Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) the Democratic Whip and my good friend from a neighboring jurisdiction. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have remaining?

Ms. NORTON. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I recognize the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I cannot help but note, when I listen to my friend, Ms. Plaskett, speak up for the District of Columbia, she, who comes from what is known as a territory, the Virgin Islands--isn't it interesting--and I know she must understand it--that the Virgin Islands does not have to submit a budget to the Congress of the United States. I never have had to debate the gentlewoman's budget here. I have never had to debate the gentlewoman's legislation here. There is a unique denial here in the District of Columbia. That is one reason it is so roundly resented. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), my good friend, the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides, please?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just as lawyers have disagreed about whether or not the District could proceed with budget autonomy, lawyers have disagreed from the beginning of our Nation on what the Constitution says. I would take at his word what James Madison said in speaking of the District of Columbia: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed to them.'' That is what, according to Madison, the Constitution said. Now, my friends have cited all manner of lawyers and their own views on whether this matter is legal or constitutional. They have even cited the interpretation of staff who helped draft the Home Rule Act. Well, we stand this afternoon on the only authoritative opinion, the opinion of the Superior Court and its court order. And I leave with you that order. Ordered that all members of the Council of the District of Columbia, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, Chief Financial Officer, Jeffrey S. DeWitt, their successors in office, and all officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with the Government of the District of Columbia shall forthwith enforce all provisions of the Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012. That is the law. Respect the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: May 25, 2016. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives. Hon. Harry Reid, Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives. Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Democratic Leader Reid, Speaker Ryan, and Democratic Leader Pelosi: This week, the House of Representatives is voting on H.R. 5233, the Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule Act of 2016. I strongly oppose this legislation as well as any effort to overturn the District of Columbia's budget autonomy law with a rider to any appropriations bill. Budget autonomy was approved by the voters and upheld in the courts. I have proposed our 21st consecutive balanced budget in accordance with the prevailing law and I expect the Council of the District of Columbia to do the same. As is the case with all DC laws, the approved 2017 DC budget will be submitted to Congress for passive review. The American people expect their congressional representatives to focus on the issues affecting our nation--safety and security, fair wages, and growing the middle class--not on the local budget of DC. The District has a strong track record of administering our government finances responsibly. We have passed and implemented a balanced budget every year for the last 21 years and our General Fund balance--which currently stands at $2.17 billion--is the envy of other jurisdictions. Our bond rating is AA by S&P and Fitch and Aa1 by Moody's as a result of the District's strong, institutionalized and disciplined financial management and long track record of balanced budgets and clean audits. Our debt obligations remain within the 12 percent limit of total General Fund expenditures and the District's pension and Other Post-Employment Benefit Plan (OPEB) remain well-funded. The vast majority of the District of Columbia's budget is locally-generated revenue (such as property and sales taxes) or federal grant funds received in the same manner as any other state. In fact, the vast majority of our $13.4 billion budget is raised locally. In recent years, only about one percent, or about $130 million, has been a direct federal payment to the District, and that amount remains subject to active appropriation by Congress. About 25 percent of our budget, or $3.3 billion, is federal grants and Medicaid payments that are made to every other state. The District of Columbia operates as a state, county, and city, administering federal block grant programs, health and human services programs, transportation infrastructure, homeland security services, and other governmental duties typically overseen by governors. It is time that Congress recognizes the District's financial maturity and responsibility and allows us to approve our own budget without first seeking a congressional appropriation. Budget autonomy also supports good government by helping the District of Columbia plan its finances more efficiently. For instance, tying our budgeting process to the congressional appropriations process requires us to rely on outdated revenue and uncertain expenditure projections, which in turn results in more uncertainty and budget reprogramming. Also, Congress has not completed its appropriations process on time since 1996. Without budget autonomy, each time congressional appropriations are delayed, the finalization of the District's budget is also delayed. If the District cannot spend its own locally-raised revenue (as occurred in 2013) by the start of the fiscal year, the operations of the District and the well-being of its residents are put at risk. Budget autonomy relieves us of this inefficiency and uncertainty. Budget autonomy will also improve our already excellent bond ratings. The rating agencies are keenly interested in predictability. Tying the District's budget to the congressional appropriations process hurts our credit rating which unjustly punishes District taxpayers who have no voting representation in either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. Further, it is important to note that budget autonomy does not exclude Congress from the District's budget approval process. Each annual budget for the District of Columbia will be submitted to Congress for a 30-day period of review under the Home Rule Act. During that time period (and, for that matter, even after that time period), Congress is able to reject the District's budget or modify it as Congress sees fit. Budget autonomy does not mean that Congress no longer has a say in the District's budget. It just means that we have a more efficient and productive way of passing our budget and thus a more efficient and productive way to serve the residents, visitors, and businesses in the District. With the move to pass H.R. 5233, Congress is unnecessarily restricting local government control and further denying democracy to the residents of the District of Columbia. I ask for your support in putting aside any attempts to overturn local control of our budget and our ability to operate our government more efficiently. Sincerely, Muriel Bowser, Mayor.

