Linda Sánchez

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 721 recognizes the 60th anniversary of the Mendez v. Westminster School District decision which ended segregation of Mexican and Mexican American students in California schools and honors the Mendez family. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for introducing this important resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor. As the daughter of Mexican immigrants, this decision has special meaning for me. Like the parents in the Mendez case, my parents understood the importance of education in the realization of the American Dream. Thanks to their efforts and encouragement, all seven of their children have excelled, earning college and advanced degrees. The Mendez decision really marked a turning point in the effort to win full rights for all Californians of Mexican descent. While the court ruled on narrow grounds that California law did not authorize the school district to create separate so-called ``Mexican schools,'' the importance and effect of that decision went much further. The words of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are worth repeating. ``By enforcing the segregation of school children of Mexican descent against their will and contrary to the laws of California, the school district may have violated the Federal law as provided in the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution by depriving them of liberty and property without due process of law and by denying to them the equal protection of the law.'' Seven years later, the Supreme Court would finally put an end to the discredited doctrine which allowed school segregation based on the fiction of ``separate but equal'' schools in the landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education. The author of that decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren, had, as Governor of California, responded to the Mendez decision by signing into law a repeal of the last remaining school segregation statutes in the California Education Code. This resolution also honors the Mendez family and congratulates Sylvia Mendez for her continued efforts to keep alive the importance of this case and the impact it had on her future. It is important that we not forget the courage of this family. They took a stand against the prevailing system of segregation in the public schools and won a tremendous victory, not just for themselves, but for many others. I am a beneficiary of their courage and their achievement. The story of the Mendez family struggle against segregation took place in Westminster, Orange County, just a few miles from where my siblings and I grew up, played soccer, and attended schools. If the Mendez family had not challenged the status quo, and if I had not grown up in a post- Mendez Orange County, it would have taken me many more years to reach the floor of this House, if I ever reached it at all. School segregation in California was just one facet of the widespread discrimination that Americans of Mexican descent faced across the Southwest, from the Gulf coast to the Pacific coast. Hotels, restaurants, barbershops, public pools, movie theaters, and even maternity wards were segregated for those of Mexican heritage. It was very common to see signs that said ``No Mexicans served,'' or ``Mexicans and dogs not allowed.'' The injustice of discrimination was most appalling in public education. In the 1930s, more than two-thirds of the Orange County students of Mexican descent were considered mentally retarded. When the Mendez children were turned away from the 17th Street white school in their hometown, they were sent to the Hoover Elementary School, which was the Mexican school, a rickety, wooden building on a dirt lot. Adding insult to injury, many of such Mexican schools operated half days during walnut picking season to accommodate local agribusiness demand for child labor. Mr. Speaker, there are forces in our society today who believe that the causes of school integration, of diversity, no longer matter. Some believe that fighting segregation might even violate our Constitution. That is just plain wrong. The Supreme Court in Brown correctly found that separate cannot be equal. As we reflect on this anniversary of the Mendez decision, we must renew our determination to fight injustice and the forces of intolerance. Our Nation will continue to benefit from our diversity. I join the Members of this House in commemorating this important milestone in our Nation's history and honoring the Mendez family for their courage, their strength, and their contribution to the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 721) recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Mendez v. Westminster decision which ended segregation of Mexican and Mexican American students in California schools, and for other purposes.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, regulations play a critical role in virtually every aspect of our daily lives, yet there is no independent, nonpartisan entity that Congress can utilize to scrutinize and approve the regulatory process. Accordingly, it is critical that we reauthorize the Administrative Conference of the United States as soon as possible so that it can fill this serious void. I realize that this may not be the sexiest issue on the docket today, but I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the Federal regulation process is among the most important ways by which our Nation implements public policy. Each year, agencies issue thousands of regulations to ensure that the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the cars we drive are safe. Surprisingly, however, there is little empirical analysis of whether these regulations work as intended. Until 1995, the last year it received federal funding, the Administrative Conference of the United States was a nonpartisan, public-private think tank that provided invaluable guidance to Congress about how to improve the administrative and regulatory process. First established on a temporary basis, the conference, over the course of its nearly 30-year existence, made numerous recommendations, many of which were enacted into law. H.R. 3564, the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2007, would simply reauthorize the conference