David Wu

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation to reauthorize the United States Fire Administration (USFA). I want to congratulate Mr. Mitchell from Arizona for his work on this issue and for being instrumental in the passage of the House version of this bill earlier this year. I also want to commend Chairman Gordon for his leadership of the Committee on Science and Technology throughout the 110th Congress. USFA was formed by Congress in 1974 in response to a report that found there were over 12,000 deaths annually due to fire in this country and over 300,000 fire injuries each year. Through the hard work of USFA and others, we have been fortunate to see that number drop dramatically. We are now a much safer nation, thanks to improved awareness of fire safety practices, increased use of smoke detectors and sprinklers, and other fire safety measures. Still, approximately 3,000 people die each year in fires and 10,000 more are injured. We also still see too many firefighters die in the line of duty, protecting our families and homes. We have a lot more work to do. USFA supports local fire departments in a variety of manners. It offers training and career development to thousands of mid-level firefighters, fire chiefs, and other emergency management officials. USFA is a great way for the federal government to help coordinate the efforts for firefighters at the local level. USFA also develops fire education and awareness curriculum material to be used in training citizens across the country, aiming its messages at groups who suffer the highest fire casualties, such as the young and the elderly. While Congress is working to reauthorize and build on this important program, the president is cutting the budget for this agency. The President's FY09 budget cuts funding to USFA by more than 5 percent. As firefighters learn to respond to new issues such as fires in the wildland-urban interface, terrorist events, and harmful materials incidents, we need to provide sufficient funds to train and prepare them for these situations. Firefighters risk their lives everyday, so they can protect ours. Passing this legislation is one way we can express our great appreciation. I recommend my colleagues support this legislation so it can be signed into law before the end of the 110th Congress.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the serious, debilitating, chronic diseases of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and to urge you to support H.R. 1188, the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act for 2007--important bipartisan legislation that I have introduced with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gerlach. This legislation would be the first ever legislative action to fill important gaps in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis data collection and research, and is an important step in providing relief to the as many as 7.5 million Americans that the National Institutes of Health estimates suffer from these noncontagious, genetic auto-immune diseases. Psoriasis is widely misunderstood, minimized, and undertreated. In addition to the pain, itching, and bleeding caused by psoriasis, many affected individuals also experience social discrimination and stigma. Of serious concern is that people with psoriasis are at elevated risk for myriad co-morbidities, including but not limited to, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and mental health conditions. As such, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis impose significant burdens on individuals and society; psoriasis alone is estimated to cost the Nation 56 million hours of lost work and between $2 billion and $3 billion annually. Also, I wish to take a moment to recognize that August is National Psoriasis Awareness Month and commend the National Psoriasis Foundation, headquartered in my district, for its annual efforts surrounding National Psoriasis Awareness Month. Moreover, I thank the foundation leaders and staff for working tirelessly each day to help our Nation make progress toward a cure and to ensure that people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have access to the care they need and deserve. On average, each of us has 17,000 constituents with psoriasis. As most of us will be at home frequently this fall, I encourage my colleagues to meet with affected constituents, learn more about psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and work to reduce the misconceptions surrounding these conditions. I further urge you to join with me and the other 82 cosponsors in supporting people living with psoriasis by cosponsoring H.R. 1188.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring attention to the serious, debilitating, chronic diseases of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and to urge you to support H.R. 1188, the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act for 2007--important bipartisan legislation that I have introduced with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gerlach. This legislation would be the first ever legislative action to fill important gaps in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis data collection and research, and is an important step in providing relief to the as many as 7.5 million Americans that the National Institutes of Health estimates suffer from these non-contagious, genetic auto-immune diseases. Psoriasis is widely misunderstood, minimized, and under-treated. In addition to the pain, itching, and bleeding caused by psoriasis, many affected individuals also experience social discrimination and stigma. Of serious concern is that people with psoriasis are at elevated risk for myriad co-morbidities, including but not limited to, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and