) workers, and District of Columbia natives, who died as a result of their exposure to anthrax while working at the USPS facility located at 900 Brentwood Road, NE, Washington, D.C., during the 2001 anthrax attack. This commemorative stamp meets the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee's requirement that no postal item may be issued sooner than five years after an individual's death. Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr. served the USPS honorably and diligently for a combined period of 52 years until their deaths on October 22, 2001, and October 21, 2001, respectively. Curseen, remembered as a quiet man with a fuzzy mustache, loved to tell stories and loved his church. He was so dedicated to his work, that during the 15 years that he worked for the USPS, he never called in sick. His co- workers described him as someone who was kind and courteous, who stayed at the Post Office seven days a week, giving up breaks to get the mail out, and who regularly led a postal worker Bible study group. In his neighborhood of Cambridge Estates, Maryland, Curseen was the president of the homeowners association, an avid jogger, and a member of St. John the Evangelist Church. To his neighbors, Curseen was someone who everyone knew, who was friendly, and who worked quietly, but ``really got things done.'' He helped build a playground and park in the Cambridge Estates area, even though he and his wife had no children. Although Curseen lived in Clinton, Maryland, he grew up in Southeast D.C., where Our Lady of Perpetual Help Roman Catholic Church was his childhood parish and school. Curseen's wife, Celestine Willingham Curseen, to whom he was married for 16 years, described her late husband as a generous, kind, hard-working man who will be greatly missed. Thomas Morris, Jr. also grew up in the District of Columbia, although he and his family moved to Suitland, Maryland. Before joining the USPS, Morris served in the United States Air Force. Morris joined the USPC in 1973 and worked as a distribution clerk. He was a hard worker who had no aversion to working overtime, a proud husband and father of one son and two stepchildren, as well as the president of a bowling league team. To his neighbors, Morris was a quiet, thoughtful, deeply religious and humble man, who dispensed helpful, and often paternal advice to his younger neighbors. His wife, Mary, described him as true to others and to himself, as someone who was respectful and law- abiding. Please join me in honoring the lives of these two men, who died serving their country, and in requesting a commemorative stamp in their memory. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this week a historic vote to give the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia here in the Nation's capital voting representation in the House was due on the floor and had to be pulled down but only for now. I come to thank the majority of Members of Congress, of this House, who have voted for the right of the people of the District to have a vote on this floor, especially the 22 Republicans and the 219 Democrats, who gave the D.C. House Voting Rights Act a straight-up vote in 2007 when it passed 241-177. I thank Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for their invaluable and unfailing support until the very end. I thank Majority Leader Harry Reid for bringing a historic first-time vote for the bill where it passed the Senate. I thank Chairman John Conyers for his unyielding support of D.C. voting rights. I thank former Representative Tom Davis whose idea it was to pair Democratic D.C. with Republican Utah, the most perfect example of a bipartisan bill ever to hit this floor where each side benefits equally. I thank Ilir Zherka of D.C. Vote and the coalition he put together and Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights, who were steadfast and creative throughout this process. The Senate for the first time, in fact, enacted the bill, but it had a gun amendment that took down the District's gun safety laws, yet the District's gun safety laws have been held to be constitutional now by the courts. When the bill came here to the House, I sought a clean vote and almost got it. I thank the House for being willing to put the D.C. House voting rights bill on a must-pass bill. The Senate did not agree, so I spent months trying to negotiate a compromise that would have left at least some of D.C.'s gun laws intact. Finally, and reluctantly, I agreed to the same amendment that passed the Senate to, in fact, alter the District's gun laws, but I had a set of strategies for returning the District's public safety laws. However, we were hit with a new over the top revised gun amendment that gun forces sprung on us that was worse than anything we could have imagined. Ultimately, people would have been allowed to carry guns in the Nation's capital. The city could not prohibit guns in its own publicly owned buildings. Owners of residential and commercial property could not ban guns in their own property to those who rent or lease. We expect the gun forces to return. We are ready for them. For the sake of post-9/11 Washington and hometown D.C., they must not succeed in overturning the public safety gun laws of the Nation's capital. I promise you this, we will redouble our efforts to finally give the American citizens who pay taxes at a rate of second per capita in the United States, the citizens who live in our own capital, the vote in Congress they have sought for two centuries and that every American who believes in the founding principles of the Framers and our country know must have. Let's do it, and let's do it this year.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 4717.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring America's oldest, continuously operational gay and lesbian rights organization: the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC, GLAA, on its 39th anniversary, and the recipients of the Distinguished Service Award. Since its founding in April 1971, GLAA has long been at the forefront of efforts to strengthen enforcement of the landmark D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, and at the forefront of advocating for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered, GLBT, community. GLAA played a key role in winning marriage equality in the District, working with coalition partners, DC officials and the wider public to craft and implement a strategy for achieving a strong, sustainable victory. GLAA has fought to ensure that, GLBT, citizens are treated fairly and respectfully by DC agencies from the Metropolitan Police and Fire/ Emergency Medical Services Departments to the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, as well as the DC Public Schools. GLAA has also participated in lobbying efforts against arbitrary federal restrictions on the District's