David Wu

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for their bipartisan leadership in this tribute to President Ronald Reagan. I would like to share a personal story, one little vignette about my experience with President Reagan. It was during my student days, during my college senior year. Then-Governor Reagan came to Stanford to speak. The speech was organized. It was sometime between his 1976 Presidential campaign and his 1980 Presidential campaign. He had been Governor of California. His speech at Stanford was organized by the Young College Republicans or the Young College Conservatives. Whoever organized it, they carefully screened the audience, and a lot of folks were screened out. But for whatever reason, I was screened in. Then-Governor Reagan gave a very good speech, after which he took questions. I was one of the ones who rose to ask a question. Of course, it was a challenging question. As I was going into the question, members of the audience started to boo me, and the moderator rose to cut off my question. It was at that point that Mr. Reagan stepped up and said, ``No, no, no, I want to hear the young man out, and I want to answer his question.'' I had my say, he answered the question, and of course he got a standing ovation. But I think it is that moment, that image of Mr. Reagan, that I remember, his graciousness, his openness, his generosity of spirit, the willingness to hear folks out and hear debate. That is a sign of greatness in any individual, and there were lessons for that day almost 30 years ago, and they are perhaps lessons today for the Washington in which we work today. My best wishes to the family, and God bless Ronald Reagan.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to assure the chairman and ranking member that as originally drafted it applied to both subsection (d) and (e), major starts and small starts. As redrafted in the modified language, this amendment applies only to subsection (d), the small starts provision. So I want to assure the chairman and ranking member that it does only apply to small starts, what would otherwise be small starts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there are projects that have undergone all aspects of FTA New Starts review and have, in fact, received recommended ratings in the FTA 2005 New Starts Report, and they are simply awaiting approval to enter final design. These projects have been through financial review, environmental review, project management review, and have fulfilled all of the prerequisites for entering into final design. However, under our subject legislation, only projects with a full funding grant agreement or letter of intent before enactment of this bill are exempt from the provisions for major projects and small starts. This is a serious problem for smaller projects like a commuter rail project in my congressional district, which are in final design or in the process of having final design approved. I might add this also affects a rail project in the San Diego metropolitan area. These projects will essentially have to start all over again under the small starts program and, furthermore, such projects will have to await the promulgation of small starts rules before proceeding. This process will result in a year-long delay for projects that are near the end of an already lengthy Federal approval process. In the case of the commuter rail project in my congressional district, this long delay will seriously endanger State funding and agreed-to rail agreements. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will exempt projects for which the Secretary of Transportation has received an application for final design from the small starts provisions of the bill. This fair and balanced amendment will allow recommended new starts which have applied for final design to move forward on their original time line and avoid unnecessary delay. This is expressly limited to subsection (d), small start projects only. My amendment will only affect two recommended small start transit projects in the entire country, but it will save unnecessary administrative delay and also improve the commuting lives of millions of citizens in Oregon and in the San Diego metropolitan area. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

