Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, and I certainly thank my good friend from Florida for his work on not only this bill, H.R. 471, but for his strong respect for the District of Columbia and its residents and his support for our right to self-government as American citizens. I oppose this rule, I oppose this bill, and at the appropriate time, I will have a substitute to redirect the funds in this bill in accordance with the home-rule wishes of the District of Columbia. May I say, I appreciate the words of my good friend from Utah, but I do resent the use of the word ``liberty'' at a time when this bill will deprive the residents of the District of Columbia of the liberty every other district has in deciding local educational decisions for itself. They have it in Utah, and we will never be satisfied as long as we do not have each and every right you have in Utah. Now, the majority ought to approach this rule with caution. Many in the House ran on the promise to reduce the power of the Federal Government and to reduce the budget. Now, we are 3 months into the new Congress, and if they vote for this rule, they will be breaking their promises. They will be voting for an unprecedented expansion of the Federal Government's power into the quintessentially local decision of elementary and secondary education. They will be voting for this rule against the will of the jurisdiction, the only jurisdiction to which it applies, the District of Columbia. They will be voting for this rule with no consultation with any elected official in the local jurisdiction involved. They will be voting to authorize the Federal Government to mandate that a local government offer a program for students to attend private schools at public expense, Federal expense, that is. They will be voting to increase the deficit by $300 million with no offset whatsoever for these funds because this is a new program and their own protocols demand an offset for new programs.

Ms. NORTON. So in the first test of their legislative cut-go protocol, they will be voting to violate it. They will be voting to do so with $300 million added to the deficit at a time when they are cutting $11.6 billion with a ``b'' from education throughout the United States of America. We are American citizens.

Ms. NORTON. On the contrary, a letter is on its way up here from city council members. The present mayor opposes the bill. Yes, the former mayor was for the bill. The largest demonstration of citizens since I have been in the Congress was held when this bill was imposed on the District of Columbia. If you ask people in the District of Columbia, ``Would you support some Federal money for vouchers?'' a lot of them will say yes. If you ask them the right question, ``Would you want money for private school vouchers or would you want money for public charter schools?'' hands down, they will say, relieve those long waiting lists of all of us trying to get in our public charter schools and give the money to our public charter schools. Nobody on that side of the aisle knows anything about the residents of the District of Columbia or they never would have put this bill in in the first place.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, you know, in the later days of European colonialism, countries like France allowed some representation from the colonies because the whole notion of voting on the fate of the colonies with nobody there who could also vote seemed even then to be a dilemma they could not live with. And I don't understand how any Member of the House believes she has a right to vote on local education matters or any other local matter affecting any part of the United States, including the District of Columbia. I note, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Polis of the Rules Committee indicated yesterday that there was a county in Colorado that had created its own voucher program. I respect that because they didn't come to the Federal Government to ask that their local voucher program be funded, nor, Madam Speaker, did we. I think every Member of this House ought to ask, since we've had 5 years of a voucher bill, why is there no national bill on the floor? I think the gentleman from Florida has said one of the good reasons, and that is that the Bush Department of Education found that, when compared with the students in comparable schools in DC, there was no increase in test scores in math or reading. So there's a merit reason why there's no national bill. But there's another reason why. The majority doesn't have the nerve to put a national voucher bill on the floor because it knows that in each and every state referendum, including in referendums in Utah, from which my good friend comes, not once has such a referendum succeeded. I don't know why the majority thinks it can go home now and say I voted for vouchers, when you, yourselves, were against the use of public money for private schools in your district. I would not like to be at that town meeting where you have to explain why you voted for a rule for $300 million for one district that did not want that money for that purpose. Madam Speaker, I very much resent the use of Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution whenever the majority wants to move in on the District of Columbia with one of its pet ideas, or because it disagrees with some issue in the District of Columbia. That's quintessentially the absence of democracy. It's one thing to have no democracy. It's another thing to press your version of policy on another jurisdiction. That's why I have an alternative, a substitute that I will be bringing at an appropriate time. Madam Speaker, in 1973, after 150 years, this Congress finally said we have been wrong for most of the existence of our country in allowing no democracy whatsoever in the District of Columbia, no mayor, no city council. We give up. We delegate self-government to you. We are out of your affairs. Self-government means nothing if the District of Columbia can still be a dumping ground for every pet project and pet idea of the majority. We have our own pet ideas, and we will insist on respect for our own ideas, and not yours.

Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. NORTON. No one ever said that everybody in the District of Columbia or even every public official was against vouchers.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the ratification of the 23rd Amendment to the United States Constitution, which granted the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President. This victory fifty years ago was one of the early victories in the long and continuing struggle of District of Columbia residents for equal rights as American citizens. The 23rd Amendment provided the District of Columbia with three electors for President and Vice President, allowing D.C. residents to vote for the nation's highest offices for the first time since the city was created as the nation's capital. Only two Members of Congress, Representative John Dingell and Senator Daniel Inouye, remain in office from the period of introduction and ratification of the 23rd Amendment, when both were members of the House of Representatives. I was away at college then, but it was clear that an important catalyst for the amendment was the birth of the civil rights movement with the Birmingham bus boycott. The civil rights movement was key in moving Congress to afford the presidential and vice presidential votes to the citizens of the nation's capital, which had become a majority African American city at that time. The original joint resolution, H.J. Res. 757, was reported favorably by the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 9, 1960. The accompanying report made clear that the amendment ``would not make the District of Columbia a state'' and did not grant ``home-rule'' to the District. Home rule, a milestone allowing for democratic self-government, did not come until 1973. Originally paired with a number of unrelated amendments in the Senate, what became the 23rd Amendment passed the House by voice vote on June 14, 1960 and the Senate agreed to the bill two days later. Fifty years ago today, March 29, 1961, Ohio became the 38th state to ratify the amendment, and it was officially declared to have been ratified as the 23rd Amendment five days later. Unfortunately, the District of Columbia today remains the only capital in a democratic nation where citizens are denied a vote in the nation's representative body of government. Today, we can only hope that the decision of Congress to support the presidential and vice presidential votes for D.C. citizens will lead the way to votes in the Congress of the United States itself.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.

Ms. NORTON. I respect my good friend, but I have got to stand for and with the people I represent. And if the gentleman wants to put the joy in the hearts of my parents, I challenge him to put joy in the hearts of the parents of his beloved Indiana, as he says, by bringing a national vouchers bill to the floor so that some of them may have the choice that we have not asked for. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of our committee.

Ms. NORTON. To introduce P.L. 104-134, which has helped us produce a large-scale robust alternative public school system that is now a model for the Nation. The pattern of this Congress could not be clearer. They began by stripping the District of Columbia of its vote. They have done nothing but try to take from the District of Columbia with bill after bill. Now they want to help us, against our will. We reject the insult of your help with the children of the District of Columbia. We are not second-class citizens. We are not children. If you want to help us, give us the courtesy, have the good grace to ask us how we want to be helped.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his terrific help on all we have done on this bill. Let me count the ways I strongly oppose H.R. 471: Because it reestablished a program that failed to improve academic achievement as measured by standardized reading and math tests; Because it infringes on the local government's right to make decisions about quintessentially local education matters; Because it was introduced without so much as consultation with any elected official from the affected jurisdiction, the jurisdiction I represent; Because it provides Federal funds to send students to religious and other private schools, despite the absence of support for vouchers, as demonstrated by the failure of every State referendum to authorize vouchers, including two in California; and Because it increases the deficit by $300 million, violating the majority's own CutGo for discretionary authorization legislative protocols. Although I am a proud graduate of the D.C. Public Schools and strongly support our public schools, especially given their great improvement, I have always supported public charter alternatives for those parents who are dissatisfied with our traditional public schools. Children can't wait until public schools now in the throes of ``a race to the top'' meet the top. I'm proud that the District of Columbia has the largest charter school system in the United States of America, with almost half of our children attending. Parents and organizations in the District of Columbia have made this alternative, not the Congress of the United States. The existence and the phenomenal growth of our public charter schools has fueled the competition that has actually helped our public schools improve. The reason is because the charter schools and the public schools, unlike the voucher schools, are competing for the same local dollars. So, today, it is interesting to note that the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the D.C. Public Schools have awakened to the competition, and now is the only one of 18 large urban school systems that showed improvement in the fourth and eighth-grade achievement tests over the past 2 years. Now, contrast this with what the Bush Education Department found for the very voucher program we will be voting on in H.R. 471, and I'm quoting: The Department of education found ``no conclusive evidence that the Opportunity Scholarship Program affected student achievement'' as measured by standardized reading and math tests. Yet the program was established precisely to measure and improve performance of the lowest achieving students in our schools. D.C. charter schools, however, outperform the D.C. public schools and greatly outperform the voucher schools. Our public charter schools at the middle and high school level, with a majority of economically disadvantaged students, scored almost twice as high as their D.C. Public School counterparts in math and reading, and the graduation rate of charter school students is 24 percent higher than the graduation rate of our traditional public high schools and 8 percent higher than the national average. Yet these public charter schools have a higher percentage of African American students and of disadvantaged students than our public schools. They are entirely accountable. They can be closed and, like public schools, they have been closed. With this remarkable record, why in the world would anyone pick the District of Columbia to impose a voucher program on, or target the only big school system that has set up an alternative public charter school system? If the majority were truly interested in our education agenda, instead of their own, they would do what former Speaker Newt Gingrich did. When he approached me about private school vouchers, I told him of public opposition to vouchers in the city, but not to charter schools, as demonstrated by a fledgling charter school program in the District that had attracted few charters. And there was a District of Columbia charter school law. He worked with me, not against me, to introduce a bill----

Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the committee.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the residents of the District of Columbia see a pattern here. The majority begins by taking away my vote in the Committee of the Whole so I can't vote on any part of this bill this afternoon, then they take away or try to take away the needle exchange program that keeps HIV-AIDS from being spread throughout the District of Columbia. Then they are also trying to take away the choice of low- income women in the District in two bills, the reproductive choice of low-income women in two bills: H.R. 1 and H.R. 3. They have introduced a bill to put their version of gun laws on the District of Columbia, although the courts have found our new gun laws to be constitutional. This morning we hear that they are coming forward yet again with more to do to the District of Columbia by trying to erase our marriage equality law. Now they say, after taking all of that from you, we have got something for you, something you never asked for, vouchers, instead of funding your own home rule choice, your public charter schools. Yes, we know you fund the charter schools as well; but you then fund your choice, not ours. My amendment says if you want to fund something, ask us. Fund what we want, not what you want. And if you want vouchers, bring a national voucher bill right to the floor. I can understand Republicans voting against my substitute. They will argue perhaps that it adds to the deficit. But if you vote against my substitute, then I don't see how you can vote for H.R. 471, because it certainly adds to the deficit, too; and you will be voting for your choice, not ours. Many of you have come to the House under the banner of liberty, to get the Federal Government out of even Federal matters. Now you're trying to get into a purely local matter involving our children and our local schools. If this were your district, you would ask us to defer to you. I'm asking you to defer to our preferences. The District of Columbia asks to be treated exactly as you would want to be treated--as free and equal citizens of the United States of America and not as second-class citizens, not as children, and certainly not as the colonial subjects of the Congress of the United States. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. NORTON. The speaker before the last speaker wanted to know what the offense was. The offense is to the home-rule prerogative to the people of the District of Columbia to decide on educational choices for their own children. That's what the offense is. Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. To the gentleman who didn't have the nerve to yield to me, this bill, of course---- Point of Order