budget aimed at lesbians and gay men. On April 20, GLAA will hold its 39th anniversary Reception honoring this year's recipients of its Distinguished Service Awards: Joan E. Biren, Sean Bugg, Lou Chibbaro Jr., David Mariner, Michael Crawford, Rev. Monique Ellison, Brian K. Flowers, Mark Levine, Nick McCoy, Brian Moore, Sultan Shakir, and the DC Clergy United for Marriage Equality. The recipients contributed toward GLAA's effervescent fight to receive equality for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community in the District of Columbia. GLAA's 39 year fight to secure inalienable American rights for the GLBT residents of Washington, DC is similar to the long struggle for full voting representation in Congress for U.S. citizens, living in our Nation's capital, who have served honorably in every American war, including the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are taxed without representation. GLAA's open and forthright advocacy supports GLBT soldiers, who have sworn to protect our country with their lives and must serve in silence, without the open support of their families and communities. I ask this House to join me in congratulating the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance on its 39th Anniversary, and the recipients of the Distinguished Service Award for their commitment to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community in Washington, DC.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Regional Contracting Services, LLC, in Washington, D.C., as the 2010 D.C. Small Business of the Year, and its founder, Beverly Thomas. Regional Contracting Services is a woman-owned, minority D.C. business that specializes in rough carpentry, fire-stopping, insulation, and building supplies. The company recently received a significant contract to do work at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) headquarters construction project, the largest federal construction project underway in the United States today, where 100 percent of the pre-construction contracts were awarded to small, minority-owned, and disadvantaged businesses, and 40 percent of these contracts were awarded to businesses in the District of Columbia, where the project is located. Regional Contracting Services began in July 2001 with a $7,000 investment and has grown significantly, reporting annual sales revenue of $16 million last year, with a bonding capacity of $2 million per job, and $10 million in total. Regional Contracting Services has 60 employees, and has been rated among the top 500 ``Fastest Growing Companies in America'' by Entrepreneur magazine. Regional Contracting Services has worked on some of the Washington area's top projects, including the Children's National Medical Center, the Mandarin Hotel, the Pentagon, the National Museum of the American Indian, the Walter Washington Convention Center, the Washington Nationals' Baseball Stadium, and the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority--Brentwood Yard Expansion. Receiving a contract for the DHS headquarters construction project is a testament to Regional Contracting Services' success and motivation for other D.C. small businesses in competition for a share of the DHS headquarters project. The early success of Regional Contracting Services stands as an example to our local businesses, that in a fair competition, they can win. Madam Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring both Regional Contracting Services, LLC, in Washington, D.C., as the 2010 D.C. Small Business of the Year, and its founder, Beverly Thomas.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me, as we celebrate Women's History Month, by honoring Sheila Johnson, who has used her historic business achievements in sports and entertainment to empower and energize communities and people of all backgrounds, especially women, throughout the United States and other parts of the world. Sheila Johnson has been called ``a great American success story,'' and continues to be a history-maker and a special inspiration to girls and women. She first made history as co-founder of the first African American owned cable network, providing entertainment and news to a primarily African American audience. No woman in American history has simultaneously cracked open two supercharged, male-dominated fields: sports ownership and entertainment. Sheila Johnson is the first African American woman to have ownership in three professional sports franchises: the Washington Mystics, the Washington Wizards, and the Washington Capitals. She's the first African American woman to purchase a major, luxury golf resort, Innisbrook, a Salamander Golf and Spa Resort, which hosts the PGA Tour's Transition Championships and the LPGA Legends Tour's Open Championship. Sheila Johnson also has been a leader in supporting great neglected issues, many involving women. She was executive producer of ``A Powerful Noise,'' a documentary that examines the lives of three women living with HIV/AIDS in different parts of the world; ``She Is the Matador,'' a movie depicting the history of women's challenges to male- only bullfighting laws in Spain; and ``The Other City,'' about the HIV/ AIDS crisis in Washington, D.C. She invested in the film ``Kicking It,'' a documentary that illuminated the Annual Homeless World Cup, which attracts homeless men from around the world to raise awareness and funds to end homelessness. Sheila Johnson's life has also been about service and the arts. She funded a $4 million CARE campaign to fight global poverty, focusing on women, and was named a global ambassador for CARE. President Barack Obama appointed her to serve on the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities. Sheila Johnson has set a different course for young women of all backgrounds in pursuit of excellence, through her living example. Madam Speaker, I ask that the House of Representatives join me in honoring Sheila Johnson.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. We have been very fair in trying to keep this an even system on the air and on the ground. I understand that, in the other body, Mr. Warner and Mr. Webb are working still on this issue in conference. What has given them the best head start, Mr. Chairman, is what you did here to save the perimeter rule. I think by the time it got there, they knew that that could not be overcome. And if we work together, I think we can finally call this the year of the FAA bill. I thank both sides for how well you've worked together on this very important bill.