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

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Thomas Pfingsten, Library Director at Portland State University. Mr. Pfingsten is retiring after 24 years of dedicated service to Portland State University and to Oregon. I join with his colleagues at PSU, those in the Oregon University System, and his friends in the City of Portland in recognizing him for his leadership, his commitment to providing educational opportunities to students, and his work with PSU to help this important institution grow into a national model of an urban university. Tom Pfingsten has served at Portland State University since 1980. During that time, the Millar Library has steadily increased its collections holdings from 650,000 volumes in 1980 to the present day 1.3 million volumes. In addition, during Tom's tenure, there were three major library improvements: (1) an expanded and improved library building that is both functional and architecturally stunning; (2) a major reorganization of the way in which the library internally functions including the creation of a new research and learning center; and (3) a transition from paper systems to electronic media in nearly all aspects of library organization, communication, and presentation to students and faculty. All of these accomplishments have been most impressive due to the fact that his era at Portland State has been one of great financial challenges. Tom's modest, self-effacing style obscures a canny ability to find money for important projects and to spend it prudently and effectively. He has been a tremendous and tireless advocate for the Millar Library and his efforts, and those of his fine staff, have allowed it to keep pace with Oregon's fastest growing, and now largest, university. In an atmosphere of constant fiscal challenge, Tom Pfingsten and the Millar Library--like Portland State University itself--have triumphed over adversity and provided high quality service to our students, faculty and community. Mr. Speaker, I am honored that I have had the opportunity to work with and know Tom Pfingsten. I ask that my colleagues join me in wishing him and his family the best as he enters a much-deserved retirement after a job well done.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 56, a resolution recognizing the historical significance of February 19, 1942 and supporting the Japanese American, German American, and Italian American communities in recognizing a National Day of Remembrance. On February 19, 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, under which authority approximately 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were forcibly removed from their homes and incarcerated during World War II. The last of the detainees were released in October 1946, 4\1/2\ years after the signing of the Executive Order, and over a year after the end of the war. But this dark chapter in our American history did not end there. Upon release from the internment camps, Japanese Americans could not return to the lives they had led before the tragic Executive Order. During the period of internment, they lost their homes, their businesses, their livelihoods. Thirty years passed before the Executive Order was formally rescinded in 1976. And it took the government an additional 12 years before reparations and a Presidential apology were issued in 1988. Mr. Speaker, it took over 40 years for the government to acknowledge the magnitude of the mistake it had made in interning Japanese Americans. We must now vow to remember the unspeakable injustice perpetrated upon our fellow Americans by our American government so that it may not be repeated. I thank Mr. Honda for introducing this important resolution which reminds us not to forget the mistakes of our past. We support the Japanese American, German American, and Italian American communities in recognizing a National Day of Remembrance. This dark period in our history not only devastated the lives of Japanese Americans, but also restricted the freedoms of Italian Americans and German Americans during World War II. Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that measures such as Executive Order 9066, which was found to be shaped by ``race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership,'' violate not only the rights of those they target, but in fact, attack the basic freedoms of all Americans guaranteed by the Constitution. Let the lessons of the past teach us to be wary of the actions we as a Congress take hastily, based on fear. Let us remember.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I held a town hall meeting in Scappoose, Oregon on Monday night. Scappoose is in Columbia County, which has a double- digit unemployment rate. The first person to speak at that event was a woman who told me that her unemployment benefits will run out this month, she is terrified of losing her health insurance, and she is considering taking a job in California, leaving her children and family behind. Time after time in Oregon, I hear the heartbreak of a jobless economic recovery. Oregon has a jobless rate of 7.2% and we have lead the nation in unemployment for most of the past two years. And, it is estimated that as I speak, there are over 34,000 Oregonians who have exhausted all forms of unemployment assistance without finding a job. These are not just statistics. Each one of these 34,000 people risks losing their car, their home, or being unable to afford college for their children, or vital health care for their family. Mr. Chairman, all Oregonians hope for an improved economy that creates permanent high paying jobs. But today, these new jobs do not yet exist in Oregon. And so today, we must show compassion and extend unemployment assistance. At the end of that same town meeting in Scappoose, a gentleman also talked about the pain of being unemployed and asked me a straight question, who can change this? I gave him a straight answer. If the President picked up the phone and asked for an unemployment extension we would get it done this week. I said that before I knew we would be asked to vote the Miller amendment today. So today, I want to say to the President, sir I challenge you to feel the passion, the anger, and the pain of the millions of Americans who are out of work. Pick up the phone Mr. President, and let's extend unemployment benefits this week. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting the Miller amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, recently I held town hall meetings across the congressional district that I am privileged to represent in Oregon. In Scappoose on Monday night, the first person to speak was a woman who told me that she had been unemployed for a long time. Her benefits had run out. She is terrified of losing her health care. And most galling for an Oregonian, she is thinking about moving to California and taking a job while leaving her children and family behind. Oregon has a jobless rate of 7.2 percent. Scappoose, located in Columbia County, has an unemployment rate of 10.6 percent. But these are not just naked statistics. Each one of these unemployed people risks losing their car, their home, of being unable to afford college payments or vital health care for their family. So today we are called upon to show some compassion and extend unemployment benefits. At the end of the same town meeting in Scappoose, a fellow got up and asked, ``Who can solve this? Who can make a difference in this?'' He asked a straight question and I gave him a straight answer. If the President of the United States picked up the phone and asked for a straight extension of unemployment benefits, it would happen this week. And I said that before I knew that the Miller amendment would be up for a vote today. So today I would like to say to the President of the United States, it is time to phone home. It is time to phone home so that you feel the passion, the anger, and the pain of millions of Americans who have been without work for a long time and are now without unemployment benefits. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Miller amendment.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, the most important thing the President can tell Oregonians tonight is what he will do to improve our struggling economy. All Oregonians hope for an improved economy that creates new and high-wage jobs. But the President must not let his hopes and expectations for future economic growth blind him to the current plight of the thousands of Oregonians who are out of work today. The unemployment rate in Oregon is a shocking 7.2 percent. But this is not a naked statistic. This is people losing their homes, losing their health care, losing their ability to send their children to college and a better future. I was on our solid light rail system recently and I met a gentleman who came up to me and said, ``Congressman, I have two master's degrees and I have been working in high technology for almost 20 years. But I've been without work for 18 months and I've lost access to unemployment benefits.'' To show compassion for that man, Oregonians and Americans across this country, the President must and should call for an immediate extension of unemployment benefits. For unemployed Oregonians, it is these benefits that keep their kids in college and prevent the loss of a home, a car or vital access to health care. Too many Oregonians know the heartbreak of a jobless economic recovery. To create new, high-paying jobs, we need investment in Main Street as well as Wall Street. I have sponsored legislation to give small businesses incentives to invest and grow, and I hope that the President will tell us tonight how all Americans can prosper together and not just the large corporations and the fortunate who are their shareholders. Mr. Speaker, the key to economic success begins with education. The President needs to keep his promise to truly leave no child behind by committing tonight to providing the resources that America needs to have the best public school system in the world. Also, we must make college affordability a national priority. Recent tuition increases have put college out of reach for too many Oregon and American families. I will be working on the Committee on Education and the Workforce to make college more affordable and accessible. In closing, we must work together to address the most important issues facing our Nation, extending unemployment benefits, investing in Main Street small businesses, and providing the best education possible to all Americans.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 302, and urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. For the past half-century, Taiwan and its people have been one of the United States' most reliable friends and allies in Asia, and around the world. Our two nations have cultivated many mutual interests, including trade, cultural, security in the Western Pacific Ocean, and democratic development. On October 31st, President Chen Shui-bian will be visiting the United States. On behalf of the American people, I would like to extend my warmest welcome to the President, and hope that our two nations will continue to deepen various aspects of our relationship. As we host President Chen, I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution, and urge Congress and the Administration to support Taiwan's efforts to secure meaningful participation in international organizations and forums.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the achievements of Professor Belle W.Y. Wei, who recently became Dean of the College of Engineering at San Jose State University. Dr. Wei, the first Asian American woman to be named Dean at SJSU's College of Engineering, is one of fewer than twenty female deans in 345 engineering schools nationwide and the only Asian American woman to head an engineering college in the United States. Dr. Wei was born and raised in Taiwan. After immigrating to the United States with her family as a teenager, she earned an undergraduate degree in biophysics at UC-Berkeley in 1977 and a Master's degree in applied physics at Harvard in 1980. In 1987, Dr. Wei completed her Doctorate in electrical engineering and computer science at UC-Berkeley and joined the faculty at San Jose State University. As Interim Dean since 2002, Dr. Wei successfully managed the College of Engineering's students and faculty while raising critical funds to support faculty development and student scholarships. She also established strategic collaborations with industry, alumni, government agencies, and other educational institutions. Dr. Wei's energy and dedication to excellence have earned her the respect and admiration of her peers and awards in leadership and research excellence. These accomplishments made her an ideal candidate for the position of Dean. During her first full term as Dean of the College of Engineering, Dr. Wei plans to implement a more extensive program of outreach education to high school students, and hopes to encourage women and underrepresented minority populations to enroll in the engineering program. I commend Dr. Belle Wei for her achievements, and I am certain my colleagues will join me in wishing her continued success.