Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is appalled because the message strikes home. The gentleman is appalled because this Member is calling for respect. And as the gentleman respects human life on his set of values, there are no set of values on which the gentleman should not be respectful of women in the armed forces.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor, at the very least in disbelief, and at most with a sense of outrage, because this bill contains a provision that is so serious and such a departure that at the very least, any responsible legislative body would have wanted it debated. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn Maloney) and I went to the Committee on Rules yesterday to ask that an amendment to remove a provision of the bill and at least postpone the resegregation of basic training throughout the armed services be made in order. Our amendment would simply have stopped congressional action to segregate the armed services pending the receipt of the report of the Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues, whose members were just appointed in February. This commission has been authorized by this body to study the very issues this body is due to vote on as part of this bill today. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) asked for a similar amendment. The resegregation now in the bill represents a major structural setback for the services and for women that the Department of Defense and the services strongly oppose. Yet, we learned this morning that neither the Fowler-Harman nor the Maloney-Norton amendment has been made in order. I am here this morning to announce that the Bipartisan Women's Caucus of this House is not going to take the failure to allow us to even debate this bill sitting down or standing up. The position I am articulating is the position of the Republican and the Democratic Members who are women of the House of Representatives. It is the position of 55 women strong in this House. I am going to leave this floor and go with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and other women and men of this body to the tarmac in just a moment, where we will be holding a press conference. Among the participants will be Evelyn Foote, the Brigadier General, U.S. Army Retired, who is Vice-Chair of the Secretary of the Army Senior Review Panel Report on Sexual Harassment. Also with us will be Holly Hempfield, the 1996 chair of the Department of Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Both of these women who carry the views of the armed services are with the 55 women of the House of Representatives, saying if you want to set us back, at least hear us out first, do not silence us. Moreover, we speak for the women of the military, and we are sure that we speak for the women and the men of the military. The Department of Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, appointed by the Secretary of Defense, met with 1,200 trainees and trainers in a random sample to find what the troops believe about men and women serving together in basic training. They found the overwhelming sentiment of our troops to be that men and women who fight together must train together. This train-as-you- fight strategy ensures combat readiness goals are met. We are here to make clear that the women of the Congress will never retreat on this issue.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I do understand, and I have the most profound respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). I understand the feelings of the gentleman from New York, for whom I have the most profound respect. He served in the armed services when integrated services was unthinkable. I do want to say only to the gentleman that I know he did not mean to say that the kinds of abuses and sexual harassment which have in fact come forward are anything like representative situations. I do not believe we should step back a giant step because of a few instances of abuse. I think, on the contrary, that we ought to congratulate the troops for the way in which gender integration has succeeded, and may I say to the gentleman, I was surprised, particularly because I believe he has the votes, that we were not granted the right even to debate this matter for a limited period of time. That is all we asked.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia Legislative and Budget Autonomy Act of 1998, the first in a series of bills that I will introduce this session to ensure a process of transition to democracy and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia. The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act passed last summer eliminated the city's traditional stagnant Federal payment and replaced it with Federal assumption of escalating State costs including prisons, courts and Medicaid, as well as federally created pension liability. Federal funding of these State costs involve the jurisdiction of other appropriations subcommittees. The DC Subcommittee is put in the position largely of appropriating the District's own locally-raised revenue from its own taxpayers money! Any new federal money for the District will come on a targeted basis covered by other subcommittees. My bill corrects an untenable position in a democracy that operates under principles of federalism, namely a national legislature appropriating in whole the budget of a local city jurisdiction. The budget autonomy component of the bill would allow the District government to pass its own budget without congressional approval. Congress has put in place