Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in addressing the House and the American people regarding U.S. trade policy and its effect on working families.

Let me start by saying, first of all, that I am committed to trade. That's right, I think that trade is good for America and its working families. If we do it the right way, trade can increase the availability of raw materials for production. Trade can also open markets for American goods and can bring exciting new products to American consumers. While I recognize the benefits of trade, not all trade agreements are created equal.

On May 10, the administration and Members of this House announced a ``new policy on trade.'' Well, it's about time. Democrats have been calling for a new direction in trade for years, and I am pleased that the administration has finally taken initial steps to improve its trade policy.

But, alas, it is too little, too late. This new trade policy is little more than a rehash of the same failed NAFTA model that has been hurting U.S. families for more than a decade. According to the administration, the new additions to the Peru and Panama agreements would add long-sought labor and environmental protections to the basic NAFTA framework.

Unfortunately, even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that these new worker and environmental protections can't be enforced. That's not very encouraging, is it? Supporting this new deal requires us to believe in two things: number one, the actual benefits of the NAFTA free trade model; and, number 2, the promises of the Bush administration.

We are supposed to trust an administration that has demonstrated its commitment to anything but the truth. Having misled us on issues like domestic wire-tapping programs, the war in Iraq, global warming, and the firing of U.S. attorneys, it now seeks our trust. How are we supposed to trust a record like that?

We have also learned some very hard lessons after more than 10 years of free trade failures. As we hear more familiar promise about the new trade deal, let's look at some of the old ones. NAFTA was supposed to solve illegal integration by developing a robust economy in Mexico that would allow hard-working people to provide for their families and stay at home. Well, that didn't work.

CAFTA was supposed to include bold new safety and wage protections for workers, but these protections are disappointingly weak, allowing countries to downgrade their very own labor laws.

In the Oman Free Trade Agreement, the administration actually negotiated a deal with a opportunity that, as our own State Department reported, was experiencing a forced labor problem--forced labor. How are our workers supposed to compete with people who are forced to toil?

Free trade was supposed to increase economic opportunity for everybody, for big businesses, as well as working families at home and abroad. But it simply hasn't happened.

Too many communities have been left to rot because corporations shut down U.S. plants to chase increasingly cheap labor and weak environmental protections abroad. After decades of living with NAFTA and its clones, real wages for American families are down. Our trade deficit is in the tens of billions of dollars, and our manufacturing base is falling apart.

The American worker is now more productive than ever, but that increased productivity has not led to a corresponding increase in wages. The truth is that the NAFTA free trade model is designed to favor the wealthiest few and corporate bottom lines at the expense of small businesses, workers, families and communities.

In the coming weeks, we will be asked to consider first two of the Bush administration's trade priorities, free trade agreements with Peru and Panama. Despite the long record of failed free trade agreements, the Bush administration and free traders are going to tell us that Peru and Panama agreements are less controversial than the administration's other priorities, free trade agreements with Colombia and Korea, and the renewal of the President's fast-track negotiating authority.

This is a sign of how bad Peru and Panama trade deals are. Their only redeeming value, it seems, is that they are not as bad as the deals with Korea and Colombia. But that argument misses the point. Every bad trade agreement passed, makes it easier for another bad trade agreement to slip by.

When they say ``not that bad,'' we should say ``not good enough.'' Let's keep our eyes on the ball.

The Peru and Panama free-trade agreements are slippery slopes to other bad deals. Passing these deals makes it easier for the Bush administration to push through the Korea free-trade agreement which would gut the American car industry.

It would make it easier for the White House to push through fast track authority, which gives the President a blank check to create additional agreements that gut our communities and our economy.

Passing the Peru and Panama Free Trade Agreements puts us on a slippery slope toward passing the Bush-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, a deeply flawed trade deal for working families in both countries.

I just returned from Colombia, and this was my second trip in 7 months. On these visits I talked with leaders from civil society, indigenous groups, organized labor and the political opposition.

Colombia is a great country with wonderful people, a vibrant culture and a growing economy. However, Colombia remains the most dangerous country in the world for worker advocates. Despite recent progress, the Colombian Government has still been unable to protect labor organizers from being attacked or killed over any specific

amount of time. The Bush-Colombia Free Trade Agreement will only exacerbate those problems. Without real enforceable worker protections, increasing numbers of Colombian workers will be forced into sweatshop conditions.

