REFORMA @ National Library Legislative Day

Letter from REFORMA President, Roxana Benavides.

Dear REFORMISTAS,

Please join me in congratulating the REFORMA Legislative Committee
for a successful National Library Legislative Day on Capitol Hill.

The REFORMA delegation was led by Carol Brey-Casiano, who I am told
did an excellent job in representing the legislative issues that are
important to REFORMA. Members of the REFORMA delegation included
Jacqueline Ayala and Sandy Schuckett (CA), Camila Alire (CO), Mario
Ascencio (DC), Hector Marino (IL), and Carol Brey-Casiano (TX).

The delegation met with eight congressional representative staff
members from the following offices: Congressman Ciro Rodriguez,
Congressman Joe Baca, Congressman Silvestre Reyes, Congressman Ruben
Hinojosa, Congresman Raul Grijalva, Congressman Henry Cuellar, and
Congressman Luis Gutierrez. They also met with Congressman Xavier
Becerra. The delegation also met with MALDEF Legal Attorney, Peter
Zamora.

Issues brought forward by the REFORMA delegation included: 1) support
for the repeal of the REAL ID Act, 2) support for immigration reform
as stated in REFORMA's and ALA's resolution on immigration adopted in
January 2007, 3) Bilingual Education, 4) Net Neutrality, 5) LSTA
funding, 6) School Libraries (Improving Literacy through School
Libraries & and No Child Left Behind), 7) Librarians Act of 2007, and
8) Copyright.

Muchas Gracias to the REFORMA Legislative Committee for representing
REFORMA on Capitol Hill!

Roxana Benavides
REFORMA President 2006-2007
"Bridging the Gaps: Activism and Advocacy for Free and Equitable
Access to Library Services and Information."

Critique of bracero-type programs

I received this interesting email today from the Mexican American Political Association.

-Isabel

----

Mexican American Political Association

March 02, 2007

Greetings!

NCLR’s Embrace of Bracero-type Program a Trojan Horse

_

“Is this indentured alien – an almost perfect model of the economic man, an ‘input factor’ stripped of the political and social attributes that liberal democracy likes to ascribe to all human beings ideally – is this bracero the prototype of the production man of the future?” – asked Ernesto Galarza, the legendary author, labor organizer, community leader, and founder of the National Council of La Raza in his seminal work, “Merchants of Labor” in 1964, wherein he described the managed migration of Mexican farm workers in California from 1942 to 1963.

Fast forward to the current national debate around federal immigration reform and we encounter Galarza’s creation, NCLR, morphed into a naked apologist for that sector of corporate America, which is clamoring for modern-day braceros – and not solely reserved for agriculture. But, then again, it probably couldn’t have been otherwise. NCLR has been marketed by American big business as the “largest Hispanic civil rights organization in the U.S.” – a figment of a not too sophisticated marketing strategy, but almost entirely funded and subsidized by the Wal- Marts of the U.S. corporate landscape.

There is nothing in the distant or recent history of similar contract-worker programs in the U.S. that would inspire confidence in any of the current proposals for what NCLR’s CEO, Janet Murguia, has called a “new worker program.” She recently declared in an op-ed piece published in the Washington Post on February 11, 2007, that her “organization and many Latino leaders find ourselves in the interesting position of being principal advocates for a significant new worker visa program as part of comprehensive immigration reform.” Yet, she fails to identify what other “Latino leaders” advocate such a position, or organization that has a track record of advocating for and representing immigrant workers, or immigrant leaders and organizations. She couldn’t because there are none. In the same piece, Murguia lays out the historical experience of bracero programs as “dreadful,” “infamous,” and “synonymous with worker abuse,” yet goes on to advocate for a modern version of the program – an incredible summersault of logic.