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee and Chairman Costello. These two chairs have done what can only be called heroic work twice. To do heroic work once, perhaps we'll say that's what chairs do. But this bill through two Congresses has only been improved by what they have done. The merits are not so much what this amendment is about, although there is a very important amendment in this bill. I do want to say that this is a real jobs bill because it's an infrastructure bill at heart about updating our airline and airport infrastructure. But the bill is full of what the country yearns for and why it was so popular here and in the other body. It's just got the whole panoply of what is necessary to update the FAA: consumer protections that people yearn for, especially as the summer months approach; very much improved safety for the flying public, including the number of training hours for commercial pilots, and we've learned that one the hard way, with airline accidents, while this bill has been winding its way through both Houses. We have a very aged air traffic control system. This bill brings all of these moving parts together and the committee chairs and the ranking members deserve very special praise for putting together so complicated a bill. I want to comment on one matter that still is in conference and that has to do with the perennial matter of the slots and the perimeter and the desire of some in the other body, certainly, to save a few minutes by coming to overcrowded Reagan Airport rather than to Dulles or to BWI. For two decades, there was a statutory limit on the number of slots, and then there began to be inroads into it. This has to do with the perimeter where planes can arrive or depart to this airport, in order to even out the air traffic with the three airports in this region and to abate noise and traffic congestion on the ground. Since 2000, we have had to fight every time this bill came up in order to save the perimeter rule. The perimeter appears to have been saved, and I appreciate the way the chairman worked on this; no modification in the perimeter, although there are going to be more flights, it looks like, with big planes coming in. We have offset the flights from beyond the perimeter by using 10 slots within the perimeter that were unused.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Dr. Dorothy L. Height, the President Emerita of the National Council of Negro Women, on her 98th birthday. Dr. Dorothy L. Height has spent her extremely productive lifetime in service of African Americans, especially African-American women, and the people of the United States of America. She has been a visionary, championing every great effort for equality and racial justice that our nation has achieved, from equal pay and voting rights for women to the integration of the nation's governmental institutions and revision of societal norms. Known as the ``Godmother of the Civil Rights Movement,'' Dr. Height has also organized the annual Black Family Reunion, a national celebration that she leads to celebrate African-American family values on the National Mall and throughout the nation. Dr. Height has been recognized with virtually every significant national honor, from the NAACP Spingarn Medal, to the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award and the Congressional Gold Medal. It is especially appropriate that Dr. Height's birthday occurs in March, during Women's History Month. Her contributions, not only to our country, but to women of every color and background, make Women's History Month a timely occasion to celebrate Dr. Height's life's work as President Emerita of the National Council of Negro Women. Madam Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the lifetime contributions of Dr. Dorothy L. Height on her 98th birthday.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. For the tax-paying residents of the District of Columbia, I rise in strong support of the health care reform bill before us today. Mr. Speaker, if I could cast a vote on behalf of the residents of the District of Columbia, on final passage of the health care bill before us today, I would cast a critical ``aye.'' Unfortunately, however, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, like most bills this year, is in line behind health care reform. Fortunately for me, however, the most important point of contribution to a bill is usually not when the work is done, and all that needs to be done is to register your vote for the majority. The most critical point in this legislation was when it was being crafted. I believe that the many hours I have put into the health care bill to ensure that it served D.C. residents have been more than worth it. For example, beyond the many benefits for all Americans in the bill, D.C. will be relieved of the $50 million it has generously used to fund its D.C. Health Alliance for people who do not qualify for Medicaid, but cannot afford health insurance, a cost seldom picked up by other states. Mr. Speaker, this bill specifically benefits my constituents in many ways, particularly the following: For the 62 percent of D.C. residents who already have private health insurance, but are facing soaring insurance costs and could be dropped at the whim of an insurance company, the bill will reign in insurance costs by restricting administrative expenses, profits, and overhead; prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre- existing conditions; prohibit annual and lifetime benefit caps; and prohibit insurance companies from dropping coverage when a person becomes sick. For the 134,000 uninsured families and 17,300 small businesses, the bill will provide tax credits to buy affordable insurance at group rates through the new health insurance exchanges that will be established, or for individuals with incomes below 133 percent of the poverty line, through expansion of Medicaid. For the 75,000 seniors receiving Medicare, the bill will add free preventative and wellness care, improve primary, coordinated, and nursing home care, and provide a $250 rebate this year and 50 percent discounts on brand name drugs beginning next year to the 3,300 seniors who have fallen through the donut hole and are forced to pay the full cost of prescription drugs, while closing the hole within 10 years. For 67,000 young adults in the District, the bill will allow them to stay on their parents' plan until age 26 and allow them to purchase affordable policies until age 30. For the 5,600 D.C. individuals with pre-existing conditions, the bill will ensure they are not denied affordable coverage. Families who purchase insurance through the health insurance exchange or are insured by small businesses will no longer face bankruptcy due to health care costs not covered by insurance, because the bill will cap out-of-pocket costs at $6,200 for individuals and $12,400 for families. For District of Columbia health care providers, the bill will provide up to $54.6 million for 42 D.C. community health centers, and will reduce the burden on uncompensated care by $69 million at the District's hospitals and other health care facilities. I am particularly pleased about the benefits that will be available