Mike Honda

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the rule for consideration of H.R. 6. It is shameful, given the importance of energy to our national prosperity and the significance of the programs contained in this bill, that so little time was provided for debate on the bill and on the limited number of amendments that were made in order. Why does this rule so restrict the time for debate on amendments? The other side of the aisle will say we need to complete action on the bill before the recess, but no matter when we finish our bill, we will still have to wait for the other body to complete its work before the bill can go to conference. I think the real reason we are spending so little time debating this bill and these amendments is that those on the other side of the aisle are afraid to expose this bill to the bright light of scrutiny. If the American public were given a real chance to see what is contained in this bill, the outcry against it would be deafening, so we are rushing it through with a minimum of debate. There are very few things I like about the bill itself, either. However, I do support Division B, and I am proud to be a member of the Science Committee, which authored this portion of the bill. We have included such beneficial programs as energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development, the next generation lighting initiative, and the clean school buses program. 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, U.S. participation in the ITER fusion energy project, and advanced scientific computing for energy missions. I commend the bipartisan leadership of the Science Committee for including these important provisions in the bill. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about the rest of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support amendments that will be offered later by Chairman Boehlert, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Markey, Mr. Udall, and many of my colleagues from this side of the aisle. I stand in support of the Boehlert/Markey amendment. The auto industry has claimed that if CAFE standards are raised, they might have to stop making SUVs. Yet their actions directly contradict these words. Recently Ford, Toyota, and GM all announced plans to introduce SUVs that travel over 35 miles per gallon during the next couple of years. Toyota has demonstrated with the Prius, which I drive, that hybrid technology works and consumers love it. Auto companies are showing that they have the technology to improve fuel economy--without sacrificing safety. I stand in support of the Dingell amendment. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has recently reported that during the California energy crisis, companies such as Enron, Reliant, and BP Energy deliberately manipulated the deregulated market to gouge consumers, but it is still not clear that consumers will receive the refunds they deserve. It seems clear to me that we need to improve consumer protections, not weaken them, but that is exactly what the H.R. 6 does. It promotes nationwide deregulation and repeals PUHCA (the Public Utility Holding Company Act). In contrast, the Dingell Amendment removes the deregulation provisions, increases FERC authority to combat fraud, and authorizes FERC to refund electricity overcharges back to the date when they began. I am in opposition to the Wilson amendment. This amendment grossly misrepresents the actual areas of the coastal plain of ANWR that will be affected. The Interior Department estimates that drilling would actually affect 12,500 acres with roads, drill pads, processing facilities and airports, spread over hundreds of square miles. Drilling would also require 1200 acres for gravel mines needed to construct gravel roads within the 2000 acres, roads that are not subject to the 2000-acre rule. Existing oil field sprawl on the North Slope of Alaska has a ``footprint'' of 15,500 acres, but actually spreads across an area of more than 640,000 acres. I urge my colleagues to see the 2000- acre scam for what it is I stand in support of the Markey/Johnson amendment. Why won't the other side of the aisle listen on this one? The public opposes drilling in ANWR. The other body voted to remove drilling provisions from the Budget. The distinguished chair of the other body's Energy Committee realizes that this will not be in a final energy bill and has said he will not bring it up. It isn't worth drilling in ANWR. There is less oil there than the U.S. consumes in 6 months, so it won't provide energy security. A policy that focuses on a clean, sustainable, and affordable energy supply would create more jobs than drilling in ANWR ever would, possibly 10 times as many. These would be permanent jobs, rather than the temporary jobs that ANWR drilling would bring. I urge my colleagues to protect our nation's largest and wildest natural treasure. Finally, I stand in support of the Wu/Johnson amendment. In May of 2002, the General Accounting Office released a report that revealed an alarming disparity in salaries and rates of promotion between minorities when compared to white males in the same jobs at the Department of Energy's National Laboratories. GAO found that salaries for minority men and women and white women were lower than for white men, with the exceptions of Asian American men at Los Alamos and Sandia and Hispanic men at Lawrence Livermore. Comparing men and women of the same race/ethnicity, GAO found that White, Asian and Hispanic women earned less than their male counterparts. The report also found that there are further areas for investigation. For example, with over 300 Asian American professional staff at Lawrence Livermore, not one was promoted to a managerial position between 1998 and 2000. When the report was released, I called for Congressional hearings to determine the cause of these inequities so that we may remedy them to ensure that the Department of Energy can recruit and retain the highest quality ethnically diverse workforce. Unfortunately, the Science Committee took no action on this issue. The W/Johnson amendment would finally bring about some Congressional action, by requiring the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on DOE lab's equal employment opportunity practices in promotion, pay raise, discipline, and recruitment and retention efforts.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, In May of 2002, the General Accounting Office released a report that revealed an alarming disparity in salaries and rates of promotion between minorities when compared to which males in the same jobs at the Department of Energy's National Laboratories. GAO found that salaries for minority men and women and white women were lower than for white men, with the exceptions of Asian-American men at Los Alamos and Sandia and Hispanic men at Lawrence Livermore. Comparing men and women of the same race/ethnicity, GAO found that White, Asian, and Hispanic women earned less than their male counterparts. The report also found that there are further areas for investigation. For example, with over 300 Asian-American professional staff at Lawrence Livermore, not one was promoted to a managerial position between 1998 and 2000. When the report was released, I called for congressional hearings to determine the cause of these inequities so that we may remedy them to ensure that the Department of Energy can recruit and retain the highest quality ethnically diverse work force. Unfortunately, the Science Committee took no action on this issue. The Wu/Johnson amendment would finally bring about some congressional action, by requiring the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on DOE labs' equal employment opportunity practices in promotion, pay raise, discipline, and recruitment and retention efforts. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, it is with a troubled heart that I will be voting for the PROTECT Act today. The benefits of a national AMBER Alert network are undeniable, and I cannot support any further delay on its implementation. However, I do not believe that this Conference Report will make good law, and I fervently hope that Congress will soon repeal the egregious provisions that have been included. Though the Conference Committee was able to moderate the bill somewhat, it is still chock-full of what I considered to be bad policy. Regardless of what one thinks of these provisions, they should have received independent consideration and deliberation, rather than being tied to, and slowing down, a need as pressing as AMBER. I am particularly disturbed by the parts of this legislation that would eliminate judicial discretion. For example, Section 109 of this measure would fundamentally alter the carefully crafted and balanced system established by the Sentencing Reform Act. It undermines our independent judiciary, as well as the United States Sentencing Commission. It is a reversal of existing law that was inserted during floor debate, without committee hearings or any semblance of due deliberation. Unfortunately, this is all to emblematic of how this bill has been handled in this body. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because it is well past time to pass an AMBER Alert network act, but instead of marking an unmitigated legislative achievement, the passage of this omnibus measure will be a cause for serious self-reflection on what we are doing here.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Votes Nos. 109, 110, and 111, I was unavoidably detained with important matters in my district. As a result, I was unable to cast a vote on the measure to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1901 West Evans Street in Florence, South Carolina, as the ``Dr. Roswell N. Beck Post Office Building,'' the measure expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the month of April should be designated as ``Financial Literacy for Youth Month'' and the measure to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7554 Pacific Avenue in Stockton, California, as the ``Norman D. Shumway Post Office Building.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Vote No. 109, ``aye'' on rollcall Vote No. 110 and ``aye'' on rollcall Vote No. 111.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), I really appreciate this opportunity for us to be able to speak to the members of our country and to share the information that somehow and sometimes never get to their years. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about what it really means to support our troops and our Nation's veterans. Madam Speaker, I believe it is easy for any Member of Congress to stand here in the well on the floor and say they support veterans and support our troops in Iraq. It is always easy to talk the talk, but the real question we should be asking is, will they walk the walk? Just last week, the Senate passed a unanimous resolution in support of our troops. The following day, the House Republican leadership had the same opportunity to send an equally powerful message to our troops by introducing a clean resolution similar to the Senate version. But, instead, the House Republicans denied the troops this message of unity and decided to politicize the issue by drafting House Concurrent Resolution 104, a resolution that included language in support of President Bush's misguided Iraq policy. By drafting a resolution that mixes support for our troops and support for President Bush's policies, Republicans sought to coerce Members opposed to the war into voting for the resolution. While I fully support our troops, I vehemently disagree with the President's decision to abandon a diplomatic solution to disarming Saddam Hussein and could not support a resolution that endorses that decision. However disturbed I was about the politicization of support for our troops, it does not even come close to the feelings of outrage I have over the passage of the House Republican budget resolution. Just 10 minutes before the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 104, the House Republicans pushed through their budget resolution. I can think of no better way of describing the Republican budget resolution than by using a quote by the Disabled American Veterans. The quote is: ``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our Government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, health care and disability compensation, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?'' The Republican budget resolution makes room, makes room, for the President's $1.6 trillion tax cut, while cutting discretionary health care spending for veterans below the level needed to maintain purchasing power at the 2003 level. The Republican budget also directs the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs to cut $14.6 billion from mandatory benefit payments to veterans, including compensation for service-connected disabilities, burial benefits, and veterans' education benefits. This is why the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the American Legion all issued statements opposing the Republican budget. The Democrats, in contrast, eliminated the $14.6 billion Republican cut to mandatory veterans' benefits program, including compensation for service-connected disabilities, burial benefits, Montgomery GI education benefits, and housing loan programs. Our budget also protected the veterans' health benefits from the Republican cuts, providing $16.2 billion more than the House Republican budget. I voted for the Democratic budget. I am proud to support our troops. I am proud to support and reflect our budget and our values. Madam Speaker, this pattern of patriotic posturing must end. Congress needs to start showing real support for our troops by taking care of our Nation's veterans. During this time of war, we must do no less. Republican leaders can sure talk the talk, but can they walk the walk?

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the men and women of our armed services. These courageous Americans are putting their lives on the line in order to serve our country, and I pray that they succeed swiftly in their mission and return home safely. I also want to express my support for the families of our troops, who are patiently awaiting their return with heavy hearts. My thoughts and prayers go out to you during these difficult times. While I fully support our troops, I am frustrated and deeply disappointed by the resolution that we are being asked to consider tonight. I vehemently disagree with the President's decision to abandon a diplomatic solution to disarm Saddam Hussein, and cannot support a resolution that endorses that decision. I was proud to support H.J. Res. 27 two weeks ago, a resolution commending the service of our Armed Forces. However, it is with a heavy heart that I must oppose the resolution we have before us tonight.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the House Republican budget resolution. I believe our national budget should be a statement of our country's values. It should reflect the priorities of the American people for good jobs, safe communities, quality education, and access to health care. Unfortunately, the Republican budget fails to fund these national priorities. The Republican budget has only one clear priority, to fund the President's $1.6 trillion tax cut. The Republicans fund this tax cut at the expense of the social and economic interests of the American people. Republicans are offering us a budget today that cuts funding for every single domestic priority in order to fund a $1.6 trillion tax cut that will only help a small percentage of Americans. These tax cuts are even more inappropriate when we consider the fact that our country is engaged in a war that will strain our already weakened financial resources. Democrats, on the other hand, will be offering a variety of alternative budgets today that reflect the priorities of the American people. We will push for tax provisions that will help the backbone of our economy, small businesses and working families, while providing the necessary resources for quality health care and education for all Americans. While I do not fully endorse all of the Democratic alternatives, each is far better than the Republican budget resolution. So today Democrats step up to the plate with superior alternatives while Republicans offer a Bush-league budget. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republicans have chosen the interest of the elite few over the needs of the many. It is clear where their priorities lie. I urge Members to align their priorities with those of the American people and vote for the Democratic budget resolution.