REFORMA Legislative Committee

REFORMA @ National Library Legislative Day

2007-05-05T18:51:00.000-04:00

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

2007-03-02T16:10:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-15T15:48:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-13T21:23:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-08T18:28:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-29T12:13:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-15T21:54:00.000-05:00

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)

Help Out - Defeat DOPA

2006-08-04T10:41:00.000-04:00

Your help is needed to defeat DOPA! Listed below are six simple steps you can take to save your library from DOPA. Also, YALSA (Young Adult Library Services Association) has created and compiled three great resources for librarians, which are all available at http://teentechweek.wikispaces.com. Click on the DOPA page for the: Legislative Advocacy Guide, DOPA Information Packet and Teens & Social Networking in School & Public Libraries Toolkit.

1. Contact your Senator before Sept. 5th to:

a. Tell him/her your opinion of DOPA (see the Legislative Advocacy Guide for quick tips on contacting your Senator).
b. Educate him/her about the positive uses of Social Networking Sites (use the information in the Teens & Social Networking in School & Public Libraries Toolkit).

To find out who our Senator is & what number to call, go to www.congress.gov. To email your Senator, go to www.ala.org and click on "Take Action."

2. Sign the online petition opposing DOPA at www.saveyourspace.org

3. Host an information session at your library about DOPA and social networking sites (see the Toolkit on Teens & Social Networking in School & Public Libraries for tips and ideas).

4. Tell YALSA how you’re using social networking technologies at your library. Go to http://teentechweek.wikispaces.com. From there you can add a link to your library’s MySpace space as well as join in on the discussion about how you’re using social networking technologies in your library.

5. Invite your Senator to your library while they’re home from DC between August 7th and September 4th.
a. Have teens on hand to demonstrate productive ways they use social networking technologies
b. Provide the Senator with a photo-op (e.g. giving a summer reading award to a teen or reading a story to kids)
c. Give the Senator information about social networking sites and show him/her what your library is already doing to keep children and teens safe online.

6. Personalize and send the following sample letter to the editor to your local newspaper, and encourage your library patrons - especially teens - to do the same. Make sure to include Latino teens!
LETTER:
Sample Letter to the Editor
(please feel free to make additions or changes so that it better fits any particular messages you want to get across)

Librarians care deeply about children and teens and are concerned about their safety online and in our community. While Congress’ effort to make children and teens more safe online is admirable, the proposed Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) that is currently being debated by our nation’s legislators, will actually do little to make our kids safer. What it will do is block access to critical Internet resources and communication tools in schools and libraries that our kids need to learn how to use in order to be successful in college and the workplace. It also takes control away from communities like ours, and leaves the decision making about what our children can access on the Internet to the politicians in Washington DC.

DOPA seeks to further limit kids’ access to online resources at school and in libraries. That means it would prevent librarians and teachers from instructing students and their parents about how to use all kinds of Web applications safely and effectively. Because it is linked to federal funding, DOPA also hurts most those kids served by schools and libraries in low-income communities.

DOPA would restrict online support groups, email programs through which family members can communicate with each other, and educational tools used to provide distance education, squashing kids' first attempts at becoming acquainted with applications that will soon be essential workplace tools. Just one example of what could be lost in a rush to legislate is a recent online field trip to Carlsbad Caverns in N.M., in which more than 10 million students participated and First Lady Laura Bush took part.

Perhaps the most troubling part of DOPA is the false sense of security it gives parents who are seeking solutions to the problem of online predators. Like dangers to kids in the real world, dangers on the Internet are not easily overcome. Teaching young people to practice safe behaviors and guard their privacy online the same way they would in public is critical if we want to protect them.

Please join me in urging Congress to make a real commitment to kids' safety by abandoning bad legislation like DOPA and funding our libraries and schools adequately so they have the resources they need to empower our community’s kids to stay safe on the Internet.

Sincerely,
[insert your name here]

Vote No no Amendment 4577

2006-07-19T12:27:00.000-04:00

Tuesday, July 11, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced an amendment to the FY 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill that would result in people being denied their day in court even if the government has violated the person’s constitutionally guaranteed rights. This amendment would place arbitrary and absurdly short deadlines on courts deciding what relief to provide in immigration cases.

The National Immigration Law Center has put together information on this amendment. Please visit http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org/?q=ImmigPolicies for talking points and background information.

Call your Senator now and urge them to vote no on amendment 4577.

Academic Library Legislative Alerts

2006-06-21T16:46:00.000-04:00

Can you take the time to act on one or more of these?

ACRL Legislative Update
Volume 5, Number 4
June 19, 2006

Co-Sponsors Sought for Federal Research Public Access Act

Background: The federal government spends over fifty five billion dollars annually to fund a wide variety of research in health, scientific, and other fields. Research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health alone results in over 60,000 peer-reviewed articles per year. Giving taxpayers access to the non-classified research for which they have paid will advance research and all the benefits of research, from health care and pollution control to energy independence and public safety.

Issue for Academic Libraries: Research articles are published in peer-reviewed journals, which charge subscription fees or per-article access fees. The cost of subscriptions has risen three times faster than inflation for more than 20 years and most subscriptions are unaffordable for most libraries. Journals typically demand to own copyright as well.
Wide, rapid, and easy access to the results of this research is essential for everyone who wishes to apply or build upon it, including faculty and students served by academic libraries.

Current Status: Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) & Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) introduced The Federal Research Public Access Act, S. 2695, on May 3. This bill requires that virtually all federally funded research appearing in peer-reviewed journals be made openly accessible in digital repositories within six months of publication. (ACRL endorsed this bill.)

ACRL encourages all academic librarians to work actively for passage of this bill. Read more on the Alliance for Taxpayer Access website and in the article Ã¢â‚¬Å“Public Access to Federally Funded Research: The Cornyn-Lieberman and CURES BillsÃ¢â‚¬Â C&RL News, June 2006. Vol. 67, No. 6 by Ray English and Peter Suber.

Action Needed:

1.) Ask your U.S. Senators to become co-sponsors. Express support to your Representatives as well. For contact information, visit ALA's online Legislative Action Center. Use this sample letter and read tips on communicating with legislators.

2.) Circulate this announcement and urge your library colleagues to contact their members of Congress.

3.) Educate faculty and administrators on your campus about the need for open access to federally funded research. Enlist their support and encourage them to write to their senators and representatives. Use the FAQs for faculty and administrators.

Network Neutrality

Background: Network neutrality means that consumers can access any legal content or run any Internet applications regardless of their network provider. Current telecommunications laws are being revamped but language prohibiting preferential treatment of network traffic may not be included.
Internet service providers could decide to provide lots of bandwidth to certain customers and not to others (e.g. a company could pay their carrier a premium to deliver movies, videos, etc.). As bandwidth is a limited resource, every prioritized packet pushes aside another packet that is deemed less important.

Issue for Academic Libraries: Library services could be impaired or blocked by providers, particularly if "free" services and content provided by libraries are given low priority. Libraries, K-12 and higher education and many other public sector institutions should not be marginalized or moved into slower tiers in favor of big corporations. The library community supports a proactive approach to preserving diverse sources of information on the Internet by passing enforceable network neutrality language.