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for his overly generous introduction, and I thank my friend from Pennsylvania and my friend from Indiana for this bill. This bill, which I strongly support, the Public Buildings Reform and Savings Act of 2016, may seem quite technical to those who have heard it described, but I do want to congratulate my friends, the chairman and the ranking member, for a bill that will have great substantive impact on the way that GSA does its business. I particularly appreciate the bipartisan way in which both of them have always performed. I also thank them both for accepting my amendments: one, in keeping with both this bill and the prior bill, for a new, federal footprint here, and a smaller Department of Energy; and then an amendment that is not related to any of this, for lactation space for visitors to Federal buildings. I appreciate the acceptance of an amendment that allows the GSA to sell or exchange the Department of Energy Forrestal Complex that is right in the heart of The Mall area, at 1000 Independence Avenue, in accordance with the so-called Southwest Ecodistrict Plan, which means that all the appropriate planning has been done, given where this location is and how important it is to official Washington. My amendment has two purposes. Because the DOE building is larger than necessary and results in wasteful spending, we now require a smaller footprint. It allows the Cotton Annex, close to the Department of Energy on The Mall, to be sold, and gives the GSA what a developer needs--that is what GSA is, a developer--the flexibility to develop this priceless land and assures that development will occur soon--GSA has to come back by June, and we are almost there--with a process for disposing of the Cotton Annex. I want to thank both gentlemen for agreeing to my amendment that I call the ``motherhood'' bill. GSA already requires that employees be given lactation space, but we discovered that some employees at the Smithsonian were not getting it. When I called the Smithsonian, they immediately provided the regional space. It is not new space, only existing space for a mother to pump or to nurse a baby, if she is a Federal employee. I simply added visitors and guests to Federal facilities as those that can use this space. The Nation's capital is a tourist mecca, so there will be some nursing mothers.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the benefits of breastfeeding are well documented. Children's immune systems build up. Studies have shown that even risks of asthma, diabetes, and the like are reduced in breastfed babies. There are benefits also to nursing mothers as well. The risk of diabetes and cancer are reduced. This bill isn't very much related to the important substance of the underlying bill, but the relationship is clear enough. I very much thank my two good friends for accepting these two amendments to the underlying bill. I strongly support the underlying bill this evening.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life of Jerry Clark, who passed away in February. Jerry was a standout civic leader who was devoted to the people of the District and its causes. Jerry Clark was also a particularly avid leader of our D.C. statehood movement and a leader in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Because the District has been fighting for equal citizenship rights for its entire two centuries of existence, Jerry's consistently devoted leadership stands out through ups and downs, whether on the nuts and bolts or the big issues, without fanfare. Jerry, who was born in Indiana, was there for D.C. without fail, carrying the banner of freedom for his adopted city. Jerry brought similar vigor to other causes and endeavors. A graduate of Princeton University and the University of Chicago Law School, Jerry completed his doctoral studies and then spent his career dedicated to workers as executive director of the United Mine Workers Health and Retirement Funds. At the same time, Jerry threw himself into work for LGBT rights. That work earned Jerry the Distinguished Service Award for exemplary and dedicated work for the LGBT community in the District of Columbia from the D.C. Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance. His work was so widespread in the District that former D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray appointed Clark to the Mayor's committee on the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington. Our city has lost a true crusader who never stopped standing up for equality for the disenfranchised. Among the many organizations that have benefited from Jerry's service are the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, the National LGBTQ Task Force, the DC for Democracy, DC Statehood Coalition, Bread for the Soul, Ward 1 Democrats, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Law and Society Association, the Whitman-Walker HealthSpring Gala, and the Democratic National Committee Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in honoring the full and productive life of Jerry Clark and for his dedicated work with District of Columbia residents, for D.C. Statehood, for the LGBT community, and for workers.