David Wu

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I entered the Chamber in the last rollcall vote prior to this one, attempting to vote by electronic device, when the electronic device would not take my vote. I approached the table and attempted to submit a vote on that motion and my attempt to vote was not accepted. Had my vote been accepted, I would have voted ``no'' on that resolution. So the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was read the third time.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Montana for yielding me time. I rise in strong support of this food labeling amendment. Opponents of this amendment argue complexity and delay. I offer simplicity and brevity. Last Congress, this body voted in support of country-of-origin food labeling. We voted in favor of labeling because it supports family farms, increases food safety, and gives customers the right to choose where their food comes from. Several decades ago, we created the strongest securities and financial industry in the world by asking for labeling and disclosure. This action was opposed tremendously by the financial industry at that time. Today, however, many segments of the securities industry support disclosure because it created a new and stronger industry. I firmly believe that consumer right-to-know is a good thing. I can look at the back of my tie and determine that it is made in America. I can look at the labeling in my suit and determine that it is made in America. If I go to the supermarket and buy a pound of hamburger, I cannot tell where that product came from. The opponents of this amendment want to keep me, and all American consumers in ignorance. That is wrong--wrong for America's family farmers and wrong for American consumers. Country of origin labeling helps family farms because, given a choice, most Americans will choose fresh foods grown domestically. In fact, numerous surveys and polls indicate that consumers overwhelmingly support country of origin labeling and will pay a market premium for U.S. products. Labeling provides additional product information, increased consumer choice and fulfills a desire to support American agriculture. In addition, country of origin labeling addresses the heightened concerns of consumers regarding the recent discovery of mad cow disease in Canada. The United States produces the most abundant, most affordable, and safest food in the world. Country of Origin Labeling gives American consumers the ability to choose food from places that they know and trust. It also gives family farmers recognition for the tremendous job they do producing safe, quality agricultural products.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Montana for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of my colleague from Montana and my colleague from Oregon's amendment on meat origin labeling. The opponents of this amendment argue complexity and delay. I want to offer simplicity and probably brevity here. We created the strongest securities and financial industry in the world by asking for disclosure, labeling and disclosure a few decades ago. That was opposed tremendously by the industry at that time. However, I believe that many segments of the industry would support that today because that disclosure has been helpful to the securities and financial industry. As previously pointed out, I would like to make a point that labeling, I believe, is a good thing. I can look at the back of this tie and determine that it is made in America. I can look at the labeling in this suit and determine that it is made in America. If I go to the cloakroom right now and eat a hot dog, I cannot tell where that product came from. It comes down to this. I think it really is very, very simple. People ought to know and people ought to be able to choose. As your mothers and your grandmothers admonish you, you are what you eat. I ask this Congress to support this amendment so that people can eat American and be American.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H. Res. 277, a resolution supporting freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. Throughout its modern history, Hong Kong has stood as a beacon of freedom and stability. With the Hong Kong people's ingenuity and hard work, the territory became a stable and prosperous democracy. Since Hong Kong's 1997 change of status, the citizens of Hong Kong have faced the challenge of maintaining their civil liberties and democratic self-governance. While the Basic Law guarantees Hong Kong fifty-years of self-governance and freedom, the Beijing-appointed government of Hong Kong has been working to limit freedom in the territory. I strongly support the goals of H. Res. 277. As a long-time friend and supporter of Hong Kong, I believe we must continue to support the Hong Kong people's efforts to preserve and advance the cause of freedom and democracy. I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for sponsoring this resolution and I will continue to work with my colleagues to protect and advance freedom, democracy, and the rule of law in East Asia.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2030, a bill to designate a post office in Paia, Maui, Hawaii in honor of dear colleague and friend, Patsy Mink. Congresswoman Mink was an advocate, mentor, and inspiration for Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. Mrs. Mink was the first Asian American woman elected to Congress, and she served the APA community as chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. She blazed trails for many of us, and encouraged students, community leaders, and APA elected officials to get involved with the legislative process. Mrs. Mink's career in public service was defined by her commitment to giving a voice for those who needed it most. A prominent member of Congress, she worked tirelessly on behalf of women and minorities, focusing on issues such as civil rights, education, the environment, and poverty. I am honored to have served with her, both in the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and in the Education and Work Force Committee. Her endless dedication to public service was a guiding example to all of us. Above all, I will miss her friendship. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2030.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian on his third anniversary in office. Under his leadership, Taiwan is now a prosperous democracy respecting human rights and civil liberties. In addition, Taiwan and the United States enjoy a strong trade relationship. We are Taiwan's number one trading partner and Taiwan is our eighth. With the recent outbreak of SARS, we see the absolute necessity of all countries sharing medical information. Viruses and germs know no boundaries. International cooperation and collaboration are vital in preventing the further spread of SARS. I therefore hope that Taiwan will soon gain observer status in the World Health Assembly this May. Taiwan's 23 million people deserve full access to all available information about diseases and cures. I appreciate Taiwan's efforts in seeking a dialogue with China and maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. I hope that China will demonstrate its good will by engaging in peaceful talks with the people of Taiwan about the island's future political status. I hope that the longstanding friendship between our two democracies continues to blossom and strengthen in the years ahead. Congratulations to the people of Taiwan and President Chen.