David Wu

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my friend and colleague from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). (Ms. HOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment for an appreciation of Mr. Boehlert, the retiring chairman of the Science Committee. He is a consummate legislator; he has talked the talk and walked the walk of promoting the public good over partisanship. He has run the Science Committee in a gentlemanly, bipartisan fashion. And to me, as an aging junior Member of this body, when I think of who I would like to be when I grow up, one of those people is Sherry Boehlert. I rise in support of H.R. 1674, the U.S. Tsunami Warning and Education Act. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I am proud to have worked with Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers on this important bill. We cannot prevent earthquakes and tsunamis, but we can prepare for them. We can ensure that citizens of our coastal communities take appropriate safety steps when the inevitable occurs. Detection and forecasting are not sufficient. State and local communities must be prepared to disseminate the warning and direct the public to safety areas. Individual citizens must know where to go when they receive a warning. All this must be done well in advance of a tsunami. I am fortunate to represent a beautiful expanse of the Oregon coast. However, we are also well aware of the potential danger presented by the Cascadia fault located just offshore of Oregon, Washington and California. In Oregon, we face the threat of a 9.0 Richter Scale coastal earthquake and resulting tsunami. Scientists warn it is not whether this natural disaster will occur, but when. Unlike hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there will be absolutely no warning of the earthquake. When the 9.0 Cascadia earthquake hits, it will rock the ground for 4 to 5 minutes, perhaps raising and dropping the ground level 4 to 8 feet at each rumble. After the quake, Oregonians will have only 10 to 30 minutes to reach high ground before the tsunami rolls ashore. Oregon has already done a great deal to keep our coastline beautiful and our citizens safe. Cannon Beach, Oregon, was one of the first coastal communities to be designated tsunami-ready by NOAA. H.R. 1674 builds upon the successful partnership that exists between the Federal, State and local governments on the west coast to ensure that all U.S. coastal communities will be prepared to deal with tsunamis. This bill authorizes the type of comprehensive system we must have if we are to avoid the catastrophic loss of life caused by the December 2004 Indonesian earthquake. Previously, funding for tsunamis focused more heavily on detection and forecasting systems hardware. While this hardware will help protect the Chinese and Japanese across the ocean in the event of a Cascadia earthquake, it is only mitigation programs focusing on educating the public that are key to protecting Oregonians, Washingtonians and Californians from a Cascadia fault quake. I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes a specific percentage of funding for tsunami hazard education and mitigation. While I would like to see a more aggressive increase in funding over the lifetime of the bill, I believe these funding levels represent a good start. This program supports vital activities such as inundation mapping, public education and encouraging local communication networks. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers for working with me in a bipartisan and collegial manner on this legislation. H.R. 1674 is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I thank the ranking member, and I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of section 201 of S. 1785 and, in particular, its well-deserved commendation of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. This act, and its 1984 amendments, were cited by The Economist in December 14, 2002, as possibly the most inspired piece of legislation to be enacted in the past half century. The reasons are apparent if one looks at the revolutionary changes that began with Bayh-Dole. In 1980, perhaps half a dozen universities were strongly committed to commercialization of university research results. Today, it is hard to find a university that does not have a tech transfer licensing program to take advantage of this legislation. In the 1970s, we were struggling to keep up with international competition. Bayh-Dole made research universities a major tool in our tool box as an antidote to that decline. Initially, by keeping the intellectual property rights to the ideas they generated, universities were able to bring in revenues, share with professor inventors, as industry began to commercialize the fruits of university research. Some of the inventions in biotechnology and computer software and hardware by institutions such as the Oregon Health and Science University, the University of Oregon and Stanford University, were listed by AUTM, the Association of University Technology Managers, in the top 100 inventions that changed American life. As success has mounted and more and more university professors thought about the commercial implications of their work, new opportunities opened up for professors. This led to university research centers, research parks and technology transfer offices, adding many more services as professors began startup companies. Bayh-Dole is a major reason why both research universities and small high-tech companies with university roots are such major drivers of today's American economy. None of this would have been possible without the cooperation of the Committee on the Judiciary and its Courts Subcommittee and the Committee on Science and its Technology Subcommittee, where I am proud to serve as subcommittee ranking Democratic member. It is fitting that Chairman Sensenbrenner, who was on both committees at the time of the 1984 amendments, and who went on to serve as chairman of both full committees, has chosen to bring this commemoration forward in a bipartisan manner that involves both committees. I thank both gentlemen. I thank him for his continued leadership, and I look forward to working with him, not only to commend Bayh-Dole today, but perhaps also to update and improve in the coming years after a successful quarter century run.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's forbearance and the Speaker's forbearance.