for an additional 4 years. Madam Speaker, some might ask why we should reauthorize an entity that has not been in existence for nearly a dozen years. Let me just mention three reasons. First, the conference saved taxpayers many millions of dollars. It helped agencies implement cost-saving procedures and made recommendations that work to eliminate excessive litigation costs and long delays. Just one agency alone, the Social Security Administration, estimated that the conference's recommendation to change its appeals process yielded approximately $85 million in savings. Indeed, Justice Stephen Breyer testified before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law about the ``huge'' savings to the public resulting from the conference's recommendations. Justice Antonin Scalia likewise agreed that it was an ``enormous bargain.'' Second, the Administrative Conference promoted innovation among agencies. For example, it convinced 24 agencies to use alternative dispute resolution for issues concerning the private sector. The conference also spearheaded the implementation of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, governing consumer product warranties. Madam Speaker, the conference played a major role in encouraging agencies to promulgate smarter regulations. It did this by improving participation in the rulemaking process, promoting judicial review of agency regulations, and reducing regulatory burdens on the private sector. Third, and perhaps more importantly, Congress needs the conference. Experience with the Congressional Review Act demonstrates that we simply lack the resources and, sometimes, the political will to conduct aggressive oversight of regulations. Congressional recognition of the conference's significant contributions to the regulatory process is probably best evidenced by the fact that in nearly every Congress since its demise in 1995, legislation has been introduced assigning responsibilities to the conference. The Congressional Research Service advises that reactivation of the conference comes at an opportune time, especially in light of efforts by the executive branch to augment its role in the regulatory process. Madam Speaker, there are few entities that enjoyed more bipartisan support than the Administrative Conference. I commend my colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Mr. Cannon of Utah, for his continued leadership in pursuing the reauthorization of the conference. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3564. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record two letters from Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Scalia written in 1995 that describe the importance of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC, August 21, 1995. Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight, and the Courts, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Grassley, thank you for the invitation to submit a few comments about the Administrative Conference of the United States. As a ``liaison'' to the Administrative Conference (from the Judicial Conference), I have participated in its activities from 1981 to 1994. I believe that the Conference is a unique organization, carrying out work that is important and beneficial to the average American, at rather low cost. The Conference primarily examines government agency procedures and practices, searching for ways to help agencies function more fairly and more efficiently. It normally focuses upon achieving ``semi-technical'' reform, that is to say, changes in practices that are general (involving more than a handful of cases and, often, more than one agency) but which are not so controversial or politically significant as to likely provoke a general debate, say, in Congress. Thus, it may study, and adopt recommendations concerning better rule-making procedures, or ways to avoid legal technicalities, controversies, and delays through agency use of negotiation, or ways of making judicial review of agency action less technical and easier for ordinary citizens to obtain. While these subjects themselves, and the recommendations about them, often sound technical, in practice they may make it easier for citizens to understand what government agencies are doing to prevent arbitrary government actions that may harm them. The Administrative Conference is unique in that it develops its recommendations by bringing together at least four important groups of people: top-level agency administrators; professional agency staff; private (including ``public interest'') practitioners; and academicians. The Conference will typically commission a study by an academician, say, a law professor, who often has the time to conduct the study thoughtfully, but may lack first-hand practical experience. The professor will spend time with agency staff, which often has otherwise unavailable facts and experience, but may lack the time for general reflection and comparisons with other agencies. The professor's draft will be reviewed and discussed by private practitioners, who bring to it a critically important practical perspective, and by top-level administrators such as agency heads, who can make inter- agency comparisons and may add special public perspectives. The upshot is likely to be a work-product that draws upon many different points of view, that is practically helpful and that commands general acceptance. In seeking to answer the question, ``Who will control the regulators?'' most governments have found it necessary to develop institutions that continuously review, and recommend changes in, technical agency practices. In some countries, ombudsmen, in dealing with citizen complaints, will also recommend changes in practices and procedures. Sometimes, as in France and Canada, expert tribunals will review decisions of other agencies and help them improve their procedures. Sometimes, as in Australia and the United Kingdom, special councils will advise ministries about needed procedural reforms. Our own Nation has developed this rather special approach (drawing together scholars, practitioners, and agency officials) to bringing about reform of a sort that is more general than the investigation of individual complaints yet less dramatic than that normally needed to invoke Congressional processes. Given the Conference's