Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the House Republican budget resolution. I believe our national budget should be a statement of our country's values. It should reflect the priorities of the American people for good jobs, safe communities, quality education, and access to health care.

Unfortunately, the Republican budget fails to fund these national priorities. The Republican budget has only one clear priority, to fund the President's $1.6 trillion tax cut. The Republicans fund this tax cut at the expense of the social and economic interests of the American people. Republicans are offering us a budget today that cuts funding for every single domestic priority in order to fund a $1.6 trillion tax cut that will only help a small percentage of Americans. These tax cuts are even more inappropriate when we consider the fact that our country is engaged in a war that will strain our already weakened financial resources.

Democrats, on the other hand, will be offering a variety of alternative budgets today that reflect the priorities of the American people. We will push for tax provisions that will help the backbone of our economy, small businesses and working families, while providing the necessary resources for quality health care and education for all Americans.

While I do not fully endorse all of the Democratic alternatives, each is far better than the Republican budget resolution. So today Democrats step up to the plate with superior alternatives while Republicans offer a Bush-league budget.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republicans have chosen the interest of the elite few over the needs of the many. It is clear where their priorities lie. I urge Members to align their priorities with those of the American people and vote for the Democratic budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the men and women of our armed services. These courageous Americans are putting their lives on the line in order to serve our country, and I pray that they succeed swiftly in their mission and return home safely.

I also want to express my support for the families of our troops, who are patiently awaiting their return with heavy hearts. My thoughts and prayers go out to you during these difficult times.

While I fully support our troops, I am frustrated and deeply disappointed by the resolution that we are being asked to consider tonight. I vehemently disagree with the President's decision to abandon a diplomatic solution to disarm Saddam Hussein, and cannot support a resolution that endorses that decision.

I was proud to support H.J. Res. 27 two weeks ago, a resolution commending the service of our Armed Forces. However, it is with a heavy heart that I must oppose the resolution we have before us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the House Republican budget resolution. I believe our national budget should be a statement of our country's values. It should reflect the priorities of the American people for good jobs and safe communities, quality education and access to health care.

Unfortunately, the Republican budget fails to fund these national priorities. The Republican budget has only one clear priority: To fund the President's $1.6 trillion tax cut, and the Republicans fund this tax cut at the expense of the social and economic interests of the American people.

The Republican budget provides $1.6 trillion for the President's tax cut, but only provides $28 billion for a prescription drug plan. This will only cover 1.5 percent of our country's seniors' prescription drug costs over the next 10 years. Any additional funds spent to provide a prescription drug plan would have to come at the expense of other Medicare benefits. So Republicans are essentially offering our seniors the following choice: Prescription drug coverage or benefits. Pick one or the other, but you cannot have both.

The Republican budget cuts $9.7 billion from the mandatory education programs. These include student loan programs and child nutrition programs. In 2004 alone, these cuts could push nearly \1/2\ million poor children out of child nutrition programs. Republicans are eager to fund the President's $1.6 trillion tax cut, but cannot seem to find the funds necessary to provide a school breakfast or lunch for our Nation's low-income children. For many of these children, access to school meals may be the only one assured source of good nutrition each day.

Mr. Speaker, there are millions of Americans today whose parents cannot afford prescription drugs, whose children attend classes in bungalows, because their schools are run down and old. There are millions of Americans who are struggling to find work and provide for their families in the midst of our struggling economy. Yet Republicans are offering us a budget this week that cuts funding for every single domestic priority in order to fund a $1.6 trillion tax cut that will only help a small percentage of Americans. These tax cuts are even more inappropriate when you consider the fact that our country is about to embark on a war that will strain our already weakened financial resources.

Our national budget should be a reflection of our priorities and values. It should be a budget based on making the right choices. Do we make room for

more expensive tax cuts, or provide affordable prescription drugs for our Nation's seniors? Do we fund a $1.6 trillion tax cut, or provide school lunches for our Nation's children? Do we focus on modernizing our Nation's schools and providing assistance for unemployed workers, or do we provide tax breaks for the few?