We should remember that this is the same organization in the early 1990s – in the name of the Latino community - that was a vociferous supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has resulted in the loss of millions of American jobs, and the displacement of no less than three million Mexican small farmers from their lands, notwithstanding the opposition by labor and community-based organizations on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border during those debates. This is relevant because it goes to the question of whose interests are served by NCLR’s position on a new bracero program, and whose interests are prejudiced. Simply put, who wins and who loses?

NCLR has no history, trajectory, or reputation for serving individual immigrants in the problems that they encounter in America. It has no first-hand experience in case management in filing wage claims or addressing the systematic violations of the terms and conditions of existing contract-labor programs – H-2A and H-2B, for example. It has no stomach for litigating endemic injustices committed by employers who rob the contract laborers of the value that they create, and that stab to undermine existing prevailing wage standards, and thus, make more tenuous the social standing of native-born workers. Neither has NCLR advocated for the just resolution of the claims made by previous bracero workers who were denied the social security benefits, the funds of which were deducted from their wages, and due them by the U.S. and Mexican governments.

The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, comprised of agribusiness, and major American corporations, but also includes NCLR, the National Immigration Forum, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and UNITE-HERE, with cozy relations with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has been at the forefront in advocating for the 21st Century bracero program.

Contrariwise, all other labor unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, immigrants’ rights coalitions, national and regional Latino organizations, and immigrant-member organizations have steadfastly opposed bracero-type programs.

What we are witnessing today is a debate shaping up similar to that which occurred prior to the passage of NAFTA in 1994. Let’s call it NAFTA II, or NAFTA coming home to roost. A massive “guest-worker” program constitutes nothing more then the importation of bound labor, cheaper than domestic labor, the inverse effect of the massive exportation of manufacturing jobs to cheap labor aboard. Speaking before the American Trucking Association recently, Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, stated that a successful guest- worker program could “give all of you all the truck drivers you can hire.” Trucking companies are currently experiencing driver shortages. This is the real intent of big business with regard to any new contract-labor program, however the advocates of such may seek to soften the name with “guest,” “temporary,” or “new worker.”

U.S. Senator Ernest Gruening, who served in the U.S. Congress during the previous bracero period, observed at the time that, “Although American private enterprise was the beneficiary of an ample and docile labor supply, a large part of the costs were borne by the U.S. Government, i.e., the American taxpayers.” He characterized the program as one in which “corruption and exploitation were its steady concomitants. Gradually the imported labor replaced the domestic.”

Murguia claims that the critics of her position offer “no practical solutions for the flow of migrants that will surely continue or for the abuses these workers will face if they survive the trip across the border.” More than a decade after the approval of NAFTA, a fair trade to the new migrants who come to America to provide valued labor and service is a permanent visa – either employment-based or family relative-based. This would be the best measure to assure that prevailing wage standards are protected, that domestic labor not be undermined, and that labor and civil rights, and civil liberties, are more easily guaranteed. There can be nothing more practical to the migrant worker than permanent legal residency, which provides the minimum modicum of negotiating power with the employer, freedom of movement cross borders, a true statutory path to citizenship, and the ability to immigrate other loved ones.

Only such permanence in visa status will assure that new migrant workers not become a stratified permanent second-class workforce available primarily to benefit employers. Permanent legal resident status in exchange for the valued labor of the migrant worker is what I would call a fair trade, instead of the notoriously unfair “free trade” concept associated with NAFTA.

Nativo V. Lopez, National President of the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), and the National Director of Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana. 2-26-07

Latino US Representives input on Iraq resolution

From Rosalio Muñoz
-----
Compas,
Here is the debate input of Latino reps yesterday.
They do a good job of arguing for the resolution
against the surge. Serrano goes further to call for
bringing the troops home right away. This is
something we should raise with these and others after
the debate is over. Also needed is ideas for an exit
strategy. There is a need for regional troops and
other nations to help in bring security for the Iraq
people. A US military role in this is wrong, with the
current commander in chief that is having the fox
guard the chicken coop. Rosalio


Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 6 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), former
paratrooper with both the 101st and 82nd Airborne
Divisions.

