Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, there are very few things I like about this energy bill. However, I do support title IX, and I am proud to be the ranking member of the Committee on Science's Energy Subcommittee, which authored this portion of the bill.

We have included such beneficial programs as energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development in the areas of solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy, and other alternative energy sources that will be critical to our future energy independence.

Also included are research programs into distributed energy and electric energy systems, which will make us less reliant on fragile transmission grid, and the next generation lighting initiative, which will reduce future demand for electricity through efficiency.

We have also increased support for the basic sciences at the Department of Energy generally and focused on several programs in particular, such as nanotechnology research and development, advanced scientific computing research, and fusion energy sciences.

It is a credit to the collegial bipartisan nature of the Committee on Science members and staff that all of these important provisions are included in a product that both sides of the aisle can support. There is so much agreement that I do not have any amendments to offer here today; and as a side bar, I would like to also commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman; and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), our ranking member, for this kind of collegial activity.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about the rest of the bill. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and liability waivers for producers of MTBE are not going to reduce gas prices today and are not steps toward a sustainable energy future. And in contrast, the bill does not address increasing fuel economy standards, which is a concrete step we can take to reduce energy consumption.

Even President Bush, an oil man, admits that with $55 a barrel of oil, we do not need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore. He recently said, ``There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent.''

This bill does not do enough to make this Nation less dependent on energy, be it from imported or domestic sources. We need a bill that focuses on our long-term future needs, not one that is stuck in the past.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Equal Pay Day.

Today I join the millions of women workers and local advocates across America to fight for justice and fairness in our wages. Today symbolizes the day when women have to work longer hours each week for the same amount of pay that a man would earn in just 5 working days.

It is disappointing to know that it has been 40 years since President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, yet the wage gap between men and women persists. Forty years ago, women who worked full- time made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by men. In 2004, women earned 77 cents to the dollar. The wage gap has barely narrowed in these past 40 years, even though women have the same education, skills and experience as men.

The disparity in wages between women of color and white men is even worse. In 2003, Asian Pacific American women earned 80 cents for every dollar that men earned. African American women earned only 66 cents and Hispanic American women earned 59 cents for every dollar that men earned.

Although working women in my home State of California are farther along the road to equal pay than women in many States, the wage gap is still there. In 2000, California's working women earned only 82.5 percent as much per hour as men.

At the current rate of change, working women in California won't have equal pay until 2044. Nationwide, women won't achieve equal pay until 2050.

It is distressing to know that it will take 87 years since the Equal Pay Act before there is pay equity.

Now is the time for our country to fix this problem and to move forward in addressing this issue.

As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I have joined with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Native American Caucus, the Women's Caucus and Democratic Leadership to move forward in addressing this problem by cosponsoring the Paycheck Fairness Act.

The Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro would take the steps needed to eliminate gender based wage discrimination and ensure that women will finally earn what men earn for doing the same job.

I urge you to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

We must remember that equal pay isn't just a women's issue--when women get equal pay, their family incomes rise and the whole family benefits. Equal pay is about fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the election Weekend Act of 2005. My dear friend and distinguished colleague, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and I are introducing this bill to expand accessibility to the electoral process for millions of hard working Americans, who at present are faced with the untenable task of balancing their familial and work responsibilities with their desire to participate in our democratic process, namely to vote.

For more than 200 years, our Nation has prided itself on being the preeminent democracy in the world. We have been the nation to which others look as an example of a healthy democracy. Yet, our rate of voter turnout reveals that our democracy is suffering from serious illness. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, between 1945 and 1998, the United States ranked a dismal 139th out of 172 democracies in voter turnout.

True to our ideals of freedom and individuality, voting has always been voluntary. But the voluntary nature of voting is only true if all Americans have equal access to participate in this process. Many hardworking Americans simply do not have ample time and opportunity to vote. And, as we saw in the 2004 election, many civic-minded Americans must wait in line for hours upon hours for the opportunity to cast their ballot.