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republicans have chosen the interests of the elite few over the needs of the many. It is clear where their priorities lie.

I urge my colleagues to align their priorities with those of the American people and vote against the Republican budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, my goodness, what a difference 2 years make.

Two years ago, Republicans argued that the projected $5.6 trillion surplus was so huge and so certain that they could accommodate large tax cuts and increases in domestic spending, while still having enough to provide for unseen events. In fact, they even worried that the U.S. may pay off the public debt too quickly.

Today that $5.6 trillion surplus is gone and has been replaced with deficits as far as the eyes can see. Our national public debt has risen to $6.4 trillion, the highest amount in U.S. history.

In fiscal year 2002, American taxpayers spent $333 billion paying interest charges on our national debt, which translates to nearly $1 billion per day, every day.

That total is more than the government spends on education, transportation, child nutrition, homeland security, and the environment combined.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most concise rebuttals that I have read to the notion that Japanese Americans were placed in the camps because they either posed a national security threat or for their own safety comes from a law professor from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in a letter dated February 7, 2003. 1 would like to submit this letter at this point in the Record.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, February 7, 2003.

Hon. Howard Coble,

U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Coble: I am a professor of law at the

University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill. My

areas of expertise include constitutional law and especially

the story of the internment of Japanese Americans during

World War II. My book on the subject, Free to Die for their

Country: The Story of the Japanese American Draft Resisters

in World War 11 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2001), was named one

of the Washington Post's Top Nonfiction Titles for 2001.

I have followed with interest and concern the story about

your comments on the radio on Tuesday morning to the effect

that you support the internment of Japanese Americans during

World War II, and that the Roosevelt administration interned

Japanese Americans to protect them.

I note that you were quoted in the High Point Enterprise as

saying the following: ``I still stand by what I said . . .

that, in no small part, it (internment) was done to protect

the Japanese-Americans themselves.'' The article further

states that you said that if it were proven to you that

protecting Japanese Americans was not one of FDR's

motivations, you will apologize.

Here is the proof.

Just after the Pearl Harbor attack, FDR, asked Navy

Secretary Frank Knox to investigate the possibility, that

Fifth Column work by people of Japanese ancestry in Hawaii

had contributed to the success of the Japanese sneak attack.

Knox reported his conclusions to FDR by December 15, and on

that day, said to reporters that he thought ``the most

effective Fifth Column work of the entire war was done in

Hawaii with the possible exception of Norway.'' J. Edgar

Hoover immediately registered his strong disagreement with

Knox's conclusions, and it turns out that Knox was wrong and

Hoover was right. But it was Knox's views that were made

public, and they triggered hysteria on the West Coast.

Well before the war, FDR, anticipating a possible war with

Japan, had commissioned his own secret intelligence

investigation of Japanese aliens and their loyalties. Leading

this effort were John Franklin Carter (an author and

columnist) and Curtis Munson (a prominent Republican

businessman). And the Office of Naval Intelligence (``ONI'')

and the FBI were for quite some time before Pearl Harbor,

gathering names of Japanese aliens who might need to be

apprehended in the event of war. ONI and the FBI actually

compiled a list of such aliens which came to be called the

``ABC'' list--so named because the list presented three

categories (Category A, Category B, and Category C) of

potentially dangerous aliens. (In the days after Pearl

Harbor, all of the aliens in these three categories were in

fact arrested--a total of some 1500.)

Carter and Munson's investigations had led them to conclude

that the overwhelming majority of Japanese aliens and an even

greater percentage of American citizens of Japanese ancestry

were in fact loyal to the United States, and that of those

whose loyalty was even questionable, few could be expected

even to consider actually doing something to support Japan or

undermine the United States. Carter and Munson grew alarmed

by Knox's report and the anti-Japanese outcry that followed

it.

