Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who spoke just before me, mentioned a divided country and used a metaphor--I hope it will become a metaphor--for the coming Congress of the African American coach who coached a White team and seemed to be able to reconcile people. If this Congress doesn't learn the art of compromise, even though my Republican colleagues have captured the reins of government, they will still have trouble, without thoughtful compromise, getting matters through the House and the Senate. So I endorse the metaphor--that is what Mr. Gohmert meant--of Coach Williams as the kind of Congress we should be beginning in January if we want to override the last several Congresses which got very little done. It will take more than bringing all the reins of government under one party to get that done. I come to the floor this afternoon particularly to offer some background to new Members of Congress--but, I must say, to current Members of Congress as well--because there seems to me to be great mystery concerning what role Members of Congress should play when matters affecting a jurisdiction, not their own, come before them in this House. They know for sure that their own constituents didn't send them here to legislate for somebody else's district, so how come and what does it mean and how can we get on with the business of the Nation? On November 8, the residents of the District of Columbia in an over- the-top 85 percent majority--with support, by the way, from our Republican Party in the District--passed a statehood referendum to petition the Congress for statehood for the District of Columbia. I don't think they did so because they thought that either a Democratic President or a Republican President, a Democratic Congress, would move quickly on a statehood bill, but it does express frustration that I believe my colleagues would identify with at not being treated as the full-fledged American citizens they are. On November 8, not only was I running for Congress and many of my colleagues--or most of my colleagues--the District of Columbia was, in effect, running for statehood. Now, there are three ways to become a State: you can amend the Constitution; you can have Congress pass a bill, and we have a bill pending here now; or a State can formally petition the Congress to become a State, instead of waiting for Congress to pass a bill in the ordinary course of business. The way to petition the Congress was patterned by the State of Tennessee, which was then a territory. In 1795, Tennessee drafted a constitution, passed a referendum, indicated what its boundaries would be, and petitioned, succeeding in becoming the 16th State of the Union. At the same time that 85 percent of the residents of the District of Columbia passed the statehood referendum to do the same thing--I don't want to be misunderstood. Our residents have not given up on seeking any and all elements of statehood. Even before statehood is granted, statehood consists of many different elements. Indeed, almost simultaneously, indeed, before the statehood referendum, they had voted for a budget autonomy referendum. You can imagine the insult to the residents of the District of Columbia to raise $7 billion and then have to call on somebody else for permission to spend their own money. Budget autonomy has long been the priority of the District of Columbia, and every Member of this body knows that what you prize most is the control that your own jurisdiction has over its own local budget and that, no matter what we do on the Federal budget, they can't touch your budget. Yes, they add to your budget, but your budget is your budget, and our budget is our budget. Members of Congress don't look at our budget. They know they don't know how to run a big city of, going on, 700,000 people, but the budget becomes a vehicle for interfering with the business of a local jurisdiction--the District of Columbia. Now, Congress, in the congressional resolution that is pending, has appropriated next year's budget--that is to say, the 2017 budget. At the same time, I want to alert Congress that the budget autonomy referendum I just spoke of is in effect. That has not been overturned. It has been tested in court. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated an opinion of the district court that indicated that the budget autonomy referendum, whereby the District was giving itself autonomy over its own budget, was unconstitutional. It vacated that, so that does not stand. Instead, it sent it to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and the superior court considered it and upheld the Budget Autonomy Act. No appeal was filed; so the Budget Autonomy Act is still law. It is interesting that the Federal court sent the matter to the local court. I think the Federal court was telling us something: that, when it comes to discerning what are the local powers, we ought to look first to the local courts. No appeal was filed. The Federal courts have, in effect, deferred to the local court; so the budget autonomy referendum stands as law, notwithstanding the fact that the congressional resolution does, in fact, appropriate D.C.'s budget. So you can see how there is some attempt to come to grips with this issue in Congress and to come to some kind of, at least, compromise, and I appreciate that. It is very hard to understand congressional opposition to autonomy, such as it is, that the District wishes over