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House
Concurrent Resolution 63.

I thank the Armed Services Committee chairman, Mr.
Skelton, for carrying this legislation in support of
our military troops and opposing the President's plan
to send at least 21,500 more troops to Iraq.

I speak today as a proud veteran who served in the
United States armed service as a paratrooper in the
101st and 82nd Airborne Division.

As a veteran and as a Congressman, I voted against
this war in year 2002 because no one could convince me
why we had to be there in the first place. I was
tormented with this decision. I talked to many of my
constituents. I called the bishop in my area. I
couldn't see what invading Iraq had to do with
securing the homeland. No one in the administration
could convince me that there were weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. But we sent our troops there
anyway, without proper training or proper equipment.

This administration was in such a hurry to invade
Iraq that we sent our military in there with defective
body armor and Hummers that couldn't withstand the
roadside bombs. In fact, before Congress made any
appropriations for an Iraq invasion, the President
took $600 million from our troops in Afghanistan and
sent it to Iraq.

The administration has refused to listen to its own
generals, to Congress or to the American people. They
just do what they want.

After September 11, I was willing to do anything to
make our country safe, like all of us. We came
together in a bipartisan way. I believed in fighting
terrorists in Afghanistan was the right thing to do,
but the current situation in Iraq proves what we have
been saying all along, that the Iraq war has not and
will not make America safer. Instead, it is costing
the American taxpayers $200 million every day. The
money that we spent in Iraq could have sent 17 million
high school students to college. Can you imagine, 17
million students going on to college right now that we
could have provided assistance to, or paid for 6
million new school teachers, reduced the student
ratio, funded the No Child Left Behind Act, or help
with Katrina. But more money has been spent on this
war, and yet it is costing us money for those that are
losing their lives right now.

Over 3,000 men and women have given their lives for
this war, and over 23,000 are coming home wounded or
disabled. Mr. Speaker, over 10,000 of these troops are
so severely wounded that they will never be able to
serve again. Let me tell you, and you have to look at
them, never able to serve again.

Now the President wants to send 21,500 more troops
to the most dangerous part of Iraq. Why? Why are we
sending our troops to fight in another country's civil
war? Mr. Speaker, this isn't a strategy for success.
This is a desperation attempt by the administration
who can't admit that they made a mistake. They made a
mistake, and they need to admit it. And the sooner we
come to this realization, the better off this country
will be. As a veteran, I understand that sometimes war
is necessary, but as a veteran, I also know that war
should always be the last resort because war means
someone's sons and daughters won't come home. That
means separating parents from their children, leaving
their homes, someone making a sacrifice.

In my home State of California alone, we have lost
325 men and women in Iraq. Back in my home district,
we have lost 10 outstanding young men. It just breaks
my heart. Mr. Speaker, you don't put the American
families through this kind of pain unless you are
sure, beyond any shadow of doubt, that there are no
other options. The President had failed to convince me
in 2002, and I am still not convinced to this day.

I say let's support this resolution. Let's bring
back our men.

GENERAL LEAVE


Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 1/2 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who is a
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and chairman
of the Higher Education Committee.

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
of H. Con. Res. 63. The State of Texas has a proud
history of military service. Thousands of Texans have
fought with distinction in every conflict this country
has entered.

Hundreds of my constituents are currently serving
in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are willing to leave
behind their families and friends to risk their lives
in service to their country. Many will never return
home. Many will come home maimed and injured.

I want to read the names of the young people from
the 15th District of Texas who have given their lives
in Iraq and Afghanistan: Darrell Shipp, Benito
Ramirez, Javier Marin, Julio Alvarez, Gary Moore,
Tomas Garces, Mark Anthony Zapata, Juan Calderon,
Christopher Ramirez, Dustin Sekula, Juan Garza, James
Kesinger, Mitchell Mutz, John Russell, Quinton
Gertson, Christopher Kilpatrick, Tina Priest, and
Daniel Galvan.

