Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, protecting and preserving our environment is one of the most important jobs I have, but I don't think we as a Congress are doing very well at it.

The conference report before us today includes funding for hundreds of important and beneficial programs and projects. Unfortunately, it also contains provisions that will weaken several significant land and water protections.

When the House passed the Interior Appropriations Act in June, we included a pro-environmental provision that would block new roadbuilding in the Tongass National Forest. The amendment passed because environmentalists came together with fiscal conservatives to end a long-standing subsidy for the logging industry while protecting the rainforest. Doing so just made sense. I am disappointed that this important provision is absent from the conference report before us today.

What is included, however, is language that reduces judicial review on Tongass timber sales by placing a 30-day statute of limitations on challenging those sales in court, making it much more difficult for the public to participate in the process.

In addition, the conference report waives National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of nearly 1,000 expiring Federal-lands grazing permits, which will further discourage agencies from complying with environmental laws and could lead to continued degradation of sensitive public lands.

While I intend to support this legislation, I want to reiterate my disappointment that this Congress has missed another opportunity to craft policy that is both fiscally and environmentally responsible. Congress can and must do a better job protecting our environment. We simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5364) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 5505 Stevens Way in San Diego, California, as the ``Earl B. Gilliam/Imperial Avenue Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would establish the Earl B. Gilliam/ Imperial Avenue Post Office Building. I want to salute the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who earned cosponsorship of all 52 of his home State colleagues to comply with a longstanding Committee on Government Reform policy. On behalf of the committee members, I congratulate him on that accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Earl Gilliam was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by President Carter in 1980 and became a senior judge 13 years later in 1993. Prior to joining the Federal bench, Judge Gilliam served as a municipal court judge in San Diego from 1963 to 1975 and as a superior court judge from 1975 to 1980. Judge Gilliam had a long and distinguished judicial record as a prosecutor, private practicing lawyer, and then as a State and Federal judge for over 30 years.

Away from the bench, he mentored many young adults and lawyers. He also taught courses and directed the trial practice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego. He was clearly a loved and respected member of his community. Judge Gilliam passed away on January 28, 2001.

I thank the gentleman from California for this bill that commemorates Judge Gilliam's commitment to justice in both our State and Federal courts. Hopefully this post office will be a meaningful tribute to Judge Earl Gilliam's life and career, to his friends, family and the entire San Diego area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for such extraordinary work in moving this bill so quickly and just say that I particularly appreciate that we are honoring someone, frankly, who is no longer living who has been so distinguished. We are not honoring someone who is still alive today, but someone who earned this recognition in life and is now being recognized after his death. I would encourage the House to support the passage of H.R. 5364. I would also thank my colleague from Chicago for his work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I have been in public life 30 years, and I was sitting in my office thinking, I am not sure I want to participate in this debate because I am seeing people on both sides of the aisle for whom I have such tremendous respect wrestling with this issue; but it is not a good feeling on the House floor, and I cannot describe why.

I was hoping that when we were going to debate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that we would have an effort from day one to include both sides of the aisle. I felt from that process we would have a bill that we would be proud of. It did not seem to work out that way. For me, I have chaired the National Security subcommittee now for 6 years. When I took it over in 1998, we began in 1999, we rewrote the rules so that we would look at terrorism at home and abroad. What we did is we had 19 hearings before September 11, and we had three commissions that came before us and all three commissions, the Bremer Commission, the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Gilmore Commission, they all said the same thing: we have a serious terrorist threat; we need to have an assessment of that threat; we need to have a strategy to deal with it and we need to reorganize our government so that we can implement the strategy. And we did not really pay attention to it. We had committees of cognizance that should have been.

Then we had this horrible tragedy and we responded. I think we responded in the right way. We did not establish the 9/11 Commission right away. What we did is we just said, Republicans and Democrats, what do we do about it? While there has been criticism of the PATRIOT Act, I think it was vital. We reorganized our government and we did it, I think, ultimately in a bipartisan way. I think we have made our country safer.

And then, and it made so much sense, what we did is we said, let's find out what the heck happened. It was very clear. We let down the American people. I have many constituents who lost loved ones, and I think every day how sorry I am for our failure in this Chamber. I have constituents who spoke with their loved ones for an hour trying to help them get out of a building. We all know those tragedies. But in the end we had this commission, and this commission was partisan at first and then when they started to write what happened and they looked and they described what happened on that day, five Republicans and five Democrats became one. That is what I was hoping would happen on the floor tonight, and it is not happening. But I think it will.

