Floor Statements

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

I am pleased we are considering the fiscal year 2013 Legislative Branch appropriations bill. Chairman Crenshaw has been collegial in the development of this bill, and I appreciate his willingness to accept our input throughout the process.

The chairman's mark before us funds the legislative branch at $3.3 billion, a cut of 1 percent from fiscal year 2012, and this does not include Senate items. Even with a lower allocation, Chairman Crenshaw was able to level-fund and even increase several areas important to the operation of the legislative branch. The House, overall, is held flat at $1.225 billion. The Capitol Police will receive $360 million, a nearly 6 percent increase. The Congressional Budget Office is funded at $44.3 million, at $493,000 above the fiscal year 2012 level. And the Government Accountability Office is funded at $519.8 million--$8.5 million, or nearly 2 percent, above fiscal year 2012.

While the levels are adequate for some agencies, the allocation required the subcommittee to propose no funding to continue the rehabilitation of the Capitol dome, this Nation's great symbol of democracy. This bill's lack of funding for this critical project is a direct result of the House Republicans' unilateral decision to cast aside the funding levels agreed to under the Budget Control Act. The majority's decision required the Appropriations Committee to absorb $19 billion in reductions across all of the bills.

One issue that I continue to be concerned about is the House General Counsel's defense of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA. With the limited funding available for the House of Representatives, I think there are far more worthy uses of the precious taxpayers' resources than funding contracts for outside counsel to defend the highly controversial--and two U.S. district courts and a Federal appellate court have ruled unconstitutional--DOMA. I am concerned that the scarce resources available to the House will continue to be siphoned off in order to defend a law that continues to be found unconstitutional in the courts.

I am privileged to represent Silicon Valley, the center of technological innovation in this country. Since I joined the subcommittee, I have tried to push the House and other agencies to explore technological solutions to issues such as transparency, evacuation management, and data storage.

As you probably know, Federal agencies, including our own in the leg branch, can be slow to change and develop new technologies. This is mentioned in the report, which includes language on the issue of bulk- data downloads of legislative information, something I requested and secured language about in this bill in fiscal year 2009.

This effort is now being championed by leadership on both sides of the aisle, as it is a way to increase transparency by allowing the public to easily download and analyze government data. There are some concerns about cost and the ability to authenticate the data that the language in the report tries to address. I think, however, that these are relatively simple matters to overcome, as data is already being compiled in a format that can be easily distributed, and technology support staff has indicated that only a simple procedure is needed to make the bulk data available.

Furthermore, the GPO already employs an authentication standard for its own accessible bulk data through its FDSys, or the Federal Digital System, Web site that we could also utilize.

The House majority recently announced that it will immediately create a task force, as described in this bill, to expedite a report and implementation of public access to bulk legislative data. While I believe the time to implement this is now, I expect to be included in these efforts as ranking member of the subcommittee and a longtime advocate since before 2009.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the chairman's effort to work with my side of the aisle on issues where there was agreement. I am glad to see the congressional support Agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Research Service, are adequately funded.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hardworking professional staff that has helped to craft this bill and assisted the subcommittee in a bipartisan manner over the course of the year: Liz Dawson, Chuck Turner and Jenny Kesiah on the majority side, along with Michael Kirlin with Chairman Crenshaw's personal office, and Shalanda Young and Danny Cromer on our side of the aisle, along with Ken Takeda and Mark Nakamoto from my office.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Dicks.

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

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the amendment which seeks to cut $1.2 million from the Architect of the Capitol's Botanic Garden.

The hardest hit agency in this building is the Architect of the Capitol, which was cut by $52.5 million, or 11 percent, making it impossible to fund the Capitol dome restoration in this bill. However, the chairman found a small amount of funding to try to keep up with the maintenance of the Botanic Garden. Nevertheless, Members attack because they can get a good headline in the papers for cutting a garden.

To that effect, the author of this amendment put out a press release after offering this same amendment last year. In that press release, Representative Gosar stated:

The Botanic Garden has proven its ability to use tax

dollars in a cost-effective and efficient way.

If the Botanic Garden has indeed proven it's ability to use its tax dollars in a cost-effective manner, why is the gentleman targeting this agency?

The public should know that after this amendment, we still won't finish the dome restoration. We still have to rehabilitate the Cannon House Office Building. The gentleman from Arizona wants to make sure the Botanic Garden is added to the scrap heap of buildings that we are unable to keep in working condition.

Our constituents sent us here to do real work and look for real solutions to the deficit, not to make political points by attacking institutions like the Botanic Garden, which was established back in 1820. As a Member of Congress, we have a responsibility to ensure that our Nation's heritage is kept intact for future generations by both tackling unnecessary spending, but also by making investments in our future.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.

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

I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the funding level of the Congressional Research Service by $878,000, returning it to the 2012 level.

He said that he's not doing anything to harm it because it's the same level as last year, but everybody knows that every year the cost of living, the cost of doing services, increases. So a flat, across-the- board push ahead kind of a budget is really a decrease. It's subtle, but it's still a decrease. I just want to let the gentleman know that that's the fact.

The other fact is the CRS is a research arm of the congressional Members. It's a research arm that we're able to use to do the kind of research that our folks really depend upon and is nonpartisan, is not biased in one way or another, and they are very professional in doing so. If we're expected to do the right kind of work for our constituency and then also for our country on issues, then we should be able to expect good work from our CRS.

In fact, Chairman Crenshaw and his staff should be commended for recognizing the funding shortfall that CRS has incurred in recent years.