I know how much their families and friends have
grieved at their loss. I have spoken to their parents
and spouses and have attended many of their funerals.
We are all so very proud of their military service and
know they did their very best.

However, as an elected Representative of the United
States Government, I have a responsibility to make
sure that the sacrifices of these brave men and women
were not in vain.


[Time: 17:30]

I have a responsibility to see that more Americans
will not be sacrificed unnecessarily. I have supported
the funding to give our military the body armor, the
equipment and training they need, and I will continue
to see that they have whatever they need. But I will
not support an administration policy that puts more
troops in harm's way, with no apparent end in sight
and with no clear goals on how to win the fight.

In 2002, I stood in this well and I spoke on that
resolution giving the President permission to go to
war, and I voted against going to war with Iraq
because I didn't believe we had all the information we
needed on Iraq's nuclear capabilities and weapons of
mass destruction and its support for terrorism. I was
concerned that the President had not convinced the 39
countries who had supported us in the previous war
with Iraq. I was disappointed that the President did
not have an exit plan after we defeated Iraq. And I
was disappointed that the President would not put in
the budget what we were going to spend on that war.

No one denies that Saddam Hussein was a cruel
dictator who brutally oppressed his people, and I am
glad that the Iraqis are free of this tyranny. But the
Bush administration did not have accurate information
then, and I don't believe they have an accurate
picture of the situation today.

Our troops are now caught in the middle of a civil
war between religious groups that have hated each
other for centuries. There is no defined enemy and no
clear battle lines.

The task of imposing and growing democracy in a
place where it has never been is not the job of our
military. It must come from the political will of the
Iraqi people. Only the Iraqis can decide whether they
want to put aside centuries of discord and come
together to create a stable, democratic country where
the rights of every group is recognized. The Iraqi
Government must take responsibility for its own
future.

After more than 4 years, the U.S. is not safer
because of our efforts in Iraq. By dividing our
resources, we have allowed the Taliban to reemerge in
Afghanistan and have given al Qaeda a strong foothold
that it never had before in Iraq. Syria and Iran have
gained influence throughout the entire region.

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars at
the expense of critical programs at home like
education, health care and homeland security. Our
military is severely strained with troops on their
third and fourth tours of Iraq. Units are being
deployed, either understaffed or with new personnel,
that has decreased unit cohesiveness, proficiency and
morale. Equipment is worn out and our readiness to
deal with an additional crisis is in jeopardy.

Unfortunately, most of his generals disagree. The
distinguished members of the bipartisan Iraq Study
Group disagree, and more importantly, the American
people disagree.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting H.
Con. Res. 63 and opposing the President's decision to
send more troops to Iraq.


Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California, HILDA SOLIS, member of
the Energy and Commerce Committee and Vice Chair of
the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time.

I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 63.

I am a strong supporter of our service men and
women and strongly committed to finding a reasonable
and responsible resolution which includes a
redeployment of our troops. However, a responsible
resolution does not include the deployment of more of
our brave service men and women to Iraq. Sixty-six
percent of Americans oppose the President's escalation
plan to send additional troops to Iraq. They believe,
as I do, without a new policy to secure the peace and
stabilize Iraq, further escalation will do nothing but
unnecessarily risk the lives of more U.S. service men
and women.

There are currently 135,000 U.S. troops
courageously serving in Iraq. At the direction of our
government, they left their fathers, mothers,
brothers, children, and wives. This war is having, as
you know, a significant impact on their families and
our communities.

In the district that I represent, the 32nd
Congressional District of California, we have lost 13
sons to combat. Note the photograph that I have here
on display. This includes Lance Corporal Francisco
Martinez from the city of Duarte in the San Gabriel
Valley, who bravely served our country despite not
even being a U.S. citizen. I was able to meet his
parents. They were very humble individuals who spoke
only Spanish and proudly stated that their son served
their country with honor. It breaks my heart to think
that this was only one servicemember, only one of the
more than 3,000 families that have been through this
since the war started almost 4 years ago.