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lantos-Obey amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill. When my mother brought me across the vastness of the Pacific Ocean to America, she did so with the hope that I would become a good citizen, a good American citizen. I doubt that she ever dreamed that I would become a U.S. Congressman as well. Whether as citizen or as Congressman, however, we learn certain fundamental values from parents, from teachers and mentors. Some of the most crucial of those values are responsibility, accountability and having a plan for the future. By all three of these standards, the administration's request for $87 billion for Iraq fails, and I must reluctantly vote against it. Responsibility, accountability and a plan for the future. Responsibility: A year ago I stood in this well and expressed my grave concern that we were embarking upon an unnecessary war, and, by so doing, that we were going to lower the barriers to future wars. We were told that Iraq was an imminent threat to our national security. Well, here we are enmeshed in a quagmire in Iraq, and we have lowered the international threshold for war with this new doctrine of preemption, or first strike. The administration architects for these policies must be held responsible. We need responsibility. Accountability: We have been asked for over $400 billion in regular appropriations and in supplemental appropriations. We have spent a lot of money on defense and on Iraq. However, we find that our troops are going without the best bulletproof vests. We find that troops are traveling in Humvees with soft canvas backs rather than armored vehicles, because their armored vehicles do not have tracks to take them around. Where is the accountability? Where has the money gone? Where is the accountability for our troops? Where is the accountability to their spouses, to their parents, and to their children? And where is the accountability to my fellow Oregonians who have been told that there is not enough money to keep their schools open or to pay for their unemployment? We need accountability. We need a plan for the future. Approving this funding without a plan for the future is nothing less than writing a blank check. We need a plan for proceeding on two fronts. At the one end on the international front, we need to bring the international community into Iraq to share the burden, both in terms of blood and treasure; and at the other end, at the local end, we need as rapidly as possible to restore self-government to the Iraqi people. The administration resists both of these efforts. There is no cogent plan. Mr. Chairman, we have no responsibility, no accountability, and no plan, because this administration is not listening to either Congress or the American people. Congress has very few tools to influence foreign policy; and today, we only have the power of the purse to make this administration open its ears and listen to this Congress and to the American people. If we fail to use our limited powers to make this administration listen, then we are nothing more than a rubber stamp. My mother did not bring me across the ocean to be a rubber stamp citizen, and Oregonians did not send me across this continent to be a rubber stamp Congressman. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment and against the underlying bill.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 234, a bill condemning bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans, Muslim- Americans, South Asian-Americans and Sikh-Americans. More than 2 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the backlash of vandalism, harassment and violence perpetrated against members of these peaceful communities continues. This treatment is the result of misguided fear and resentment, and it is unconscionable. This legislation before the House sends an unequivocal message that the United States does not condone prejudice or violence. It also encourages victims of hate crimes to step forward and report the incidents that affect them so that we can prosecute the perpetrators of these inexcusable acts. Unfortunately, the fear of retaliation often prevents victims from reporting hate crimes. For example, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium has uncovered the case of an Islamic South Asian family in Southern California that received threatening phone calls and accusations of being terrorists after the September 11th attacks. One day the family returned home to find that their house had been burned down, but they did not report the arson to the police for fear of further backlash. We in Congress have the responsibility to protect hate crime victims and to do everything in our power to prevent hate crimes in the future. Mr. Speaker, America draws its strength from its tremendous diversity. In order to remain strong and united, we must work to eliminate hate crimes and replace suspicion with understanding so that all Americans can live without fear. I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in working to promote domestic peace and cultural understanding by supporting H. Res. 234.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my grave concern with the potential termination of the successful Welfare Waiver Program in my State of Oregon because of Federal action or inaction. Today we are moving forward again on legislation to extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, Program through a period of time until we can do the full reauthorization. Also today in Oregon, a successful State- designed welfare-to-work program which has provided a gateway from welfare to work for thousands of Oregonians may expire through our action or inaction. My State of Oregon currently operates its welfare program under a Federal waiver. In Oregon, the program is known as the Oregon option and in the last 6 years, it has seen caseload reduction rates above the national average. Our innovative program allows Oregon the flexibility to consider individuals on a case-by-case basis. Some folks simply need a little job training or job search skills and then they are ready to transition back into the workforce. Others need more extensive drug and alcohol treatments or basic education before they are able to hold down a job. This combination of rehabilitative services to the most needy and more education and job training activities for others has proved to be a great success. For 18 months, I have sought to protect and extend the successful State innovation. My friends and colleagues have acknowledged the success of the Oregon program and the importance of preserving individual State innovation. However, with the passage of today's extension, we find ourselves punishing, rather than rewarding, innovation. I ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut to assist the citizens of Oregon and the Nation in this matter, and I am seeking it here tonight.

