David Wu

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I thank the gentleman from Delaware. The gentleman must recall that we worked closely together on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. We both believe in flexibility. We both believe in local control. In the funding for the class size reduction program, last year we negotiated additional flexibility for the use of these funds. We negotiated an increase in flexibility in using the funds for teacher training from 15 percent going up to 25 percent. I must point out to the gentleman that local school authorities are using only 8 percent of those funds for teacher training. The rest they are using for class size reduction as was originally intended. The gentleman and I share our interest in flexibility. However, it appears to me that local school authorities are using the funds for class size reduction the way that we think they would. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to instruct that I presented yesterday pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that on a bipartisan basis we passed that flexibility. We all believe in that flexibility. The gentleman from Delaware and the chairman share that perspective, as do most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I hereby serve notice to the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 4577, a bill making appropriations for fiscal year 2001, for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Wu moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on disagreeing with provisions in the Senate amendment which denies the President's request for dedicated resources to reduce class size in the early grades and instead, broadly expands the Title VI Education Block Grant with limited accountability in the use of funds. Mr. Speaker, this is the same motion which I noticed on Sunday evening for debate on Monday and it is made necessary by the fact that we had an agreement on Monday morning funding this at the full $1.75 billion amount, and that agreement was broken by noon. I must renotice this motion at this time.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4577, a bill making appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Wu moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on disagreeing with provisions in the Senate amendment which denies the President's request for dedicated resources to reduce class size in the early grades and instead, broadly expands the Title VI Education Block Grant with limited accountability in the use of funds.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill because of an important omission in the bill, Section 245(i) of the Immigration law. It sounds like a technicality, but it is not. I would like to tell my colleagues about Vicky Lynn Gonzalez of Beaverton, Oregon. She married a man named Luis Gonzalez. Together they have a son, Alex, who is now 2 years old. Vicky Lynn goes to college at night, works full time. But because section 245(i) was removed and is not in this bill, Luis is waiting in Mexico and Alex is growing up alone. This is unfair. This is unjust. This is not friendly to families. I know because I had to grow up without my father because that was a sacrifice that we had to make to get to this country. I do not want any other American child to have to grow up without their parent because of some omission that we can fix in this bill today. I ask for a no vote from all Members who care about families, who care about children, who care about children growing up with care from both parents. Vote no on this bill. Remember Vicky. Remember Luis. And remember Alex. I ask for a no vote on the rule and on the bill.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I favor real middle-class tax cuts. I favor tax cuts which put small businesses on the same footing with large corporations. I favor pension reform. And I favor Medicare adjustments to keep small hospitals open. But I am going to oppose this bill because of the cynical inclusion of a provision which specifically overturns Oregon's death-with-dignity law. This was voted on by the people of Oregon, not once, but twice. What will happen if this bill passes is that things will not play out in grand chambers like this. Things will not play out in the hospitals that we are trying to keep open. There will be little rooms across this country, in Oregon, where the scenes will be played out in small rooms filled with pain. If my colleagues want that pain to occur, then vote for this bill. If my colleagues want to prevent that pain from occurring, if they want real tax relief, then vote against this bill.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, October 10, 2000, I was unavoidably detained due to airline mechanical problems. Had I been present, I would have voted the following ways: No on rollcall No. 519, S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Act. Yes on rollcall No. 520, H.R. 208, a bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to allow for the contribution of certain rollover distributions to accounts in the Thrift Savings Plan, to eliminate certain waiting-period requirements for participating in the Thrift Savings Plan, and for other purposes. Yes on rollcall No. 521, H.R. 762, Lupus Research and Care Amendments.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this bill and want to take this opportunity to recognize the tremendous hard work which the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) has put into this effort, the leadership of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and keeping all of us on track. I would like to also recognize the governor, the administration and all the Members of the Oregon delegation in coming together to resolve this complex set of issues the way that Oregonians traditionally have, cooperatively, with common vision, and common sense. And what an achievement we indeed have, because from either Steens Mountain looking down to the Alvord Desert or from the Alvord Basin looking up to the mountain, the Steens Mountain is a treasure in the sky, now saved for all time. We do a good thing today, cooperation, common sense, common vision, coming together to produce this uncommon moment.