Carter and Munson quickly put together a plan for FDR's

consideration that was designed to bolster the Japanese

American communities of Hawaii and the West Coast. Their plan

called for a number of things: FDR was urged to go on record

as believing in the loyalty of American citizens of Japanese

ancestry (the ``Nisei''). The Nisei should be invited to

volunteer (and then should be accepted) for patriotic service

in the Red Cross and civilian defense. The Nisei should be

encouraged to take control of their alien parents' property.

Once investigated, the Nisei should be allowed to take jobs

in defense plants. Carter and Munson also urged the

government to work closely with the Japanese American

Citizens League, which had indicated its willingness to serve

as a loyal liaison with the Japanese American community.

The goals of the Carter-Munson plan were many, but they

included the discouragement of vigilante violence against

Japanese Americans and Japanese aliens. The hope was that if

FDR came out quickly and loudly in support of people of

Japanese ancestry, and involved them quickly in activities

that would permit their loyalty and patriotism to shine

through, others would not see them as a threat.

The Carter-Munson plan was submitted to Roosevelt before

Christmas. By mid-January, it was completely forgotten--

suspended by other pressures that I'll detail in a moment.

And here's the important point: the Carter-Munson plan was

the only plan for dealing with Japanese Americans that

took their security into account in any way. It never got

off the ground.

Why didn't it get off the ground? For four main reasons.

First, by late January 1942, General John DeWitt (the

commanding officer of the West Coast Defense Command) and his

advisor Karl Bendetsen had become persuaded that mass action

to remove all people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast

was necessary for military reasons. Their viewpoint was fed

largely by outrageous rumors of Japanese American subversion,

none of which ever panned out.

Second, by mid-January, a rabidly racist press along the

Coast had begun campaigning for the eviction of all ``Japs''

from the area--not for their protection, but because they

could not be trusted.

Third, white farmers in California began lobbying

ferociously for the removal of all people of Japanese

ancestry--not to protect them, and not even really for

national security reasons, but to drive the very successful

Japanese farming industry out of business.

And fourth, their lobbying, and the voices of the

editorialists, succeeded in pushing most of the congressional

delegations of the West Coast states to demand mass

exclusion.

As Professor Greg Robinson says in his authoritative

treatment of the subject, ``By Order of the President; FDR,

and the Internment of Japanese Americans'' (Harvard U. Press,

2001). ``the binding factor among these disparate social,

economic, and military forces was racial animosity toward

Japanese Americans.'' (p.90)

Through late January and early February, Attorney General

Francis Biddle, and his staff fought with the military to

prevent mass action against Japanese Americans. But it was

too late. On February 11, 1942, Secretary of War Henry

Stimson sent FDR a memo asking whether he'd be willing to

support ``mov[ing] Japanese citizens as well as aliens from

restricted areas.'' Getting no response, Stimson phoned FDR

on February 15 to ask for a meeting on the memo. FDR said he

was too busy for a meeting, but in ``very vigourous'' tones

told Stimson that the military should do whatever they

thought best. FDR predicted that ``there would probably be

some repercussions but it has got to be dictated by military

necessity.''

On February 19, 1942, FDR signed Executive Order 9066,

which gave the military cart blanche to do what they wished

with Japanese, aliens and American citizens of Japanese

ancestry along the West Coast.

There is the proof. A concern for protecting Japanese

Americans had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to

force Japanese Americans behind barbed wire. Nothing.

(My sources for this account include Greg Robinson's book,

Peter Irons's Justice at War, and Personal Justice Denied,

the report of Congress's Commission on the Wartime Internment

and Relocation of Civilians. This, you'll recall, was the

fact-finding Commission that Congress created in the early

1980s to investigate the internment. Their report, condemning

the internment, led to the passage of the Civil Liberties Act

of 1988, signed into law by President Reagan, which

apologized to surviving internees for the internment, and

authorized the payment to each of them of a token $20,000

redress payment. You will also recall that you spoke and

voted against this bill.

I hope that you will take this opportunity to admit the

mistake in your comments of Tuesday morning and apologize for

them.

Thank you for considering this.