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. I believe this piece of legislation is extremely important to our Nation's future scientific research efforts and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 766. For the past decade, Oregon has been growing as a progressive and growing area for technological research. In the Portland metropolitan area, we have two major research universities and a large number of high technology companies. As their representative in Congress, I believe H.R. 766 would strengthen our Nation's nanotechnology research efforts and help translate today's research efforts into future technology that will benefit all Americans. This piece of legislation establishes grants for a national nanotechnology research and development effort. The interdisciplinary research centers authorized by H.R. 766 will serve as major centers of excellence and innovation. As an example, I would like to mention one of the public institutions in my district, the Portland State University's Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. The center conducts particularly interesting nanotechnology research and will help transition today's research efforts into real benefits for future American consumers. During Science Committee consideration of H.R. 766, one of the amendments I jointly offered with Mr. Smith of Michigan, Ms. Hart of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Matheson of Utah, would facilitate public and private partnership on research efforts and help utilize regional assets in the development of technology. I strongly hope that future research efforts will be collaborative in nature and take into consideration the many regional scientific and research expertise we have throughout the country.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this first day of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month to honor our Nation's Asian Pacific American community. This month marks the 25th year that our nation has rightly recognized and celebrated the many contributions and achievements of Asian Pacific Americans. Mr. Speaker, America draws its strength from its tremendous diversity. The Asian Pacific American community is one of the fastest growing segments of the United States with over 12.5 million people. We have greatly enriched the American landscape, and I am honored to take part in Asian Pacific American Heritage Month by celebrating the many achievements of APAs in American history. Asian Pacific Americans have made tremendous advances in countless fields such as, politics, medicine, technology, business, music, literature, film, athletics, and agriculture. APAs helped build the Transcontinental Railroad and develop the Internet, and APAs have served honorably to defend the United States in times of armed conflict, from the Civil War through today. And, as I speak today, an Asian Pacific American astronaut, Edward Lu, is stationed aboard the International Space Station. As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I am proud to recognize these achievements. The Asian Pacific American community has made these achievements despite the obstacles of past discriminatory laws, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Alien Law Act of 1920, and the forced internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Like so many other segments of America, the APA community has thrived in the face of opposition. While Asian Pacific Americans as a whole have flourished in the United States, there are still challenges facing certain segments of the APA community today. Many immigrants, refugees, and particular ethnic groups, including Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders, are still working to achieve the American dream. We must not forget those who are struggling to overcome obstacles, including language and cultural barriers, as well as the discrimination that still exists today. Mr. Speaker, the Asian Pacific American community is itself a diverse group of people with distinct languages and cultures. Therefore, I cannot stress enough the importance of improving our data collection on APAs. Today, Government data tends to lump various Asian Pacific Americans together in a single category. Better data will allow us to recognize the diversity and distinct cultures of the many communities that make up the Asian Pacific American community as a whole. This knowledge will allow the United States to better address the different needs of what is a very diverse community; so that all Americans have the same opportunity to attain the American dream. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to encourage Congress and the American people to spend the month of May learning about the legacy, culture, rich traditions, and achievements of the Asian Pacific American Community.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) very much for her support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very much.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say that it is my intention to submit a written statement with respect to this amendment, and I will make that request on behalf of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) as well. Today, students with learning disabilities represent half of all students served under IDEA. During the 1990s, the number of students in this category substantially increased by 34%. The President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education asserts that 80% of these students are identified as learning disabled because they have not learned how to read. The report further asserts that up to 40% of learning disabled students are in special education because they were never taught how to read. These children do not need special education, they need an education. The problem is that children are being missidentified and over- identified as learning disabled. Moreover, a recent National Research Council report indicates that minority students are over-represented in some special education categories, most notably mental retardation and emotional disturbance. The role of teacher referral is critical. Unfortunately, many general education teachers are unprepared to identify students who may actually be at risk for a learning disability. The underlying bill does provide professional development and research funding to reduce the over-identification of children and disabilities, including minority children. Specifically, this bill provides for a competitive grant program. Funding could be used for teacher training in many areas, including how to properly identify students with disabilities. We must ensure that all states provide identification training. That is why my amendment gives priority to applications that provide for the establishment of professional development programs regarding methods of early and appropriate identification of children with disabilities. The President's Commission demonstrated that over-identification is a problem that is rampant in our schools. My amendment would provide the necessary training to ensure that teachers, administrators and personnel are better equipped to determine if a child is learning disabled. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I might inquire as to whether the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), our ranking subcommittee chair, or the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), would care to take a moment to state their position on this amendment. It is my intention to make no further statements at this point in time.