As other congressional staff can attest, CRS is really essential to help Members to be able to perform the duties by this kind of a nonpartisan research and policy analysis. I believe this divided Congress should take more advantage of this unbiased resource and not reduce its capacity. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues do so also.

I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the Washington Times, June 6, 2012]

Congressional Staffers, Public Shortchanged by High Turnover, Low Pay

(By Luke Rosiak)

The most powerful nation on Earth is run largely by 24-

year-olds.

High turnover and lack of experience in congressional

offices are leaving staffs increasingly without policy and

institutional knowledge, a Washington Times analysis of a

decade of House and Senate personnel records shows--leaving a

vacuum that usually is filled by lobbyists.

Most Senate staffers have worked in the Capitol for less

than three years. For most, it is their first job ever. In

House offices, one-third of staffers are in their first year,

while only 1 in 3 has worked there for five years or more.

Among the aides who work on powerful committees where the

nation's legislation takes shape, resumes are a little

longer: Half have four years of experience.

When Americans wonder why Congress can't seem to get

anything done, this could be a clue. It's also a sharp

difference from the average government employee: Unlike many

state and federal workers with comfortable salaries, pensions

and seemingly endless tenures, those in the halls of power

are more likely to be inexperienced and overworked.

Low pay for high-stress jobs with less-than-stellar

prospects for advancement takes a toll on institutional

memory and expertise.

While senators make $174,000, staff assistants and

legislative correspondents--by far the most common positions

in the Senate--have median pay of $30,000 and $35,000,

respectively, significantly less than Senate janitors and a

fairly low salary for college graduates in a city as

expensive as Washington.

Historical pay records were transcribed from book form by

the website Legistorm.

The size of committee and members' staffs have remained the

same over the past decade, and salaries have often not risen

with inflation--or at all.

The average legislative counsel in the House made $56,000

last year, less than in 2007. While pay for parking-lot

attendants in the House increased from $26,000 to $49,000 in

the past decade, pay for staff assistants, who make up the

bulk of the House's workforce, rose from $26,000 to $30,000.

That puts them in the bottom fifth of the region's college-

educated workforce.

It means that young workers have proximity to enormous

power while surviving on a meager budget--dual forces that

come together to push congressional staffers through the

``revolving door'' to highly paid K Street lobbyists. In the

revolving door, former congressional staff and members use

their personal connections and insider knowledge to attempt

to pull the levers of power on behalf of a paying client. A

former congressional staffer is among the most valuable

assets a company desiring legislative change can buy.

But it also means that staffers are often forced to rely on

lobbyists while they still work for Congress, sometimes for

the purest of reasons: While lobbyists with decades of

experience in energy policy or other arcane areas are common,

such depth of experience is nearly nonexistent on Capitol

Hill. Though 10 years of experience in a home-state office,

which handles constituent services and other less stressful

concerns, is not rare, a person with a decade of experience

is few and far between in Washington.

Without a foundation

``Who are congressional staff going to turn to?'' asked

Daniel Schuman, a former Congressional Research Service (CRS)

lawyer who now studies policy at the nonpartisan Sunlight

Foundation. ``The experienced staff aren't there. But

lobbyists and think tanks are beating down the door: `Here's

the legislation, here are the research materials and I've got

the co-sponsors lined up.' ''

As policy questions more frequently hinge on the nuances of

technical matters, members of Congress are operating without

the researchers and topical experts on which they have relied

to cast informed votes.

With the shuttering of the Office of Technology Assessment,

a 200-member congressional support agency that closed in 1995

under House Speaker Newt Gingrich, members who are largely

lawyers and rhetorical masters are asked to differentiate

between competing proposals that only scientists might be

able to evaluate effectively.

The technology office researched and summarized scientific

and technological matters, ranging from acid rain to wireless

phones, for members who, with an average age of 64 in the

Senate and 58 in the House, are legislating on matters such

as the Internet, which most spent much of their lives

without. Typical of its work products was a decades-ago

warning on the effect of technology on copyright law, a

question lawmakers contentiously grappled with this year.

``It helped us to . . . better oversee the science and

technology programs within the federal establishment,'' said

then-Rep. Amo Houghton, New York Republican, who served nine

terms before retiring in 2005. The role of CRS, which

provides research on topics beyond science and technology,

has also been rolled back.

Brian Darling, a former Senate staffer who is now senior

fellow for government studies at the conservative Heritage

Foundation, said he strongly supports smaller government, but

sometimes symbolic cuts can backfire.

``Cutbacks at CRS to me don't make a lot of sense, with

their institutional knowledge. They put out a great

nonpartisan work product. When crafting the legislative

branch appropriation bill, members of Congress are trying to

show they want to cut spending, but there can be

repercussions,'' he said.

Though it seems paradoxical, a lack of knowledge and

resources by congressional staffers can make for waste, Mr.

Schuman said, citing an inability to conduct oversight,

agency regulations that are left unchallenged, loopholes

slipped into laws that are giveaways for special interests

and poorly implemented programs.

He pointed to the creation of the Department of Homeland

Security.

``The department is a mess because people didn't understand

what would happen when you merge so many different agencies

with different cultures,'' he said. ``It is bloated,

inefficient and maladroit.''

A failure by Congress to ``understand the laws it passed''

and ``innovations in the private sector'' also led ultimately

to a huge crunch and the massive bailouts with taxpayer

money, he said.

