Linda Sánchez

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on September 7, 2006 I missed rollcall vote No. 433, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (H.R. 503). Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of this bill that intends to put an end to horse slaughter in this country for good. The practice of this purely export-driven market which involves the cruel treatment and killing of our horses for trade is unacceptable, and therefore I am a proud cosponsor and supporter of this bill that moves to end these practices.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on May 22, 2006 I missed rollcall vote No. 178 on the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act (H.R. 3858). Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of this legislation that requires local and state authorities to consider the needs of people with pets and service animals in disaster planning. Hurricane Katrina taught our Nation many difficult lessons about preparing for a disaster. We now know that many evacuees, who were fleeing the area, were forced to abandon their animals. This bill works to correct these problems by requiring all federal evacuation plans to protect pets. I know how important a role pets play in the lives of many people, and therefore am proud to be both a co-sponsor and full supporter of this legislation.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo and Ranking Member Nick Rahall as well as Water and Power Subcommittee Chairman George Radanovich for recognizing the importance of this bill, H.R. 4545, the Southern California Water Augmentation Study. I would also like to especially thank my colleague Grace Napolitano, the ranking member of the Water and Power Subcommittee. She has served in that position with distinction and established herself as an advocate for sound water policy in her home State of California and across the Nation. Representative Napolitano has supported this bill, and she has utilized many efforts in shepherding it through the legislative process. I became interested in this effort because California and other parts of this country need to move forward on two very important issues: First, we must increase our groundwater drinking supplies, and we can do this by improving the safe infiltration of surface water. And, second, we must reduce urban stormwater runoff that can carry trash and contamination to our beaches and oceans. The water augmentation study was created to address important economic and scientific questions about water quality and water supply. Simply put, this project is about taking the water that we lose and turning it into water that we can use. This study will assess the potential of urban stormwater infiltration to augment water supplies. This water augmentation study will determine the benefits, costs, and risks of infiltration. It will help us understand what conditions we need to make infiltration work and assess the potential for larger water supply. At the same time, it will show us how to reduce water pollution and create additional environmental and social benefits. Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to make southern California more water self-sufficient and less reliant on imported water from our neighbors in the central and northern parts of our State. I am also very pleased that President Bush has included funding for the water augmentation study in his last three budgets, including this year. This is a bipartisan effort in which there is agreement on the merits of the project throughout our government. Also, the California staff of the Bureau of Reclamation has been very supportive of this project. In fact, they helped create it in the year 2000, because they see it as helping solve a real problem we face in California and, shall I say, other water-challenged States across the country. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall, as well as the great staff on the House Resources Committee, and to Representative Napolitano for her unyielding support of this bill. I urge all my colleagues to join us in supporting H.R. 4545.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Santa Ana Police Deputy Chief Bruce Carlson, who passed last Thursday after his long fight with liver cancer. Bruce loved our community and the people of Santa Ana. Bruce joined the Santa Ana Police Department on January 7, 1973, as a patrolman. Through his dedication to service and understanding the concerns of others, Bruce rose in rank to become Field Operations Bureau Commander, overseeing the largest and the most complex operation at the department. His legacy in Santa Ana is not confined to his work with the police department. Bruce's closest friends know him to be caring, to be a thoughtful man who would go out of his way to help his community. Bruce demonstrated true courage and maintained a very positive outlook on life throughout his struggle with cancer. He was a tremendous leader and made many significant contributions that helped to make the Santa Ana Police Department the national leader that it is today, especially on homeland security. Bruce Carlson is survived by his wife and his two children, and our thoughts and our prayers are with him today and with them.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was attending a National Policy Conference in Los Angeles, and I could not be present, subsequently missing rollcall votes numbered 427, 428, and 429. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Aye'' on rollcall No. 427, H.R. 2808, the ``Abraham Lincoln Commemorative Coin Act,'' ``Aye'' on rollcall No. 428, H. Res. 605, ``Recognizing the life of Preston Robert Tisch and his outstanding contributions to New York City, the New York Giants Football Club, the National Football League, and the United States,'' and ``Aye''--on rollcall No. 429, H. Res. 875, ``Congratulating Spelman College on the Occasion of its 125th Anniversary.''