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

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that our airlines are hurting. Passenger numbers have never recovered from September 11. Orange terror warnings and media reports are also scaring away passengers. The war in Iraq has the potential of having a serious and negative effect on this industry. The first Gulf War helped cause the demise of four commercial airlines, all of which disappeared into liquidation. But another handout directly to the airlines is not going to solve the problem. The $3.2 billion in this bill comes just a year and a half after we approved a $15 billion package of post September 11 loans and grants designed to tide airlines over. The real problem is that people aren't flying. Even though the number of flights have been reduced, on average, more than 25 percent of the seats on flights are left unsold. And a reduction in flights means job cuts. It is time we try something more direct. We are proposing a way to get the American public flying again. By filling empty seats, we can actually help to preserve and even create jobs. That's why Representative Scott and I are offering an amendment that will encourage people to fly. Our ``Freedom to Fly'' amendment would set aside the same proposed amount--$3.2 billion--to support an airline ticket discount program. The discount coupons we propose could be used to purchase any airline travel at a 50 percent discount. For example, a voucher costing the passenger $100 would be worth $200 toward the purchase of an airline ticket. Our program would apply the $3.2 bill to directly subsidized passengers and indirectly the airlines. This program would apply to everyone buying tickets on U.S.-owned passenger airlines. As a result of this amendment, air travel would increase because the consumer cost of air travel would be cut in half. And this plan would benefit not just the airlines and the traveling public, but also stimulate business for hotels, rental car companies, travel agencies, and other travel related industries. The total effect of the program would be far greater than just subsidizing the airlines. Over the past week, the airlines have laid off 10,000 workers. A subsidy will not stem the tide of additional layoffs. On the other hand, the proposed vouchers will result in increased airline business, and in increased demand for workers. The proposed program would be developed and administered by the Department of Transportation, and would be in effect for one year, through March 31, 2004. This is a short-term program that actually has some real prospect of being successful. Giving Americans the ``freedom to fly'' will fill those empty seats by making them affordable, thereby increasing revenues for the airlines, preserving jobs, and generating additional revenues for others involved in travel commerce. I encourage all my colleagues to join us in support of this important amendment.

