SOLVE Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for yielding to me and not only for his leadership but as chairman of the Asian Pacific American Caucus and for him to request this Special Order to allow Members of this institution to pay tribute and to recognize the contributions of our Asian Pacific American community to our Nation.

I think with some sense of perspective in history, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the Asian Pacific American region, we talk about all those countries that comprise Asia as a region as well as those Pacific Island nations. The Asian Pacific region constitutes two-thirds of the world's population. This region also has six of the 10 largest armies in the world. The U.S. commercial and trade relations with this Asian Pacific region far exceeds other regions of world. In fact, the U.S. trade with the Asian Pacific region is twice that of Europe alone. As I recall, Senator Inouye once made the observation that for each 747 that flies across the Atlantic, four 747s fly between the Asian Pacific region and our Nation.

Americans whose roots are from the Asian Pacific region are over 13 million strong and among the fastest growing demographic group in the United States today.

Permit me to share with my colleagues an overview of some of the contributions that Asian Pacific Americans have given to our Nation. Just 3 months ago, a world renowned Chinese American physicist, Dr. Chien-Shiung Wu, perhaps little known to the average American, passed away quietly in her home in New York. For decades she dedicated her life to the study of beta decay. She was born in Shanghai, and in her youth studied with Nobel Laureate E.O. Lawrence, the inventor of the cyclotron at U.C.-Berkeley, where Dr. Wu also received her doctorate degree in physics. For some 30 years, Dr. Wu taught physics at Columbia University. In 1957 she won the Nobel Prize in physics for her work on emission of electrons from radioactive nuclei. I think there are approximately 10 other Nobel Laureates who are of Asian Pacific ancestry in the field of physics, mathematics, and chemistry.

A couple of years ago, Time Magazine featured as its Man of the Year Dr. David Ho. Dr. Ho is a Chinese American who was born and raised in Taiwan. His family moved to the United States when he was a young man, and he is now a leading scientist in the field of medicine and has been recognized for his research efforts to find a cure for HIV/AIDS.

For several decades now, Dr. Makio Murayama, a Japanese American, conducted vital research in the United States that laid the groundwork for combating sickle-cell anemia. In 1973 Dr. Leo Esaki, a Japanese American as well, was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for his electron tunneling theories. And in the field of engineering, few have matched the architectural masterpieces created by the genius of Chinese American I.M. Pei.

In the fields of law and finance, the names of prominent Asian Pacific American corporate leaders and legal scholars are too numerous to mention. One need only to read our Nation's top newspapers and periodicals to document that Asian Pacific American students, both in secondary schools and universities, are among the brightest minds our Nation offers to the world. We have every expectation that they now and will in the future contribute their talents and expertise to solve major issues and problems now confronting our Nation today.

In the fields of entertainment and sports, the late Chinese American kung-fu martial arts expert Bruce Lee captivated movie audiences around the world by destroying the common stereotype of the passive, quiet Asian Pacific American male. Now another sports and movie icon is moving his way through the movie industry and is believed to be the heir apparent to Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. His name is Dwayne Johnson, commonly known today as the Rock. The Rock is a former World Wrestling Federation champion wrestler and has completed his third movie. First it was The Scorpion King, then The Rundown, and now Walking Tall. And just a unique thing about the Rock, Mr. Speaker, is that his father is African American and of European descent, but his mother is pure Samoan Polynesian. Now just about every Samoan claims kinship with the Rock, including myself, Mr. Speaker.

When we talk about sports, for example, golf, Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the two best golfers in the world are of Asian Pacific descent. Tiger Woods's mother is Thai. Vijay Singh from the island of Fiji is of Asian descent. And as mentioned earlier by my colleagues from the State of Hawaii, we have a new Tiger Woods among the women's professional golfers, and this is a 14-year-old junior golfer from the State of Hawaii. She is Michelle Wie.

About 4 decades ago, Mr. Speaker, a native Hawaiian named Duke Kahanamoku shocked the world by winning the Olympic gold medal for the United States in swimming, followed by Dr. Sammy Lee, a Korean American, who also won the Olympic gold medal in high diving. Dr. Lee told me during the 1988 Olympics in Korea that in his day, because he was nonwhite, he was not allowed to train along with his fellow Olympic American athletes.

So he had to become creative by performing high dives off cliffs and tall trees. Despite all this, he still won the gold medal for our country.

And what can you say about Greg Louganis, the Samoan American, perhaps the best high diver ever in the world. Dr. Lee, who was his former teacher, I asked him in Korea, ``Why is it that Greg Louganis is such a fantastic high diver?'' He said, ``Eni, look at his legs. Because of the power that he gets from his legs,'' this high diver named Greg Louganis, ``he is able to perform more difficult tricks in his routines when he does this.'' I think everybody knows that Greg Louganis has been the greatest diver ever known to the world.

Let's talk about the National Football League. We have had Asian- Pacific Americans who have also made All-Pro: Charles Ane with the Detroit Lions, Rockney Freitous with the Detroit Lions; Luther Elliss; and the perennial All-Pro, Junior Seau, formerly with the San Diego Chargers, now with the Miami Dolphins. We have Jesse Sapolu with the Forty-Niners and Dan Saleaumua with the Kansas City Chiefs, and also Jim Nicholson, also formerly with the Kansas City Chiefs.