Up and out

Consider the class of 2005. Of 186 Senate staff assistants

who started that year, 82 percent had left by last year, 13

percent were still in the same position and the remaining 5

percent have moved up a notch. Of Senate legislative

correspondents starting the same year, 83 percent have

departed and the rest moved up.

In the House, of 105 people who started as legislative

assistants, four made chief of staff in six years. Seven out

of 10 left, and almost all the rest got other promotions.

As that group has come or gone, multiple other layers of

congressional staff have been churned through. Among staffers

who moved on from Congress in early 2010, three-quarters of

departing staff assistants and legislative correspondents had

two years or less under their belts.

Even policy wonks in the most nonpolitical of positions,

``professional staff'' in the Senate committees where most

legislative work gets done, last only five years on average,

from the time they got their first job in Congress to the

time they found a new employer.

``When people get married or have kids, around 35, you

either jump up in pay by $50,000 or you get out of there

because you can't make it anymore. Making that money for 10

years puts people behind for the rest of their lives in terms

of retirement,'' Mr. Schuman said.

Most college-educated workers in the D.C. area earn $81,000

or more, with an average salary of $93,850, according to the

U.S. Census Bureau. For college grads under 30, the median

salary is $42,000.

Some 300 staffers who started in 2005 or 2006 are already

registered federal lobbyists, a Times review of records

indicated. They are preparing detailed policy papers, and in

some cases drafting proposed legislation, for their former

colleagues, and they have the time and resources to do a more

thorough job than those still there--though one that has a

slant in favor of their new, more generous employer.

``Staff are incredibly vulnerable to this. They're trying

to do a very complicated job with limited resources,'' Mr.

Schuman said.

As the federal government has grown dramatically over the

decades, the Congress in charge of overseeing it has stayed

the same or shrunk. A recent 10 percent reduction to

congressional offices' budgets is the latest major reduction.

``When times are going bad, lawmakers say we have to cut

Congress. But when things are going great, no one says it's

time to hire more staff. You get the Congress you pay for,''

Mr. Schuman said.

Mr. Darling acknowledged that salaries made it nearly

impossible for Congress to have many workers with significant

experience. But he likened the limitation to ``term limits''

for staff. He decried the deferred compensation system that

inspires some Hill staffers to make next to nothing for a few

years so they can cash in big as a lobbyist afterward, but

praised the idealists who toiled there.

``There's a perception that government workers are

underworked, and that's far from the case in Congress. In

fact, they tend to burn out and leave for higher-paid

positions,'' said Mr. Darling. Executive-branch bureaucrats

could take a lesson from their grueling workload, he added.

``The way Congress runs is the way the federal government

should run.''

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you for yielding.

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

So I would urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment attempts to cut $1 million in the bill for the Open World program, and I want to emphasize the word ``attempts.'' I also want to emphasize that it's not my intent to support the idea of shutting down the program; it's the issue of the process of the gentleman's resolution.

Now, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the official bookkeeper of Congress, this amendment would net to zero. They believe that the organization would need at least $1 million to ramp down the organization. That's the CBO's impartial analysis. That means that this amendment has no effect. Maybe the gentleman did not know that, or maybe he disagrees with the Congressional Budget Office, but the Congressional Budget Office is a fine arbiter, and it has concluded that this amendment would not save one red cent. Again, this is a process of zeroing out, and you need that money.

But let me emphasize again that it is not my intent to support the idea of closing down the program at all; it is just my comment on the process.

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

As a member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, I would like to thank our chairman, Mr. Wolf, Chairman Aderholt and my friend, Judge Carter, for speaking on this important issue today.

The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, is a bipartisan issue and a bipartisan effort to address it.

California jurisdictions already receive 10 percent of the total cost of reimbursement because of the drastic cuts this program has received over the past few years. The recent funding solicitation change that would stop reimbursements for all ``unknowns'' by the Department of Justice has the potential to worsen the situation. It will devastate county budgets at a time when they are already feeling the pinch of State and Federal cuts.

As a former member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, I know firsthand how terrible the impact of this change will be on our counties. It is undisputed that the vast majority of the undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. are unknown to the Federal Government.

Therefore, the unilateral decision by DOJ to only provide SCAAP funds for those criminal undocumented that are known to the Federal Government is deeply troubling and is a back-door attempt to kill the SCAAP program.

As my friend, Judge Carter, has noted, counties in particular will be hit by this change the hardest because of the inability for ICE agents to be present at all times to process unknowns in county jails. In State jails, prisoners are held longer and ICE agents are on staff, so there is ample time and opportunity for unknowns to be processed in the system.

If the Department would like to make this change, it has to provide clear, timely, and accessible methods to the counties to process unknowns properly, something which they clearly do not have now.

I look forward to working with the appropriate Agencies and subcommittees to ensure that we can find an equitable solution to this issue. I appreciate both Chairman Wolf and Chairman Aderholt's time on this.

Until then, however, I will be writing a letter with my good friend, Judge Carter, to the Department of Justice to delay this change until the appropriate time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan

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

I would like to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and members of the subcommittee for recognizing the importance of supporting a path for legal immigrants to become citizens. The United States has a special interest in and draws unique benefits from extending citizenship to immigrants who have met legal residence, character, English, and civics knowledge requirements. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to encourage U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to keep the naturalization application fee affordable so that we don't prevent legal immigrants from pursuing citizenship simply because they cannot afford it. But I am concerned that the way the bill approaches funding for immigrant integration grant programs could undermine this effort to keep fees affordable.