The Bush-Colombia FTA will gut Colombia's legitimate agriculture sector. Colombian farmers will be forced to compete with subsidized crops from the United States. Many farmers will be forced to choose between leaving their farms and growing more lucrative drug crops, the very drug crops that we see sending drugs up to the United States.

Free traders are going to say that denying Colombia a free-trade package, after giving similar agreements to its neighbors, will destabilize the Colombian Government and give a victory to Hugo Chavez. They are going to say that it sends a terrible message to an important ally that we still regard Colombia as a pariah state.

They're going to say that if the worker and environmental protections were good enough for Peru and Panama, why not Colombia and Korea?

Here's the bottom line. The Peru and Panama Free Trade Agreements are slippery slopes to more downward pressure on wages and benefits, both here and abroad.

You want to hear the surest sign that the Bush Free Trade Agreement is flawed? He couldn't even pass them when his own party was in control of the Congress. The Peru free trade agreement was signed in April of 2006, and yet the White House couldn't get the Republican majority to move it.

Some might say, we can't afford not to sign free trade agreements. After all, they say, globalization is here to stay. Trade and globalization are here to stay. The question remains, however, can we make them work for working families? And I say, yes, we can.

Trade can benefit our economy and the economist of our trading partners. We can negotiate deals that create new markets, bring new jobs and new prosperity. We can achieve significant new foreign market access and reduce our trade deficit. If we stand united for working Americans, we can deliver a real new deal on trade, not warmed-over promises masquerading as caviar.

Minor adjustments to the NAFTA-style deals are just not good enough. No more agreements based on the failed NAFTA model, no more Fast Track promotion authority. We cannot give this administration, or future ones, a blank check on trade deals that devastate our communities at home.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get off that slippery slope and get on the new path toward trade that promotes development and prosperity for all, not just for the wealthy few.

And I thank my colleague, a real leader on this issue, Mr. Michaud, for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in support of ending the genocide and violence in Darfur, Sudan.

For far too long, the international community has paid inadequate attention and devoted insufficient resources to stopping the crisis in Darfur. Although the problems of Sudan lay a long way from our homes, we have learned from the Holocaust in Europe, as well as ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia and genocide in Rwanda, that an assault on humanity anywhere is an assault on humanity everywhere. We cannot continue to ignore this genocide without diminishing our own humanity.

As a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I am committed to bringing security and relief to the people of Darfur. I have led efforts to encourage state, local, and university divestment of funds from companies that conduct business operations in Sudan. And now I join my colleagues in urging China to do the same.

Given its economic interests throughout the region, China has a unique ability to positively influence the Government of Sudan to abandon its genocidal policies and to accept the United Nations' peacekeeping mission. To be accepted as a responsible player at the world's diplomatic table, China must end all military and economic assistance to the government of Sudan until Sudan stops overt and covert support for attacks on civilians and engages in meaningful peace negotiations.

All members of the international community share a moral obligation to end to the human suffering in Darfur. The situation is dire, but I am confident that we can all do our part to help stop this genocide and bring peace and stability to millions of innocent men, woman, and children.

Calling on the People's Republic of China to use its influence to help stop the genocide in Sudan is the right thing to do. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 422.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act, a bill that will help local governments to recruit and retain talented young people to their district attorney and public defender offices.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in addressing the House and the American people regarding our trade policy and its effect on working families.

I'd like to thank my colleague, Phil Hare, who organized this special order debate and

who is an active member of the Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus and the House Trade Working Group.

On May 10, the Administration and Members of this House announced a ``New Policy on Trade.''

It's about time. Democrats have been calling for a new direction in trade for years. Finally, the Administration appears to be listening to these calls for improved provisions to protect workers, their families, and the environment. I applaud the baby steps the Administration has taken. But the Administration needs to take giant leaps to improve on its current, failing approach to trade.

This new ``deal'' on trade covers changes to certain provisions of the Bush-negotiated Free Trade Agreements, FTAs, with Peru and Panama. Though we have seen outlines and summaries of this new ``deal'' on trade, we have not seen the final, legal text. Yet we have been asked to trust the Administration's promises and support this new ``deal.''