Our predecessors in Congress arranged for elections to be held during a time of the year and day of the week that would allow enable the largest number of citizens to vote. In 1845 Congress selected November as the month to hold elections (Election Day) because the harvest was in, and farmers were able to take the time needed to vote. Congress selected Tuesday because it gave a full day's travel between Sunday, which was widely observed as a strict day of rest, and Election Day. Travel was also easier throughout the north during November, before winter had set in.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to recognize today what our predecessors so astutely recognized 160 years ago: The timing of our elections must accommodate the schedules of our hard working citizens. In recognition of changed times, our bill proposes to do just this. The Weekend Election Act changes our Nation's Election Day from the first Tuesday in November to the first consecutive Saturday and Sunday in November, and in so doing, enables many more Americans to participate in the most fundamental aspect of our democratic process.

Our bill acknowledges the fact that many Americans are unable to leave their jobs in the middle of the day to vote because our elections occur on a Tuesday, a day when almost all Americans are working. By holding elections over a weekend, a time when fewer Americans work, voters will have more time to go to the polls, reducing many of the long lines that form during peak voting hours.

In a time when we are ardently promoting democracy abroad, we must not forget the ongoing need to strengthen democracy at home. Only as long as the democratic process is accessible to all hardworking citizens at home will we serve as a shining example of democracy to the rest of the world.

I urge my colleagues to support the Election Weekend Act to enable greater access to the most fundamental aspect of our democratic process.

Mr. Speaker, today, the Republican majority continues its assault on hardworking Americans by ramming through the House of Representatives bankruptcy legislation that harms even the most ethical among us. The legislation before us today is an indefensible gift to the credit card industry, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.

S. 256, The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, purports to introduce a greater level of personal responsibility into the bankruptcy system by eliminating various loopholes and incentives that encourage consumer bankruptcy filings and abuse. The bill's proponents argue that this kind of abuse is rampant, but expert analyses suggest another story. According to a Harvard study, about 50 percent of all families that file for bankruptcy are forced to do so as a result of medical expenses, and three-quarters of those individuals actually have health insurance. Another 40 percent have been driven into bankruptcy, at least in part, after suffering a job loss, divorce, or death in the family. The American Bankruptcy Institute estimates that no more than three percent of filers avoid repayment of debts by gaming the system. The simple truth is that almost all individuals declaring bankruptcy do so as necessity and a last resort!

Sadly, the mechanisms employed by this bill to crack down on bankruptcy abuse will have a disproportionate impact on women, minority communities, the elderly and the unemployed. It will impose a rigid means test that will make it more difficult for debtors to get a ``fresh start.'' The bill also will endanger child support payments, permit landlords to evict tenants, and frustrate efforts by debtors to save homes and cars. It betrays veterans who accumulate debt following an injury or disability sustained on active duty. In a final insult, the Republican leadership denied the opportunity for Democrats to offer amendments that would have protected veterans and other vulnerable communities.

While the Republican majority wishes to hold the average American accountable, it seeks to preserve privileges and loopholes for the financial industry and the rich. The bill does nothing to reign in credit card companies that engage in reckless lending, and it allows wealthy debtors in five states to declare bankruptcy and keep their multimillion-dollar homes without penalty. Once again, the Republican leadership thwarted amendments that would have evened the playing field for debtors and creditors. Amendments to close loopholes for millionaires, discourage predatory lending, and cap interest on extension of credit were flatly rejected by the Republican majority on the Rules Committee.

Reasonable bankruptcy reform may be necessary, but S. 256 is an abuse of the legislative process and a threat to the financial security of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 256.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 1436 is a bill to designate a portion of the Alexandria courthouse located at 2100 Jamieson Avenue as the Justin W. Williams United States Attorney's Building. In the 108th Congress, an identical bill, H.R. 3428, was introduced but did not receive action from the other body.

H.R. 1463 was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and enjoys strong bipartisan support.

U.S. Attorney Justin Williams was an extraordinary public servant who served the citizens of Virginia for over 30 years. He received his undergraduate degree from Colombia University and his law degree from the University of Virginia. During his 33 years as a Federal prosecutor he supervised or was directly involved in every major Federal prosecution in the Eastern District of Virginia.

His career is filled with numerous awards and honors, including the Attorney General's Award for Excellence that is awarded for furthering the interests of national security, the Director's award for superior performance in years 1990, 2000, 2002, and Sustained Superior Performance for the years 1990, 1991, 1997, 1998 and 1999.