Integrating immigrants strengthens their commitment to the United States and makes us a stronger and more prosperous democracy. Integration grants have proven to be a cost-effective means of encouraging immigrants to integrate. It is unfair that the cost and limited availability of citizenship education and legal assistance is the reason that many of the more than 8 million legal and taxpaying permanent residents are unable to naturalize, despite their eligibility to do so.

This bill only allows funding of immigrant integration programs through fees collected, departing from past practice of providing discretionary funding to support the program. This approach will require fee hikes that push naturalization further out of the reach of people who already struggle to pay costs of up to thousands of dollars for the current application, attorneys' fees, required document collection and preparation for the naturalization examination, defeating the subcommittee's own stated goal of keeping fees affordable.

The future viability of the immigrant integration grant program may depend on Congress's willingness to reinstate discretionary funding to support it, as the Senate has proposed to do in its version of the bill. I support the Senate's approach to provide direct discretionary funding in the amount of $5 million, regardless of the funds deposited into the immigration examination fee account, and I hope that as we move forward to conference with the Senate, we can adopt that approach.

It is in this country's interest to support our future U.S. citizens, and so it is in all of our interest to get support for immigrant integration grants right.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 2012, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H. Res. 568, a resolution expressing a sense of the House regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Despite agreeing with the overall intent of the resolution, I was compelled to vote ``present'' due to concerns about how the resolution was drafted.

I wholeheartedly believe that stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons is necessary to ensure the peaceful security of our Nation, and the world. Accordingly, I am gravely concerned about the prospect of a nuclear weapon-armed Government of Iran, which has vehemently antagonized its regional neighbors, particularly our ally Israel. H. Res. 568 expresses this concern and supports a permanent agreement with Iran that assures its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. I also agree with the support expressed in H. Res. 568 for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, many of whom have suffered greatly in pursuit of these noble causes.

Unfortunately, H. Res. 568 employs dangerously ambiguous language when reframing U.S. policy to prevent this potential nuclear weapon threat. The resolution references nuclear weapons ``capability'' as a new basis for U.S. policy. A loose interpretation of the undefined ``capability'' term, combined with the resolution's strong rejection of any policy--U.S. or otherwise--that does not prevent a nuclear weapons- capable Iran, can easily accelerate the rhetoric for military action against Iran. Furthermore, the resolution's policy restrictions can only hinder the upcoming P5+1 negotiations with Iran. For these reasons, I voted ``present'' on H. Res. 568.

Mr. Speaker, on May 8, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for several of the rollcall votes on amendments to H.R. 5326 held that day. Had I been present I would have voted:

``no'' on rollcall 202, the Peters Amendment to increase funding for the International Trade Administration and US Trade Representative by decreasing funding for NASA's Cross Agency Support account. While I support fully funding the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center in FY 13, I believe it is unwise to do that by taking funding away from NASA.

``no'' on rollcall 203, the Broun Amendment (#1), which unwisely seeks to make dramatic cuts to numerous accounts in the bill.

``no'' on rollcall 204, the McClintock Amendment, which would make an excessive 59 percent cut to the International Trade Administration at a time when we are trying to grow US exports.

``no'' on rollcall 205, the Michaud Amendment to increase funds for Economic Development Assistance Programs by taking funds from the Bureau of Census, Periodic Censuses and Programs. While I support increasing EDA funding, if there is any lesson to be learned from the last decadal census it is that short-changing the program in the early years of a census cycle leads to much greater costs in later years.

``no'' on rollcall 206, the Scalise Amendment, which seeks to cut Economic Development Administration funding at a time when we need to invest in growing our economy.

``no'' on rollcall 207, the Pompeo Amendment, which would go even further than the Scalise and completely eliminate Economic Development Assistance programs and grants.

``no'' on rollcall 208, the Quayle Amendment, which unwisely seeks to cut funding for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia, which will help us regain our edge so that we ``Make it in America'' again.

``no'' on rollcall 209, the Harris Amendment, which continues Republican efforts to keep their heads in the sand on climate change by cutting funding for a NOAA climate website.

``no'' on rollcall 210, the Grimm Amendment, which sought to increase funding for Regional Information Sharing Activities at DOJ by cutting funding for NOAA. While I support RISS, I do not believe this is an appropriate offset for that funding.

``no'' on rollcall 211, the Broun Amendment (#2), a wrong-headed attempt to cut funding to recover Pacific salmon.

``no'' on rollcall 212, the Runyan Amendment. While I support increasing funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which is a worthy program, the offset used is ill advised, particularly because it would impact the Civil Rights Enforcement Office of the DOJ.

``no'' on rollcall 213, the Davis (IL) Amendment. While I support the Second Chance Act grants that this amendment sought to increase funding for, I am greatly concerned that the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program is already woefully underfunded and cannot support further reducing SCAAP funding for an offset.

``no'' on rollcall 214, the Grimm Amendment. While I support the COPS program that this amendment sought to increase funding for, I cannot support the use of NASA as an offset.

``no'' on rollcall 215, the Huizenga Amendment, which seeks to allow the outsourcing of federal correctional worker jobs.

``no'' on rollcall 216, the Johnson (GA) Amendment. While I support the EEOC and the purpose that this amendment sought to increase funding for, I cannot support the use of NASA as an offset.

``no'' on rollcall 217, the Flake Amendment, which sought to make drastic cuts to the National Science Foundation.

``no'' on rollcall 218, the Westmoreland Amendment, which sought to dramatically reduce funding for the Legal Services Corporation at a time when more and more Americans facing hard times rely upon the services it provides.