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing not only our outstanding high school artists in the District of Columbia who participated in this year's Congressional Art Competition, but also the D.C. Congressional Art Competition Committee which made this year's competition a success. Since its inception in 1982, the Congressional Art Competition has encouraged the artistic talents of high school students from across the country. This year my office received 135 pieces of artwork from students in grades 8 through 12 from 24 public, charter, and private schools in the District, the largest number of D.C. schools, that have ever participated in this annual art competition. But the untold story of the Congressional Art Competition is of the volunteers whose time and expertise are responsible for executing the entire competition. Here in the District of Columbia, this year's competition would not have been possible without the dedicated work of our D.C. Congressional Art Competition Committee: Thomas Atkins, Owner, Tera Gallery Mr. Atkins, a former staff member whose many duties included the annual art competition, generously continues to serve as an advisor who assists wherever he is needed. William Brower, Owner, JBV Production Mr. Brower provided the valuable services of setting up the venue for the reception, as well as clean up at the end of the evening. Yaida Ford, Attorney at Law, Ford Law Firm Ms. Ford did a tremendous amount of outreach to secure art supply donations and prizes for all of our student participants, including an iPad for the second place winner. She also dedicated her own time to volunteer for day-of operations at the D.C. Congressional Art Competition Reception. Tiffani Gomez, Sales Associate, Blick Art Supplies Ms. Gomez is one of the most passionate members of the committee. She helped secure art portfolios for student artwork, and helped with day- of operations at the reception. Eric Kokuma, Director of Member Services, Military Operations Research Society; Jennifer Littrell, Program Lead, Children's National Health System Mr. Kokuma and Ms. Littrell were in charge of entertainment for the reception, and recruited Ward 1 ANC Commissioner Frank Agbro to perform with his family jazz band. Donnell Lewis, President, One Creative Source Mr. Lewis is the generous and enormously capable longtime chairman of the committee. Camilo Manjarres, Congressional Fellow, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton Mr. Manjarres has worked diligently to facilitate committee meetings and logistics for our annual art competition, and expanded the competition's community outreach to increase participation. Patricia Mitchel, Systems Analyst, Amtrak Ms. Mitchel has been a very active member of the committee. She has worked tirelessly to secure food and drink donations for our reception, including cupcakes from Georgetown Cupcakes and food from &pizza. Zoma Wallace, Curator and Art Bank Coordinator, D.C. Commission on Arts and Humanities Ms. Wallace took on the responsibility for the day-of logistics, and essentially curated the competition to make sure that all of the student art was strategically placed and easy for participants to review. She also served as a juror, and helped select this year's winners. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing each member of the D.C. Congressional Art Competition Committee for their indispensable work in this year's competition, and I take this opportunity to again thank the student artists for submitting such wonderful work.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 26th annual DC Black Pride celebration on May 27-29, 2016. DC Black Pride 2016 is a multi-day festival featuring a reception, films, a poetry slam, a church service, educational workshops, community town hall meetings, a basketball tournament, an awards ceremony, and a health and wellness expo, among other events. We in the District of Columbia are pleased and proud that the DC Black Pride celebration is widely considered to be one of the world's preeminent Black Pride celebrations, drawing more than 30,000 people to the nation's capital from across the United States as well as from Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. As the very first Black Pride festival, DC Black Pride fostered the beginning of the Center for Black Equity (formerly known as the International Federation of Black Prides, Inc. (IFBP)) and the ``Black Pride Movement,'' which now consists of 40 Black Prides on four continents. The Center For Black Equity, the celebration's organizing body, chose: ``I AM U. U R ME. WE ARE PRIDE!'' as the theme for this year's celebration. DC Black Pride is a project of the Center For Black Equity and is coordinated by Earl D. Fowlkes, Jr. and Kenya Hutton with assistance from a volunteer advisory board, which coordinates this annual event and consists of Andrea Woody-Macko; Shannon Garcon; Genise Chambers- Woods; Reginald Shaw-Richardson; and Gladece Knight. I ask the House to join me in welcoming all attending the 26th annual DC Black Pride celebration in Washington, D.C., and I take this opportunity to remind the celebrants that United States citizens who reside in the District of Columbia are taxed without full voting representation in Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. In reclaiming my time, there was no difference, and yet improving academic performance was a stated reason for the voucher program. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a mother, I believe parents should seize any and every educational opportunity available to their children, so I certainly have no criticism of my own constituents who have seized this opportunity. In fact, in order to avoid disruption of the education of the current voucher students, I believe they should be allowed to remain in the program until high school graduation, and President Obama has offered a compromise to allow them to do so. Consideration of this bill surely is unprecedented. Until today, I had never seen the House vote on virtually the same bill a second time in the same Congress, and that is about to happen here. The House, acted in October. Why is this House acting redundantly again? Shouldn't the focus be on the Republican-led Senate where neither this bill--which is virtually the same as the bill that was passed before--nor its Senate companion has moved? Last December, the Senate committee of jurisdiction canceled a scheduled markup of the bill to protect Republicans from this bill and especially from the civil rights amendments that had been proposed to the bill. Just last month, Chairman Chaffetz himself--who is the chairman of the authorizing committee, and the subcommittee--requested that the bill be included in the upcoming--the upcoming--2017 appropriation bill because the chairman, knows that legislation on an appropriation is how this bill is going to be passed. The problem is that there is little congressional support for vouchers except for vouchers in the District of Columbia, where nobody can vote for anybody except this Member. Congress has refused to create a national voucher program. Just last year during reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, both the House and the Senate voted on several national voucher amendments, and each failed. So you see, they don't want vouchers in their own districts. Moreover, the Congress has never authorized the D.C. voucher program in the light of day. When Congress first created the program in 2004, and then reauthorized it in 2011, it did so by adding the voucher bill as riders to appropriations bills. And to protect Republican Senators running for reelection this year, that is what is going to happen again. The Senate has never passed a standalone D.C. vouchers bill, and yet it is being reauthorized now for the third time. In this Congress alone, Republicans have introduced legislation to overturn D.C.'s gun safety laws, its laws on reproductive health, its laws on nondiscrimination, its laws on marijuana, on labor, on immigration, and on education. It is, therefore, ironic to hear Republicans favorably cite the support of some D.C. government officials for passage of this bill. Now, let me explain that because I don't want my colleagues to get away with mischaracterizing the position of the D.C. government on the bill before us today. When the House voted this bill last year, a majority of the D.C. Council wrote to Congress opposed to this voucher program. Last month, however, fearing the loss of $40 million for public and charter schools, a bare majority wrote in support of this bill. You can't blame them. I must say though, I am being hoisted on my own petard here. Ironically, the funding for public schools and public charter schools exists only because during the creation of the voucher program, I repeatedly said that funding for public and charter schools was the preference of D.C. residents. To his everlasting credit, the then- Archbishop of Washington then insisted that public and charter schools also receive funding in conjunction with the voucher funding. The D.C. Mayor and a bare majority this year of the council sent a carefully crafted letter supporting this bill because they knew they were writing for the residents of the District of Columbia who do not support vouchers. Their letter did not support the voucher program itself, but referred only to the bill's public and charter school funding. Those who signed the letter, by the way, were even more concerned that the Congress, instead, could pass the radical Cruz-Meadows bill, which would permit D.C. students to use local funds, commandeer local funds, from the D.C. treasury to pay for private schools. City officials recognized--and who can blame them--that Republicans have conditioned reauthorization of the public and charter school funding on reauthorization of the voucher funding. I understand their concern about losing public and charter school funding because it has been part of the city's education budget for a decade. There is, of course, no reason for a unique Federal voucher program in the District of Columbia, in particular. According to the study of the program's effectiveness mandated by Congress, by statute, the D.C. voucher program has failed in its stated purpose. That purpose was to improve academic achievement. The voucher program has not improved academic achievement, as measured by math and reading test scores of students overall