Current Status: The Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to markup S.
2686, the Communications Reform Bill, between June 20-22, 2006. Senators will consider including the Internet Freedom Act, S. 2917, as an amendment to S. 2686. This network neutrality proposal was introduced by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and cosponsored by Senators Inouye, Wyden, Leahy, Boxer, Obama and Clinton. Because only two senators (Boxer and Dorgan) spoke favorably about network neutrality during the June 13th hearing, it is even more important that grassroots library supporters contact senators now.

Action Needed:

1.) If your senator is on the Senate Commerce Committee PLEASE CALL TODAY ( list and contact info). Urge your senator to add network neutrality language and maintain Universal Service Fund/E-rate provisions (which make telecommunications services affordable to libraries and schools in the poorest communities) during the pending markup. The Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to markup S. 2686, the Communications Reform Bill, between June 20-22, 2006.

2.) If your Senator is not on the Commerce Committee, please ask him or her to urge Senate colleagues to support these two important issues (contact info).

Orphan Works

Background: Orphan works are those copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to find. Concerns have been raised that the uncertainty surrounding ownership of such works might needlessly discourage subsequent creators and users from incorporating such works in new creative efforts, or from making such works available to the public.

The library community has participated in various ways in the U.S.
Copyright Offices project to address orphan works. Starting in January 2005, we have filed comments, participated in public Roundtables, and met with staff in the Copyright Office and in the House Judiciary Committee to discuss some of the thorny issues and to make further recommendations from libraries.

Current Status: On May 22, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, introduced H.R. 5439, the Orphan Works Act of 2006. The bill was marked up by the subcommittee on May 24 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The thrust of the bill is that remedies for infringement of a copyrighted work will be limited if the user (the alleged infringer) had made a reasonably diligent, good faith search to locate the owner of the work but was unable to find the owner. Libraries support the bill, even though we have concerns with some aspects of it.

Action Needed: Please ask your Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 5439 ( contact info).
--------------
To join the list of academic and research librarians receiving the ACRL Legislative Update directly, subscribe today by sending an e-mail to listproc@ala.org with subscribe LEGUPDATE your name in the message. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to listproc@ala.org with unsubscribe LEGUPDATE in the message.

We want the Legislative Update to be helpful to you. If you have questions, comments or suggestions, please contact ACRL Scholarly Communications-Government Relations Specialist Kara Malenfant at kmalenfant@ala.org .

Published by the Association of College and Research Libraries, 50 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611, www.ala.org/acrl .

House Votes Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-09T15:18:00.000-04:00

Librarians and Latinos and Latinas must step up the pressure in the Senate and NOT let this pass in the Senate. We need to maintain and strengthen the Internet as a civic, a public, a common good for the intellectual, political and informational health of this nation and this world. We cannot let the Internet go the way of TV. We need to maintain and strengthen Net Neutrality - in other words, we need to allow all internet content providers the same footing regardless of wealth. We need all voices to have the same chance of being heard, all information to have the same chance of being seen. If there should be any criteria, it should be social justice and respect for human dignity.

-Isabel Espinal
Reforma Legislative Committee

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:11:02 -0400
From: ALAWASH E-MAIL
To: ALA Washington Office Newsline
Subject: [ALA-WO:275] House Votes Against Net Neutrality,
Threatening Right To Equal Access

ALAWON: American Library Association Washington Office Newsline Volume 15, Number 61
Date: June 9, 2006

In This Issue: House Votes Against Net Neutrality, Threatening Right To Equal Access

Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE), a wide-ranging telecommunications bill that includes provisions that would endanger the rights of Internet users to access all online content equally and severely limit opportunities for libraries, schools, colleges, and non-profit groups to access digital-age benefits and innovations. Prior to passing the bill, the House VOTED DOWN in a disappointing vote (269 to 152) an amendment to COPE proposed by Rep. Ed Markey and others - an amendment whose inclusion ALA strongly supported
- which would have strengthened network neutrality within the bill.

In a statement, ALA President Michael Gorman said, "The "COPE" bill allows big telecommunications companies to give preferential service to those content providers able to pay higher fees while marginalizing the smaller, less popular or less lucrative Internet content providers. By allowing preferred services, the COPE bill would allow telephone, cable and ISP-gatekeepers to discriminate against certain content, making it much more difficult for users to find the information they seek."

Grassroots library advocates are thanked for their strong and fast support in this quickly changing environment. Stand by for additional messages to the Senate on S. 2658, likely next week.

For more information on this issue, please see yesterday's ALAWON (Volume 15, Number 60) by clicking here:
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/washnews/2006ndx/netneuthouse.htm

Take Action! Save the Matricula Consular ID Card

2006-06-07T06:21:00.000-04:00

Update to my June 7 post - This amendment was rejected and is no longer threatening to ban acceptance of foreign-issued identification (e.g. the matricula consular).

Thanks,

Mario, June 10, 2006

Save the Matricula Consular ID Card. Many public libraries accept this form of ID, the following amendment would ban the acceptance fo the ID.

Take Action! Call your Representative in the Appropriations committee. Don't know it is? Click Here to Find Out.

In a last minute effort, Rep. Culberson has introduced an amendment that would effectively ban acceptance of foreign-issued identification (e.g., the matrícula consular) and the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). This amendment is being attached to the FY ’07 Transportation, Treasury, Housing, and Urban Development bill in the Appropriations committee.

Background

1. The Mexican consular identification card (matrícula consular) is simply an identification card.

* It does not “legalize” the status of any immigrant, nor can it be used to obtain any immigration or citizenship benefits such as work authorization or the right to vote. The matrícula consular cannot be used to obtain public benefits.

2. Consular-issued identification cards are secure.

* To comply with standards set forth by the U.S. Department of State, consular-issued identification cards have a dozen security features to ensure authenticity and discourage fraud, including a digitalized photo, serial number, hologram with special marks, and infrared band.

TALKING POINTS
1) 1. In a security-conscious environment, we want people who are in the U.S., whatever their status, to be able to prove their identity.
2) * Many cities, counties, and law enforcement agencies are accepting consular-issued identification cards. Police departments know that when people feel free to report crimes and other suspicious behavior without fearing immigration troubles for themselves and their family members, the whole community is safer.
3) * If we prevent people from obtaining legal identification, we will make the job of police departments more difficult. Police officers will waste precious time and resources identifying individuals, rather than protecting our communities.
4) 2. Accepting consular-issued identification cards is vital to opening the doorway to economic opportunity for all immigrants in the U.S.
5) * Too many low-income families lack access to basic financial services. A recent survey found that 62% of immigrants with annual incomes below $20,000 do not have bank accounts.
6) * Unfortunately, for ?unbanked? workers there are often no real financial alternatives except for payday lenders and check cashers, most located in neighborhoods where Latinos work and reside.
7) * What?s more, these Latino workers have both the strong desire and the need to access low-cost savings and asset-building tools to provide for their children and stabilize their families financially.
8) * A relationship to a mainstream financial institution has a long-term, positive financial impact on these workers, their families, and the communities where they reside ? fostering greater integration into the U.S. economy, which will pay dividends in the long run.
9) 3. Latinos are important to the U.S. economy and the economies of state and local governments.
10) * The purchasing power of the nation?s Hispanic community now surpasses $580 billion annually.
11) * Access to lower-cost financial products and services for Hispanics, especially immigrant workers, can ensure that the U.S. economy works more efficiently.
12) * The cost savings can be significant, and access to a broader range of tools will provide more opportunities for Latinos to save, buy cars and homes, and financially invest in the nation?s economy.
13) * Mexican Consular IDs and ITINs integrate a population into the financial mainstream which is intrinsically connected not only to the nation?s economy but to the economies of cities and states as well.