to my constituents as soon as the bill is signed. For individuals, there will be coverage for early retirees, 55-64; coverage for young adults up to age 26 on parents' policies; preventative care for those receiving Medicare and for others, now under private plans; first steps to close the donut hole, coverage for residents with pre-existing conditions; and tax credits for small business employees. For many of my constituents, the elimination of abuses will be the most important parts of the bill, including no more cancellation of policies when residents get sick; no discrimination against children with preexisting conditions; no lifetime coverage limits; no annual limits on new plans; and requiring 80 percent of premiums for individuals and small groups, and 85 percent of large plan premiums, to be spent on the insured. Other critical provisions that will benefit many D.C. residents are the funds to double the number of patients the city's 42 community health centers can accommodate, and funding for training more primary care doctors.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, the American people are fed up with the most costly health care system in the world with too little good health to show for it. We are 38th of 195 countries in life expectancy. Pity those who think they can run on the theme: ``Repeal health care reform.'' Democrats opposed Bush's version of prescription drugs for seniors because, unlike our health care bill that's coming to the floor, the Bush plan added billions to the deficit, didn't pay for the bill, and cut seniors off with the doughnut hole. But we never ran on the outrageous theme ``repeal prescription drugs for seniors.'' Instead, we vowed to fix the prescription drug law if Americans would give us control of the Congress. They did--and we are. We are closing the doughnut hole, and we are paying for it. You're entitled to criticize, indeed to change the health care reform Americans have been waiting for for almost a hundred years. But it is simply a fool's errand to oppose it, and madness to try to repeal it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. We've had to come to this floor, Mr. Speaker, to speak about the folks who drove this economy into the ground and just how bad it was, but there is good news to raise the spirits of the American people coming from the Labor Department and from analysts. We know that the economy has turned around, but until the job market turned around nobody wanted to hear it; now analysts tell us so has the job market. All expected unemployment numbers to ratchet up during February because of the bad weather, including crippling snowstorms. Instead, it stood steady--too high at over 9 percent, but it showed confidence in the economy that so many employers stopped laying off people and kept people on. The biggest losses were where you might have expected, in construction, because of all the bad weather and the snowstorms. The best sign that employers are feeling more confident is that they are getting their feet wet with many new temporary employees brought on, which is always the first sign that they are ready to bring on people full time and permanently, and the best sign may be the 2.7 million job openings. Now we have a mismatch. Thank goodness for the stimulus that went to community colleges to help us cure that mismatch.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Richard W. Snowdon III, as he concludes his service as chair of the board of directors of the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, DC. Mr. Snowdon has a long and distinguished record of service to Children's National Medical Center, having served as chair of the hospital's foundation from 2002-2005 and most recently as chair of the board from 2006-2009. Children's National Medical Center is an integral part of the fabric of Washington, DC. Founded in 1870 as a home for civil war orphans, Children's National has grown into a 283 bed academic medical center devoted to meeting children's health care needs locally, regionally and nationally. The hospital's growth and success have been dependent on strong, visionary leaders, such as Mr. Snowdon. Under Mr. Snowdon's chairmanship, Children's National was thrice named to the LeapFrog Group's list of top hospitals for quality and safety; immunization compliance of school-aged children in the District of Columbia went from one of the lowest in the country to the highest; the hospital opened a state-of-the-art, family-centered inpatient tower; and perhaps closest to his heart, Children's National released a comprehensive assessment of pediatric health in the District of Columbia. The report's findings will help Children's National target resources to address some of the most pressing health concerns facing our children, including asthma and obesity. Mr. Snowdon is an attorney in the firm of Trainum, Snowdon & Deane. In addition to his service to Children's National, he is or has been a trustee, director or member of numerous civic organizations, including the Anthony Francis Lucas-Spindletop Foundation, The Langley School, the National Children's Museum, the Community Foundation of Greater Washington, the D.C. Advisory Committee of the Local Initiative Support Corporation, the National Cathedral School for Girls, the Washington Cathedral, the Black Student Fund, and the Federal City Council. Mr. Snowdon received a B.S. from the Syracuse University College of Business Administration and a J.D. from The George Washington University National Law Center. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing and commending Richard W. Snowdon III for his outstanding leadership and in thanking him and his wife, Catharine, for their commitment to the children of the District of Columbia and the national capital region.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I will introduce three bills to modernize the Smithsonian Institution and to enhance its governance and fundraising ability, in keeping with the recommendations of a number of experts, including the Independent Review Committee, chaired by former U.S. Comptroller General Charles Bowsher. This bill, the Smithsonian Modernization Act, makes changes to the Smithsonian's governance structure by expanding its Board of Regents from 17 members, which includes six Members of Congress, the Vice President of the United States, and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, to 21 members, comprised solely of private citizens. These changes will strengthen both the Smithsonian's governance and fundraising capacity, and it is the first significant change in an old and revered institution since it was established in 1846. The second bill, the Smithsonian Free Admission Act of 2010, seeks to preserve the longstanding free admission policy for permanent exhibits at an institution that is largely funded by the federal