Ms. NORTON. The gentleman cited a number of schools that he said vouchers had helped. There is no data showing that voucher schools--and there have been a few in the United States--have ever scored better than children in public schools. And since Milwaukee was mentioned, let me indicate some news that just came out Tuesday. Results from the first administration of Statewide exams for students participating in the Milwaukee voucher program showed lower academic achievement than students attending Milwaukee public schools. The results also show that the Milwaukee public schools and voucher schools have significant lower achievement than the Statewide average. But here, you have a big city public school system that is doing better than the voucher schools. And that is what the data shows all over the United States, including the District of Columbia, where the Bush Department of Education specifically found that the children in voucher schools did not show significant improvement in math and reading scores. While I have shown details here this afternoon of significant improvement of the D.C. public schools, the only urban school system that has in fact shown significant improvement in math and science, and particularly dazzling results in the D.C. charter schools. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to correct the gentleman from California. The District charter school bill was created by Speaker Gingrich in partnership with me. He came to me and proposed a voucher bill. I asked him, since the District had a local charter school bill, if he would introduce, instead, a charter school law. We consulted with the local public officials, with the school board, with citizens. It was the home rule alternative to vouchers, and you can check with Speaker Gingrich. Now, my home rule substitute would redirect the $300 million in H.R. 471, 50 percent to the District public charter schools, 50 percent to the District of Columbia Public Schools. If the majority wants to add $300 million to the deficit without an offset, then let it at least be on the basis of educational merit; then it should be added to the public schools which have shown major growth, the only public school system of the 18 largest urban school systems that showed significant improvements in math and reading over the last 2 years. If you want to add to the deficit, then at least add to it by giving money to our public charter schools which outdo the D.C. public schools and way outdo, of course, the voucher schools, which show no improvement. The public charter middle and high schools scored twice as high as the traditional public charter schools in the District in math and reading, and they have a graduation rate 24 percent above the D.C. public schools and 8 percent above the national average. This is where you would give the money if you had any interest in education in the District of Columbia instead of your own parochial interests in making the District a petri dish of the pet project of a few Members of Congress. You would look at our public charter schools as the alternative to the District's public schools. There are 53 campuses, amounting to almost 100 different charter schools, almost half of the children of the District of Columbia. How did they get there? They voted with their feet. I mean, listen to some of the names of these schools: Washington Latin School; Washington Math, Science, and Technology High School. I have, myself, appointed two students from Washington Math, Science, and Technology to Service Academies. Early Childhood Academy; Hospitality Academy; Howard University Middle School--that's a charter school; the KIPP Schools. We've got eight of them. Those are the top charter schools and some of the best public charter schools in the United States. SEED Residential charter school. You have some money? You want to spend some money? Here is the place to spend it. To show you just what kind of a home rule alternative this is, with almost 100 different schools, they have got 19 new charter school applications coming for 2012. People keep coming despite the improvements in the District public schools. They are going to have a preschool charter. They are going to have three new high schools: one an all male college prep, one that focuses on public service, another that focuses on math and science. You want to talk choices, you want to talk creative choices, look at the District of Columbia. We know how to create choices for ourselves, choices that our parents want, choices that our parents create and pay for because they want their own choices, not the choices of the Republicans of the House of Representatives. In a democracy, the choices of a self-governing local jurisdiction trump all other choices, and especially the choices of Members who are not responsible to the people of the District of Columbia, who do not have to stand for election in the District of Columbia but get a free ride, as I do not. If you insist on adding to the deficit, then, for goodness sake, reinforce the home rule, hard work of our own parents and our own local organizations. Commend them for the dazzling array of almost 100 public, accountable charter schools they have created. Relieve their long waiting lists, which now contain thousands of students waiting to get into our charter schools. The District of Columbia did not appreciate being an unwilling object of a Republican experiment once. With your cavalier defiance of our choices, we like it much less the second time around. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield the gentleman another minute.

Ms. NORTON. How much time remains?

