Floor Statements

I want to thank the gentleman for graciously yielding me so much time. I would also like to thank the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressman Tom Lantos, and the distinguished ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for supporting this important resolution that I am offering today.

The U.S. has had its share of natural disasters recently, from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 to this year's southern California wildfires, some of which are still burning as I speak. As we have learned, it is difficult even for the United States, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, to adequately care for our victims and rebuild our communities once we have experienced one of these natural disasters.

In both of those disasters, our neighbor was there to help us with emergency relief units and firefighters. Now Mexico faces the challenge of a devastating natural disaster within its own borders.

This resolution recognizes the plight of our Mexican neighbors and expresses our desire and commitment to support Mexico during one of the worst natural disasters in its history, a disaster which the country's President has described as one of the worst not only because of the size of the area affected but because of the number of people affected.

As many Americans already know, a series of storms brought torrential rainfall to southern Mexico, especially the States of Tabasco and Chiapas, causing various rivers to overflow their banks.

At least half a million people's homes have been damaged or destroyed and perhaps double that number are without utilities or cut off from transportation routes.

In the State of Tabasco, as was already mentioned, 100 percent of the agricultural crops have been lost and 80 percent of the state is underwater. It's incredible.

Truly, this is a disaster of epic proportions. In this agricultural area, even those who were able to stay safe during the storm will face many challenges in the weeks ahead. Having lost their crops, which for many are their sole source of income, surviving and keeping their families fed and intact will be difficult.

In addition to picking up the pieces of their lives after losing their homes and crops and everything that they owned, the flood survivors face increased threats from diseases like malaria, dengue fever and cholera.

As a good neighbor, it is imperative that we do all that we can to help Mexico ensure that the flood victims can indeed get back on their feet. It is the least we can do for a neighbor who did what it could to help us in our times of need when we experienced natural disasters.

I also want to take a moment to commend and comment on Mexican President Felipe Calderon for leading his country's rapid response to this devastation and for the work that he did before the rains fell to avert an even greater catastrophe. The President's swift reaction avoided even greater disaster, and I applaud his efforts. They really were impressive.

This resolution today expresses the sympathy of the U.S. House of Representatives during this time and pledges our continued assistance. We want to acknowledge the prompt humanitarian response that has come from many quarters, not just the Mexican Government but international organizations and relief bodies. We must continue to support these efforts as long as they are necessary.

I urge my colleagues not only to support this resolution but to work together to ensure that its goals are realized. I urge us to continue to work in a bi-partisan manner to address this humanitarian crisis. We must not just speak of our good intentions; we must act on them. We must immediately make assistance available to Mexican authorities so that Mexico can continue to provide relief aid to the victims as the effects of the flooding continue to unfold.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

I want to thank Chairman Conyers for his support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4134, the Internet Crime Prevention Education Program Act. This bill will authorize funding for the i-SAFE program for 5 years and create a new grant competition to provide funds for like-minded Internet safety and crime prevention programs. This new grant program will support and enhance the efforts of schools, law enforcement agencies and parents to give children the skills they need to avoid potential criminal activity on the Internet. By bringing this bill to the floor today, the leadership of the House on both sides of the aisle has demonstrated that it recognizes that our children are in danger from cyberbullying, identity theft, cyberstalking and harassment and other potential cybercrimes.

These are very real threats and they demand real action, and I am proud that we are united in this effort. Although adults, even those with children, don't always realize it, children face a myriad of online dangers whenever they use chat rooms, instant messages and e- mail. They could come across predators, financial scams, or inappropriate content when they go online to do things as innocent as research for school assignments.

The Internet is a powerful tool for progress that is transforming the way our society obtains and shares information. But unfortunately the Internet also carries risks when misused as an avenue for predators, bullies and thieves. Last year, one in five children received a sexual solicitation or were inappropriately approached via the Internet. Unfortunately, numerous

children have already become victims of unspeakable physical harm or have suffered irreparable mental injuries from online predators.

Sexual predators are not the only danger facing youth online. As bizarre as it may seem to those of us old enough that we didn't have these technologies when we were in school, bullies are using their cell phones and the Internet to torment their peers. This literally means that kids can be bullied any hour of the day or night and even within their own homes. And because it is not face to face, cyberbullying can be much crueler and present a whole new set of dangers.