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the House Republican budget resolution. I believe our national budget should be a statement of our country's values. It should reflect the priorities of the American people for good jobs and safe communities, quality education and access to health care. Unfortunately, the Republican budget fails to fund these national priorities. The Republican budget has only one clear priority: To fund the President's $1.6 trillion tax cut, and the Republicans fund this tax cut at the expense of the social and economic interests of the American people. The Republican budget provides $1.6 trillion for the President's tax cut, but only provides $28 billion for a prescription drug plan. This will only cover 1.5 percent of our country's seniors' prescription drug costs over the next 10 years. Any additional funds spent to provide a prescription drug plan would have to come at the expense of other Medicare benefits. So Republicans are essentially offering our seniors the following choice: Prescription drug coverage or benefits. Pick one or the other, but you cannot have both. The Republican budget cuts $9.7 billion from the mandatory education programs. These include student loan programs and child nutrition programs. In 2004 alone, these cuts could push nearly \1/2\ million poor children out of child nutrition programs. Republicans are eager to fund the President's $1.6 trillion tax cut, but cannot seem to find the funds necessary to provide a school breakfast or lunch for our Nation's low-income children. For many of these children, access to school meals may be the only one assured source of good nutrition each day. Mr. Speaker, there are millions of Americans today whose parents cannot afford prescription drugs, whose children attend classes in bungalows, because their schools are run down and old. There are millions of Americans who are struggling to find work and provide for their families in the midst of our struggling economy. Yet Republicans are offering us a budget this week that cuts funding for every single domestic priority in order to fund a $1.6 trillion tax cut that will only help a small percentage of Americans. These tax cuts are even more inappropriate when you consider the fact that our country is about to embark on a war that will strain our already weakened financial resources. Our national budget should be a reflection of our priorities and values. It should be a budget based on making the right choices. Do we make room for more expensive tax cuts, or provide affordable prescription drugs for our Nation's seniors? Do we fund a $1.6 trillion tax cut, or provide school lunches for our Nation's children? Do we focus on modernizing our Nation's schools and providing assistance for unemployed workers, or do we provide tax breaks for the few? Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republicans have chosen the interests of the elite few over the needs of the many. It is clear where their priorities lie. I urge my colleagues to align their priorities with those of the American people and vote against the Republican budget resolution.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, my goodness, what a difference 2 years make. Two years ago, Republicans argued that the projected $5.6 trillion surplus was so huge and so certain that they could accommodate large tax cuts and increases in domestic spending, while still having enough to provide for unseen events. In fact, they even worried that the U.S. may pay off the public debt too quickly. Today that $5.6 trillion surplus is gone and has been replaced with deficits as far as the eyes can see. Our national public debt has risen to $6.4 trillion, the highest amount in U.S. history. In fiscal year 2002, American taxpayers spent $333 billion paying interest charges on our national debt, which translates to nearly $1 billion per day, every day. That total is more than the government spends on education, transportation, child nutrition, homeland security, and the environment combined.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, one of the most concise rebuttals that I have read to the notion that Japanese Americans were placed in the camps because they either posed a national security threat or for their own safety comes from a law professor from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in a letter dated February 7, 2003. 1 would like to submit this letter at this point in the Record. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, North Carolina, February 7, 2003. Hon. Howard Coble, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Coble: I am a professor of law at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill. My areas of expertise include constitutional law and especially the story of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. My book on the subject, Free to Die for their Country: The Story of the Japanese American Draft Resisters in World War 11 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2001), was named one of the Washington Post's Top Nonfiction Titles for 2001. I have followed with interest and concern the story about your comments on the radio on Tuesday morning to the effect that you support the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and that the Roosevelt administration interned Japanese Americans to protect them. I note that you were quoted in the High Point Enterprise as saying the following: ``I still stand by what I said . . . that, in no small part, it (internment) was done to protect the Japanese-Americans themselves.'' The article further states that you said that if it were proven to you that protecting Japanese Americans was not one of FDR's motivations, you will apologize. Here is the proof. Just after the Pearl Harbor attack, FDR, asked Navy Secretary Frank Knox to investigate the possibility, that Fifth Column work by people of Japanese ancestry in Hawaii had contributed to the success of the Japanese sneak attack. Knox reported his conclusions to FDR by December 15, and on that day, said to reporters that he thought ``the most effective Fifth Column work of the entire war was done in Hawaii with the possible exception of Norway.'' J. Edgar Hoover immediately registered his strong disagreement with Knox's conclusions, and it turns out that Knox was wrong and Hoover was right. But it was Knox's views that were made public, and they triggered hysteria on the West Coast. Well before the war, FDR, anticipating a possible war with Japan, had commissioned his own secret intelligence investigation of Japanese aliens and their loyalties. Leading this effort were John Franklin Carter (an author and columnist) and Curtis Munson (a prominent Republican businessman). And the Office of Naval Intelligence (``ONI'') and the FBI were for quite some time before Pearl Harbor, gathering names of Japanese aliens who might need to be apprehended in the event of war. ONI and the FBI actually compiled a list of such aliens which came to be called the ``ABC'' list--so named because the list presented three categories (Category A, Category B, and Category C) of potentially dangerous aliens. (In the days after Pearl Harbor, all of the aliens in these three categories were in fact arrested--a total of some 1500.) Carter and Munson's investigations had led them to conclude that the overwhelming majority of Japanese aliens and an even greater percentage of American citizens of Japanese ancestry were in fact loyal to the United States, and that of those whose loyalty was even questionable, few could be expected even to consider actually doing something to support Japan or undermine the United States. Carter and Munson grew alarmed by Knox's report and the anti-Japanese outcry that followed it. Carter and Munson quickly put together a plan for FDR's consideration that was designed to bolster the Japanese American communities of Hawaii and the West Coast. Their plan called for a number of things: FDR was urged to go on record as believing in the loyalty of American citizens of Japanese ancestry (the ``Nisei''). The Nisei should be invited to volunteer (and then should be accepted) for patriotic service in the Red Cross and civilian defense. The Nisei should be encouraged to take control of their alien parents' property. Once investigated, the Nisei should be allowed to take jobs in defense plants. Carter and Munson also urged the government to work closely with the Japanese American Citizens League, which had indicated its willingness to serve as a loyal liaison with the Japanese American