-Mario

NASULGC: Senate Passes Comprehensive Immigration Bill

2006-05-31T09:17:00.000-04:00

From the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Congressional Affairs Staff: Senate Passes Comprehensive Immigration Bill

After two weeks of floor debate, the Senate passed this evening S. 2611, the comprehensive immigration reform legislation, by a vote of 62 to 36.

On the floor yesterday, the Senate agreed to an amendment offered by Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) that would reallocate two-thirds of “diversity” visas to those with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math. Many expressed concerns that this would change the intent of the diversity program and would discriminate against individuals from less developed countries.

During today’s debate, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) that changed the provisions regarding the annual cap on employment-based green cards. The language of the underlying legislation would have raised the cap on such green cards to 450,000 per year through FY2016 and exempted spouses and children from the cap. The amendment, which was adopted by a vote of 51-47, would increase the cap to 650,000. However, it would also bring spouses and children back into the overall cap. Some have expressed concerns that the amendment may not alleviate the
backlogs that currently exist in the green card system as the result of the counting of spouses and children in the overall cap.

Finally, before final passage, the Senate agreed to a “manager’s amendment” to the underlying bill. NASULGC staff will report in greater detail about relevant provisions in the manager’s package and as well other provisions of interest in the bill as soon as possible.

ACTION ALERT: Immigration amendment to require REAL

2006-05-25T16:10:00.000-04:00

ACTION ALERT: Immigration amendment to require REAL ID to Vote

Dear Privacy Coalition Members, it looks like Sen. McConnell wants to
add an amendment to the Immigration Reform bill that would amend the
Help America Vote Act to require ALL voters to present a government
photo ID in order to vote in public elections. Although the Senate is
considering immigration reform, this amendment can be included if it is
ruled in order by the Senate Rules Committee.
It is anticipated that the Immigration Reform Bill will be on the Senate
floor next week.

A broad coalition of groups are working on a sign-on letter to alert the
Senate of concerns regarding this amendment and its possible
consideration as part of the Immigration Reform effort. This e-mail is
to alert you to look for the letter when it is circulated because the
time for going onto the letter may be very tight. In the interim if it
is easier for your organization to send its own letter that is
encouraged.
However, the letter that will be circulated will contain the most up to
date information on this unfortunate development, so you may want to
hold off until it is available.

In 2005, the issue of identification and civic participation took on new
vigor following the release of the Carter-Baker Commission report that
endorsed the use of the REAL ID as the de facto national voter
identification document.
To see the report,
visit: http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/report.html

The draft text of the McConnell Amendment is below. Please note that
the reference to Section 7212(b)(2)(C) of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 was repealed by the REAL ID Act. However,the language in REAL ID
replicates the intent of this section. In other words it is only a
matter of changing the Section cited in the amendment, which will be
caught if it goes through Legislative Counsel.

SA 4021. Mr. McCONNELL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2611, to provide for comprehensive
immigration reform and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) REQUIREMENT FOR IDENTIFICATION CARDS TO INCLUDE CITIZENSHIP
INFORMATION.--Section 7212(b)(2)(D) of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of clause (vi), by inserting ``and'' at the
end of clause (vii), and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(viii) whether the person is a United States citizen;''.
(b) IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR VOTING IN PERSON.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended by redesignating sections 304 and
305 as sections 305 and 306, respectively, and by inserting after
section 305 the following new section:
``SEC. 304. IDENTIFICATION OF VOTERS AT THE POLLS.
``(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding the requirements of section
303(b), each State shall require individuals casting ballots in an
election for Federal office in person to present before voting a current
valid photo identification which is issued by a governmental entity and
which meets the requirements of section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C.
30301 note).
``(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Each State shall be required to comply with
the requirements of subsection (a) on and after January 1, 2008.''.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--Section 401 of the Help America Vote Act
of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking ``and 303'' and
inserting ``303, and 304''.

Blacks "Scrubbed" from Co-sponsoring Voting Rights Act Extension?

2006-05-24T08:03:00.000-04:00

As mentioned earlier by Mario in this blog, the Voting Rights Act extension this year is very important for Latinos. It is interesting to note the racial politics that are being played out. Can you believe that Sensenbrenner is left in the co-sponsor list while Black Caucus members were made to leave!

This came from the email list of the Black Caucus of the American Library Association. It refers to a post on Black Commentator.

Some interesting quotes:

"In the unkindest cut imaginable, more than 20 Congressional Black Caucus members last week discovered that they were to be scrubbed from the list of co-sponsors of the Voting Rights Act Extension bill. Bowing to pressures from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), CBC Chairman Mel Watt (D-NC) informed selected Members about the purge at a meeting on Wednesday, May 3 in which he explained the rationale for stripping down the list: it was too heavily Black.

According to a number of congressional sources, Pelosi and her Senate and GOP counterparts were concerned that Voting Rights Act Extension should not be viewed as a racial issue! therefore, the excess African American co-sponsors had to go."

"Staffers for several CBC members reported that the new, bi-partisan co-sponsorship configuration will include Pelosi and House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders Harry Reid (NV) and Bill Frist (TN), respectively. As a token sop to Blacks, Mel Watt and Georgia Rep. John Lewis would also join the list.

Ironically, by deploying the term racial issue as code for too many Negroes, Pelosi and like-minded white congressional leadership have succeeded in making passage of the VRA an inherently racial issue."

Budget Cut Would Shutter EPA Libraries

2006-05-16T10:10:00.000-04:00

Budget Cut Would Shutter EPA Libraries
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400772.html
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 15, 2006; A15

Proposed budget cuts could cripple a nationwide system of Environmental Protection Agency libraries that government researchers and others depend on for hard-to-find technical information, library advocates say.

The $2 million cut sought by the White House would reduce the 35-year-old EPA Library Network's budget by 80 percent and force many of its 10 regional libraries to close, according to the advocates and internal agency documents.

That, in turn, would dramatically reduce access to certain EPA reports, guidance and technical documents that are used by the agency's scientific and enforcement staff as well as private businesses and citizens, they say.

"They are moving ahead very quickly on very substantive cuts to their library program," said Patrice McDermott, deputy director of the American Library Association's Office of Government Relations. "They really don't have a good plan for continuing to provide access for the public, and even their own researchers and scientists, to the information."

EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said it was "premature" to talk of mass closings among the regional libraries, although the one in Chicago already is shutting down. Wood said that 15 other EPA libraries, many of them attached to federal laboratories, will not be affected by the budget cuts.