two safeguards that duplicate the function of the appropriation subcommittees--the Chief Financial Officer and the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Financial Authority). Moreover, the District has already begun to demonstrate that it is capable of exercising prudent authority over its own budget. This year, an independent accounting firm certified the District's first year (FY 1997) of a balanced budget and surplus, and the District is scheduled to continue to run balanced budgets and surpluses into the future. Under the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Act (FRMAA), the Financial Authority will remain in place for two more fiscal years (FY 1999, FY 2000) in any case, allowing the necessary monitoring and affording a period for the city to exercise the new authority while being monitored. Budget autonomy will also serve to encourage more rapid and effective action by the District government and the Financial Authority to return the District to permanent solvency and to reform its budgetary governmental procedures. Budget autonomy facilitates the two indispensable goals of (1) streamlining the District's needlessly lengthy and expensive budget process in keeping with the congressional intent of the FRMAA to reform and simplify D.C. government procedures, and (2) facilitating more accurate budgetary forecasting. This bill inserts into the DC reform process a carrot where there have been only sticks. Incentives will help to hasten reform. This bill would return the city's budget process to the simple approach proposed in the Senate and the District of Columbia Committee during the 1973 consideration of the Home Rule Act. The Senate version, as well as the bill reported by the District of Columbia Committee, provided a simple procedure for enacting the city's budget into law. Under this procedure, the Mayor would submit a balanced budget for review by the City Council with only the federal payment subjected to congressional approval. A conference compromise, however, vitiated this approach treating the DC government as a federal agency (hence the 1996 very harmful shutdown of the DC government for a full week when the federal government was shut down). The Home Rule Act of 1973, as passed, requires the Mayor to submit a balanced budget for review by the City Council and then subsequently to Congress as part of the President's annual budget as if a jurisdiction of 540,000 residents were an agency of the federal government. The D.C. budget process takes 18-22 months from start to finish. The usual time for comparable cities is six months. The necessity for a Financial Authority significantly extended an already uniquely lengthy budget process. Even without the addition of the Authority, the current budget process requires the city to navigate its way through a complex bureaucratic morass imposed upon it by the Congress. Under the current process, the Mayor is required to submit a financial plan and budget to the City Council and the Authority. The Authority reviews the Mayor's budget and determines whether it is approved or rejected. Following this determination, the Mayor and the City Council (which also hold hearings on the budget) each have two opportunities to gain Authority approval of the financial plan and budget. The Authority provides recommendations throughout this process. If the Authority does not approve the Council's financial plan and budget on second review, if forwards the Council's revised financial plan and budget (containing the Authority's recommendations to bring the plan and budget into compliance) to the District government and to the President. If the Authority does approve the budget, that budget is then sent to the President without recommendations. The District budget includes proposed expenditures of locally raised revenues as well as a proposed federal payment. The proposed District budget is then included in the federal budget, which the President forwards to Congress for consideration. The DC subcommittee in both the House and Senate review the budget and present a Chairman's mark for consideration. Following markup and passage by both Houses, the DC appropriations bill is sent to the President for his signature. Throughout this process the bill is not only subject to considerations of fiscal soundness but individual and political considerations. This procedure made a bad budgetary process much worse causing me to write a consensus budget amendment that allows the parties to sit at the same table and write one budget. Even so, instead of that budget becoming law now, the District is likely to be without a budget until close to the adjournment of Congress this year. Under the legislation I introduce today, the District of Columbia still remains subject to the full appropriations process in the House and Senate for any federal funds. Nothing in this bill diminishes the power of the Congress to ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia under Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution should it choose to revise what the District has done concerning locally raised revenue. Nothing in this legislation prevents any member of Congress from introducing a bill that addresses her specific concerns regarding the District. Once the District receives budget autonomy, the Financial Authority Act still mandates that the Authority review the District's budget. Granting the District the power to propose and enact its own budget containing its own revenue free from Congressional control during the period when the Authority is