government, as envisioned by James Smithson, its founder who contributed the original gift. Finally, the Open and Transparent Smithsonian Act of 2010 will apply the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act to the Smithsonian in the same manner they are applied to other federal agencies. The Smithsonian Institution is a unique and irreplaceable cultural, historical, educational and artistic complex without any public or private counterpart in the world. Since its founding, the Smithsonian has developed an extraordinary array of world-class museums, galleries, educational showplaces and unique research centers, including 19 museums and galleries, nine research facilities, the National Zoo, and a pending National Museum of African American History and Culture, which has been approved by Congress and is now seeking funding from the private sector for construction. The Smithsonian has grown with donations from American culture and life, and financial contributions, but most of its funding continues to come from federal appropriations. Despite receiving 70 percent of its support from the federal government, the Smithsonian has long had serious and unmet infrastructure and other financial needs. Congress must help the Smithsonian Institution strengthen its ability to build resources beyond what taxpayers are able to provide. The most important step that Congress could take today is to rescue the Smithsonian from the 19th Century governance structure that keeps it from accessing needed and available private resources and limits close and critical internal oversight. This bill provides a governance structure befitting an agency of the unique complexity of the Smithsonian. In no small part, the difficulty the Smithsonian has faced results from limitations inherent in its antiquated governance structure. The existing structure may have fit the Smithsonian over 170 years ago, but today the structure has proven to be a relic that does a disservice to the Smithsonian. The present governance structure places immense responsibility on dedicated but overextended Members of the House and Senate, the Vice President of the United States and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. These federal officials comprise almost half of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, and must perform their fiduciary duties as board members while giving first priority to their sworn responsibilities as important federal officials. In 2007, an independent review committee found that the Smithsonian Board had violated principles of good management during the tenure of Lawrence Small, the former Secretary of the Smithsonian, and had allowed him to create an ``insular culture.'' The report indicated that the Board had failed to provide desperately needed oversight and had overcompensated Mr. Small. The report also found that Sheila P. Burke, the Smithsonian's then-deputy secretary and chief operating officer, had frequent absences from her duties because of outside activities, including service on corporate boards for which she earned more than $1.2 million in six years. Further, the Smithsonian's Business Ventures Chief, Gary Beer, was dismissed for financial indiscretions. This unprecedented crisis caused by unprecedented controversies and irresponsible risks put into sharp dual-focus the need for new revenue streams and for a modern governance structure. The first full-blown scandal in the Smithsonian's history, replete with embarrassing coverage, has damaged its reputation and perhaps the confidence of potential contributors. The poor judgment and overreaching of Smithsonian personnel require new and concentrated oversight by citizens for whom the Smithsonian would command priority attention. The Board of Regents, of course, has taken some important action on its own. After irregularities were uncovered by the media, the Board responded to the controversies by creating a Governance Committee, chaired by Patty Stonesifer, a Regent and former chief executive officer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with a mandate to comprehensively review the policies and practices of the Smithsonian and how the Board conducts its oversight of the institution. The Board also established an Independent Review Committee (IRC), chaired by former U.S. Comptroller General Charles A. Bowsher, to review the issues arising from an Inspector General's reports, the Board of Regents' response, and related Smithsonian practices. The IRC was forthright in its investigation and recommendations. The IRC stated explicitly that the root cause of the current problems at the Smithsonian was an antiquated governance structure that led to failures in governance and management. According to the IRC, the Board must assume a fiduciary duty that carries a ``major commitment of time and effort, a reputational risk, and potentially, financial liability.'' The IRC further argued that the Smithsonian, with a budget of over $1 billion a year, must have a Board of Regents who ``act as true fiduciaries and who have both the time and the experience to assume the responsibilities of setting strategy and providing oversight.'' The IRC cited lack of clarity of the roles of the U.S. Vice President and Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on the Board, and said that ``it is not feasible to expect the Chief Justice to devote the hours necessary to serve as a fiduciary agent.'' The same observation could be made of Members of the House and Senate who serve on the Board. The IRC recommended increasing the level of expertise and the number of board members to ensure that the Regents have sufficient time and attention to dedicate to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian's own Governance Committee identified several board weaknesses and concluded that the Regents did not receive or demand the reports necessary for competent decision making, that the staff whom the Regents depended upon for oversight inquiries did not have direct access to information, and that the inability of staff to communicate red flag issues ``crippled'' internal compliance and oversight mechanisms. Only Congress, with the concurrence of the president, can amend the Smithsonian Charter. The last change to the Board's structure occurred over 30 years ago, but only to increase the number of private citizens on the Board from six to nine. The number of Regents, however, is not the root problem. Although this bill expands the Board of Regents from 17 to 21, it most importantly brings the board into alignment with modern public and private boards by requiring all Regents to be private citizens. The search for private funds by Smithsonian management was a major cause of the recent controversy. Faced with crippling budget problems, the Regents must be free to give new and unprecedented attention and energy to finding and helping to