We also have Asian-Pacific Americans who are making their mark on history, not in our country, but in Southeast Asia. About 20 years ago, an 18-year-old Samoan kid named Saleva'a Atisanoe, then weighing only 384 pounds was an All-State football player who had intended to play college football. While walking Waikiki Beach with his buddies, he was immediately brought to the attention of the famous Native Hawaiian sumo wrestler and teacher, Jesse Kuhaulua--or Takamyama--as he was known throughout Japan.

After convincing Saleva'a's parents to have their son try sumo wrestling as an optional sport, Takamyama brought this Samoan young man to Japan. Saleva's left with only a little lavalava and a t-shirt on his back and started a training program so rigorous and demanding that very few foreigners make it through the first 6 months.

Saleva'a told me that he trained every day for 6 or 7 hours. His body took every form of pain and physical punishment including stretching, pushing, pulling. If you want to know how rigorous the training is and what a sumo wrestler has to do in order to be successful in this ancient sport, let me just say that a 500 pound man must be able to do the splits just like a seasoned ballerina dancer does at an opera concert.

Saleva'a's name was later changed to Konishiki, and he weighed in at 570 pounds and at six feet in height. Konishiki took the entire sumo wrestling world to a different level. His successes in winning his matches within 2 years usually would take most sumo wrestlers 5 years to achieve. Although he achieved the second highest level in sumo, which was Ozeki, Konishiki became a household name throughout Japan, and was forerunner to two other Polynesian sumo wrestlers who eventually became Yokozuma or grand champion.

Indeed, two Americans of Polynesian descent scaled even greater heights by attaining the highest status--Yokozuna or Grand Champion--in this ancient Japanese sport of sumo wrestling. A Native Hawaiian, Chad Rowen, or Akebono as he is known in Japan became Yokozuma. Of course, he weighed about 500 pounds and stood six feet eight inches tall. The other was Samoan-Tongan American Peitani Fiamalu also known as Musashimaru. He tipped the scale at 550 pounds and stood six feet four inches.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to now direct my attention to another area in our Nation's history, where Members of our Asian Pacific American community were severely challenged. As a Vietnam veteran, it would be ludicrous for me not to say something to honor and respect the hundreds of thousands of Asian Pacific Americans who served then and now in all the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.

As a former member of the U.S. Army's Reserve unit known today as the 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry Combat Group, I would be remiss if I did not tell you about the contributions of the tens of thousands of Japanese American soldiers who volunteered to fight our Nation's enemies in Europe in World War II.

Some of us may not be aware of the fact that after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, by the Imperial Army of Japan, there was such a public outcry for an all-out war against Japan, and days afterwards our President and the Congress formally declared war.

But caught in this crossfire were hundreds of thousands of Americans, Americans, mind you, who just happened to be of Japanese ancestry. Our national government immediately implemented a policy whereby over 100,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were forced to live in what then called relocation camps, but actually in my opinion they were more like prison camps or concentration camps. Their lands, homes and properties were confiscated without due process of law.

Mr. Speaker, it is also a time in our Nation's history when there was so much hatred and bigotry and racism placed against our Japanese American community. Yet, despite all this, leaving their wives, their parents and brothers and sisters behind barbed wire fences in these prison camps, the White House accepted the request of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans who volunteered to join the Army.

As a result of this request for service, two combat units were organized. One was known as the 100th Battalion, also known as the Purple Heart Battalion; and the other was known as the 442nd Infantry Combat Group. Both were sent to fight in Europe.

In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, history speaks for itself in documenting that none have shed their blood more valiantly for our Nation than the Japanese American soldiers who served in these two combat units while fighting enemy forces in Europe in World War II.

The military records of the 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry are without equal. These Japanese Americans suffered an unprecedented casualty rate of 314 percent, and received over 18,000 individual decorations, many of them awarded posthumously, for bravery and courage in the field of battle.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, 52 Distinguished Service Crosses were awarded to these two units. 560 Silver Stars and 9,480 Purple Hearts were awarded to the Japanese American soldiers of the 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry Group. However, I find it unusual that only one Medal of Honor was given.

Nonetheless, the 442nd Combat Group emerged as the most decorated combat unit of its size in the history of the United States Army. In fact, Mr. Speaker, President Truman was so moved by their bravery in the field of battle, as well as that of the contributions of African American soldiers World War II, that President Truman issued an executive ordered to desegregate all branches of the Armed Forces.

It was while fighting in Europe that Senator Inouye lost his arm while engaged in battle against two German machine gun posts. As a result of his valor, Senator Inouye was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.

Four years ago, a congressional mandate was issued calling for review of the military records of these two combat units, and I was privileged to attend the White House ceremony where President Clinton presented 19 Congressional Medals of Honor to the Japanese Americans of these two units. Senator Inouye was one of the recipients of the Medal of Honor.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, these Japanese-Americans paid their dues in blood to protect our Nation from its enemies and it is a shameful black mark on the history of our country that when the patriotic survivors of the 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry returned to the United States, many were reunited with their parents, brothers and sisters who were locked-up behind barbed-wire fences, living in prison camps--and could not even get a haircut in downtown San Francisco because they looked Japanese--despite the fact that they, too, were Americans.