The past 3 months, as you know, have been the
deadliest months in the war in over 2 years. While
Latinos make up 12 percent of the U.S. population,
they make up 17 percent of the service men and women
in combat in Iraq, and 11 percent of those have
already been killed. U.S. casualties are now more than
3,100 and more than 23,400 service men and women have
been wounded in action, and nearly half of those
wounded will not be able to lead a normal life because
of severe injuries, permanent disabilities, and
post-traumatic stress syndrome. Yet many of these
service men and women will return to Iraq for a
second, third, and maybe even a fourth tour.

The President's proposal to escalate ignores the
real needs of our troops and the grave reality of this
situation. Three times in the past 2 years the number
of U.S. troop levels have increased in Iraq. Three
times this approach has failed. And during Operation
Together Forward, additional troops were sent into
Baghdad because of an increase in sectarian violence.
U.S. military spokesman General William Caldwell
stated that the increase was a failure and had ``not
met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction
in the levels of violence.'' Even the commander of the
U.S. Central Command in Iraq has testified that top
military commanders in Iraq do not believe that
increasing the number of troops is the right approach.
He stated, ``I do not believe that more American
troops right now is the solution to this problem. I
believe that the troop levels need to stay where they
are.''

Increasing the number of U.S. troops is not a
solution. The increase does nothing to improve
long-term security and end sectarian violence. Our
country needs a policy to secure and stabilize Iraq
and one that constructively engages in diplomacy and
partners with our neighboring countries and the region
to create a stable and peaceful nation, not a blank
check to send more men and women into harm's way. We
need a policy and a plan to put the welfare of our
service men and women first so they can come home,
rejoin their families, and receive the care they
deserve. They should include adequate services for
returning service men and women, including culturally
competent care, mental health care for veterans,
housing and education.

We need a plan to ensure that U.S. tax dollars are
not going to war profiteering and fraud, such as the
$1.4 billion that has been somehow charged by
Halliburton. I strongly believe that this is possible,
but it will require courage, cooperation, and
leadership on the part of all my colleagues. Let me
say to my colleagues that I support our troops and the
war on terror. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq is not
the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to support and protect
our sons and daughters who are serving, as these young
people have served us so well. I will do so by voting
for this resolution and by supporting their
redeployment.

Mr. CARNAHAN. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York, JOSÉ SERRANO, member of the House
Appropriations Committee.

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. This is, indeed, a very solemn
occasion; and anyone watching this debate, either on
television or in the gallery, should understand that
we take very seriously what we say here today. We may
disagree on what the final outcome should be, but we
do take it very seriously.

And I take it seriously as I recall a funeral I
attended, it seems a long time ago, for a member of
the Armed Forces, Luis Moreno, who was killed in Iraq.
I remember that rainy morning, leaving the church on
the way to the cemetery, the pain and the sadness that
took place in the whole community, the pain and the
sadness that engulfed a family and everyone who was
there.

We took seriously the loss of that life, and we
honor every day the fact that he was sent to that
battlefield and he gave his life for that particular
cause, which we discuss today.

We are here in his honor to say that we have to
make sure that we no longer continue to escalate this
war which was presented to us, it seems again, a long
time ago based on, at the minimum, false information,
and at most, sadly, lies presented to this Congress.


[Time: 18:30]

We have to make sure that no further loss of life
takes place. So much has been said today about
supporting our troops. Well, I know of no greater
support than to bring them home tomorrow morning.

I know a lot of people will say, if you bring them
home, Iraq will become a mess. Well, has anyone
noticed that Iraq is a mess?

Well, if you bring them home now, Iraq will become
a country in a civil war. Has anyone noticed that Iraq
is involved in a civil war?

The question is, will we wait for more Americans to
lose their lives and more to be wounded?