``no'' on rollcall 219, the Austin Scott (GA) Amendment, which went even further than the Westmoreland Amendment and sought to eliminate

Mr. Speaker, as the proud representative of one of the most ethnically diverse congressional districts in the nation, I am honored to join my friends in the Jewish American community in celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month, and to recognize the many contributions Jewish Americans have made to our country.

Jewish immigrants, like the immigrants from many other countries throughout our nation's history, came to our country for the promise of freedom, tolerance and socioeconomic mobility. For more than 350 years, Jewish Americans have enriched American society by placing a strong value on education, community and culture.

Through their entrepreneurial spirit and innovations in technology, the Jewish American community has contributed to the economic vitality of our nation and particularly of my district, leading the way in renewable energy development and high technology. Without question, Silicon Valley would not be the hub of innovation it is today without the many significant contributions of Jewish Americans.

The Jewish American community in my district serves as a shining example of what makes Silicon Valley a global leader. I am privileged to serve a district that celebrates its diversity, and proud to represent a community of Jewish Americans whose contributions in the fields of technology, business, education, and many others, have served as a testament to America's promise as a land of opportunity and of dreams.

Mr. Speaker, on January 14, 2012, the Honorable Ma Ying- jeou was elected to a second term as the President of the Republic of China. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate President Ma and the people of Taiwan on the strength and vitality of their commitment to democracy.

For over a half century, Taiwan has been a strong, democratic ally to the United States in the Asia-Pacific region and across the world. Our peoples have enjoyed a close friendship forged by our political, economic, cultural, and strategic ties. Taiwan's sustained economic and sociopolitical development has set an admirable exemplar that many countries seek to emulate. Taiwan's global scope and leadership has transcended many sectors, particularly healthcare. Taiwan boasts one of the most innovative and efficient healthcare systems in the world. As an advocate for building mutual relationships, I am confident that the U.S.-Taiwan bond will only become stronger with Taiwan's inclusion in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. Over 400,000 Taiwanese citizens visit the United States each year; this could increase by 20 to 30 percent once Taiwan gains admission into the U.S. Visa Waiver Program.

As Chair Emeritus of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I know first-hand the importance this partnership holds for our Taiwanese-American communities. According to the 2010 Census there are approximately 230,000 Taiwanese-Americans currently living here in the United States, many of whom live in my home district in Silicon Valley. Taiwanese-Americans are frequently highly educated contributors to the vibrancy of the U.S. economy, and this is reflected in their sectors of employment. The majority of Taiwanese-Americans work in management, business, finance, information technology, sciences and engineering. As a representative of ethnically diverse Silicon Valley, I proudly join Taiwanese-Americans and the technology industry in celebrating the growing, collaborative economic relationship between the United States and Taiwanese companies.

Many of these advances are attributed to President Ma's strong and visionary leadership during his first term as president. I commend President Ma and his Administration for their tremendous strides in working toward stability amidst international economic uncertainty and in strengthening cross-strait relations with the People's Republic of China. President Ma's reelection is a testament to the people of Taiwan supporting his efforts and leadership. In fact, Taiwan's presidential race elicited unprecedented grassroots organization, from everyday citizens to business executives, to rally support for President Ma's reelection. The Taiwanese people have truly spoken, and their approval of President Ma's rapprochement policy with the People's Republic of China is an encouraging beacon from which we can all learn from.

Once again, I congratulate President Ma Ying-jeou and the people of the Republic of China for a highly celebrated election. I look forward to my upcoming visit to Taiwan and meeting with President Ma. It will be a pleasure to continue working with President Ma and his Administration to strengthen our U.S.-Taiwan partnership and ensure peace and stability for our peoples, the region, and the world.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this session of Congress represents a unique opportunity in history to accomplish something great. The pending sequester, the overwhelming number of tax provisions set to expire, and the threat of growing debt must force us to make decisions. Inaction is not an option.

The amendment before us today is more than just a set of numbers. It's a pathway forward. It's a solution. The Progressive Caucus developed the solution by listening to what the American people want. They want shared responsibility and prosperity. They want us to protect the social safety network. They want basic fairness. They want fiscal sanity. That is exactly what this plan provides.

First and foremost, we focused our attention where it is needed the most: job creation. This proposal is estimated to create 3.3 million jobs over the next 2 years because it uses every single tool in the Federal Government's arsenal: One, direct and local hire programs; two, targeted tax incentives; and, three, widespread domestic investments.

Instead, the Republican budget relies on trickle-down voodoo economics that haven't worked before and won't work now. Projections show that the GOP plan would kill 4.1 million jobs in the next 2 years alone.

Americans deserve proven solutions, a growing economy, and financial security for themselves and their loved ones. The Progressive Caucus is listening: We invest in America now and lay the foundation for a globally competitive future.

We need to invest in human capital, education, first-class infrastructure, and cutting edge technologies. This is the kind of thinking that built a successful economy in the past, and it is the real roadmap to prosperity.

Secondly, the Progressive Caucus believes that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are not up for negotiation. The Republican budget treats our seniors and working families like lab rats, subjecting these important programs to grand conservative experiments.

What the Budget for All proves is that we don't need to put these essential programs on the chopping block. Their assumptions are wrong, and we can do better.

As the primary author of the Budget for All, I'm proud of the transparency of what we put before the American people. What we've released to the public and what we put online is very clear about the policies we stand for and those we oppose.