My dear friend and former colleague and now U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, and Congressman Bob Matsui from Sacramento remember well the early years of their lives in these prison camps. Secretary Mineta told that one of the interesting features

of these prison camps were postings of machine gun nests all around the camp--and everyone was told that these machine guns were posted to protect them against rioters or whatever. But then Secretary Minea observed--if these machine guns are posted to guard us, why is it that they are all directed inside the prison camp compound and not outside?

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the wholesale and arbitrary abolishment of the constitutional rights of these loyal Japanese-Americans should forever serve as a reminder and testament that this must never be allowed to occur again. When this miscarriage of justice unfolded during WWII, Americans of German and Italian ancestry were not similarly jailed en masse. Some declare that our treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII was an example of outright racism and bigotry in its ugliest form. After viewing recently the Holocaust Museum in Washington, I understand better why the genocide of some 6 million Jews has prompted the cry, ``Never Again, Never Again!'' Likewise, I sincerely hope that mass internments on the basis of race alone will never again darken the history of our great Nation.

To those that say, well, that occurred decades ago, I say we must continue to be vigilant in guarding against such evil today. Not long ago, we had the case of Bruce Yamashita, a Japanese-American from Hawaii who was discharged from the Marine Corps officer training program in an ugly display of racial discrimination. Marine Corps superiors taunted Yamashita with ethnic slurs and told him, ``We don't want your kind around here. Go back to your own country.'' The situation was made worse by the Commandant of the Marine Corps, a four star general, who appeared on television's ``Sixty Minutes'' and stated, ``Marine officers who are minitories do not shoot, swim or use compasses as well as white officers.'' The Commandant later apologized for his remarks, but it was a little too late.

After years of perseverance and appeals, Mr. Yamashita was vindicated after proving he was the target of vicious racial harassment during his officer training program. The Secretary of the Navy's investigation into whether minorities were deliberately being discourage from becoming officers resulted in Bruce Yamashita receiving his commission as a captain in the Marine Corps.

Mr. Speaker, I am also greatly disturbed by media coverage in recent years involving illegal political campaign contributions made by a small minority of the Asian-Pacific American Community. The media has implied that the Asian Pacific American community as a whole is suspect and corrupt and I find this racial scapegoating to be repugnant and morally objectionable. Playing-up fears of the ``Asian Connection'' serves to alienate Asian-Pacific Americans from participating in our political process.

When Americans raise money, it is called gaining political power. But when Asian-Pacific Americans begin to participate, we are accused of being foreigners trying to inflilrate the mainstream of our Nation's political system. On this note, remember the Oklahoma City bombing incident? Americans of Arab descent were immediately targeted and investigated as terrorists by local and Federal law enforcement agencies. An Anglo turned out to be the bomber which leads me to say that it is wrong to stereotype and this type of negative stereotyping must and should not continue.

In conclusion, I think Bruce Yamashita's case and the hysteria surrounding Asian-Pacific American political contriibutions bear implications not just for the military and the media but for our society as a whole. It begs the question, how long do we as Asian Pacific Americans and other minorities have to be considered as lesser Americans?

I applaud Captain Yamashita and others like him who have spoken out to ensure that racial discrimination is not tolerated. During this month, as we recognize the diverse experiences and contributions our Asian-Pacific American community has made to our great Nation, I would hope that we will take inspiration from the examples I have shared with you this evening.

Mr. Speaker, when I envision America, I don't see a melting pot designed to reduce and remove racial differences. The America I see is a brilliant rainbow--a rainbow of ethnicities and cultures, with each ethnic group proudly contributing in its own distinctive and unique way--making America better for now and generations to come. Asian- Pacific Americans wish to find a just and equitable place in our society that will allow them--like all Americans--to grow, to succeed, to achieve and to contribute to the advancement of the great Nation.

This is why I would like to close my remarks by asking all of us here tonight, what is America all about? I think it could not have been said better than on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the summer of 1963 when an African-American minister named Martin Luther King Jr. poured out his heart and soul to every American who could bear his voice, when he uttered these words.

``I have a dream. My dream is that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.''

That is what I believe American is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I raise points of order against section 512, subsections (b) and (c), section 514 and section 525 on the grounds that these provisions change existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and therefore are legislation included in a general appropriation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this with the gentleman from Tennessee. We are uncomfortable, as the gentleman knows, with the reporting requirements just through appropriations. We would want to include the committee which has jurisdiction over Buy- America, which is ours. We cannot rewrite this, but I pledge to work with the gentleman as we move forward on these issues.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 526(b) of H.R. 4567 on the grounds that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI, and therefore is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is section 526(b).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I agree with them.

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

Let me just respond to my friend from Wisconsin who has raised this issue.

