Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the nation's financial future should be serious business. Unfortunately, House Republicans are not treating it that way. It's bad enough that too many of them are willing to court financial disaster by hijacking the process of raising the debt ceiling. Today's vote is perhaps the clearest illustration of their cavalier approach.

The vote on the so-called Cut, Cap, and Balance bill comes without legislative work in any substantive committee. As a member of both the Budget and Ways and Means Committees, I would have welcomed hearings and work sessions which would have shown this bill to be a travesty. Not a single president in 50 years proposed any budget that would have met their requirements that spending be limited to 18 percent of GDP. Ronald Reagan never proposed a budget under 21 percent.

House Republicans would mandate a balanced budget every year, whether we were at war or dealing with the fallout of a tragic natural disaster or an economic meltdown. Cuts to Medicare, the social safety net and student loans would still be possible with a single majority vote, and yet eliminating tax breaks for the favored and the wealthiest individuals or corporations would require a two-thirds supermajority. Since House Republicans want to continue to protect some areas of spending and give more tax breaks to people who don't need them, this means even more draconian cuts to the programs that people depend on the most.

The House Republican approach is not about controlling the national debt. The Republican budget still increases the debt ceiling almost $9 trillion. Yet their proposal would require three-fifths supermajority to raise the debt ceiling in the future. This bizarre legislation would freeze into Federal law and the Constitution the same dysfunctional mechanics which made the State of California the fiscal basket case that it is today.

Fortunately, this wacky and irresponsible measure will not be enacted by this Congress; even if Congress were to pass it, the President would veto it. The legislation does put the spotlight on the risks to the country's financial future if voters reward this behavior. The only good that may come of the charade is that it might provide cover for a deal averting the damage from the debt ceiling gamesmanship.

Everyone knows we must honor our debts. Perhaps this foolishness will permit Republican leadership to walk themselves and their members off the ledge and not punish American families. I strongly oppose this cynical, ill-advised proposal.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 2354, which underfunds important clean energy priorities at a cost to the American public's health and welfare. Fiscal discipline is an important goal, and I support efforts to think critically about how to put the nation on a sound fiscal path. However this bill fails to accomplish that. This appropriations bill cuts funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy development programs that help American homeowners save money on their utility bills. At the same time, the bill increases funding for fossil fuel technologies, which have no need of tax incentives or financial support, and which increase the level of harmful air and water pollution.

Energy efficiency and renewable energy programs offer the best chance that our nation has to become more energy independent and reduce climate-change inducing pollutants. Yet this bill cuts total funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 27 percent and cuts Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy by 44 percent compared to FY11. These clean energy programs have helped drive strong growth in solar and wind generation over the past decade, while reducing the costs of these technologies significantly. ARPA-E's support for path-breaking advanced technologies could hold the key to our energy future. In the long run, these cuts will mean less innovation, dirtier energy, and fewer clean energy jobs. This is absolutely the wrong way to drive American leadership and energy independence.

Two programs that have been improving our energy security while helping households to keep down their utilities bills are the Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, and the State Energy Program, SEP. These programs target residential buildings, reducing the burden on low-income families by an average of 35 percent of utility bills and supporting local economies. The State Energy Program encourages innovative technologies and leverages Federal funds; since 2006, the State of Oregon has leveraged approximately $27 in non-federal funds for every $1 of SEP funds spent. These programs have demonstrated success, yet H.R. 2354 severely cuts funding. In Oregon alone, these cuts would mean that an estimated 374 families would no longer be eligible for weatherization assistance. For these reasons, I support the amendment offered by Representatives Tonko and Bass that would increase WAP and SEP funding by $141.3 million and $25 million, respectively.

In addition to handicapping energy innovation, the bill also includes a very damaging policy rider that would undermine the Clean Water Act. This rider would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from restoring Clean Water Act protections to many rivers, streams and wetlands that supply drinking water and prevent flooding. Over 100 million Americans get their drinking water from public supplies provided in whole or in part from waters that are at risk of losing Clean Water Act safeguards. The recent flood events around the country have demonstrated some of the problems with wetlands losses, and these would be made even worse by blocking the Army Corps' ability to protect these waters.