To those of us in Congress who have been working to champion the rights of American working families and begin a new approach to trade, the Administration's promises sound awfully familiar.

And when I say awful, I mean awful.

Each time this Administration has presented one of its trade schemes to Congress, it has promised us that the agreement includes all sorts of so-called ``innovative'' worker protections. We heard this over and over again during the debate on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

But the fact is, no matter what label you use to describe them, the so-called labor protections in CAFTA were disappointingly weak. For example, under CAFTA, countries can down-grade their own labor laws, without facing any trade penalties or sanctions.

Allowing our partners in free trade deals to erode their own labor standards is unfair to our workers here at home, who can't possibly compete with workers who are denied basic workplace rights, who are paid two dollars a day, or who face forced labor--as our own State Department reported was the case in Oman.

CAFTA passed the House by the narrowest of margins at a time when it was Republican controlled. You would think that the Administration would have gotten the message that it needed to do better.

You would think the Administration would have realized that from then on, it should include more of us in the process and work out a different type of trade deal.

But unfortunately no one was listening. Since CAFTA, we've seen the same weak labor provisions in the Oman FTA.

And now we are asked to have faith that the Administration has really turned over a new leaf? That enforceable labor and environmental standards will be included in the text of the Peru and Panama agreements?

I have faith in many things, but not in these promises.

This Administration has lost my faith. It has lied too many times, about too many things: that Iraq posed an imminent danger, that the mission in Iraq was accomplished, that at least nine U.S. attorneys were fired because they were incompetent, that the air around ground zero was safe to breathe, that we have not been experiencing any change in our climate.

Perhaps more importantly, even if these agreements are the best written, fairest trade agreements possible, so long as they rely on this Administration to enforce the labor and environmental standards they contain, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

This Administration has failed to protect workers here in the United States. The BP Texas City explosion, the Sago Mine Disaster, and the 9/ 11 first responders and clean-up workers who have developed serious breathing ailments--these are just the most notorious examples of this Administration's relinquishment of its responsibilities to provide even the most basic protection to workers: the right to work in a safe environment.

And that's not even mentioning the Administration's opposition to increasing the minimum wage, to protecting pensions and Social Security, and to ensuring that workers have the right to organize.

The Bush trade deal would give private corporations the ability to take action on their own to protect their rights. It would not, however, extend that same power to workers, who would have to rely on the Bush Administration to do that for them.

Trust this Administration to protect working American families? I don't think so. This new trade deal--like the previous bad deals--is a one-sided raw deal for workers.

We're continually told that NAFTA-style free trade will create more wealth in all the countries involved. Yet NAFTA-style free trade has meant the loss of jobs as those jobs have been shipped overseas.

Just as trickle-down economics proved to be a failure at lifting people out of poverty, the current free trade model has also proved to be a failure. Since NAFTA, the real income of working families has been on the decline or stagnant at best.

The middle class is getting squeezed from all directions. Downward pressure on wages is being accompanied by higher health care costs, higher gas prices, and higher education costs.

It's high time to develop a new trade policy that works for working families. American workers came out in droves in the last election, and they voted for a new majority. As part of the new majority, we owe it to them to stand with them for fair trade. To stand with them in creating a new America.

This is possible.

Fair trade is an option.

If we stand united for working Americans, we can deliver a real new deal on trade, not warmed over hash masquerading as caviar. You know the old saying about putting lipstick on a pig? Well, I smell bacon. I don't have to read the complete text of the deal to read between the lines.

The bottom line is this: minor adjustments to NAFTA-style deals are not good enough.

No more agreements based on the failed NAFTA model.

No more ``Fast Track'' trade negotiation authority.

We cannot give this Administration or future ones a blank check on trade deals that devastate our communities.

Trade can benefit our economy and the economies of our trading partners. We can negotiate deals that create new markets, bringing new jobs and new prosperity. We can achieve significant new foreign market access and reduce our trade deficit.

But to do so, we must embark on a new path. Not a slight detour from our current direction.

I challenge Republicans and Democrats, employers and employees, all those who care about shared prosperity in this country, and not just the rich getting richer, to work together to embark on this entirely new journey to fair trade.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 214, a bill that will revoke the Attorney General's unfettered authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys indefinitely.