I have struck for the second year in a row these so-called corporate inversion amendments. The appropriate time to take this up in my opinion would have been before the procurement moved forward. Several committees of this House held hearings on the US-VISIT contract. I think if this had been part of the initial contract, then we would not have gone through this process, companies would not have spent millions of dollars, and we could have addressed this earlier in the process.

The difficulty now is that we would delay this process up to 2 years further, and I think it is a needed program.

We have kept the language in section (a) under this going forward for future contracts in the spirit of compromise with the gentleman, but I understand his concerns. I have other substantive concerns with what the gentleman has said, but I think in the spirit of compromise we have tried to get an appropriate balance and allow the contract to move forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's concern. The issue has been addressed in other tax laws, but I understand the gentleman's concerns on this and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The gentlewoman is entitled to her strong opinion but not her own facts. She notes that troops overseas need help. The reality is if her amendment passes, this will have to be recompeted and it will push back protecting our borders another 2 years.

A lot of companies invested money in this. Homeland Security invested money in going through these. This will have to start again. The bids of the losers in this particular case will be made public. Everyone will have a starting place. This pushes the outcome to protect our homeland 2 years. So this does not do anything to protect the homeland, number one.

Number two, Accenture, to my understanding, pays an effective tax rate for fiscal year 2004 of 34.8 percent. The two competitors in this pay, in their recent 10-K filings, 31.3 percent and 28 percent respectively.

I ask the gentlewoman where is the tax advantage if they are paying a higher percentage of their taxes? Does she know?

There is no tax advantage.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, obviously it is the usual subterfuge on this. As a primer, they pay taxes on profits. They do not pay taxes on their losses.

But we are talking here about an effective tax rate, not the tax rate itself, which of course would be equal for U.S. income.

All work performed on this contract is performed in the United States. They were awarded this contract and the experts, the career civil servants who looked at this, decided this was the best procurement to protect the homeland. What they would have us do, the author of this would say let us not take the best defense we can get for the homeland, let us take something else. Let us pay a little more, let us get a little bit less because we want to settle the score because the parent company of the U.S.-based company that won this procurement somehow should be punished, even though all the work will be performed in the United States. And Accenture LLP led the SMART Border Alliance, which represents 31 U.S. companies employing 330,000 people in 50 States. Again, the US-VISIT program led the source of selection process here and chose this as the most effective means, not just cost effective but technically effective means, to protect the homeland, and they want to throw that out the window and say we will take second best for some other reason.

The time to address this, frankly, was at the time of the procurement. Congress held hearings on this. We had an opportunity on this procurement before it was let to do something on that in the hearings.

As I noted before, they do not receive a competitive advantage on this. Accenture is not a corporate inversion. This was a global partnership and all of their U.S.-based work of course they pay taxes on in the United States.

The thing I worry about most, though, is retaliation. Right now in information technology we are running an $8 billion trade surplus. This jeopardizes that surplus by inviting retaliation from other countries in the globe where we currently maintain a trade surplus with retaliation against U.S. companies doing business in those different countries, and I think that would be a disaster for the U.S. economy, something that my district in Northern Virginia knows something about, being one of the leaders in this. I do not think we should reduce the safety and security of the U.S. to settle a political score in this particular case.

Why should U.S. taxpayers pay more money and take, in the opinion of the career civil servants, a secondary technical solution to protect our homeland?

I also want to note no jobs are being outsourced. All the work on this contract is being performed in the United States. Accenture I do not even believe has any employees in Bermuda. Every cent of taxes that is earned on this will be paid here. The CEO of Accenture lives in Texas. Their Chief Financial Officer lives in Texas. And the idea that somehow they are not employing Americans or these jobs are going offshore or any intimation of that is patently false.

Let us take a look at the procurement itself because I think it is important. It is creating a nationwide entry and exit tracking system for foreign nationals visiting the United States. This amendment delays that for 2 years. I do not think our homeland needs that. I do not think the security in this country needs that. I urge defeating the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say this is about the best technology to defend the borders. I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States made up of American companies in opposition to this amendment. I have a letter from the Professional Services Council made up of American companies in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, there are 330,000 American jobs in the contract that is currently being let to Accenture and its American corporate subsidiaries. But the other side would just delay those jobs at least 2 years and the creation of those jobs as they rebid this contract and recompete this contract and keep our borders less safe.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me correct a couple of statements made. First of all, this is not a company that ever left America. This is a global partnership at one point that as they looked at the new business model, they looked at a place globally in the partnership that had worked across the world.

I will yield on your time. Do you have the time, or are you just trying to interrupt me so I cannot get a stream of thought? You have ample opportunity to rebut me on the time allotted to you.

So they were never an American company, and this is not a corporate inversion under the current law, and the gentleman knows that, and the author of this amendment knows that.

Secondly, Bermuda is a British territory. Britain is a member of the World Trade Organization. To say they are not is fallacious, and I think we ought to at least keep this on a factual level. We have differing opinions, which I respect on this; but let us at least argue from the same basis of facts.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. Chairman, although I am defending the committee's position in this particular case, my understanding is I do not have the right to close because I am not a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, does the gentlewoman have any additional speakers?