In addition to being an outstanding lawyer, Justin Williams was a thoughtful mentor, loyal friend, outstanding role model, devoted husband and loving father; and it is most fitting we honor the distinguished career of this dedicated public servant with this designation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I join with the gentleman from Brownsville, Texas (Mr. Ortiz), in supporting H.R. 483, a bill to name the courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, as the Reynaldo G. Garza-Filemon B. Vela United States Courthouse.

Madam Speaker, this bill honors the life and works of two extraordinary Mexican Americans. The first honoree, Judge Reynaldo Garza, was born in Brownsville in 1915. He graduated from local elementary schools as well as Brownsville High School. After graduating from Brownsville Junior College, he attended the University of Texas where he received the combined degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Law.

Judge Garza served his country during World War II in the Air Force. After the war he returned to Brownsville to practice law.

In 1961 President Kennedy appointed Judge Garza to the district court for the Southern District of Texas. In 1979 President Carter appointed him to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. In addition to his judicial duties, Judge Garza has long been interested in education issues.

He served former Governors John Connally and Mark White on commissions to improve the quality of education in Texas. Judge Garza recognized the importance of education in judicial proceedings and his concern for uneducated men at the mercy of unscrupulous people.

Judge Garza was very active in his church and has served the Knights of Columbus in the Brownsville area for many years.

Pope Pius XII twice decorated Judge Garza for his work on behalf of public charities. In 1989 Judge Garza was honored by the University of Texas with a Distinguished Alumnus Award.

His record of public service includes the work with the Rotary Club, the Latin-American Relation Committee in Brownsville, trustee at his law school, advisory council for the Boy Scouts, and he was elected as the city commissioner for the City of Brownsville.

It is fitting and proper to honor Judge Garza's outstanding, rich life, his commitment to excellence and his numerous public contributions.

The second honoree, Madam Speaker, Judge Filemon Vela, was also a native Texan and a veteran of the United States Army. He attended Texas Southmost College and the University of Texas. His law degree is from St. Mary's School of Law in San Antonio.

Judge Vela served as a commissioner of the City of Brownsville. He was a member of the Judges Advisory Committee to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Judge Vela is a former law instructor and an attorney for the Cameron County Child Welfare Department.

His civic activities including being the charter president for the Esperanza Home for Boys and the co-sponsor of the Spanish Radio Program ``Enrich Your Life, Complete Your Studies.'' Judge Vela's other civic activities include membership on the Independent School District Task Force and membership in the general assembly of the Texas Catholic Conference. He is also an active member of the Lions Club.

Judge Vela was nominated by President Carter for the Federal bench and was confirmed by the United States Senate in 1980.

Judge Vela's career is filled with successes, commitment to his family, devotion to his religion and his church,

love for his work and respect for his colleagues. It is most fitting to honor Judge Vela with this designation.

I join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) in supporting H.R. 483.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 787, a bill to name the courthouse in Sacramento in honor of our former colleague, Robert T. Matsui. This bill has broad bipartisan support from both his California colleagues and all of us who had the distinct privilege of serving with him.

Congressman Matsui's legislative interests and accomplishments are legendary here in the House. Health care, welfare reform, tax issues, the environment, immigrant issues, and of course Social Security are just a few of the issues that Bob made his own.

Bob was only 6 months old when, just months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he and his family were interned at Tule Lake camp in California. His childhood experience in the internment camp shaped his future actions on behalf of those fighting for fairness. Bob understood the injustice of the internment and sympathized with other loyal Americans who suffered at the hands of the government in which they never lost faith.

He embraced his heritage and channeled his energy into making positive changes for all Americans. From the time he worked as a member of the Sacramento City Council to serving as the vice mayor of Sacramento and finally as a U.S. Representative starting in 1978, Bob Matsui served as a constant reminder of what integrity and dedication can accomplish in public office.

Bob Matsui should ultimately be remembered for his civility, his dignity and his service to others. He was a selfless role model whose footprint will forever be imprinted on our Nation's history.

Bob Matsui was intelligent and principled. As a skilled, respected politician and willing to reach across the aisle, his voice elevated any debate. His leadership style and his character served as a model for all of us.

It is certainly fitting that the House honor his exceptional life, his public service with this very appropriate courthouse designation. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for bringing up this measure in such an expeditious manner.

Again, I strongly support H.R. 778 and urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), my friend and colleague and the author.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the dean of the delegation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership for this opportunity to honor Bob Matsui, who sought to make this country a more perfect place, and urge passage of the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8, legislation that unwisely imperils our Nation's financial security in order to advance the interests of an elite few.