I am going to vote for the Menendez amendment because I think it is truer to the commission's objectives. If it fails, I am going to be voting to pass out H.R. 10 because I believe that eventually Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber are going to find common ground like the Senate found, and I believe the President is going to have a bill to sign, and I think we are ultimately going to be proud of the product.

But I support the gentleman's amendment. I appreciate that he has brought it out. I appreciate that it was made in order because it is truly more reflective of what the commission suggested. If there are problems with one aspect of it, like releasing the top line, those are things that we clearly can deal with in conference. But the way we set this debate, a major substitute, just an hour, yes, it is going to be hard to come to a conclusion that any of us are satisfied with.

The commission did their work so well. I am so proud of them. I think their work was sacred, and I think that we deserve and they deserve to have this legislation moved forward.

Mr. Speaker, on October 4, 2004, I had a meeting in my district and, therefore, missed three recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Vote No. 487, ``aye'' on rollcall Vote No. 488, and ``aye'' on rollcall Vote No. 489.

Madam Speaker, I want to express support for two bills the House is considering this week: H.R. 2929, the Safeguard Against Privacy Invasions Act, and H.R. 4661, the Internet Spyware I-SPY Prevention Act. I strongly support these pieces of legislation and I am pleased they incorporate changes similar to legislation Congressman Jay Inslee and I introduced, H.R. 4255, the Computer Software Privacy and Control Act.

Millions of computers have been infected with spyware, software that is deceptively installed on their computers to collect their personal information, record their keystrokes, change their browser homepage, or display unwanted advertising.

H.R. 2929 would require notice and consent from the computer user before software is able to collect personal information and transmits it to a third party, monitor Internet usage, such as websites visited, modify computer settings or deliver advertisements. This provision accomplishes a main goal of the Computer Software Privacy and Control Act.

H.R. 4661 strengthens criminal provisions in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Providing necessary criminal penalties for spyware will help prevent this deceptive activity and protect the privacy of consumers. Our legislation includes provisions similar to this as well.

I am glad H.R. 2929 and H.R. 4661 require notice and consent and strengthen criminal provisions, and I urge my colleagues to support these important pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on September 28, inclement weather delayed the train I was riding back to Washington and, therefore, I missed three recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote number 473, ``yes'' on recorded vote 474, and ``yes'' on recorded vote 475.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Today, we are debating a constitutional amendment drafted not to protect my marriage or my family, I see no reasonable way to argue it would, but rather to explicitly deny a portion of our society the right to marry and the benefits that accompany that kind of partnership.

I do not advocate the legalization of gay marriage, but our constitution is simply not the proper place to set this kind of social policy. I believed back in 1996, when I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, and I still believe today, the decision about whether to recognize gay marriage should be left to the States.

I cannot help but wonder why are we doing this. What are we so afraid of? Gay men and women pass through our lives every day. They are wonderful teachers and leaders and role models who happen to be gay. And sometimes we do not even know they are gay.

I would not be a Member of Congress today if it were not for an extraordinary teacher I had in high school, 40 years ago. I learned years later he was gay and that he had commuted from Connecticut to Washington, D.C., every weekend in part to protect his privacy and his job.

When I went to college, my understanding of gay people was impacted again by my wife's best friend. One day she told us she too had found the love of her life. We were eager to meet the boyfriend she was so madly in love with, but we soon learned her love was not a ``he'' but a ``she.'' Once we got over our surprise and our way of thinking about relationships, we were able to sincerely rejoice in the joy they brought each other because we knew what a dear and good person our friend is.

My perception of gay people evolved further during my first campaign for Congress, when I worked with a magnificent young man named Carl Brown. He became my friend, and he gave me another gay face to know. Carl has since passed away, but I remember him as a person of exceptional dignity and grace.

My teacher, my wife's best friend, and Carl helped me understand their lives and I think helped make me a better person in the process.

The Constitution of the United States, which established our government, grants us free speech, and gives all citizens the right to vote, should not be dishonored by this effort to write into the Constitution discrimination.

I am sensitive to some of my colleagues' concerns about potential biblical and social implications of legalizing same-sex marriage, but I oppose this proposed amendment because I believe the Constitution is not the proper instrument to set or reject such policy. That debate should happen in our State legislatures.

Mr. Chairman, I voted against H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act.