its own budget. What the District has done in designing its own budget autonomy referendum is certainly not to give itself statehood. The referendum is a very moderate notion because the local budget would still come to the House of Representatives and to the Senate for a review period, just as all local legislation--even though almost none of it is overturned during this period--has to come here before it becomes law. Congress would continue, under the current budget autonomy referendum, to have the existing jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and it is going to have that jurisdiction until the District of Columbia becomes the 51st State. Budget autonomy does not interfere, as it is mapped out in the budget autonomy referendum, with the powers of the Congress. So why not say to the District: you can have control over your own budget. If we want to interfere, we can still interfere; but you don't have to bring it up here. We can interfere without your bringing it up here. Until this Congress, actually, the District had bipartisan support for budget autonomy. The last two Republican chairmen of the committee of jurisdiction over the District, which is the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, understood--maybe precisely because they were Republicans--why budget autonomy was the very first thing a local jurisdiction ought to demand. Former Representative Thomas Davis and Darrell Issa fought for budget autonomy. Mr. Issa is still in this body, as I understand it. Representative Davis said recently: ``The benefits of budget autonomy for the District are numerous, real, and much needed. There is no drawback.'' Budget autonomy means lower borrowing costs, more accurate financial projections, improved operations, and the District government will not shut down during a Federal Government shutdown. Imagine that. That is what has happened several times here because this budget has to come here even when the District of Columbia, as always, is not implicated in disagreements with the Federal Government. If it shuts down then I have to take action to make sure the District doesn't shut down with it because, in the past, it has, indeed, been shut down for no reason except the Federal Government, itself, was shut down because it couldn't agree on Federal matters. The District has tried all conceivable ways to get some equality with other citizens. For example, the House in 2007 and the Senate in 2009 passed the House Voting Rights Act. That would have given the District a vote in the House but not in the Senate. But at least in the people's House, you would not have the outrage of, for example, this Member who cannot vote on any matter on this floor but whose matters do come before the House of Representatives. It had good bipartisan support. Speaker Ryan, at the time, supported it. Our current Vice President, at the time, supported it. Our Vice President-elect supported it. There was some understanding that, even if you are not ready for statehood, you are not ready for the status quo for the almost 700,000 people who live in the District of Columbia. There are other elements of statehood: legislative autonomy. If the District passes a bill, it can't become law until it lies over. That means it just stops until we see whether somebody from the House or the Senate wants to overturn a law. It is almost never used. I can't remember the last time it was used, yet that is an authority that lies in this Congress. Why would Congress want to keep an authority when it never uses it? There are other ways, if it wants to interfere, rather than forcing the District through long waits to have its bills become law. These are enigmas of the last century. They have no place in a modern House and Senate. I have been able--and I am grateful--that, each year, for the last several years, I have been able, in advance, to get language that has meant that, even if the House or the Senate had to close down, the District would not close down. It is not as if there aren't some in the House who see why I come before you today. We believe that, ultimately, as Congress sees that the components of statehood work--not shutting down the government, maybe budget autonomy or legislative autonomy--they will see that a new State of American citizens should have the same rights in every respect as other American citizens. In 2014, we were very pleased to get the first official hearing ever in the Senate on D.C. statehood. There was a huge overflow crowd. They had to open up other rooms beyond where the hearing was held. The case for statehood was made by a number of witnesses at that hearing. The District was able to show that it has one of the strongest economies in the Nation. How many of my colleagues are from States that have a $12.5 billion budget, much less their districts? Because that is larger than the budget of 12 States. How many of my colleagues can boast for their States, much less their Districts, $2 billion in surplus, which has become the envy of the States? How many of my colleagues have per capita personal income as high as ours? None, because the per capita income--per person income--in the District of Columbia is higher than that of any State. Our total personal income per capita is higher than that of seven States. Our per capita personal consumption expenditure is higher than that of any State. Look at the growth in population with people coming in large numbers to