David Wu

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I just want to close by saying that it is absolutely imperative that we set universal standards for human conduct. What we are seeking to reach through this amendment is illegal under Chinese law. It is illegal under American law. It is already prohibited to permit individuals like this from entering the United States by current exclusion standards under U.S. immigration law. But at core what this amendment strikes at is a practice which strikes at what it means to be a human being.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, if this practice were going on in Canada, we would have stopped it long ago. If this practice were going on with people that we thought were very much like us, I think we would have stopped it cold long, long ago. I look very much like the folks whose organs are being harvested. If you cut me, will I not bleed? If you kill my children, will my heart not cry out in sorrow? And if you deny me justice, will my soul not cry out for justice? In this instance, in this instance, we live to fight another day; and I look forward to working with the chairman of this subcommittee to make this law this year. I thank my colleagues for the indulgence of the House. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, stem cell research offers the prospect for cures for diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's disease. It is a development of such great historic significance that I want to hearken back to another era when science was under threat from a theocracy. About 400 years ago, Galileo Galilee was forced to recant the evidence of his eyes that the moons and the planets revolved around each other rather than all of them revolving around the Earth, as the church then insisted that we all believe. But even as the theocracy forced Galileo to recant his views, he was heard to mutter, ``But the planets do move.'' Mr. Speaker, just as the planets move, stem cell research will go forward. The only question is whether it goes forward in this country or in foreign countries; with government support or without government support; subject to NIH guidelines or subject to no ethical guidelines whatsoever. Our choice here is not about stem cell research or not. Just as no theocracy can prevent the planets from moving, no theocracy can prevent stem cell research from going on. The only choice is whether we choose to be relevant to science.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 1157, I rise in support of the gentlelady from Oregon's amendment. We have a problem. As everybody knows, ecosystems do not adhere to political lines. The border that lies between the United States and Canada, a political line, may also be contributing to the demise of dozens of species of salmon. Canada does not share the same type of environmental laws that protect salmon as we have. The Northwest, and every other region in the United States, must comply with the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. While the United States still has its fair share of endangered species, we have the mechanisms in place to give many of these species a fighting chance. Canada on the other hand, does not have these sort of guidelines. Harmful logging practices may be killing endangered salmon by the thousands. Ms. Hooley's amendment simply asks the Department of Commerce to conduct a study that would be reported to Congress what effect Canada's logging practices have on these endangered salmon. Until we know how great an impact these practices have on international fish stocks, will we be able to address the problem Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this responsible amendment.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, an odd thing happened to me 2 days ago on my way down to the Department of Energy. I was going down to give a talk to employees there, and I was stopped by the guards when I was trying to enter the building and I was asked repeatedly, my staffer and I were asked repeatedly, whether we are American citizens. This occurred both before and after I presented my congressional identification card. Now I have walked around the White House, the Supreme Court, this United States Capitol, and I know that there is sensitive information at the White House, at the Supreme Court and sometimes here, but maybe, maybe the Department of Energy is a special case, perhaps. What they said was that they asked everyone, everyone, whether they are a U.S. citizen or not, but that proved not to be true. My friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), went yesterday and he was not asked the way that I was at all. The ultimate irony is that I went to the Department of Energy 2 days ago to give a talk, at their request, about the progress of Asian Americans in America as part of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month celebration activities by the employees there. There has been progress over the last 200, 215 years for Asian Americans in America but apparently we have a little ways to go yet. Now I am reluctant to make much of this incident and I was just going to let it go, but upon reflection, Mr. Speaker, I cannot just let this go because it would be wrong and it would break a promise that I have made to students in Oregon and that I have made to students across this country. When I visit with students at home and in other places around the country, sometimes they ask, are you treated fairly? Is there any difference because of ethnicity in the U.S. Congress? And I always answer, no, I am treated very well and very fairly and there is no question about ethnicity in the House, and that is absolutely true. Then sometimes there is a follow-up question, have there ever been incidents