The phrase ``under God'' belongs in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the words ``In God We Trust'' belong on our currency. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a serious error in Newdow v. U.S. Congress when they declared our Pledge unconstitutional.

When the phrase ``under God'' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, I was in elementary school and remember feeling the phrase belonged there. It appropriately reflects the fact that a belief in God motivated the founding and development of our great Nation.

The Declaration of Independence states, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . .'' Our forefathers understood it was not they, but He, who had bestowed upon all of us those most cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness upon which our model of government is based.

At Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln acknowledged we were a Nation under God and, during his Second Inaugural Address, he mentioned our Creator 13 times.

Those historic speeches, the Pledge of Allegiance, our currency and the Declaration of Independence are not prayers or parts of a religious service. They are a statement of our commitment as citizens to our great Nation and the role God plays in it.

Our founders envisioned a government that would allow, not discourage or punish, the free exercise of religion and we are living their dream.

I voted against the Pledge Protection Act because I have faith in our Constitution and do not believe we should preclude judges from hearing issues of social relevance, simply because we may disagree with their ultimate decisions.

The tactic of restricting courts' jurisdiction is spiraling out of control. In July, I voted against a bill that would block the courts from hearing Constitutional challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and again today we considered legislation to tie the courts' hands. What's next?

While the courts may, from time to time, produce a ruling we question, the principle of judicial review is essential to maintaining the integrity of our system of checks and balances and I fear the path we appear to be on. We are a Nation under God, and in Him we trust.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Congressman Marty Meehan and Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold to introduce the 527 Reform Act, which will close an election law loophole created by the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) failure to enforce the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

This failure on the part of the Commission is a long-standing tradition underscored by federal judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's September 18 decision in Shays v. FEC, which struck down 15 poorly- drafted rules promulgated by the FEC that undermined, rather than enforced, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Our legislation will require 527 groups to register as political committees with the FEC--as they should have been doing all along. It also establishes new, effective allocation rules to ensure groups primarily focused on impacting federal races are regulated accordingly.

For too long, the FEC has looked the other way as 527 groups have channeled soft money into federal elections, clearly violating the letter and the spirit of the campaign finance law.

The 527 Reform Act does the job the FEC has failed to do--it brings 527 groups under the same set of rules as every other political committee.

In doing so, it ensures all groups acting primarily to influence federal elections play by the rules Congress and the Supreme Court intended, rather then allowing some to exist in a parallel world of election law anarchy.

The bottom line is, groups that are in the business of influencing federal elections should be regulated by federal election law, and, by overriding the FEC's long-standing misinterpretation of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act, that is exactly what this legislation will accomplish.

Mr. Chairman, I have 11 points of order, and I will try to go through them quickly.

I rise for a point of order against section 407. This provision violates clause 2(b) of the House rule XXI. I could speak longer, but I can end here.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 408. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 409. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 410. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 509. This

provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 510. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 511. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 628. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 637. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 640. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, finally, and I do appreciate the indulgence of the House and the chairman of the subcommittee, I make a point of order against section 646. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. That is section 646.

Mr. Chairman, I support the fiscal year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill, but I would like to state my opposition to the Weldon refusal clause provision.

The Weldon provision would exempt health care companies from any federal, state or local government law that ensures women have access to reproductive health services, including information about abortion.

If passed, this provision would have many negative effects.

It would override federal Title X guidelines that ensure women receive full medical information. A fundamental principle of Title X, the national family planning program, ensures pregnant women who request information about all their medical options, including abortion, be given that information, including a referral upon patient request.

I am also concerned this bill does not include an increase in funding for Title X. Each year approximately 4.5 million low-income women and men receive basic health care through 4,600 clinics nation wide that receive Title X funds. This program reduces unintended pregnancies and makes abortion less necessary. Had funding for Title X kept pace with inflation since 1980, with no additional increases, it would be funded today at double its current budget.

While Title X is receiving flat funding from last year, H.R. 5006 gives abstinence-only programs an increase of $35 million. Unlike Title X, abstinence-only programs do not provide clinical health services.

Additionally, research shows comprehensive sex-education programs, which teach both abstinence and contraception, are the most effective. There is no federal program that earmarks dollars for comprehensive sex education.

I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy subject to Roe v. Wade.

Abortion is a very personal decision. While a woman's doctor, clergy, friends, family and public officials may have an opinion, the ultimate decision rests solely with her. It is vital for every woman to have access to as much information as she needs in order to make this decision.