rather low cost (a small central staff, commissioning academic papers, endless amounts of volunteered private time, and two general meetings a year), it would be a pity to weaken or to lose. our federal government's ability to respond effectively, in this general way, to the problems of its citizens. I do not see any other institution readily available to perform this same task. Individual agencies, while trying to reform themselves, sometimes lack the ability to make cross-agency comparisons. The American Bar Association's Administrative Law Section, while a fine institution, cannot call upon the time and resources of agency staff members and agency heads as readily as can the Administrative Conference. Congressional staffs cannot as easily conduct the technical research necessary to develop many of the Conference's more technical proposals. The Office of Management and Budget does not normally concern itself with general procedural proposals. All this is to explain why I believe the Administrative Conference performs a necessary function, which, in light of the cost, is worth maintaining. I recognize that the Conference is not the most well known of government agencies; indeed, it is widely known only within a fairly small (administrative practice oriented) community. But, that, in my view, simply reflects the fact that it does its job, developing consensus about change in fairly technical areas. That is a job that the public, whether or not it knows the name ``Administrative Conference,'' needs to have done. And, for the reasons I have given, I believe the Administrative Conference well suited to do it. I hope these views will help you in your evaluation of the Conference. Yours sincerely, Stephen Breyer.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3564) to amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Administrative Conference of the United States through fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, today the House will debate the RESTORE Act, a bill that ensures the intelligence community has the tools that it needs to conduct surveillance of foreign targets outside of the United States, while at the same time restoring constitutional checks and balances that were omitted from the Bush administration's FISA bill. I do not pretend that this is the perfect bill; few bills meet that standard. However, the President has made many false claims about it. For example, he has claimed that this bill will unnecessarily delay the collection of foreign intelligence information and may cause us to ``go dark'' while chasing leads. That's blatantly false. The RESTORE Act allows for immediate collection in emergency situations without obtaining court approval, so we will never go dark. However, unlike current law, the RESTORE Act puts the FISA Court back in the business of protecting Americans' private communications, just as Congress intended when it created FISA. To have a truly secure America, without compromising American values, we must fight terrorists without jeopardizing the civil liberties that make our Nation great. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to proudly honor the Long Beach Unified School District. While we work to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act to improve access to quality education for all of America's children, the Long Beach Unified School District shines as an example of what we hope to accomplish. This district is California's third largest and is setting an example for districts across the nation to follow, by showing that all students, no matter their background, history, or personal obstacles, can achieve their full potential. It was a finalist for this year's Broad Prize for Urban Education, which is a great honor. That accomplishment is all the more amazing because Long Beach, which won the top prize in 2003, is the only former winner to make it back into the finals. Under the leadership of Superintendent Chris Steinhauser, Long Beach is showing what public schools can do. Superintendent Steinhauser works with parents, teachers, board members, and other community members to create a district that has a ``team feeling.'' The effect is a system that demands results and delivers solutions to the many problems that districts face. The ``Long Beach Way'' puts into practice the best of school reform, whether homegrown or from somewhere else. Innovative programs such as Intervention Counselors, who work with high school students at risk of failing, and Algebra ABCD, which provides additional supports that allow students to achieve at high levels, are just two of the exemplary programs that Long Beach Unified provides for its 90,000 diverse students. I commend the hard working teachers and administrators of Long Beach for their contributions and commitment. It is also important to recognize the support from parents and the community. These combined efforts have been instrumental in ensuring a quality education for all children within the district. I am proud to represent and honor Long Beach Unified School District.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present in the Capitol on Monday, October 15, 2007, and was unable to cast votes on the House floor that evening. However, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 738, condemning the campaign of murder, terror and intimidation aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected Government of Lebanon; ``aye'' on H.R. 2089, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service in New Orleans, LA as the ``Louisiana Armed Services Veterans Post Office''; and ``aye'' on H.R. 20, the Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, the Long Beach Rotary is celebrating 90 years of service to the community on Wednesday, October 10, 2007. In honor of this auspicious occasion, the Long Beach Rotary partnered with the City of Long Beach and the Conservation Corps of Long Beach to plant 90 trees in one day at various parks around the City. The 90th Anniversary Celebration and tree planting at Rotary Centennial Park will be the culmination of this year's endeavors. Rotary Centennial Park, which was created by the Long Beach Rotary in anticipation of its century of service, was created in a former redline right-of-way. The site is now a clean, green, and safe place for youth