Ms. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, America needs to be prepared. Whether for a commuter train attack, as we saw recently in India, or a hurricane, like we are still rebuilding from in New Orleans, it is clear America must get serious about all-hazards preparedness, that is preparing for all emergencies--be they natural or man-made. Yesterday I introduced the Preparedness First Act to authorize critical grant programs that our State and local governments already depend on for all-hazards emergency preparation. The premise of H.R. 5910 is to ensure that States and localities will have a basic level of preparedness, so they can protect their citizens, communicate with each other, and work with the Federal Government during any type of emergency, from earthquakes to hurricanes to terrorist attacks. The legislation starts by authorizing the Emergency Management Performance Grants Program, EMPG. The EMPG program provides broad base grants to ensure that States and localities have adequate, coordinated and up-to-date plans to respond to all-hazards emergencies. In my bill, eligibility for all project grants is linked to their inclusion in these emergency plans. This will help ensure that projects will be vetted, remain a priority, and fit in with an overall plan of preparedness. Next, the bill authorizes the State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, which awards block grants to States based on the risk of natural and man-made disasters. These grant funds buy the materials and supplies States need according to their emergency plans. The bill also authorizes the Metropolitan Medical Response System, MMRS, to give regions the tools they need to respond to major medical emergencies caused by either natural disasters or a terrorist attack. Finally, we authorize the Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, to give the added resources which are specifically needed for larger cities to respond to terrorism. Approval of UASI grants, like all of the grants in H.R. 5910, is tied to the inclusion of projects in State and local emergency plans. Under my bill, all States would receive a base of preparedness funding. This would guarantee the Federal Government an able partner in every State to coordinate preparedness activities. Additional resources would then be made available to address the unique risk of natural and man-made disasters that are posed to each area. This Federal and regional coordination is exactly what emergency managers have been calling for. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5910 and put all-hazard preparedness first for all Americans.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained because my flight was canceled. I missed rollcall vote Nos. 394 through 396. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall No. 394, S. 1496--``Electronic Duck Stamp Act if 2005,'' ``yes'' on rollcall No. 395, S. 203--``National Heritage Areas Act of 2005,'' and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 396, H.R. 5535--``To establish a grant program whereby moneys collected from violations of the corporate average fuel economy program are used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative fuels.''

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, as a cochair of the Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus, I rise today in strong opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement. The Oman FTA contains no effective mechanisms to enforce labor or human rights laws. Instead, this agreement relies on the empty promises that Oman will enforce its own labor laws. If we accept this deal, we are saying to foreign countries: It is okay to force labor among three-fourths of your workers. We are telling them it is okay to deny workers the right to organize for safer working conditions and better wages. If we accept this deal, we turn a blind eye to poor working conditions and organized human trafficking to fill sweat shops. I would remind my colleagues that the terms and conditions of trade agreements determine what is and is not acceptable. Let me be clear. If we agree to a deal that does not live up to basic labor and human rights standards, then we are deliberately establishing a lower standard for worker rights in this country and around the world. We should be setting a fair trade standard that allows the benefits of commerce to raise and not lower standards for everyone. Vote ``no'' on Oman FTA.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. This would allow us to consider the Cardin amendment to close the loophole in the agreement that would allow a foreign company based in Oman to operate U.S. port facilities. Earlier on I was opposed to the Oman Free Trade Agreement because it undermines fundamental workers' rights. This free trade agreement is another blow to working families, exporting more of our jobs overseas. But I was shocked to learn that it could underpin the basic safety and security of those who I was sent here to represent. I come from a community that is directly tied to this Nation's largest port, the Port of Long Beach. The safety and security of this port and all other American ports are essential to our country. The Oman FTA directly threatens our ability to control our Nation's ports. The creators of this deal completely ignored Congress' overwhelming response to the Dubai Ports World deal because, just like that deal, the Oman FTA has a very far- reaching provision hidden completely from the public eye. Buried deep in the annex of this agreement, our country's right to determine who operates our ports of entry is given away. Who gets the new right to control vital American infrastructure? Any group of people or government that incorporates to do business in Oman. The same people who supported the Dubai Ports World deal are now telling us that this is, again, nothing to worry about. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. We should not export the safety and security of Americans. I urge again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I support our national Pledge of Allegiance 100 percent. I strongly believe the Pledge teaches America's children national pride and a sense of civic responsibility. However, I oppose H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge Protection Act.'' This bill is merely a reaction to one federal case: Newdow vs. U.S. Congress. The 9th Circuit Federal court in Newdow held that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Established Clause of the Constitution. The court ruled that the phrase ``one nation under God'' within the Pledge impermissibly takes a position with respect to the identity and existence of God. I disagree with the 9th Circuit's ruling in the Newdow case. However, I don't believe the way to protect the Pledge of Allegiance is by banning all federal courts from hearing cases dealing with the Pledge, which is what H.R. 2389 does. H.R. 2389 goes way too far. In fact, it violates the Constitution and the very spirit of the Pledge itself. The federal courts, not the United States Congress, have the power to interpret and enforce rights protected under the Constitution. That is what the famous Marbury vs. Madison case was all about: separation of powers. But, H.R. 2389 violates the constitutional separation of powers principle, because it strips all federal courts of their power to make rulings on an individual's right to choose whether to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. To ensure that America remains an indivisible and proud Nation, it is very important that we protect the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is even more important that we do not violate the Constitution and undermine the federal courts to do so. Therefore, I oppose H.R. 2389.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement. This deal is an expansion of a failed trade model that does not guarantee even the most basic labor standards, and it is simply unacceptable. We are talking about an agreement with a country that our own State Department says does not meet the minimum requirements for trafficking people into forced labor. Even more shocking, labor unions don't even exist in Oman. Instead, workers are supposed to be represented by committees that actually are run by management. In fact, Oman has only fixed one out of 10 areas where they are not compliant with the ILO. This is unacceptable. We cannot preach about spreading freedom and opportunity around the world while ignoring the lack of labor and human rights standards in our trade bills. I urge my colleagues to reject the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Republican leadership clearly doesn't get it. Our country is grappling with skyrocketing gas prices, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the constant threat of terrorism, concerns about pension security, and the rising cost of health care insurance. But instead of addressing these priorities, what does the Republican leadership decide we need to focus on? Gay marriage, of course. As if passing the Federal Marriage Amendment would magically make all of our country's biggest challenges go away. This resolution is not only a waste of time; it is completely unnecessary. The Senate has already rejected this amendment, so we know that even if the House passes this, the bill is not going anywhere. Furthermore, 45 States already ban same-sex marriage, either by statute or by their State constitution. Even more important, passage of this amendment would mark the first time that our Constitution has been amended to take rights away from people. Amending our Constitution to force States to discriminate against a targeted group of Americans would tarnish our history of protecting everybody's equal rights under the law. I therefore strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose all four of today's amendments and pass a clean Voting Rights Act reauthorization. The four amendments that have been made in order are poison pills. If the two irrational section 5 amendments pass, the VRA's coverage formula would be repealed, and the Department of Justice will spend its time conducting studies in jurisdictions with no discrimination, instead of actively fighting discrimination in jurisdictions with ongoing voting rights violations. If the mean-spirited section 203 amendment passes, eligible voting- age citizens will be deprived of language assistance and lose the chance to cast an informed, accurate vote for the candidate of their choice. If the Gohmert amendment passes, jurisdictions will wait out their obligations to end discrimination under the VRA rather than comply with the VRA, which will result in the same kind of widespread noncompliance with the VRA that we sought in the late 1970s. All of these amendments are inconsistent with the spirit and the intent of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act protects the most fundamental right in a democracy, the right to vote; and it is our most powerful tool to help ensure that no American citizen is subject to discrimination at the polls. The Voting Rights Act plays a critical role in fulfilling the promise of American democracy. It has given voice to minority communities, and without it, many black, Hispanic, and Asian American leaders would not be holding elected office today. Passing this bill will also honor the sacrifices of the men and women who died and suffered injuries fighting for equality during the civil rights movement. That is why reauthorization of H.R. 9 has the support of Republicans and Democrats, Senators and House Representatives, businesses, civil rights groups, editorial boards, and grass-roots organizations around the country. Let us pass H.R. 9 clean by opposing all four amendments offered today and voting ``yes'' on final passage.