When I say that we were given bad information or
possibly lied to, we were told at that time, I
remember, how the weapons of mass destruction were
stored in Iraq and that we had to get them before they
got us, and how there was a link between al Qaeda and
September 11 and Saddam Hussein. And now, even the
administration and its ardent supporters agree that
there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September
11, there was no link between al Qaeda, there was no
link between any of that that we were told; and we
still haven't found the weapons of mass destruction.
It was simply a desire to take us to where we
shouldn't be. And in the process, we really blew it.

I was in New York City on September 11; I was not
with my colleagues here. It was election day in New
York, primary day, and I was there in New York on that
day for some local elections. I lived through that
moment, and I know how painful that was. But beginning
with September 12, the world was with us. Every
country was supportive of what we were going through.
It always amazed me that countries that live with
terrorism on a daily basis thought that, for some
reason, the attack on us was in many ways even bigger
than the attacks on their own country, and they
supported us. We could have taken that goodwill and
used it for positive things throughout the world. What
did we do? We totally lost the goodwill by going and
invading a country that had nothing to do with
September 11. And so now, the same people who
supported us no longer support us.

What we are doing here today is exerting a
constitutional right. This is not a political
exercise, this is not a legislative exercise, this is
Members of Congress saying that it is our right to
oversee the President and to stop him whenever we can
when we know that any President, any administration is
making a mistake.

Now, how has this administration been able to keep
us supportive in some ways up to now? By doing
something which is really sad, by questioning our
patriotism. And so tonight and tomorrow and for the
next couple of days more will question our patriotism.
But I ask you, isn't a true patriot he or she who is
not holding back to question the actions of his
country even during wartime? Isn't that the true
patriot who is willing to say, even during wartime,
stop it now, stop the madness before it goes any
further and before we lose more of our young people?

And so we gather here after 3,109 losses, after
23,000 wounded soldiers saying we have to stop it now,
and we have to vote for this resolution

Take action on representation of Latino experience in national documentary

From: Robert Vazquez
Reply-To: Foro de comunicación para Latinos del suroeste de los EEUU
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:34:44 -0500
To:
Subject: No Latinos in Ken Burns PBS WWII 14 hour Documentary

From: "gus chavez"
To: LARED-L@LISTSERV.CYBERLATINA.NET
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: No Latinos in Ken Burns PBS WWII 14 hour Documentary

Friends

Our sincere thanks go out to all of you who have responded to the
information sent out by Dr. Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez:

http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2004/history.html

http://journalism.utexas.edu/faculty/rivasrodriguezbio.html

Regarding "No Latinos in Ken Burns WWII 14 hour Documentary. The personal
statements, articles, Opinion Editorials and letters to PBS have been
excellent and very timely. We now have to raise the level of concern to a
new level, one that is aimed at the Executive Officer and Board of
Directors within the PBS organization.

Please know that Alex Nogales, President & CEO of the National Hispanic
Media Coalition is in the process of meeting with the Ms. Paula Kerger,
head of PBS. He will be making a request for a followup meeting with her
and representatives of the Latino community who have expressed deep
concern over this matter.

Therefore, until such a meeting is agreed to, we are requesting all
concerned individuals and organizations to submit letters calling for the
inclusion of the Latino experience in Ken Burns WWII documentary that is
scheduled for release and showing in over 168 PBS stations across the
country. The release date is September 16, 2007.

Submit all correspondence, including attachments of articles and
Op-Editorials, directly to: Paula Kerger, PBS President & Chief Executive
Officer

PBS Office of the Corporate Secretary
2100 Crystal Drive, VA 22202-3785 or email your correspondence to:
corporatesecretary@ pbs.org

Please send copies of your correspondence to members of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus (CHC) from your district as well as other elected
officials who know of the Mexican American/Latino World War II experience.
We need everyone to participate and assist with this national effort.