raise substantially more funds from private sources. The new structure envisioned by the bill will improve oversight and the capacity for fundraising from private sources. Unlike federal officials, private citizens are entirely free to assist in private fundraising. Most important, private citizens will have sufficient time and expertise to serve on the Board of Regents, and will be able to devote the personal time and attention necessary to fulfill the fiduciary responsibility that comes with serving such a venerable and complex institution. The bill preserves and strengthens the traditional role of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate in selecting members of the Regents, while eliminating the self-perpetuating role of the Board of Regents in selecting private citizens for the Board. The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate will each send 12 recommendations to the President of the United States, who will select the 21 members of the Board of Regents. Considering the seriousness of the findings of the Board of Regents' own Governance Committee and of the IRC, the changes prescribed by this bill are nothing short of necessary. The reform of the fiduciary and governance issues that have brought public criticism to this iconic American institution must begin with the indispensable step of a making its governance consistent with that of similar institutions today. Only congressional attention can reassure the public that the controversies that recently have besieged the Smithsonian will not recur. In the face of an unprecedented public controversy, Congress would be remiss if it left the Smithsonian to its own oversight and devices alone for improvement. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Smithsonian Free Admission Act to reinforce 170 years of consistent Smithsonian policy of admitting the public to all permanent exhibits without charge. This policy has served the Nation well. Families come to Washington to learn about their country through its public monuments and sites. While the private amenities can be costly for the average family, Americans have looked forward to the free museums and other official offerings for generations. The Smithsonian's free admission policy reflects the intent of its founder, John Smithson, whose gift to the federal government carried the condition that the Smithsonian be established to increase the knowledge of the public, free of charge. The bill establishing the Smithsonian, introduced by Senator William C. Preston on February 17, 1841, stated explicitly that the Smithsonian would ``preserve and exhibit with no fee'' all works of art and science. This intent and tradition was interrupted by the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, without notice to Congress, with the casual comment that it would charge an admission fee for a permanent exhibit for the first time in its history, and on January 29, 2007, the Smithsonian instituted a fee for admission to the National Museum of Natural History's Butterfly Pavilion. Congress, of course, not the Board of Regents, should decide so basic a policy, especially when it departs from long-standing public policy. The admission fee sets a harmful precedent for future permanent exhibits, which will make it difficult to deny the other Smithsonian entities that right and may encourage other Smithsonian entities to structure their exhibits to fit the Butterfly Pavilion model. The Butterfly Pavilion opened on February 14, 2008. Although the Smithsonian had previously charged fees for films and shows, such as IMAX films, the National Air and Space Museum's Planetarium, and the National Zoo's Christmas Lights special, the $6 admission fee for the Butterfly Pavilion marked the first time admission fees were charged for a permanent exhibit. My bill requires a report to Congress in advance of any proposed fees and requires the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to submit a plan for funding the Butterfly Pavilion, in order to eliminate the admission fee for the exhibit. The Smithsonian Modernization Act, which I am also introducing today, addresses the Smithsonian's fundraising capacity by restructuring and expanding the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, from a board almost half of whose members are public officials to a board consisting solely of private citizens, who will have greater experience and fundraising capacity than public officials. The fundraising capability of the Smithsonian is clear in the opening of the National Portrait Gallery, for example. According to a Congressional Research Service, CRS, report (RL 33560), donors contributed funds for the new auditorium and roof over the courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery. The Smithsonian Modernization Act and similar measures, not admission fees, provide the most realistic vehicles to raise funds for the Smithsonian without cost to the government or to the public. Admission fees can bring in only token amounts. According to the CRS, the Smithsonian has long prided itself on ``free access.'' Admission fees are not the answer for taxpayers, who have already paid through the federal government's 70 percent contribution to this public institution's annual budget. Federal taxpayers do not expect to pay again through an admission fee to a federally-financed institution. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Open and Transparent Smithsonian Act to further ensure that the Smithsonian Institution is accountable to the public for the taxpayer funds it receives. This bill provides that, for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, and the Privacy Act, the Smithsonian shall be considered a federal agency. This bill was introduced in the Senate in 2008, and I saw it then and now as complementing my Smithsonian Modernization Act and my Smithsonian Free Admission Act. I introduce this bill today along with the other two because its purpose, like those, is to make the Smithsonian accountable for the 70 percent of its funding that comes from annual federal appropriations. Although the Smithsonian was created by Congress as a federal trust, it receives the great majority of its funding from the federal government, much like federal agencies, and had always been treated as a federal agency. However, in the 1990s, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the Smithsonian is not a federal agency for purposes of FOIA and the Privacy Act. Indeed, the Smithsonian's website clearly states that it is ``not an Executive Branch agency, and FOIA does not apply to the Smithsonian.'' The lack of transparency is of great concern, particularly in light of the Smithsonian's recent history of secrecy and corruption. In 2007, an independent review committee found that the Smithsonian Board had violated many principles of good management during the tenure of Lawrence Small as Secretary of the Smithsonian. The report indicated that the Board had failed to provide desperately needed oversight, had overcompensated the Secretary, and had allowed the creation of an ``insular culture.'' The report further found that the Smithsonian's deputy secretary and chief operating officer had frequent absences from her duties because of outside activities, including service on corporate boards, for which she earned more than $1.2 million in six years. Importantly, the report indicated that Smithsonian leaders took great measures to keep secret these missteps and mismanagements. While the Smithsonian now has new leadership that is moving away from the mistakes of the past, its transparency should not depend on who is in charge. A federally supported entity must be accountable to the American people. The American people have a right to know that their interests are being served. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the United States Parole Commission Authorization Act of 2010 to permanently authorize the United States Parole Commission (USPC). This bill is intended to prevent a replay of a narrowly averted catastrophe in 2008, when Congress nearly failed to temporarily reauthorize the USPC before its authorization expired. Since 1992, Congress has temporarily reauthorized the USPC five times. Now that the USPC has continuing responsibilities for Federal and District of Columbia Code Offenders, it is important to stabilize this important public safety agency with the same kind of authorization as other Federal law enforcement agencies. The first three-year reauthorization of the USPC began when the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA) abolished Federal parole and replaced it with determinate sentencing, requiring a sentencing judge to impose a fixed term of supervised release that is served by offenders after completing their prison terms. In order to accommodate Federal offenders convicted of crimes while parole was still in effect, the SRA called for the USPC to remain in existence until November 1, 1992, and the USPC has been temporarily reauthorized five times since then. Today, the agency grants, denies or revokes parole from Federal offenders who are not otherwise ineligible for parole, and makes determinations regarding supervised release for others. The USPC, however, has had important new responsibilities for more than 10 years. To help alleviate a serious financial crisis in the District of Columbia, and at the city's request, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act (Revitalization Act) transferred the responsibility for, and the costs of, certain state functions from the District to the Federal Government, including the transfer of responsibility for D.C. Code Offenders from the D.C. Board of Parole to the USPC. The Revitalization Act also eliminated parole in the District, and instituted the District's version of determinate sentencing, similar to the Federal system. The USPC's duties with respect to D.C. Code Offenders vary according to the date on which the crime at issue was committed. For D.C. Code Offenders who committed crimes before August 5, 2000, and are not otherwise eligible for parole, the USPC is currently responsible for granting, denying or revoking parole, and making determinations regarding supervised release. For D.C. Code Offenders who committed crimes after August 4, 2000, and who are sentenced to a determinate sentence of imprisonment followed by a term of supervised release, the USPC is responsible for making determinations regarding supervised release. The USPC also has other ongoing duties. These responsibilities include granting or denying parole for United States citizens convicted of crimes in a foreign country who elect to return to the United States to complete their sentences, parole-related functions for certain military and state offenders, and decision-making authority over state offenders who are on state probation or parole and are transferred to Federal authorities under the witness security program. Today, however, most of the USPC's day-to-day work involves District of Columbia Code Offenders. As of September 2009, the USPC had or will have responsibility for approximately 2,500 Federal offenders and approximately 9,500 D.C. Code Offenders. Eventually, the USPC will have jurisdiction over almost no Federal offenders, but will continue to have jurisdiction over D.C. Code Offenders. There are two primary reasons for permanently extending the life of the USPC. First, as then-Attorney General Ashcroft reported to Congress in 2002, ``there is no District of Columbia or federal agency, other than the USPC, with the staff, procedures, and infrastructure in place to effectively assume the functions of the USPC.'' And, as Edward F. Reilly Jr., then-Commissioner of the USPC similarly pointed out in his 2008 statement before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, there is no other entity with the statutory authority to do so. Second, and most important, the failure to extend the life of the USPC raises serious due process and ex post facto issues for offenders. In addition to its other provisions, the SRA requires the USPC, before its expiration, to schedule a release date for all parole-eligible offenders. Thus, without an extension, the USPC would be required under federal law to set release dates for all parole-eligible Federal prisoners, within 3 to 6 months before its expiration, or face due process challenges for a failure to set such release dates. This requirement could mean an arbitrary adjustment of prisoners' release dates, as well as the stripping of inmates of their right to contest their release dates, to periodic review and modification of those release dates, and to an earlier release date, after the USPC went out of existence. This issue has already arisen. In a case before the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008, the petitioner argued that with the expiration of the USPC at the end of that year, and the ``winding up'' provision in the SRA requiring the USPC to set a release date for offenders within 3 to 6 months before the USPC's expiration, the USPC's decision to set a reconsideration hearing date instead of a release date violated the SRA. In response, the U.S. Attorney did not refute this claim but argued that Congress would likely extend the USPC, rendering moot the petitioner's claim that his right to the setting of a firm parole release date before the USPC's expiration had been violated. The Third Circuit then directed the U.S. Attorney to provide information regarding the pending expiration of the USPC and the likelihood of its extension. Responding to this directive, the U.S. Attorney argued that the costs of failure to reauthorize the USPC were so high, and the constitutional issues so serious, that