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is unfortunate. First of all, you are picking on only one homeland security contract where there are literally dozens, more than that, that go to companies that are foreign based. They have singled out one. Perhaps there is a bidder in their State that did not get it. But retaliation on Federal contracting is really not a good thing to be doing on the House floor.

Secondly, we need to be aware that this will cost the government additional money in termination costs, and they are likely to go through this, and delay implementation of this procurement for up to 2 years which means that securing our border and getting the U.S. VISIT program up and running will be delayed. This is a homeland security bill. This is an anti-homeland security amendment in that case.

It is important, once again, to note that the winner of the contract is an American corporation, but their parent is a global company that has a headquarters in Bermuda. They were a global partnership prior to doing that. Although the majority of their stock, I understand, is American-owned, certainly the bulk of their employees are here. But they are global in nature as are so many companies in a changing global economic world, a fact of the matter that some of my colleagues do not want to face up to.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Well, this throws the procurement basically up in the air and out the window and delays it, I think, at a minimum a couple of years. Worst of all, we know under this contract, Texas gets 35,000 jobs. Those jobs, if this amendment becomes law, are out the window. They may get some back. They may not get any back. We know, for example, in Massachusetts 13,000 jobs come under this. Those jobs are out the windows if this is it. Maybe they will get it under some other bidding, but there is no assurance of that at all.

We know for example in Florida, 14,000 jobs; California, 30,000 jobs; Illinois, 11,000; Arizona, 12,000, on and on; 330,000 jobs at a time when people profess to want job creation. Basically what they are saying is let us put these jobs off 2 years because we do not like the headquarters where the parent company that is putting this together of the winning company, which is an American company, lives. Even though all of the jobs will be performed in the United States, appropriate security clearances will be cleared by American citizens to perform this work.

I would note once again, there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of

companies around the globe that are doing business with the Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security, that are foreign based. If we cut this off, we are indeed, as one speaker noted, cutting off our nose to spite our face. Because, after all, this is a global economy; and after all, in this particular area we are running an $8 billion trade surplus, trade surplus. And what the proponents of this amendment would do is say, we do not care about a trade surplus in this particular area. We want to settle some other scores. We do not like the global economy. We want to use American dollars only to compete with American companies, only to use American companies even if it may be an inferior technology, even if it may cost taxpayers more.

That is what they are saying, and it is very poor precedent, in my opinion, for protecting the homeland.

It clearly has to be recompeted, and we will be wrought with protests.

I urge that this amendment be soundly defeated and we send the signal here that we want to protect the homeland first. This is a homeland security bill. It ought to stay that way.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Asian American and Pacific Islander community and commemorate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Before I begin, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) former chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, or better known as CAPAC, for his leadership, as well as the current vice chair of the caucus, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

As chair of CAPAC, I am proud to stand here to honor the accomplishments and diversity of the Asian American and Pacific Islander community. In 1978, my good friend Norman Mineta and Representative Frank Horton from New York, along with Hawaii's Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga, first introduced the first resolution establishing Asian Pacific American Heritage Week to recognize the ongoing contributions to our Nation of the API population.

The first 10 days of May were chosen to coincide with two important anniversaries, the arrival in the United States of the first Japanese immigrants on May 7, 1843, and the completion of the transcontinental railroad on May 10, 1869. In 1992, the month of May was designated as Asian Pacific Heritage Month. I take great pride to see the celebration of our community expand from 10 days to a month.

For centuries, America has been enriched by our diverse and rapidly growing API communities and by the contributions that Native Hawaiians, Chamorros, and Samoans have made in their ancestral homelands. The first API settlement in this country dates to 1763, when Filipinos escaped imprisonment aboard Spanish galleons and established a community near New Orleans. Chinese and Japanese immigrants, likewise, started communities in Hawaii and California, where they sought labor and agricultural opportunities.

From the time of these settlements, APIs have experienced dual currents of discrimination and assimilation. In the difficult times, APIs were singled out for persecution by such acts as the Exclusion Laws of 1882 and 1924, and the Alien Land Act of 1913, which prohibited API property ownership.

This year, 2004, marks the 62nd-year anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's signing of Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, pursuant to which 120,000 Japanese Americans and legal resident aliens were incarcerated in internment camps during World War II. Many of these families lost their property and possessions during the several years they were jailed behind barbed wires.

In order to learn the important lessons from our own history, I sponsored House Resolution 56, which sets aside a ``Day of Remembrance'' in memory of the relocation and internment policies of World War II. This year, House Resolution 56 was passed due to the support from my fellow colleagues here in Congress and support from community groups throughout the country.

I realize we need to learn from our own history. It is more important than ever to speak up against unjust policies. Also it is 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 Japanese Latin Americans and certain German and Italian Americans. We must remember that the decision to issue the order was shaped by racial prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.

At the newly opened Manzanar National Historic Site Interpretive Center at the Manzanar War Relocation Center, we have the opportunity to explore our past and reflect. Additionally, these past few days, the Enemy Alien Files Consortium has set up their exhibit in the Rayburn foyer. This traveling exhibition, featuring photographs, objects, documents, artifacts, art forms and oral history excerpts examines the little-known history of Italian, German, and Japanese immigrants in the U.S. and from Latin

America who were classified as enemy aliens during World War II.

