Mike Honda

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you for yielding. I won't need the full 2 minutes because I think that the proponent, Congressman Holt, has done an excellent job in expressing our sentiment about the importance of the pocket Constitution. I appreciate the chairman of the authorizing committee, Congressman Lungren, and my chairperson for taking the initiative in moving forward on this and prodding the other body to make sure that they act on Resolution 90. So I would urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment attempts to cut $1 million in the bill for the Open World program, and I want to emphasize the word ``attempts.'' I also want to emphasize that it's not my intent to support the idea of shutting down the program; it's the issue of the process of the gentleman's resolution. Now, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the official bookkeeper of Congress, this amendment would net to zero. They believe that the organization would need at least $1 million to ramp down the organization. That's the CBO's impartial analysis. That means that this amendment has no effect. Maybe the gentleman did not know that, or maybe he disagrees with the Congressional Budget Office, but the Congressional Budget Office is a fine arbiter, and it has concluded that this amendment would not save one red cent. Again, this is a process of zeroing out, and you need that money. But let me emphasize again that it is not my intent to support the idea of closing down the program at all; it is just my comment on the process.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HONDA. As a member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, I would like to thank our chairman, Mr. Wolf, Chairman Aderholt and my friend, Judge Carter, for speaking on this important issue today. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, is a bipartisan issue and a bipartisan effort to address it. California jurisdictions already receive 10 percent of the total cost of reimbursement because of the drastic cuts this program has received over the past few years. The recent funding solicitation change that would stop reimbursements for all ``unknowns'' by the Department of Justice has the potential to worsen the situation. It will devastate county budgets at a time when they are already feeling the pinch of State and Federal cuts. As a former member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, I know firsthand how terrible the impact of this change will be on our counties. It is undisputed that the vast majority of the undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. are unknown to the Federal Government. Therefore, the unilateral decision by DOJ to only provide SCAAP funds for those criminal undocumented that are known to the Federal Government is deeply troubling and is a back-door attempt to kill the SCAAP program. As my friend, Judge Carter, has noted, counties in particular will be hit by this change the hardest because of the inability for ICE agents to be present at all times to process unknowns in county jails. In State jails, prisoners are held longer and ICE agents are on staff, so there is ample time and opportunity for unknowns to be processed in the system. If the Department would like to make this change, it has to provide clear, timely, and accessible methods to the counties to process unknowns properly, something which they clearly do not have now. I look forward to working with the appropriate Agencies and subcommittees to ensure that we can find an equitable solution to this issue. I appreciate both Chairman Wolf and Chairman Aderholt's time on this. Until then, however, I will be writing a letter with my good friend, Judge Carter, to the Department of Justice to delay this change until the appropriate time. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HONDA. I would like to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and members of the subcommittee for recognizing the importance of supporting a path for legal immigrants to become citizens. The United States has a special interest in and draws unique benefits from extending citizenship to immigrants who have met legal residence, character, English, and civics knowledge requirements. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to encourage U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to keep the naturalization application fee affordable so that we don't prevent legal immigrants from pursuing citizenship simply because they cannot afford it. But I am concerned that the way the bill approaches funding for immigrant integration grant programs could undermine this effort to keep fees affordable. Integrating immigrants strengthens their commitment to the United States and makes us a stronger and more prosperous democracy. Integration grants have proven to be a cost-effective means of encouraging immigrants to integrate. It is unfair that the cost and limited availability of citizenship education and legal assistance is the reason that many of the more than 8 million legal and taxpaying permanent residents are unable to naturalize, despite their eligibility to do so. This bill only allows funding of immigrant integration programs through fees collected, departing from past practice of providing discretionary funding to support the program. This approach will require fee hikes that push naturalization further out of the reach of people who already struggle to pay costs of up to thousands of dollars for the current application, attorneys' fees, required document collection and preparation for the naturalization examination, defeating the subcommittee's own stated goal of keeping fees affordable. The future viability of the immigrant integration grant program may depend on Congress's willingness to reinstate discretionary funding to support it, as the Senate has proposed to do in its version of the bill. I support the Senate's approach to provide direct discretionary funding in the amount of $5 million, regardless of the funds deposited into the immigration examination fee account, and I hope that as we move forward to conference with the Senate, we can adopt that approach. It is in this country's interest to support our future U.S. citizens, and so it is in all of our interest to get support for immigrant integration grants right. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 2012, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H. Res. 568, a resolution expressing a sense of the House regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Despite agreeing with the overall intent of the resolution, I was compelled to vote ``present'' due to concerns about how the resolution was drafted. I wholeheartedly believe that stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons is necessary to ensure the peaceful security of our Nation, and the world. Accordingly, I am gravely concerned about the prospect of a nuclear weapon-armed Government of Iran, which has vehemently antagonized its regional neighbors, particularly our ally Israel. H. Res. 568 expresses this concern and supports a permanent agreement with Iran that assures its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. I also agree with the support expressed in H. Res. 568 for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, many of whom have suffered greatly in pursuit of these noble causes. Unfortunately, H. Res. 568 employs dangerously ambiguous language when reframing U.S. policy to prevent this potential nuclear weapon threat. The resolution references nuclear weapons ``capability'' as a new basis for U.S. policy. A loose interpretation of the undefined ``capability'' term, combined with the resolution's strong rejection of any policy--U.S. or otherwise--that does not prevent a nuclear weapons- capable Iran, can easily accelerate the rhetoric for military action against Iran. Furthermore, the resolution's policy restrictions can only hinder the upcoming P5+1 negotiations with Iran. For these reasons, I voted ``present'' on H. Res. 568.