She said the agency plans to save money and operate more efficiently by making EPA materials in the regional libraries available electronically. Many documents that exist only on paper will continue to be available through interlibrary loans, Wood said.

"EPA's commitment remains unchanged in providing EPA's staff with access to environmental information to support sound environmental decisions. [The agency] encourages the public to use our information resources and will continue to provide public access," Wood said.

McDermott said digitizing the EPA library holdings is "a great idea" -- but it remains little more than that. "You can't just stop providing access to your print on the chance that some day five, six, seven years down the road you are going to have it digital," she said.

The libraries provide documentation for enforcement cases and help EPA staff track new environmental technologies and the health risks associated with dangerous chemicals. They also are repositories of scientific information that is used to back up the agency's position on new regulations and environmental reports and data that are tapped by everyone from developers to airports, to state and local officials. Their collections include hard-to-find copies of documents on federal Superfund hazardous waste sites, water-quality data and the health of regional ecosystems.

Betty Lou Hicks, manager of library services for Hanson Professional Services, an engineering consulting firm in Springfield, Ill., said her company draws on documents from the libraries to conduct wetland studies, environmental assessments and geotechnical surveys. The firm's typical clients might include an airport looking to build a new runway, she said.

"It's very important for us to be able to get our hands on these documents," Hicks said, "and yet with these libraries closing down, it means that the documents aren't going to be readily available. So that means we're going to have to do a lot more searching, and that means time -- and, of course, time is money to us."

The public has a lot at stake in the future of these libraries, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit advocacy group that obtained internal EPA documents on the proposed cuts.

"We view this as another example of the Bush administration marginalizing EPA research so that the agency scientists and other specialists can't do their jobs," Ruch said. "And then in the absence of information, plans by industries and others that have environmental implications go forward."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

N.H. rebellion against driver's license regulations ends

2006-05-15T23:01:00.000-04:00

N.H. rebellion against driver's license regulations ends
By Beverley Wang
Associated Press Writer
May 11, 2006

CONCORD, N.H. --A legislative tug-of-war over strict new federal standards for issuing driver's licenses ended Thursday when senators beat down a House-led rebellion against the idea.

By a 14-7 vote, senators refused to form a committee to work out differences with House lawmakers, who strongly opposed enforcing the federal Real ID Act.

The vote means New Hampshire moves ahead with the federal drivers license program, which grew from recommendations by the Sept. 11 Commission. New Hampshire is one of two states picked to pilot the program and is due to receive $3 million to implement the new requirements.

It requires that by 2008, states verify birth certificates, Social Security numbers, passports and immigration status when people get driver's licenses.

"Real ID is in New Hampshire. We are Real ID," said Senate Majority Leader Robert Clegg, who proposed forming an ad-hoc group to address concerns.

Critics said Real ID was flawed and posed serious threats to privacy. Under Real ID, licenses would be machine-readable, and states' driver information would be linked, sparking fear over creation of a national identity database.

"We need to be true to our 'Live Free or Die' motto, be true to our citizens, be true to ourselves," said Sen. Peter Burling, D-Cornish, speaking against the program.

The tug-of-war picked up where legislators left off last week, when the Senate amended a House bill that would have allowed New Hampshire to opt out of the program. Senators changed that bill into a commission to study the pros and cons of joining Real ID.

The Senate on Thursday also killed a separate bill, dealing with avian flu, to which the House had tacked on its anti-Real ID provision.

In response, House lawmakers rejected an HIV education bill, which senators had amended to include the avian flu measure.

"This is a classic case of legislative chicken between the House and the Senate," said Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, a leader in the Real ID rebellion.

"Sí Se Puede" Means "We Shall Overcome"

2006-05-04T23:00:00.000-04:00

"Sí Se Puede" Means "We Shall Overcome"
Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. President and Founder, RainbowPUSH
Coalition

The earth is shaking as immigrants rise up around the country with their
voices singing "Sí se puede"--Yes, we can. This uprising is in the best
tradition of the American Dream and the civil rights struggle for
freedom. At great personal risk, immigrants are defending their dignity
and energizing the whole movement for social justice.

Let's be clear right from the start: while the mainstream media seeks to
put just a "Mexican face" on the issue, immigrants from Haiti and the
Dominican Republic, from Ireland and Canada, from Africa are part of
the equation.

Immigrants seek precisely what has made our country great: They thirst
for democracy and freedom, a job and security for their families, for
citizenship rights and to leave repression and poverty behind. While
the White House has turned the fight for freedom and democracy into a
tragic rhetorical farce in Iraq, millions of immigrants are keeping the
dream alive.

No human being is "illegal." All human beings have human rights. No
legislation should pass that violates this fundamental principle.

This new immigrant freedom movement must and is being embraced by
African Americans and today's movement for peace and social justice.
The polls show that the hands that picked the cotton are joining with
the hands that picked the lettuce, connecting barrios and ghettos,
fields and plantations.

The Republicans have passed the draconian Sensenbrenner legislation in
the House of Representatives. This bill would make felons of millions
of undocumented immigrants as well as anyone who aids them such as
friends, church leaders, teachers, employers and unionists. It
authorizes the building of a prison wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

In the name of "fighting terrorism," it unfairly punishes immigrants.

So far the Sensenbrenner bill has not passed the Senate or become law.
But it has inspired literally millions of Latinos and human rights
supporters to rise up with one voice to defend the integrity and
dignity of their community.

Anti-immigrant legislation is a cutting edge of the Bush
administration's "war on terror" at home: unconstitutional spying,
military tribunals and other acts that undermine the civil liberties of
all of us. It is ironic yet fitting that undocumented immigrants, used
and abused for so long, are now standing up in unprecedented numbers to
assert their humanity and to lead the fight for freedom for all.

Hot anti-immigrant rhetoric--"illegal alien hordes are pouring across
the border taking jobs away from Americans"--is an awful refrain we
have heard before: in the 1880s the anti-Chinese movement led to the
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act banning their immigration; by 1924 all
Asians were excluded. The "bracero" program in place from the 1940s to
1960s enticed Filipino and Mexicans to serve as America's new source of
cheap labor.

But immigrants have not just "come" here - they were "brought" here by
employers who have always sought out the lowest wage workforce possible
- by going abroad and exploiting Third World workers, and by bringing
immigrant labor into the fields, factories, restaurants, high tech
firms and even the homes of the U.S.

Immigrants didn't take jobs from U.S. auto, steel and mineworkers. Big
business has been exporting whole industries and jobs - from steel to
textiles - and replacing them with low wage service jobs. This policy
has undermined America's industrial base and resulted in the loss of
millions of middle class jobs. It's what I call the Wal-Martization of
our economy.

Indeed the current circumstances and history of African Americans and
Latinos, immigrant and non-immigrant, are indelibly linked.

Many of today's immigrants share with African Americans a history of
enslavement and colonization. They share a history of being subjected
to back-breaking, soul deadening work - or to no work at all.

They share a history of making a way where there was no way, creating
community in often hostile environments, and fighting to carve out a
better future for their children.

