Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Veterans Legal Support Act of 2015, a bill to allow the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide certification and support to law school clinical programs that provide pro bono legal and support services to veterans, including, among other things, assistance with disability claims and appeals and foreclosures. There are already at least 22 law schools that have clinics devoted to veterans' legal needs, including the William & Mary Law School Veterans Benefits Clinic, which serves as a national model for this idea, as the law clinic was the first in the nation to receive a ``best practice'' certification from the VA. There are many other law schools, such as the University of the District of Columbia's David A. Clarke School of Law, that are interested in starting their own VA-certified clinics. More than 600,000 veterans are waiting for their disability claims to be processed by the VA. With the assistance of lawyers and law professors, clinical programs provide free legal resources to assist veterans with processing their claims. My bill would merely build on what some law schools have begun to do for the last several years. More needs to be done to sustain and increase these programs. Just as we honored our veterans on Veterans Day, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, a concrete measure that would assist our veterans, who have repeatedly put their lives on the line for this country, in their daily lives.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I join many of my Democratic colleagues, as well as the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Council of La Raza, the National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers, and many other civil rights groups, in opposing H.R. 1737, the Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act, a bill that would significantly diminish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) ability to protect consumers from racial discrimination in the auto lending market and give auto dealers a leg up in charging higher interest rates, and, as studies have shown, in discrimination. In 2013, the CFPB issued guidance that was aimed at combatting these biases in the auto lending industry-- because of a practice used by car dealers known as ``markups,'' people of color were paying more for car loans than their white counterparts with similar or identical credit histories. As the former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I am dismayed by the practice of ``markups,'' which allows discriminatory car dealers, who get a cut of the additional charges and fees that markups provide, to profit from their bad behavior. The CFPB has done important work toward eradicating discriminatory lending practices. I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Federal Officials Residency Requirement Equality Act of 2015, a bill that would amend federal law to require certain officials who serve D.C. to actually live within its boundaries. In nearly every other jurisdiction in the United States, federal district court judges, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals are required by federal law to reside within the jurisdictions where they have been appointed--but these same officials appointed to serve the people of the District are not bound by these same requirements. The only other jurisdictions where these officials are not required to live within their appointed jurisdictions are the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York. However, this is because New York City is the only city in the country that is divided between two federal districts--but the District is not similarly situated. My bill would put D.C. on equal footing with almost every other jurisdiction by ensuring that our Marshals, judges, and U.S. attorney live among the residents they have been appointed to represent. Clearly, the idea that these federal officials ought to live in the jurisdictions they serve is a significant one--which is why the residency requirement for other jurisdictions is enshrined in federal law. Yet, D.C. was exempt from this requirement based on the now- outdated notion that the District is too congested and small to house these appointed officials. The District of Columbia is a vibrant and bustling city with a diverse populace who deserve direct engagement on the part of its federal judges, U.S. attorney, and Marshals. My bill recognizes the fact that D.C. deserves the same type of community involvement by these federal officials as nearly every jurisdiction. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, flags throughout the Nation are at half staff, and, coincidentally, we have just celebrated our own Veterans Day. We particularly feel that celebration here in the District of Columbia where we have served our country since it was created and still have no vote on this floor, even though the residents of the city I represent pay the highest taxes per capita of any residents anywhere in the United States, including our veterans, who continue to go to war without a vote. But this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in the wake of Veterans Day, the House is considering several bills that will benefit the Nation's veterans. I strongly support much of this legislation. I believe that many of these bills will pass the House without a single dissenting vote. Regrettably, that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, for H.R. 1694, which I cannot support because, as currently drafted, it may cause destructive harm to the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, or DBE, program, which helps combat historic discrimination against women and minority-owned small businesses. The DBE program helps level the playing field and provides an opportunity for these small businesses to fairly compete for highway and transit construction contracts. Regrettably, this bill could destroy the entire program, taking everything down with it, including the veterans it purports to add. The