to play. The park opened to the public on May 21, 2005 and features a planet walk by artist Philip Smith and a stainless steel sundial sculpture by artist Patrick Vogel. The 1.2 acre park is a welcoming place for families to gather in a neighborhood short on park space. The Long Beach Rotary is one of the largest Rotary Clubs in Southern California. Comprised of approximately 375 business and professional leaders that put ``Service above Self,'' the Rotary Club is known the world over. Rotary Club International is comprised of more than 1,200,000 members in 31,000 clubs in 166 countries. The Long Beach Rotary has two remarkable charitable organizations. The Long Beach Rotary Scholarship Foundation and The Long Beach Rotary Charitable Foundation both are 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations. The Long Beach Rotary Scholarship Foundation offers scholarships to Long Beach area students at Long Beach City College and California State University, Long Beach. Currently, the foundation oversees over $6 million. In 2006 the foundation awarded over 250 scholarships totaling nearly $300,000. The Long Beach Rotary Charitable Foundation supports philanthropic endeavors in the Long Beach area. Past projects include Rotary Centennial Park, Camp Enterprise, and Rotary Reads, as well as grants to Long Beach area charities and programs designed for youth and education. Groups such as the Boys and Girls Club, LB Day Nursery, YMCA, Boy Scouts, Long Beach Unified School District, and the Carpenter Center have all benefited from the foundation, which gave over $80,000 in 2005-2006. The Long Beach Rotary has definitely kept to its founding principles of providing humanitarian service, encouraging high ethical standards in all vocations, and helping to build goodwill and peace in the world--one tree, one student, and one park at a time. Happy Anniversary. May the next 90 years bring as much success as the past 90 years.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to honor a colleague, ally and a dear friend, Rick Diegel. On October 1 of this year, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the union to which I proudly belong, said goodbye to long-time political legislative department director Rick Diegel. Rick Diegel, who has been one of the most influential labor voices on Capitol Hill, is a true champion for American workers, not just organized workers, but all workers and their families. I have known and relied on his good counsel for more than 10 years. Under Brother Diegel, the IBEW has become a respected leader on policies that affect American working men and women as they try to provide for their families. Brother Diegel represents the true spirit of public service. A Vietnam veteran, he served in the U.S. Air Force from 1964 to 1968. Before he came to Washington, Brother Diegel was active in politics in his native Texas. And for the record, I don't hold against him the fact that he is from Texas. In the 1970s, he served three terms as mayor pro-tem of the City of Ingleside. As a member of Corpus Christie IBEW Local 278 in 1969, he worked for several contractors in Texas as a journeyman wireman and foreman. So, yes, he has worked with the tools. He was elected business manager in 1977, a post he held until his appointment in 1983 to COPE director at the international office here in D.C. He became director of IBEW's political legislative department in 1998. One of Brother Diegel's greatest achievements has been his success in helping IBEW brothers and sisters get elected to public office, where they work to advance policies that work for working families. And his success has been amazing. More IBEW members have been elected to office than any other organization, labor or otherwise. And he has worked to create an office within the AFL-CIO to promote the election of working-class brothers and sisters to local, State, and Federal office throughout the Nation. I hope that effort continues to bear fruit. The more that we can bring the issues of average working Americans to the forefront, the more we can take back the machinery of government from those who would use it to benefit the narrow interests of the wealthy few. It is through the leadership of Rick Diegel and the efforts of likeminded brothers and sisters across the Nation that we can ensure that the American Government is working for the people, all people. It is with great sadness that I say goodbye to Rick and his wife, Theresa. But I will remember Rick's kindness, his compassion, and his dedication and strive to live up to those ideals in my work on the Hill. Congratulations on your retirement, Rick, and good luck. And as the Mexican saying goes, may you have love, success and now the time to enjoy them.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in speaking out against the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement. This is not a choice between trade and protectionism. It is a choice between fair trade, which can benefit working families across the Nation, and unfair trade, which benefits the wealthiest few at expense of the rest of us. I cannot support, and I urge my colleagues not to support, this Bush- negotiated Peru Free Trade Agreement. It uses the same North American Free Trade Agreement model that has already failed working families here and abroad. I feel like I am at a used car lot and the dealer is trying to sell the American people a beat-up old lemon with a new paint job. Well, we learned with NAFTA that there are no refunds for the American people when they are sold a bad bill of goods. Let's learn from our mistakes and reject this Peru FTA junker. The American people deserve trade that works for working families, and the Peru FTA won't give us that. Vote ``no'' on the Peru FTA.