Since my election to Congress, I have consistently advocated for reasonable estate tax reform. Estate tax reform is extremely important for all the people in the 15th District of California. High real estate values and generous stock option packages have pushed many estates over exemption limits. As a result, too many of my Santa Clara County constituents have been burdened by an estate tax that was originally written to affect only the very wealthiest Americans. The estate tax needs to be modified to protect hardworking Americans and their heirs.

In keeping with this spirit, I intend to support a Democratic alternative to H.R. 8 that will benefit almost all Americans. Offered by Representative Earl Pomeroy, the Democratic substitute will increase the estate tax exemption to $3 million for individuals and $6 million for married couples effective January 1, 2006 with a scheduled increase in 2009. Under this plan, 99.7 percent of all estates would have no estate tax liability.

The Republican majority has put forward a more expensive plan to benefit the three-tenths of one percent not covered by the Democratic substitute. Their plan comes at a significant cost. Once fully in effect, H.R. 8 will cost $1 trillion over 10 years. This astronomical price tag will exacerbate record Federal deficits and undermine our Nation's ability to strengthen key Federal priorities, including Social Security, Medicare, education programs and veterans health care.

H.R. 8 may also harm more taxpayers than it would help. Current income tax law provides for a ``step-up'' in the basis of an inherited asset to its fair market value at the time of decedent's death. When the heir sells the asset, the capital gain for income tax purposes is measured by the difference between the heir's selling price and the stepped-up basis of the asset. H.R. 8 repeals the step-up basis and substitutes carryover basis rules in which the capital gain would be measured by the difference between heir's selling price and the asset's cost at the time when the decedent acquired it. As a result, all estates with gross assets over $1.3 million would face reporting requirements and tax liabilities potentially more burdensome than under current law.

While I am deeply concerned with the problems surrounding the estate tax, and believe that substantial, long-term reform is needed, permanent repeal for all estates is not necessary to resolve these issues. Given our nation's challenges, I cannot support the Republican's fiscally irresponsible approach to this issue. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Fred Korematsu, who passed away last week at the age of 86. In his early years, Mr. Korematsu experienced America at its worst, but he did so as an American at his best. Many years later, in large part thanks to Mr. Korematsu and his courageous actions, our country atoned for its mistakes, and took great steps towards fulfilling the promises entailed in our Constitution.

Fred Korematsu was born in Oakland, California on January 30, 1919. An American citizen by birth, Mr. Korematsu was nonetheless among the Americans of Japanese heritage ordered to report to World War II internment camps in May 1942. He defied the order, choosing instead to marry his girlfriend and live the life he believed that, like any other American, he was entitled to. That dream did not materialize; in May 1942 he was caught, arrested and jailed for failing to report as ordered.

Mr. Korematsu maintained that his Constitutional rights had been violated by the forced internment order, given without evidence, specific charges, or a trial. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Mr. Korematsu sued the government and appealed his case to the Supreme Court. He lost the landmark Korematsu v. the United States by a vote of 6 to 3. In the majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black wrote that the internment was based not on ``hostility to him or his race'' but on ``military necessity.'' In his dissent, Justice Frank Murphy spoke out against the internment in no uncertain terms: it ``goes over the very brink of constitutional power and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.''

For almost forty years, Fred Korematsu's conviction stood as a black mark of U.S. jurisprudence. In the early 1980's Peter Irons--a professor of Political Science at University of California, San Diego-- discovered documents in which government intelligence agencies categorically denied that Japanese Americans posed any security threat whatsoever. For the Supreme Court case, the official reports exculpating Japanese-Americans were suppressed. In the course of his investigation, Irons unearthed other reports describing government claims of Japanese American spying as ``intentional falsehoods.''

In light of this information, in November 1983 Judge Marilyn Patel of the San Francisco Federal District Court overturned Mr. Korematsu's conviction. Five years later, the specter of state-endorsed racism was finally lifted for all Japanese Americans when federal law provided apologies and payments to those wrongfully relocated during the war.

There is no doubt that Fred's case figured prominently in the quest for justice for those American citizens wrongfully interned during the war. In 1998, President Clinton acknowledged Mr. Korematsu's role by awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation's highest civilian award. Like Rosa Parks, who insists she was just tired when she took her bus seat in Montgomery, Fred Korematsu was not looking to change the world when he refused to be interned. But also just like Rosa Parks, his defiance reverberated throughout our country, and engendered change as profound as his action was simple.