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Stearns amendment. This amendment would allow States and localities to discriminate against tax-paying American citizens. This amendment forces the Federal Government to disenfranchise American citizens from our most precious right of voting. Unfortunately, a misinformed few from the other side of the aisle have confused this issue. The Voting Rights Act has nothing to do with immigration. Let me repeat that: section 203 of the Voting Rights Act has nothing to do with immigration. One hundred percent of the people served by section 203 are U.S. citizens. I know a little bit about this. Both of my parents are naturalized citizens. My mother is an elementary schoolteacher who teaches other people's children English. She has difficulty sometimes. Mr. Chairman, if we want to spread democracy around the world, we should not be disenfranchising American citizens who want to vote here. That is why I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Stearns amendment.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, this week the Labor- H appropriations bill was supposed to be on the floor, but at the last minute, the House Republican leadership stripped the bill from the schedule. It appears that the GOP is delaying a vote on this bill solely because it includes an increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage is now at its lowest point in half a century. Last week the Appropriations Committee voted to gradually increase the minimum wage. This increase will provide a much-needed boost to 7 million Americans, hard-working people who get up every morning and go to work. It is unfortunate that for almost a decade the Republican leadership has been forcing working families to make impossible choices, choices between paying the rent and buying groceries or between paying the heating bill and buying much-needed prescription medication. An increase in the minimum wage is about fairness, and that is why the American people overwhelmingly support an increase. Now that the House Appropriations Committee has acted, it is time for the Republican leadership to bring this bill up for a vote. Mr. Speaker, the American people have had enough of not having enough to get by.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in honoring those serving in our Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all the civilians serving here at home and abroad to protect America from terrorism. With the support of their families, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces have performed their duties with professionalism and distinction. They and their families deserve the gratitude of this nation. We especially honor, and will never forget, the more than 2,500 Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice in our nation's service. And their families have our enduring sympathies for their loss. To honor all who have taken an active part in the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world, it is the duty of Congress to aggressively pursue the most effective strategy for winning the Iraq War by demanding accountability for poor planning, mismanagement, and lack of oversight, in addition to developing a new direction that includes a responsible redeployment of U.S. Forces. While I agree with most of the content of H. Res. 861, I cannot vote in favor of it because it does not acknowledge the need for a new direction in Iraq. This resolution was offered without any opportunity for amendment, preventing the House of Representatives from holding a full and fair debate on the most important matter facing our nation today. Our troops, and all Americans, deserve a better and more responsible debate. While I will not support this resolution, I will always continue to stand by our troops and their families.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably absent and missed rollcall votes Nos. 251 through 255. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall No. 251, H. Res. 794--Recognizing the 17th anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes; ``Yes'' on rollcall No. 252, H. Res. 804--Condemning the unauthorized, inappropriate, and coerced ordination of Catholic bishops by the People's Republic of China; ``Yes'' on rollcall No. 253, H. Res. 608--Condemning the escalating levels of religious persecution in the People's Republic of China; ``Yes'' on rollcall No. 254, H. Con. Res. 338--Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the activities of Islamist terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere, and ``No'' on rollcall No. 255.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably absent and missed rollcall votes Nos. 177 and 178. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 177, S. 1235, the ``Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005'' and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 178, H.R. 3858, the ``Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005.''

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Officer Osbaldo ``Ozzie'' Ramos for being named a 2006 ``TOP COP'' by the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO). The TOP COP is given annually by NAPO to pay tribute to outstanding law enforcement officers whose actions have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Officer Ozzie Ramos was nominated by his fellow Los Angeles Police Department Officers for his heroism in the face of grave danger last spring. On March 10, 2005, Officer Ramos and three fellow LAPD officers brought down two dangerous gunmen. That day the two suspects loaded a SUV with 500 rounds of ammunition and a rifle and lured officers into a chase. Several police cars joined the pursuit, including Officer Ozzie Ramos and his partner Officer Trevor Jackson, when suddenly the suspects opened the door of the van and began firing shots at the police cars. While Officer Ramos drove the patrol car, Officer Jackson returned the suspects' fire using his shotgun. When Officer Jackson ran out of