or of students the program prioritized from low- performing public schools. Republicans, rightly, were disappointed with these results, so guess what they did. Instead of getting rid of a failed program, they simply changed the evaluation. The prior reauthorizations required the program's evaluation to be ``conducted using the strongest possible research designed,'' and a randomized controlled trial--the gold standard--was therefore used. It is almost laughable when somebody changes the test in order to pass it. In contrast, this bill requires the evaluation to be conducted--this time--using an acceptable--that means any acceptable-- ``quasi-experimental research design'' and expressly prohibits the randomized controlled trial that was mandated before. This dishonesty is transparent, Mr. Speaker. As researchers conducting an evaluation of the program point out, a randomized controlled study ``is especially important in the context of school choice because families wanting to apply for a choice program may have educational goals and aspirations that differ from the average family.'' The voucher program is also unnecessary. The District of Columbia has an unusually robust public school choice system, and it is available to every student. Now, I would wager that the District's choice system is the best in the Nation, and here is what it is. Almost 50 percent of our children go to charter schools. Those charter schools were authorized when I worked with Speaker Newt Gingrich to allow charter schools instead of vouchers to be the District's alternative school system. For the public schools, 75 percent of our children attend out-of-boundary public schools that they have chosen. So I ask any Member who has public choice that robust to make himself known during this debate. The D.C. voucher program also exempts students from protection of Federal civil rights laws that apply to public and federally funded programs. Under the voucher program, the Federal funding is considered assistance to the voucher student and not to the school, apparently in order to avoid these important mandates for our schools. Therefore, the program is not considered a federally funded program, although the money comes from Federal funds. This program is exempt from title IV and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, from the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Everybody knows that this program is going to be reauthorized as a rider on an appropriations bill, which is how the D.C. vouchers bill has always been enacted, in 2004 and again in 2011. This is a masquerade here this morning. I am sorry Members had to be held over. This could have been taken care of yesterday. Even if the bill is not reauthorized, however, everyone expects that Republicans will continue to fund the three sectors, as they have always done. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is so concerned about the millions of parents who can't afford to send their children to private schools, his caucus had the perfect opportunity this year, because they have such a strong majority, to, in fact, pass voucher amendments, and they refused to do so for their own schools. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), my friend.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want the gentleman from Minnesota to know that there are waiting lines in the District of Columbia to get into many D.C. public schools and, of course, into many charter schools. We also know nothing about the schools that tell us 90 percent of their children graduate because this House has no information on them. What we do know is that the randomized study took children in D.C. public schools and compared them to students at exactly the same levels in the voucher schools--no difference in overall achievement. That is how we measure achievement in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Ms. NORTON. In reclaiming my time, I think they would be because they have families behind them, and they are being compared with students who often do not. I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Public schools in the United States and big cities are improving, and it should be noted that the D.C. Public Schools district continues to be the fastest improving urban school district in the United States, according to data released from the 2015 Trial Urban District Assessment. These schools deserve support. They are improving test scores unlike the voucher schools. In comparing the randomized study of those who wanted the voucher and didn't get it and who remained in the District public school system with those who wanted the voucher and got it, there was no difference in their math and English scores.

Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. NORTON. In reclaiming my time, the gentleman has brought up a very important point. By the way, some of the students who accept this voucher are already in the private schools, so they already could obviously afford the program. They are already attending the voucher schools, and they have now gotten vouchers. If you have some free Federal money, let me have some. I yield to the gentleman.

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