still the monitoring mechanism eliminates all risk in granting this power and provides an important incentive to help the District reach budget balance and ultimately meaningful Home Rule. My bill also contains another important section. It eliminates the congressional review period of 30 days and 60 days respectively, for civil and criminal acts passed by the DC City Council. Under the current system, all acts of the council are subjected to this Congressional layover period. This unnecessary, unprecedented and undemocratic step adds yet another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to an already overburdened city government. My bill would eliminate the need for the District to engage in the byzantine process of enacting emergency and temporary legislation concurrently with permanent legislation. The Home Rule charter contemplates that if the District needs to pass legislation while Congress is out of session, it may do so if two-thirds of the Council determines that an emergency exists, a majority of the Council approves the law and the Mayor signs it. Emergency legislation, however, lasts for only 90 days, which would (in theory) force the Council to the pass permanent legislation by undergoing the usual congressional review process when Congress returns. Similarly, the Home Rule Charter contemplates that the Council may pass temporary legislation lasting 120 days without being subjected to the congressional review process, but must endure the congressional layover period for that legislation to become law. In actual practice, however, most legislation approved by the City Council is passed concurrently on an emergency, temporary and permanent basis to ensure that a large, rapidly changing city like the District remains running. This process is cumbersome and inefficient, and would be eliminated by my bill. It is important to emphasize that my bill does not prevent review of District laws by Congress. The DC Subcommittee would continue to scrutinize every piece of legislation passed by the City Council if it wishes and to change or strike that legislation under the plenary authority over the District that the Constitution affords to the Congress. My bill merely eliminates the automatic hold placed on local legislation and the need to pass emergency and temporary legislation to keep the District functioning. Since the adoption of the Home Rule Act in 1973, over 2000 acts have been passed by the council and signed into law by the Mayor. Of that number, only thirty-nine acts have been challenged by a congressional disapproval resolution. Only three of those resolutions have ever passed Congress--two of which involved a distinct federal interest. Two bills, rather than a hold on 2000 bills, would have served the purpose and saved considerable time and money for the District and the Congress. I ask my colleagues who are urging the District government to pursue greater efficiency and savings to do your part in giving the city the tools to cut through the bureaucratic maze the Congress has imposed upon the District. Congress has been clear it wants to see the DC government taken apart and put back together again in an effort to eliminate redundancy and inefficiency. Congress should therefore eliminate the bureaucracy in DC that Congress is solely responsible for by granting the city budgetary and legislative authority. Only through true budgetary and legislative autonomy can the District realize meaningful self-government and Home Rule. The President and the Congress took the first step in relieving the District of costly escalating state functions in the President's Plan. This bill takes the next logical step by granting the District control over its own budgetary and legislative affairs. I urge my colleagues to pass this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished ranking member, for yielding time to me, and I thank both the distinguished chair and the distinguished ranking member for pressing forward with such persistence in the wake of some considerable resistance, and not ``Waiting for Godot'' in the absence of anything concrete. Madam Speaker, I am very afraid that Federal copyright law is in danger of becoming a dinosaur if we do not learn to keep up with the technology. I would be the first, as a First Amendment lawyer in my early days, to stand on the other side if I thought there were a real danger here. But in fact there is another kind of danger, Madam Speaker; there is a new kind of plagiarism, much of it coming out of the new technology. The new plagiarism robs companies who, by the sweat of their proverbial brows, develop collections that we all need and use every day. These data base providers have no rights that pirates are bound to respect. Some of the victims, are familiar names, such as NASDAQ, based here in the district. Many more of them are small businesses like Warren Publishing, a company also located in this city. Georgia pirates copied Warren Publishing's unique and original cable system Factbook and sold it under their own name for very little because the pirates did not have to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars in human, technical and financial resources that Warren Publishing put in to research, to update and to verify the product. Nevertheless, the 11th Circuit discarded Warren Publishing's original contributions altogether simply because the company had worked from a larger and less well- defined listing. As one known for paying close attention to First Amendment issues, I have felt an obligation to inspect the bill carefully to make sure that educational institutions and researchers are not deterred in the marketplace of free exchange of information and ideas. I am still an academic, a tenured professor of law at Georgetown University law school who teaches a course there every year and who is working on a book. I would not want to be part and parcel of deterring other researchers. But in an age of instant communication, Federal copyright law must keep up with technology, or risk stifling the development of usable information and the creative entrepreneurship that the new technology allows, not to mention the increase in jobs that businesses like Warren Publishing and NASDAQ are creating every day.