Sincerely,

Eric L. Muller,

Professor of Law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of Mr. Victor Manuel Arranaga and his contributions to his family and community. Mr. Arranaga was a man who worked hard all his life to better the lives of those around him. He was also a man who instilled important values in his family and practiced those values everyday towards those around him. He died on December 30, 2002.

Mr. Arranaga grew up in Del Rio, Texas, where he operated the Arranaga and Sons

grocery store with his father, brothers, and sisters. He was known for extending credit with no questions asked and for offering free groceries to those who could not afford to purchase them. In 1967, Mr. Arranaga moved to San Jose, California, and began work at Food Villa in Santa Clara. As a dedicated employee for 20 years, he built a reputation for extraordinary customer service and was admired for his sense of humor. Mr. Arranaga was also a member of the Retail Clerks Local 428 Union.

Mr. Arranaga was active in the community both in Del Rio and San Jose. Elected to the Del Rio City Council in 1958, he was the second Latino in the town's history to hold the office. As a city councilman, Mr. Arranaga formed a partnership with the neighboring border town of Ciudad Acuna, Mexico, in order to strengthen the relationships between the United States and Mexico. While performing his civic duties, he developed the city's first fire station and created high-quality low- income housing in the disadvantaged Del Rio neighborhood of San Felipe. The development's first street was named ``Arranaga Avenue'' to recognize his dedicated efforts to the city and the project. Mr. Arranaga was also an active member of the Lions Club in Del Rio, where he was the first Latino to serve as President and Zone Chairman. He was also a member of the club's recruitment committee. While in San Jose, he was an active member of the Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church in Alviso, California.

A devoted family man, Victor was married to his wife, Ina, for 54 years. Together they raised seven children, eighteen grandchildren, and eight great-grandchildren. Mr. Arranaga encouraged his children to pursue higher education and to be active in their communities. He also imparted and practiced his core principles of love, honor, and respect for family to all of those around him.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in remembering and honoring Mr. Victor Manuel Arranaga for his service to his community and his dedication to his family. He was a man of great integrity and an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of Dr. Koichi Nishimura and his contributions to the Bay Area and Japanese- American communities. Dr. Nishimura will soon retire from Solectron Corporation after leading the company to its current standing as one of the world's largest electronics manufacturing services company. He has accomplished this through years of hard work and dedication to his friends, neighbors, and colleagues.

Born in 1938 in Pasadena, California, Dr. Nishimura is a Nisei, or second-generation Japanese American. Like many of his fellow Nisei, he has experienced strong Western and Eastern influences. During World War II, Dr. Nishimura spent five years, from age three to seven, at an internment camp in Manzanar. Despite spending his childhood in Southern California, he spoke only Japanese until the first grade.

After earning his bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering from San Jose State University, Dr. Nishimura received his Doctorate in Material Science and Engineering from Stanford University. Upon completion of his education, Dr. Nishimura began his career as a test engineer with IBM. After 23 years with IBM, he was asked to join the then-regional Solectron Corporation. Coming on as the Chief Operating Officer in 1988, he quickly moved to President and then Chief Executive Officer. In 1996, he became Chairman of the Board. Dr. Nishimura has made Solectron Corporation not only the biggest company in the electronics industry, but also the most profitable. Under his leadership, Solectron was twice awarded the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, becoming the first company in the history of the program to do so.

Dr. Nishimura is very active in both the business and Japanese American communities. Currently, he serves on the Board of Trustees of the Santa Fe Institute. In addition to serving on various boards, he has been a member and the Chairman of Santa Clara University's Leavey School of Business. Dr. Nishimura has dedicated his time and energy to the Malcolm Baldrige Foundation, serving as Vice President, as well as the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose, California, having served as a board member. In recognition of his work in the community, he was awarded the Silicon

Valley Manufacturing Group's Lifetime Achievement Award in 2001.