community. The goals of the Carter-Munson plan were many, but they included the discouragement of vigilante violence against Japanese Americans and Japanese aliens. The hope was that if FDR came out quickly and loudly in support of people of Japanese ancestry, and involved them quickly in activities that would permit their loyalty and patriotism to shine through, others would not see them as a threat. The Carter-Munson plan was submitted to Roosevelt before Christmas. By mid-January, it was completely forgotten-- suspended by other pressures that I'll detail in a moment. And here's the important point: the Carter-Munson plan was the only plan for dealing with Japanese Americans that took their security into account in any way. It never got off the ground. Why didn't it get off the ground? For four main reasons. First, by late January 1942, General John DeWitt (the commanding officer of the West Coast Defense Command) and his advisor Karl Bendetsen had become persuaded that mass action to remove all people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast was necessary for military reasons. Their viewpoint was fed largely by outrageous rumors of Japanese American subversion, none of which ever panned out. Second, by mid-January, a rabidly racist press along the Coast had begun campaigning for the eviction of all ``Japs'' from the area--not for their protection, but because they could not be trusted. Third, white farmers in California began lobbying ferociously for the removal of all people of Japanese ancestry--not to protect them, and not even really for national security reasons, but to drive the very successful Japanese farming industry out of business. And fourth, their lobbying, and the voices of the editorialists, succeeded in pushing most of the congressional delegations of the West Coast states to demand mass exclusion. As Professor Greg Robinson says in his authoritative treatment of the subject, ``By Order of the President; FDR, and the Internment of Japanese Americans'' (Harvard U. Press, 2001). ``the binding factor among these disparate social, economic, and military forces was racial animosity toward Japanese Americans.'' (p.90) Through late January and early February, Attorney General Francis Biddle, and his staff fought with the military to prevent mass action against Japanese Americans. But it was too late. On February 11, 1942, Secretary of War Henry Stimson sent FDR a memo asking whether he'd be willing to support ``mov[ing] Japanese citizens as well as aliens from restricted areas.'' Getting no response, Stimson phoned FDR on February 15 to ask for a meeting on the memo. FDR said he was too busy for a meeting, but in ``very vigourous'' tones told Stimson that the military should do whatever they thought best. FDR predicted that ``there would probably be some repercussions but it has got to be dictated by military necessity.'' On February 19, 1942, FDR signed Executive Order 9066, which gave the military cart blanche to do what they wished with Japanese, aliens and American citizens of Japanese ancestry along the West Coast. There is the proof. A concern for protecting Japanese Americans had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to force Japanese Americans behind barbed wire. Nothing. (My sources for this account include Greg Robinson's book, Peter Irons's Justice at War, and Personal Justice Denied, the report of Congress's Commission on the Wartime Internment and Relocation of Civilians. This, you'll recall, was the fact-finding Commission that Congress created in the early 1980s to investigate the internment. Their report, condemning the internment, led to the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed into law by President Reagan, which apologized to surviving internees for the internment, and authorized the payment to each of them of a token $20,000 redress payment. You will also recall that you spoke and voted against this bill. I hope that you will take this opportunity to admit the mistake in your comments of Tuesday morning and apologize for them. Thank you for considering this. Sincerely, Eric L. Muller, Professor of Law.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of Dr. Koichi Nishimura and his contributions to the Bay Area and Japanese- American communities. Dr. Nishimura will soon retire from Solectron Corporation after leading the company to its current standing as one of the world's largest electronics manufacturing services company. He has accomplished this through years of hard work and dedication to his friends, neighbors, and colleagues. Born in 1938 in Pasadena, California, Dr. Nishimura is a Nisei, or second-generation Japanese American. Like many of his fellow Nisei, he has experienced strong Western and Eastern influences. During World War II, Dr. Nishimura spent five years, from age three to seven, at an internment camp in Manzanar. Despite spending his childhood in Southern California, he spoke only Japanese until the first grade. After earning his bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering from San Jose State University, Dr. Nishimura received his Doctorate in Material Science and Engineering from Stanford University. Upon completion of his education, Dr. Nishimura began his career as a test engineer with IBM. After 23 years with IBM, he was asked to join the then-regional Solectron Corporation. Coming on as the Chief Operating Officer in 1988, he quickly moved to President and then Chief Executive Officer. In 1996, he became Chairman of the Board. Dr. Nishimura has made Solectron Corporation not only the biggest company in the electronics industry, but also the most profitable. Under his leadership, Solectron was twice awarded the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, becoming the first company in the history of the program to do so. Dr. Nishimura is very active in both the business and Japanese American communities. Currently, he serves on the Board of Trustees of the Santa Fe Institute. In addition to serving on various boards, he has been a member and the Chairman of Santa Clara University's Leavey School of Business. Dr. Nishimura has dedicated his time and energy to the Malcolm Baldrige Foundation, serving as Vice President, as well as the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose, California, having served as a board member. In recognition of his work in the community, he was awarded the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group's Lifetime Achievement Award in 2001. Within the Japanese American community, Dr. Nishimura has dedicated his efforts to groups such as the U.S.-Japan Business Council, Japanese Western U.S. Association, Japanese American Citizen League, Asian Americans for Community Involvement, Asian Law Alliance, and the Yu-Ai Kai Senior Community Center in San Jose. Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Dr. Ko Nishimura for his dedication to excellence in Silicon Valley. Through his tireless efforts, he has created a company grounded in sound principles and has dedicated his valuable time to better his community. I congratulate Dr. Koichi Nishimura on his tremendous achievements and wish him continued success.