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for all his hard and skillful work on the bill. In a moment, I am going to ask the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), if he would engage in a brief colloquy with me. Before I do so, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for really quite exemplary work on this bill. I am aware of the balance that must be achieved here and how difficult a bill like this is to get through the committee while bearing in mind the necessary balance. I am, of course, a strong supporter of the Historic Preservation Act. I represent a historic city, a city that was born with the Nation itself, with much to preserve on the Federal side and on the local side. I want to thank the gentlemen, also, for the faith they have kept to the Congressional Accountability Act because of the way they have brought our own agent, the Architect of the Capitol, under the Act, while giving him full latitude to accomplish his job. As we may recall, the Congressional Accountability Act indicated that Congress would submit itself to the same laws as everyone else. We have done that and kept faith with that. We have brought ourselves into account with this promise in this Act. I want to express my appreciation to both the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Utah for the kind consideration and the sensitive way in which they have dealt with the special historic preservation issues in the District of Columbia. We have had an unfortunate experience involving a historic property in the District of Columbia. I believe that this language will guarantee that that experience will not be repeated. I do want to say to the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Utah that we have begun to work with the Architect of the Capitol and so believe that he also understands the intent. But to make certain of that, I ask the gentleman from Utah if he would engage in a colloquy with me.

Ms. NORTON. Is it the gentleman's understanding that by restricting the application of the exemption in section 107 of the Act, it is the intent of the Congress that the Architect of the Capitol at a minimum give public notice to the abutters and the surrounding neighborhood prior to undertaking a restoration or renovation project on an historic building?

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the colloquy, and I thank the gentleman.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the National Church of the Nazarene on the occasion of its 80th anniversary celebration. A little more than eighty years ago, in the shadow of the Nation's Capitol in Northeast D.C., a small group of dedicated Christians, who believed in and had experienced ``the blessing of entire sanctification'' attended a series of tent meetings where they heard this doctrine preached. This ``Holiness Movement'' was not generally accepted by the established churches of that day and, in many cases, these people were resented for this belief and met with opposition in their own churches and were often dismissed from them. Out of these tent meetings, and the desire of this group to serve the Lord in ``Holiness'' in the Nation's Capital, a church was born. This church was the forerunner of the First Church of the Nazarene, which is now known as the National Church of the Nazarene, Washington, D.C. The name was changed in 1996 since ``National'' more appropriately described the true nature and mission of the church since its beginning in Washington. Its ministry and impact have been not only citywide, but nationwide and worldwide. From its humble beginnings at the tent meetings, the original group was determined to establish a Holiness Church in Washington. It first organized as the Wesleyan Pentecostal Church. As a result of differences, a portion of the group withdrew and formed the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene. Several other attempts were made to establish the church but, for a number of reasons this did not materialize. Five years later, through the efforts of an ordained Nazarene minister, Reverend Leewin B. Williams and a converted layman, Mr. F.F. Sweeney, the group reformed. The deep desire of this group to become a permanent organization caused the General Superintendent to appoint Rev. W.E. Suber as the first pastor. In the fall of 1917, with 22 charter members the church was formed and was incorporated as the First Church of the Nazarene, Washington, D.C. in July 1920. Following the resignation of the first pastor, Rev. Williams, once again assumed leadership of the church. One of his first actions was to start a building fund. With $3,500 in the building fund and $450.00 in Liberty Bonds, the church purchased the Epworth Methodist Church building at 7th and A Streets, NE which had been significantly damaged by fire. After extensive renovation, singing ``We're Marching to Zion,'' the