Over 31,000 of these enemy aliens were apprehended, detained, and thousands interned based on suspicion and the potential dangerousness they posed to the U.S. national security. The internees were held without charges for indefinite duration and without trial. These internees, including many American-born children and spouses, languished in Army and Department of Justice camps throughout the USA.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez) to speak to this particular item.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentlewoman, in spite of the growth of the Asian American communities, rather than feel threatened, the gentlewoman embraces them; and I think that is why the gentlewoman has been such a welcomed leader for political leadership in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Guam for raising the profile of Guamanians in the history and the patriotism of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the Congresswoman from Oakland.

I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I appreciate her sharing the work that the community-based organizations are doing for the community in order for the members of the community to be able to access and be full participants in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), another great leader.

I thank the gentlewoman from California. Let me also comment and thank her for her leadership in helping this country understand how diverse and how colorful this country is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the charismatic gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Mahalo. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) to round out the great State of Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and he makes Hawaiians very proud; and we are privileged to have him as one of our members of CAPAC, and I always look toward him to understand how to deliver a speech eloquently.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping he would say that.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to extend my gratitude to the patriotic men and women serving our country and the

military including the 60,813 Asian American and Pacific Islanders serving on active duty in the U.S. armed services as well as the 20,066 in the Reserves and National Guard. I also commend the 351,000 API veterans. Last week I had the privilege to meet a young soldier, Army Specialist Bermanis of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. He was presented with the Bronze Star, a Purple Heart for Meritorious Conduct in Operation Iraqi Freedom. On July 16, 2003, the award presentation ceremony took place bedside at Walter Reed Army Medical Center where he was convalescing from grave injuries. Specialist Bermanis and a fellow soldier were on guard duty in southern Baghdad when they sustained an attack by rocket-propelled grenades on June 10, 2003. His fellow soldier died instantly, and Specialist Bermanis lost both his legs and his left hand.

Specialist Bermanis hails from Pohnpei in the Federated States of Micronesia. Officials from the Federated States of Micronesia and the U.S. Government had visited him at Walter Reed and praised him for his courage and exemplary service. A senior U.S. official commended Specialist Bermanis's service as representative of the Federated States of Micronesia citizens' commitment to the security of the United States and Pacific region.

Mr. Speaker, this month also affords us time to reflect on the various social needs that exist in the API community. Today there are 12.8 million APIs, which represents 4.5 percent of the U.S. population. Between 1990 and 2000, the community grew nationally by 72 percent.

APIs are one of the fastest growing populations in the country. The API community in this country encompasses 49 ethnicities speaking over 100 languages and dialects. The population enriches our culture linguistically through a range of languages, such as Japanese, Chinese, Samoan, Thai, Vietnamese, Hmong, Cambodian, Micronesian, and Korean.

Our linguistic diversity has contributed greatly to American society. It has allowed us to exercise international leadership economically and politically. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, slightly less than half of the 7 million API who speak a language other than English at home report that they speak English ``very well.'' We need to better address the educational and health care needs of all limited-English proficiency students, children, and adults.

Additionally, data is a cross-cutting issue. Lack of data impacts our understanding of the health problems in our communities as well as the problem of access and quality. Adequate data collection continues to be a challenge for the API community. Although we are often mistaken to be a homogenous group, our community is extremely diverse in ethnicities and languages. Aggregating such a large and diverse group makes it difficult to understand the unique problems faced by the individual ethnicities.

This year as chair of CAPAC, I have looked into these and other critical issues within the API community. Through our CAPAC task forces, we have targeted such goals as eliminating racial ethnic health disparities, enacting comprehensive immigration reform, fighting to create jobs, and providing educational opportunities for the underserved.

CAPAC has had the privilege to work with our colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Native American Caucus to advance dialogue on these important issues.

I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), the vice chairman of CAPAC, a Member of the Congress for many years, a leader and a person who represents American Samoa.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to comment on the White House initiative that was initiated by the past administration of President Clinton. It is now in its fifth year, and the initiative suffers from neglect by the current administration.

Executive Order 13216 authorizing the initiative and its corresponding Advisory Commission expired on June 7, 2003; and since that time, both the initiative and the commission have laid dormant.

The commission is mandated to develop, monitor, and coordinate Federal efforts to improve API participation in government programs, foster research and data collection for API populations and sub- populations, and increase public and private sector involvement in improving the health and well-being of the API community.

API citizens deserve the coordination of services that the commission can facilitate.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to recognize also among other names, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a member of the Democratic leadership, and Governor Locke, the first API elected as a Governor in the lower 48 States.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by indicating that in this country, we have participated in the functioning of this country in every aspect of society, having athletes, both professional and amateur; we have had Nobel Prize winners; teachers and scholars. We are thankful for this time to share information regarding the Asian Pacific Islanders in this great country and the islands that our Members come from.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is simple. It takes $20 million out of a very important program that cannot afford it and gives it to a program that does not need it. The $20 million the gentlewoman would put in the Citizen Corps comes from the Flood Map Modernization Fund, a program that is critical to our communities and our individuals. These moneys are for a 5-year, $1 billion program to update and modernize the 100,000 aging flood maps nationwide which affects hundreds of thousands of people. It is already underfunded. So we cannot afford to take money out of that.