mental health conditions. As such, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis impose significant burdens on individuals and society; psoriasis alone is estimated to cost the nation 56 million hours of lost work and between $2 billion and $3 billion annually. Also, I wish to take a moment to recognize that August is National Psoriasis Awareness Month and commend the National Psoriasis Foundation, headquartered in my district, for its annual efforts surrounding National Psoriasis Awareness Month. Moreover, I thank the Foundation leaders and staff for working tirelessly each day to help our nation make progress toward a cure and to ensure that people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have access to the care they need and deserve. On average, each of us has 17,000 constituents with psoriasis. As most of us will be at-home frequently this fall, I encourage my colleagues to meet with affected constituents, learn more about psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and work to reduce the misconceptions surrounding these conditions. I further urge you to join with me and the other 82 cosponsors in supporting people living with psoriasis by cosponsoring H.R. 1188.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 415, a resolution to honor and recognize veterans of Asian and Pacific Islander descent who fought valiantly in the United States Civil War. Historical research indicates that more than 250 soldiers of Asian and Pacific Islander descent served in both the Union and Confederate forces during the Civil War. Mr. Edward Day Cohota and Mr. Joseph L. Pierce, both of Chinese descent, are the most documented and researched of these veterans. Mr. Cohota enlisted in the 23rd Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, in 1864 and fought courageously in the Battle of Drury's Bluff, where other soldiers reported that he had seven bullet holes in his coat but was not wounded. Mr. Cohota continued to serve in the U.S. Army for a total of 30 years. Mr. Pierce enlisted in the 14th Regiment, Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, in 1862 and fought in his first battle at Antietam. He further distinguished himself in the Battle of Gettysburg, and bravely volunteered for a perilous attack on Bliss Farm during the day of Pickett's charge. Remarkably, despite the fact that many people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent were not allowed to naturalize during this period, a disproportionately high percentage enlisted to fight on both sides of the Civil War. After the war, however, scores of these soldiers and sailors were unjustly denied their due recognition and benefits. H. Res. 415 is a long overdue expression of appreciation for the loyal service of the Civil War veterans of Asian and Pacific Islander heritage. The United States House of Representatives stands to recognize their contributions to our Nation's history and to speak against the injustices done to them despite their patriotism and honorable service.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the conference report. This bill contains many excellent provisions that will help Oregon and, indeed, all American families better afford college. For example, the legislation increases the Pell Grant from the current $5,800 per year ultimately to $9,000 per year, and it makes it available for year-round education. It streamlines the Federal student aid application process, restores integrity and accountability to the student loan industry, and encourages colleges to better manage tuition and price increases. There are two provisions that I am particularly proud of and supportive of in the bill. One is a provision intended to make textbook prices more transparent and manageable. This is something that I have been working on for over 5 years. It provides students with advance information on textbook pricing so they can better plan for expenses before each term begins. It assists faculty by ensuring that they have complete information on textbook pricing before making purchase decisions, and it requires textbook publishers to provide combined or bundled educational products separately for purchase. This bill also establishes a program for low-income Asian American students in title III of the bill. Through the new program, grants will be made available to eligible institutions where at least 10 percent of the student body is Asian American and low-income. And this will have a significant impact on the aspirations of all Americans, and this has been an aspiration of the Asian American community for a long time. I strongly support this conference report and urge the other Members to support it.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, it is no wonder that the only Republican solution to our record high gas prices is more drilling. Who would expect anything less when two former oil executives occupy the White House? The problem is that this has been the Republican energy plan for the last 7 years. It was created in secret by Vice President Cheney and oil executives. And it is responsible for the record high oil prices that we all face at the pump today. Republicans claim that we could lower the price at the pump if we would only approve more and more drilling leases. That is their rhetoric. Here are the facts. Oil companies do not need new areas to drill. They need to focus on areas that are already opened to them. Of the 42 million acres of Federal land currently leased by oil and gas companies, only about 12 million acres are actually being drilled to produce oil and natural gas. Madam Speaker, if the Republican claims about more drilling are correct, why aren't they demanding Big Oil explore drilling on the 30 million acres of Federal land that are already open to them but that they refuse to explore?