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, while we are debating the great issues of education, I just want to recall a visit to Reedville Elementary School in Aloha, Oregon, where the class size initiative is working exactly as intended. There were 54 kids in the first-year class elementary school. Because of the Federal class size reduction initiative, instead of two classes of 27 kids, there were three classes of 18 kids. In Reedville in Aloha, Oregon, this program has made a difference. Let us keep it alive. Let us keep it going.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter of all the good agriculture work that is going on across America. But I am taking this moment to recognize that we have reached another milestone in American history, a milestone that we should celebrate as a people and a milestone for one person in particular, a former Member of this body. The President has just announced the nomination of the first Asian- American to ever serve in the United States Cabinet. Former Congressman Norman Mineta has been nominated to be Secretary of Commerce. I think that is an important milestone for Mr. Mineta, as an individual, for this body, and for us as a people. Mr. Mineta was an honored Member of this body; as well as chair of an important committee; the former Mayor of San Jose; and an executive in a private corporation; and, I might add, a fine mentor to me, someone who is brand new to elected office in this body. In the words of the tech industry in the San Jose area, Congressman Mineta is fully plug and play. He is ready to go, ready to work, ready to work and lead and serve. I wanted to take a moment of this body's time to recognize this honor which has come to one of our own and another milestone in American history. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the VA/HUD Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001. The bill cuts the President's proposed $675 million increase in the NSF budget by $508 million. This will jeopardize the Nation's investment in the future. The bill undermines priority investments in advanced technologies, including information technology, nanotechnology and geosciences. Earlier this year, the House passed a bi-partisan bill, H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, which calls for major increases in Information Technology research and development, with a large portion of the increase designated to the NSF. This bill will significantly reduce funding for the Information Technology R&D program. Approximately 81 percent ($2,149.9 million) of NSF's FY 1999 funding in research and development budget was awarded to U.S. colleges and universities. Many of the higher education institutions in my District such as Portland State University, Oregon Graduate Institute, and Oregon Health Sciences University, rely on these grants for cutting edge research. For instance, these three institutions have joined with the University of Washington in receiving NSF funding to create a high- speed metropolitan network to connect the universities for collaborative medical science, engineering and technology research. I represent the Silicon Forest. As I meet with high-tech employers and workers in my district, I hear concerns that there aren't enough skilled workers. Employers look to the H-1B visa program as an important safety valve to hire trained high-tech workers. However, the H-1B visa program is capped, and these caps are reached very quickly-- it is estimated that the total in FY 2000 (115,000) will be reached in March of this year. Employers are now urging Congress to raise the visa cap. We need to do much more than just raise the visa cap on a temporary emergency basis each year. We need to address the issue of training American students. The bill we are considering today does not help to achieve this goal. It slows down our efforts to train the next- generation of scientists and engineers, and prepare more Americans for high-tech, high-wage jobs. The cuts in the bill include a 21 percent or over $30 million below the request for undergraduate education-- including nearly 50 percent cut in requested funding for the National Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library. We must do more for the future of science and our future scientists, because in doing so, we provide for the future of America.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson). (Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to observe that there are as many different forms of families in America as there are families. I think that the vast majority of fathers do want to be present, but there are times when needs draw us apart. My family history is that which just about every American family has shared at one time or another in their respective family histories. My dad came to America when I was 4 months old, and he was physically absent from my youth until I was about 7. But even though he was physically absent, he was always a presence in our family. I knew him from little blue aerograms, toys at holiday times, and chocolate bars. But to me he was always the heroic figure who was cutting the new path in America, and there was a deep purpose to his absence. Compared to the sacrifices that my parents went through, my weekly separations from my children seem like little pikers in comparison. That is what helps me get through those periods of separation, and I guess I just want to recognize that there are common threads in all American families. We share the will to make sacrifices for a common good, for the future of the family, and we have to fight it in different ways. But if fathers are to be absent for short periods of time, or for long, let it be for purposeful activity, for truly overriding important factors in the family history and family life. It is a pattern of sacrifice that we are called to at times, but if there is not this overriding incredible purpose, sense of history and sense of where the family must go, then I strongly encourage fathers to be with their children, to be with their families as much as possible, to not go through the travails of separation and sometimes the travails of reunion. Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of this bipartisan resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today, one day after Father's Day, we stand before the House to encourage the participation of fathers in the growth and development of their children. In this bipartisan effort, we note that the role of fathers in today's families has always been a prominent issue, but much more so in recent years, because too many of our children are growing up in homes without the benefit of a father. The percentage of children growing up in a home without their father nearly tripled between 1960 and the early 1999s. Depending on estimates, today, somewhere between the cited figure of 16 million to 24 million American children are living without their biological fathers, and it is a shock to me that fully one-third of children today are born out of wedlock. Most importantly, fatherless homes have a devastating impact on our children. It is both common sense, and research indicates, that without a father, children are four times as likely to be poor and twice as likely to drop out of school. Fatherless children also have a higher risk of suicide, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse and delinquency. Clearly, the important role that fathers play in the development of their children cannot go unnoticed. Unfortunately, the challenges of fatherhood are not restricted to those who do not pay child support or so-called deadbeat dads. Many fathers are caught between their duties at their work and the responsibilities to their families. The problems encountered by today's families are not limited to deadbeat dads. There are our families who are also hampered by deadbeat dads, who want to be there for their children, but for one reason or another, cannot. As the father of a 3-year-old boy, Matthew, and a 9-month-old girl, Sarah Elizabeth, I realize the importance of spending time with my children and the pain it seems of always being short on that time. We spend a lot of time doing the Nation's business paddling in this rather large pond and yet sometimes it does feel to me that once we withdraw from this arena, that we will leave behind perhaps what one would leave behind if we pulled our hand out of a bucket of water, the Nation's business will continue, but I am absolutely confident that I will be the only father for my children, and I, like many others, struggle constantly with the needs of the Nation, the needs of our family, and the needs of providing for both. Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by the work of the Congressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force. Their efforts, throughout this resolution and other activities have begun to focus attention on the very important issues of complete families, fatherhood and parental participation. I believe this resolution sends a very strong signal to America, and it is a bipartisan resolution that all Members should support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, there is $297 million already allocated in the Department of Interior for fire suppression and for thinning activities and additionally there is over $600 million allocated for fire suppression and thinning activities under the Department of Agriculture funds. So every speaker is coming up and talking about fire, and this is just a smokescreen for bad forestry practices of the past. That is something that we were trying to correct with this amendment. We should take the fire issue off the table because that is funded separately in this bill.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make very, very clear that what I am standing up for is not just good fish and wildlife management, but good long-term forestry management. But there is one issue that I want to take off the table. That is that there is a lot of discussion today about fires on forest land. I understand the concern. I am completely sympathetic to it. I just want to point out to the gentleman and to the prior speaker that there is more than $600 million in the Department of Agriculture funds to prevent wildfires and address wildfires if they occur. Separately, there is $297 million in the Department of the Interior budget to address wildfires and to suppress wildfires.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and I offer this amendment to increase the Fish and Wildlife Management account of the United States Forest Service by $14.7 million, which would bring the account to the administration's request. As an offset, the Wu-Udall-Smith amendment reduces the forest products line item to $230 million, still $10 million above the administration's request. Similar to the amendment that I offered last year with the gentlewoman from Ohio, this amendment is environmentally and fiscally responsible. Investing in forest, fish and wildlife now will help us mitigate for past poor management and balance timber harvest with wildlife conservation. Briefly, if we believe in sustainable timber harvest and in preserving fish and wildlife, both for aesthetic purposes and to permit harvest, then vote for this amendment. If we want to cut and run and leave my hunting and fishing buddies without either a job or a place to fish and hunt, then oppose this amendment. Unless we take adequate steps now to protect watersheds, fish and wildlife, the courts will block further timber harvest in the future. With more and more species listed as endangered or threatened, we jeopardize the future of timber. The Wu-Smith-Udall amendment strikes a balance between timber harvest, fish, and wildlife. By redirecting funds to programs that improve the health of our Nation's forests, we protect the future of our Nation's resources. We need a fiscally responsible and environmentally sound approach to managing our Federal forests. The Wu-Udall-Smith amendment is just that, a bipartisan and common sense approach. Our amendment is both environmentally and fiscally responsible. As a hunter and fisherman, I care deeply about the future of our forests, as well as the health of our forest products industry. The administration requested $220 million for timber sales management and the subcommittee funded it at $245 million. Meanwhile, the fish and wildlife account was underfunded by $14.7 million. Our amendment restores fish and wildlife habitat funding to the administration requests and leaves $10 million above the administration's requests for timber harvest purposes. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility, vote for a commitment to fish and wildlife, vote for the Wu-Udall-Smith amendment.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman that the account for timber sales management remains at $10 million above the administration request; and that with respect to blowdown and other nongreen trees, there is a separate account for salvage purposes.