Less than ten percent of enslaved Africans ended up in the United
States. The vast majority was shipped to Latin America and the West
Indies. Numerous Asian workers were also brought to the Caribbean and
Latin America to serve as cheap labor. And indigenous peoples still
constitute the core of the population of many of those countries.

African Americans, like Latinos and West Indians, are a beautiful
amalgam of many different peoples who share a common history. People of
color are brothers and sisters under and of the skin, whether we are
called undocumented "Latino" immigrants or "African Americans."

And hundreds of thousands of Asians, Africans and indigenous people are
among those now scorned as "illegal" immigrants.

Few complain when African Americans and immigrants are deprived of their
rights and relegated to enslavement or cheap labor. But when we become
too numerous, begin to demand our right to fair wages, human rights or
citizenship suddenly we are denounced as "undermining the economy."

Critics emerge who want to send us back to Africa, back to the
plantation, back to Mexico, back to China or shift us to even more
barren Native reservations, even those of us who have been here for
generations.

Last century's slave hunters become this era's illegal alien hunter. The
KKK has morphed into the Minutemen border vigilantes. Segregationists
have reemerged as exclusionists. Ironically each new group is said to
"undermine the standard of living" of the poorest groupings that
preceded it, the better to keep us divided and powerless. 19th and
early 20th century European immigrant workers were said to undercut
"genuine American stock." African Americans migrants from the South
were cursed as scabs on the "white worker." Asians were denounced as a
yellow horde that threatened American civilization.

And now Mexican and other undocumented immigrants are said to threaten
African Americans and other poor people, not to speak of the entire
"American way of life." We cannot underestimate the impact of this new
wave of hate-filled rhetoric: just last week, Mayor Antonio
Villargorosa of Los Angeles and California Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante
received death threats. And a new, "Kill Mexicans" video game is
piercing its way through the internet.

But something unprecedented happened when the House approved this latest
anti-immigrant legislation. It awakened and stirred the entire Latino
community in the U.S. - 20 million and growing.

Criminals? No. They are our mothers, fathers, aunts and uncles. Illegal
aliens? No. They are our friends, teachers, church leaders, health care
providers and business owners. Whatever differences we may have are
dwarfed by our common struggle for dignity.

>>From Chicago to Dallas, from Atlanta to Nebraska, from Maine to Los
Angeles, and in small towns throughout the land an outpouring of
millions of Latinos and human rights supporters are taking to the
streets. Immigrants have reignited this era's civil rights struggle.

Now is the time to put an end to the vicious cycle of pain and blame, to
fulfill the promise of the Statue of Liberty and the fundamental notion
that all people have "an inalienable right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness."

And, indeed, this country also has a powerful tradition of freedom
struggle. >From Thomas Paine to Harriet Tubman to Eugene Debs to Susan
B. Anthony to Martin Luther King to Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, it
is this freedom struggle that has made our country great.

In today's great movement, many undocumented immigrants have already
lost their jobs, been detained or deported, and separated from their
families. But like the African American freedom fighters of the 1960s,
their minds are "stayed on freedom."

Undocumented Latino and other immigrants have magnificently taken a
place in the front ranks of the historic freedom struggle. It is up to
the rest of us who profess to love freedom to join them in this epic
battle, a battle that is for all of us.

As I see it, their rallying cry--"Sí se puede--(Yes We Can)" is Spanish
for "We Shall Overcome."

MALDEF ACTION ALERT!!!

2006-05-04T22:53:00.000-04:00

________________________________________
1717 K Street NW, Suite 311, Washington, DC 20036 Office: 202-293-2828

ACTION ALERT

Call on Congress to Renew the Language Assistance Provisions of the Voting Rights Act!

Often called the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the United States, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been instrumental in ensuring that all eligible voters, regardless of race or language ability, may participate on a fair and equal basis in U.S. elections. Crucial “temporary provisions” of the Act are set to expire, however, and their renewal is among MALDEF’s top federal legislative priorities.

From the Latino perspective, among the most critical of the Act’s temporary provisions are the language assistance provisions contained within Section 203 and 4(f)(4) of the Act. These provisions require election officials to provide written and oral language assistance to eligible voters who live in jurisdictions where there are large concentrations of language minority voters (including Spanish-speaking Latinos) who have suffered discrimination on the basis of language.

The language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act have made democracy real for language minority citizens in covered jurisdictions by guaranteeing equal access to comprehensible election materials. Section 203 and 4(f)(4), which effectively remove language ability as a barrier to voting, are essential to permit all eligible voters to participate fully in the democratic process by casting informed and meaningful ballots in U.S. elections.

MALDEF has joined forces with our partners in the civil rights community to ensure that the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which are currently set to expire, are renewed for an additional 25 years. MALDEF strongly urges those concerned with Latinos’ continued fair and equal access to the ballots to contact their senators and representatives in Congress and urge them to renew the Voting Rights Act, including its language assistance provisions. You may reach all Senators and U.S. Representatives Congresspersons by calling the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

A list of “Frequently Asked Questions” is attached to this Action Alert to more fully inform interested parties about the relevant features of the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. For further information, please contact Peter Zamora, MALDEF Legislative Attorney, at 202-293-2828 or go to www.renewthevra.org.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS RE: THE LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PROVISIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

1. What is the purpose/intent of Section 203?

In 1975, Congress permanently banned the use of literacy tests and other similar registration and voting practices, including the use of English-only materials in certain jurisdictions, in any election nationwide. Congress also broadened the scope of voting rights protection to include limited English proficient voters of Asian American, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaskan Native descent. Congress found these groups had historically faced, and continued to face, discrimination based on their race and ethnicity. Based upon these findings, Congress enacted Section 203.

2. What does Section 203 do?

Section 203 provides U.S. citizens in covered jurisdictions who are not yet fluent in English the opportunity to be informed voters and participate effectively in our representative democracy by requiring election officials to provide language assistance to such citizens.

3. Which minority populations are covered by Section 203?

Section 203 applies to four minority groups: American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Latinos.

4. Why are these groups covered?

Congress has repeatedly found that these four language minority groups face discrimination based on race, ethnicity or national origin. Discriminatory voting practices and procedures systematically denied these covered groups their voting rights. This discrimination still exists today. In the 2004 elections, Asian American and Latino voters were singled out because of their “foreign-sounding names” or “foreign appearance” and faced challenges to their eligibility to vote and illegal requests for identification. Native American voters were similarly singled out and illegally required to provide identification during these elections.

5. When is a jurisdiction covered under Section 203?

A jurisdiction is covered under Section 203 where the number of limited English proficient United States citizens of voting age in a single language group within the jurisdiction who are Asian, Hispanic or Native American:

• Is more than 10,000, or
• Is more than five percent of all voting-age citizens, or
• Exceeds five percent of all reservation residents on an Indian reservation; and
• Has an illiteracy rate higher than the national illiteracy rate.