Amendments passed on the Floor during debate mostly made this bad bill even worse. For example, I voted against an amendment by Rep. Burgess that would prevent important new efficiency standards for light bulbs from going into effect. These standards, passed as part of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, are supported by industry and consumer groups as well as efficiency advocates. They would mean $100 in savings for the average American family per year. I'm disappointed in the passage of this amendment to prevent DOE from enforcing these standards.

Now is the time to be putting America on track toward a clean energy future, and working to reduce the damage to our water and air quality that harm public health. I support policies to create a green energy economy, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to support advanced technologies and cost-saving energy-efficient systems for homes and businesses, and to protect the health and well-being of the nation's health and environment. Unfortunately, this appropriations bill is detrimental to all of those goals.

Amidst the spreading scandal of the Murdoch News Corporation, it is clear that it wasn't as they first claimed, just a rogue reporter or two. There's a pattern of abuse, some illegal, that was widely practiced and known, perhaps encouraged, certainly tolerated.

It is important for the FBI, the SEC, hopefully Congress itself, to investigate the News Corps-FOX-Wall Street Journal conglomerate and not just about the concerns of potential spying on 9/11 victims, which would be reprehensible if true, but possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes it illegal for American citizens to bribe foreign officials.

Some claim we ought to go easy on the Murdoch News Corporation so we don't appear partisan. But just giving money to the Republican Party, hiring Republican Presidential candidates, slanting the news and commentary should not give them a pass for questionable, perhaps illegal, conduct. We must ensure that Americans are not abused by the News Corps management practices or employees.

Still a member in my heart, of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Rahall. I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to speak on this.

I've been listening to debate on the floor, and I really could not disagree more with the proponents of this legislation. They would seek to overturn a 40-year record of trying to get people to follow the law. Look at the record of what States have done over the course of the last 100 years dealing with water quality. And it isn't that the Federal Government overreached and the States had done too much. We have the Clean Water Act because the States consistently failed to meet their obligations.

Today, there are wide variations around America in terms of how zealously individual States take their responsibility and how they balance. There's tremendous pressure for short-term economic gain at the expense of the environment. And in some parts of the country, it doesn't bother them to bulldoze mountaintops into streams. And, in fact, EPA has not been vigilant in dealing with that. It's only been recently that we are starting to have people come to grips with this issue.

It is important that EPA has the opportunity to withhold--to have some sanction--when States don't follow through on their plans. This bill would take away the ability of EPA to have sanctions. It's important that we have a third party to be able to do some mediation when there are differences between States. This is not something that is confined to Pennsylvania or West Virginia or Oregon, because our waterways are interconnected. They transcend boundaries. We need to have the Federal Government making sure that, at a minimum, there are reasonable standards that are enforced and that the plans that one administration on a State level commits to are actually followed through.

You don't have to spend very much time on Google to find out that there are places around the country right now where local authorities and where State authorities are not meeting the highest standards of water quality.

I strongly suggest that this is a step backward. Luckily, it's not going to be enacted into law. The administration would veto it. I can't imagine it gets very far in the other body.

Frankly, looking at the list of the organizations, the list that was cited of the people who support this, they are not the people who have championed clean water. They're the people that want looser restrictions, that want to be able to pollute more, and that want to be able to make their own decisions. But the people who care about fish and wildlife, the people who care about environmental protection, and the people who care first about the health and welfare of the American public, they are uniformly opposed to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this is important business. There are economics involved with protecting the environment. In State after State, there's a lot of money to be made by having healthy hunting and fishing. There is money to be saved by having healthy waterways and healthy communities. And if we don't stop the pollution in the first place, then that puts the burden on local communities to spend more on water quality and water treatment.

I strongly suggest my colleagues take a hard look at the history of the last 40 years. Look at the uneven application of the Clean Water Act at the State level. Look at how a judicious approach on the part of the Federal Government has helped promote compliance. Even the so- called veto power of EPA has been invoked only 13 times in 38 years.