Instead, the Republican budget focuses so much on what they don't like about the President's proposal that we are left with little details about how they feel they achieve their end goals. It is so scarce on details that The Washington Post referred to it as ``dangerous and intentionally vague.''

It claims lower taxes for all, but there are no real details on how to get there. It claims substantial deficit reduction, but assumes trillions in lost revenue will magically return.

The Republican plan hides the real substance behind their proposals because that is the truly hard part of governing. Being honest with the American people isn't easy, but in these difficult times it's the very least that we can do.

I urge my colleagues to support honest and responsible solutions.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment,

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield the gentlelady 15 additional seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, tragic events in the last few weeks in Afghanistan have underscored the messages I have continuously emphasized in Congress in the past. As long as we pursue military solutions to the unrest in Afghanistan while foregoing attention to economic, political and social solutions, security will remain elusive. Our military service officers are heroes, but we are failing them as we continue to pursue a strategy that lacks proper understanding of both the social constructs of the Afghan people and the meaning of peace.

It is our duty as Americans to give the people of Afghanistan what they want, not what we want to give them. Afghan citizens want peace, they want security and they want the right to self-determination based on their own social, cultural, and religious values. Afghans do not want to be at the constant risk of night raids and air strikes that could kill their friends and neighbors, checkpoints and security barriers that keep their families apart, or incidences of violence which sometimes involve International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops and contract security forces. And they certainly do not want foreigners burning the Holy Quran, which all Muslims hold as dear as life, or have their very own safety compromised by foreign forces who should be there to protect them.

As members of the United States government, we also owe the American people what they want, and not what we want to give them. In this regard, we are failing our own people as they face the difficulties brought on by the global economic crisis while lives, money and resources are being wasted abroad in an effort which has, sadly, led to resentment and the incitement of hatred against America.

Last week, the Department of Defense Comptroller confirmed one of our worst kept secrets--that the deployment of one soldier to Afghanistan for one year costs $850,000. We currently have 90,000 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan. Additionally, we have 1,142 U.S. civilians from the State Department and other non-defense agencies currently in Afghanistan, and each civilian costs taxpayers $570,000 per year, according to the most recent estimate from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Furthermore, in 2011, our taxpayers spent $11.2 billion to pay, train and equip Afghanistan's security force. Over the past ten years the U.S. has spent more than $550 billion in Afghanistan alone, or about $1 billion per week.

A new Washington Post poll finds that sixty percent of American voters feel that the war was not worth fighting. It also finds that, for the first time, Republican voters are ``evenly split'' on the wisdom of continuing this war. This is what America wants, and it is our duty to respect that.

Last year, as co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus's Peace and Security Taskforce, I urged President Obama to bring about the swift, safe and responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors from Afghanistan. We asked for plans for a significant drawdown, beginning no later than July of this year.

We welcome the news that Congress's calls to the White House have finally been heard. On February 1, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that while American troops will still leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014, plans were laid out so that by late next year, U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan will switch from a combat role to a training mission. The Administration may further want to take heed of the same Washington Post poll which revealed that fifty-four percent of all voters want the U.S. to withdraw troops even faster than the President's 2014 timetable.

As we look forward to our future role as global leaders of peace and security, we must not forget our past and present mistakes. Our international affairs priorities must be anchored in the recognition that our national security is inextricably linked to our economic vitality. We cannot fight for global security but ignore the economic security of the people of America. We need a budget that reflects the fact that diplomacy and development prevents wars, because smart security can lead to global stability at a fraction of the cost, freeing up funds to engage in nation building here at home. As we look forward to the question of how to handle future matters in the Middle East, these are the priorities that we simply cannot afford to forget.

Mr. Speaker, Peace and Security are created through a well- functioning government, a fair and prosperous economy, and a harmonious society. We have failed the Afghan people on each and every one of these fronts, and in so doing, we, we have also failed ourselves and our constituents. As we reflect on the recent military tragedies in Afghanistan, we must ask ourselves how many more apologies we can afford to offer.

Mr. Speaker, February 19, 2012 marks the seventieth anniversary of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's signing of Executive Order (EO) 9066, authorizing the relocation of 120,000 men, women, and children of Japanese descent living in the United States--my family included--to internment camps. As I look back on the past seventy years, I cannot help but reflect on the bravery and courage of three men whose intertwined stories shaped my inherent values and life's work: Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi, and my own father, Giichi ``Byron'' Honda.

At the outbreak of World War II, Gordon was studying at the University of Washington. Fred tried to enlist in the U.S. National Guard and U.S. Coast Guard to serve his country but was turned away because of his Japanese ancestry. My father was pursuing his dream of becoming a doctor by working as a truck driver in order to pay his way through community college.

All three men's lives and dreams were shattered when President Roosevelt signed EO 9066. Once the West Coast was declared as a military zone, my family and I were hauled to the Merced Assembly Center and then incarcerated at the Amache internment camp in southeast Colorado. While my family lived behind barbed wire, my father was recruited into the U.S. Military Intelligence Service at the University of Colorado Boulder, where he taught Japanese.

Although this gross injustice propelled my family into years of separation, it would also unknowingly propel both Fred and Gordon--two ordinary men--to become preeminent Asian American and Pacific Islander civil rights leaders. Believing that the executive order violated the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, Fred refused to comply with it, was subsequently arrested, convicted and sent to an internment camp in Utah. Gordon was also arrested, convicted and sent to an Arizona prison.