6. How many jurisdictions are affected by Section 203?

According to the Census Bureau’s 2002 determination of covered jurisdictions, there are 219 jurisdictions out of a total of more than 3,000 that must provide language assistance to Spanish speakers. There are sixteen jurisdictions that must provide language assistance to Asian Americans (some in multiple Asian languages) and 87 that must provide language assistance to Alaskan Natives or Native Americans (some in multiple languages). Additionally, under Section 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, three states in their entirety (Alaska, Arizona and Texas) and a total of nineteen counties or townships in six other states must provide language assistance similar to that provided under Section 203.

7. What is required under Section 203?

Any election information provided in English must also be provided in the language of the covered minority group. Election information includes registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, ballots, and any other materials or information relating to the electoral process. Where the language of a covered minority group has no written form, the state or locality is only required to provide oral instructions, information, and assistance.

In addition to providing translated election information, compliance with Section 203 requires that the information be effectively disseminated to covered language minority groups. Communication can be facilitated by posting public notices, publicizing the availability of language assistance materials through mainstream and ethnic media, and providing bilingual poll workers at polling places who can assist voters.

8. Does Section 203 work?

Yes, Section 203 works to overcome barriers to voting and increases the political participation by and electoral representation of minority groups.

For example, in San Diego County, voter registration among Latinos and Filipinos rose over 20 percent after the Department of Justice (DOJ) enforced Section 203 requirements. During that same period, Vietnamese registrations increased by 40 percent after the county agreed to provide language assistance in Vietnamese.

In Harris County, Texas, the turnout among Vietnamese American eligible voters doubled following the DOJ’s efforts to remedy the county’s failure to provide Vietnamese ballots on its electronic voting machines in 2003. In 2004, the first Vietnamese American was elected to the state legislature when he defeated the incumbent by 16 votes.

9. Is Section 203 still needed?

Yes, Section 203 is still needed. Discrimination on the basis of language minority status continues to be prevalent today. The gap between minority and white voters in registration and turnout remains in the double-digits for the Asian American, Latino, and Native American communities. Combined with the tendency toward racial bloc voting in many districts (where voters choose candidates who are almost exclusively of their own race/ethnicity), it becomes even more difficult for minorities to elect representatives of their choice.

Certain poll workers continue to be hostile to minority voters who cannot speak English fluently. There is evidence that some supporters of white candidates challenge and intimidate minority voters based on their race, national origin or ethnicity. Barriers continue to restrict access to voting for many language minorities, which limits their civic engagement and political participation.

10. Do bilingual elections promote cultural separatism?

No. Bilingual elections promote the integration and political participation of people who had previously been excluded from the political process due to their lack of fluency in English.

11. Why should we help language minorities who are citizens – shouldn’t they be able to read and write English fluently?

The United States encourages people who have been in this country for a substantial period of time and who have been contributing to society to be civically engaged. As a result, certain persons are exempt from English literacy requirements when applying for citizenship, such as the elderly who have resided in the United States for a lengthy period of time, the physically or developmentally disabled, and certain Hmong veterans who helped to save American lives during the Vietnam War and came to the United States as refugees. The limited availability of English language acquisition programs, especially for adults, continues to impede language minority citizens’ ability to develop the level of fluency in English required to fully understand complicated election materials.

Voting can be an intimidating and complicated process, even for voters whose first language is English. For new citizens whose first language is not English, the voting process is even more difficult to maneuver. Without language assistance, many eligible voters may simply decide not to vote rather than to ask for help – especially when they are ridiculed when they try to ask for help. For many new citizens, one of the greatest treasures received from becoming a U.S. citizen is the right to vote – a right that many may not have received in the country of their birth. For our democracy to flourish, all of its stakeholders must be permitted to fully participate.

12. Does it cost a lot to provide bilingual assistance?

No. Where Section 203 is implemented properly, bilingual assistance accounts for only a small fraction of total elections costs. For example, Los Angeles County spent only 4% of its total election budget on language assistance in 1996 when it supported five language minority groups (Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Filipino).

In a 2005 study of election officials in the 31 states covered by Section 203, 39.5% reported that they incur no additional costs for providing language assistance. Further, 54.2 percent of responding jurisdictions reported that they incur no additional costs for providing written bilingual election materials.

Action on Net Neutrality Bill

2006-05-04T22:45:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) sent a letter to his
colleagues in the Congress asking for support of H.R. 5273, the
"Network Neutrality Act of 2006," a bill he co-sponsored along
with Representatives Boucher (D-VA), Eshoo (D-CA), and Inslee (D-
WA).

Please call your Members of Congress today and urge them to co-
sponsor this important legislation.

Background:
Until now, all Internet content is equally accessible to users
it is not more difficult to access one website than another. But
some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) want to change the rules
economically or technically to allow favored access to some
content providers for an added fee.

If the nation's largest telephone and cable companies are allowed
to limit access and discriminate against those who cannot pay
higher tolls, then libraries, schools, colleges, non-profit
groups, small businesses, independent publications and bloggers
could be blocked from digital-age benefits and innovations.

Library advocates can make a difference by emphasizing the need
for network neutrality and an open Internet and its importance to
library users, businesses, education and the general public.

Key Messages:
Ask your Member of Congress co-sponsor H.R. 5273 and preserve
network neutrality. Please feel free to use the following
messages:

* Libraries are committed to the core principle of open and
equitable access to information of all kinds. The Internet is
built upon a similar principle that ensures the ability of all
people to publish and access information without discriminatory
barriers.

* Libraries are both users and creators of Internet content. It
is critical for libraries to have non-discriminatory access to
serve the public whether for those who come to libraries or those
who remotely access library resources.

* H.R. 5273 is civil rights for the Internet. It will ensure that
the basic and essential principle of open and non-discriminatory
access to all information will endure.

A copy of the bill is located here:
http://markey.house.gov/docs/telecomm/Markey%20Net%20Neutrality%20
Act%20of%202006.pdf

Congresspedia, the "Citizen's encyclopedia on Congress"

2006-05-04T22:30:00.000-04:00

http://www.prwatch.org/node/4752

Welcome to the debut of Congresspedia, the "citizen's encyclopedia on
Congress." Congresspedia is a bold new experiment by the Center for
Media and Democracy and the Sunlight Foundation in distributed citizen
journalism. It is based on the wiki model (think Wikipedia) and is a
subset of the Center's SourceWatch wiki.

We are starting with 539 articles - one for every current member of
Congress, the non-voting delegates, and former Rep. Randy "Duke"
Cunningham. However, we hope that this is only the foundation upon which
Congresspedia contributors (like you!) will build upon by not just
adding to those profiles but also by creating new articles on any
subject related to Congress that falls within the bounds of our policies
and article guidelines.

We created Congresspedia because we were inspired with the wealth of
information people had collaborated to create on wikis like Wikipedia,
the Flu wiki and SourceWatch. We wanted to construct a new resource for
citizens to research their members of Congress and inform their fellow
citizens. In the spirit of "many hands make light work," we believe that
by providing a platform to harness the efforts of the millions of people
who use the web to read and write about our government, we can aggregate
much of that labor into a central repository of information that will
serve as a comprehensive record of the actions of our members of
Congress. We think the format of Congresspedia will allow it to fill a
role that blogs and news articles cannot by crafting living histories
that fight the "memory hole effect" of coverage disappearing behind
paywalls and into blog archives.