This is a bad bill. It should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

This amendment ensures protection for waters and wetlands that provide flood protection or economically valuable habitats for our coastal recreation waters.

Healthy streams and wetlands provide vital public benefits for flood protection, commerce and public health. As there is an effort on the part of my friends on the other side of the aisle to eliminate these critical protections, it's important to keep that in mind.

Pollution destroys habitat and cripples local fishing and tourism. There has been talk about economic development.

Well, it costs money to deal with treating polluted waters. There are 40 million recreational anglers in America that generate $125 billion in economic output, including $45 billion in retail sales and pay $16.4 billion in State and Federal taxes.

The sport supports over 1 million American jobs right here in the United States. And when a wetland is filled with sediment or drained, it can no longer protect towns from devastating floods.

We have had witness over the last couple of years of this devastating impact. An acre of wetland provides more than $10,000 per person in public benefits. If you lose 1 percent of a watershed's wetland, it can increase flood volume by almost 7 percent. These are nature's sponges that we need to protect.

It's also important to point out that not all States protect the quality of their water. Some States just simply don't care as much as other States; some States are not as capable of protecting it.

In those States where protection is lax, the EPA must have the authority to step in to protect the economy, the environment, and human welfare for residents in that State as well as the States that are downstream that would also be affected. We shouldn't have Americans held hostage to the lowest common denominator of people who are simply not going to maintain the standards.

This amendment preserves that authority for the EPA to protect communities who rely on water for fishing and other economic benefits, along with wetlands that create vital flood protection.

Mr. Chairman, the American public strongly supports clean water. This has been one of the most popular pieces of legislation since it was enacted in the Nixon administration. It, until now, has had pretty broad bipartisan support.

The legislation here represents the most aggressive attack on it, in my memory, in 15 years in Congress. My amendment, at least, would clarify this particular item.

I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a gentleman who deeply understands the importance of this amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Long Island, New York (Mr. Bishop), who has some experience with problems of water pollution and erosion.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting notice that I will not be able to attend the legislative sessions of the House of Representatives on the following dates that are currently scheduled. I will be absent from July 19 through July 22 and from August 2 through August 5 for the marriages of my daughter and my son.

I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy, as I appreciate her leadership and the leadership of Chair Biggert for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

It is true, I have been working in these areas for the last 10 years to make sure that the program is stable in the long term and encourages participation. Here we are raising rates where necessary to more accurately reflect flood risk.

For too long, homeowners in low-risk areas have been subsidizing those in high-risk areas, all backed by the Federal taxpayers. This bill will make the program closer to being actuarially sound. I appreciate the work done to deal with repetitively flooded properties, which comprise 2 percent of the properties insured by the program but are responsible for 30 percent of the claims.

We do people no favors by paying them to rebuild in the same way, in the same place, time and time again in harm's way. That's why I strongly support the amendment that has been included in the en bloc to reauthorize and streamline a number of mitigation programs targeted towards repetitive flood programs.

I authored, with my colleague Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, a program to provide mitigation assistance for ``severe repetitive loss properties.'' Unfortunately, since 2004, we found the program has been hard for FEMA to administer. When they have been able to get the program off the ground, it has allowed mitigation of almost 600 properties and saved $125 million. But if we are able to move forward here, allowing the program to work right, it can make a huge, long-term difference both in the lives of property owners as well as the fiscal stability of the program.

The Waters amendment addresses the administrative programs by combining three mitigation programs into one streamlined provision, removes red tape, and enables FEMA to more easily work with the communities to mitigate the properties.

It is important to note that it does not cost the taxpayers any money. The money for mitigation comes from the flood insurance fund made up of premium dollars, and each dollar spent on mitigation saves the fund far more in the future.

I appreciate the work of Mrs. Biggert, Ms. Waters, Chair Bachus, Ranking Member Frank, and the committee to dig into the details here to ensure that FEMA will continue to have the tools it needs to address the properties that are costing the program the most. This is going to go a long way toward helping people out of the cycle of flooding and will help reduce the heavy drain that these properties have on the flood insurance program.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that my hometown is often held out as an example of a community where livability is a primary goal. For the last forty years, people have been pioneering efforts to make cities work better through creative land use planning, zoning, transportation initiatives, public art and public spaces.