live in the Nation's Capital--one of the highest growth rates in population in the United States. In a city that was about 600,000, it has increased more than 50,000 since the last census, giving the District a larger population than two of our States that have two Senators and one Representative--Wyoming and Vermont. Of course, there are many reasons statehood is very personal to me. If the bell rings for votes on bills, I cannot cast a vote for the more than 650,000 people I represent, though my constituents pay more taxes per capita than those who do come to cast that vote. I feel it also very particularly when we have votes on any matter affecting war, like ISIL, because I have gone to the floor to debate matters of war a number of times since coming to Congress 25 years ago. I remember, for example, District residents who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I was not able to vote ``aye'' or ``no'' as they went off and got the vote for those in their jurisdictions. I remember the purple fingers that showed that people had voted, while these District of Columbia residents, in having gotten the vote for others, came home and still did not have the vote. Mr. Speaker, this is an embarrassing anachronism that comes out of the 18th century. When the Framers, who were otherwise--I must say in virtually every other way--perfect, couldn't figure out what to do when the Capital was in Philadelphia and the Revolutionary War veterans marched on that Capital, they thought: well, we want to make sure the Capital is not a part of a State. What will we do with the District of Columbia? They were not sure, but they said: we will retain some jurisdiction over the Capital in case we need to. You don't need to--or let us say you do. There are 20 different Federal police forces that help protect the local District of Columbia every single day. This is a figment of another era if we are talking about protecting the Capital. In any case, it is impossible to lay to the Framers, who invented the slogan ``no taxation without representation,'' that they meant the people who fought in that war, that Revolutionary War, were to come home and have no representation. Mr. Speaker, statehood has been very difficult for every State to achieve. The last two States were Alaska and Hawaii, and it took them each more than 50 years. It would have taken us much longer. So what the District did in voting 85 percent for statehood was to understand it has to fertilize on a continuing basis our effort to become equal citizens or it just won't happen. This is a political matter and a moral matter, but the two mix. So we know we have to convince our colleagues, and we know everything depends on us. So that energy that comes out of that vote you will see manifest all next year. It has already raised the national profile for statehood for our country. Now, many, many Americans know that when they see me speak on the House floor does not mean I have the same rights as everyone else. My greatest frustration is that most Americans think that the Americans who live in the Nation's Capital have the same rights they do. The statehood vote and the drive leading up to it, the statehood referendum has helped many more Americans to understand that is not the case. There has never been a poll that showed anything but the desire of the American people that the people of the District of Columbia be treated equally with themselves. Mr. Speaker, Congress has two choices: It can continue to exercise authority over the American people who reside here in the Nation's Capital, treating them--if I may quote the words of the great Frederick Douglass--as ``aliens, non-citizens,'' but subjects or it can take another course. This Congress can live up to the national promise, the ideals that we all profess, and help the people of the District of Columbia move toward equal citizenship, toward autonomy over their own budget, toward legislative autonomy, and finally toward statehood as the 51st State of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Wesley ``Don'' Jones of Washington, D.C. on his retirement on October 31, 2016, after more than 29 years of dedicated service to the United States House of Representatives. A native Washingtonian, Wesley Jones was born in Freedmen's Hospital, now known as Howard University Hospital. His early years growing up in the city were spent playing sports and having terrific adventures. As a youth, playing outside is what led to his now infamous nickname ``Cadillac.'' He actually got the name from running into the street between two parked cars, not paying attention, when a Cadillac came barreling down the street and struck him. Gratefully, no major damage was done. Of course his father was grateful as well. So much so that as soon as he completely healed, he was placed on probation and house arrest for a year. Don's early years were spent doing security work, where he learned from his good friend while working at the nearby Safeway that he could get a job on Capitol Hill. Don's first job on the Hill was working for food services in the Ford House Office Building Cafe. In 1987, he took a position working logistics for the Clerk of the House and eventually worked for the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). During his early years at the CAO, Don worked for Cosmo Quattrone and Torn Van Dyke in what was then called Property Supply. Following a CAO Reorganization, the department was renamed Logistics and Support (L&S). He worked for several directors and chiefs, including Walt Edwards and Jerry Bennett, and is currently working for Dave Woodburn, Director of Logistics and Tom Coyne, Chief Logistics Officer. Some of Don's most memorable experiences working with the CAO are his memories of the older crew, teaching him about life and growing up. Some of those same employees are still here and others have departed us too soon. In retirement, Don intends to relax. He plans to watch sports, leisurely read the newspaper, and basically enjoy the pleasures of life. He may even honor us with an occasional visit. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me honoring Wesley ``Don'' Jones for his service and dedication to the U.S. House of Representatives, and wish him and his family all the best in his retirement years.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, D.C. statehood has just crossed another historic threshold. For the first time, the District of Columbia Republican Party now supports D.C. statehood, making D.C. statehood a bipartisan effort. Moreover, the upcoming ``Statehood Yes'' vote to put D.C. residents on the record on statehood is being led by a Republican resident, George Vradenburg, a retired AOL executive and philanthropist. D.C. Republicans have consistently supported equality for our citizens, including the bipartisan bill for a House vote and the recent budget autonomy referendum. It is now clear that D.C. statehood, including my bill, the New Columbia Admission Act, enjoys the support of D.C. residents, regardless of party. On November 8 this year, D.C. residents will vote not only for a Member of Congress and Members of the D.C. Council, they will vote on whether they desire to become the 51st state, and, if so, on the constitution for the new state. Making the District of Columbia our nation's 51st state would overcome the longest denial of democracy by our country to any of its citizens. Surely, 215 years of second-class status for the American citizens who live in the nation's capital can no longer be tolerated, especially today, when D.C. residents pay the highest federal taxes per capita in the United States.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Clayton Lawrence for his philanthropic leadership throughout Washington D.C. and across our nation. After receiving a United States Army scholarship to attend the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor in 1991, Dr. Lawrence began a medical career that has led him to being recognized as a leader in the District's medical community. Dr. Lawrence has worked in the Pentagon Clinic as a flight surgeon and is a distinguished veteran with international work experience, including successful deployments to the Middle East, Central America, Europe, and Asia, providing direct medical support for a variety of U.S. peacekeeping operations abroad. In all, Dr. Lawrence has accumulated more than 20 years of experience in surgery, family, and emergency medicine. In 2009, Dr. Lawrence established LEAP Foundation DC with a guiding mission to provide underserved citizens in the greater Washington D.C. area with health and wellness educational opportunities and programs. Driven further by a sense of urgency to help mentor and build the next generation of leaders, the foundation has been engaged in providing financial support, scholarships, and fellowships for high-achieving students from low socioeconomic backgrounds to pursue post-secondary education. LEAP Foundation DC has also participated in many activities with our office, including the Congressional Art Competition, Senior Legislative Day and Covenant House's annual Christmas Party on the Hill for Disadvantaged Youth. Since its inception, LEAP Foundation DC has contributed approximately a quarter of a million dollars to philanthropic work. In the last three years alone, LEAP Foundation DC employees have donated more than 6,000 volunteer hours and more than $75,000 in donations and scholarships to individuals and charities around the nation. In 2014, LEAP Foundation DC was awarded its first prestigious award, the Non-Profit award by the Greater Washington Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Furthermore, since 2011, in his passion for endurance sports, Dr. Lawrence, on behalf of LEAP Foundation DC, has participated in over 80 marathons and run more than 10,000 miles to bring awareness to the following organizations: American Cancer Society, St. Jude Foundation, American Red Cross, Crohn's and Colitis Foundation, Inheritance of Hope Foundation, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Semper Fi Fund, Demand Cures and Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Dr. Clayton Lawrence, through his leadership as CEO of Lawrence Executive Alliance of Professionals (LEAP), LLC, has also been recognized as an outstanding community leader as the DC Chamber of Commerce's 2015 recipient of the Small Business Person of the Year Award. Since its inception in 2007, LEAP, LLC, has helped create jobs, impacting the national economy and representing job growth in 11 different states. Dr. Lawrence was also recognized as the 2014 Washington Business Journal's Minority Business Leader Award Winner and the 2015 Valedictorian of the Small Business Administration's Emerging Leaders Initiative. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Lawrence, who has made an indelible impact on the lives of D.C. citizens through his charitable, civic, and guiding servant leadership.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Congress is about to go home for the most important event in any democracy: the November 8 elections. We will leave a cloud over our democracy in failing to update the 1965 Voting Rights Act, recommended by the Supreme Court, when it struck down section 4 requiring Federal preclearance of State laws with a history of discrimination. My resolution, H. Res. 846, condemning restrictive voting laws, documents that no sooner was preclearance overturned than States galloped to pass new onerous voting restrictions. So unconstitutional were these laws that not only in southern States but also, even without the preclearance process, they have been struck down in four States: Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Seldom has Congress had so much real-time evidence of the need to renew legislation. The evidence is a virtual mandate for Congress to make history again and update our democracy by updating the Voting Rights Act.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have an important announcement to make. We are in the Nation's Capital where there are not only 700,000 residents but also every major Federal official, and many of the planet's most controversial figures frequent our streets, restaurants, and other public places. Yet, today, D.C. lawyers must defend its rule requiring permits to carry guns in public for good reason. In today's big cities, illegal guns of all kinds are brought in because Congress has failed to pass a background check law. D.C. did the right thing; so say four courts of appeals that have already upheld gun safety laws like D.C.'s, requiring a good reason to carry a gun in public.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 5785, and I thank Congressman Russell for his leadership on this measure. H.R. 5785 would help ease the difficulty that the Federal Aviation Administration currently has in hiring air traffic controller instructors. The bill would eliminate the Social Security earnings cap for the FAA air traffic controller instructors who are receiving pension supplements. The cap is, currently, $15,720 per year. This cap has made it hard for the FAA Academy to hire full-time instructors because retired air traffic controllers do not want to lose their annuity supplements. The FAA has a critical shortage of air traffic controllers, and it is vital that we help ensure that the FAA is able to recruit enough qualified instructors to train controllers. This legislation is narrowly tailored to address a matter that would have significant affects on public safety, so I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, the GAO provides invaluable aid to Congress in conducting our constitutional duty to oversee and evaluate the executive branch. To do its job effectively, the GAO needs timely access to agencies' documents, materials, and other information. The bill before us would ensure the GAO's access to the National Directory of New Hires, a valuable database of wage and employment information. Access to this database would assist the GAO in its improper payment and fraud work as well as in evaluating programs in which eligibility is being means tested. The bill would also explicitly provide the GAO with standing to pursue litigation if an entity in the executive branch improperly denies the GAO access to information. Mr. Speaker, similar bills have passed the House by wide margins in a number of previous Congresses. These are needed reforms, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this bill forward. I thank, especially, Chairman Chaffetz for his support in moving this bill through the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and now to the floor for consideration. I am also grateful to Ranking Member Elijah Cummings for his vital assistance as this bill moves forward. I thank Senator James Lankford, who once served with us on this committee and who introduced the companion bill in the Senate, which was already reported favorably by the Senate's Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee in May of this year. My bill, the District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act, as amended, will provide much-needed transparency to the District of Columbia's local courts by enhancing financial disclosure requirements for D.C. court judges to make them more similar to the disclosure requirements that are already in place for Article III Federal judges. District of Columbia judges are Article I Federal judges. Although current law requires D.C. Superior Court and D.C. Court of Appeals judges to file annual financial reports, there was no requirement that all of this information be made public. For example, while judges are required to submit information about their incomes, investments, liabilities, and gifts--and we have no reason to believe that they have failed to do so--current law only makes public judges' connections to charities, private organizations, businesses, as well as honorariums that are more than $300. My bill would make all of this information, except for the judges' personally identifiable information, available for public inspection. This bill is particularly necessary because a 2014 survey by the Center for Public Integrity, which took a comprehensive look at each State's judicial financial disclosure rules, gave