During the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization conference, Republicans slipped a small provision into the conference report with enormous repercussions. That provision removed the 120-day limit for interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys, thereby allowing interim appointees to serve indefinitely and without confirmation.

After months of investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, we have learned that the Bush administration exploited this newly created loophole to purge high-performing Federal prosecutors while they were in the midst of high-profile public corruption investigations involving Republican officials. And while the administration has insisted it never intended to use this loophole to bypass Senate confirmation for appointing U.S. Attorneys, our investigation has uncovered communications and testimony that suggest otherwise.

We also learned, for example, that in an e-mail to former White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, former Attorney General Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson wrote: ``I strongly recommend that, as a matter of administration policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the Attorney General to make U.S. Attorney appointments.'' Mr. Sampson further said that by using the new provision, the Justice Department could ``give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.''

Referring to the new authority to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys indefinitely, Mr. Sampson also said, ``If we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?''

The Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007 provides the necessary legislative response to restore checks and balances in the U.S. Attorney appointment process by reinstating the 120-day limit on the interim appointment. Additionally, the bill would apply retroactively to all U.S. Attorneys currently serving in an interim capacity. This would ensure that interim U.S. Attorneys appointed since the purge scheme was hatched are not permitted to serve indefinitely and without Senate confirmation.

This is a common sense solution that has received strong support from the President of the National Association of Former U.S. Attorneys as well as from a former Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney who testified before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. It is also important to note that the Attorney General himself has expressed that he is not opposed to rolling back this provision of the USA PATRIOT Act.

I want to be clear that the consideration of S. 214 will not stop the Judiciary Committee's ongoing investigation of the U.S. Attorney purge scheme and the politicization of the Justice Department. After months of investigations, it is clear that the answers can only be found in the White House. We have spoken to every senior Justice Department official involved in the firing process and we still have not gotten the answers to two critical questions: Who made the decision to mass fire U.S. Attorneys, and why were these particular U.S. Attorneys targeted?

Mr. Speaker, the American people need to be assured that political calculations do not determine whether an individual is arrested or prosecuted. We must ensure that the integrity and honor of the Justice Department will be reinstated. I hope my colleagues will join me in the first critical step in this process by closing the loophole in the USA PATRIOT Act that this administration has improperly exploited for political purposes and supporting S. 214.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unable to be present on the House floor on Monday, May 14 for recorded votes because illness prevented timely travel.

However, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 1124; a bill to extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999; ``aye'' on H. Res. 223, a bill supporting the goals and ideals of a National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims; and ``aye'' on H. Res. 385, a bill recognizing National AmeriCorps Week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my support for H.R. 1700, the COPS Reauthorization Act of 2007.

The original COPS bill, passed in 1994, enabled local law enforcement agencies to hire 117,000 additional police officers across the Nation. H.R. 1700 will establish the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services as a distinct entity within the U.S. Department of Justice and will reauthorize hiring programs for three specific purposes: community policing officers, local counterterrorism officers, and school resource officers.

School resource officers are especially important to keep schools safe and to keep children in school. About 13.7 million or 22 percent of children and youth were physically bullied in the last year and 15.7 million were teased or emotionally bullied. Bullying behavior has been linked to other forms of antisocial behavior, such as vandalism, shoplifting, skipping and dropping out of school, fighting, and the use of drugs and alcohol. Having school resource officers on campuses will help combat this growing problem.

School resource officers are also needed to combat the national gang epidemic. In Los Angeles alone during the last 5 years, there were over 23,000 verified gang related violent crimes. These include 784 homicides, nearly 12,000 felony assaults, approximately 10,000 robberies and just under 500 rapes. It is imperative to reauthorize the COPS program and get more officers on the street to stop this trend.

I am proud to support this bill and encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1700, COPS Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my support for H.R. 1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

Freedoms of speech, expression, and equal protection under the law are the founding principles of this country. The Constitution guarantees these rights to all Americans. I believe that it is our duty to fight for the equal rights of all Americans, regardless of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

I abhor all violent crimes. Attacks that are motivated by hate are attacks on a whole class of people. Such hate crimes are intended to instill fear in an entire community and are particularly heinous. We must give law enforcement the proper tools to investigate and prosecute crimes that are motivated by hate.