There have been many who have helped shape this way of thinking and prove its effectiveness with results on the ground. Politicians, civic and business leaders have all played important roles, but none has been more influential but less publicly known than Greg Baldwin.

Greg was a prominent Portland architect and designer who grew up in the city and went on to earn three Harvard degrees and study abroad. He came by his vision and commitment honestly; his father was a dedicated public servant and a key administrator in Portland for years with schools, the Port Commission, and later in life as the first real Commissioner of Transportation for the state of Oregon.

Greg played a leadership role, striving for excellence in design in our community with revitalization of our schools, creating our light rail system, and the Portland Transit Mall. Greg Baldwin was sought after for projects around the country that benefited from his keen eye and grand sense of aesthetics--the things that one would expect from a leading architect.

Yet, his most enduring gift was an insight into how planning and civic engagement can coax more out of these opportunities to shape our built environment, which in turn shapes us. Greg was patient, thoughtful, and a good listener, as well as being fair and smart. He excelled in bringing various groups together. He seemed able to help anyone who shared the ultimate goal of a signature project to help understand the contributions that everyone could make to achieve the desired objective.

With all his intellect and professional accomplishments, he was foremost a great friend and accomplished artist. Committed to family, friends, and coworkers he was an outstanding human being. While he will be deeply missed, those who mourn his passing will take comfort knowing his many contributions will influence communities across America for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, Oregonians are mourning the passing of a pioneering female leader of truly historic dimension. Betty Roberts was a pioneer in every sense of the word.

There have been women in our community who as the first Oregon female Member of

Congress or first Portland Mayor over half a century ago were pioneers--but Betty was unique.

Yes, Betty Roberts was the first woman to serve on Oregon's Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court. Her most important contributions began when she was the only woman in the State Senate. In this unique position of leadership she willfully tackled the problems that face women in politics and society. She understood the challenges facing women who were pioneering these efforts. As she broke barrier after barrier she learned lessons the hard way. With grit and legislative leadership she fought to protect women's health and civil liberties and their efforts in the marketplace.

Betty ran amazingly strong statewide campaigns for Governor and U.S. Senate. While she didn't win the elections, she proved her strength, character, and vision. Her many accomplishments in politics, and a career as a successful educator, lawyer, legislator, and jurist stood out, but it was her strong will and sensitivity that made her an inspirational role model.

Betty demonstrated what was possible. Today there are hundreds of people that she inspired who have assumed leadership on the bench, at the bar, in government and through civic and business leadership. In turn, these women are inspiring the next generation which may be Betty's most enduring legacy--a legacy that will benefit our state for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, there is no region of the world more critical to achieving peace and security for Americans than the Middle East, yet no series of interconnected issues that has been more complex or vexing.

Since coming to Congress I have been an advocate of stronger United States engagement to advance negotiations for a two-state solution and for a vision of a secure Israel and an independent Palestinian state living side by side.

I, along with the rest of Congress and the administration, share the goal of preventing a vote for Palestinian statehood in the United Nations this September. Such a course of action will not hasten the creation of an independent Palestine, and will undermine progress.

Unfortunately, the message delivered by H. Res. 268 was undercut by failing to present an evenhanded document. There was no acknowledgement of the administration's balanced approach to Middle East policy and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in particular. The policy is consistent by political and historical standards--calling for a negotiated two-state solution along the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps as the starting point in this dialogue. This is the language of current and previous U.S. administrations and was employed by the Israeli Prime Minister within the last year.

The resolution would have been more credible by mentioning the unfair comments of Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington. A mention of U.S. opposition to Israel's unilateral construction of settlements would get the attention of the Palestinians, who after all we are trying to influence.

To the extent that Congress is going to opine, it should do so in a balanced way. That is how we can move forward.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1249, which will help America maintain its distinction as the most innovative country in the world. For too long, independent inventors, small businesses, and America's leading universities and technology companies have been mired in a convoluted patent process that has stifled innovation and job creation. H.R. 1249 streamlines and clarifies the patent process, giving inventors and investors the certainty they need to expand their businesses and grow the economy.