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor in support of H.R. 6063. When NASA was born in response to the launch of Sputnik, many Americans were scared of what it meant for Russia to have space capabilities. Congress' passage of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 created NASA and marked the beginning of the space race between America and Russia. Just 11 years after NASA was created, and only 9 years after President Kennedy threw a cap over the wall, the United States landed the first humans on the Moon. Since then, NASA has had its share of its successes and challenges, but in the end NASA is an example of what can be accomplished when the President and Congress share a vision, a common vision, and when funds are devoted toward that vision. As Speaker Pelosi says, ``a budget is the tangible embodiment of our values, of what is important to us and what is not.'' We are considering this bill 50 years after the creation of NASA. We are at a singular point in time, the space shuttle will retire soon. And while we develop the next generation crew exploration vehicle, we will, for the first time, rely on other countries to take Americans to space. In the meantime, more and more countries are developing space capabilities. To keep us in the game, this bill provides an extra $1 billion to accelerate the development of the next crew exploration vehicle and shorten the American space flight gap. Space has become more competitive. Where we only competed with Russia, we will soon compete with several countries to maintain our leadership in space. This bill includes a provision to ensure that the United States leads an international cooperation initiative with these countries promoting the peaceful exploration of space. Today, NASA is funded at a much lower percentage of our GDP than when it was first created. At a time when other countries are aggressively investing in their space capabilities, Congress needs to send the message that it continues to support NASA and its mission by providing the appropriate and necessary funds. This bill does just that. And I want to commend Mr. Udall, Chairman Gordon, and Ranking Member Hall for a very strong bill, and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to build international trust and confidence in human space flight. For decades, the United States and Russia were the only countries that had viable human space programs. In recent years, a number of countries have entered space or have expressed their intent to do so. This amendment recognizes the new playing field in space and includes a sense of Congress that the President of the United States should invite other spacefaring nations and soon-to-be spacefaring nations to participate in a long-term international initiative under our leadership. My amendment would add a sentence to this sense of Congress that the United States should engage in confidence-building measures that advance this long-term initiative. With more countries in space, we need to ensure that space will not be used for hostile purposes. I commend Chairman Udall for proposing a long-term international initiative that will work toward that end. Confidence-building measures will encourage short-term actions that advance the long-term initiative for international cooperation in space. The United States and Russia engaged in confidence-building measures when Apollo 18 and Soyuz 19 connected in space. My amendment encourages similar actions between the United States and other members of the international space community. Actions like these will encourage the peaceful exploration of space. I urge adoption of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of scientific integrity at NASA and everywhere else in this Federal Government. Earlier this month, the Inspector General at NASA released a report regarding allegations that NASA suppressed climate change science and denied media access to a NASA scientist. As recent news reports have documented, this report came from the revelation in 2006 that an administration official had intervened in communications between climate change scientists and the press for political purposes. The report acknowledged that from the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Public Affairs Office managed the topic of climate science ``in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public through those particular media over which the Office of Public Affairs had control.'' The report also found that these actions were inconsistent with NASA's mandate and purpose to allow ``the widest practical and appropriate dissemination of information concerning NASA's activities and results.'' My amendment expresses the sense of Congress to reiterate the original intent of NASA's responsibilities. We are at a singular moment in time when climate change constitutes the challenge of our generation. Let us not fail. Let us base climate change information on science, not ideology. This amendment is about far more than climate change. I believe scientific integrity should be held as a value throughout NASA and throughout our government. The safety of astronauts who are sent to space is dependent on sound science. We should not compromise scientific integrity for political gain or private profit. We should not compromise it in any situation. My amendment sends a message that Congress rebuffs the attempts of those who would marginalize science for the sake of ideology or politics. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Space Subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I would like to submit a letter from Francesca T. Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director, Scientific Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists into the Congressional Record. Union of Concerned Scientists, June 11, 2008. Hon. David Wu, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Wu: The Scientific Integrity Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists supports your amendment to H.R. 6063, the NASA Authorization Act. This amendment will make clear that Congress intends that scientific research developed at NASA be free of political interference, and that NASA scientists are able to disseminate their findings without fear of retaliation. We know that the problem of political interference in federal science is a widespread and serious one. Indeed, of the nearly 3,400 federal scientists across nine agencies who have responded to questionnaires by the Union of Concerned Scientists, more than 1,100 scientists report that they fear retaliation for openly expressing concerns about their agency's mission-driven work. Your amendment will send a signal to this Administration and future Administrations that this state of affairs cannot and should not continue. Sincerely, Francesca T. Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director, Scientific Integrity Program. I think that we need to be concerned about scientific integrity at NASA always, and we also need to be concerned about scientific integrity at other agencies, whether it's the EPA or the FDA, throughout the Federal Government. We intend to work on those agencies across the spectrum to ensure that ideology does not overtake sound science as this government moves forward towards research and the development of sound policy. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I rise on behalf of my friend and colleague, Mr. DeFazio of Oregon, who has an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WU. Again, on behalf of my good friend and colleague, Mr. DeFazio, I am presenting this amendment. When the President announced his new vision for the Nation's space exploration program on January 14, 2004, he proposed a new human exploration vehicle to return to the Moon by 2020 and to leverage these lunar efforts to send a human mission to Mars. After Mr. Bush unveiled his plan in 2004, a congressional subcommittee requested that the Congressional Budget Office perform a budgetary analysis of NASA's New Vision For Space Exploration, as this program was titled. The report was released in September of 2004 and concluded that NASA's long-term projections only included a 2 percent increase for inflation. NASA's budget has undergone radical changes since the President's vision was announced in 2004. NASA's budget requests for aeronautics has been reduced by over $200 million. NASA's budget requests for science programs, including climate research, have been reduced by over $300 million. In stark contrast during the same period, overall funding requests for NASA have increased by over $2 billion. Since the President first proposed his new ``vision for space exploration,'' we have spent more than $600 billion in Iraq, over $120 billion on Hurricane Katrina, and the Federal deficit has grown by over $2.4 trillion. Mr. DeFazio's amendment will direct the Congressional Budget Office to update its 2004 budgetary analysis of the President's plan. This makes fiscal sense. It will give us a more complete picture of the budgetary hurdles the project will face and a more accurate assessment of its long-term costs. Congress needs to continue to analyze the project as it moves forward and be mindful of its effect on other important NASA programs. If anyone claims that they believe that the report will be duplicative of previous GAO reports, the fact is that GAO hasn't done a true cost estimate of the program, but, rather, done risk assessments of the program. Budget and cost estimate analysis is something that the Congressional Budget Office usually handles, not the Government Accountability Office. The GAO has done some high level budget analysis, but CBO will be able to give a much more detailed report. On Mr. DeFazio's behalf, I urge adoption of his amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Well, I certainly hope that Americans return to the Moon before anyone else. I would point out to my friend and colleague from Florida, that we have named a number of things after Columbus, and well, he wasn't exactly an American. So, you know, you never know how far the generosity of spirit will go. My good friend and colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has, with his usual vigor, many reasons why a Congressional Budget Office report is appropriate under these circumstances. I have not delivered some of those more pointed arguments, and join with the gentleman from Florida to urge adoption of this amendment for both purposes of fiscal prudence and in the interest of our space program in which we have such a strong common interest. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his many kindnesses. Thomas Jefferson once said that ``no two countries upon Earth have so many points of common interest and friendship'' as the United States and the United Kingdom. Indeed, our two nations share values, traditions and a common commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I introduced House Resolution 1063 to mark the 225th anniversary of our diplomatic relationship with the United Kingdom, which began with the signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1783. This treaty formalized the peace between the United States and Great Britain following our Revolutionary War. In September of 1782, Benjamin Franklin, along with fellow peace commissioners John Adams and John Jay, began formal negotiations for an end to hostilities between Great Britain and the de facto independent United States of America. After 2 months of negotiation, Britain and France and the United States reached a preliminary peace agreement. The following September, the parties met in Paris and signed what would become known as the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Since that time, Britain and the United States have come to be friends, allies and economic partners, a relationship that advances, enriches and inspires both sides of the Atlantic. As with all old sayings, it is the exception which proves the rule. For the old saying that great powers have only interests, not friends, the relationship between the United States of America and the United Kingdom is the exception which proves the rule. Recently I joined several of my colleagues in Congress and with members of the British Parliament for extensive discussions. It was a productive and thought-provoking exchange of ideas. I believe we can learn much from the experience of our British counterparts. One example would be dealing with the challenge of global climate change. I also believe our own knowledge and expertise can be of continued value to our friends in the United Kingdom. One example of that would be their expressed interest in the Death with Dignity Law which we passed in the State of Oregon. After two centuries, we can still learn from each other, prosper together, and jointly promote a better world. So it is fitting that we should mark with special approbation the 225th anniversary of the treaty that began our relations with the United Kingdom as independent States. For over two centuries, our two nations have stood together in peace and war, in prosperity and hardship. Together we have faced two world wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, terrorism, and triumphs and tragedies too numerous to recount. Please join me in marking the genesis of our diplomatic relationship with the United Kingdom by supporting House Resolution 1063. I thank the Speaker of the House for the House consideration of this resolution today, and I urge swift passage of H.R. 1063.