Mr. Korematsu spent his years after the war in California realizing his dream of a simple life; he worked as draftsman and raised a family. He is survived by his wife Kathryn, his son Ken, and his daughter Karen Korematsu-Haigh.

His is a life worth remembering; his defiance a testament to the potential for greatness within every ordinary American; his story a reminder of the progress our country has made, and a beacon keeping us ever hopeful for a better future. In the words of President Clinton, ``In the long history of our country's constant search for justice, some names of ordinary citizens stand for millions of souls . . . Plessy, Brown, Parks . . . To that distinguished list, today we add the name of Fred Korematsu.''

Mr. Speaker, Fred Korematsu was an American. He saw a wrong and did what he thought was right. With simple courage, he stood up to an entire nation and demanded that it make good on its promises. He should be remembered and honored, and as common men and women not all that different from him, we should strive to walk in his footsteps, fighting for equality and justice wherever their defense is needed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address S. 686 for the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo. Numerous courts have reviewed the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, and all have agreed that the right to make decisions about her care rests solely with her legal guardian: her husband, Michael Schiavo.

Even in cases where the patient has made it clear that she did not wish to persist in a catatonic state, families face excruciating decisions about how to proceed. Disagreement about the medical facts or the express wishes of the patient only add to the agony, and often lead to painful disputes within families.

We are a nation of laws, and as such we have a proper and unbiased way of resolving these difficult situations. The Schiavo case involves a family dispute over who has final decisionmaking regarding Terri Schiavo's medical care, and as such falls exclusively under jurisdiction of the State courts. Federal courts do not have any jurisdiction in this case; the U.S. Congress does not have any jurisdiction in this case; only the courts of the State of Florida have jurisdiction here.

But Republican leaders in Congress have decided they must get involved in this tragic story. Perhaps Bill Frist sees a chance to score political points in advance of his 2008 presidential bid; perhaps Tom DeLay sees a way to distract from his ongoing ethics problems; perhaps they are motivated by more noble standards.

Regardless of their motivation, the GOP congressional leadership has pushed S. 686, legislation pushing an after-the-fact remedy by pre- empting State court jurisdiction. Foregoing even the pretense of federalism, and the notion of America as a nation of laws, S. 686 reflects the Republicans' belief that they may

pick and choose the jurisdiction of their choice, depending on the day and the case.

This bill places politics before the judgment of State judges, imposing Federal adjudication on a case that has been comprehensively reviewed and decided. S. 686 represents a gross abuse of legislative authority and a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Michael Schiavo has wrestled with the agonizing decision of what to do for his wife. He has followed Terri's instructions in accordance with the laws of his State and this country. Congress has no business in this matter, which involves a family decision based on mutual agreement between a husband and wife.

Mr. Chairman, the federal budget should be a statement of our country's values. It should reflect the priorities of the American people: good jobs, safe communities, quality education, and access to health care. The Republican budget, H. Con. Res. 95, is not aligned with these priorities; and I, therefore, rise in opposition to its passage.

Like President Bush's budget proposal, the Republican budget calls for sweeping cuts in mandatory and non-defense discretionary spending that could harm the effectiveness of vital Federal programs.

Perhaps in an effort to obfuscate the truth, House Republicans fail to provide the specificity the President does in his budget, so we are left to wonder which programs may get slashed or eliminated.

But we do know this: the Republican budget resolution instructs various House committees to make almost $69 billion in cuts to mandatory spending programs. The Energy and Commerce Committee, for example, would be forced to find $20 billion in savings over five years. All indications are that Medicaid, which provides health coverage for more than 52 million low-income Americans, will take the brunt of the cuts.

The proposed budget will also cut veterans' health care by $14 billion, education programs by $2.5 billion and clean water programs by $700 million. It will slash economic development programs by $1.5 billion, possibly leading to the elimination of the extraordinarily successful Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The CDBG provides Federal funding for locally-identified projects, like affordable housing, economic redevelopment, roads and public libraries.