This legislation also gives the United States Patent and Trademark Office the tools it needs to process the hundreds of thousands of applications it receives every year, increasing their ability to adjust its fees to reflect the actual costs of the services it provides, to fast-track patent applications, and to expand opportunities for post- grant review of patents. I remain deeply concerned that, under the manager's amendment, the Patent and Trademark Office will have fewer resources to pursue these objectives, a change which risks squandering the very opportunities created by the remainder of the legislation.

Innovative stakeholders in my district have voiced concerns that the legislation's expansion of the defense of ``prior user rights'' will weaken their ability to protect their patentable innovations and give rise to widespread trade secret litigation, particularly for those areas of research the blend federal investment and private investment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure these concerns are addressed, so that America's finest universities and research centers can continue their role as global leaders of innovation.

H.R. 1249 is a strong step toward protecting the administration of our system of intellectual

property rights. This is a worthy bipartisan accomplishment. I am concerned that some of my colleagues have championed this bill as the ultimate job-creator and that once it passes, they will forget about the millions of Americans that are still struggling to find work. Patent reform is important, but what out-of-work Americans need most are jobs. I urge my colleagues to build on this bipartisan momentum and work together to rebuild and renew America's infrastructure, the most efficient way to create jobs and strengthen our economy.

Mr. Speaker, today the House considered two bills that focused on United States involvement in Libya. Both failed to adequately address our role in that country.

H.J. Res. 68 is the less objectionable of the two. I reluctantly supported this Resolution because it reaffirmed the United States limited participation in an international coalition to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Libya and bars all funds from being used to deploy, establish, or maintain a presence of Members of the Armed Services or private security contractors on the ground. It also sets a clear deadline for U.S. involvement there.

What I would have liked to see offered was the Resolution sponsored by Senators Kerry and McCain. The Kerry/McCain Resolution goes further and clearly defines our interests and objectives in the region.

It makes clear that it is the sense of this Congress that we will support the Libyan people and political reform in the country; it clearly defines our goal in Libya as the removal of Mummar Qaddafi and his family from power through the NATO mission outlined by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which includes diplomatic and economic pressures; and that we must support the Libyan people transition to a representational democracy.

H.R. 2278 would prevent the Department of Defense from using any funds to support NATO in its mission to stop the slaughter of civilians by a dictator who has time and again made clear his disregard for the lives of innocents.

Of equal concern is the fact that H.R. 2278 sets an unfortunate precedent and undermines key global institutions by turning our backs to a unified call for intervention.

Preventing U.S. action would endanger the recent display of democratic aspirations by so many in the region and only emboldens the other despots of the world such as Syria, Iran, and Yemen, suggesting there are no consequences for murdering peaceful protesters.

As I have said from the start, I would support thoughtful legislation that acknowledges the U.S. has chosen to answer the cries of the innocent Libyan people, but makes clear that our commitment to their aspirations of self governance is not open-ended, and which clearly defines our goals and--more importantly--limits. That is why I voted for H.J. Res. 68 and look towards the Kerry/McCain Resolution to carry the day because it sets the right tone.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had the inaugural briefing of the Congressional Neurologic Science Caucus. The caucus seeks to involve and inform people on Capitol Hill about advances, opportunities, and challenges that face us with neuroscience.

I appreciate the leadership of my colleague, Kathy McMorris Rodgers, who is founding cochair of this effort and someone who cares deeply about neuroscience issues, achieved in part through some difficult personal experience. I admire her courage and appreciate her adding to this important agenda.

We're discovering so many areas related to the brain and so much about how the neurological system works, how it's damaged, how it recovers, how the brain responds to our environment, understanding interrelationships between traumatic brain injury, hydrocephalous, dementia, Alzheimer's. We stand to gain so much from this research.

Developments in neuroscience offer the greatest opportunity for the 26 percent of American adults who suffer from mental disorders to reduce and perhaps avoid dysfunction, disease to live better, healthier lives.