Mr. WU

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

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I understand that the chairman is accepting this amendment. I thank the chairman. At this time I will include some documents for the Record, including a General Accounting Office report on the subject. To be able to serve our nation's energy and military research needs, the Department of Energy's national labs need to attract the best and the brightest. However, there are signs that the labs are experiencing challenges in recruiting and retaining talented scientists. Results from an internal DOE survey, conducted by the DOE National Ombudsman's Office, indicated that 80 percent of African Americans, 62 percent of Hispanic Americans, 26 percent of Caucasians, and 74 percent of Asian Pacific Americans working at DOE labs agreed that there is racial profiling at the lab. According to an April 2002 GAO report, many professional lab employees have significant concerns about their workplace. They are concerned about (1) recruiting efforts, (2) pay, (3) promotion, and (4) lab work environment. The concerns are especially acute among the labs' minority and female employees. Whether these are real or perceived sentiments, it is a serious national issue that such a high percentage of lab employees have concerns about their work environment. Should this trend continue, the labs could cease to be an attractive workplace for American scientists. As a nation, we cannot afford to lose our best asset, our human resources. This amendment is simple, and non-controversial. It requires the Secretary of Energy to make a biennial report to Congress on DOE labs' EEO practices. This amendment's reporting requirements mirror the April 2002 GAO report's recommendations and I believe it would help safeguard our national security and help maintain America's scientific edge. Highlights of GAO Report on Weapons Labs, May 20, 2002 Lab employee concerns concentrate in four areas. They are (1) recruiting, (2) pay, (3) promotion, and lab work environment. GAO sampled Weapons Labs 1995 and 2000 data on staff composition. Questions the GAO asked were: (1) describe the composition of weapons laboratory staff by race/ethnicity, gender, and job category in 1995 and 2000 to determine how the composition of laboratory staff has changed in the 5-year period; (2) determine whether there are statistically significant differences in selected personnel actions for managers and professionals when comparing minority men and women and White women with White men in fiscal years 1998 through 2000, the most current reliable data available at the time of the GAO data request; (3) describe EEO concerns raised by lab staff; (4) identify, if appropriate, opportunities for improving DOE's and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The three labs experienced some increases in their overall minority population. Lawrence Livermore is at 19 percent, Sandia at 24 percent, and Los Alamos at 34 percent. For fiscal years 1998 through 2000, GAO found statiscally significant differences in certain personnel actions and not in others for minority men and women and White women in managerial and professional job categories compared with White men in these categories at the three laboratories. Most notably, with the exception of Asian men at Los Alamos and Sandia, and Hispanic men at Lawrence Livermore, the salaries for minority men and women and White women were lower than for White men. GAO found statistically significant differences, with some exceptions, for disciplinary actions. Minority staff attribute their low representation in certain jobs and management to recruiting strategies that do not extensively target colleges and universities with large minority populations. Opportunities exist for DOE and OFCCP to work together to ensure that the labs meet EEO requirements. At the moment, DOE and OFFCP evaluations produced difference results. For example, in 1999, DOE rated Sandia as ``outstanding'' in human resources while the OFCCP cited Sandia for two affirmative action program violations. GAO recommends that the DOE and OFCCP coordinate their actions to support each other's efforts.

Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his cooperation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU

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

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of parliamentary inquiry, I would inquire of the Chair, is it either required or customary for a point of order to be raised before discussion of the amendment?

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, is that within the rule that we passed for this particular bill, or is that always a rule of the House?

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

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read in its entirety.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment with my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott). This bill contains $3.178 billion as further assistance to our airlines. There is no doubt that our airlines are in dire financial circumstances. Passenger numbers have never recovered from September 11. Orange terror alerts, other factors have kept passengers away. By point of illustration, the first Gulf War more than a decade ago. During that time period, four commercial airlines went into insolvency, never to emerge. I believe that this direct handout to the airlines of almost $3.2 billion is not the correct way to proceed. Our amendment, the freedom to fly amendment, would put this money into the hands of passengers. It would stimulate more passenger traffic, put more people on more airplanes, and in so doing also stimulate the ancillary travel industry; that is, all the other components of the travel industry, whether it is hotels, restaurants, car rental, all the businesses that are at airports. And this would also help airline employees in a market-oriented commonsense approach. Right now approximately 25 percent of airline seats are going unfilled and we know that a lot of flights have already been cut. The freedom to fly amendment would fill these empty seats and I believe stimulates the airlines to bring more flights on line, preserving jobs and generating additional revenues both for the airlines and for all the affiliated travel businesses.