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of Mr. Victor Manuel Arranaga and his contributions to his family and community. Mr. Arranaga was a man who worked hard all his life to better the lives of those around him. He was also a man who instilled important values in his family and practiced those values everyday towards those around him. He died on December 30, 2002. Mr. Arranaga grew up in Del Rio, Texas, where he operated the Arranaga and Sons grocery store with his father, brothers, and sisters. He was known for extending credit with no questions asked and for offering free groceries to those who could not afford to purchase them. In 1967, Mr. Arranaga moved to San Jose, California, and began work at Food Villa in Santa Clara. As a dedicated employee for 20 years, he built a reputation for extraordinary customer service and was admired for his sense of humor. Mr. Arranaga was also a member of the Retail Clerks Local 428 Union. Mr. Arranaga was active in the community both in Del Rio and San Jose. Elected to the Del Rio City Council in 1958, he was the second Latino in the town's history to hold the office. As a city councilman, Mr. Arranaga formed a partnership with the neighboring border town of Ciudad Acuna, Mexico, in order to strengthen the relationships between the United States and Mexico. While performing his civic duties, he developed the city's first fire station and created high-quality low- income housing in the disadvantaged Del Rio neighborhood of San Felipe. The development's first street was named ``Arranaga Avenue'' to recognize his dedicated efforts to the city and the project. Mr. Arranaga was also an active member of the Lions Club in Del Rio, where he was the first Latino to serve as President and Zone Chairman. He was also a member of the club's recruitment committee. While in San Jose, he was an active member of the Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church in Alviso, California. A devoted family man, Victor was married to his wife, Ina, for 54 years. Together they raised seven children, eighteen grandchildren, and eight great-grandchildren. Mr. Arranaga encouraged his children to pursue higher education and to be active in their communities. He also imparted and practiced his core principles of love, honor, and respect for family to all of those around him. Mr. Speaker, please join me in remembering and honoring Mr. Victor Manuel Arranaga for his service to his community and his dedication to his family. He was a man of great integrity and an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of National Peace Corps Day on Friday, February 28. It is a special day not only for my fellow returned Peace Corps volunteers, but also for everyone who has been touched by the Peace Corps' global reach. The Peace Corps' mission of compassion and diplomacy is more important than ever to the world population, and so I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Peace Corps on this important day. Since 1961, Peace Corps Volunteers have strengthened the ties of friendship and understanding between the people of the United States and those of other countries. During these 42 years, the Peace Corps has become an enduring symbol of our nation's commitment to progress, opportunity, and development at the grass-roots level in the developing world. In all, more than 168,000 Americans have responded to our nation's call to serve by becoming Peace Corps Volunteers in 135 countries, and I am proud to say I am one of them. As a young man, I served as a Volunteer in the Republic of El Salvador, building schools and health clinics, learning the language, and developing an enduring bond with the people, culture, and language. The experience instilled in me a profound connection to that country, and a dedication to improving international relations around the world and fulfilling the Peace Corps' third mandate. Here in Congress, I am firmly committed to ensuring that future generations have the same opportunities that I did to carry out the mission of the Peace Corps. In fact, I believe that we need to dramatically expand and enhance these opportunities given how vital the Peace Corps' mission is in the current global climate. In that effort, I have cosponsored H.R. 250, a bill proposing to increase the number of Volunteers across the globe, reaffirm the Peace Corps' independence, and promote better mutual understanding between those serving and those whom they serve. Mr. Speaker, the Peace Corps has been a part of my life for almost forty years. I have served as a Volunteer, I have supported important Peace Corps legislation, and now today I rise in honor of National Peace Corps Day. It is a day to honor all Peace Corps Volunteers, past and present, and reaffirm our commitment to helping people help themselves throughout the world.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. I thank the gentleman from Washington, especially for his leadership and having set aside Bainbridge Island as an educational activity and also in memory and commemorating the folks who were interned from that community. Also I think it is appropriate to mention that there have been many stories that come to light when we talk about the day of remembrance, one of which is the story of a young man by the name of Ralph Laso from East L.A. whose friends were Japanese Americans, and when they were being incarcerated he argued this is not right; they are not enemies. He himself decided to join a family and to be incarcerated himself along with the family. But there are many other stories that can be told if we move forward with the resolution on the Day of Remembrance. I would like to ask the gentlewoman from the gem of the Pacific, the great territory of the Island of Guam (Ms. Bordallo), to share her thoughts.

Mr. HONDA. I thank the gentlewoman. The gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) continues the great legacy of Guam, of social justice and constitutional protection. Mr. Speaker, if I may yield to a colleague of mine from Santa Clara County, a very personable person, someone who always does not mind speaking up when things need to be addressed, a long time friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Santa Clara County, California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. HONDA. Before I get started, let me just compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his patience in being here this evening. I appreciate your presence, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss House Resolution 56, a resolution I introduced earlier this month. This is a resolution supporting the goals of the Japanese American community and recognizing a national day of remembrance to increase the public awareness of the events surrounding the restriction, exclusion, and the internments of individuals and families during World War II. Let us be clear about this. In 1942, more than 120,000 people were rounded up in this country, primarily from the west coast, and incarcerated. Families were torn apart. Hardworking people had to sell their businesses for pennies on the dollar. Everything these people worked so hard for evaporated overnight. I spent part of my childhood in a camp in southeast Colorado, an internment camp called Amache. House Resolution 56 also recognizes that some in the German and the Italian communities experienced deprivation during this period as well. This resolution has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and has currently over 60 cosponsors. This year marks the 61st anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's signing of executive order 9066 on February 19, 1942; and it is the 15th anniversary of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 signed by President Reagan. The day of remembrance is as important now as it has ever been. We are again living in perilous times. Our country is at war against terrorism. We may soon be at war with Iraq. The history of World War II demonstrated that our Constitution is tested in times of trauma, tension, and turmoil. In 1942, our political leaders failed. Therefore, today we must work to educate the public about the internment of Americans today in order to prevent similar injustices to be forced upon other Americans. Our civil liberties have not been in as much risk since World War II, and this time we as political leaders cannot fail. Many might be aware of the comments made by one of our colleagues earlier this month on a live radio call-in show. Our colleague said that he agreed that President Roosevelt's decision to sign executive order 9066 was appropriate. He said, with the information the President had at the time, he made the best decision he could. He also stated that the incarceration of Japanese Americans was for their own safety. In addition, statements were further made that some Japanese Americans during World War II were probably intent on doing us harm just as some Arab Americans are probably intent on doing harm to us today. Such statements are inaccurate and simply wrong. As my father always said to me when I was a child, if we were put in camps for our own protection, then why were we the ones behind barbed wires and why were the machine guns pointed inwards toward us? Furthermore, such statements from a government official are disturbing and dangerous, as they appear to endorse a policy of racial and ethnic profiling that has long been discredited. Saying that the internment of Japanese Americans was appropriate is simply unacceptable and factually inseparable. One of the most concise rebuttals that I have read to the notion that Japanese Americans were placed in camps