in your life that caused you to reflect upon or make you think that you are discriminated against? At that point, I generally try to refocus the direction of the discussion. I say, look, look, you are here in school to study, to work hard. You need to focus on those things that you can change, that you can effect, and if you focus on those things then this country will give you a chance to succeed and, please, please do not obsess about things that you cannot change because some of the attitudes you cannot change right away. If you obsess about those things, they will take away from your efforts at focusing on your goals and your future success, because this country will give you that chance. I say to them, leave those other things, leave those things that cannot be changed in the short-term, leave those things to adults like me. Leave those things to people who are in a position to work on them, like me. If I had just let this incident go, this incident of 2 days ago at DOE, I would have broken my promise to those students at home and across this country, because I believe that it is our obligation, despite whatever our reluctance might be, despite whatever our discomfort might be, to point out those things which are not right or to investigate them, to see if they need to be improved. I am going to encourage the Department of Energy to redouble its efforts, engage in a true process of soul searching. Do you really ask everyone their citizenship at the door? And if so, is that an effective way of enhancing national security? I do not know how many spies you have caught with that question, but you have at least one Congressman. And I suspect that ultimately there is a connection to national security but in a way that you might not expect, and that is there is a tremendous number of Asian American scientists and engineers working at the Department of Energy and they have made valuable contributions to our national security by doing good research. If the Department creates a work environment that is hostile or perceived to be, we have already begun to lose some of those scientists, and my understanding is that some of the brightest graduate students in the country, who happen to be Asian American, are now refusing to go work for the Department of Energy. That is as damaging to our national interest, our national security, as anything that I can think of. I want to underscore once again that this is not about the specific incidents of 2 days ago and this is not about me, but it is about a pledge to students to work on issues that they are not in a position to work on themselves, and it is about doing this job, my job, in the best manner that I know how. Being a Member of Congress is the greatest honor that I can imagine. We have no mission other than to get up each and every day and to try to make the world a little bit better, or to ameliorate some of the problems that people face. Today I want to give that effort to make the world a little bit better just one small further nudge.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I want all my colleagues to hear and understand that, make no mistake about it, this is a make-or-break amendment. It is a make-or-break amendment as to whether all children in America will get access to a quality education or not. It is a make-or-break amendment as to whether we are going to have a truly bipartisan bill or whether this is going to be straight down party lines and the same old partisan thing. I urge strong opposition to this amendment for two very important reasons: it is bad policy, and it is so deceptive that it borders on the fraudulent. It is bad policy because this amendment would propose to strip-mine public resources away from public schools and give them to private institutions. I think that is wrong. It is deceptive because, right out here on the House steps, I was asked by someone, Why will you not support vouchers? I want to take a voucher and go to a private school. I asked that person, Well, are you in poverty? Because if you are not, then you are not going to be eligible for this program. I want my colleagues to know something else. Under the program as authorized, one would get $1,500. Under the program that is probably appropriate, one is going to get $500 or $600. That will pay for perhaps 10 percent of a parochial education. It would probably pay for less than 5 percent of a fully loaded private education in my hometown. It is very, very deceptive to think that this measure will create any real choices for the people that we are talking about today. It is deceptive. It is wrong. I urge all my colleagues to maintain the best bipartisan bill we can and oppose this amendment today.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I was proud to stand with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) to oppose additional Federal mandates yesterday, and it is a value that we share. This debate that we are having today, I agree with the gentleman and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) that this should not be about agreements between politicians. It should be about learning. This debate should be about priorities. This debate should be about responsibility. We have a responsibility to bring the best learning we can to our school children, and we have a responsibility to spend tax dollars wisely. We have a responsibility to bring focus priorities to these programs that we are talking about: school safety, teacher quality and class size reduction, school technology. These are important priorities that we have set at a national level, and we have agreed to reduce bureaucracy and to increase transferability to the 50 percent mark. But why not raise it to 75 percent? Why not raise it to 100 percent? I believe the answer is we should not raise it to 100 percent; and it is, I admit, a difficult matter to set where the line should be, but as we negotiate these lines and move them toward the 100 percent, I believe that we abdicate responsibility. Our responsibility is to spend tax dollars wisely and to focus on efforts that help our school children. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that we need to give local flexibility; and we have set the right amount in this bill. I oppose the Hoekstra amendment.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this as respectfully as I possibly can to all my friends in the Chamber. For the folks who just passed a huge, huge mandate on local schools, mandatory national testing, I find this flip-flop of positions absolutely breathtaking. It is one of the striking things we can do in this Chamber. We debated block grants in the First Congressional District of Oregon, and the decision was pretty darn clear. Not only do Oregonians, and I think most Americans, want some accountability for public dollars spent for public purposes, that is the least that we can do for Federal funds that are spent for identifiable purposes in this bill. Also, I think Oregonians and most Americans can recognize that block grants are step one of a cynical two-step process. First, you muddy up the waters so that you cannot identify where the money is going anymore; and then the second step is you cut. You cut the support. It is like stretching out a chicken's neck. That is step one. And then the chop comes down. Step two. It is a cynical two-step process to cut Federal support for education. That was the debate we had in Oregon. The perspective I have on this prevailed in that debate, and I hope it does today. I urge opposition respectfully to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak for a moment about H.R. 1, which I consider to be a good bill, but one which could be even better. There are two notable omissions from this bill: a freestanding effort to reduce class size, and a freestanding effort to build new schools or to repair crumbling schools. Class size reduction efforts are included in this bill, but they compete, they compete with teacher quality and teacher training programs. I submit to the Members that no school, no parent, should have to choose between having a quality teacher and a small class size, which promotes learning and teaching. This is the only way that we can truly leave no child left behind. Many Members know that many parents choose to send their children to private school substantially in part to get the benefits of smaller class size. But all children should have the benefit of this kind of education, a small class and a quality teacher. Small class size, reducing class size, was a freestanding effort lost in the Senate by 50 to 48, and we were not permitted to bring that amendment to this floor. I urge the conferees to restore the freestanding program in the conference committee. This program has fallen victim to politics associated with the Clinton administration. I think that is extremely unfortunate, because this is not a Clinton idea, this is a commonsense idea, one which benefits all children across America, and we should restore it to this bill any way we can.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, on April 21-23, 2001 more than 1200 students from across the United States came to Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from Lincoln High School from Portland, Oregon placed third. I am also pleased to have been able to spend some time with the students. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The names of the students are: Brett Bell, Michael Blank, Ben Brewer, Chris Chamness, Greg Damis-Wulff, Alex Dewar, David Dickey-Griffith, Heather Dunlap, Jenni Hamni, Jennifer Hill, Scott Huan, Nick Johnson, Kathayoon Khalil, Cali Lanza-Weil, Jennelle Milam, Jonathan Pulvers, Julie Rhew, Katie Rose, Andrew Rosenthal, Anay Shah, Chris Shay, Rafael Spielman, Jason Trombley, Jessica Vandermeer, Oliver Vandermeer, Ben Walsh, Colleen Wearn. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Jennifer Vaught, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the class. We the People... The Citizen and the Constitution is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the simulated congressional committee. The judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The 250th anniversary of James Madison's birth in 1751 offers an appropriate opportunity to examine this Founder's contributions to American constitutionalism and politics. To this end, the Center for Civic Education has collaborated with James Madison's Montpelier to produce a supplement to We the People...The Citizen and the Constitution. The national finals will include questions on Madison and his legacy. Following the 1999 national finals competition, a random sample of participating students was surveyed. Findings suggest that national finalists are more knowledgeable across virtually every aspect of civic education measured than national samples of high school seniors, college freshmen, and adults. They are less cynical about politics and public officials and participate in politics at a higher rate than do their peers. For example, when compared with various nationally representative samples, We the People... students scored an average of 25 percent higher on knowledge of democratic institutions and processes than students tested in the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP). Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People... program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students nationwide. The program provides students with a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers and by participating in other educational activities.