Mike Honda

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, there are very few things I like about this energy bill. However, I do support title IX, and I am proud to be the ranking member of the Committee on Science's Energy Subcommittee, which authored this portion of the bill. We have included such beneficial programs as energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development in the areas of solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy, and other alternative energy sources that will be critical to our future energy independence. Also included are research programs into distributed energy and electric energy systems, which will make us less reliant on fragile transmission grid, and the next generation lighting initiative, which will reduce future demand for electricity through efficiency. We have also increased support for the basic sciences at the Department of Energy generally and focused on several programs in particular, such as nanotechnology research and development, advanced scientific computing research, and fusion energy sciences. It is a credit to the collegial bipartisan nature of the Committee on Science members and staff that all of these important provisions are included in a product that both sides of the aisle can support. There is so much agreement that I do not have any amendments to offer here today; and as a side bar, I would like to also commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman; and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), our ranking member, for this kind of collegial activity. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about the rest of the bill. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and liability waivers for producers of MTBE are not going to reduce gas prices today and are not steps toward a sustainable energy future. And in contrast, the bill does not address increasing fuel economy standards, which is a concrete step we can take to reduce energy consumption. Even President Bush, an oil man, admits that with $55 a barrel of oil, we do not need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore. He recently said, ``There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent.'' This bill does not do enough to make this Nation less dependent on energy, be it from imported or domestic sources. We need a bill that focuses on our long-term future needs, not one that is stuck in the past. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Equal Pay Day. Today I join the millions of women workers and local advocates across America to fight for justice and fairness in our wages. Today symbolizes the day when women have to work longer hours each week for the same amount of pay that a man would earn in just 5 working days. It is disappointing to know that it has been 40 years since President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, yet the wage gap between men and women persists. Forty years ago, women who worked full- time made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by men. In 2004, women earned 77 cents to the dollar. The wage gap has barely narrowed in these past 40 years, even though women have the same education, skills and experience as men. The disparity in wages between women of color and white men is even worse. In 2003, Asian Pacific American women earned 80 cents for every dollar that men earned. African American women earned only 66 cents and Hispanic American women earned 59 cents for every dollar that men earned. Although working women in my home State of California are farther along the road to equal pay than women in many States, the wage gap is still there. In 2000, California's working women earned only 82.5 percent as much per hour as men. At the current rate of change, working women in California won't have equal pay until 2044. Nationwide, women won't achieve equal pay until 2050. It is distressing to know that it will take 87 years since the Equal Pay Act before there is pay equity. Now is the time for our country to fix this problem and to move forward in addressing this issue. As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I have joined with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Native American Caucus, the Women's Caucus and Democratic Leadership to move forward in addressing this problem by cosponsoring the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro would take the steps needed to eliminate gender based wage discrimination and ensure that women will finally earn what men earn for doing the same job. I urge you to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. We must remember that equal pay isn't just a women's issue--when women get equal pay, their family incomes rise and the whole family benefits. Equal pay is about fairness.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the election Weekend Act of 2005. My dear friend and distinguished colleague, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and I are introducing this bill to expand accessibility to the electoral process for millions of hard working Americans, who at present are faced with the untenable task of balancing their familial and work responsibilities with their desire to participate in our democratic process, namely to vote. For more than 200 years, our Nation has prided itself on being the preeminent democracy in the world. We have been the nation to which others look as an example of a healthy democracy. Yet, our rate of voter turnout reveals that our democracy is suffering from serious illness. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, between 1945 and 1998, the United States ranked a dismal 139th out of 172 democracies in voter turnout. True to our ideals of freedom and individuality, voting has always been voluntary. But the voluntary nature of voting is only true if all Americans have equal access to participate in this process. Many hardworking Americans simply do not have ample time and opportunity to vote. And, as we saw in the 2004 election, many civic-minded Americans must wait in line for hours upon hours for the opportunity to cast their ballot. Our predecessors in Congress arranged for elections to be held during a time of the year and day of the week that would allow enable the largest number of citizens to vote. In 1845 Congress selected November as the month to hold elections (Election Day) because the harvest was in, and farmers were able to take the time needed to vote. Congress selected Tuesday because it gave a full day's travel between Sunday, which was widely observed as a strict day of rest, and Election Day. Travel was also easier throughout the north during November, before winter had set in. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to recognize today what our predecessors so astutely recognized 160 years ago: The timing of our elections must accommodate the schedules of our hard working citizens. In recognition of changed times, our bill proposes to do just this. The Weekend Election Act changes our Nation's Election Day from the first Tuesday in November to the first consecutive Saturday and Sunday in November, and in so doing, enables many more Americans to participate in the most fundamental aspect of our democratic process. Our bill acknowledges the fact that many Americans are unable to leave their jobs in the middle of the day to vote because our elections occur on a Tuesday, a day when almost all Americans are working. By holding elections over a weekend, a time when fewer Americans work, voters will have more time to go to the polls, reducing many of the long lines that form during peak voting hours. In a time when we are ardently promoting democracy abroad, we must not forget the ongoing need to strengthen democracy at home. Only as long as the democratic process is accessible to all hardworking citizens at home will we serve as a shining example of democracy to the rest of the world. I urge my colleagues to support the Election Weekend Act to enable greater access to the most fundamental aspect of our democratic process.