Floor Statements

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in dismay at the self-inflicted isolation of our country and wonder if it is too late to recover from the most catastrophic failure in diplomacy in American history. We are left with no alternative to war, gradually each day even, though we have not been attacked and even though there is no claim of imminent attack.

War is the most serious effect of this failure but it is not all we have lost. Enough of the finger pointing and ally bashing. Us against the world is a completely unnecessary result when we have been dealing with a totalitarian tyrant like Saddam. We have been seized by the hubris of our own power, losing everything that matters to us in foreign affairs, especially at a time of global terrorism when we need each and every ally we can get. We are losing each and every one of our major allies. You can cite the small countries all you want to, but when you lose the permanent members of the Security Council, you cannot blink that, no matter who you are.

We have endangered our closest allies, beginning with England. Poor Tony Blair. He is permanently politically damaged now. He will be weakened in all he does. Pervez Musharraf, the most critical in our anti-terrorism allies, faces wholesale opposition at home. What in the world are we going to do if he falls?

We have thrown to the wind the spontaneous coalition that gathered around us after 9/11, and yet it seems that we believe it is all the administration's fault.

Actually, the President's approach sowed the seeds of its own destruction because he began by announcing an invasion strategy. Had he started with meetings and consultation with our allies, of putting proposals on the table, beginning with inspections, graduating with tougher and tougher action, he would have his coalition by now. In fact, he had to be convinced to consult at all. I remember his making fun of the notion of going to the United Nations until members of his own party, former officials of former administrations, advised that it was important to seek a coalition.

Mr. Speaker, the lesson of this wholesale failure of the greatest power left, with everybody running from it, amounts to you cannot be a world leader if you cannot convince others to follow. And the second lesson is that if you have the power, you do not have to flaunt it. Used skillfully, you can bring people to you simply because you are the greatest power in the world. God bless our country. May we still be saved from this catastrophe.

Mr. Speaker, quickly, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her sustained leadership on this issue.

I want to focus on one issue and that is the failure to use multilateralism when it comes to AIDS policy. The unilateral approach we see here that we do not have a global approach to AIDS any more than we have the kind of global approach we need to war and to terrorism. In both, lives are at stake. The Global AIDS Fund is applauded all over the world because it is a low cost administered fund with great accountability, philanthropists serve on it. And what have we done?

It is not clear whether we are setting up a new fund, a new entity. What is clear is we are giving only a billion dollars rather than the more than $2 billion that should go to that fund, so where is the rest of our money going to? Why are not we using this multilateral approach which would get the most bang for our dollar?

I think the reason is we do not want to play by the same rules that the rest of the world is playing by. We want the global gag rule and the way to make sure we get a global gag rule is to pull our money out and deal with our money ourselves. That is a tragedy to take the gag rule and apply it to AIDS treatment.

Imagine in Africa what AIDS means. It means a terrible stigma that you cannot get treatment in the same place that you get family planning is going to mean that many people will not get treatment at all. We want unilateralism here to do what we tried to do with the Asian countries when we were recently discussing HIV prevention. We tried to delete the mention even of condoms there. We are trying to unilaterally impose our approach, an approach that we have imposed in our country, but democratically you can do that here, we are trying to impose that on the world. That is why we were seeing unilateralism here even as we have even unilateralism in much foreign policy since this President came into office. Lives are at risk. I ask that we go global when it comes to AIDS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of Black History Month, I rise today to introduce the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2003, a bill directing the National Park Service (NPS) to take ownership, restore and manage the historic Shaw home of Carter G. Woodson, ``the father of Black History.'' The bill would authorize the NPS to ``preserve, protect and interpret for the benefit, education and inspiration of present and future generations,'' the home where Woodson lived from 1915 to 1950. This legislation also authorizes the 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 (ASALH), which Woodson founded, also would be housed on the site, as it was originally. My good friend Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) will be the sponsor of this legislation in the Senate.

Congress passed my 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 Ninth Street, NW a national historic site within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. A NPS study, as mandated by the legislation, is required before the NPS can take control of property. The study determined that the Woodson Home is suitable and feasible for designation as a unit of the park system following the transfer of title from its current owner, the ASALH. The bill I introduce today is necessary in order for the NPS to receive the appropriation for extensive renovation of the site.

I am particularly pleased by the proposed rehabilitation of the entire block that is linked to the legislation I introduce today to rehabilitate the Woodson home. The NPS would work with Shiloh Community Development Corporation, established by Shiloh Baptist Church, which owns almost all of 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 row houses.

As Black History Month comes to a close, we open a new chapter in the story of an educator who is most responsible for the annual recognition of the contributions of black Americans in the nation's history and culture. I have introduced this legislation to honor Dr. Carter G. Woodson, a distinguished black American and founder of the Association of Negro Life and History, by authorizing the NPS to maintain in perpetuity his home at 1538 Ninth Street, N.W., here in the District of Columbia, as a National Historic Site under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The significance of this home was recognized in 1976, when it was designated as a National Historic Landmark. I introduce this bill today to assure that the nation's pride and purpose in celebrating Black History Month are not marred by neglect of the home of the founder of the commemoration and of 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 (ASNLH), which has since been renamed the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History (ASALH). Among its enduring accomplishments, ASNLH, under Dr. Woodson's leadership, instituted Negro History Week in 1926, to be observed in February during the week of 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 a Ph.D. degree 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 educational achievement was extraordinary in itself, 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 two 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 he 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 uncovering black history, helped to educate the American public 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 ASNLH. Through ASNLH, 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 has played an indispensable role in reducing prejudice and making the need for civil rights remedies clear.

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 ASNLH 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, passage of the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2003, represents a concrete way for the House to commemorate Black History Month, by preserving the home and legacy of its founder, Dr. Carter G. Woodson. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.