In addition, Congresspedia will benefit from the contributions and
enterprise reporting of the Sunlight Foundation's bloggers, who will
work with citizen journalists to produce original reporting that will be
fed into Congresspedia. Down the road we hope to integrate the different
money in politics databases Sunlight is funding into the site to provide
even more tools for our contributors to rake the muck. Congresspedia is
also overseen by a staff editor (me), who will provide fact checking and
guidance to citizen contributors. The editor will work with the
Congresspedia/SourceWatch community to review contributions for
appropriateness, accuracy and non-partisanship.

So, take a look around and let us know what you think (once you have
registered you can leave comments here and begin to make your own
contributions to the wiki). A good place to start is the about
Congresspedia page, followed by the SourceWatch:Congresspedia help page,
which will walk you through how to contribute.

REFORMA Executive Committee Approves Resolution Opposing H.R. 4437

2006-04-18T16:08:00.000-04:00

The REFORMA Executive Committee endorsed on Monday, April 17 a resolution (see below) to oppose the Sensenbrenner Bill, H.R. 4437.

******************

Resolution Opposing Sensenbrenner Bill (H.R. 4437)

Whereas, REFORMA’s main and ongoing mission is to promote library and information services to Latinos and the Spanish-speaking,

Whereas, REFORMA is on record in support of immigrants’ rights,

Whereas, anti-immigrant measures, such as Sensenbrenner Bill H.R. 4437 deleteriously affects the entire Latino community, regardless of legal status or citizenship status,

Whereas, the Sensenbrenner Bill - H.R. 4437 is totally punitive in trying to make felons out of undocumented immigrants, denying them any human, civil, working, or due process rights; seeks to make criminals out of people who aid undocumented immigrants, including clergy, health care workers, teachers, and possibly librarians; gives no recognition of the significant contributions immigrants make to our local and national economies and to our communities; and was passed by the United States House of Representatives on December 16, 2005 by a vote of 239-182 http://www.nclr.org/content/policy/detail/35618/ and has been sent to the Senate,

Whereas, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Specter (R. Pennsylvania) has drawn upon existing bills and the Sensenbrenner bill into a draft bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, which is currently being debated in the Senate,

Therefore be it resolved that, REFORMA is against Senator Specter’s bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will take immediate action to alert the Senate about their position on this legislation

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will alert and encourage their members to contact the Senate in opposition of this and any future similar anti-immigrant legislation

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will alert and encourage their allied ethnic library associations and ALA to oppose anti-immigration legislation,

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will alert their members to take an active part in educating their communities about immigration and social justice for all immigrant communities,

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will promote libraries as safe sites and venues for citizen education about immigration issues,

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will encourage library workers to act as advocates for the education of undocumented immigrants about their human rights.

REFORMA BOD to vote on Resolution Opposing H.R. 4437

2006-04-12T14:09:00.000-04:00

The REFORMA Legislative Committee on Wednesday, April 12 released a resolution oppposing the Sensenbrenner Bill (H.R. 4437). The REFORMA Board of Directors will vote to adopt the resolution.

Resolution Opposing Sensenbrenner Bill (H.R. 4437)

Whereas, REFORMA’s main and ongoing mission is to promote library and information services to Latinos and the Spanish-speaking,

Whereas, REFORMA is on record in support of immigrants’ rights,

Whereas, anti-immigrant measures, such as Sensenbrenner Bill H.R. 4437 deleteriously affects the entire Latino community, regardless of legal status or citizenship status,

Whereas, the Sensenbrenner Bill - H.R. 4437 is totally punitive in trying to make felons out of undocumented immigrants, denying them any human, civil, working, or due process rights; seeks to make criminals out of people who aid undocumented immigrants, including clergy, health care workers, teachers, and possibly librarians; gives no recognition of the significant contributions immigrants make to our local and national economies and to our communities; and was passed by the United States House of Representatives on December 16, 2005 by a vote of 239-182 http://www.nclr.org/content/policy/detail/35618/ and has been sent to the Senate,

Whereas, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Specter (R. Pennsylvania) has drawn upon existing bills and the Sensenbrenner bill into a draft bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, which is currently being debated in the Senate,

Therefore be it resolved that, REFORMA is against Senator Specter’s bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will take immediate action to alert the Senate about their position on this legislation

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will alert and encourage their members to contact the Senate in opposition of this and any future similar anti-immigrant legislation

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will alert and encourage their allied ethnic library associations and ALA to oppose anti-immigration legislation,

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will alert their members to take an active part in educating their communities about immigration and social justice for all immigrant communities,

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will promote libraries as safe sites and venues for citizen education about immigration issues,

Be it further resolved that, REFORMA will encourage library workers to act as advocates for the education of undocumented immigrants about their human rights.

Workshop on Generating Collaborative Research in the Ethical Design of Surveillance Infrastructures

2006-02-07T09:39:00.000-05:00

OPEN CALL FOR PARTICIPATION

Workshop on Generating Collaborative Research in the Ethical Design of Surveillance Infrastructures

June 8-11, 2006; Austin, Texas

Surveillance may be understood as a set of processes of identification,
tracking, analysis and response which organize social knowledge, social
relations, and social power. Surveillance mediates everyday life. For
example, internet "cookies," shopping loyalty cards, and mobile phone
numbers all individuate and identify us. These identifiers are used to
index databases recording our web surfing activities, our purchases, and
our movements. The databases are subjected to statistical analysis in
order to produce knowledge of demographic categories, typical patterns,
or suspect behavior. This knowledge is then applied back to individuals
in the population in order to assign each to a particular niche market
or risk group, and to act toward them accordingly. Thus, through
surveillance, knowledge is created, categories and types are produced,
individuals are assigned social identities, and actions are taken that
articulate those identities within a larger social order.

These surveillance practices are themselves shaped by overlapping and
intertwined technical systems, laws, institutional configurations, and
cultural understandings. This "infrastructure" of surveillance supports
patterns of access to the resources of knowledge production, social
visibility, and social position.

In June 2006 a three-day workshop will be held in Austin, Texas. The
purpose of the meeting is to generate collaborative research projects
exploring further
* the social implications of surveillance practice,
* the technological, legal, economic, and cultural infrastructures
that shape surveillance practice, and
* possible technological, legal, economic, or cultural interventions
to reshape those infrastructures to desired ends.

The workshop will address this issue in the context of the following
themes:
* If surveillance mediates the production of categories and types of
people, how can surveillance infrastructures be shaped to permit
individuals, and groups of individuals, to coalesce around a particular
identity?
* How can surveillance infrastructures mediate the ability of groups
and individuals to "perform" certain identities within certain contexts?
* How can surveillance infrastructures mediate the ability of
subcultures to generate and sustain knowledge of and for themselves?
* How can surveillance resources be appropriately allocated to
ensure that groups of many scales (the family, the subculture, the
nation) are able to defend, protect, and nurture their own (perhaps
conflicting) interests?