While I support the bill, I oppose these provisions and amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I support the fiscal year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill, but I would like to state my concern about the funding cuts for two important programs, the Community Service Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant.

The Community Service Block Grant funds the anti-poverty Community Action Agencies and family self-sufficiency efforts of a nationwide network of 1,100 community agencies. These organizations create, coordinate and deliver comprehensive programs and services to those living in poverty.

The Community Service Block Grant is a unique and essential resource. It provides the necessary tools for employment and training, education, housing, senior services, energy assistance, community development, health, nutrition, Head Start and other programs to help families escape and remain out of poverty.

Unfortunately, funding for this vital program has decreased since it was funded at $650 million in 2002. This Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill would fund the Community Service Block Grant at $627.5 million. I encourage my colleagues to support restoring this program's funding in conference.

Funding for the Social Services Block Grant has also declined over the past few years.

Created in 1981, the Social Services Block Grant contributes federal funds to states for providing social services.

States have broad discretion over the funds, which are directed at increasing self-sufficiency, preventing or remedying neglect and abuse of children and adults and preserving families. The funds are used both by local governments and nonprofit organizations to meet the specific and unique needs of the local population.

In the 1996 welfare reform law, states agreed to a reduction of the Social Services Block Grant authorization from its FY 95 high of $2.8 billion to $2.38 billion through FY 03. In exchange, Congress allowed each state to transfer up to 10 percent of its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds into Social Services Block Grants.

In 1998, the maximum funding amount for the Social Services Block Grant was further reduced to $1.7 billion, effective in FY 01. Today's legislation appropriates the same amount, $1.7 billion, for FY 05.

I believe it is imperative to restore funding to the Social Services Block Grant because it is essential we preserve and strengthen the critical safety net it provides. With that being said, I appreciate Chairman Regula's good work with limited resources and support passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the wonderful work of Purdue Pharma, L.P. and the Weekly Reader to educate America's youth on the dangers of prescription drug abuse.

Purdue has partnered with Lifetime Learning Systems, publisher of Weekly Reader, to distribute drug abuse awareness materials, entitled ``Painfully Obvious,'' in selected schools and classrooms throughout the country. Nearly 13,000 middle schools will receive these materials, which include a student discussion guide and a teacher's instructional guide, for distribution to more than 4 million fifth- to eighth- graders. The distribution will cover students throughout the Northeast, South and Midwest.

An estimated 9 million people aged 12 and older used prescription drugs for non-medical reasons in 1999, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Also, according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the sharpest increases in new abusers of prescription drugs occur in 12-25 year olds. NIDA's 2003 Monitoring the Future survey, conducted amongst 8th, 10th and 12th grade high schoolers nationwide, found that Vicodin, a prescription drug, was the second most frequently reported drug used among 12th graders in high school, after marijuana. The same survey also found that 10.5 percent of 12th graders surveyed reported using Vicodin for non-medical reasons and 4.5 percent of 12th graders surveyed reported using OxyContin without a prescription. These statistics indicate a growing problem amongst the nation's teens. Individuals may also visit www.painfullyobvious.com to learn more about this important issue.

A critical first step in the prevention of prescription drug abuse by young people is to equip them with knowledge and information about its potentially devastating effects. America's youth will be in a better position to make the right choices because of this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 3313, legislation which would prevent our courts from ruling on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I value our justice system and place great faith in the ability of our courts to ensure the laws we pass are constitutional. The bottom line is, taking the federal courts out of the process by specific legislation is not an appropriate remedy for any issue.

I am sensitive to my colleagues and constituents who oppose gay marriage. But we cannot deny Americans the constitutional rights to which they are entitled and ignore two centuries of judicial precedent, in order to address an issue that should be decided by the states.

I strongly oppose H.R. 3313 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, on June 5, 2004, our nation lost a distinguished statesman, a world leader and a fine President in Ronald Reagan. President Reagan was a man of his word, and his principles were unquestionable. He had extraordinary faith in the promise of America and the belief that the best of America is yet to come.

On July 2, 2004, Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, Under-Secretary- General of the United Nations, paid homage to Mr. Reagan at Kyung Hee University in Seoul, Korea. I submit the text of Mr. Reed's address to be entered into the Record.