In the face of these challenges, Fred and Gordon still maintained their core belief in the American justice system and equality. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, both appealed their cases all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court, however, ruled unfavorably to both, declaring the incarceration a ``military necessity,'' justified by the Army's claims.

Although Fred and Gordon's fights to overturn their convictions took more than four decades, American justice and equality did ultimately prevail. Fred's conviction was overturned in 1983, and Gordon's in 1987. Fred and Gordon's resistance paved the way for the eventual passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which granted reparations to Japanese Americans and was a fundamental step in acknowledging the injustices of the government's actions.

Mr. Speaker, on today's Day of Remembrance, exactly seventy years after the signing of EO 9066, it is important to remember and share the lessons of those who bravely stood their ground against discrimination. Fred and Gordon's stories remind us that all individuals have the potential to do extraordinary deeds in extraordinary times by simply standing up for what is right, even if it feels like all forces are against us. Although life in Amache taught me that being Japanese in America was bad, my father reminded me that I should never feel ashamed of my heritage and that I should continue to work hard in order to be recognized.

It is important to revisit the lessons that Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi, my father, and other civil rights heroes have taught us because their stories are ones that transcend race, class and politics. They taught us that we must face discrimination and xenophobia with strong resolution or else we are vulnerable to repeating the egregious mistakes of the past.

Discrimination is always lurking just below the surface and often reveals itself in trying times, but as all three men showed, ordinary Americans are capable of achieving extraordinary feats for themselves, their families, and their country. In the end, I learned that the highest respect and honor we can bestow upon those who struggled for a more perfect union is to continue their legacies, apply their unwavering principles, and make sure history, as in the case of EO 9066, does not repeat itself.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Representative Zoe Lofgren to honor Mr. Jimi Yamaichi. On November 3, 2011, Mr. Yamaichi was awarded the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Rays, from the Government of Japan. Mr. Yamaichi is being recognized for his contributions to Japan-U.S. relations arising from decades of community involvement. On February 24, 2012, the Consul General of Japan in San Francisco, Hiroshi Inomata, will present Mr. Yamaichi with this distinguished award.

Mr. Yamaichi grew up on his family owned farm in San Jose, California during the Great Depression era. As a young student, Mr. Yamaichi dreamed of becoming a carpenter. However, racism within the carpenter's union and the outbreak of World War II postponed that dream. With the signing of Executive Order 9066, Mr. Yamaichi and his family were forcibly removed from their home to the Pomona Assembly Center, then to the internment camps at Heart Mountain in Wyoming and at Tule Lake in California. While at Tule Lake, he oversaw building projects as the camp construction manager. After the war ended, Mr. Yamaichi doggedly pursued union membership, which he was finally granted.

With his experience in the internment camps and as a carpenter, Mr. Yamaichi has turned his attention towards memorializing the experiences of Japanese Americans. Over the years, he has served on a variety of boards and committees in San Jose's Japantown. Currently, he leads the effort to restore the Tule Lake Relocation Center in addition to leading biannual pilgrimages to the internment camp. Through the restoration and pilgrimages to Tule Lake, Mr. Yamaichi shares the harsh reality of life in internment. Driven by the desire to tell the story of Japanese Americans, Mr. Yamaichi became a charter member of the Japanese American Museum of San Jose. As the curator of the Japanese American Museum of San Jose, he has managed projects and played a key role in the construction of the new museum. One of the key exhibits is the replica of the camp barracks, complete with artifacts found at Tule Lake.

Mr. Yamaichi's lifelong work to preserve Japanese American history was recognized by the Government of Japan in the 2011 Conferment of Decoration. Mr. Yamaichi is receiving the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Rays, for his work in Santa Clara County.

Mr. Speaker, we commend Mr. Jimi Yamaichi for his years of dedication and commitment to Santa Clara County and the Japanese American community. His contributions ensure that Japanese Americans' experiences of persecution will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently not recorded on rollcall 33, on the Conference Report on H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization Act. I intended to vote ``no'' on the conference report because of the provisions it contains that would be devastating to workers' rights and labor relations. These provisions take away the right for a secret ballot and codify minority-rule elections, as well as allowing for wholesale decertification of a whole host of unions.

I do not believe that a conference report on an aviation safety bill is the place to rewrite longstanding labor laws and impose unrelated and controversial labor provisions that will ultimately serve to harm both airline and railroad workers, and so I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall 33.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the courage and unwavering dedication of Staff Sergeant William ``Denny'' Weisgerber, United States Marine Corps (retired). Weisgerber is a true hero and symbol of pride for the Bay Area.

Denny Weisgerber served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from February 1949 to May 1953. Serving as the assistant platoon Sergeant, Weisgerber saw combat action in Korea on Bunker Hill, Reno, Vegas, Seattle and Warsaw Outposts, in front of the

main line of resistance known as the ``Hook,'' on the Jamestown Line. It was during an assault on the outpost Seattle, in front of the Jamestown Line, when Weisgerber was severely wounded. He refused medical treatment and courageously moved forward to aid a wounded comrade, fearlessly exposing himself to intense hostile fire. His wounds later resulted in the loss of his leg. In recognition of his bravery and valor, he was awarded the Navy Cross and Purple Heart for his actions that night. During this time, Weisgerber was on track to receive a promotion. Unfortunately, he was medically discharged due to the wounds he received at outpost Seattle, thus making him ineligible for promotion.