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam speaker, unfortunately, I was unable to be present in the Capitol on Monday, September 17,2007 and was unable to cast votes on the House Floor that evening. However, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3246, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007; ``aye'' on H.R. 1657, a bill to establish a Science and Technology Scholarship Program to award scholarships to recruit and prepare students for careers in the National Weather Service and in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration marine research, atmospheric research, and satellite programs; and ``aye'' on H.R. 3527, a bill to extend for 2 months the authorities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment over the continued lack of progress in Iraq. The sobering content in both the GAO report and the Jones report should finally be a wake-up call that some Members in this House need in order to act to bring our troops home. The findings should make it clear to this tone-deaf Administration that our current path in Iraq is failing. The problem of sectarian violence in Iraq will not be solved by sacrificing more blood of young Americans. After losing more than 3,500 of our brave men and women and spending close to half a trillion dollars, it is time to bring our troops home. To continue to ask our service men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice for a misguided policy is simply immoral.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. When the Federal Government passed SCAAP in 1994, it recognized its responsibility to reimburse States and localities for the arrest, incarceration and transportation costs associated with criminal aliens. Unfortunately, this program has been consistently underfunded. In fact, the President's budget proposal for next year provided no funds for SCAAP whatsoever. Fortunately, the Appropriations Committee and Chairman Mollohan wisely allocated $405 million, $164 million more than the current level. However, this is not even enough. States and localities are still only getting a small fraction of what they are spending. This inadequate funding has had a devastating effect on public safety, especially in California and other border States. At a time when many States and counties face budget shortfalls, every dollar reduced in SCAAP reimbursement means one dollar less to spend on essential public safety services. Following SCAAP funding cuts in 2003, the L.A. County Sheriff's Department was forced to implement a new early release policy for inmates convicted of misdemeanors. From a public safety standpoint, it is far better for criminals to serve their full sentences. Without adequate resources, other programs will have to be scaled back or cut all together. Programs that are in jeopardy could include basic police protection, anti-gang activities, homicide investigations, anti-terrorism activities and rehabilitation programs to reduce recidivism. We introduced this amendment to ensure that police chiefs and sheriffs do not have to choose between keeping children out of gangs and incarcerating criminal aliens. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our chairwoman of the subcommittee, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, for her efforts on behalf of this issue and many others as well. I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to increase funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, the SCAAP program.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I strongly support this bill to fund the departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education. I commend Chairman Obey and his staff on their hard work and dedication in putting together a bill that addresses the most pressing needs of American families, including their health and safety and the education of their children. I especially thank the Chairman for his efforts to increase funding for school counselors. This bill provides over $61 million for school counseling programs, a 77% increase over last year's funding. This historic investment will expand counseling in middle and high schools across the nation. School counseling is a profession often treated as an afterthought in school improvement efforts. But counselors play a critical role, especially in high schools. High school is a transition period into adulthood and the world of work. As students make this transition, many lose their way and drop out. But a good counselor can help a student find the right path. No matter how many credits a student is behind or how many personal challenges she might face, counselors can help students at risk develop a plan, access the right help, and graduate on time. Individual attention and follow-up from a counselor can help turn around students' lives. Additional counselors, particularly at the middle and high school levels, will be instrumental in helping schools improve their graduation rates and achieve other goals of No Child Left Behind. Again, I thank the gentleman for his commitment to the education of our young people, and I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, July 12, 2007, the House of Representatives voted on H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007. I was present for the series of Roll Call Votes 625 through 629. However my ``AYE'' vote on final passage of H.R. 1851 (Roll Call Vote No. 629) was not recorded. Had the electronic voting tabulator recorded my vote, the record would have demonstrated an aye vote on final passage of H.R. 1851 (Roll Call Vote No. 629).

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the College Cost Reduction Act. Students from working families, especially those who are the first in their families to attend college, face many obstacles. For example, there is no one at home to say the SATs aren't that difficult or that tricky; or that financial aid forms aren't going to be a nightmare to fill out; or that taking out a student loan isn't as scary as it might seem. The high cost of college is, of course, the biggest obstacle. In recent years, rising college tuitions have far outstripped inflation, and the previous congressional majority failed to ensure that Pell Grants kept up. That's why I am proud to support this bill. It provides the single largest investment in higher education since the GI Bill at no new cost to taxpayers. My mother and father, both immigrants who arrived in the U.S. with little money, and not knowing English, raised seven children. With a lot of hard work and sacrifice, all of us attended college and two even made it into Congress. What I really like about this bill is that it ensures that the doors that were open to my brothers and sisters and me will stay open for the young people of today and generations to come. I urge support for this inportant bill.