Within the Japanese American community, Dr. Nishimura has dedicated his efforts to groups such as the U.S.-Japan Business Council, Japanese Western U.S. Association, Japanese American Citizen League, Asian Americans for Community Involvement, Asian Law Alliance, and the Yu-Ai Kai Senior Community Center in San Jose.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Dr. Ko Nishimura for his dedication to excellence in Silicon Valley. Through his tireless efforts, he has created a company grounded in sound principles and has dedicated his valuable time to better his community. I congratulate Dr. Koichi Nishimura on his tremendous achievements and wish him continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of National Peace Corps Day on Friday, February 28. It is a special day not only for my fellow returned Peace Corps volunteers, but also for everyone who has been touched by the Peace Corps' global reach. The Peace Corps' mission of compassion and diplomacy is more important than ever to the world population, and so I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Peace Corps on this important day.

Since 1961, Peace Corps Volunteers have strengthened the ties of friendship and understanding between the people of the United States and those of other countries. During these 42 years, the Peace Corps has become an enduring symbol of our nation's commitment to progress, opportunity, and development at the grass-roots level in the developing world.

In all, more than 168,000 Americans have responded to our nation's call to serve by becoming Peace Corps Volunteers in 135 countries, and I am proud to say I am one of them. As a young man, I served as a Volunteer in the Republic of El Salvador, building schools and health clinics, learning the language, and developing an enduring bond with the people, culture, and language. The experience instilled in me a profound connection to that country, and a dedication to improving international relations around the world and fulfilling the Peace Corps' third mandate.

Here in Congress, I am firmly committed to ensuring that future generations have the same opportunities that I did to carry out the mission of the Peace Corps. In fact, I believe that we need to dramatically expand and enhance these opportunities given how vital the Peace Corps' mission is in the current global climate. In that effort, I have cosponsored H.R. 250, a bill proposing to increase the number of Volunteers across the globe, reaffirm the Peace Corps' independence, and promote better mutual understanding between those serving and those whom they serve.

Mr. Speaker, the Peace Corps has been a part of my life for almost forty years. I have served as a Volunteer, I have supported important Peace Corps legislation, and now today I rise in honor of National Peace Corps Day. It is a day to honor all Peace Corps Volunteers, past and present, and reaffirm our commitment to helping people help themselves throughout the world.

Before I get started, let me just compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his patience in being here this evening. I appreciate your presence, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss House Resolution 56, a resolution I introduced earlier this month. This is a resolution supporting the goals of the Japanese American community and recognizing a national day of remembrance to increase the public awareness of the events surrounding the restriction, exclusion, and the internments of individuals and families during World War II.

Let us be clear about this. In 1942, more than 120,000 people were rounded up in this country, primarily from the west coast, and incarcerated. Families were torn apart. Hardworking people had to sell their businesses for pennies on the dollar. Everything these people worked so hard for evaporated overnight. I spent part of my childhood in a camp in southeast Colorado, an internment camp called Amache. House Resolution 56 also recognizes that some in the German and the Italian communities experienced deprivation during this period as well.

This resolution has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and has currently over 60 cosponsors. This year marks the 61st anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's signing of executive order 9066 on February 19, 1942; and it is the 15th anniversary of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 signed by President Reagan.

The day of remembrance is as important now as it has ever been. We are again living in perilous times. Our country is at war against terrorism. We may soon be at war with Iraq. The history of World War II demonstrated that our Constitution is tested in times of trauma, tension, and turmoil. In 1942, our political leaders failed. Therefore, today we must work to educate the public about the internment of Americans today in order to prevent similar injustices to be forced upon other Americans. Our civil liberties have not been in as much risk since World War II, and this time we as political leaders cannot fail.

Many might be aware of the comments made by one of our colleagues earlier this month on a live radio call-in show. Our colleague said that he agreed that President Roosevelt's decision to sign executive order 9066 was appropriate. He said, with the information the President had at the time, he made the best decision he could. He also stated that the incarceration of Japanese Americans was for their own safety. In addition, statements were further made that some Japanese Americans during World War II were probably intent on doing us harm just as some Arab Americans are probably intent on doing harm to us today. Such statements are inaccurate and simply wrong. As my father always said to me when I was a child, if we were put in camps for our own protection, then why were we the ones behind barbed wires and why were the machine guns pointed inwards toward us?