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, on May 8, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for several of the rollcall votes on amendments to H.R. 5326 held that day. Had I been present I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall 202, the Peters Amendment to increase funding for the International Trade Administration and US Trade Representative by decreasing funding for NASA's Cross Agency Support account. While I support fully funding the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center in FY 13, I believe it is unwise to do that by taking funding away from NASA. ``no'' on rollcall 203, the Broun Amendment (#1), which unwisely seeks to make dramatic cuts to numerous accounts in the bill. ``no'' on rollcall 204, the McClintock Amendment, which would make an excessive 59 percent cut to the International Trade Administration at a time when we are trying to grow US exports. ``no'' on rollcall 205, the Michaud Amendment to increase funds for Economic Development Assistance Programs by taking funds from the Bureau of Census, Periodic Censuses and Programs. While I support increasing EDA funding, if there is any lesson to be learned from the last decadal census it is that short-changing the program in the early years of a census cycle leads to much greater costs in later years. ``no'' on rollcall 206, the Scalise Amendment, which seeks to cut Economic Development Administration funding at a time when we need to invest in growing our economy. ``no'' on rollcall 207, the Pompeo Amendment, which would go even further than the Scalise and completely eliminate Economic Development Assistance programs and grants. ``no'' on rollcall 208, the Quayle Amendment, which unwisely seeks to cut funding for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia, which will help us regain our edge so that we ``Make it in America'' again. ``no'' on rollcall 209, the Harris Amendment, which continues Republican efforts to keep their heads in the sand on climate change by cutting funding for a NOAA climate website. ``no'' on rollcall 210, the Grimm Amendment, which sought to increase funding for Regional Information Sharing Activities at DOJ by cutting funding for NOAA. While I support RISS, I do not believe this is an appropriate offset for that funding. ``no'' on rollcall 211, the Broun Amendment (#2), a wrong-headed attempt to cut funding to recover Pacific salmon. ``no'' on rollcall 212, the Runyan Amendment. While I support increasing funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which is a worthy program, the offset used is ill advised, particularly because it would impact the Civil Rights Enforcement Office of the DOJ. ``no'' on rollcall 213, the Davis (IL) Amendment. While I support the Second Chance Act grants that this amendment sought to increase funding for, I am greatly concerned that the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program is already woefully underfunded and cannot support further reducing SCAAP funding for an offset. ``no'' on rollcall 214, the Grimm Amendment. While I support the COPS program that this amendment sought to increase funding for, I cannot support the use of NASA as an offset. ``no'' on rollcall 215, the Huizenga Amendment, which seeks to allow the outsourcing of federal correctional worker jobs. ``no'' on rollcall 216, the Johnson (GA) Amendment. While I support the EEOC and the purpose that this amendment sought to increase funding for, I cannot support the use of NASA as an offset. ``no'' on rollcall 217, the Flake Amendment, which sought to make drastic cuts to the National Science Foundation. ``no'' on rollcall 218, the Westmoreland Amendment, which sought to dramatically reduce funding for the Legal Services Corporation at a time when more and more Americans facing hard times rely upon the services it provides. ``no'' on rollcall 219, the Austin Scott (GA) Amendment, which went even further than the Westmoreland Amendment and sought to eliminate LSC. ``no'' on rollcall 220, the Black Amendment, which blocks the federal government's ability to defend its authority to write and enforce immigration law. ``no'' on rollcall 221, the Blackburn Amendment, which sought to make indiscriminate, across the board cuts of 1 percent throughout the bill. ``no'' on rollcall 222, the Broun (GA) Amendment, which sought to make draconian cuts to most of the agencies within the bill. ``no'' on rollcall 223, the Southerland Amendment, which unwisely prohibits the use of funds to develop, approve, or implement fishing catch shares programs in certain areas. Catch shares have been shown to be a successful tool for managing fisheries, one we should not rule out.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, as the proud representative of one of the most ethnically diverse congressional districts in the nation, I am honored to join my friends in the Jewish American community in celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month, and to recognize the many contributions Jewish Americans have made to our country. Jewish immigrants, like the immigrants from many other countries throughout our nation's history, came to our country for the promise of freedom, tolerance and socioeconomic mobility. For more than 350 years, Jewish Americans have enriched American society by placing a strong value on education, community and culture. Through their entrepreneurial spirit and innovations in technology, the Jewish American community has contributed to the economic vitality of our nation and particularly of my district, leading the way in renewable energy development and high technology. Without question, Silicon Valley would not be the hub of innovation it is today without the many significant contributions of Jewish Americans. The Jewish American community in my district serves as a shining example of what makes Silicon Valley a global leader. I am privileged to serve a district that celebrates its diversity, and proud to represent a community of Jewish Americans whose contributions in the fields of technology, business, education, and many others, have served as a testament to America's promise as a land of opportunity and of dreams.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, on January 14, 2012, the Honorable Ma Ying- jeou was elected to a second term as the President of the Republic of China. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate President Ma and the people of Taiwan on the strength and vitality of their commitment to democracy. For over a half century, Taiwan has been a strong, democratic ally to the United States in the Asia-Pacific region and across the world. Our peoples have enjoyed a close friendship forged by our political, economic, cultural, and strategic ties. Taiwan's sustained economic and sociopolitical development has set an admirable exemplar that many countries seek to emulate. Taiwan's global scope and leadership has transcended many sectors, particularly healthcare. Taiwan boasts one of the most innovative and efficient healthcare systems in the world. As an advocate for building mutual relationships, I am confident that the U.S.-Taiwan bond will only become stronger with Taiwan's inclusion in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. Over 400,000 Taiwanese citizens visit the United States each year; this could increase by 20 to 30 percent once Taiwan gains admission into the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. As Chair Emeritus of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I know first-hand the importance this partnership holds for our Taiwanese-American communities. According to the 2010 Census there are approximately 230,000 Taiwanese-Americans currently living here in the United States, many of whom live in my home district in Silicon Valley. Taiwanese-Americans are frequently highly educated contributors to the vibrancy of the U.S. economy, and this is reflected in their sectors of employment. The majority of Taiwanese-Americans work in management, business, finance, information technology, sciences and engineering. As a representative of ethnically diverse Silicon Valley, I proudly join Taiwanese-Americans and the technology industry in celebrating the growing, collaborative economic relationship between the United States and Taiwanese companies. Many of these advances are attributed to President Ma's strong and visionary leadership during his first term as president. I commend President Ma and his Administration for their tremendous strides in working toward stability amidst international economic uncertainty and in strengthening cross-strait relations with the People's Republic of China. President Ma's reelection is a testament to the people of Taiwan supporting his efforts and leadership. In fact, Taiwan's presidential race elicited unprecedented grassroots organization, from everyday citizens to business executives, to rally support for President Ma's reelection. The Taiwanese people have truly spoken, and their approval of President Ma's rapprochement policy with the People's Republic of China is an encouraging beacon from which we can all learn from. Once again, I congratulate President Ma Ying-jeou and the people of the Republic of China for a highly celebrated election. I look forward to my upcoming visit to Taiwan and meeting with President Ma. It will be a pleasure to continue working with President Ma and his Administration to strengthen our U.S.-Taiwan partnership and ensure peace and stability for our peoples, the region, and the world.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this session of Congress represents a unique opportunity in history to accomplish something great. The pending sequester, the overwhelming number of tax provisions set to expire, and the threat of growing debt must force us to make decisions. Inaction is not an option. The amendment before us today is more than just a set of numbers. It's a pathway forward. It's a solution. The Progressive Caucus developed the solution by listening to what the American people want. They want shared responsibility and prosperity. They want us to protect the social safety network. They want basic fairness. They want fiscal sanity. That is exactly what this plan provides. First and foremost, we focused our attention where it is needed the most: job creation. This proposal is estimated to create 3.3 million jobs over the next 2 years because it uses every single tool in the Federal Government's arsenal: One, direct and local hire programs; two, targeted tax incentives; and, three, widespread domestic investments. Instead, the Republican budget relies on trickle-down voodoo economics that haven't worked before and won't work now. Projections show that the GOP plan would kill 4.1 million jobs in the next 2 years alone. Americans deserve proven solutions, a growing economy, and financial security for themselves and their loved ones. The Progressive Caucus is listening: We invest in America now and lay the foundation for a globally competitive future. We need to invest in human capital, education, first-class infrastructure, and cutting edge technologies. This is the kind of thinking that built a successful economy in the past, and it is the real roadmap to prosperity. Secondly, the Progressive Caucus believes that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are not up for negotiation. The Republican budget treats our seniors and working families like lab rats, subjecting these important programs to grand conservative experiments. What the Budget for All proves is that we don't need to put these essential programs on the chopping block. Their assumptions are wrong, and we can do better. As the primary author of the Budget for All, I'm proud of the transparency of what we put before the American people. What we've released to the public and what we put online is very clear about the policies we stand for and those we oppose. Instead, the Republican budget focuses so much on what they don't like about the President's proposal that we are left with little details about how they feel they achieve their end goals. It is so scarce on details that The Washington Post referred to it as ``dangerous and intentionally vague.'' It claims lower taxes for all, but there are no real details on how to get there. It claims substantial deficit reduction, but assumes trillions in lost revenue will magically return. The Republican plan hides the real substance behind their proposals because that is the truly hard part of governing. Being honest with the American people isn't easy, but in these difficult times it's the very least that we can do. I urge my colleagues to support honest and responsible solutions. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, Congressman Ellison.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our next speaker, who is the founder of the Progressive Caucus, the proud Congresswoman Woolsey.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, next I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California, the gentlelady from where there's a there, Ms. Barbara Lee.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. HONDA. I yield the gentlelady 15 additional seconds.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from southern California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlelady from California, the songstress, Congresswoman Laura Richardson.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. HONDA. I yield the balance of my time to our closer, the gentleman from Arizona, the great Raul Grijalva.