U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear in determining that the DBE program must be subject to the highest standard of constitutional review by the courts, known as the strict scrutiny test, to be constitutional. Under the strict scrutiny test established by the U.S. Supreme Court, the DBE program must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. To meet these objectives, State Departments of Transportation and public transit agencies must certify individual DBE businesses and conduct extensive disparity studies to determine the appropriate goal for awarding contracts to the small businesses owned by women and minorities in a particular community or State. That is a very rigorous standard. The bill before us today, however, adds all veteran-owned businesses without the constitutionally mandated study. I emphasize that service- connected disabled veterans are and always have been included. They are a narrowly tailored group of veterans. However, the change offered today threatens the constitutionality of the existing DBE program because it would no longer clearly meet one of the two essential elements of the Supreme Court test. The most important is that the program be narrowly tailored to address the continued effects of discrimination, which the disparity study must have already shown. Thus, although the bill has a worthy objective, it has an unintended consequence of threatening the very program designed to help level the playing field for small businesses owned by women and minorities and, as would happen, veterans as well. It just would blow up the whole program. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and I have met extensively with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) to outline these concerns. Mr. Cummings and I, in response, developed an alternative approach to create a veteran-owned business enterprise program within the Department of Transportation. Under that program, there would be a national goal to ensure that veteran-owned small businesses receive highway and transit construction contracts. Moreover, this program would not undermine the constitutionality of the existing DBE program. Mr. Cummings and I introduced that bill earlier today, and I had hoped, in the spirit of compromise that is necessary to save the program at this point, we could proceed with that compromise proposal that would achieve all of our objectives: Mr. Fitzpatrick's objectives and the objectives that have been in the bill since the 1980s. Regrettably, we have not yet reached any such agreement on this approach with the gentleman from Pennsylvania prior to today's consideration of H.R. 1694. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I do want to note that the gentleman is correct that women are covered. They are already covered. One-third of those covered under the DBE category of minority and ethnic groups are minorities. So we do have large numbers of women and minorities covered, and the disparity studies have been done as to them. No disparity studies have been done as to veterans as a whole. If the gentleman wants to do such a study, we invite him to work with us in doing a disparity study on veterans rather than blowing up the whole program. I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a member of the committee and my good friend.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman said there haven't been enough meetings. I met with the gentleman more than once and then wrote an extensive memo on the problems with the bill. You just can't divide veterans the day after Veterans Day. You can't divide this House on the question of veterans, not when we have offered an entire program for veterans. So I don't know what is so sacred about being in this particular program. In fact, the gentleman mentioned that minorities and women were not, in fact, meeting all of their goals. Therefore, some of those goals are left on the table. That is a very important point. Because being a minority or a woman is not enough to qualify you for this--and I don't even want to call it a set-aside for this goal is not a set-aside. So these minorities and women have to show equivalent skills with others who are competing. It is not an easy thing to do. So it is not a question of whether there are some leftover points to be picked up by veterans. The DBE program has 30 years of history in the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, even with that history, every time this bill is passed the DBE program is challenged. Each time the Justice Department, under Democratic and Republican Presidents, have defended it as a narrowly tailored program. Recognizing that history and the strict, narrowly tailored standard, the gentleman was offered a way for veterans to, in fact, be recognized in transportation and infrastructure programs. He was offered a way that is probably even better than the program that unites minorities, women, and, I might add, service-disabled veterans, who are a narrowly tailored group that is already included. But instead of accepting this offer, he has decided he wants to blow up the entire DBE program for veterans and everyone else. We can't agree to such a destructive approach, particularly when we have offered the gentleman a way for veterans to be recognized. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman mentioned 5 years that he has put into his bill. His party has been in power the past 5 years. As far as I know, he never asked for a hearing so that these issues could be clarified. I am sure that, if he had, we might have been able to iron this out. Even without a hearing, based on what the Supreme Court has said, we have no choice but to oppose the bill as he has offered it, in not differentiating among the veterans he is speaking about, but putting in a global group, which has never been done or approved. We have barely been able to get the Supreme Court to agree to let such programs prevail, but we have always succeeded in getting the Court to understand that past discrimination has been shown through disparity studies. Without any disparity studies, the gentleman from Pennsylvania means to march straight up to the Supreme Court and say: We are veterans. Approve us anyway. Nobody opposes veterans, particularly at this time, following what we have seen in Paris. The way to make sure that veterans are not left out is to sit down with us and figure it out, not to barnstorm the floor in the hope that, since you are in the majority, it will pass. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is the first time I have ever heard a Member from the majority say that a Member from the minority should have asked for a hearing on his bill. If you are in the majority and you want a hearing on your bill, that is your obligation. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), my good friend, for the purpose of a colloquy.