entire congregation marched the four blocks to the new church. The mortgage on that property was burned in 1942. This building now houses the Unity of Washington, D.C. In 1944, a building fund drive was initiated for a ``National Church of the Nazarene in Washington, D.C. and a lot was purchased a few blocks from the church home. The members saved dimes, which were placed in a large bucket, to be used for furnishing the new church. In December 1950 a $10,000 pipe organ was purchased from a radio station in Hagerstown, MD for the sum of $3,000--the same amount that was in the bucket at the time. Today, this organ stands in the National Church of the Nazarene at 16th and Webster Streets. In the 1940's, World War II brought many changes to the churches in Washington. Government workers and military personnel attended Sunday Schools and worship services. Some of them remained in the area after the War and made their homes here. In the late 1940's, Rev. Roy Stevens became the pastor. It became obvious that the lot purchased for the new church would not be adequate and it was sold. A lot was purchased at 16th and Webster Streets, NW for $22,000. However, because of the Korean War and the shortage of steel, the project was threatened with delay. After an extended period of prayer by the church and personal contacts Rev. Stevens made with government officials, sufficient steel was released for construction to proceed. On March 15, 1953, the new facilities, on 16th Street, representing a total investment of $430,000, were dedicated. Fifteen years later the mortgage was paid in full. During the early 1980's there was some thought that the future of the church would be best served by moving to the suburbs. After prayerful, careful analysis the church Board decided, unanimously, that this congregation should become a metropolitan church serving people of every race and culture and remain in Washington, D.C. A Hispanic Congregation began through a Portuguese Sunday School class taught by the wife of the Ambassador of Cape Verde. This congregation now totals 90-100 members. In 1993, a Haitian ministry was formed with 13 members. They now have 50-60 members in attendance on Sunday mornings. The African Christian Fellowship, which ministered to students who had come to Washington, D.C. from their homes in Africa, outgrew their facilities at National Church and now have their own in nearby Maryland. The church has sponsored refugees from several countries including Viet Nam, Hungary and the Philippines. At present, 30 different nationalities are represented in the church. In 1995, under the leadership of the present pastor, Rev. Michael T. Burns, an extensive repair and renovation program was undertaken in the main sanctuary. Membership now stands at 463--14 of whom have been members for more than 50 years. One person has been a member for 69 years. An important undertaking, at present, is the development of the National Church of the Nazarene Foundation whose purpose is to maintain and perpetuate the ministry of the Church of the Nazarene in Washington, D.C. This will enable the church to develop more ministries that will create additional ports of entry into the church and to assist in its continuing commitment to reach the ever-changing and broadly diverse residents of the greater metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. Mr. Speaker, over the years the National Church of the Nazarene has been a ``sending'' Church--where people have come for a period of time and prepared to become active lenders in other areas. Many have gone from its altars as ministers, evangelists, missionaries and laymen. I ask this body to join me in sending a special ovation and salute to the National Church of the Nazarene on the occasion of its 80th anniversary celebration.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Saint Augustine Catholic Church which is celebrating 140 years in the District of Columbia. Saint Augustine Parish had its origins in the efforts of free blacks to obtain dignity and education. The founding of the church resulted from the efforts of a number of African-American freed men and women who worked with Father Charles I. White to build a school for black children. From 1858 until 1863, fund raising and hard work among a number of black families contributed the essential elements to found a school by 1863. A fair held on the grounds of the White House during July, 1865, resulted in additional funds and a lot was purchased on 15th Street between L and M Streets, NW where a school and chapel were constructed. Building efforts continued and with the assistance of every element within the rapidly growing ``colored Catholic'' community, vigorous efforts were pursued to erect the grand edifice that would be the first Saint Augustine's. In 1874, materials and labor were donated to build a new church. To raise the estimated $75,000, members of the church choir gave ``operatic representations . . . in the principle cities of the Union'' [Thus], ``to the Catholic colored people of Washington belongs the honor of having raised the first opera troupe of their race in the country, perhaps, in the world.'' The church was completed and dedicated in 1876. The ceremony was attended by many dignitaries including prominent African Americans such as Congressmen J.R. Lynch, J.H. Rainey and Robert Smalls. The church was considered one of the finest Christian monuments in the Nation's Capital. It was admired for its architectural style, its grandeur and for its significance as the ``Mother Church for Colored Catholics