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, today, the Republican majority continues its assault on hardworking Americans by ramming through the House of Representatives bankruptcy legislation that harms even the most ethical among us. The legislation before us today is an indefensible gift to the credit card industry, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it. S. 256, The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, purports to introduce a greater level of personal responsibility into the bankruptcy system by eliminating various loopholes and incentives that encourage consumer bankruptcy filings and abuse. The bill's proponents argue that this kind of abuse is rampant, but expert analyses suggest another story. According to a Harvard study, about 50 percent of all families that file for bankruptcy are forced to do so as a result of medical expenses, and three-quarters of those individuals actually have health insurance. Another 40 percent have been driven into bankruptcy, at least in part, after suffering a job loss, divorce, or death in the family. The American Bankruptcy Institute estimates that no more than three percent of filers avoid repayment of debts by gaming the system. The simple truth is that almost all individuals declaring bankruptcy do so as necessity and a last resort! Sadly, the mechanisms employed by this bill to crack down on bankruptcy abuse will have a disproportionate impact on women, minority communities, the elderly and the unemployed. It will impose a rigid means test that will make it more difficult for debtors to get a ``fresh start.'' The bill also will endanger child support payments, permit landlords to evict tenants, and frustrate efforts by debtors to save homes and cars. It betrays veterans who accumulate debt following an injury or disability sustained on active duty. In a final insult, the Republican leadership denied the opportunity for Democrats to offer amendments that would have protected veterans and other vulnerable communities. While the Republican majority wishes to hold the average American accountable, it seeks to preserve privileges and loopholes for the financial industry and the rich. The bill does nothing to reign in credit card companies that engage in reckless lending, and it allows wealthy debtors in five states to declare bankruptcy and keep their multimillion-dollar homes without penalty. Once again, the Republican leadership thwarted amendments that would have evened the playing field for debtors and creditors. Amendments to close loopholes for millionaires, discourage predatory lending, and cap interest on extension of credit were flatly rejected by the Republican majority on the Rules Committee. Reasonable bankruptcy reform may be necessary, but S. 256 is an abuse of the legislative process and a threat to the financial security of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 256.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), my friend. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership for this opportunity to honor Bob Matsui, who sought to make this country a more perfect place, and urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the wife of Bob Matsui.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his kind words. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), my friend and colleague and the author. (Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 787, a bill to name the courthouse in Sacramento in honor of our former colleague, Robert T. Matsui. This bill has broad bipartisan support from both his California colleagues and all of us who had the distinct privilege of serving with him. Congressman Matsui's legislative interests and accomplishments are legendary here in the House. Health care, welfare reform, tax issues, the environment, immigrant issues, and of course Social Security are just a few of the issues that Bob made his own. Bob was only 6 months old when, just months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he and his family were interned at Tule Lake camp in California. His childhood experience in the internment camp shaped his future actions on behalf of those fighting for fairness. Bob understood the injustice of the internment and sympathized with other loyal Americans who suffered at the hands of the government in which they never lost faith. He embraced his heritage and channeled his energy into making positive changes for all Americans. From the time he worked as a member of the Sacramento City Council to serving as the vice mayor of Sacramento and finally as a U.S. Representative starting in 1978, Bob Matsui served as a constant reminder of what integrity and dedication can accomplish in public office. Bob Matsui should ultimately be remembered for his civility, his dignity and his service to others. He was a selfless role model whose footprint will forever be imprinted on our Nation's history. Bob Matsui was intelligent and principled. As a skilled, respected politician and willing to reach across the aisle, his voice elevated any debate. His leadership style and his character served as a model for all of us. It is certainly fitting that the House honor his exceptional life, his public service with this very appropriate courthouse designation. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for bringing up this measure in such an expeditious manner. Again, I strongly support H.R. 778 and urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the dean of the delegation. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1436 is a bill to designate a portion of the Alexandria courthouse located at 2100 Jamieson Avenue as the Justin W. Williams United States Attorney's Building. In the 108th Congress, an identical bill, H.R. 3428, was introduced but did not receive action from the other body. H.R. 1463 was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and enjoys strong bipartisan support. U.S. Attorney Justin Williams was an extraordinary public servant who served the citizens of Virginia for over 30 years. He received his undergraduate degree from Colombia University and his law degree from the University of Virginia. During his 33 years as a Federal prosecutor he supervised or was directly involved in every major Federal prosecution in the Eastern District of Virginia. His career is filled with numerous awards and honors, including the Attorney General's Award for Excellence that is awarded for furthering the interests of national security, the Director's award for superior performance in years 1990, 2000, 2002, and Sustained Superior Performance for the years 1990, 1991, 1997, 1998 and 1999. In addition to being an outstanding lawyer, Justin Williams was a thoughtful mentor, loyal friend, outstanding role model, devoted husband and loving father; and it is most fitting we honor the distinguished career of this dedicated public servant with this designation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the author of this bill.