the District a failing grade. D.C. court judges already submit enough financial information to improve the District's standing. My bill would simply make it public. Like Senator Lankford's bill, my bill also includes provisions that will give D.C. courts new authorities to improve their operations. These provisions would authorize magistrate judges to serve in the probate division, which would help address the increasing number of adult guardianship cases; allow the courts to accept payments by credit card and check--imagine how late we are in getting to that--which would reduce administrative costs and increase efficiency; increase the maximum amount in controversy for small claims from $5,000 to $10,000, which would be the first increase in 20 years, would ensure access to the courts for plaintiffs with limited means; and authorize the chief judges to delegate their authority to approve reimbursements to court- appointed attorneys. Currently the chief judges must personally approve these reimbursements, which adds to their administrative workload and diverts attention and resources away from more critical issues facing our courts. Congress has the jurisdiction over our court system because, as I have indicated, it has jurisdiction over all Article I courts and, therefore, the authority to make the necessary improvements. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5625, the Modernizing Government Travel Act, as amended. I thank Representative Moulton and Representative Hurd for their work on this measure in particular. H.R. 5625 would expand the transportation options for Federal employees on official government travel. Specifically, the legislation would require the General Services Administration to issue regulations to allow Federal employees to be reimbursed for the use of ridesharing services, such as Uber and Lyft. The bill also would allow for the use of future technologies not yet known or available to be covered as reimbursable travel expenses. In addition, Federal agencies would be required to submit annually to GSA detailed information on their travel costs, including breakdowns of costs by transportation type. GSA would be required to submit annual reports to Congress containing an analysis or survey of agencies' travel costs, as well as implementation of the regulations. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5625. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), who is the sponsor of the bill.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton) again for this bill. I note that this is a truly bipartisan bill. I wish we had more like them coming on this floor. It does show that bipartisanship still lives. It is not dead in the House of Representatives. It certainly was revived with this bill. This is a very good bill for reviving it. Look what it does. It keeps up with rapidly changing technology, and what is particularly gratifying about the bill is it says you don't have to come back to the floor every time when technology changes, you can reimburse as technology changes. This will encourage Federal employees to look for the fastest, cheapest way to get around the District of Columbia and the region. Remember, these employees are all over the United States, but they are particularly to be found in crowded regions like the national capital area region. And I note that in this region Metro is being fixed. It goes to show that we need all the diversity and means of travel we can find, and I applaud this bill. Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) and especially Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings for working together and with me to move this bill to the floor today. This bill, the District of Columbia Courts and Public Defender Service Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments Act, as amended, would make a minor change to the authorities of the District of Columbia courts and the Public Defender Service by placing these entities in the same position as their Federal counterparts for more effective management and operation. The bill would give the D.C. courts and PDS the same authority Federal agencies and Federal courts already have to offer voluntary separation incentive payments, or buyouts, to their employees. The fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill already gives D.C. courts buyout authority. But my bill would make this authorization permanent--so I don't have to keep coming back to this floor on such a minor administrative matter--and it would extend it to PDS, in addition to the courts. Buyouts would allow the D.C. courts and PDS to respond to their future administrative and budget needs and would provide the flexibility to extend buyout offers to their employees. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has determined that voluntary separation incentive payments may be made only where statutorily authorized. While Federal agencies and Federal courts have the statutory authority to offer buyouts, PDS and the D.C. courts have not been expressly permitted to permanently provide them to their employees. PDS and the D.C. courts seek the same buyout authority in order to manage their workforce as budget conditions and needs change. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this bipartisan legislation to improve program management practices in Federal agencies, and I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), my good friend, and of course the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) for their bipartisan hard work on this bill. The bill would require the development of standard policies and guidelines across the Federal Government for program management. It would also establish an interagency Program Management Policy Council to develop best practices and focus on improving the management of Federal programs. The bill would, in addition, require the Office of Personnel Management to establish a new career path for program and project management and to identify key skills and competencies for such jobs. The Federal Government is often called upon to manage large, complex new programs and initiatives and needs a cadre of managers capable of guiding this work. S. 1550, as amended, is a good, bipartisan measure that would improve the management of the Federal Government, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), my good friend and a sponsor of this bill.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill. I thank my colleague for his work on this bill, my good friend from Virginia. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple, commonsense bill that would eliminate or modify certain outdated GAO reports currently mandated by statute. The bill would allow GAO to more effectively use its resources and assist Congress more effectively. I appreciate the bipartisan and bicameral approach taken on this bill. Majority and minority staff of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee worked to ensure that the committee that received the reports affected by the bill were all comfortable with the changes being made. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5612, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2886 Sandy Plains Road in Marietta, Georgia, as the Marine Lance Corporal Squire ``Skip'' Wells Post Office Building. A native of Marietta, Georgia, Skip Wells enlisted in the Marine Corps in 2014 and was assigned to the 14th Marine Regiment in Tennessee, where he served as a field artillery commander. On July 16, 2015, while serving a voluntary 2-week assignment at the U.S. Naval and Marine Reserve Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Lance Corporal Wells was tragically killed when a lone gunman opened fire on the center. Lance Corporal Wells was posthumously awarded a Purple Heart. Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill to honor the bravery, service, and sacrifice of Lance Corporal Skip Wells. I urge support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4887, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 23323 Shelby Road in Shelby, Indiana, as the Richard Allen Cable Post Office. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the author of the bill.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, we certainly should pass this bill to remember the incredible courage and selflessness displayed by Specialist Dickie Cable as he put the lives of others before his own. I strongly support this bill. I urge passage of H.R. 4887. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5309, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 401 McElroy Drive in Oxford, Mississippi, as the Army First Lieutenant Donald C. Carwile Post Office Building. Donnie Carwile, as he was called, enlisted in the Army shortly after high school, and was assigned to the 25th Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Following a 3-year enlistment, he returned home to dedicate himself to his family after the death of his stepmother. During that time, Donnie served as a police officer and continued his education. In 2006, Donnie re-enlisted in the Army and was assigned as a platoon leader in the 101st Airborne Division. He deployed to Wardak, Afghanistan, in 2008. On August 15, 2008, First Lieutenant Carwile was killed when his vehicle struck an IED. He received the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart for his honorable service. Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill to honor First Lieutenant Donnie Carwile's service and remember the ultimate sacrifice he made for our country. I urge passage of H.R. 5309. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5150, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3031 Veterans Road West in Staten Island, New York, as the Leonard Montalto Post Office Building. Leonard Montalto served with the United States Postal Service for 31 years. He worked as a clerk in the Tottenville, New York, mail processing station, and also served as the secretary-treasurer of his local American Postal Workers Union. A dedicated father of three daughters, Lenny, as he was called, enjoyed spending his free time coaching his daughters' travel soccer teams, hosting family gatherings, and playing his guitar. Lenny tragically passed away during Hurricane Sandy when a storm surge flooded his home, and he was unable to escape to higher ground. Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill to commemorate Leonard Montalto's dedication to the Postal Service and the positive impact he had on so many members of his community. I urge the passage of H.R. 5150. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5591, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 810 North US Highway 83 in Zapata, Texas, as the Zapata Veterans Post Office. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a good friend and the author of this bill.