We include in the bill $20 million for the Citizen Corps. However, Mr. Chairman, they have got $51 million laying around unused which is way more than they need. There is $51 million in the pipeline all the way back to 2003 that has not been used, and so there is plenty of money there, and we do not want to take the money from the Flood Map Modernization Fund that is critical to so many people in this country.

I oppose the amendment and urge Members to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. We have not seen the amendment. We have no idea what this is.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI which states, in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law by imposing additional duties.''

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. This amendment earmarks $10 million within the Science

and Technology account for specific institutions of higher learning.

Mr. Chairman, we have studiously and steadfastly avoided all earmarks in this bill. There are none. This would be an earmark. For that reason, I have to oppose it. The University Centers of Excellence awards are made on a competitive basis and should stay that way.

All universities and colleges in the United States can apply, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic- serving institutions and community colleges. Universities and colleges can apply singly or together as part of a consortium, pooling the talents of several higher-learning institutions. The recent Center of Excellence award on agroterrorism to the University of Minnesota includes Tuskegee University, a Historically Black University, as one of its partners.

The S&T university program has been proactive in reaching out to minorities. S&T encourages the Center of Excellence competitors to partner with minority institutions. They are setting up a program for partnering university minority faculty with national labs for fellowships and internships. A new Center of Excellence award on emergency preparedness and response will be targeted to the urban community, with the intent of reaching more institutions with minority populations. This center will focus on training for emergency preparedness.

The competition element, Mr. Chairman, is critical to bring together the Nation's best experts and focus its most talented researchers on science and technology solutions to combat terrorist threats against this Nation from wherever they come.

It is absolutely critical to the security of the country that the Department of Homeland Security is able to utilize the best science that the Nation has to offer, be it private sector technology, national labs, or our great universities and colleges. The best way to identify that talent is through open competition, not earmarks, which this amendment would do. For that reason, I urge Members to reject the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will only make a brief statement in regards to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who serves on our subcommittee, who has been so active on this issue. He has been a leader in the whole Congress on Buy-America issues through diligent efforts on his part to make sure that companies that manufacture goods and supplies must comply with the Buy-America Act.

I regret that this provision is being probably stricken from the bill, but the work of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) on this issue must go as noted, because it certainly has been a labor of love on his part, and a very effective one.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may be referring to another section of the bill. This is about port security, not container or cargo security. It is about the security of the port itself.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about container security if Members want, but this amendment is about port security. We have a great container security program. Every high-risk container is searched offshore. We are going to be in 47 foreign ports doing that.

But please, can we talk about port security? If we want to talk about container security, we can do that, but not on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, port security obviously is terribly important, and that is why we have provided in this bill $125 million, which is $79 million more than was requested and more than the 2004 level. So we are putting heavy emphasis on port security in the country.

Is that enough money? Of course not. There is not enough money in the world to perfectly protect everything in America, but we think we have on balance provided plenty of money in the bill for port security.

Number two, I have to oppose this amendment for a second reason, and that is probably the most important one. And that is that this would dangerously deplete the disaster relief fund, which concerns me greatly, and we are just now getting into the heavy part of the disaster season. So if there were another offset, this might be more attractive to me, but to take the money out of disaster relief is just a dangerous thing.

So I oppose the amendment. I would hope the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) would consider withdrawing the amendment, and we will address this issue, I guarantee in the conference with the Senate, the other body, as we go along during the year. But I appreciate very much the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), and those who have been speaking with her, in bringing up this very, very important issue, and I assure them it is on my mind and on the mind of the subcommittee.

I did not say every container. I said every high-risk container.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I agree with the gentlewoman from California, who by the way is a very hardworking member of our subcommittee and a very valued member. I agree with her that CIS should meet the highest standards in evaluating petitions for naturalization or immigration benefits, but I do not believe her proposal is justified.

CIS is in the midst of a critical effort to reduce its very large case backlog, while ensuring that it screens applicants for the privilege of living here or acquiring citizenship. Our bill demands a high degree of accountability from this agency, and we will exercise significant oversight into how it achieves the elimination of its backlog.

In the meantime, I believe that the Department deserves some latitude to explore new ways of getting this job done and the backlog reduced, to include privatizing some functions that may be just as easily performed outside of the government, and allows the agency to concentrate internally on its core government functions.

The argument that the positions up for competition are ``governmental'' begs the question: Immigrants need information and help getting through this system, but such service is not inherently governmental; and, two, the requirement to have specialized subject matter expertise also does not uniquely limit the work to government officials.

So I think the amendment is not necessary. I believe the Department should have some leeway in getting this backlog reduced, and so I, therefore, ask my colleagues to support us in rejecting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of attempting to save time and to get us out of here today on this bill, I want to engage my ranking member and ask his and others unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, the time to be equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

I so amend my request.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out there is a growing list of Members who want to get out of here tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous consent request.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, that the time be equally divided between myself and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is saying is that they pay that effective tax rate on their profits. Right?