Cyberbullying can have serious consequences and inflict lasting wounds on young people. Studies have found that bullying can negatively impact the academic performance, self-esteem, and mental and physical health of children. Whenever I discuss bullying, I inevitably hear one person ask, ``What is wrong with a little bullying? It makes you stronger. It builds character.'' Builds character? Really? It is important to realize that students who are bullied are more likely to be depressed and commit suicide.

So many of the horrifying school shootings in recent years have been linked to bullying that it can no longer be viewed as a rite of passage. Bullying and harassment must be treated as the violent and damaging behaviors that they are.

This bill, the Internet Crime Prevention Education Program Act, is just one part of a package of bills that I have introduced to keep our kids safe by tackling bullying and harassment.

i-SAFE is the perfect example of an organization that shares this goal. i-SAFE, Incorporated is a nonprofit foundation dedicated to protecting the online experience of youth by incorporating classroom curriculum with community outreach to make the Internet a safer place.

The i-SAFE program is free for schools, school districts, law enforcement, communities, and parents in large part because of the congressional funding it has received on a bipartisan basis since 2002. i-SAFE has provided over 3 million children in 50 States with the tools to protect themselves on the Internet.

After participating in the i-SAFE program, 91 percent of students say that they will make better choices about where they go on the Internet, 87 percent say they will be more careful about sharing personal information in chat rooms, and 75 percent say they are less likely to meet someone from the Internet in person.

Law enforcement, which deserves praise for pursuing cybercriminals needs the help of programs like i-SAFE, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Crime Prevention Council, Web Wise Kids, Netsmartz, and Teen Angels, to help reduce online crimes through prevention.

When used the right way, the Internet can be a valuable educational resource and allow for extended social networks. It is our responsibility to ensure that children are able to enjoy all of the benefits of the Internet armed with the knowledge of how to stay safe. I therefore urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4134.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 1044 on Monday, October 15, 2007.

However, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 794, Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 3043, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agencies.

Madam Chairman, at the outset, I'd like to note that I did not vote for this bill in Committee, not because I don't support its goals--I do--but because I strongly believe that we could have done better by protecting more people from discrimination.

That is why I am proud to support the amendment by my colleague from Wisconsin, that will add a prohibition against gender identity discrimination. This amendment is needed because protecting transgender people is the right thing to do. We're talking about a small group of people, but a group that faces tremendous discrimination and that deserves to be protected from workplace discrimination just as much as anybody else.

Now that this bill is out of committee and on the floor, let me be clear, I will vote for it because it extends a basic right to millions of Americans. And that right is the right to go to work and earn a living.

That's all, just the right to support themselves and their families. It is a right that is so basic that I'm appalled that some in this Chamber actually oppose this bill.

What is so problematic about protecting Americans from losing their jobs, not due to job performance, but due to bigotry?

Americans believe that if you work hard and do your job, you should be rewarded. And Americans believe that this basic principle should apply across the board.

Poll after poll reveal that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree someone shouldn't lose a job or be denied a promotion simply for being gay or lesbian.

Americans also believe that it is already illegal to do so. Unfortunately, in many states, it isn't. That's why this bill is so important.

The passage of this bill is just one part of an overall effort to improve the lives of working Americans. So far this year, the New Direction Congress has already worked to increase the opportunities available to working Americans and their families.

We have increased the minimum wage.

We have made college more affordable by increasing Pell Grants and reducing interest rates on student loans.

We have investigated the Administration's failure to protect workers on the job, and begun efforts to ensure that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Mine Safety and Health Administration do their jobs: keep workers safe so they can go home to their families after a day's work free of injury and disease.

It is wrong to deny someone a job, a raise, or a promotion because of his or her real or perceived sexual orientation. And it is past time for Congress to say so.

Ending employment discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people by enacting ENDA is such a common sense solution, and so consistent with the American principles of freedom, justice, and equality that it's amazing to me that in 2007, we still haven't passed this bill.

Let's work together to make the ``American Dream'' a reality for millions of Americans. Let's vote for the Baldwin amendment and pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3688, which would implement the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

This is not a choice between trade and protectionism. It's a choice between fair trade, which can benefit working families across the Nation, and unfair trade, which benefits the wealthiest few at the expense of the rest of us.

While there are some welcome, but minor, improvements to the Peru FTA, as compared to NAFTA and CAFTA, the agreement essentially is not good enough. I feel like I'm at a used car lot and the dealer is trying to sell me a beat-up old NAFTA lemon with a brand new paint job and trying to tell me that it's a great car.