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Lindsay Czarniak for her outstanding work in sports broadcasting as an anchor and reporter for NBC Washington. This month we are celebrating Women's History Month in the District of Columbia by honoring Lindsay Czarniak, whose excellence in a field dominated by men has made her a favorite on television here. Lindsay, who was born in Pennsylvania and raised in Northern Virginia, is seen by her viewers as a quintessential Washingtonian because of her credibility and effectiveness in connecting with residents while reporting on our teams for NBC4 sports. After serving as co-host of the George Michael Sports Machine, Lindsay struck out on her own on NBC4 with her signature show, Lunch with Lindsay. She has interviewed many great sports figures, including Art Monk, Sugar Ray Leonard, and James Brown. Lindsay also has covered the 2008 Winter Olympics in Beijing, China, as well as NASCAR races as a pit reporter on TNT. This year, our celebration of Women's History Month will honor not only Lindsay Czarniak, but also another female groundbreaker, Natalie Randolph, the only current female boys high school varsity head football coach in the nation. Lindsay also has generously agreed to participate in an assembly, where she will interview Natalie Randolph, a member of the D.C. Divas, a woman's professional football team, and a member of the Calvin Coolidge Senior High School football team concerning Coach Randolph's football and coaching career. Lindsay Czarniak is an inspiration to young girls, to women, and to all Americans who support equal opportunity on the basis of ability and hard work. The excellence of her work in the male-dominated sports world makes all who are fortunate to see her on television understand that nothing is beyond a woman's capability, and that no field, sports or otherwise, is off limits to women. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Lindsay Czarniak, as a trailblazing example of excellence in her profession.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Coach Natalie Randolph, the first female boys varsity head football coach at Calvin Coolidge Senior High School in Washington, DC, where she also teaches. As we commemorate Women's History Month this year, I want to celebrate the coach for becoming the first permanent female boys varsity head football coach in the District of Columbia and the only current female boys varsity head football coach in the nation. Natalie Randolph, a native Washingtonian, is not only a football coach, she also is a superb athlete. Coach Randolph made her mark with the DC Divas of the Independent Women's Football League. After playing five seasons there, she became an assistant boys varsity football coach at H.D. Woodson Senior High School in the District for two seasons. In her youth, Natalie nurtured her athletic skills in track and field at Sidwell Friends School and later at the University of Virginia. Her love of football grew after her father first introduced her in high school to women football players. Natalie began her professional career as an educator, after receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in Environmental Science and a Master's degree in Education from the University of Virginia. She first taught at H.D. Woodson and currently teaches Environmental Science and Biology at Calvin Coolidge. Calvin Coolidge's winning record of 6-4 in Coach Randolph's debut season vindicated the decision to make her head coach. At the same time, the new coach required mandatory study halls and SAT prep courses to improve the team's academic performance. Coach Randolph is committed to winning, both inside and outside the classroom. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Natalie Randolph for her accomplishments as a teacher who encourages strong academic achievement, as a world-class athlete, and as the first permanent female boys varsity head football coach in the District of Columbia. May we wish Coach Randolph and the Calvin Coolidge Senior High School Colts the best on the upcoming season, both on and off the field.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would give the mayor of the District of Columbia authority over deploying the D.C. National Guard, after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, with the President retaining final authority. In local emergencies, including natural disasters and civil disturbances unrelated to national or homeland security, the mayor of the District of Columbia should have the same authority that governors exercise over the National Guard in their states. Each governor, as head of state, has the authority to mobilize the National Guard to protect his or her state, just as local militia did historically. The National Guards in the 50 states operate under dual federal and local jurisdiction. Yet only the President and the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard currently have the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard for local and national purposes, respectively. Today, the most likely need for the D.C. National Guard here would be for natural disasters and to restore order in the wake of civil disturbances. The mayor, who knows the city better than any federal official and who works closely with federal security officials, should be able to call on the D.C. National Guard for local natural disasters and civil disturbances, after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. The President should be focused on national matters, including homeland security, not local D.C. matters. Homeland security authority, with respect to the D.C. National Guard, would remain the sole province of the President, along with the power to nationalize the D.C. National Guard at will. It does no harm to give the mayor this authority for civil disturbances and natural disasters. However, it could do significant harm to leave the mayor powerless to act quickly. If it makes sense that governors would have control over the mobilization and deployment of their National Guard, it makes equal sense for the mayor of the District of Columbia, with a population the size of a small state, to have the same authority. The mayor of the District of Columbia, as head of state, should have the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard in instances that do not rise to the level of homeland defense activities. My bill requires that the mayor only deploy the D.C. National Guard after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. The bill is another important step toward completing the transfer of full self- government powers to the District of Columbia. Congress itself began with the passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973, when it delegated most of its authority to the District of Columbia. The bill follows that model. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.