Furthermore, such statements from a government official are disturbing and dangerous, as they appear to endorse a policy of racial and ethnic profiling that has long been discredited. Saying that the internment of Japanese Americans was appropriate is simply unacceptable and factually inseparable.

One of the most concise rebuttals that I have read to the notion that Japanese Americans were placed in camps because they either posed a threat to national security or for their own safety comes from a law professor, Eric Muller, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in a letter dated February 7, 2003. And I would like to, Mr. Speaker, submit this letter into the record at this point without reading its full content. However, most importantly though, we must remember that the Commission on Wartime Relocation found that it was not a military necessity that the Japanese American community be rounded up from the west coast, but it was rather based upon race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure, and I will repeat, a failure of political leadership. This was probably the largest single act of racial and ethnic profiling conducted by our government in modern times.

True to the democratic process, however, our Nation has been able to look back and admit errors from its past. I can think of no greater evidence to show why the United States, with all its flaws, still is looked to worldwide as the Nation with the strongest and fairest form of government. By admitting that the government did wrong in its treatment of its citizens and legal residents who were aliens during World War II, Congress and the President reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to the principles founded in the Constitution. However, we must always be vigilant in the protection of our civil liberties, and in this time of tension as we wage a war against terrorism, we must again reaffirm our commitment to the principles in the Constitution. While national security is always a paramount concern for those of us making the laws as well as executing and interpreting the laws, we see that there are those in government who continue to pursue policies once again that target our civil liberties.

I find it disturbing that none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come out against the statements of this gentleman from North Carolina. But now more than ever, we must strive to balance our cherished civil liberties with the need to protect our homeland. Finding this balance is the enduring lesson that the Day of Remembrance resolution teaches and the lesson that cannot be lost on our Nation's policy makers and our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) who represents probably a good portion of the population not only in the mainland, the U.S., but also in Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) for his words and the experiences that

he has shared with us because I think that at times the lesson is sometimes missed, that Members from Hawaii who are of Japanese ancestry volunteered for the service with the 101st battalion and joining forces with the 442 here in the mainland.

One of the things that they learned, the Japanese Americans from Hawaii, was that when they became part of the 442 with the mainland Japanese Americans, they often wondered why they were different from the Japanese Americans from Hawaii, because they grew up on a pretty predominant and highly populated island with a lot of Japanese Americans, whereas the Americans of Japanese descent on the mainland were a little different. Their attitude and view of life was different.

It was not until some of the Members from Hawaii visited the camps, along with their colleagues whose parents were incarcerated, that they truly understood the unfairness and injustice of executive order 9066.

So we say we did not know, and so it is that House Resolution 56 is to educate and to further educate our communities in this country and also other members of this globe.

Mr. Speaker, if I may ask the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) if he would mind sharing some of his thoughts.

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

I thank the gentleman from Washington, especially for his leadership and having set aside Bainbridge Island as an educational activity and also in memory and commemorating the folks who were interned from that community.

Also I think it is appropriate to mention that there have been many stories that come to light when we talk about the day of remembrance, one of which is the story of a young man by the name of Ralph Laso from East L.A. whose friends were Japanese Americans, and when they were being incarcerated he argued this is not right; they are not enemies. He himself decided to join a family and to be incarcerated himself along with the family.

But there are many other stories that can be told if we move forward with the resolution on the Day of Remembrance.

I would like to ask the gentlewoman from the gem of the Pacific, the great territory of the Island of Guam (Ms. Bordallo), to share her thoughts.

I thank the gentlewoman. The gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) continues the great legacy of Guam, of social justice and constitutional protection.

Mr. Speaker, if I may yield to a colleague of mine from Santa Clara County, a very personable person, someone who always does not mind speaking up when things need to be addressed, a long time friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Santa Clara County, California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Santa Clara County for especially sharing the experience of her interactions with her mom and the way her mom felt when the Japanese were taken away, and then the sense that this country can make amends for the wrongs that have occurred. The signing and the final recognition of wrongdoing by this government through the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed by President Reagan when he said, upon signing he said, ``This is a great day for America.'' And when President Ford rescinded 9066, he indicated, as the gentlewoman from Santa Clara said, that it was an ordinance that should have never been there.