Well, we learned with NAFTA that there are no refunds for the American people when they're sold a bad bill of goods. Let's learn from our mistakes and reject this Peru FTA junker.

To serve the American people, we must work for real trade reform, not just put a Band-Aid on a trade model that has been bleeding jobs from this country since 1994.

Supporting this new deal requires us to believe in two things: one, the actual benefits of the NAFTA free trade model; and two, the promises of the Bush administration.

Considering the first question, the actual benefits of the NAFTA model are about as real as the tooth fairy. NAFTA was supposed to solve illegal immigration by developing a robust economy in Mexico that would give hardworking people the opportunity to provide for their families without having to leave their homeland behind. That didn't work.

Instead, undocumented immigration has actually increased. Subsidized crops from the U.S. pushed millions of farmers off their land, and many of those displaced farmers ended up emigrating to the United States, whether or not they had proper documentation, just so they could find work to support their families.

CAFTA, another so-called improvement on the NAFTA model, was supposed to include bold new safety and wage protections for workers. But these protections are disappointingly weak, allowing countries to downgrade their own labor laws.

We've learned that the NAFTA free trade model is designed to favor the wealthiest few and corporate bottom line, at the expense of small businesses, workers, families and our communities.

As to the second question, I think this administration has made it pretty clear that it has no interest in enforcing labor laws.

The BP Texas City explosion, the Sago and Crandall Canyon mine disasters, and the failure to protect 9/11 first responders and cleanup workers who have developed serious breathing ailments, these are just a few of the more notorious examples of this administration's dereliction of duty to provide even the most basic protection to workers: the right to work in a safe environment.

So long as we have to rely on this administration to protect the rights and safety of working men and women, we will continue to be disappointed.

To some in this House, the only redeeming value of this trade agreement seems to be that it's not as bad as the deals with Colombia and Korea. But that argument misses the point. When they say ``not that bad,'' we have to stand up for the American people and say ``not good enough.''

Finally, the Peru FTA offers inadequate protection for numerous endangered species that live in the forest of Peru, like the giant river otter and the jaguar. If it's such a great agreement, why has no environmental group gone

on record as supporting or embracing this agreement. I ask my colleagues that and I don't think they have an answer.

Let me just remind my colleagues that I've heard over and over on the floor tonight that the enemy of the good is the perfect. Well, from where I sit, the enemy of the good is the bad, and this is a bad agreement.

We now have a choice before us. We should choose to vote ``no'' to a nondemocratic process, ``no'' to benefiting big business at the expense of the little guy, ``no'' to ignoring the will of the American people, and ``no'' on the Peru FTA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose the proposed U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement.

My opposition to the Peru FTA reflects America's opposition to the recent string of trade pacts that benefitted the wealthiest few at the expense of hardworking Americans. A recent poll revealed that six in 10 Republicans think free trade has been bad for the U.S., and that's just Republicans.

The American public is tired of waiting for this administration to ``get it'' and to start negotiating fair and smart trade deals that can benefit the little guy as well as the corporate fat cat.

The American public is impatient and, frankly, so am I. Fair trade can create economic opportunities for everyone, big business and working families alike, at home and abroad. Fair trade can advance our economy without jeopardizing good jobs and encourage development without ravaging our environment.

Some say that the Peru FTA is better than what we've had in the past. I join the American people in saying, ``It's not good enough.''

Join me in standing up for American families. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3678) to amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to extend the moratorium on certain taxes related to the Internet and to electronic commerce.

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.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 3678, the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act, as amended. H.R. 3678, legislation designed to extend the Internet tax moratorium and grandfather protections, clarify the treatment of gross receipts taxes, and revise the definition of Internet access is bipartisan legislation at its best. It has widespread support by industry groups including the Don't Tax Our Web Coalition, as well as by various government organizations such as the National Governors Association, the Federation of Tax Administrators, the National Conference of Mayors, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. It is supported by a wide range of labor and union groups, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

And with that broad support, the House passed H.R. 3678 by a vote of 405-2. H.R. 3678, as amended by the Senate, contains four distinct changes.

First, the Senate version extends the moratorium on State and local taxes on Internet access and continues grandfather protections for 7 years until November 1, 2014. The 7-year time frame will allow Congress to revisit the moratorium and consider developments in the States or in technology. It will provide businesses sufficient time to plan and ensure that consumers benefit from tax-free access to the Internet.