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman and yield to the question from Ohio.

Mr. WU. I mean taking responsibility for Indian nuclear weapons, which will be produced as a result of our sale of fissile materials to India.

Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time. Is this the Congress of the United States or are we abdicating responsibility to the United Nations?

Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time. Is the gentleman citing something from the United Nations? I yield to the the gentleman.

Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time. It is a very short question, amenable to a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer. Is this not the United States Congress? Are we not abdicating responsibility under your comment to the United Nations rather than taking responsibility ourselves?

Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time. Unlike the gentleman from Ohio, the dialectic of proliferation is way beyond me. I do recognize a bad idea when I see one, and encouraging India by selling it nuclear fissile materials, which would ultimately result in the increase of Chinese nuclear weapons and Pakistani nuclear weapons, is surely that bad idea. There are times when we are all in the minority at one time or another. There was 68 of us who voted against approving the treaty to sell nuclear fissile materials to India. On that vote, I would have been happy to have been a minority of one because I do believe that it would add fuel to the fire of nuclear proliferation in south Asia in that it basically does blow out of the water any hope we have of treaty constraints on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I want to make it clear in this Record and for history that the actions of this administration in nuclear proliferation or trying to contain nuclear proliferation have been patently irresponsible. This administration has underfunded the Nunn-Lugar legislation which seeks to purchase fissile materials, which would be otherwise available to terrorists on the open market. This administration has proposed a treaty with India that would sell India nuclear fissile materials that would result in a nuclear arms race between India and China and India and Pakistan, and Pakistan is not a stable country. There is great danger of the leakage of nuclear weapons from Pakistan. You heard earlier from another speaker about Pakistani aid to nuclear proliferation elsewhere in the world. Let the record show that if or when a mushroom cloud ever erupts over an American city, it will be traced back to this unwise vote in the United States Congress and to a bone-headed policy of this administration with respect to treaty rights, to Nunn-Lugar and this sale of nuclear materials to India. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to yield to the chairman for any further comments he might have.

Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

Mr. WU. I share with the gentleman the concerns about the export of nuclear weapons from North Korea. The point of my earlier comments is not about export from India, but because of our actions with respect to India, that we would be encouraging and accelerating the Pakistani nuclear program from which there is a real risk of exportation. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman. I want to make clear that I am certainly not defending the North Korea regime. But, I am calling into question the actions of this Congress and the strong advocacy of the chairman in favor of a proposed treaty with India which would have the result of starting a nuclear arms race or accelerating a nuclear arms race in south Asia and, just as importantly, which in the big picture blows out the whole treaty system for restraining the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time. Is not ultimately the big picture effect of permitting India to go forward with this basically blowing out of the water the entire treaty system with which we have tried to restrain nuclear nonproliferation in this world? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to inquire of the chairman what his reasoning is in moving this bill when he was so supportive of selling fissile materials to India, which, like North Korea, is not a signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and, unlike North Korea, has a demonstrated nuclear capability. Now, I was only a kid then, but I remember when we sold F-15s to Iran so that Iran could offset Soviet power in South Asia. And because we sold F-15s and other things to Iran, we wound up selling chemical weapon precursor materials to Iraq to offset Iran in the Middle East. Now we are told that we should sell fissile materials to India, which would free up Indian nuclear reactors to produce many more nuclear weapons for the Indian nuclear weapons program as an offset to Chinese power in Asia. Mr. Chairman, if we do this with India, what it would do is encourage the Chinese to increase their nuclear arsenal, and I submit to you that we are one of the potential targets of that enhanced Chinese nuclear arsenal. Even more worrisome is that this Indian nuclear build-up would accelerate further the Pakistani nuclear build-up, which my friend from Ohio referred to a moment ago. And while I have strong confidence in the stability of the Indian government, and in the stability of Indian democracy, I have much less faith in the stability of the Pakistani government, and of Pakistani democracy, and of the Pakistani government's ability to keep under control those nuclear weapons which it already has, and more of which it would be encouraged to build because of the sale of fissile material to India. And in a military coup, if there is a military coup in Pakistan, which there has been multiple times in the last 20 years, we should be very, very concerned about the stability of not only south Asia, but of the world. I think the chairman, as one of the subcommittee chairs of the International Relations Committee would surely agree with me that rather than sanctioning nonsignatory States, approving of nonsignatory States to those nonproliferation treaties, the better course of action is to respect these international agreements and to immediately bring to the Senate a total ban on nuclear testing, and comprehensive treaties concerning nuclear proliferation. I would be happy to yield to the chairman for his response.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, we do a grave injustice today because this statute applies to American citizens as well as everybody else. Fred Korematsu was a U.S. citizen. He was picked up on a U.S. street. And we issued an apology years later. If we pass this bill today, some future Congress, long after we are out of office, long after we are dead, some future Congress will be issuing an apology.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the long history of this Chamber and of this Congress because today we break faith with the basic tenets of Anglo-American law that have come down from the Magna Carta, through the attempts of Charles I to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, to the challenges that American Presidents have faced in every stressful conflict situation in this Nation's history. Although we should care about the rights of aliens seized in other countries, we should care, what we are debating today are the rights of American citizens here in the United States. If my wife, a sixth generation Oregonian, were seized up and detained under the law we are considering today, she would disappear into a black hole of detention with no access to article 3 courts. At best, she would get a military tribunal, and that is not what American citizens deserve. The Koramatsu case from World War II is still the law of the land. It has not been overturned. And what it stands for is the proposition that civilians can be held by the military in this country. The Koramatsu case has been called a gun pointed at the heart of our civil liberties, and today this Congress loads that weapon. This law is unwise as it is unconstitutional, and we should not be enacting this in haste. The great writ is one of our great protections. It applies to all Americans, and Americans should not be tried by a military tribunal.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for H.R. 4377, the Hydroelectric Project at Arrowrock Dam License Extension. This bill will bring more public power to Pacific Northwest energy customers by extending the time required for construction of the Arrowrock hydroelectric project. The extension is necessary because of consultations with the Fish & Wildlife Service to evaluate and protect threatened species in the vicinity of the project--bull trout. Because of delays in these consultations the commencement of construction was delayed past the expiration date of March 2005. An extension of license P 4656 is needed in order to begin construction during winter of 2006 or 2007 to take advantage of the lower water conditions. This project was unable to meet the March 20, 2005 start of construction deadline because the Fish & Wildlife Service would not begin consultation on the project until after it completed consultation on all of the Reclamation projects in the Upper Snake River Basin. That Upper Snake consultation was a direct outgrowth of the requirements of the Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004, H.R. 4818, Title X, and the Nez Perce Agreement of 2004. I believe that the inaction of one federal agency should not be the basis for depriving the citizens of Oregon, Idaho and the United States of important rights, including their rights under permits issued by other federal agencies. I support H.R. 4377 and ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus like a laser beam on the right of habeas corpus and the untoward effect of this legislation on habeas corpus. This is an ancient doctrine that has been with us since at least the days of Charles I. It has presented difficulties to many American Presidents from Jefferson to Lincoln to Grant to Roosevelt. We have the power to do much in restricting habeas corpus; but we should do so very, very carefully because it is the protection from tyranny that our forebears sought in the Revolution. Congress here is entering upon dangerous constitutional shoal waters, and it is, in my belief, unconstitutionally limiting access to habeas corpus. The courts have repeatedly ruled in a restricted fashion whenever Congress or the Presidency has restricted access to habeas corpus and each of us, not just the Supreme Court, but we in the Congress and those in the executive branch, we all take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and this act, by restricting habeas corpus, will not serve America well. And by so restricting habeas corpus, this bill does not just apply to enemy aliens. It applies to all Americans because, while the provision on page 93 has the word ``alien'' in it, the provision on page 61 does not have the word ``alien'' in it. Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court. This bill applies to every American, regardless of citizenship status.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the two chairmen's remarks that I was incorrect in my analysis of the law or of the proposed bill. I stand by that analysis, and not only is that analysis correct, but this reference to the detention act as a cure for that is totally specious, because this detention act we passed as a rider to an appropriations bill. So any remedy provided by the detention act goes away in the year of appropriation. If you read that language, that word alien does appear on page 93, but the determination of that jurisdictional fact will be done by a military tribunal, and that is not where American civilians should have their rights determined.

Mr. WU. I stand by my analysis of the proposed bill. The two chairmen stand by theirs. This is the best reason why this bill should not be rushed through. The staff cannot be held responsible for drafting errors, and we should not be rushing this kind of legislation through without the careful consideration that it deserves.