The Republican budget, in fact, neither adequately funds our national priorities, nor does it offer a strategy for achieving fiscal discipline. The resolution calls for a $376 billion deficit in FY 2006, but the deficit is worse than it appears. In calculating the deficit, House Republicans use surpluses in the Social Security trust funds to offset spending on other programs. If the Social Security surpluses are not counted, the projected deficit for FY 2006 would be $564.5 billion.

Democrats, on the other hand, will be offering an alternative proposal today that reflects the priorities of the American people. The Democratic budget provides $4.5 billion more for education and training programs, $1.6 billion more for veterans programs, $2 billion more for community and regional development and $1.1 billion more for law enforcement and justice programs. It does all this while instituting a plan to balance the budget by 2012 and protecting Medicaid and Social Security.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the Republicans have chosen to neglect the needs of the many in order to maintain and extend tax cuts for the elite few; 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 and for the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to an old friend and a wonderful man, Wing Kai Fat. He passed away on Friday, February 25th after a full, rich life, at the age of 79. We should all be so lucky as to have the many close friends and the large and loving family that he did.

Wing Fat was born in Canton, China in 1925. When he was ten years old, along with his father he emigrated to America, settling in Sacramento. As a young adult, he served in the U.S. Air Force and graduated from Sacramento State University. For sixty-six years, Wing Fat worked in ``Frank Fat's,'' his legendary father's restaurant, until his retirement just a few years ago. Before his retirement, the very successful Fat family restaurant business grew to include ten restaurants.

Wing Fat and ``Frank Fat's'' were mainstays in the Sacramento political and cultural communities. A well-known location for political deal-making, the restaurant was renowned as much for Wing Fat's personality as it was for the great food. Wing Fat was a truly warm man, whose affectionate laugh and inviting presence always made those around him feel welcome and comfortable. Although he had much to boast, he was remembered as ``one of the humblest men you could ever meet.'' His warmth and humility were matched only by his tact; his motto was ``You listen, but you never tell.'' When he passed away he took decades of private politic information with him, gleaned from years of being a trusted host to the Sacramento political community. It is no surprise that Wing Fat became such a successful restaurateur and that his business became a trusted venue for those involved in Sacramento politics.

Mr. Fat generously shared his successes with his friends and his community. In addition to the counsel he offered countless mayors and council members, Mr. Fat founded a number of local cultural and civic organizations that will contribute to the Sacramento area for years to come. In November 2004, Mr. Fat culminated his truly generous philanthropic career with a $1 million dollar donation to the Sacramento Asian Sports Foundation to build a new sports center in Laguna.

Mr. Speaker, Sacramento has lost a civic treasure and a wonderful man. Although it will never be the same without Wing Fat, he leaves behind a wonderful family, friends whose lives he touched, restaurants that continue to provide a warm place for people to gather, and charitable work and donations that will enrich Sacramento for years to come. I am honored to have an opportunity here to say not only ``goodbye'' to Mr. Fat, but also to say ``thank you.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my distress over anti-secession legislation recently passed by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The new law reaffirms the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan and threatens peaceful and non- peaceful means to defend its ``One China'' policy. In passing this law, the PRC imperils the status quo and durability of the delicate cross- strait truce that has been established.

The United States has consistently maintained that differences between Taipei and Beijing should be resolved diplomatically and with the full involvement of the people of Taiwan and China. I subscribe to this position and the view that the status quo must be preserved until a peaceful resolution can be achieved. The anti-secession law disturbs the status quo and creates and unnecessarily tense situation that may lead to an escalation of hostilities.

While the anti-secession law may have originated as a reaction to political rhetoric in Taiwan, the Taiwanese government supports the status quo, further obviating the need for the anti-cession law. The new law also seems at odds with recent positive developments between China and Taiwan that seem to signal closer relations. For example, direct flights between Taiwan and mainland China were initiated during the Chinese New Year holidays and two senior representatives from the People's Republic of China attended the memorial services for Koo Chen- fu who was instrumental in moving cross-strait dialogue forward 10 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, in light of these positive events, it is unfortunate that the PRC has chosen to take a step backwards in the effort to improve cross-strait relations. The anti-secession law has made it necessary for us today to pass this resolution, which expresses the Congress' grave concern that China is establishing legal justification for the use of force against Taiwan. The resolution rightly urges U.S. officials, through appropriate diplomatic channels, to express our nation's grave concern to the PRC, and it reaffirms U.S. support for fostering cross-strait dialogue in an effort to resolve this international issue peacefully.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and I offer a simple but important amendment that will make explicit the eligibility of DWI Courts for basic grant funds under section 2003 of H.R. 3, TEA- LU. Section 2003 authorizes funds for Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures.