because they either posed a threat to national security or for their own safety comes from a law professor, Eric Muller, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in a letter dated February 7, 2003. And I would like to, Mr. Speaker, submit this letter into the record at this point without reading its full content. However, most importantly though, we must remember that the Commission on Wartime Relocation found that it was not a military necessity that the Japanese American community be rounded up from the west coast, but it was rather based upon race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure, and I will repeat, a failure of political leadership. This was probably the largest single act of racial and ethnic profiling conducted by our government in modern times. True to the democratic process, however, our Nation has been able to look back and admit errors from its past. I can think of no greater evidence to show why the United States, with all its flaws, still is looked to worldwide as the Nation with the strongest and fairest form of government. By admitting that the government did wrong in its treatment of its citizens and legal residents who were aliens during World War II, Congress and the President reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to the principles founded in the Constitution. However, we must always be vigilant in the protection of our civil liberties, and in this time of tension as we wage a war against terrorism, we must again reaffirm our commitment to the principles in the Constitution. While national security is always a paramount concern for those of us making the laws as well as executing and interpreting the laws, we see that there are those in government who continue to pursue policies once again that target our civil liberties. I find it disturbing that none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come out against the statements of this gentleman from North Carolina. But now more than ever, we must strive to balance our cherished civil liberties with the need to protect our homeland. Finding this balance is the enduring lesson that the Day of Remembrance resolution teaches and the lesson that cannot be lost on our Nation's policy makers and our citizens. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) who represents probably a good portion of the population not only in the mainland, the U.S., but also in Hawaii.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Santa Clara County for especially sharing the experience of her interactions with her mom and the way her mom felt when the Japanese were taken away, and then the sense that this country can make amends for the wrongs that have occurred. The signing and the final recognition of wrongdoing by this government through the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed by President Reagan when he said, upon signing he said, ``This is a great day for America.'' And when President Ford rescinded 9066, he indicated, as the gentlewoman from Santa Clara said, that it was an ordinance that should have never been there. The whole point of the Day of Remembrance resolution is about learning, is about being persistent about the lessons that we have learned from the Japanese American experience that is really an American lesson on the Constitution and is also a lesson of the American character, where, upon reconciliation, there is a healing. There is a healing among not only those who were incarcerated, but also healing among those who were affected but maybe not necessarily incarcerated. So victims are both those who were directly victimized and those who were indirectly victimized by a bad action of our government. Also, the further learning, when we talk about the Day of Remembrance, is that other communities get to reflect upon their own experience at that time and project into the future whether this kind of thing should happen again. For example, a few years ago when we did this in the State of California, there was also a movement and discussion among the Italian communities and there was a reawakening of the experiences that they experienced in World War II when Executive Order 9066 was applied, was applied to Italian Americans and German Americans. And upon reflection, they found out that they too were subjected to embarrassment, to ridicule. One of the stories that came out, because of the order by General DeWitt that no persons who are aliens in the United States may live west of highway 1, which is along the coast, forced families to separate themselves, Italian American families who were engaged in the fishing industry whose parents and grandparents had to live in tents across the road while the children lived in the homes. It was things like this they started to remember and started to chronicle among themselves and to teach their children that these kinds of actions by government is not acceptable. Upon the receipt of the apology, we found that there was healing and there was teaching going on among, not only among themselves, but among the greater population of this country. As a teacher, I want to reemphasize the necessity for this resolution, that it continues to teach us the old maxim that those of us who do not learn from the mistakes of our past are doomed to repeat them. So in today's current light, I just want to personally reemphasize that national security is my highest priority, is our highest priority, and I support efforts to fight our war against terrorism. But we also understand that in doing so, we must not have a failure among our political leadership, we must not fall back on more hysteria, we must not fall back to racial prejudice and discrimination and profiling. So today, it is critically important, more than ever, to speak up against possible unjust policies that may come before this body, and we must also be able to speak to it. And it is even more important than ever to educate Americans of the Japanese American experience during World War II, as well as the experience of other groups like the Japanese Latin Americans who were extricated from Latin America, brought over here, had their documents taken away from them, and becoming individuals without a country to be used as pawns in exchange for POWs. And then the German and Italian Americans who were also victimized. In order to learn the important lessons from our own history, I did introduce H.R. 56, the Day of Remembrance resolution here in this body. Teaching the lessons of those dark days is more important today than it ever was, remembering Executive Order 9066, signed on February 19, 1942 and then rescinded on August 10 of 1988, there are many events that flowed from those two orders and that we must continue to learn from our history. There is a maturity in this country that I am very proud of. That maturity says we can learn from our mistakes of the past and we can also teach others of our lessons that we have learned from our past. We have learned that the Executive Order 9066 was not signed out of military necessity, was not signed out of national security, was not signed out of personal safety and security of the Japanese American, but the Commission on Wartime Internment and Relocation of Civilians said, and they concluded, that it was a result of racial prejudice, war hysteria, and the failure of political leadership. Today, as we heard from our colleagues today, Mr. Speaker, that this leadership must not fail again. and to that end, we must continuously teach ourselves and reteach ourselves and remember the lessons of the past so that we do not repeat them again. It is a country like the United States, it is a country like this country that my father, although he was interned with the rest of his family, and although he even volunteered for the military intelligence service to teach language to the naval intelligence officers, that he held this sense of loyalty to this country, even though the families were incarcerated. And he taught us that in spite of these experiences, that we, his children, must be a good reflection of his loyalty and that we, as we grow up, must become more American than anybody else that we could run into, and that we must be 110 percent American. Part of that Americanism is to never, ever make the same mistakes again. We learned from that experience in 1942, and we learned from the experience of 9/11, that this Constitution of this country is never tested in times of tranquility, that our Constitution is always tested in times of trauma, tragedy, terrorism, and tension, and that the very principles of our Constitution need to be, continuously need to be taught until it is ingrained in our own character, so that every decision we make as a citizen, as adults, as children, as students and as policymakers, that we will always be true to the principles of our Constitution. For it is for those reasons why people around this world fight to come to this country and be part of this country, struggle to be a part of this democracy, because they know that the protection of this Constitution is the American dream. The protection of our Constitution is that which our forefathers and our veterans have shed their blood and sacrificed their limbs and lives so that our Constitution may live and really be reflected in every action that we have, not only in this body, but by every action of every citizen of this country. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to bring Resolution 56, the Day of Remembrance, before this body.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) for his words and the experiences that he has shared with us because I think that at times the lesson is sometimes missed, that Members from Hawaii who are of Japanese ancestry volunteered for the service with the 101st battalion and joining forces with the 442 here in the mainland. One of the things that they learned, the Japanese Americans from Hawaii, was that when they became part of the 442 with the mainland Japanese Americans, they often wondered why they were different from the Japanese Americans from Hawaii, because they grew up on a pretty predominant and highly populated island with a lot of Japanese Americans, whereas the Americans of Japanese descent on the mainland were a little different. Their attitude and view of life was different. It was not until some of the Members from Hawaii visited the camps, along with their colleagues whose parents were incarcerated, that they truly understood the unfairness and injustice of executive order 9066. So we say we did not know, and so it is that House Resolution 56 is to educate and to further educate our communities in this country and also other members of this globe. Mr. Speaker, if I may ask the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) if he would mind sharing some of his thoughts. (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 4, the Republican Welfare Reform bill that would push millions of American families deeper into a life of poverty. I represent Santa Clara County, California, which has an unemployment rate of 8.2 percent. In a shrinking job market with an intensely competitive workforce, it makes no sense for H.R. 4 to require an increase to a 40-hour workweek. Many welfare recipients are already working two to three jobs trying to make ends meet. Santa Clara County has one of the most diverse immigrant populations in the Nation. A third of current welfare recipients in the county lack basic education, and almost half lack vocational skills. Over 60 percent of current recipients have difficulty speaking and reading English. While employers demand basic language training for these individuals, H.R. 4 eliminates any vocational education as a primary work activity. In effect, this change penalizes non-English speaking immigrants all across our Nation. I find it untenable that under H.R. 4, the road to self-sufficiency will not be paved with education and training. H.R. 4 unreasonably increases work requirements and irrationally restricts training. It undermines TANF's goal of self-sufficiency and, most disturbingly, places harsh burdens on American families in a time of economic uncertainty. It is even more distressing that on such a crucial issue, House Members will not be given a chance to offer amendments that would improve upon the bill. It is apparent that there are legitimate concerns with several provisions of H.R. 4--concerns that translate into real consequences for our constituents. Now should not be the time to disregard the families and children who need our leadership the most. Mr. Chairman, in substance and in process, I adamantly oppose H.R. 4 and I urge my colleagues to support a Democratic substitute.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding, and I appreciate the introduction and the work that he is doing today and this evening. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the state of our Union, and let us talk plainly on what is going on today. Today 8.6 million Americans are looking for work, but unable to find it. In my district of Santa Clara County alone, over 80,000 Americans are unemployed. Since President Bush took office, 1.7 million jobs have been lost. Today too many of our Nation's schools are crumbling and are crowded. The average public school in America is 42 years old. In California alone, 87 percent of schools report a need to upgrade their buildings and other repairs that they need. Today 40 million Americans do not have health insurance; 7.2 million of them are children. While these numbers dropped in 1999 and the year 2000, they rose by 1.4 million in 2001. Today serious crime is up 2.1 percent, the first increase in 10 years. Today 1.3 million more Americans are below the poverty line, the first increase since 1993. Requests for emergency shelter have increased by 19 percent, the largest annual increase in the demand for homeless shelter since 1990. Mr. Speaker, it is thus no surprise that 67 percent of Americans are worried about the economy. While the war against terrorism remains a major priority, it cannot replace our commitment to meeting our Nation's other domestic priorities. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's economic stimulus plan does little to stimulate the economy now. Instead, it does too much to weaken our economic future, producing deficits of over $1 trillion. The centerpiece of the President's plan, the elimination of taxes on dividend income, will do little to help working families and small business, which are the backbone of the American economy. In contrast, Democrats have put forward an effective, fast-acting stimulus plan that would create 1 million jobs this year. Mr. Speaker, while the President continues to pitch his flawed economic plan and continues to downplay the state of our economy, Democrats will continue to focus on a swift economic recovery and fight to put education and health care ahead of unfair large, huge tax cuts.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, last November, President Bush and the Republican leadership turned their backs on over 1 million Americans. Despite repeated efforts by Democrats, President Bush and the Republican leadership refused to pass legislation that would have prevented unemployment benefits from expiring on December 28. Due to their inaction, over 800,000 Americans faced a holiday season full of uncertainty. I repeat, President Bush and the Republican leadership allowed over 800,000 Americans to lose their unemployment benefits on December 28. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. In my district of Santa Clara County alone, over 7,000 unemployed workers were cut off from their benefits, and an additional 13,000 unemployed workers will lose their benefits if Congress does not act now. Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Bush took office. Congress cannot continue to callously ignore their needs. I call on the Bush administration and the Republican leadership to make the extension of unemployment benefits the first priority of the 108th Congress.