Ms. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 505, recognizing the contributions of the recreational boating community and the boating industry to the prosperity of the United States. This resolution, introduced by my colleague Ron Klein, is an important way to highlight the vital role that the boating industry plays in the U.S. economy: it generates more than $39,000,000,000 annually as it provides 380,000 American jobs. However, I also rise to draw the House's attention to the serious problem of propeller injuries associated with recreational boating. A typical three blade propeller running at 3,200 rpm can inflict 9,600 impacts on the human body in just one minute, and a 13-inch blade can travel from head to toe on a person of average height in less than one tenth of a second. Given the speed at which these propellers turn, it is no surprise that propeller injuries frequently result in dismemberment and death. According to the United States Coast Guard Annual Boating Statistics Reports, there were 239 accidents involving propellers in 2005 alone. Thirty-one of these injuries were fatal, and the rest were typically very severe. Sadly, the number of propeller accidents may even be larger than the report describes. The Coast Guard acknowledges that many boating accidents go unreported, either because victims are unaware of regulations requiring them to report or because the trauma of an accident leaves them little time to think about reporting. I commend the efforts of the brave men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard, but I recognize that they lack the resources or manpower to maintain accurate records of recreational boating accidents. A 1992 study carried out by Johns Hopkins University found that, compared to the average one hundred propeller-related accidents reported by the Coast Guard; each year between 1976 and 1990, the actual number may have been closer to 2,000 to 3,000 per year. As we rise to honor the contributions of the recreational boating community, we must also commit to doing more to protect the members of that community. We must pay special attention to children and young adults, the boating community's most vulnerable members, who sustain 40 percent of all propeller injuries. When considering how we might reduce propeller injuries, one potential area of improvement lies in the make-up of the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC), which consults with the U.S. Coast Guard in setting federal regulations. Ensuring that a sufficient portion of the NBSAC membership has no direct or indirect financial ties to the boating industry would be a step toward ensuring the airing of a diversity of views and improving the efficacy of the consultations and resulting federal regulations. I invite my colleagues to take this opportunity to learn more about propeller injuries and to consider how we might work together to minimize them while continuing to support this vital industry.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, recent elections have been marred by allegations of deceptive practices that are frequently centered in neighborhoods that have a large minority or low- income population. These communities are littered with inaccurate election information in a deliberate effort to prevent voters from casting their ballots on Election Day. When most people think of violations of the Voting Rights Act they envision Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Freedom Riders. However, many don't realize that voter suppression still occurs today. One example of recent voter suppression hits close to home. During the 2006 election, constituents of my sister, Loretta, were targeted. Letters were sent to individuals with Spanish surnames, written in Spanish, informing them that immigrants voting in a federal election were committing a crime ``that could result in incarceration and possible deportation...'' These letters were false. Immigrants who have become naturalized citizens have as much a right to vote as citizens who are born here. In fact, many immigrants have told me that one of the great privileges that accompanies their naturalization is the right to vote in free elections. This letter disseminated false information and ignited fear in the Hispanic community. The clear intention was to suppress the Hispanic vote. This is just one example--and sadly it is not an isolated incident. These types of practices still occur today, all over the country. That is why I rise in full support of H.R. 1281, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 and applaud my colleagues for tackling this critical issue. H.R. 1281 strengthens the prohibitions on and punishments for deceptive practices that aim to keep voters away from the polls. It also requires that the Justice Department prevent and end misinformation campaigns that mislead voters and prevent them from voting. The right to vote is one of the most cherished rights granted to U.S. citizens. I am proud to support this bill that ensures that those who attempt to infringe on that right are stopped and punished.

Ms. LINDA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my personal heroes, my mother, Maria Sanchez, on her retirement yesterday after 30 years teaching in the classroom. I can honestly and proudly say that my mother is a true American success story. An immigrant, she came to this country without knowing English, without much money in her pocket, and without a job waiting for her. Her life's been hard, and we kids didn't make it any easier. But she and my father taught us to work hard, persevere, and play by the rules. My mother raised seven children and sent them all to college. She is the only mother in U.S. history to send two daughters to Congress. And she did this while going to night school to get her A.A., then her B.A., then a teaching credential and, ultimately, a master's degree. She cleaned houses in her ``spare time,'' and found creative ways to make ends meet for a family of nine. As an English/Spanish dual-immersion teacher, she helped children better express themselves and communicate with each other--shaping our community one student at a time. Her teaching career may be ending, but she'll keep leading and touching lives. Mom, here's to you!