Laws punishing hate crimes are not intended to value one group over another, but rather to acknowledge the historical bias against certain minority groups and opinions so that all can enjoy the same legal protections as the majority. Hate crime laws protect innocent people and allow them to engage in everyday activity without fear.

I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important legislation. This bill helps to better define a hate crime and prevents the erosion of civil liberties critical to our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to draw the attention of the House and the Nation to Public Service Recognition Week, which will take place May 7 through May 13.

This week is set aside to remind us all of the vital work that public employees do every day across our country and to honor that work. In many ways, public employees are the daily embodiment of our democracy. Every day they carry out the programs and services chosen by our elected government from the Federal to the State to the local level.

Locally, where democracy has the most direct impact, public employees carry out the programs of elected city councils and school districts as they teach our children, run parks and recreation programs, police our neighborhoods, and perform a myriad of other services to make our communities continually better places to live. Public employees are there for us, the public, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In the middle of the night when a water main breaks and floods a street, when a home catches fire, or when a terrorist threat is identified, it is public employees who respond for our communities and for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am continually impressed with the creativity and innovation of public-sector employees and leaders, as they deliver better services and value to the public, whether it's creatively combining scarce government resources to improve public safety, or teaming up government resources with community volunteers to provide needed home improvements for disabled seniors, or finding new ways to reduce air and water pollution. I think the public would be impressed to know that their tax dollars do have many good stewards who take pride in bringing them the best possible service for their tax dollars. My own mother is a public school teacher, so I know from experience how gifted public servants are at providing first-class services on a steerage budget.

On May 9 in Los Angeles, public employees representing a wide variety of Federal, State and local government agencies and school districts will gather for a Public Service Recognition Week ceremony. Thirteen individuals, teams and projects will be honored as winners of the public service recognition awards for outstanding contributions and service to the public.

Over 200 individuals, teams and projects were nominated for these awards. Since I will be performing my own duty as a public servant on May 9 here in this House, I want to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation and congratulations to everyone who will attend that Los Angeles ceremony and ceremonies like it all across our Nation.

Let me conclude by urging all of my colleagues to honor their public employees by cosponsoring House Resolution 307, which would formally designate Public Service Recognition Week and to support public service recognition events in their districts around the Nation in the coming week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 100, to express sympathy to the families of women and girls murdered in Guatemala. The senseless atrocities being committed in Guatemala are a grim reminder of the injustices that plague women and girls throughout the world. It is imperative that we speak out as a nation against these malicious acts, which demonstrate an utter lack of respect for human life.

These irrational acts of violence targeted against women are not just a looming problem in Guatemala. Femicide has afflicted other countries in the world, but our attention turns to Guatemala as the most recent and serious case of negligence by government officials. According to reports, 40 percent of killings were never investigated or the investigations

were simply shelved. This pattern of impunity by the Guatemalan Government cultivates and perpetuates the cycle of violence.

It has taken pressure from the international community to highlight this gross violation of human rights and force the Guatemalan Government to take steps towards alleviating these problems. Guatemalan officials have recently created a special police commission and prosecutorial unit to solely focus on femicide crimes.

Although these are important and necessary steps, more must be done to address these issues.

It is necessary for this House to focus our attention to Guatemala's passive attitude. This is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H. Res. 100.

Madam Speaker, I proudly join my colleagues today calling attention to the grave disparities in minority health in our Nation. The research is clear: there is a health gap between races and ethnicities. There should be no more debate on whether this is a reality.

African Americans are more than twice as likely to have diabetes as Whites. Asian American men suffer from stomach cancer twice as often as non-Hispanic White men. Hispanic women are 2.2 times more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than non-Hispanic White women. African American women are 36 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than White women. American Indians/Alaska Natives have diabetes rates that are nearly three times the national rate.

In addition to disparities in health outcomes, Hispanics and African Americans are least likely to be covered by insurance. Disturbingly, over 32 percent of Latinos are uninsured. Lack of insurance translates to lack of preventive care, lack of care for chronic conditions, and failure to attain screenings that could catch diseases and conditions at an early stage. Not only do these communities of color lack access to health care, but they face medical debt that could be paralyzing to their economic situation.