Second, the Senate version extends from November 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 the time for certain States to adjust for a phaseout of the grandfather protection. This alteration will benefit State governments who would have scrambled to readjust their budgets with a loss of revenue beginning November 1.

Third, the Senate version expands the definition of Internet access to prohibit taxation of certain services which are fee-based, not packaged with Internet access, and are offered from sources other than providers of Internet access.

Finally, the Senate version prohibits a State from reimposing Internet access taxes if the State had eliminated the taxes more than 2 years ago.

For nearly 10 years, we have had the luxury of tax-free Internet access, as we have acted under a moratorium passed by Congress, but the moratorium expires in less than 2 days.

With the impending end of the moratorium in sight, this Chamber agreed nearly unanimously to pass H.R. 3678, the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act. This legislation is an example of how a bipartisan approach to a complex issue can serve the public good.

While the Senate made some changes to H.R. 3678, this is a version I'm very proud to support. It retains the essence of H.R. 3678, including refining the definition of Internet access and, most importantly, providing a temporary extension of the moratorium. This legislation minimizes the effect on State and local government revenue, treats businesses fairly, and keeps Internet access affordable to consumers.

I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the current Internet tax moratorium expires in about 36 hours. Madam Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3678, the amended Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act, so that tax-free access to the Internet can continue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California, a colleague of mine who's very knowledgeable on Internet tax issues, Ms. Anna Eshoo.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a colleague of mine on the subcommittee and the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3678, as amended by the Senate, remains a strong bill that provides much-needed clarity to the communications and Internet industries and strikes an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of States and local governments while helping keep Internet access affordable. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting it.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tonight I rise to address the House and the American people regarding the U.S. Peru Free Trade Agreement and its effect on working families. But before I launch into my remarks, I want to be clear. I am committed to trade. I believe trade is an essential component to the development and strengthening of our economy.

Done the right way, trade can increase our access to raw material for production and create American jobs. It can open foreign markets to our goods and services and bring new and unique products into the United States. Done the right way, trade can not only contribute to the economic prosperity of America and its working families, it can also strengthen the economic and political stability of our trading partners. It is because I believe in the many positive impacts that trade can bring when done the right way that I have been fighting for a new trade model.

The NAFTA-style trade free trade agreements negotiated by the Bush administration are the wrong way to do trade. They bring nothing more than empty promises and harm to the American working class. My support for smart trade agreements that work for working people means that I cannot support the U.S.-Peru FTA. It is based on the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which has resulted in job losses in America, pushed small farmers off the land in Mexico, and jeopardized public health and safety policies in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

When the administration announced its new policy on trade earlier this year, I, along with the rest of my colleagues in the House Trade Working Group were hopeful that the administration had taken bold steps to improve its trade policy. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that the Peru FTA, along with the rest of the pending trade agreements, retain the basic structure of NAFTA and CAFTA. The bold promises of new protections for workers turned out to be nice promises that had little chance of being enforced.

The American people are fed up with trade agreements that only benefits the ``haves'' while making it harder for the ``have-nots'' to get ahead. A recent Wall Street Journal survey identified the declining public confidence in the NAFTA-style trade model. According to the survey, 60 percent of conservative Americans, those who would have been most apt to support the expansion of free trade, now believe that free trade is harmful to the U.S. economy.

The promises of U.S. job creation and an increased standard of living for the working class have not been fulfilled. Instead, we continue to see the rich get richer and the rest, the middle and working class, get left behind. The administration asserts that the new additions to the Peru agreement will add long-sought labor and environmental protections; however, a careful analysis reveals that there are few changes from the basic NAFTA-CAFTA text. And even when there are changes, the new provisions offer few new protections.

If the Peru FTA is so great, where is all the union support for it? Why do so many environmental groups oppose it? NAFTA-CAFTA provisions that have caused downward pressure on wages, the export of U.S. jobs and an import of unsafe products and food have saved little. This so- called new deal is a bad deal. It is an old clunker with a new coat of paint. But even if this new deal contained the most stringent labor and environmental protections in the world, it would be dependent on the executive branch for enforcement. And enforcement of labor and environmental standards is something the current administration is unlikely to do. Let's be honest. The Bush administration has a consistent record of nonenforcement.