We seek participants whose interests and expertise complement and expand
upon each other's work in social theory, information system design,
business, and public policy, and who will be able to address issues such
as:
* the application of legal paradigms other than privacy to practices
of information collection. We are particularly interested explorations
of legal theories of cultural rights and information commons.
* the application of novel information processing techniques,
including, but not limited to, pseudonymity, digital rights management,
and cluster analysis.
* the application of social theories of identity, including queer
theory and performance studies.
* the intersection of market interests with ethical surveillance
practice.

The workshop is intended to provide the initial venue for the production
of fundable, collaborative, cross-disciplinary research proposals.
Participants will be expected to prepare a position paper for
distribution one month prior to the meeting. At the workshop itself, we
will identify synergistic interactions of expertise, fruitful research
directions, and possible sources of funding. After the workshop,
participants will be eligible to apply for seed money grants to complete
collaborative grant proposals to pursue those projects. Participants
will also be invited to contribute to an edited volume.

The project will provide meals and accommodation for workshop
participants, and will reimburse reasonable travel costs. Please include
a quote of lowest available airfare in your application. Participants
from outside the U.S. are especially encouraged to apply.

Potential participants should submit (to djp@mail.utexas.edu) proposals
consisting of two parts:

(1) a 750-1000 word abstract, describing your area of research, its
relevance to the conference topic, and a proposed presentation. The
abstract should directly address a collaborative element - a
cross-disciplinary or cross-professional alignment that would further
the presenter's research goal.

(2) a one-page biography or curriculum vitae, listing your relevant
publications and experience.

The deadline for proposals is March 1, 2006. Participants will be
selected by March 20, 2006.

For more information, please contact David Phillips
(djp@mail.utexas.edu), or visit
http://communicati
on.utexas.edu/ethicalsurveillance/

This project is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant
#0551532 and by the University of Texas College of Communication and
Department of Radio-Television-Film.

ALA Council Passes Resolution on the USA Patriot Act Reathorization

2006-01-25T23:39:00.000-05:00

RESOLUTION ON THE USA PATRIOT ACT REAUTHORIZATION

WHEREAS, the American Library Association (ALA) is committed topreserving the privacy rights of all library users, library employees,and persons living in the U.S.; and

WHEREAS, the most sacred duty of the U.S. government and its officialsis to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the UnitedStates and so protect the civil liberties of all U.S. persons; and

WHEREAS, freedom of thought is the most basic of all freedoms and isinextricably linked to freedom of inquiry; and freedom of inquiry can bepreserved only in a society in which privacy rights are rigorouslyprotected; and

WHEREAS, ALA opposes any proposal by government that suppresses the freeand open exchange of knowledge and information or that intimidatesindividuals exercising free inquiry; and

WHEREAS, ALA is on record opposing and calling for revision ofprovisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (PL 107-56) that fail to ensure theprivacy rights of library users, library employees, and U.S. persons;and

WHEREAS, certain courageous members of the U.S. Congress have recognizedthe public's concerns about civil liberties and the extent of policepowers exercised in the fight against terrorism and are negotiatingamong different versions to reauthorize sections of the Act thatotherwise soon will expire; now, therefore be it

RESOLVED THAT the American Library Association (ALA) urges the U.S.Congress to amend those provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (PL 107-56)due for reauthorization only in a manner that safeguards the privacyrights and constitutionally protected civil liberties of all libraryusers, library employees, and U.S. persons; and be it further

RESOLVED THAT ALA urges Congress to amend Section 215 of the USA PATRIOTAct to
* require law enforcement officials to show individualizedsuspicion that items pertain to a foreign power or its agent, a personin contact with a suspected agent, or a suspected agent who is thesubject of the investigation; and
* require records or other items to be described with sufficientparticularity to allow them to be identified - reducing the danger thatthe FBI will engage in fishing expeditions in library or bookstorerecords; and
* require the FISA Court to make a finding that these facts havebeen sufficiently demonstrated; and
* allow a recipient of a FISA records search order to consult withan attorney or other person necessary to comply with the request, tochallenge the records search order, and to challenge the gag order; andbe it further

RESOLVED THAT ALA urges Congress to amend Section 505 to * allow a recipient of a National Security Letter (NSL) tochallenge the request in U.S. District Court; and* allow a recipient of an NSL to challenge the gag order in U.S.District Court; and* require law enforcement officials to show individualizedsuspicion that items pertain to a foreign power or its agent, a personin contact with a suspected agent, or a suspected agent who is thesubject of the investigation; and * require prior court review of NSL demands for intelligencegathering purposes; and be it further

RESOLVED THAT ALA urges that Section 215 have a sunset date of no morethan four years; and be it furtherRESOLVED THAT ALA urges that a sunset date of no more than four years beadded to Section 505; and be it further

RESOLVED THAT ALA urges Congress to intensify its oversight of the useof the PATRIOT Act as well as other government surveillance andinvestigation that limit the privacy rights of library users, libraryemployees, and U.S. persons; and be it further

RESOLVED THAT, ALA reasserts its commitment to the rights of inquiry andfree expression of all library users, library employees, and U.S.persons and opposes limitations and chilling effects on these rights.

Adopted by the ALA Council
January 25, 2006
San Antonio, TX

Policy 53.1.16, 53.4, 52.4.1Prior History CD#20.2, 1/14/04; CD#20.6, 6/29/05; CD#20.1,1/29/03

Approved by COL Subcommittee on Privacy, January 22, 2006
Endorsed in principle by IFC, January 24, 2006
Endorsed in principle by PLA, January 22, 2006
Adopted by COL, January 23, 2006

Tienes algo de que decir? Have something to say to the media about the Real ID Act or the Patriot Act?

2006-01-25T23:06:00.000-05:00

If you would like to serve as a resource to the ALA Washington Office, please contact me at mascenci@gmu.edu. The ALA Washington Office is seeking library staff and library supporters to refer the media when contacted for sound bites. Issues can range from the Real ID Act to the Patriot Act. Tu voz es importante and it needs to be heard!

REFORMA Legislative Committee Program at JCLC 2006

2006-01-19T11:58:00.000-05:00

The Program Committee of the Joint Conference of Librarians of Color (JCLC) has accepted a Legislative Comittee program, "Library Issues on Capital Hill: A National Dialogue with Congressional Representatives of Color."

The program is scheduled for the afternoon of Friday, October 13, 2006. We hope to see you in Dallas, Texas.

Mark Your Calendars: National Library Legislative Day May 1 & 2, 2006

2006-01-19T11:53:00.000-05:00

National Library Legislative Day is scheduled for May 1 and May 2, 2006 in Washington, D.C. If you are interested in participating with REFORMA, please contact Mario A. Ascencio at mascenci@gmu.edu

For more information, point your browsers to: http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/washevents/nlld/nationallibrary.htm

REFORMA Legislative Meeting at ALA Midwinter - San Antonio

2006-01-19T11:00:00.000-05:00

The Legislative Committee will be meeting during the REFORMA All Committees II Meeting, during the American Library Association Midwinter Meeting in San Antonio.

When: Saturday, January 21, 2006 10:30 a.m.
Where: (MEN Renaissance)

REFORMA Legislative Committee

2006-01-19T10:49:00.000-05:00

For more information about REFORMA - The National Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking, visit our Website at http://www.reforma.org.