Mr. Chairman, so does the gentleman know how much of their income has been stripped out by their use of this foreign approach of setting up their corporation abroad? In other words, he is just talking about their tax rate on the little bit of income they leave here, not on the $100 million that they shifted out on which they pay practically nothing.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and subject to my reservation, if I could just ask for clarification. This will be 20 minutes per side on this amendment. The gentleman does not envision any other amendments to the amendment being offered? Is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, does the gentleman anticipate any amendments to this amendment?

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman be willing to modify his 20 minutes to a side then on this amendment, 20 minutes to a side? Because if someone were to come forward with an amendment to this amendment, I am confident it would require additional time on our part.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, this last bizarre argument that was made that this amendment would somehow violate our world trade obligations, does the gentleman understand that argument to be that we are forced to outsource our national security and our homeland security to China or France, which are WTO members? That seemed to be the logical extension of this bizarre new argument.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the indifference of the Administration to the outsourcing of American jobs is well known to the American people. But now as incredible as it will seem to most Americans, the Administration and House Republican leadership are intent on actually outsourcing our national security. A foreign- controlled corporation has received a $10 billion contract, billion with a ``B'', to implement a major element of the Administration's border security initiative. And that is what this debate is about.

As usual, the House Republican leadership has this week blessed this outsourcing of our national security, even though this action is directly in defiance of the will of a strong bipartisan majority of this House. With Accenture, the accent is on tax dodging; and with this Republican leadership, since the first time we offered an amendment to deal with this, the accent has been on protecting and enabling abusive corporate tax dodgers.

Now, the Republican leadership wants to reward those like Accenture. It wants to reward those who flee America to fleece America. Not only saying, do not worry about paying your fair share of taxes, but it is okay to come and get your competitors' share of taxes too. The money hardworking people pay in to the Treasury, their money is going to be taken and given to a corporation that has fled America.

What makes this Republican leadership's actions particularly shameful is their refusal to hold the wealthy tax-dodging few accountable while others sacrifice so very much, sometimes everything that they have.

We know about the young American men and women around the globe who are dying for America. We know of the billions of dollars that American taxpayers must expend when this Administration calls on Americans to do most all the paying for its adventures around the world. The sacrifice that our military is making is measured in blood and the sacrifice of the middle-class taxpayers is measured in dollars. But some corporations have decided that they do not have to pay their fair share of our security.

Through this amendment we now can demand that they pay their fair share. This is a fair-share amendment. When this measure came up under the leadership of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) in July of 2002, 318 Members of this House voted to impose the same restrictions that we are asking for today. And Accenture began hiring lobbyists right and left to weaken that amendment. So the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) came back with a bipartisan majority 35 to 17 in the Committee on Appropriations to approve this restriction.

Then the Committee on Rules, recognizing that it was violating the will of the House, has approved language in this bill that says Accenture, despite all these wonderful arguments we have heard this morning, is not going to get any more contracts. We are just going to give it a $10 billion contract. We are going to give it the big pie it has already been rewarded, but it will just not get any crumbs down the way. This is an admission that there is strong merit to the arguments in favor of the gentlewoman's amendment.

Let us go through one by one the arguments that have been advanced. It is difficult to do that because they can talk about getting their facts straight, then not get their argument straight. One of those who opposes this amendment has been at this podium declaring that Accenture has never been a U.S. company, followed by another speaker who insists that Accenture is a U.S. company with jobs all over America.

Well, on that I have to yield to Accenture. If you turn to their Web site, you will see that they declare they have never been a U.S. company. The Department of Homeland Security has outsourced this contract to a foreign company. But what of the argument that they did not leave America after they formed here? No, the answer is they got there first and they have set an example for other corporations about incorporating abroad. Indeed, this month's issues of Corporate Executive Magazine has an ad from Accenture: ``To accomplish more, sometimes you need to receive less.''

And, in fact, in their case, pay less in taxes. And they offer advice on, among other things, outsourcing jobs.

What of the argument that Accenture pays its taxes, everything that is legally due? They claim that they pay a higher tax rate than their American competitors. Well, I guess it all depends on whether you are paying taxes on all your income or part of your income because you are able to send some of your income abroad. Indeed, the name Accenture will be new to many people because it is a new name. The name Accenture did not exist a few years ago. The name Accenture, strangely enough, is owned by a foreign corporation and the U.S. company pays hefty royalties to this foreign company to use that name in the U.S. What Accenture has done is to strip its U.S. earnings out of the country so that it can say, we pay taxes on our earnings more than our competitors. We just do not pay U.S. taxes on about $200 million of our other earnings.

Let me just say that it used to be that, if you cleaned out a bank vault, you would be put on the government's ``most wanted'' list and imprisoned. But under this Administration, when you drain the Federal Treasury by dodging taxes, you are placed on a ``most wanted'' list for government contractors.

This is wrong. The American people know it is wrong. It is indefensible, and there is no good argument in favor of doing this. Vote for the DeLauro amendment.