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I, for one, welcome this opportunity to engage in a debate with my friends across the aisle about who truly stands with the American consumer versus standing with Big Oil. Over the weekend, the average price for a gallon of gas hit $4 per gallon. It's $4.50 per gallon at the pump closest to this debate. These outrageous prices are taking their toll on all of us, and the average American driver now pays more than $2,200 per year for gasoline, up from about $1,400 a year in 2001 at the beginning of the Bush administration. Since January 2007, when this Democratic Congress came into the majority, we have been committed to changing the Nation's energy policy so we can lower prices at the pump. Last year, this Democratic Congress passed the landmark law that will make cars and trucks more efficient, which will eventually save American families somewhere between $700 to $1,000 each year. We have followed this up this year by passing bills cracking down on price gouging by Big Oil.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman and the chairman for his leadership on this issue and for the bipartisan manner in which this bill has come to the floor, and rise in strong support of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. It is very, very fitting that we are continuing efforts to support nanotechnology research and development given the economic and societal benefits that we are just beginning to realize. Federally funded research and development has long served an important purpose in our economy, spurring the creation of new services, new products, and, most importantly, new jobs. The new products and technologies that are often the byproducts of basic research enhance our daily lives in many, many ways. It is estimated that the fruits of nanotechnology research will have a multi-trillion dollar impact on our economy within the next several years. The bill before us today provides the seed corn for an industry that will be a crucial part of our future economic success and competitiveness. My home State of Oregon is a leader in nanotechnology. The Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, ONAMI, is a public-private partnership that supports academic research and technology transfer of nanoscience. Research supported by ONAMI has already yielded companies that are developing a low-cost method of removing heavy metals to purify water, new manufacturing technologies, and a system to allow patients with kidney disease to undergo dialysis at home. Continued support of nanotechnology research allow these and other breakthrough technologies to come to market. I want to cite a couple specific key provisions, including provisions relating to green nanotechnologies and those that encourage the commercialization of nanotechnology research. Several institutions in the State of Oregon have been leaders in green nanotechnology research. These funds will help these universities and others explore ways to create environmentally friendly or at least benign nanotechnology products. And this is very, very crucial to acceptance of nanotech. In addition, there are provisions in this bill that encourage other Federal programs to support commercialization of nanotechnology research to help turn research insights into tangible useful results. Congress has already passed legislation to support programs that advance our innovation agenda, and it is fitting that nanotechnology would be funded by these programs. The relevant programs include the Technology Innovation Program, or TIP, which provides grants to companies and universities conducting high-risk, high reward research, and the Small Business Innovative Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs, which provide funds to small high-tech firms conducting innovative research that is relevant to Federal agencies' missions and that may have significant commercialization potential. Again, I want to commend Chairman Gordon and the ranking member for drafting a strong bipartisan bill, and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WU. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WU. Just as my friend from Illinois has modified his presentation in light of current reality, I will not, unless necessary, reprise the reason for the difference between a $60 barrel of oil and a $120 barrel of oil, which is the war in Iraq, rank speculation by people who can't take delivery of the oil, and low, cheap currency doctrine by this administration that has imported inflation and increased oil prices.

Mr. WU. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. WU. Speculators do bet on that. Bubbles also occur in markets now. A witness to the Foreign Affairs Committee said we have 4 percent of the proven oil reserves. And yet the Republican response is, drill that 4 percent; it will solve our problems. We have 4 percent of the world's oil reserves. Drill the reserve and that will solve our problems. The numbers are the numbers.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3058, and I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. DeFazio, for his hard work and tireless work on this issue. Almost exactly 100 years ago, Congress passed a law creating a partnership with rural counties with a high percentage of Federal land, and Congress realized that because the Federal lands were off-limits to the counties for development and they would never contribute to the tax base, that these counties should be compensated for permanent loss of any tax revenues. The law allowed a percentage of the revenue produced from Federal land resources to be returned to the county. Counties were then able to use these funds for public safety, public schools, and public roads. Over the years, because of changes in Federal forest policy, the revenue for Federal lands has decreased and Federal lands are still off limits for development, and this leads many counties in the American West with dramatic decreases in the tax base. In 2000, we passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act in order to provide a stable base of funding to the affected counties. But that act has not been reauthorized and the Federal payments are scheduled to end June 30. This is a very, very serious issue in Oregon and across the American West, where counties have already, in preparation for this date, in preparation for future budgets, begun to issue pink slips. They have issued pink slips to police, firefighters, teachers, and other essential personnel. It is not an exaggeration to say that Oregonians may have their lives endangered because of these cuts, if they take place. The bill that my good friend and colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has submitted would provide an extension of payments through fiscal 2011 to counties that previously received these payments. And to maintain fiscal responsibility, the bill is fully paid for with offsets, and it reduces payments to counties by 15 percent each year, asking all to make sacrifices.