I am pleased that Congress is finally addressing racial and ethnic health disparities. Not only because there should be parity in health, but because the number of minorities is growing. It will be detrimental to the future of our Nation if we do not continue to support understanding and addressing how to best serve communities of color. Understanding health risk factors and how to effectively deliver health care to our minority population today will help us prepare to serve a majority of the population of tomorrow. In the end, we will all benefit.

While we work toward solving the national healthcare crisis, we cannot lose sight of racial and ethnic health disparities. The only way to solve our current dilemma is to use evidence-based research findings. I support funding research for further innovation. We already know some of what we must do to improve health outcomes for minority population. For instance, we need more minority health care providers who are culturally competent. We also need to address linguistic barriers.

April is National Minority Health Month. It is imperative that we have a productive and invigorating discussion on racial and ethnic health disparities. We need to make sure all communities of color can live healthier lives. As health care programs and policies are considered, let us not forget to include all aspects in the debate, including minority health. As a multicultural Nation, we should celebrate our diversity, not punish it.

Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I join my colleagues here on the floor this evening to pay tribute to a colleague who we lost far too soon.

I was saddened to hear the news yesterday of Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald's passing. Juanita was really a woman of many firsts, who broke down countless barriers for women and for African Americans.

While the history books no doubt will list the numerous accomplishments of her long career, I will remember her best as a champion for economic opportunity and empowerment for the people of Long Beach and Los Angeles. I was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with her on many issues important to the communities shared by our adjacent districts. When workers, for example, in our communities who assembled the C-17 aircraft, faced the prospect of their assembly plant shutting down and losing their jobs, Juanita led the fight to make sure that those jobs were not lost. And she succeeded, and hundreds of people's lives are better off today thanks to her hard work.

When I first joined Congress, Juanita took the time and made a special effort to introduce me to many of the local leaders in the African-American communities that straddle our districts. This was very thoughtful of her and I will always be in her debt for it.

We here in Congress will certainly miss her insight, her experience, and her energy. And I will most certainly miss her beautiful smile and her unforgettable style because she truly is an unforgettable woman.

I am sure that her constituents will miss her tireless advocacy on their behalf. They and we have lost a fine public servant, and we have lost a tremendously fine colleague. But most of all, my thoughts tonight are with her husband, their children and grandchildren, and their extended family. I wish them all the strength during this difficult time, and I want them to know that Juanita is truly an incredible woman who shall not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Mr. Grijalva for being so generous with time. And I would also like to thank Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall and Ranking Member Don Young, as well as Water and Power Subcommittee Chairwoman Grace Napolitano, for recognizing the importance of this bill, H.R. 786, the ``Southern California Water Augmentation Study.''

I would like to especially thank Chairwoman Grace Napolitano for her support on this bill and her leadership in moving it through the Natural Resources Committee.

I became interested in this effort because California and other parts of the country need to move forward on two very important issues. First, we must increase our groundwater drinking supplies. We can do this by improving the safe infiltration of surface water which seeps into the ground. Second, we must reduce urban storm-water runoff that can carry trash and contamination to our beaches and oceans. This water augmentation study addresses both of those issues.

Storm-water currently becomes contaminated by running off rooftops and roads and carrying that pollution into our oceans. Our study is assessing ways to safely absorb that water into the ground where natural purifying processes can take place. This will stem the flow of polluted water into the ocean and safely recharge our groundwater supplies. Simply put, this project is about taking the water that we lose and turning it into water we use.

This study will assess the potential of urban storm-water infiltration to augment our water supplies. It will determine the benefits, costs, and risks of infiltration. It will help us understand what conditions we need to make infiltration work and assess its potential for increasing our drinking water supply. At the same time, it will show us how to reduce water pollution, creating additional environmental and social benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to make southern California more water-self-sufficient and less reliant on imported water from our neighbors in the central and northern parts of our State.

This is a bipartisan effort in which there is agreement on the merits of the project throughout our government. I am very pleased that President Bush has included funding for the water augmentation study in his last four budgets, including this year.

Also, the Bureau of Reclamation has been extremely supportive of this project. In fact, they helped create it in the year 2000 because they see it as helping to solve the real problem we face in California and other, shall I say, ``water-challenged'' areas of the country.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young, as well as the great staff on the

House Resources Committee; and to thank Representative Napolitano for her unyielding support of this bill.