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I join with the gentleman from Brownsville, Texas (Mr. Ortiz), in supporting H.R. 483, a bill to name the courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, as the Reynaldo G. Garza-Filemon B. Vela United States Courthouse. Madam Speaker, this bill honors the life and works of two extraordinary Mexican Americans. The first honoree, Judge Reynaldo Garza, was born in Brownsville in 1915. He graduated from local elementary schools as well as Brownsville High School. After graduating from Brownsville Junior College, he attended the University of Texas where he received the combined degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Law. Judge Garza served his country during World War II in the Air Force. After the war he returned to Brownsville to practice law. In 1961 President Kennedy appointed Judge Garza to the district court for the Southern District of Texas. In 1979 President Carter appointed him to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. In addition to his judicial duties, Judge Garza has long been interested in education issues. He served former Governors John Connally and Mark White on commissions to improve the quality of education in Texas. Judge Garza recognized the importance of education in judicial proceedings and his concern for uneducated men at the mercy of unscrupulous people. Judge Garza was very active in his church and has served the Knights of Columbus in the Brownsville area for many years. Pope Pius XII twice decorated Judge Garza for his work on behalf of public charities. In 1989 Judge Garza was honored by the University of Texas with a Distinguished Alumnus Award. His record of public service includes the work with the Rotary Club, the Latin-American Relation Committee in Brownsville, trustee at his law school, advisory council for the Boy Scouts, and he was elected as the city commissioner for the City of Brownsville. It is fitting and proper to honor Judge Garza's outstanding, rich life, his commitment to excellence and his numerous public contributions. The second honoree, Madam Speaker, Judge Filemon Vela, was also a native Texan and a veteran of the United States Army. He attended Texas Southmost College and the University of Texas. His law degree is from St. Mary's School of Law in San Antonio. Judge Vela served as a commissioner of the City of Brownsville. He was a member of the Judges Advisory Committee to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Judge Vela is a former law instructor and an attorney for the Cameron County Child Welfare Department. His civic activities including being the charter president for the Esperanza Home for Boys and the co-sponsor of the Spanish Radio Program ``Enrich Your Life, Complete Your Studies.'' Judge Vela's other civic activities include membership on the Independent School District Task Force and membership in the general assembly of the Texas Catholic Conference. He is also an active member of the Lions Club. Judge Vela was nominated by President Carter for the Federal bench and was confirmed by the United States Senate in 1980. Judge Vela's career is filled with successes, commitment to his family, devotion to his religion and his church, love for his work and respect for his colleagues. It is most fitting to honor Judge Vela with this designation. I join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) in supporting H.R. 483. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8, legislation that unwisely imperils our Nation's financial security in order to advance the interests of an elite few. Since my election to Congress, I have consistently advocated for reasonable estate tax reform. Estate tax reform is extremely important for all the people in the 15th District of California. High real estate values and generous stock option packages have pushed many estates over exemption limits. As a result, too many of my Santa Clara County constituents have been burdened by an estate tax that was originally written to affect only the very wealthiest Americans. The estate tax needs to be modified to protect hardworking Americans and their heirs. In keeping with this spirit, I intend to support a Democratic alternative to H.R. 8 that will benefit almost all Americans. Offered by Representative Earl Pomeroy, the Democratic substitute will increase the estate tax exemption to $3 million for individuals and $6 million for married couples effective January 1, 2006 with a scheduled increase in 2009. Under this plan, 99.7 percent of all estates would have no estate tax liability. The Republican majority has put forward a more expensive plan to benefit the three-tenths of one percent not covered by the Democratic substitute. Their plan comes at a significant cost. Once fully in effect, H.R. 8 will cost $1 trillion over 10 years. This astronomical price tag will exacerbate record Federal deficits and undermine our Nation's ability to strengthen key Federal priorities, including Social Security, Medicare, education programs and veterans health care. H.R. 8 may also harm more taxpayers than it would help. Current income tax law provides for a ``step-up'' in the basis of an inherited asset to its fair market value at the time of decedent's death. When the heir sells the asset, the capital gain for income tax purposes is measured by the difference between the heir's selling price and the stepped-up basis of the asset. H.R. 8 repeals the step-up basis and substitutes carryover basis rules in which the capital gain would be measured by the difference between heir's selling price and the asset's cost at the time when the decedent acquired it. As a result, all estates with gross assets over $1.3 million would face reporting requirements and tax liabilities potentially more burdensome than under current law. While I am deeply concerned with the problems surrounding the estate tax, and believe that substantial, long-term reform is needed, permanent repeal for all estates is not necessary to resolve these issues. Given our nation's challenges, I cannot support the Republican's fiscally irresponsible approach to this issue. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 8.