in the Nation's Capital.'' The church continued expansion and its population grew steadily. By 1905, its membership was numbered at more than 3,000. The parish boundaries were described as covering more than one-half of the city since Saint Augustine was the premiere church for the African-American Catholic population. Growth was also experienced in the organizations and agencies within the church that carried out its religious mission, such as Sodality of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Knights of Saint Augustine, Catholic Beneficial Society (men), Saint Augustine Relief Society (women), Juvenile Benefit Society (children 2-20). The societies and organizations of the church have changed over the years. The location of the church has shifted as growth patterns in the city have undergone transition and a number of pastors worked in the parish before the arrival of the current pastor, Father John J. Mudd in 1977. In its 140 years, changes in Saint Augustine Parish have been deeply embedded in the traditions and heritage which inspired the first ``colored Catholics.'' This tradition has been rooted in Christian values and social activism. The church and its individual members have maintained a strong commitment to assist the needy and oppose injustices. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this body join me in saluting the Saint Augustine Catholic Church and celebrating its role in the city's history, its present and its future.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Drug-free schools should be a redundancy. I regret that the expression is not, and I hope that we are looking for ways to make it a redundancy instead of a slogan. As it turns out, the best argument for the tobacco bill, or at least a good tobacco bill this year, may not just be tobacco but its role in other drugs. We have struck out so often on drugs, we might well look at tobacco. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to find a junkie that did not begin with tobacco or alcohol. That is the entryway to marijuana and to hard drugs. A youngster gets to feeling good off of a soft drug, like tobacco or alcohol, and he wants to find out more. Yet we have very little concentration there. And it looks like this Congress may actually go home without a tobacco bill. I was just at the dedication of the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center and heard very moving remarks by Mrs. Reagan. I am not one of those who made fun of her notion ``Just Say No,'' because I think that there are a significant number of youngsters who will say no if we stand up and say ``Just Say No.'' But we must ask about the rest. What about those who need more; who is going to take responsibility for them? They are, after all, only children. I applaud her for beginning there. It is up to this body to go the rest of the way. Who really needs our help are parents. They find competition from the media and from the streets often to be overwhelming.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, Madam Speaker.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to commit the Senate bill to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me begin by briefly explaining what S. 1502, the D.C. Voucher Bill before us this morning, would do. The bill would divert $7 million from the Federal Treasury in fiscal year 1998 and $45 million over 5 years and funnel these resources to religious and private schools. The bill not only diverts funds from the Treasury, where they might be available for public schools, S. 1502 also potentially diverts money from the District of Columbia. Under the bill, religious and private schools in Virginia and Maryland could receive students with tuition paid by D.C. vouchers. S. 1502 also would create a new unheard of, unprecedented layer of bureaucracy. Instead of delegating the task of administering this voucher program to an existing institution or to a pro bono organization, an entirely new bureaucracy costing $500,000 annually is required by the bill. A corporation, consisting entirely of political appointees not responsible to D.C. residents or even to the parents involved, would be responsible for administering the voucher program and disbursing the federal funds. Despite the fact that these are local schools, almost none of these appointments would be made by a local official. Of the seven appointees, only one would be appointed by a D.C. official. The remaining six would be appointed by the President of the United States, but even he would have to make his appointments from lists submitted by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate, none of whom have been elected by any parent or any resident in the District of Columbia. Since these appointees are simply distributing vouchers, it is not clear why it is appropriate for the task to be done by political appointees at all. Although home rule has been regularly violated ever since its inception in 1974, total Federal control over the mere administration of such a local program is without precedent and is completely at odds with principles of devolution espoused by the Republican majority. Astonishingly, these appointees would each be paid up to $5,000, although the vouchers they would be distributing range from only $3,200 for tuition to $500 for tutoring. At best, the bill would allow only 3 percent of D.C. public school students, 2,000 out of nearly 80,000, to apply for vouchers to attend religious and private schools. There is no requirement that these schools take these students and no requirement