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2771, the legislative branch appropriations bill. I want to thank Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member Wamp, and the appropriations staff for their hard work in crafting this fiscally responsible bill. The bill on the floor today is ``lean and mean,'' providing just the resources that we need to serve the people in an honest, transparent manner. I strongly believe that as our Nation's elected leaders, we have a responsibility here in the people's House to lead the Nation in creating an environmentally friendly workplace. This is why I crafted two amendments for today's bill that would have directed the Architect of the Capitol to take small but significant steps toward ``greening'' the Capitol complex. I am pleased that Subcommittee Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz shares my support for the Speaker's Greening of the Capitol Initiative. Since she has enthusiastically agreed to consider them during conference, I won't be offering them today. But I would like to draw the House's attention to these two initiatives because they demonstrate how small investments can reap large rewards. Both initiatives were drawn from the Greening of the Capital report recently completed by the Architect of the Capitol, and both are endorsed by the American Society of Landscape Architects. The first initiative would study the feasibility of constructing a ``green roof'' on the Ford House Office Building. A green roof is a rooftop that is carefully planted with vegetation. It can be anything from a simple plot of grass to a park-like setting. Green roofs have proved to be tremendous economic and environmental benefits. They are great insulators, reducing heating and cooling costs often by as much as 25 percent. And they save on maintenance costs as well since they are more protective than traditional roofs. Green roofs cool the surrounding neighborhood by reducing the amount of heat that is reflected back into the surrounding atmosphere, the so-called urban heat island effect. Vegetation on green roofs celebrates our natural heritage and also absorbs rainwater, reducing contaminated runoff. Even with all these benefits, green roofs have not caught on. They are not very popular yet in the United States. And as Members of Congress, we now have the opportunity to lead by example. A successful demonstration of the economic benefits of green roofs right here in the Capitol Complex can help promote green roofs across the Nation. My second proposal concerns the planting of more trees around parking lots in the Capitol Complex. My colleagues who closely follow environmental issues already know that trees have a remarkable ability to reduce the air temperature in our urban areas. Trees remove carbon from our atmosphere, shade our buildings and cars, and even reduce asthma by filtering out air pollutants. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, this proposal would even save the taxpayers money. Without action this year, many of the Speaker's Greening of the Capitol Initiatives, including the two I have just discussed, won't get funding until 2009 or 2010. These proposals would get us started modestly but promptly and don't require additional funds. I look forward to working with Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz to incorporate these projects into the legislative branch's plans for 2008.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, this week, we celebrate the 35th anniversary of the signing of title IX into law. Title IX was enacted on June 23, 1972, and it marked a major milestone for American women. Title IX is a deceptively simple piece of legislation, requiring that ``no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' Who knew that one unpretentious sentence could accomplish so much? But title IX has provided the framework for an America that finally guaranteed a truly equal education for men and women. The positive effects of this legislation are evident. Women now have the opportunity to participate in any sport they desire. Before title IX, two-time Olympic gold medalist Donna de Varona was effectively forced to retire from amateur swimming at the age of 17 because no American colleges were offering women scholarships in swimming or most other competitive sports. But today, just a generation later, NCAA women's sports and professional female sports leagues such as the WNBA are thriving and giving women everywhere chances to be superstars that they've never had before. But I think the most telling effect of title IX is the fact that today, more women than men are attending college. Equal education for women was rare before 1972, when many law and medical schools allowed a maximum of 15 women in per year, and when women were often shut out of classes such as criminal justice and auto mechanics. Today, well over half of all undergraduate college students are women--and women outnumber men in graduate school enrollment, including high-paying, high-powered professional programs like law. Title IX was all about opportunities. Title IX gave women new chances that they had never had before, and today, it is easy to see that women around the country are taking full advantage of them. While you might be able to name only a few famous women making news at the turn of the 20th century, it wouldn't take you more than a minute to name dozens-- maybe even hundreds--of female news makers at the turn of the 21st century. It's amazing how many outstanding women have carved out careers in journalism, science, law, politics, sports, and the arts-- and disheartening to imagine the amazing women of the past who were never given the chance. I am excited to see what today's little girls will do with the opportunities title IX will provide to them.