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the ranking member and the chairman for their commendable efforts at crafting a commonsense, bipartisan education bill. But I am going to ask my colleagues to vote against this rule which brings partisanship and prevents the bringing of commonsense amendments which would improve this bill. Our efforts at keeping class size reduction as a separate source of funding, maintaining our national priority on bringing smaller class sizes to schools across this country was not permitted to be brought to the floor. Our efforts to bring school construction to the floor in order to be fully debated were not permitted to be brought to the floor. Class size reduction and school construction are two priority issues in American education; and yet we will not have a chance to discuss these bipartisan, commonsense issues. I regret that very much, and I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Frank A. Bauman, a native Portlander, whose 80th birthday will be celebrated on June 10, 2001. Mr. Bauman has dedicated his life to making enormous contributions to our city, the state of Oregon, and the international community. It is my personal privilege to bring my colleagues' attention the outstanding accomplishments of this great Oregonian. Mr. Bauman was admitted into the Oregon Bar in 1950 after graduating from our shared alma mater, Yale Law School, and practiced law in Portland for many years. During that period, he devoted substantial time to many worthwhile civic endeavors, where he held significant leadership positions, including: First Chairman, Oregon State Bar Committee on World Peace through Law; President, United Nations Association (Portland Chapter and the Oregon Association, (two times); President, World Affairs Council of Oregon (two times); Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations (two times); Chairman, Scholarship Committee of the University Club of Portland; Board of Directors, English Speaking Union; Master, Oregon- Ashlar Masonic Lodge, Member of the Chess for Success, which has established chess programs in 30 Portland public schools and has been hailed by The Oregonian as the most significant extracurricular activity in the public school system. Mr. Bauman's dedicated and effective leadership was recognized in 1971 when he was appointed by the United Nations Secretary General to serve as Resident Representative for the United Nations Children Fund, United Nations High Commission for Refugees, United Nations Development Programme, and the United Nations Information Office in Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and Fiji. Mr. Bauman executed these responsibilities very capably, while serving as the Chief Administrator of United Nations activities in Australia and conducting outreach relations with National and Regional Committees to deal with long-term development for Third World Countries. Mr. Bauman's commitment to society was further recognized in 1998 when he was awarded the E.B. MacNaughton Civil Liberties Award for his legal work in Mississippi in the 1960's on behalf of African Americans. It is my honor today, on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, to commend to my esteemed Members of Congress, the 80th birthday and extraordinary achievements of Frank A. Bauman.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the award-winning violinist Lin Cho-Liang--Jimmy Lin to his English-speaking friends. Born in Taiwan, Jimmy Lin is an award-winning violinist whose performances bridge cultural and geographical gaps. Shortly after I left for the United States with my family, Jimmy Lin and his family moved into the same house where I lived in Hsinchu, Taiwan and now I am proud to call him a friend. Jimmy Lin was born in 1960 in Hsinchu. After practicing on a toy violin until he was five years old, his parents bought him a quarter- size violin and he soon started lessons. His father, a physicist, brought home recordings for him to listen to and to study. At age 12, he left for Australia where he spent three years studying the violin before arriving at the Juilliard School in New York. Jimmy Lin made his New York debut at age 19 at Avery Fisher Hall playing Mozart's Third Concerto and has had a distinguished music career ever since. Last year he was awarded Musical America's Instrumentalist of the Year and, in 1999 received the Musician of the Year award. Lin has also won Gramophone's Record of the Year and has been nominated for a Grammy award. Jimmy Lin appears annually with major orchestras and on key recital and chamber music series all over the world. He is also a renowned solo artist who is in demand all over the world. Last year, he celebrated Isaac Stern's 80th birthday in a concert in Tokyo. During a trip to Taiwan to meet with business and government leaders this month, I have the opportunity to see my friend, Jimmy Lin, perform in Taipei and to visit our home in Hsinchu together. As the Los Angeles Times wrote: ``Jimmy Lin . . . has become a beloved icon. . . . He communicates through music to that wider audience that always seems to recognize and reward the rare combination of virtuosity and humanity.'' Mr. Speaker, I am proud of his accomplishments and pleased to honor him in the United States Congress for his dedication to cultural understanding through music.