that these schools make any effort to retain these students or work to eliminate any problems they may have instead of expelling them, as is required of the public schools. Choice, therefore, would not rest with the parents but with the religious and private schools that will apply their own standards for admission and retention of each child. The bill erodes antidiscrimination laws such as title VI, title IX and the Age Discrimination Act by providing that, despite the Federal subsidies to the schools, vouchers are not State aid for purposes of the bill. Although the bill contains an antidiscrimination provision, a person who suffers discrimination would be deprived of the Federal enforcement mechanism available to public school students and would be without any administrative mechanism to enforce her civil rights. Her only recourse would be to file a costly civil suit in Federal court, a remedy virtually unavailable to the low-income families to whom these vouchers are directed. In addition, the bill expressly permits tax dollars to support sex discrimination by funding single sex programs. There are no safeguards in the bill to prevent a cottage industry of new and untested religious and private schools from competing for and receiving these federally funded vouchers. There is no provision for accountability for the funds to the Federal Government which grants them or accountability to anyone else. The sponsors of S. 1502 identify the Cleveland voucher program as a model for their bill. That program is almost identical. It had 2,000 students, and the amounts were roughly comparable, $2,500 vouchers for tuition and $260 tutoring vouchers per student. An evaluation commission by the State of Ohio found, and I am quoting, If the background and demographic factors, including previous achievement, are accounted for, there are no significant differences in third grade achievement between the scholarship students and their Cleveland school peers, end quote. In no academic subject, reading, mathematics, social studies or science, did the voucher students do any better than their public school peers. Central to the Cleveland program was a feature that its framers hoped would save its constitutionality. As with the D.C. vouchers, the funds would go to the parent, not the religious school. However, in 1997, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, relying both on the State constitution and the Constitution of the United States, ruled that publicly funded vouchers were unconstitutional because they violate the first amendment requirement that State funds and actions not be entangled with the operations of religiously sponsored programs. The Ohio court held, and I am quoting, Because the scholarship program provides direct and substantial nonneutral government aid to sectarian schools, we hold that it has the primary effect of advancing religion in violation of the establishment clause, end quote. The only other court to rule on vouchers, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, reached the same conclusion and went even further. That court noted that even though, quote, some parents of students participating in the program may have their children exempted from religious activities at sectarian schools, that does not alter the fact that money drawn from the State treasury would underwrite precisely those activities for other program students, end quote. The Ohio court was unanimous, and the Wisconsin court decision was four to one, both striking down publicly funded vouchers like those before us on constitutional grounds. These decisions protect religion as much as the government in order to assure that complete freedom from government regulation, oversight and accountability is always the case for religious institutions in our country. Moreover, ever since President Clinton has been in office, he has consistently opposed vouchers on the principle that public funds should go to public schools. Because this bill represents an attempt to gain a foothold in the federal budget and begin a drain of Federal resources to religious and private schools, S. 1502 will be vetoed. The statement of policy delivered this morning said, and I quote, If this bill were presented to the President, the President's senior advisers would recommend that the bill be vetoed, end quote. Thus, the bill before us has little chance of becoming law, because virtually identical bills have been found unconstitutional and because the President of the United States has promised a veto. Unfortunately, the D.C. students who applied were not told of these impediments and have had their hopes raised. This is at least the third attempt by the Republican majority to impose vouchers on the District of Columbia, a jurisdiction powerless to stop them because the District has no representation in the Senate and because the vote on the House floor that I won square and fair and that the federal courts said was entirely constitutional in the 103rd Congress was taken from me when the Republicans assumed the majority in the 104th Congress. District residents, like their Congresswoman, have been very critical of their public schools, but our residents identify strongly with their public schools and are determined to strengthen them. In 1996, the Control Board took drastic action in ousting the elected school board and imposing an entirely new regime precisely for the purpose of forging a top-to-bottom reform of the public school system. A new superintendent from Seattle, Washington, Arlene Ackerman, has just initiated a dramatic