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Sure. About 2 weeks ago I returned from Colombia, and it was my second visit in just 7 months. Colombia is one of the countries that President Bush negotiated a free trade agreement with without really seeking the advice of those Members of Congress who have been vocal opponents to the NAFTA trade model which he based this agreement on. And I have to say at the outset, Colombia is a beautiful country. It's people are a warm people. We were well received there. And so I want to be very clear that I am for expanding trade with countries around the world, but in a way that is fair and balanced to both our workers here in the United States and also the workers in the countries that we seek to engage in trade with. Just for the record, Colombia has a horrible record on human rights and labor rights violations. In Colombia, more trade labor unionists were killed there last year than in all the countries of the world combined. So it has an abysmal record with respect to violence towards people who try to organize workers to help lift them out of poverty. And nobody really wants to talk about that dirty little secret of Colombia's, because they want to talk about how much better things are in the first 6 months of this year. The statistics do show that there is an improvement. I will grant them that, and I applaud that. But it still means that about 99 percent of the murders that happened last year have gone unsolved, and nobody has been brought to justice for that. And the reason why trade labor unionists are targeted is because they speak out on behalf of people who are living in poverty, who are earning wages that don't allow them to support themselves or a family. They're working in dangerous working conditions. And I have to say, on the trip that I just most recently returned from, we really weren't given a lot of time to go and actually talk to the workers themselves about their experience. We were basically told by the government that things are getting better and things were improving. Interestingly enough, the first trip that I took to Colombia last November, I met with labor organizations, civil rights groups and advocates, and I met with the workers themselves who told me, ``don't be fooled by the rosy picture that our government has painted. It's very dangerous here in Colombia to speak up if you are working in dangerous working conditions. It's very dangerous in Colombia to speak up if you'd like to see your wages rise so that you can support yourself.'' And, in fact, there is a very big informal labor sector in Colombia which isn't even subject to basic standards like a minimum wage. There's no minimum wage for these folks. There are no contributions made on behalf of them for the hours that they work into any kind of Social Security or pension system. And there are no workplace safety standards. A lot of these workers work in some of the biggest industries that they're pushing the free trade agreement because they say that they need to expand these industries, one of which being the textile industry, which is notorious for their workers that are part of the informal sector that don't have contracts, that don't have any basic rights. And basically, in Colombia, when I bring up the point that there's this promise made to lift all these people out of poverty, but when they have to compete against U.S. goods, some of which will be subsidized, like many of our agricultural products, who is going to suffer the most? Who's going to bear the cost? Because they tell me, oh, yes, there are some transitional costs associated with moving towards this new free trade agreement, but they're transitional costs; they won't be forever, and not everybody's going to be affected. But let me tell you who will be affected by those transitional costs: rural, poor, indigenous people and largely women who are heads of households. They are the ones that will suffer the most, not to mention American workers who will have to compete in industry with Colombia, where they have no minimum wage, no minimum work day, so they can work workers 16 hours a day if they want, and no safe working conditions. And there's just, quite frankly, no way that American workers, who demand a certain level of respect and dignity at the workplace, are going to be able to compete in industries where those are the conditions that Colombian workers are working in. Knowing all of this, did President Bush negotiate with Colombia a free trade agreement that would try to address those very basic labor standards? No. He based the Colombian free trade on the NAFTA model. They didn't even put in basic rights that are respected around the world as international standards for human and labor rights. He just said, hey, the marketplace is going to take care of it. We're going to move forward. This is the trade agreement, and Congress, because of Fast Track authority, you can't change it; you can't make it better; you can't amend it. It's either yes or no; you vote in favor of this. And if that's the choice that I'm given, my vote is no because it doesn't even try to address the problem with the labor standards and the violence in Colombia. I say, hey, I'm willing to give Colombia the benefit of the doubt. If you can show to me over a certain length of time, minimum of 2 years, that, yeah, you've gone after these people that have targeted labor unionists, and yeah, you've moved people out of the informal sector into the formal sector where people have basic standards, I'm willing to give Colombia an opportunity. But I'm not willing to enter into a trade agreement with them based on empty promises of how much better things are going to be. All we heard when we were there, 90 percent of what we heard was how much better Colombia was at human rights and how much better they were at trying to find those responsible for killing trade labor unionists. But while we were there, one of the biggest scandals that has hit Colombia in recent months is the scandal of paramilitary groups that are linked to elected members of their congress, elected governors, some of whom were hand picked, and cabinet members, some of whom were handpicked by President Uribe himself. And these paramilitary groups have been responsible for killing people, for massacres of villages of people. And currently, 14 elected officials sit in jail because they've been tied to these paramilitary groups. And there are as many as two dozen more that are under investigation. But we're supposed to trust President Uribe that they're going to bring these people to justice and that labor rights and human rights are going to be better in Colombia. I say, show me, and then we'll sit down and negotiate. But I thought it might be interesting to just inform you guys a little bit about what the flavor of that trip was. And like I said, I think the Colombian people are wonderful people. I think we need to open up new markets. But we need to do it in a way that's fair and balanced for our workers here, so we don't continue to hemorrhage manufacturing jobs, and for the workers in these countries, which corporations will exploit. And with that, I will yield back to Mr. Michaud.