Mr. HONDA. I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, tragic events in the last few weeks in Afghanistan have underscored the messages I have continuously emphasized in Congress in the past. As long as we pursue military solutions to the unrest in Afghanistan while foregoing attention to economic, political and social solutions, security will remain elusive. Our military service officers are heroes, but we are failing them as we continue to pursue a strategy that lacks proper understanding of both the social constructs of the Afghan people and the meaning of peace. It is our duty as Americans to give the people of Afghanistan what they want, not what we want to give them. Afghan citizens want peace, they want security and they want the right to self-determination based on their own social, cultural, and religious values. Afghans do not want to be at the constant risk of night raids and air strikes that could kill their friends and neighbors, checkpoints and security barriers that keep their families apart, or incidences of violence which sometimes involve International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops and contract security forces. And they certainly do not want foreigners burning the Holy Quran, which all Muslims hold as dear as life, or have their very own safety compromised by foreign forces who should be there to protect them. As members of the United States government, we also owe the American people what they want, and not what we want to give them. In this regard, we are failing our own people as they face the difficulties brought on by the global economic crisis while lives, money and resources are being wasted abroad in an effort which has, sadly, led to resentment and the incitement of hatred against America. Last week, the Department of Defense Comptroller confirmed one of our worst kept secrets--that the deployment of one soldier to Afghanistan for one year costs $850,000. We currently have 90,000 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan. Additionally, we have 1,142 U.S. civilians from the State Department and other non-defense agencies currently in Afghanistan, and each civilian costs taxpayers $570,000 per year, according to the most recent estimate from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Furthermore, in 2011, our taxpayers spent $11.2 billion to pay, train and equip Afghanistan's security force. Over the past ten years the U.S. has spent more than $550 billion in Afghanistan alone, or about $1 billion per week. A new Washington Post poll finds that sixty percent of American voters feel that the war was not worth fighting. It also finds that, for the first time, Republican voters are ``evenly split'' on the wisdom of continuing this war. This is what America wants, and it is our duty to respect that. Last year, as co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus's Peace and Security Taskforce, I urged President Obama to bring about the swift, safe and responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors from Afghanistan. We asked for plans for a significant drawdown, beginning no later than July of this year. We welcome the news that Congress's calls to the White House have finally been heard. On February 1, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that while American troops will still leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014, plans were laid out so that by late next year, U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan will switch from a combat role to a training mission. The Administration may further want to take heed of the same Washington Post poll which revealed that fifty-four percent of all voters want the U.S. to withdraw troops even faster than the President's 2014 timetable. As we look forward to our future role as global leaders of peace and security, we must not forget our past and present mistakes. Our international affairs priorities must be anchored in the recognition that our national security is inextricably linked to our economic vitality. We cannot fight for global security but ignore the economic security of the people of America. We need a budget that reflects the fact that diplomacy and development prevents wars, because smart security can lead to global stability at a fraction of the cost, freeing up funds to engage in nation building here at home. As we look forward to the question of how to handle future matters in the Middle East, these are the priorities that we simply cannot afford to forget. Mr. Speaker, Peace and Security are created through a well- functioning government, a fair and prosperous economy, and a harmonious society. We have failed the Afghan people on each and every one of these fronts, and in so doing, we, we have also failed ourselves and our constituents. As we reflect on the recent military tragedies in Afghanistan, we must ask ourselves how many more apologies we can afford to offer.