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of a remarkable man, Francisco Jimenez. Born to Mexican migrant farm workers, he has become a professor of Modern Languages at Santa Clara University, an acclaimed author, and the winner of numerous awards including this year's National Professor of the Year Award. He is a credit to Silicon Valley, to California, and to our nation. At the age of 4, Professor Jimenez crawled under a fence crossing the border between Mexico and America with his family. They made their way to the San Joaquin Valley where they picked strawberries in Santa Maria during the summer, grapes in Fresno during September, and cotton in Corcoran and Bakersfield during the winter. Working from sunrise to sunset, the entire family made only $15 a day by following the harvest throughout the year. The family, which eventually grew to nine children, lived in one room shacks and tents without electricity or running water. When they visited the local dump, they collected discarded clothes, wood for floors, and Francisco Jimenez would pick up books. As a result of his family's illiteracy, persistent poverty, and transient lifestyle, Professor Jimenez' education was sporadic at best. He struggled to keep up with his classmates, was labeled ``mentally retarded'' by one of his teachers, and flunked first grade. His classmates were unforgiving and often cruel. Nevertheless, he loved school. His alternatives were spending the day in his family's shack or working in the fields, an experience his brother, Roberto, lived every day. Mr. Jimenez's sixth-grade teacher, Mr. Lema recognized Francisco's desire to learn and helped him with his English during lunch. Unfortunately, not long after connecting with Mr. Lema, Francisco's family needed to move again to follow the harvest. Mr. Jimenez continued his education by teaching himself using as a guide the discarded books he found at the dump. Eventually, he and his brother were able to get jobs working for a janitorial company. The stable job allowed him to stay in school. His junior year in high school, an INS agent entered his classroom and arrested him as an undocumented immigrant. He and his family were deported to Mexico, but returned only weeks later with visas. After his return, Francisco went on to become the student body president of his high school and graduated with a 3.7 GPA. A guidance counselor recognized his talent and helped him obtain the scholarships and student loans he would need to attend Santa Clara University. He became a U.S. citizen during his junior year in college. Francisco Jimenez went on to receive his Masters from Santa Clara University and his Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is the author of the award winning book, ``The Circuit: Stories from the Life of a Migrant Child,'' which tells the story of his childhood experiences. Before accepting a professorship at Santa Clara University, he taught at Columbia University and the University of Cincinnati. While his dedication to teaching is worthy of praise in and of itself, he has been recognized locally and nationally for his skills. Santa Clara County gave him the Dia del Maestro Teacher of the Year Award and Santa Clara University awarded him the Dave Logathetti Award for Excellence in Teaching among others. I am privileged to represent a man who can now add to this exceptional list of honors, the National Professor of the Year Award. Professor Jimenez was given the award because of his outstanding teaching. He tailors his lessons to his students' backgrounds and works with them one on one. He tries to instill in each of them a global consciousness and an understanding of the human condition. Moreover, he believes it is important to bridge the gap between the university and society. To achieve this, he visits communities of migrant farm workers to talk to them about education. As a leader of the Hispanic community and an advocate of human rights, he is concerned with the current anti- immigration backlash, particularly efforts to deny education to the children of undocumented immigrants. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, please join me in honoring Professor Francisco Jimenez for being awarded the National Professor of the Year Award. He has dedicated his life to others and his achievements reflect his dedication. He is a citizen of the world who I am humbled to call a constituent.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Dr. Sheldon Harris. Dr. Harris' most notable achievement was the exhaustive research and publication of his landmark study, ``Factories of Death: Japanese Secret Biological Warfare, 1932-45, and the American Cover- Up,'' a timely and important historical document exposing human rights abuses and chemical weapons development. Dr. Harris passed away on August 31, 2002, leaving behind a wealth of knowledge and inspiration for countless students, researchers, and people interested in historical justice. Dr. Harris was bom in Brooklyn, New York, and educated at Brooklyn College, Harvard, and Columbia University. He went on to teach history at the University of Massachusetts, Cal State-Northridge, and the University of California at Los Angeles. As part of an academic exchange program in China in the mid-1980s, Dr. Harris became aware of large-scale biological warfare experiments conducted in China during World War II. After some preliminary research and informal interviews with colleagues, it became apparent to Dr. Sheldon that a special Japanese army unit had carried out biological warfare experiments that cost the lives of not only thousands of military prisoners, but also Chinese civilians. He then began studying recently declassified U.S. military records addressing the experiments and their results, as well as other written resources in various Asian languages. Certain interests in the U.S. military diligently guarded the records Dr. Sheldon requested, while the Japanese government simply denied any knowledge or involvement pertaining to the issue. In spite of these roadblocks, Dr. Harris continued his research and his pursuit of the truth. By 1994, Dr. Harris was ready to share his research with the world. He published ``Factories of Death'' based on years of study, travel, and interviews. The book is as influential as it is unsettling. Dr. Harris established as fact that Unit 731 of the Japanese Army tested live human beings, both military and civilians, with agents such as anthrax, dysentery, cholera, and typhoid. Throughout the Japanese occupied region of Manchuria, guarded buildings were erected to host the experiments, as well as the incarceration and eventual execution of the prisoners held there. Sometimes, neighboring villages would be infected outright with various germs, then burned to the ground once the inhabitants were overcome with the symptoms. According to Dr. Harris' research, the men in charge of these experiments and mass exterminations escaped prosecution as part of a deal made with certain U.S. intelligence agencies. In exchange for the data from the experiments, the leaders of the biological weapons programs received complete immunity--an exchange that was kept secret within the highest levels of the international intelligence community. During the decades that followed, the Japanese government denied any involvement with the experiments carried out in China; U.S. intelligence kept the data secret and stonewalled outsiders pursuing it. These policies have been largely maintained to this day, but in a remarkable turn of events, a Japanese court finally proclaimed that Japan's government had been involved in developing biological weapons in China from 1932-45. The court's decision, based in part on Dr. Harris' work, was delivered four days before Dr. Harris' death. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in honoring Dr. Sheldon Harris and the important work he has done for the international community. He was never vindictive in his efforts to bring closure to those hurt by this horrible chapter of human history. His harsh indictment against chemical weapons is relevant to all peoples and governments, as it extracts a meaningful lesson from so much senseless violence and cruelty. The importance of Dr. Harris' work may be demonstrated again and again as the issue of biological weapons is addressed today and in the future.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lee amendment. In effect, the Lee amendment says that if there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we must work to seek and destroy these weapons with our allies in the United Nations. The amendment further indicates that we will not provide our stamp of approval for a unilateral, preemptive strike unless the administration can verify an imminent threat to our Nation. Why should we change our national policy from being defenders of freedom and democracy to that of first-strike aggressors? This amendment does not prevent the President from performing his constitutional duties. He is still the commander in chief of this great Nation. However, it is our constitutional duty to declare war. We must not delegate our authority to declare war to the executive branch. Support the Lee amendment.