The whole point of the Day of Remembrance resolution is about learning, is about being persistent about the lessons that we have learned from the Japanese American experience that is really an American lesson on the Constitution and is also a lesson of the American character, where, upon reconciliation, there is a healing. There is a healing among not only those who were incarcerated, but also healing among those who were affected but maybe not necessarily incarcerated. So victims are both those who were directly victimized and those who were indirectly victimized by a bad action of our government.

Also, the further learning, when we talk about the Day of Remembrance, is that other communities get to reflect upon their own experience at that time and project into the future whether this kind of thing should happen again.

For example, a few years ago when we did this in the State of California, there was also a movement and discussion among the Italian communities

and there was a reawakening of the experiences that they experienced in World War II when Executive Order 9066 was applied, was applied to Italian Americans and German Americans. And upon reflection, they found out that they too were subjected to embarrassment, to ridicule. One of the stories that came out, because of the order by General DeWitt that no persons who are aliens in the United States may live west of highway 1, which is along the coast, forced families to separate themselves, Italian American families who were engaged in the fishing industry whose parents and grandparents had to live in tents across the road while the children lived in the homes. It was things like this they started to remember and started to chronicle among themselves and to teach their children that these kinds of actions by government is not acceptable. Upon the receipt of the apology, we found that there was healing and there was teaching going on among, not only among themselves, but among the greater population of this country.

As a teacher, I want to reemphasize the necessity for this resolution, that it continues to teach us the old maxim that those of us who do not learn from the mistakes of our past are doomed to repeat them.

So in today's current light, I just want to personally reemphasize that national security is my highest priority, is our highest priority, and I support efforts to fight our war against terrorism. But we also understand that in doing so, we must not have a failure among our political leadership, we must not fall back on more hysteria, we must not fall back to racial prejudice and discrimination and profiling.

So today, it is critically important, more than ever, to speak up against possible unjust policies that may come before this body, and we must also be able to speak to it. And it is even more important than ever to educate Americans of the Japanese American experience during World War II, as well as the experience of other groups like the Japanese Latin Americans who were extricated from Latin America, brought over here, had their documents taken away from them, and becoming individuals without a country to be used as pawns in exchange for POWs. And then the German and Italian Americans who were also victimized.

In order to learn the important lessons from our own history, I did introduce H.R. 56, the Day of Remembrance resolution here in this body. Teaching the lessons of those dark days is more important today than it ever was, remembering Executive Order 9066, signed on February 19, 1942 and then rescinded on August 10 of 1988, there are many events that flowed from those two orders and that we must continue to learn from our history.

There is a maturity in this country that I am very proud of. That maturity says we can learn from our mistakes of the past and we can also teach others of our lessons that we have learned from our past. We have learned that the Executive Order 9066 was not signed out of military necessity, was not signed out of national security, was not signed out of personal safety and security of the Japanese American, but the Commission on Wartime Internment and Relocation of Civilians said, and they concluded, that it was a result of racial prejudice, war hysteria, and the failure of political leadership.

Today, as we heard from our colleagues today, Mr. Speaker, that this leadership must not fail again. and to that end, we must continuously teach ourselves and reteach ourselves and remember the lessons of the past so that we do not repeat them again. It is a country like the United States, it is a country like this country that my father, although he was interned with the rest of his family, and although he even volunteered for the military intelligence service to teach language to the naval intelligence officers, that he held this sense of loyalty to this country, even though the families were incarcerated. And he taught us that in spite of these experiences, that we, his children, must be a good reflection of his loyalty and that we, as we grow up, must become more American than anybody else that we could run into, and that we must be 110 percent American. Part of that Americanism is to never, ever make the same mistakes again.