Statement of Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed at the Graduate School for

Pan Pacific International Studies of Kyung Hee University, Seoul,

Republic of Korea

An event in the United States eclipsed matters in the media

recently, and that was the passing of President Ronald

Reagan.

I was privileged to have been appointed to three posts by

President Reagan. First as Ambassador to the Kingdom of

Morocco, then as Deputy Permanent Representative to the

United Nations as Ambassador to the Economic and Social

Council and lastly as the Under-Secretary-General for

Political and General Assembly Affairs of the United Nations.

Several years ago I was privileged to accept on behalf of

President Reagan, here at Kyung Hee University, the Great

World Peace Award. It was an honor and a privilege.

Ronald Wilson Reagan--father, husband, actor and dedicated

public servant--restored the pride, optimism and strength of

the United States and earned deep respect and affection of

his fellow citizens. When he passed away, we witnessed an

outpouring of solemnity, sorrow and reflection in our

country. In the view of many people, President Reagan remains

the most significant United States President since Franklin

Delano Roosevelt. He was a man who changed the course of

American politics, culture and world history. He was right on

the most important questions of his era: the role of

government and the defeat of the Soviet Union. The structure

of the American economy was altered profoundly by his term.

Top tax rates have never returned to their previously

punitive levels. America's current standing in world

affairs is also a direct result of President Reagan's

calling the Soviet Union's bluff in the 1980s and

restoring US military power and self-confidence. This was

not evident at the time. Everything President Reagan did

was challenged. He was a polarizing figure--more disdained

in Europe than President George W. Bush is today. For at

least half his presidency he was unpopular at home as

well, as most effective Presidents are.

With his Californian optimism, President Reagan transformed

conservatism into a progressive force, into a political

philosophy that took risks and changed things. President

Reagan took conservatism into a reformist, unapologetic

governing philosophy. That achievement endures in the United

States.

I feel blessed to have been appointed to posts in public

service by President Reagan. He inspired; he amused; he gave

conviction a sunny disposition. Because of him, millions live

in freedom where they once labored under tyranny. Because of

Ronald Wilson Reagan, America was recharged and freedom

reborn. In life it is rare to live under a political leader

who evokes love as well as respect.

President Reagan's extraordinary political gifts carried

him through--his talents as a communicator, his intuitive

understanding of the average American, his unfailing

geniality even after being hit by an assassin's bullet, his

ability to build and sustain friendships across partisan

lines. Those gifts--and his conviction that words counted for

far more in politics that mere deeds--enabled him to convince

large majorities that as long as he was in charge, it would

remain ``Morning in America''. I believe the cool eye of

history will place Ronald Reagan in the list of the great

Presidents.

President Reagan believed that America was not just a place

in the world, but the hope of the world. He came to office

with great hopes for America. He was optimistic that a strong

America could advance peace, and he acted to build the

strength that this mission required. He was optimistic that

liberty would thrive wherever it was planted, and he acted to

defend liberty wherever it was threatened. And Ronald Reagan

believed in the power of truth in the conduct of world

affairs. When he saw evil camped across the horizon, he

called that evil by its name. Who can ever forget President

Reagan in Berlin calling ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this

wall''?

Ronald Wilson Reagan belongs to the ages; a great American

story has closed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4850, the D.C. Appropriations Bill.

I am particularly pleased the legislation included $14 million for school vouchers because I believe too many children in our Nation's Capital are not getting the education they need and deserve.

The D.C. School Choice Incentive Act provides scholarships of up to $7,500 to students in D.C. schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. It targets resources to students and families lacking the financial resources to take advantage of available educational options.

The scholarships cover costs of tuition, fees, and transportation expenses.

There is little doubt that D.C. public schools are in serious crisis, but it is not a crisis caused by a lack of resources. In fact, D.C. public schools spend more per pupil than surrounding school districts in Virginia and Maryland.

Clearly, alternatives to increased funding should be tested.

I oppose directly spending Federal tax dollars on private schools. But just as I support providing Pell grants to college students for use at the university of their choice, public or private, including religious schools, I also support school choice programs that provide parents with similar choices for their elementary and secondary school children.

Opponents of school choice argue such a proposal could drain public schools of money and students. These scholarships are assistance to the students, not the schools. And because all funding for the scholarship program comes from new funds, no public, private or charter school will be drained of its funding. They will just have fewer students to educate.

By promoting a competitive model, all schools are forced to improve academically, provide better quality services, and create an administrative structure that operates efficiently.

For these reasons I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.