ammunition, Officer Ramos courageously maintained their position in proximity to the SUV while simultaneously pulling out his weapon and firing a full magazine at the suspects. The Officers' fire caused the SUV to crash in a parking lot, but the suspects continued firing at Officer Ozzie Ramos and his comrades. Officer Ramos exited his vehicle and while firing, crossed an unprotected area to gain a better shot and more accurately relay information on the suspects' position. As a result of Officer Ramos' information, another officer fired through the door of the vehicle and ended the standoff. Officer Ramos' heroism that day is a reflection of his distinguished career in law enforcement. A 12-year veteran, Officer Ramos graduated from the Police Academy at the young age of 22. Upon graduation Officer Ramos was assigned to the 77th Street Patrol Division as a probationary officer. After completing probation, Officer Ramos served one year in the Central Traffic Division as a Collision Investigator before joining the Gang Enforcement Unit. He was certified as a gang expert and promoted to the ranks of Police Officer III and Assistant Squad Leader in the Gang Unit. After serving a tour in the Gang Unit, Officer Ramos continued his work as the Assistant Squad Leader in the Special Enforcement Unit. Presently Officer Ramos is a Field Training Officer in the 77th Street Patrol Division and he has received thirty-one Commendations for various acts, works, and accomplishments since 1998. Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Officer Ozzie Ramos for being honored with the TOP COP award for 2006. He is an exemplary police officer whose dedicated and fearless service is keeping the people of southern California safe.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, a year ago in this body, we were talking about this Central American Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA's terrible labor provisions. At that time, Member after Member raised serious concerns about CAFTA's failure to protect working people here in the United States and abroad. However, the Bush administration ignored every single one of those serious flaws with the CAFTA trade deal. Now the Bush administration is asking this House to consider the Oman and Peru Free Trade Agreements. I would call it a new deal, except there is nothing new about it. I have looked at the labor provisions in the deal, Mr. Speaker, and they are identical to those in CAFTA. The administration has changed nothing, absolutely nothing at all. So, Mr. Speaker, again I need to say that there is a message we need to send to the President. The message is very simple: No on the CAFTA model, no to inadequate labor protections, and no to the Oman and Peru agreements. If you want to protect workers' rights, if you stand for labor protection, if you want to halt job losses in this country, then say no to the CAFTA model, say no to inadequate labor protection, and say no to the Oman and Peru agreements. The CAFTA model hurts hardworking people here in the United States, in Oman and in Peru. Not surprisingly, the Oman and Peru trade deals will hurt U.S. workers in the same industries that were alienated by CAFTA. It is not a surprise to anyone that I am talking about textiles and sugar production. The labor standards in Oman and Peru are simply not acceptable. As recently as last year, the Bush administration's very own State Department publicly stated that Oman has an unacceptable standard for the trafficking of people into involuntary labor. The same was formally acknowledged regarding Peru, including a special note that child labor was a serious problem there. Honestly, I do not understand this administration. At the same time that the administration negotiated these agreements, it also published a report detailing the extensive labor problems in both of these countries. Even children working in a factory making bricks in Lima, Peru, do not have the legal right to, and I quote the administration's report, ``remove themselves from potentially dangerous situations''. We need to say no to the Oman and Peru agreements, not just to protect our labor rights here in the United States but also, importantly, to set the global standard for labor rights around the world. It was not so long ago that many in this House rejected and argued against CAFTA. Guess what? The arguments against the Oman and Peru agreements are the exact same ones, because it is the exact same agreement. I ask my colleagues not to be fooled. Do not believe that this is a new approach for trade, because absolutely nothing has changed. I, for one, am going to stand up again for labor rights here in the United States and abroad, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. If you will yield, since we are on the topic of breast cancer, I want to mention two weeks ago I lost a Member of my staff in my district office. She had a 3-year battle with breast cancer. She died at the age of 49. She was the most wonderful, outspoken, helpful caseworker in our office. Her husband said at her memorial service, ``You know, Idalia Smith did not die. She was killed. She was killed by cancer.'' He was angry that more had not been done to try to help eliminate breast cancer in terms of one of these horrible diseases that causes such suffering and takes people from us far, far too soon.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. If I could just add, you have mentioned some of the great benefits to girls and women participating in sports. It leads to better physical health. It leads to better mental health, lower levels of depression in women who engage until regular physical activity. For girls, it promotes self-esteem and confidence that comes from gaining competence in something that they enjoy doing. There are studies that even show that girls who engage in sports when they become women are more likely to leave abusive relationships than women who don't engage in sports.