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. I will take the gentlewoman's response as we certainly aspire to extend this to the full reauthorization within the limits of this extension, but that on a best efforts basis, should we not be able to do that within this period of time, which I believe is March of 2004, that we will endeavor together to continue on this informal basis to extend the waivers under which Oregon and other States have operated.

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, if I may make my second inquiry of the gentlewoman from Connecticut, I would like to inquire of the gentlewoman as to her intent to assist Oregon and other States with an extension specifically for States on welfare waivers in the TANF reauthorization bill as it is currently being considered before this Congress and this body and the other body.

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I thank the gentlewoman. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, June 24, 2003. Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Wyden: Oregon has been operating its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program under a waiver since 1996 and this waiver is due to expire at the end of this month. I thank you for raising with the Administration your concerns about your State's TANF program and its waiver, and I admire the tremendous efforts you have been making on Oregon's behalf to see that your State has the ability to operate the best TANF program it can. I believe that Oregon will be able to maintain its current program through the end of this fiscal year, and ask you to continue working with me to complete reauthorization legislation that will improve TANF for families across the nation. The rigorous evaluation of your Portland program has documented some of the most impressive impacts on increased earnings, improved job quality and reductions in welfare dependency of any program that has ever been evaluated. This impressive record of accomplishment is one of which you can be proud. I know that your efforts in support of Oregon's program are grounded in the lessons you have learned from the evaluation of your State's success and these lessons will be important in informing the debate on issues that will be considered in TANF reauthorization. Your commitment and leadership on these issues continues to benefit the people of Oregon. Oregon's TANF program operates with a waiver granted under the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. When AFDC was converted into TANF as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the new law enabled States such as Oregon that had previously approved waiver programs to continue operating those waivers. However, there is no provision in law that would permit the Administration to extend such waivers, as it was anticipated that these programs would eventually align themselves with the larger TANF reforms upon completion of their waivers. Therefore, extending existing waivers would require changing current law. TANF is currently authorized only through the end of this month, and legislation is before the Senate that would temporarily extend the program through September, 2003, the end of FY 2003. The Administration strongly supports passage of this emergency measure to keep the current program operating, and enable Congress to complete work on reauthorization. Without this measure, Oregon would be denied access to over $40 million in TANF funding scheduled to be made available for the fourth quarter next week. I understand Oregon will maintain its current program while Congress completes work on reauthorization. Oregon is not in violation and based on Oregon's history is not expected to be in violation and therefore Oregon will not be subject to penalties for the next three months or until reauthorization. Let me explain. Oregon's current TANF program has many elements, most of which are accommodated under TANF and are permissible under current law. However, I understand the State is concerned about its ability to continue operating two particular policies when its waiver expires. Oregon's waiver allows the State to count toward its required work participation rate certain types of activities, such as participation in substance abuse treatment and extended education and training, which would not otherwise be countable under TANF. Your State's waiver also permits counting of certain adults who are participating but have not attained at least 30 hours of participation per week, which is also required under TANF law. Importantly, even without its waiver, TANF would not prohibit Oregon from engaging clients in the activities they currently do, nor does it prohibit the State from assigning hours for particular clients at levels below the current-law standard. These issues are relevant in that States must meet minimum participation rates. However, according to Oregon's current data, the State would be likely to meet its required participation in FY 2003, even though Oregon's ability to count certain activities and clients under its waiver will end at the end of this month. Oregon achieved a participation rate for all its families of 61.1% in FY 2002. It would have achieved only an 8.0% all- family rate if it had operated the same way, but counted participation without its current waiver. However, because Oregon achieved such a dramatic reduction in TANF caseload over the past several years, it enjoys a caseload reduction credit that reduced its effective all-family participation rate requirement to 0% in FY 2002. Thus, even without its waiver, Oregon's program would have met its all-family participation requirement in FY 2002 because it effectively had no participation requirement. Oregon's caseload reduction credit in FY 2001 was 56.2%, and in FY 2002 was 58.3%. I would anticipate that this would not change considerably in FY 2003, and because the required all-family rate for FY 2003 remained at only 50%, the State is very likely facing no participation requirement for the current year as well. Furthermore, work participation rates are measured on a full year basis, meaning that for FY 2003 Oregon's rate would be an average of what it achieved throughout the year. Given Oregon's extremely high participation rates under its waiver, and the fact it will have operated under the waiver for three of the four quarters of FY 2003, it should achieve a very high rate even if the final quarter is calculated without the waiver. Oregon also must meet a separate participation rate for its 2-parent families. With its waiver, the State achieved a 53.8% 2-parent rate in FY 2002, but due to the caseload reduction credit it earned, only needed to meet a 31.7% standard. Again, given the State's likely high 2-parent participation for the first three quarters of FY 2003, it should meet this standard as well. Based upon this, I am confident that Oregon can continue to operate its current TANF program through the end of this fiscal year without concerns about becoming subject to penalties for meeting its participation requirements. Should reauthorization not occur prior to the end of the fiscal year and current law be extended again, I would remain confident based on the facts that I have before me that Oregon could continue to operate its program without becoming subject to participation rate penalties. TANF is a great program, and with your help we can make it work even better in the future. TANF provides States tremendous flexibility to fund and operate work and job preparation activities, and to provide supportive services and benefits so clients can find work, support themselves and build a better life for their families. I know you share my interest in seeing the program reauthorized as quickly as possible, and seeing that important improvements are made to enable States to engage all cases in meaningful and helpful activities so they can move into work quickly and successfully. Reauthorization is crucial for Oregon. As you know, the President's reauthorization proposal includes changes that would enable States to count various barrier removal activities toward their participation rates, as Oregon is doing now. It would also eliminate the separate 2- parent participation rate. I appreciate the impressive work you are doing for the State of Oregon, and particularly your attention to this critical program that has become so important to helping our neediest families build better lives. The State of Oregon has done a wonderful job with its TANF program over the years, and we will continue to work with you on reauthorization legislation to see that we build the best program for Oregon and all of America. The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no objection to this letter from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Tommy G. Thompson.