revitalization designed to rapidly raise student achievements. For example, D.C. students are to read 25 books or the equivalent next year. I challenge every Member of the House to see to it that every child in their districts reads even half that many books next year. The Summer Stars program (Students and Teachers Achieving Results), will make D.C. one of the very first jurisdictions in the United States to eliminate social promotion by putting in its place a program not only to remediate as many as 20,000 children this summer, but also to catch others before failure sets in. To their credit, President Clinton and the Department of Education have funded half of the $10 million required to fund this innovative program. Although this is just the kind of radical change Congress has been calling for, no congressional funds have been offered to fund any part of this effort. Suggestions that congressional support would greatly assist this program have fallen on deaf ears. District of Columbia residents, like the residents who participated in all the 19 other statewide referenda, have rejected public subsidies for religious and private schools. The other jurisdictions are, Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Utah, and Washington State. In five States where two referenda were held, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington, voucher proponents lost worse on the second vote than they did on the first. In all, there have been 20 statewide referenda and 20 resounding defeats. In the District of Columbia, public subsidies for private and religious schools lost by the largest margin, 9 to 1, and yet this Member, over her objection, is faced with this bill, this afternoon. As many as 7,500 low-income families have applied for scholarships in the District. This response is entirely natural and predictable. There are few low-income, or, for that matter, middle-income families in cities or suburbs today who would not come forward if they saw full- page advertisements in the newspapers and TV commercials calling for people to come and get free scholarships to go to private or religious schools. Private schools, whether in city or suburb today, usually have a better reputation than corresponding public schools. The District of Columbia schools are in very poor condition, and I challenge any Member of this body to have the knowledge of how poor, to have been more critical or to have tried harder to raise them. But these schools mirror the condition of virtually every big-city school system in the country, no better and no worse. In fact, the $7,000 per pupil expenditure in the District is the second lowest in the region. In this region, for example, the city of Alexandria, I say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), has a per pupil expenditure of $9,000, while my schools have $7,000. As the District is showing, there are ways to rapidly accelerate reform of schools, but there are also ways to rescue children today while D.C. schools are being fixed. Just yesterday, two philanthropists contributed $6 million in private funds for scholarships for District kids like those who have applied for these vouchers, which every Member in this body knows will not be available. I stand ready to work with the majority, not only on District school reform, as I did on the D.C. charter bill in 1996, and the Riggs-Roemer charter bill last year; I stand ready to work with the majority again, and I welcome their assistance in selecting any approach that must have their agreement as much as mine. The reading teachers for the lowest performing schools and the Porter-Obey program that I attempted to offer as a substitute for this voucher bill is but one example. I will go further. I am prepared to help raise private funds for private school students. In short, I am prepared to work with my colleagues in a collegial and bipartisan approach to improve schools in my district. I ask them to remember and to respect that it may be your capital of the United States, but it is my district. In the spirit of devolution, of local control, and the deference routinely afforded other Members, I ask that in seeking to help the families I represent, you work through me and with me. You will find me a willing and amiable partner. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to put this civil rights issue that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) raised to rest by asking unanimous consent that the response of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the coalition of the Nation's civil rights organizations, be admitted into the Record. The Leadership Conference opposes the bill.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This Member reminds the Member that I represent people who ask that they be treated like real Americans, that their home rule and self- government be respected, and that the vote which this Member won on the House floor, as a real American, not be taken from my taxpaying residents. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to clarify that my response to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) was based on the fact his district spends $2,000 more per pupil than mine; that his minority children are low achieving; and that no Member should try to put on my district what he has not already put on his own. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce as well a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), a member of the Subcommittee of the District of Columbia of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.