Weisgerber returned to the United States to start his family with his high school sweetheart and wife Marianne, eventually settling in the Bay Area. Despite being medically discharged and now age 81, Weisgerber has remained committed to the Marine Corps and continues to serve and exhibit true volunteerism. He helps young Marines adjust to civilian life, find jobs, and obtain military benefits once they leave the service. Weisgerber continues to counsel generations of amputee veterans and other returning veterans at the Palo Alto Veterans Hospital and the Menlo Park Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Center. His own story of perseverance is an inspiration to wounded veterans and to the entire Marine Corps. In my district, the Marines of the 4th Marine Logistic Group, Marine Forces Reserve always speak highly of Weisgerber, often praising him as the epitome of the Marine Corps. He is continuously present, providing a helping hand to the Marines in every possible way.

Weisgerber's commitment extends to the broader community as well. He served three terms as the Mayor of Milpitas and currently sits on numerous boards and commissions in the Bay Area on issues ranging from transportation to veterans' affairs. His accomplishments in the community are noteworthy, and they speak to a lifetime spent dutifully serving others.

William D. Weisgerber has worked tirelessly for the past 58 years as a ``retired'' Marine and has asked for nothing in return. However, grateful Marines touched by Weisgerber's unwavering service have campaigned on his behalf to see that he is deservedly recognized. On December 5, 2011, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, in accordance with section 1563 of title 10, U.S. Code, approved the honorary promotion of Staff Sergeant Weisgerber to Gunnery Sergeant due to his selfless dedication to our country.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, January 28th 2012, Staff Sergeant William ``Denny'' Weisgerber will finally receive the promotion that he has deserved for six decades. I proudly commend Gunnery Sergeant William ``Denny'' Weisgerber for his commitment and noble service to our Marines, veterans, community and country. His daily sacrifice to our community and the Marine Corps is extraordinary.

Mr. Speaker, today Congress is considering a bill to keep the government running for the remainder of the fiscal year. That is our basic responsibility as Members of Congress. I am pleased that we are operating under regular order in considering the conference report. The American people want us to work together. This package is a reflection of what we can accomplish through hard work and compromise.

The Legislative Branch appropriations bill will provide the Congress and its agencies with $4.3 billion to work with, which is a reduction from the previous fiscal year. I have hope for more funds for the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office, which have experienced increased demands from Members during these budget-focused times. However, I am glad we restored funding for agencies that were the targets of the most extreme cuts proposed in the original House bill.

This conference report restores $18 million to the Government Printing Office, $12 million to the Library of Congress, averting layoffs the original House bill would have caused. Capitol Police funding remains at last year's level of $340.1 million. It is the only legislative branch agency that was not cut from last year's level.

This conference report includes language requiring the Chief Administrative Officer and the Sergeant At Arms to take on more of a leadership role in setting policies regarding district office security, including helping Members renegotiate leases to secure more favorable terms on security requirements. This bill provides the basic level of funding for the leg branch of the government and should be sufficient to keep current services in place. That is why I support this bill and ask my colleagues to do the same.

I want to thank Chairman Crenshaw and his staff for the collegial working relationship throughout this process: Liz Dawson, the majority clerk; Chuck Turner and Jennifer Kisiah from the subcommittee; and Michael Kirlin from his personal staff. I also want to thank my staff, Shalanda Young, the minority clerk, and Mark Nakamoto from my personal staff.

Mr. Speaker, while not perfect, this bill is the result of a lot of hard work and compromise. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3589.

Mr. Speaker, December 5 marked the 84th birthday of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. I would like to take this opportunity to send warm wishes to him and to the people of Thailand as they commemorate his 65-year reign as King of Thailand.

The world's longest-serving monarch, His Majesty King Bhumibol ascended to the throne on June 9, 1946. Throughout his reign, King Bhumibol has both witnessed and been instrumental in the transformation of Thailand into a prosperous, modern state, with a strong agricultural sector and modernized manufacturing and services industries. His contribution to such progress and the devotion and compassion he has for the Thai people has earned King Bhumibol the love and respect of his people as well as worldwide recognition for his leadership.

As a leading advocate for sustainable, human-centered development, King Bhumibol has worked hard to address the critical development issues facing his country and his people, applying scientific knowledge and initiating development projects that take into account the topography, traditions and culture of a region. Focusing on agricultural development, King Bhumibol has overseen thousands of development projects undertaken to improve the food security and welfare of the Thai people. His concern about the sustainability of Thailand's natural resources has spurred several water resource and reforestation projects throughout the country.

I would also like to celebrate the 178-year diplomatic alliance and friendship between Thailand and the United States--one that reflects both common interests and shared values, namely: democracy, good governance, and the rule of law. Indeed, on March 20, 1833, the United States and Thailand (then known as Siam) signed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, making the Kingdom of Thailand the first treaty ally of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region. His Majesty King Bhumibol's state visit to the United States in 1960 further cemented the excellent relations between our two nations.

Lastly, I would like to express my deepest sympathies to the people of Thailand for the recent historic floods in Thailand, and reiterate my support for both ongoing and additional humanitarian efforts aimed at providing civilian and military assistance to save lives, restore health, and facilitate Thailand's economic recovery. The United States remains committed to supporting Thailand's long-term recovery. The United States government has contributed significant humanitarian assistance, United States citizens and private sector have donated to reconstruction efforts, and the United States will continue working to help improve Thailand's capacity to prepare and respond to such disasters in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join our long-standing friends, the people of Thailand, as they celebrate the 84th birthday anniversary of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej and his esteemed 65-year reign of and dedication to Thailand.