Ms. LINDA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I am excited and honored to be here tonight to help celebrate Women's History Month. I am hoping tonight that my colleagues and I can share with everyone what it is like to be a young woman in Congress and how we got our start here. In addition, I am interested in sharing my thoughts on where women stand in today's workforce. I am proud to stand here tonight with Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Representative Stephanie Herseth because together we make up the youngest women in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my hope that someday soon there will be more than just three of us standing up here. In fact, I think it would be fantastic if we could fill up at least half of this Chamber with bright energetic women from across America. I want to talk for a moment about women in the workforce, because every morning in households across America, women rise. We rise for work, we rise to care for children, we rise for the love of our jobs and for the love of our families. We rise to put food on the table, and we rise to make ends meet. Above all, we rise to our calling because we can, because we are capable. No matter what a woman does for a living, we as women have a lot in common because it was not so long ago that women were forced to hide in the shadows of the American workforce. Today, we are a strong and vital part of the American economy and more women work outside the home than ever before. We continue to gain more career opportunities and achieve professional successes in all fields. But have we truly reached equality in the American workforce? Sadly, the answer is no. The Equal Pay Act was passed more than 40 years ago, yet women still only make 76 cents for every dollar that a man makes, even when accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure. This gap has persisted for two decades. The glass ceiling is as shiny as it ever has been. According to a recent op-ed in USA Today, we still have miles to go before we can claim true equality. Women make up less than 15 percent of Congress and law-firm partners, 12 percent of big-city mayors, 9 percent of judges, and just 1 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs. Women and men have had equal levels of post-high school education for 30 years, but the gender and color of those in power has not changed much in that time. My experiences during my first year in Congress are very similar to the experiences that I had as a young female attorney. You have to work twice as hard as men to dispel people's doubts about preconceived notions that they might have of you. I had to deal with that from day one in Washington. Many people in Washington, D.C. are still not convinced that I am a Congresswoman because I am young, female, and Latina. A lot of people still assume that Members of Congress are men, and that leads to a whole lot of double standards here. In addition, I was surprised to learn that I am the first Latina in the history of the United States House of Representatives to serve on the Judiciary Committee and the Immigration Subcommittee. In every field, the higher up you look, the fewer women you see. And if you look in the other direction, women still remain disproportionately concentrated in lower-paying jobs. This means that it is far more likely for women to live in poverty than men. The bottom line? Don't be fooled. While we are making gains, true workforce equality still remains an elusive goal. But it is a goal I am not willing to give up on. Tonight, we celebrate Women's History Month because we have come so far after so much struggle and we deserve an opportunity to reflect our successes. Today, we are here to honor the successes of pioneering women who came before us, to examine where we are now, and to prepare for the future. We already know that women are smart, but no matter how smart you are, it is tough to win when the rules dictate unequal pay for unequal work. A colleague of ours, Congresswoman DeLauro, has introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation that would take critical steps to empower women to negotiate for equal pay, create strong incentives for employers to obey the laws that are in place, and strengthen Federal outreach and enforcement efforts. I encourage people to contact their Member of Congress and let them know they support H.R. 1687, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Right now, there are only 88 cosponsors on Congresswoman DeLauro's bill. Out of the 435 elected voting Members of the House of Representatives, that still leaves 347 Members of Congress who have yet to support this bill. Now, I cannot imagine why 347 Members are not willing to stand up for women's pay equality for our daughters, mothers, and sisters. Mr. Speaker, I hope people pick up the phone and remind their Representatives to get on this bill and show that they truly value women's contributions in the workforce. Women's increased access to higher education will be a moot point until our society provides better policies for working women. We owe it to our mothers, sisters and daughters. And while talking about better policies, I want to briefly touch as well on the minimum wage. Democrats in Congress are committed to raising the minimum wage to ensure that no one who works for a living lives in poverty. While the number of Americans in poverty has increased by 4.3 million since President Bush took office, the minimum wage has been frozen at $5.15 since 1997. Democrats introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005, legislation that would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour and help lift millions of Americans out of poverty. Women and children are the number one victims of poverty in this country, so I think it is important to remember that by raising the minimum wage we will be significantly raising the status of women and children. In order to truly commemorate Women's History Month, I think we need to remember that actions speak louder than words. I know the American public is tired of hearing politicians highlight our country's problems without offering any real-life solutions. Tonight, I have touched on two problems and I have named two real solutions that are on the table right now. All that is left for us to do is to act. Let us achieve real pay equity for women and raise the minimum wage. Together, America can do better on behalf of all women and all working families. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield back to the Representative from Florida.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I just have this to say. We have talked a little bit about priorities and we have talked about some very worthwhile programs that are being cut to the core, to the point where these kinds of services are going to be eliminated altogether, will be so crippled by lack of funding that they are not going to really function and serve the people they need to serve. The question for me, and I get angry about this, I hear colleagues talk about how they care about breast cancer research, they care about preparing kids for kindergarten, they care about making sure that educational opportunities are available, yet they have no qualms about voting to slash these programs to the core so they can give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. If that is not the clearest example of misplaced priorities, I don't know what is, because there is an old saying, you put your money where your mouth is. So you can talk about supporting something, but if you are not willing to put your money into that to support it, you are just giving lip service to it.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. When I ran for Congress, I had sort of a unique situation in that I had an older sister who was a trailblazer. She was elected in 1996, and when I ran and was elected, we were the first two women of any relation to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. There have been over 1,000 male relationships, either fathers and sons, uncles and nephews, male cousins. Never in the history of Congress until the year 2002 had two women of any relation served in Congress. It is a stark contrast in terms of we are making those strides, but we still have so much further to go.