We learned from that experience in 1942, and we learned from the experience of 9/11, that this Constitution of this country is never tested in times of tranquility, that our Constitution is always tested in times of trauma, tragedy, terrorism, and tension, and that the very principles of our Constitution need to be, continuously need to be taught until it is ingrained in our own character, so that every decision we make as a citizen, as adults, as children, as students and as policymakers, that we will always be true to the principles of our Constitution. For it is for those reasons why people around this world fight to come to this country and be part of this country, struggle to be a part of this democracy, because they know that the protection of this Constitution is the American dream. The protection of our Constitution is that which our forefathers and our veterans have shed their blood and sacrificed their limbs and lives so that our Constitution may live and really be reflected in every action that we have, not only in this body, but by every action of every citizen of this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to bring Resolution 56, the Day of Remembrance, before this body.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 4, the Republican Welfare Reform bill that would push millions of American families deeper into a life of poverty.

I represent Santa Clara County, California, which has an unemployment rate of 8.2 percent. In a shrinking job market with an intensely competitive workforce, it makes no sense for H.R. 4 to require an increase to a 40-hour workweek. Many welfare recipients are already working two to three jobs trying to make ends meet.

Santa Clara County has one of the most diverse immigrant populations in the Nation. A third of current welfare recipients in the county lack basic education, and almost half lack vocational skills. Over 60 percent of current recipients have difficulty speaking and reading English.

While employers demand basic language training for these individuals, H.R. 4 eliminates any vocational education as a primary work activity. In effect, this change penalizes non-English speaking immigrants all across our Nation. I find it untenable that under H.R. 4, the road to self-sufficiency will not be paved with education and training.

H.R. 4 unreasonably increases work requirements and irrationally restricts training. It undermines TANF's goal of self-sufficiency and, most disturbingly, places harsh burdens on American families in a time of economic uncertainty.

It is even more distressing that on such a crucial issue, House Members will not be given a chance to offer amendments that would improve upon the bill. It is apparent that there are legitimate concerns with several provisions of H.R. 4--concerns that translate into

real consequences for our constituents. Now should not be the time to disregard the families and children who need our leadership the most.

Mr. Chairman, in substance and in process, I adamantly oppose H.R. 4 and I urge my colleagues to support a Democratic substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding, and I appreciate the introduction and the work that he is doing today and this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the state of our Union, and let us talk plainly on what is going on today. Today 8.6 million Americans are looking for work, but unable to find it. In my district of Santa Clara County alone, over 80,000 Americans are unemployed. Since President Bush took office, 1.7 million jobs have been lost.

Today too many of our Nation's schools are crumbling and are crowded. The average public school in America is 42 years old. In California alone, 87 percent of schools report a need to upgrade their buildings and other repairs that they need.

Today 40 million Americans do not have health insurance; 7.2 million of them are children. While these numbers dropped in 1999 and the year 2000, they rose by 1.4 million in 2001.

Today serious crime is up 2.1 percent, the first increase in 10 years.

Today 1.3 million more Americans are below the poverty line, the first increase since 1993. Requests for emergency shelter have increased by 19 percent, the largest annual increase in the demand for homeless shelter since 1990.

Mr. Speaker, it is thus no surprise that 67 percent of Americans are worried about the economy. While the war against terrorism remains a major priority, it cannot replace our commitment to meeting our Nation's other domestic priorities.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's economic stimulus plan does little to stimulate the economy now. Instead, it does too much to weaken our economic future, producing deficits of over $1 trillion. The centerpiece of the President's plan, the elimination of taxes on dividend income, will do little to help working families and small business, which are the backbone of the American economy. In contrast, Democrats have put forward an effective, fast-acting stimulus plan that would create 1 million jobs this year.

Mr. Speaker, while the President continues to pitch his flawed economic plan and continues to downplay the state of our economy, Democrats will continue to focus on a swift economic recovery and fight to put education and health care ahead of unfair large, huge tax cuts.

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

Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Bush took office. Congress cannot continue to callously ignore their needs. I call on the Bush administration and the Republican leadership to make the extension of unemployment benefits the first priority of the 108th Congress.