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her question. Unfortunately, there is some very rough history to prove what needs to be done. It is not as if we are speculating on what the constitutional standard is. The constitutional standard has been developed. The States have to do their disparity studies all over again to show that groups should still be included. Some groups may fall out. This is delicate work, and in our constitutional government, we don't say every worthy group should have a preference. We need to make a showing, and if that showing isn't made, then the matter will not stand. If you want to give a very, very painful example of that, let's take the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court of the United States overturned, about 5 years ago, the Voting Rights Act. Guess why, Mr. Speaker? They said there had been some changes, and that people of color could now vote, as they couldn't always vote when the Voting Rights Act was passed. And so they threw it back to this Congress, and said: All right, you can have a Voting Rights Act but you must update the Act to show that there is still a disparity in voting. There are pending now three bills in order to do that. But if the Supreme Court did that on the Voting Rights Act, where the discrimination was perhaps the most apparent, from poll taxes to lynching, you can imagine where we would be on DBE, and we have got 30 years of court history to show it. We all want to do the best that we possibly can for our veterans. The way to do that is to sit down and design a bill that would, in fact, pass constitutional muster. We know how to do it. This is not a matter of the ego of whoever introduces the bill. It is a matter of how you make sure that veterans, in fact, are designated, in a constitutional way, for participation in the soon-to-be-signed-by- the-President surface transportation bill. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, we have done the best we could for our veterans in speaking for this bill today. We remain open to assuring that the veterans participate in the funds that are about to come from the transportation and infrastructure 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, today the House must consider yet another short-term extension to keep highway transit safety and HAZMAT investments limping along, this time for only 2 weeks. We must pass this bill today, however, to avert a shutdown of Federal transportation programs, which expire in just 4 days. This stopgap measure is a means to a much-needed end, which the House and the Senate are working diligently to accomplish a long-term surface transportation bill to provide certainty to States and to address our Nation's crumbling roads, bridges, and transit systems. Every State department of transportation, every county, every city, every contractor, every construction worker, every commuter stuck in traffic, every business that uses our roads and bridges to move goods wants Congress to break through its own gridlock and wants us to come up with a long-term bill. I would very much like to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Subcommittee Chair Graves, and all the members who have worked together in the most bipartisan manner--it is bipartisanship that I believe is a model for how this House should operate--in order to craft a surface transportation authorization bill that passed by voice vote out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and that received robust support when considered by the House after many amendments were also considered. The conference committee is now diligently doing its work, and I look forward to continuing our talks with the Senate to produce a comprehensive bill for the President to sign. Until such time as the conference committee can complete its work, we must keep programs up and running, Mr. Speaker. This extension does just that. This extension is a necessary step to avert a shutdown, and I will, therefore, support it. It is my sincere hope that this is the last extension, and I earnestly believe it will be because of the bipartisanship this bill has enjoyed, the very last extension we will need because it is beyond time to get serious about how we are going to fund our transportation future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank the gentleman for coming forward this evening. I have no further speakers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, the House must consider yet another short-term extension to keep highway, transit, highway safety, and hazmat investments limping along, this time for two weeks. We must pass this bill today to avert a shutdown of Federal transportation programs, which expire in just four short days. This stopgap measure is a means to a much-needed end toward which the House and Senate are working diligently: a long-term surface transportation bill to provide certainty to States and to address our nations' crumbling roads, bridges, and transit systems. Every State Department of Transportation, every county, every city, every contractor, every construction worker, every commuter stuck in traffic, every business that uses our roads and bridges to move goods wants Congress to break through