In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt said, ``The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem, it will avail us little to solve all others.'' With your help, Southern California can make significant progress toward improving its water resources management.

I urge approval of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I proudly join my colleagues today to pay tribute to the contributions of Latinos who served in our Armed Forces during World War II. As we were painfully reminded by the complete omission of Hispanics from a PBS documentary on World War II, the important contributions of Latinos, native born, as well as immigrants, are too often overlooked and forgotten.

From the American Revolution, a victory that established our Nation; to the Civil War, a victory that preserved our Nation; to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hispanics have played an instrumental role.

From Hispanic business owners to day laborers to the growing number of Hispanics in executive level positions, Hispanics are ingrained in the fabric of our strong Nation. As the largest and fastest growing minority in the Unites States, Hispanic participation in all segments of society is not only essential but apparent. It should not be surprising, then, that Hispanics also serve our nation in one of its most patriotic duties--the heroic defense of our country.

During World War II, Hispanics served in greater proportions than any other minority in the U.S. Armed Forces with the number of Hispanics serving likely peaking at well over 400,000. Although proper record keeping of Hispanics in the armed forces was not kept until after World War II, we have a multitude of accounts of Hispanic participation. One famous example is Company E of the 141st Regiment of the 36th Texas Infantry Division, which was made up entirely of Spanish-speaking Americans. For their notable service they were awarded 1,685 Bronze Stars, 492 Silver Stars, 31 Distinguished Service Crosses, 12 Legions of Merit, and 11 Soldier's Medals.

One individual example is Staff Sergeant Ysmael R. Villegas. A California native, he served in the United States Army during World War II. At the Battle of Luzon in the Philippines, he stepped up to lead his squad in a counterattack of the enemy and single-handedly cleared five installations of heavy machineguns. Upon taking the sixth and final area of firing, and at only twenty-one years old, Staff Sergeant Villegas was killed in action. For his bravery, President Harry Truman posthumously awarded him the Medal of Honor.

There are countless stories of heroism like Staff Sergeant Villegas'. Hispanics disproportionately earned more Medals of Honor in the 20th Century than any other major subgroup. From the Civil War to the Vietnam War, there have been thirty-nine Hispanic Americans who have received the Medal of Honor. Twenty-two of them sacrificed their lives in combat in service to the United Stated Navy, Army, and Marines.

According to the latest Census, there are over 1.1 million living Hispanic veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces. And this number is expanding. Since November 2006, 25,300 Hispanics have been deployed for service. According to the Department of Defense, Hispanics have endured the most deaths for a minority group in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Our country honors their service as well as those who have served in the past.

I encourage all Americans to take the opportunity to recognize and continue to learn about the role Hispanics played in World War II and throughout our nation's history. It is an integral part of the American story. Without these contributions and sacrifices, America would not be what it is today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud support of H.R. 137, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007, because it is time for the Federal Government to up the ante in its efforts to curb this cruel and gruesome abuse of animals.

The current misdemeanor penalties in Federal law have not been effective. They are considered a cost of doing business by the animal fighting industry, which continues to operate across the country.

This bill addresses the growing problem of animal fighting by amending Federal law to prohibit moving animals through interstate commerce for the purpose of fighting.

Do we want to make a Federal case out of this? Yes, we do. Those who profit from animal fighting often drug dogs and roosters to make them hyper-aggressive and to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries. The animals are in a closed pit from which they cannot escape. Often, they die during the fight. This is a gruesome and inhumane practice. The American people agree. Dog fighting is illegal in 50 States and cockfighting is illegal in most.

Current law is simply not strong enough. Animal fighting often leads to additional criminal behavior. It is associated with illegal gambling, narcotics trafficking, public corruption, gang activity, and violent behavior toward people.

The National Sheriffs' Association supports the legislation, and more than 400 individual sheriffs and police departments in every State in the country have endorsed it. They recognize that animal fighting often involves movement of animals across interstate

and foreign borders, and they can't do the job on their own. They need the Federal Government to do its part to curb this dangerous activity.

I am proud to be a part of this bipartisan effort to curb this appalling treatment of animals. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on H.R. 137.