reauthorization was essentially guaranteed. ``Congress itself has expressed concern over potential ex post facto problems that a failure to authorize might create,'' the U.S. Attorney wrote, relying on language from the legislative history of the Parole Phaseout Act of 1996. `` `Constitutional requirements, specifically the ex post facto clause, necessitate the extension of the commission or the establishment of a similar entity authorized by statute to perform its functions.' '' The Third Circuit crisis in 2008 led Congress to reauthorize the USPC just in time, but only for another 3 years. The ordeal dealt a serious blow to the USPC. This year, we seek to obtain reauthorization not only well ahead of time, but to avoid a ritualistic reauthorization of a permanent law enforcement agency every 3 years. It will be particularly important to bear in mind that the close call the USPC had in the Third Circuit, could be repeated in the other 11 circuits. It is clear that a timely, simple reauthorization would have been beneficial to all concerned--the USPC, Congress, and the courts. I ask Congress to permanently extend the USPC to ensure the smooth and constitutional operation of the Federal and District of Columbia criminal justice systems.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. One has to congratulate the other side for chutzpah. After racking up most of what is now the deficit, they have gotten religion on the deficit in the middle of a recession. When conservative and progressive economists say when the only body that has any money is the government, you better spend it for jobs. I wonder if in this House we would at least do what they did in the other body yesterday, when five Republicans crossed over to actually be for a modest jobs bill. It certainly is not the bill that I would have wanted, but what is noteworthy is that the majority of Republicans actually voted against the jobs bill yesterday that spent only $15 billion. Were you afraid that that would contribute to the deficit? How much are you willing to help the American people get out of the deficit that you left us and get out of the economic morass that you have bequeathed us? One begins to wonder if we could even get unemployment insurance passed. We have sent over a bill to the other body which is far larger. Let's hope that we can get more such bills passed.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the chairman for his courtesy and generosity and for his help in perfecting this resolution. I thank the gentlewoman on the other side as well. I thank them both for the excellent history of Langston they have offered this morning, up to and including its present-day facilities, not only to serve golfers but to serve the children of the District of Columbia. Madam Speaker, I will endeavor not to repeat what they have said but will only indicate why I have brought the bill forward at this time and especially during this month, Black History Month, when I know Members look for reasons in history, particularly in living history, to celebrate African American contributions to American life. So why do I choose a golf course--I who do not know an iron from a tee? I choose a golf course because I am in such great admiration of this golf course, which has served the people of the District of Columbia for now over 70 years and which was started even before I was born, when young women, apparently not the male golfers who predominated then and predominate now, insisted that there had to be somewhere for African Americans to play golf. What Members may not recognize is that the District of Columbia was a legally segregated city. It was segregated by the Congress of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education was brought by five jurisdictions. One of them was the District of Columbia. It was one of the Brown cases. Every part of this city was segregated except the buses. When these women found that they could not play on the public golf courses here, they petitioned the Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, for the right to play golf like everyone else. The Federal Government did something that it has never done before and has never done since. It started a segregated golf course. The Federal Government had not done that before. It didn't buy in to Jim Crow, For this was long after the Civil War. But in order to have a golf course in a segregated city, you had to have a black golf course, so that is what we got. This golf course became nationally known because many celebrities came to Washington and it was the golf course that black celebrities had to play on from Joe Lewis to Members of Congress who today are frequent players at the Langston the golf course. This golf course is one of the great undervalued properties in the District of Columbia. It has gotten great interest from people who want to remake golf courses. Because of its historic significance, they see it as a real prize. My hat is off to Jimmy Garvin, whom you have mentioned in your remarks, both of you have mentioned in your remarks, because what Jimmy Garvin has done is to build up a golf course which was built on a trash dump. I don't think that's so bad today. We want to build more on tire dumps so that we can make greater use of what we are throwing away. But it certainly indicated where this golf course came then, and, of course, it is not in the best condition today. I have also introduced the Golf Course Preservation and Modernization Act of 2009, and long ago I recognized that the Federal Government and National Park Service were not in a position to make this into a class A golf course, but along with the East Potomac Park and Rock Creek Golf Course--imagine a city with three golf courses--my bill would indeed form a public/private partnership so that the money would essentially come from the private sector. If we look at Black History Month as a way to celebrate not only where black people have been but where they are, it's important to understand the institutions that they revered and that they preserved and still preserve because those institutions, for example, as we now see black golfers now regularly on golf courses, had they not been present, then of course there would have been no way for black people to play golf at all. So we were grateful even for a segregated golf course. Black people in the District of Columbia indeed were very grateful that Harold Ickes, in fact, answered the petition with a golf course. And today, close to 71 years later, we should, I think, pay tribute not only to the fact that if that was the only way to do it, that's what the Federal Government did, but we've now come to a time in this city when every facility is open to everyone. We cherish this golf course for its great history and particularly those who keep that history alive like Jimmy Garvin and the Langston Golf Course.