We need a real new deal, not another NAFTA clone. Simply put, the NAFTA model doesn't work. It has failed to bring the jobs and prosperity that we were promised. Remember when we were promised that NAFTA would create jobs in Mexico and stem the flow of immigration? Remember when we were promised that NAFTA would ensure our trading partners would uphold the same strong labor and environmental standards that we have here in the U.S.? And now, this administration is asking us to believe its promise that the labor and environmental provisions of the Peru agreement will be stringently enforced.

Well, if the experience of the last 10 years hasn't convinced you, I have some swamp land in Florida that I would like to sell you. So long as we have to rely on this administration to protect the rights and safety of working men and women, we will continue to be disappointed. This administration's track record does not reflect a real commitment to the working families of America. The truth of the matter is that the NAFTA model heavily favors the wealthiest few leaving small businesses to fend for themselves on an unequal playing field. The Peru Free Trade Agreement has been advertised as the new model for trade deals. This sounds eerily familiar to what we were told when CAFTA was being pushed. CAFTA was supposed to include bold new wage protections for workers. But those protections were disappointingly weak allowing countries to downgrade their own labor laws.

Minor adjustments in NAFTA-style deals such as the U.S. Peru FTA are not good enough. We need to reject the Peru FTA agreement, and I urge all my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, supporting the goals of National Bullying Prevention Week. It is time that we recognize that bullying is a serious problem and support our local communities in their attempts to address it.

Contrary to what is sadly still popular belief, bullying is neither a minor nuisance nor something to be laughed off. It is not a rite of passage, but instead an aggressive interference with a child's right to go to school, to learn, and to play in safety. Although any child may be bullied, some children face much greater risks than others. Children whom others perceive to be gay or lesbian are especially at risk, as are children who are obese.

Just what kind of dangers do these children face? Here are just two stories of students bullied on the basis of their sexual orientation.

One California student was recently subjected to verbal harassment and name-calling by students and teachers, spit on in school hallways, subjected to sexually suggestive touching, and even referred to an independent study program, as if the bullying and harassment were the victim's fault.

A Kentucky student received death threats, repeated unwanted sexual contact, offensive and hostile verbal abuse, and sexual intimidation and humiliation, including sexually explicit graffiti on the school parking lot depicting two male figures engaged in a sexual act with the student's name above the picture.

It is regrettable that not all my colleagues agree that all adults should be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. But surely we can agree that all children deserve to be protected from abuse.

As many as three-quarters of school shooting incidents have been linked to bullying and harassment. We know that the shooters in the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech tragedies were bullying victims.

Yet, even in the face of this evidence, many communities have still failed to take action against bullying. It is time for us to stop making excuses for aggressive behavior. Instead of letting our most vulnerable young people fend for themselves, we, as adults, must help schools address this problem. We must get the word out that bullying is never okay.

Kids can't succeed in school if they're being bullied and harassed.

I'm pleased to be able to honor today a wide variety of groups that are working to help parents, schools, and communities combat bullying and harassment.

I also honor those that teach children how to nonviolently defend themselves against bullying, whether in person or via electronic means such as e-

mail, telephone, or text message. For example, nonprofit groups like i- SAFE, TeenAngels, and TweenAngels have developed curricula that help children and youth stay safe online. And the National PTA and the American Psychological Association have provided instrumental support for efforts to assist local schools in their attempts to create a safer, bullying-free environment.

I am so pleased that Congress is working in a bipartisan way to advance this resolution, which recognizes that bullying and harassment are violent and damaging behaviors that we can and must address.

Additionally, I am pleased that Chairman George Miller and Ranking Member Buck McKeon of the Education and Labor Committee have already gone a step farther. In their No Child Left Behind reauthorization discussion draft, they have included language that will ensure that schools can use their Safe and Drug Free Schools funding to reduce bullying and harassment.

I ask my colleagues to join me, not only in supporting this resolution, but also in supporting other legislation that would protect our children and youth from bullying and harassment. No student should be denied full access to education as a result of the fear and intimidation that stems from instances of bullying and harassment. All our children deserve to be safe.

I want to commend again the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for her work on this resolution. Thank you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials for the Record.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Utah for his kind words, and at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas and the author of this bill, Mr. Gonzalez.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman and my sister, Loretta Sanchez.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say H. Res. 721 appropriately honors the courage of the Mendez family to challenge discrimination and help open the doors of opportunity to all nonwhites through education.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for their work on this resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of the historic Mendez v. Westminster decision, a decision that laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.