The tremendous toll on victims and their families, their employees, employers and friends, the Federal Government needs to be aggressively involved and engaged. We hope the Neuroscience Caucus can help do just that.

Mr. Speaker, it's time, after a decade, to wind down this American-Afghanistan adventure. With his speech last night, President Obama started a process America needs to accelerate, removing 100,000 combat troops from Afghanistan.

I supported the initial move 10 years ago against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It began on a very hopeful note, even with nations like Iran working with the United States in that critical 2001-2002 post-9/ 11 era.

It was a tragic mistake not to finish the job and withdraw with global support. Instead, the Bush administration, sadly, with support from too many in Congress, started a reckless, flawed and ultimately tragic war in Iraq.

President Obama reasonably says that we won't try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We won't because we can't. America has already invested enough, direct costs of over 1,500 American lives, approaching one-half trillion dollars. Indirect and long-term will be much greater. Bear in mind, we have invested $2 trillion in the war against terror, and the long-term costs are going to be between $4 trillion and $6 trillion.

In Afghanistan, ultimately there will be a negotiated settlement with the least, worst guys, the Taliban and warlords, assorted tribal strongmen. It's already started.

We cannot afford to continue this effort, not when crying needs are here in America to rebuild and renew our country.

Last week, the American mayors got it right when they called this question and called for renewed investment here at home. The tragedy is that it's not ultimately going to make that much difference the longer we're there and the more we fight. Whether it's going to be 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, far in the future, it's not going to look that much different in terms of the ultimate outcome in Afghanistan.

America needs to be engaged in this dangerous region. It needs to help Afghanistan. It needs to help the Pakistani people. It needs to be involved, both diplomatically and with development assistance. No longer do we need to have combat troops being a part of that mission.

Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H.R. 672, a bill that ends the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent and bipartisan commission whose main function is to improve and oversee elections in the U.S.

This bill would transfer much of the EAC's responsibilities and funds to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), whose main priority

is not election administration, but rather enforcing federal campaign laws. In a letter to the House Administration Committee, the FEC noted that they could ``contract with outside groups to fulfill aspects of the EAC's responsibilities.'' Facilitating free and fair elections is an inherently governmental function that should not be outsourced.

The world's leading democracy should not affix a price on free and fair elections, but that is exactly what Congress does in this legislation. In effect, H.R. 672 says that preventing another crisis like the one we saw during the 2000 presidential election--where millions of Americans did not have their ballots counted due to failed voting machines--is too expensive and is not a priority.

It is deeply ironic that just as Florida--the state responsible for the bulk of voter complications in 2000 that prompted Congress to pass the Help America Vote Act--signs into law onerous voter registration requirements, Congress is dismantling a bipartisan solution that helped ensure the effective administration of elections.

This is a politicized bill that is well wide of the mark of true government reform. Simply repealing the EAC, like Republicans did with the Presidential Election Fund earlier this year, further undermines America's democracy and is a step in the wrong direction. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to take a moment to honor the incredible work of the Merlo Station High School Gay Straight Alliance. I had the opportunity to present these aspiring young citizens with the Portland Pride Youth Award and want to share with my colleagues how inspired I am by their dedication and accomplishments.

After organizing just last year, the student-led force has been instrumental in addressing homophobia at Merlo Station High School, in the Beaverton School District and in the broader community. Among many other examples of outreach, the Gay Straight Alliance has organized student groups to march in last year's Pride Parade and AIDS Walk, created a 2-day all-school event for National Coming Out Day, and encouraged students to take ownership of their language by developing a ``No Bigoted Speech'' pledge.

As we continue to debate many of the current GLBT-related pieces of legislation facing the 112th Congress, from the Student and Employee Non Discrimination Acts to the Safe Schools Improvement Act, I encourage my colleagues to remember these passionate students at Merlo Station High School.

I am inspired by this on-the-ground student organizing and will continue championing legislation to advocate for full equality for everyone, regardless of their gender expression or sexual orientation, because it is the right thing to do.