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to three great football teams in my district that have taken their respective state titles in the Oregon 2A, 3A and 4A divisions. I am pleased to represent the athletes, their families and their schools as they make the 2000 high school football season one that we will never forget. Mr. Speaker, the Jesuit High School Crusaders, located in the heart of my district in Beaverton, were able to pull out a 38-28 win over North Medford High School. Led by Coach Ken Potter, the Crusaders captured their third Division 4A state title. The win came on the backs of Jesuit running back K.J. Jackson who rushed for 159 yards and two touchdowns, quarterback Mike McGrain, defenseman Mike Hass who had a 52 yard interception return and kicker John Dailey. The Scappoose High School Indians, earned their first Division 3A- state title with an unbeaten season and a 28-14 win over Pleasant Hill. With a sensational defense and a star performance by senior quarter Derek Anderson, Scappoose dominated the division and the championship game. Coach Scan McNabb should be extremely proud of his team's achievement and I am sure that this title will be followed by more in the years to come. Finally Mr. Speaker, the Amity Warriors, won their third straight division 2A-state title with a 49-15 win over Regis High School. This is the only time an Oregon public school has managed to win three straight state championships. The Warriors amassed an amazing 583 yards of total offense and held Regis to 67 rushing yards. I want to extend my warm congratulations to Coach Jeff Flood for another successful year. The players, their families, their coaches, and their communities have all contributed to this fabulous football season. It is an honor and privilege to represent such talented athletes and I with them continued success in academics, sports, and their future lives.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would just like to say very briefly with respect to this resolution that I have seen the program at the Oregon Graduate Institute work on several occasions. I have met with the students, I have met with the professors who teach in it, the professionals who teach in it, and I have seen the wondrous things that it can do for young women and young men learning science, mathematics and other technical subjects which are by their nature quite difficult, people from all income ranges and backgrounds. It is a terrific private-public partnership. It is something that we should try to replicate. It is something that we should try to replicate in other places around the country. I am delighted that this Congress on this date has chosen to recognize this program and other similar programs. On a more personal note, I would like to thank the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), for his many kindnesses during this my first term in the United States Congress. I would like to thank him for his great service to this institution, to the Nation and especially to its young people. I wish him well for whatever his future plans are, and I especially appreciate his personal recognition in the committee and in the hallways and byways of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, for their hard work on this bill. I would like to especially recognize the landmark legislation with respect to the Everglades on which my colleague from school and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) has been working on for a very long time. Hopefully, some day the Columbia River Gorge in the Pacific Northwest would receive some similar treatment as the Everglades are receiving today because the Columbia Gorge combines natural beauty along with being a commercially crucial transportation corridor. The major cities and towns of the Northwest depend on the Columbia River and that gorge. And yet the gorge is also an ecological singularity. It is truly unique and deserves special consideration. But that is in the future. There are small parts of this bill which are absolutely vital to the Pacific Northwest. I cite, in particular, the work which is going to be done on the Astoria, Oregon East Mooring Basin. There is a causeway there which needs to be moved so that the breakwater which protects the east basin, the restoration work can continue. In this bill there is authorization to move that causeway so that the Corps of Engineers can continue to work on restoring the Mooring Basin's breakwater and that will preserve that Mooring Basin as an economic resource for the fishing families of the Pacific Northwest. I thank the committee for its work.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I urge the leadership to keep our promise to the Nation's school children by continuing the program to reduce class size in the early grades. For the past 2 years, this Congress has provided funds through the class size reduction initiative to reduce class size in the early grades to a size of students of 18 or less. I have seen this program work in my home State of Oregon. At Reedville Elementary School in Aloha, Oregon, there was an extraordinarily large incoming class of first graders of 54 students. Instead of the two first grade teachers that they did have, the class size reduction initiative permitted Reedville Elementary School to hire an additional first grade teacher, and because of this program, working exactly as intended, Reedville Elementary School has three classes of 18 first graders instead of two classes of 27 first graders. Something similar has been happening at William Walker Elementary School in Beaverton, Oregon, where class size in first grade was reduced from an average of 25 to 22. It would have been reduced more if not for significant and unexpected population growth. This program is working. It has worked for the past 2 years. We should keep our agreement with each other across this aisle, but, more importantly, our agreement with the school children of Oregon and America and work as hard as we can before this session ends to reduce class size in the early grades. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the facts are sometimes inconvenient. Facts can be somewhat inconvenient. We have been hearing that there is no difference between what would happen if we did not pass this motion and what would be happening under last year's appropriations and next year's appropriations. That is absolutely not true. That is absolutely not true. Class size reduction program, a 30 percent increase, that would not happen if we go home under a continuing resolution as is currently proposed. Next, school renovation, school renovation, there will be no school renovation money if we go home under a continuing resolution as is currently proposed. Next, 21st century community learning centers offering families a safe place and their children to learn, there is 100 percent increase in funding for 21st century community learning centers that would not occur if we go home without this next new appropriation completely done. Eisenhower Professional Development grants, a two-thirds increase for the Eisenhower grants. Finally, Pell Grants, a $500 increase in Pell Grants, that would not occur, not occur if we go home under a continuing resolution, rather than getting the work of the House done. Why have we not been getting the work of the House done? We did reach agreement on all of these education issues, but the deal was broken. I noticed this motion on Sunday, with an intent to bring it up on Monday, but we had an agreement as of Sunday night. Because powerful special interests called into the Republican leadership, and I do not fault the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and I do not fault the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for this, but because telephone calls were made, that deal to increase education funding, to increase Pell Grants, to increase 21st center learning centers, to increase teachers, to reduce class size, that deal was broken. In my congressional district, I commissioned a study on class size, only 6.4 percent of students in my congressional district are in class sizes of 18 or fewer. The other students, the other 94 percent of Oregon's students in the 1st Congressional District are equally split between class sizes of 19 to 24 students, or 25 or more. More devastatingly, in Clackamas County, almost 50 percent of students in kindergarten through third grade are in class sizes of 25 or more. In Multnomah County, Portland, the percentage of students in grades K through 3 in classes of 25 or more is also at almost 50 percent. In Washington County, it is more than one-third of the students. In Yamhill County, it is almost one-third of the students. This is a program which makes a difference. I saw it. I visit schools all the time, as my colleagues do. At Reedville Elementary School in Aloha, it worked exactly as intended by adding only one additional first grade teacher, it brought the average class size down from 27 students to 18 students. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the studies do show that when we bring class size down from 27 to 18, it makes a measurable difference which lasts over the years. The SAGE study from Wisconsin demonstrates that, the STAR study from Tennessee demonstrates that, and even the program in California, which has been very difficult to measure, indicates that in the third grade, there are measurable differences. But the fact is this: This class size initiative makes a difference. I have seen it make a difference. I have seen it cut class size from 27 to 18, but it is not being done today, because powerful interests called the leaders of this Chamber. I want the students of America to have the same access to leadership as these powerful interests. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my colleague on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), a senior member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just point out to the gentleman from Delaware that in fiscal year 1999 funding, school districts, local educational authorities, used only 8 percent of the allocations under this fund for personal development and teacher training. We upped that amount from 15 percent to 25 percent, but the evidence from the flexibility that we have granted local education authorities is that we have lots of flexibility under this program because they are not using anything close to the 15 or the 25 percent of the monies that they can for teacher training under this program. I must further add that the reason why we are here today, this is not an exercise in futility. This is not a dry fire exercise. The reason why we are here today is because the passage of each and every day means the loss of an opportunity to make a difference in a child's life. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), my colleague on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, to say that the chairman and I share a passion for flexibility at the local level. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the distinguished chairman on one issue, and that is I agree with the chairman and with the Bard that we are but players temporarily on this stage, but it is not so for the children of America. For each day that passes in their school year we never get that day back. We never get a day back when we miss a day of quality education, and that is what makes this debate absolutely crucial. I disagree with the distinguished chairman on two important issues. This is not exactly the same as last year. The dollar amounts are different. There is a one-third increase in this bill for the class size reduction program; and, in addition, the chairman's concern about qualified teachers is addressed because there is a requirement this year for 100 percent qualification for the teachers hired under this program. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).