In the year 2003, approximately 17,400 Americans were killed in alcohol-related accidents across this country. These deaths constitute 40 percent of all traffic-related facilities. Make no mistake; drunk driving is a public health crisis, and DWI Courts, which are on the front lines of the national efforts to curb drunk driving, offer a proven method of reducing recidivism rates among DWI offenders.

Unlike traditional court systems, DWI Courts hold offenders to the highest level of accountability, while providing long-term intensive treatment and compliance monitoring to address the root cause of the DWI, alcohol abuse.

DWI Courts are so successful because they draw on a diverse range of professionals, governmental agencies and community organizations. Each DWI Court judge heads a team of prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, law enforcement representatives and alcohol treatment professionals. They work in concert with each other and governmental community organizations to ensure that DWI offenders get the punishment they deserve and the treatment and services they need to be responsible members of our society. Evidence suggests that these DWI Courts are working.

Unfortunately, too few DWI Courts are taking advantage of Federal transportation dollars and section 2003 of H.R. 3 does not clearly authorize use of grant funds for these courts. Our amendment will clear up any confusion in this regard and encourage additional jurisdictions to establish their own DWI Courts.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a courageous American, a man who was willing to give everything to this country, but who got far too little in return. Magdaleno Sanchez Duenas was born in Maasin, Philippines on May 27, 1914 into a large loving family with seven brothers and sisters. Mr. Duenas worked several jobs throughout the years, moving in 1937 to Davao City. There, in November 1941 on the eve of World War II, Mr. Duenas was asked to join the impending fight for freedom as a soldier in the U.S. Armed Forces. Mr. Duenas proudly joined the 101st Infantry.

To say Mr. Duenas fought bravely is an understatement. In 1943, he joined guerilla forces living in the mountains. He fought without shoes, living on a diet of ``camote'' (yams) and ``lugaw'' (rice porridge). On December 24, 1942, he was captured by the Japanese while gathering food for his fellow freedom fighters. He was immediately interrogated, yet he refused to relinquish any information that would reveal the hiding place of the guerilla forces. That night, Mr. Duenas managed to escape and return to his mountain hiding place. On April 4, 1943, Mr. Duenas helped engineer and carry out a rescue operation that freed ten American soldiers from captivity at the Davao Penal Colony. Mr. Duenas kept them fed and hidden and helped them rejoin the guerilla forces.

For his wartime heroism, Mr. Duenas deserved fame. Tragically, however, this was not why he came into the public eye. Mr. Duenas realized a life-long dream and immigrated to the United States, arriving in Richmond, California in 1992. It was upon his arrival in America that Mr. Duenas and 16 other Filipino American World War II veterans were held in virtual captivity by an abusive landlord who beat them, kept them chained, and fed them only dog food, all the while stealing their monthly Social Security checks. In December 1993, a group of Filipino American advocates discovered the heinous abuses and rescued Mr. Duenas and the other Filipino American heroes that were trapped with him.

During his final years, Mr. Duenas lived quietly in the Tenderloin District of San Francisco. Those who knew him remember him with deep affection as an endearing companion with a knit cap, and a folding two- wheel cart to get around.

It is a equally tragic that Mr. Duenas and his other Filipino veterans still have never received full recognition from our government for their patriotism during World War II. In his final years, Mr. Duenas was featured in two documentaries and his story remains at the center of the battle for veteran Filipinos from our greatest generation. Sadly, Mr. Duenas did not live to see the story through to completion. He died this past weekend, on February 27th, at the age of ninety.

Mr. Speaker, since 1948 every Christmas Mr. Duenas received a token from General Schoefner, one of the ten soldiers he saved those many years ago. This simple, poignant gesture of gratitude is a reminder as Americans, we all owe this man and his comrades more than just a debt of gratitude. We owe them the promise of the full equity.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow more brave men like Mr. Duenas to die before we act on legislation introduced by my colleagues Bob Filner and Duke Cunningham, H.R. 302, the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2005. This is the gift we owe to all Filipino veterans who fought along side U.S. soldiers during World War II.