As I stated to Dr. Jorge Mariscal Gracias from UCSD "The last thing we can
collectively do to honor our elders is to make sure their sacrifices are
not forgotten in documentaries, books and war memorials." Gracias a todos.
(Please share this message widely)

Gus Chavez
Former Director of EOP & Ethnic Affairs
San Diego State University - Retired
U.S. Navy Veteran

Fact: President Bush's new budget calls for a $145 million cut of the PBS
budget for next year. I don't think PBS can afford to have a Latino WWII
veterano problem on top of the proposed budget cut.

National driver's license hits a bump

National driver's license hits a bump
By Leslie Miller
The ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published February 6, 2007

A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states.

The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases.

Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network.

"It's the whole privacy thing," said Matt Sundeen, a transportation analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "A lot of legislators are concerned about privacy issues and the cost. It's an estimated $11 billion implementation cost."

. . .

The issue may be moot for states if Congress takes action.

Republican Sen. John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, along with Democratic Sen. Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii, filed a bill last year to repeal the law. Mr. Sununu expects similar legislation will be introduced soon.

"The federal government should not be in charge of defining and issuing driver's licenses," Mr. Sununu said.

Privacy advocates say a national driver's license will promote identity theft.

From Latinos for Peace

I received this message -below- from Latinos for Peace. Remember, the ALA has a resolution against the Iraq War, and making a connection between this war and libraries. It's an issue that affects libraries and Latino communities.

Message:

Compas

On major peace legislation among Latinos only Raul Grijalva is consistently on good legislation. This is surprising in that polls show Latinos oppose the war by over 2/3's, and higher in urban areas. Also no Latino Democrat voted to authorize use of force to begin with in 2002. All voted against it save Ortiz who was ill. So mobilizing grass roots peace lobbying by Latinos can have good impact.

Grijalva is the only Latino on HR 508 the comprehesive peace bill by Lynn Woolsey with 27 cosponsors. HR 413 to repeal the use of force by Sam Farr with 6 cosponsors, HR 353 to prohibit funds for escalation by Ed Markey with 20 cosponsors, H Con Res 33 to prevent invasion of Iran by Peter Difazio with 30 cosponsors.

Hilda Solis has joined Grijalva on H Res 41 declaring the surge is the wrong policy by Martin Meehan with 46 cosponsors. Solis and Jose Serrano join Grijalva on H Con Res 23 against escalation in Iraq by Dennis Kucinich with 33 cosponsors.

Ten Latinos are cosponsors of the Murtha proposal to redeploy troops out of Iraq HJ Res 18. The Latinos are Baca, Becerra, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Napolitano, Pastor, Linda Sanchez, Solis and Velasquez. No Republican is on this or any other peace bill. The Democrat Latinos not on the bill are all the Texans Cuellar, Gonzalez, Hinojosa, Ortiz, Rodriguez and Ortiz. Neither are Salazar of Colorado, Sires of New Jersey, and Serrano of New York,

California Latinos not on HJ Res 18 or other Peace bills are Lucile Roybal-Allard and Loretta Sanchez.

Latino Reps and all others can be reached in Washington D.C. by calling the capital switchboard at
202-224-3121 or 866-340-9281.

Rosalio Munoz, coordinator Latinos For Peace

[See also http://0101aztlan.net/rosaliomunoz.html]

Congress gets F on Civil Rights

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A Librarian at the Kitchen Table. No. 429.

NAACP Participates in Nationwide Activities Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“Unacceptable” is how the NAACP describes the performance of members of the U.S. Congress in addressing fundamental civil rights agenda items in the last two years. In its final Legislative Report Card on the 109th Congress (which adjourned Dec. 9, 2006) the NAACP found only slight improvement in the voting record among members of both chambers. The majority of U.S. Senators (54 out of 100) and Representatives (225 out of 435) voted in support of the NAACP’s position less than 59 percent of the time, receiving a grade of “F” from the NAACP.

(read more at A Librarian at the Kitchen Table)