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to inquire one more time of the gentlewoman from Connecticut as to her intention to work in this body in conference and with the Senate with respect to specific State waiver authority as we go forward with this reauthorization.

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WU. If the gentleman will yield further, I would make inquiry of the gentlewoman from Connecticut, I would like to make two inquiries, and let me do them separately. Oregon has had a terrible unemployment situation. Out of the last 24 months, we have topped the Nation in unemployment 17 out of those 24 months. We have oscillated between 8.1 percent unemployment and 8.8 percent unemployment. I believe we are currently at a seasonally-adjusted 8.5 percent unemployment rate. My first inquiry of the gentlewoman from Connecticut is that the factual predicate, upon which the Secretary's letter is written, is based on weighted averages of caseload reduction. Given the terrible situation that our State of Oregon is in, it may take some time for this Congress to reauthorize TANF. If it does take a substantial amount of time, there may come a time that, given our unemployment rate, our caseload reduction may no longer be able to meet some of the current statutory requirements. Is it the gentlewoman's intention to work on a bipartisan basis to encourage the Secretary and the administration to continue to extend those State waivers which are being informally extended currently by the Secretary?

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The language of this body is beautiful for its specificity and nonspecificity, and I fully appreciate that. I certainly do not expect a solution to the problems of this particular reauthorization this evening. I would like to simply note that under the plenary authority that Congress has over many issues, including this one, that it is within the ability of Congress in this bill to extend expired waivers, and I would just like to log that as a point of departure for States like Connecticut and Oregon, the waivers for which have expired; and if there is a will, there will be a way.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, for most of the last 2 years, my home State of Oregon has had the highest unemployment rate in the Nation, and thousands of Oregonians have tried for a year or more to find a job without success. This coming Saturday, 12,000 unemployed Oregonians will lose all of their unemployment benefits with the expiration of an Oregon unemployment program which provides assistance when Federal unemployment benefits run out. The estimates are that 400 additional Oregonians per week will lose all unemployment benefits starting next week and for every week thereafter. For unemployed Oregonians, it is these benefits that keep their kids in college, prevent the loss of a home, car, or vital health care. Mr. Speaker, a jobless economic recovery does not help the unemployed. I challenge this Congress to do more to help our jobless Americans. I challenge this Congress to pass H.R. 3156, my bill to extend Federal unemployment benefits by an additional 13 weeks.

Mr WU

Mr WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement and in opposition to the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. I believe in vibrant trade, and I believe in vibrant democracy. It has often been referred on this floor today that the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement is the first free trade agreement signed with any Asian nation. And I must point out that instead of selecting vibrant democracies, such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, or India, this administration has negotiated a free trade agreement with a single- party authoritarian state. I think that by choosing this course, we are, in effect, endorsing our competing model for this next century. That is, in the last century the competition of ideas in the world was between our ideals of free markets and free societies versus fascism or communism. In this next century, the competition is between our ideals of a free market and a free society versus a free market coupled with a one-party authoritarian state, such as exists in the city-state of Singapore. The Singapore Free Trade Agreement will pass. Even without that agreement, 99 percent of trade is without tariffs. But I ask at least some Members of this Chamber to stand with me today and show that there is a distinction between the Chilean and Singaporean Free Trade Agreements because when you are asked, what is the difference, since these agreements are so similar, what is the difference and why did you vote for one and not the other, the answer is, we should have free trade with free people and we should use our economic leverage to enhance democracy in this next century.