its own gridlock and come up with a long-term bill. I would like to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Subcommittee Chairman Graves, and all of the members who have worked together in a bipartisan manner to craft a surface transportation authorization bill that passed by voice vote out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and that received robust support when considered by the House. The Conference Committee is now diligently doing its work, and I look forward to continue our talks with the Senate to produce a comprehensive bill for the President to sign. Until such time as the Conference Committee can complete its work, we must keep programs up and running. This extension does just that. This extension is a necessary step to avert a shutdown, and I will therefore support it. It is my sincere hope that this is the last extension we will need, because it is beyond time to get serious about how we are going to fund our transportation future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We will, of course, continue to press for the DRIVE Act funding, the small amount of increased funding in conference. But I do want to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Subcommittee Chair Graves, and all of the Members and staff who contributed to the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act that has brought us to this point. Of course, many of us wanted to invest even more in desperately needed transportation and infrastructure projects. However, we simply can't wait any longer to address the crumbling roads, bridges, and transit systems that Americans depend on every day. While we will continue to press Congress to make more funding available in future years, I support moving this bill to conference as a means of providing necessary funding and certainty to our States and local partners for the next 6 years. While this is not a perfect bill--it is a most imperfect bill--it is encouraging that we were able to get together on both sides of the aisle to come together as a model for how we should proceed in the future. Passage is necessary to shore up the highway trust fund and allow critical projects to move forward around the country. Now, as we move to conference, I will continue to work with Ranking Member DeFazio and our Republican counterparts to see this bill across the finish line. Our work to ensure robust funding for our roads, bridges, and transit systems is just beginning. This bill is a good bridge to the future, but we must work diligently to identify and secure additional sources of revenue in coming years. This motion is a first step on the path to higher investment levels. I look forward to working with the Senate to produce a comprehensive bill for the President to sign.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2015 as open enrollment begins this week for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That important legislation, among other things, expands eligibility for Medicaid to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance. My bill increases the federal government's reimbursement for a portion of the District's Medicaid costs from 70 to 80 percent. In 2012-2013, New York City, the jurisdiction that powers the economy of New York State, contributes a 20 percent share for Medicaid costs, while the state pays 33 percent, less than the District's federally mandated 30 percent contribution. Medicaid is financed mostly by the federal government and the states. However, the District, a city with no state to contribute to it, must alone absorb the state portion of Medicaid. Thus, the District pays for 30 percent of Medicaid, more than any U.S. city. Considering the difference in the size of its tax base, the District should certainly contribute no more than the New York City contribution to Medicaid. Therefore, my bill would raise the federal contribution to the District's Medicaid program to 80 percent, equal to that of New York City. Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act), Congress recognized that state costs are inappropriate for any city to shoulder. To address this unfairness to the District, the Revitalization Act transferred certain, but not all, state responsibilities from the District to the federal government, including the cost of prisons and courts, and increased the federal Medicaid reimbursement to the District from 50 to 70 percent, partially relieving this burden. The city continues to carry many state costs, however. In 1997, a formula error in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital allotment reduced the 70 percent Federal Medical Assistance Percentage share, and, as a result, the District received only $23 million instead of the $49 million it was due. I was able to secure a technical correction in the Balanced Budget Act of 1999, partially increasing the annual allotment to $32 million from fiscal year 2000 forward. I appreciate that in 2005, Congress responded to our effort to get an additional annual increase of $20 million in the budget reconciliation bill, bringing DC's Medicaid reimbursements to $57 million, as intended by the Revitalization Act. However, this amount did not reimburse the District for the years the federal error denied the city part of its rightful federal contribution. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend and--in this enterprise--my partner, along with the informal partnership we made with our Republican chairs. And that is what it has been: an informal partnership with Members and also with staff. I want to recognize the countless hours of staff time that went into what is really, in many ways, a complicated bill. The four of us are cosponsors, original cosponsors, of this bill, indicating its bipartisan nature. Because Ranking Member DeFazio has gone down many of the important parts of the bill, I want to speak to three or four that I think are of particular significance. Let's start with funding. We understand that funding is at the core of any transportation, transit, and infrastructure bill. We also understand that there may be barely enough funding to get through 2\1/ 2\ years and that this is a 6-year bill in name and intent only, but it does amount to a 6-year promise, and we must keep that promise. I appreciate that this bill is on the floor this week because States have so little money that they have virtually ceased beginning major projects, and those are the projects that they most need. The States will be disappointed that the funding is essentially the same as it was in the prior bill, MAP-21, except for inflation, which, of course, has been virtually nonexistent. But they will be grateful for what this bill provides for the immediate future, unlike our short-term reauthorizations. The shortcomings of this bill should not obscure what makes this bill unique. It is genuinely bipartisan. It was approved unanimously in committee. When does that happen in this Congress? Democrats and Republicans put aside their many differences, giving up much of what they believe they need. I hope this bill will be a model for how to proceed in the future. Let me say a word about major projects. The administration had a ``Projects of National Significance'' section in its bill. We have a different major projects section, but it is somewhat comparable. It is meant for transformational investments of the kind that are solely needed throughout the United States: megaprojects. Now States will compete for the funding. What is also important in this program of national significance is that it includes freight. For the first time, I think, this bill recognizes that whatever we do with transportation and infrastructure, we should have in mind its intermodal connections, and freight is a very important part of those connections. I want to mention a 21st-century approach to the highway trust fund, a provision I especially pressed for. I regard this provision as a provision of overriding importance. When I say a 21st-century highway trust fund, I mean a trust fund that lasts or can last for 6 years. We are still in the throes of a 1950s highway trust fund. In the last authorization bill, we did nothing to move forward to update the trust fund.

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend for yielding. The States have done spade work, however, Oregon, Washington, California. So there is $20 million to encourage them to do more. We know what some of these experiments are, vehicle miles, et cetera. Think of new ways. We need to encourage this experiment if we are to fund the trust fund in the future. Another one of my priorities which is relevant to every State is in this bill, and that is the takeover of the DC-MD-VA Metrorail by the Department of Transportation. That was envisioned in MAP-21. It is not very unusual. In addition, this bill authorizes the so-called minority business contract DBE Program, which is available to racial and ethnic minorities, women and service-disabled veterans. They are the only groups which under the Constitution may obtain this special recognition. The bill enhances Buy America. It has workforce development. It enhances the safety of bus riders and of bus drivers. There is $40 million here to encourage State-based efforts to combat racial profiling and we have seen people in the streets for that one. I am so pleased that there was bipartisan support for that and other provisions. I look forward to the continuation of the bipartisan partnership we have had as we go forward to the Senate to produce a comprehensive bipartisan, bicameral bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. I am.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Banning the Use of Electronic Cigarettes on Airplanes Act of 2015. The bill prohibits the use of electronic cigarettes and vaping devices on commercial airplanes by including use of these devices within the definition of smoking. Smoking tobacco products on commercial airplanes has been banned for years, but with the increase in use of electronic cigarettes and vaping devices in their place, it is necessary to update our laws to reflect this new nuisance and health risk on airplanes. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 2011 ban the use of these devices, but four years later, no progress has been made. Therefore, Congress should step in to legislatively resolve the issue. Electronic cigarette use has increased over the last decade with the increased education of the general public about the dangers and public health threats caused by traditional cigarettes to smokers and nonsmokers alike. For example, between 2010 and 2011, e-cigarette use among adults doubled. Researchers and public health experts have voiced concerns over the use of electronic cigarettes because there are still so many unknowns about the chemicals these devices can produce. The American Lung Association (ALA) has cited many concerns about the lack of regulation of e-cigarettes because they are on the market while the potential harm from secondhand e-cigarette emissions is unknown. ALA has identified two studies that show formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and other harmful irritants coming from e-cigarette emissions. In addition, the temperature of an e-cigarette can affect how many harmful the chemicals are, but with no configuration standards, it is too difficult to uniformly assess the health effects of smoking e-cigarettes. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a proposed rule in 2014 that would extend new regulatory authority to e-cigarettes by subjecting e-cigarettes to registration and product listing requirements, restrictions on marketing products prior to FDA review, and a prohibition on providing free samples like with traditional tobacco products. This year we celebrate 25 years since legislation was passed banning smoking on domestic flights in the United States. In the 1960s, the U.S. Surgeon General identified smoking as a cause of increased mortality and by 1986, the U.S. Surgeon General had named secondhand smoke a serious health risk. The National Academy of Sciences, in its report ``The Airliner Cabin Environment: Air Quality and Safety,'' recommended a ban on smoking on all domestic commercial flights. The Association of Flight Attendants can be credited with urging the smoking ban due to the negative health impacts flight attendants suffered working in cramped, closed-off spaces when a third or more passengers smoked in-flight. Congress used this information to include an amendment authored by then-Representative Dick Durbin (D-IL) in the Federal Aviation Act that made domestic flights of two hours or less smoke free. By 1990, this smoking ban was extended to all domestic flights of six hours or less, and, in 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act made all flights to and from the United States smoke-free. All of this was done even in the face of the strong tobacco industry's opposition because of the undeniable health impacts of cigarettes and cigarette smoke. Many flyers do not remember a time without ``No Smoking'' signs located throughout a commercial airplane. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued its NPRM to prohibit the use of e-cigarettes on U.S. airplanes. Under current FAA policy, battery-powered electronic cigarettes, vaporizers, vape pens, atomizers, and electronic nicotine systems are prohibited in checked baggage, and the FAA recommends that such devices only be carried in the aircraft cabins because of safety issues. It is up to individual airlines to ban their use. Some airlines have already taken the initiative to institute a ban on the use of electronic cigarettes, but legislation is necessary to make this update applicable to all airlines, and permanent. The current smoking ban applies to the smoking of tobacco products on all scheduled passenger flights and on scheduled passenger flight segments on foreign air carriers in the U.S. and between the U.S. and foreign countries, unless a waiver is granted based on bilateral negotiations. The Banning the Use of Electronic Cigarettes on Airplanes Act of 2015 will amend the statutory definition of smoking located in 49 U.S.C. 41706 to include the use of electronic cigarettes, defined as ``a device that delivers nicotine or other substances to a user of the device in the form of a vapor that is inhaled to simulate the experience of smoking.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Graves as well as Ranking Member DeFazio for working with me and for all of us being able to work together on what will be, when it gets to the floor in November, I believe, the first 6-year or long-term transportation bill in 10 years. That is why it is possible not to fret that we are now going through another extension. As a matter of fact, the States have the funds until January. These short-term extensions have compelled the States to stash their money without spending all of it because what they need to get to are long- term projects or at least projects that take more than a few months or a year or two, so we are making progress. When we authorize a 6-year bill, there will be a real burden on us to make sure that, in fact, it is 6 years. I would advise my colleagues to support this last short-term extension. It is bipartisan. It is both Chambers. It avoids furloughs. There is a bill waiting off stage. However, there is a funding mystery. I don't like mysteries, particularly with long-term bills. But I have to believe that the appropriate committee is meeting every day-- it must be in secret--in order to fund this bill. At least we have done our work, and we have done it in a bipartisan way. I won't trouble with the entire bill. There will be time to get to that. I will say, on positive train control, that I regret there had to be a 3-year extension. I do think that puts at jeopardy those that have to be in these trains--employees and passengers. As I looked at what it took to do positive train control, I don't think we had any alternative. So that gives people 3 years. With the benchmarks, I hope that we will get most of this done way before 2018. I don't like permitting individual waivers because, after all, there have been at least 2 years spent trying to do something about positive train control, and the jeopardy is clear when we see what has happened already with respect to terrible crashes that have taken human life. Finally, I just want to say that perhaps the greatest challenge we have is a challenge that we must meet.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, and that is a new way to fund the highway trust fund. There is in the final bill some experimentation that I regard as urgent. I thank my good friends on both sides of the aisle for this short- term extension, which I hope will be the last in a very long time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. That, my friends, is what compromise looks like: first, phenomenal growth of public charter schools, which are supported by both Congressional Republicans and Democrats; second, allowing all current students to remain in private voucher schools until graduation. If more compromises like this were on the floor, the majority would not be divided into multiple factions that have nothing to show for years of leadership. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding and for his passion for our children. Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the gentleman who wants to know why would we want to take away vouchers from these children is that we don't want to take vouchers away from these children. We want those who are currently in the program to maintain their voucher until they graduate. But I should caution Members on both sides about voting for $100 million for a private school voucher program for a District that didn't ask for it while the Republican majority has pending a $2 billion cut for K-12 education for kids in their own districts. The irony is that, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker, he first proposed private school vouchers, but as conservative as he was, he worked with me on a home rule public charter school alternative. The D.C. Council had voted for charter schools, but there were only two or three fledgling schools and charters weren't going anywhere. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are 115 public charter schools in the District, and the reason is that, with my support, Speaker Gingrich placed H.R. 3019 in the 1995-1996 omnibus legislation establishing the D.C. public charter school board. Today almost half of D.C. students go to publicly accountable charter schools, and most of these schools have long waiting lists. That, my friend, is what choice looks like. Another speaker has now stepped forward with a private school voucher program to be authorized for the third time today, although the evaluation that Congress mandated definitively shows that the program failed to meet its stated goal to help children improve. Vouchers did not improve math or reading scores for the children from low-income neighborhoods in this program, and that was the reason for the bill in the first place. In light of that failure, I offered a compromise, and the President supports it. All of the students in the current voucher program would remain until graduation, but no new students would be funded. That would mean years of private school vouchers, but only in the District of Columbia, because this Congress has just voted down similar private school vouchers for the Nation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I didn't really expect to be on the floor this afternoon managing this bill. Ironically, I was scheduled to host a briefing today for Members and staff on the constitutionality of the District of Columbia statehood bill, where I was going to show a 17- minute HBO ``Last Week Tonight'' clip from John Oliver that lampoons the Congress for denying District residents their voting rights, budget and legislative autonomy, and statehood. Instead, here I am on the floor in a virtual reality show not speaking about the right to self-government, but fighting this latest attempt by the Republican Congress to impose its ideology on D.C. residents. I ask to include the D.C. Council's letter opposing this bill in the Record. Council of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, October 8, 2015. Hon. Jason Chaffetz, Chairperson, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Chairperson Chaffetz: We write as locally elected officials to express our opposition to renewed efforts to expand a federally funded school voucher program in the District of Columbia. We appreciate your interest in providing support to public education in the District. We strongly believe, however, that federal funds should be invested in the existing public education system--both public schools and public charter schools--rather than being diverted to private schools. We support the decision by Congress and the President several years ago to phase out the voucher program. Multiple U.S. Department of Education reports indicate that the program has not lived up to the promises made by proponents. These studies along with two troubling Government Accountability Office reports have also revealed that many of the students participating in the voucher program attend private schools with fewer resources and lower standards than our public schools. The evidence is clear that the use of vouchers has had no statistically significant impact on overall student achievement in math or reading, or for students from schools in need of improvement. We have serious concerns about using government funds to send our students to private schools that do not have to adhere to the same standards and accountability as do public and public charter schools. For example, private religious schools, which 80% of students with vouchers attend, operate outside the non-discrimination provisions of the D.C. Human Rights Act. Moreover, the voucher proposal is inequitable: if fully funded, the authorization would provide many more dollars per student for vouchers than is allocated per student in public schools and public charter schools. Although we believe that students who are already receiving a voucher should have the opportunity to maintain and use that voucher through graduation from high school, we do not support expansion of the program to new students. The District devotes considerable funds to public education, and our local policies promote choice for parents. Indeed, over the past decade the quality of public education in D.C. has increased, as a result of reforms and targeted investment. Families can choose from an array of educational institutions based on publicly available performance metrics, both within the D.C. Public Schools system and among the myriad public charter schools. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has called the progress of D.C. Public Schools ``remarkable'', while the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has ranked the District's charter sector as the best in the country. Despite such ample evidence that the Congressionally imposed voucher program is ineffective, while D.C. public schools improve every year, some members of Congress continue to see our city as their personal petri dish. It is insulting to our constituents, who vote for us but not for any voting member of Congress, that some of your colleagues push their personal agendas on D.C. in a way they could never do in their home states. Attacking D.C. home rule, including any expansion of the voucher program, is irresponsible governing on the part of Congress. We call on you to respect the wishes of the District's elected officials on the quintessentially local matter of education as you consider this issue. Sincerely, David Grosso, DC Council, At-Large, Chairperson Committee on Education; Charles Allen, DC Council, Ward 6, Member, Committee on Education; LaRuby May, DC Council, Ward 8; Elissa Silverman, DC Council, At-Large; Anita Bonds, DC Council, At-Large, Member, Committee on Education; Yvette Alexander, DC Council, Ward 7, Member, Committee on Education; Brianne Nadeau, DC Council, Ward 1; Jack Evans, DC Council, Ward 2.